Reader comments
LDS Church historian concludes Brigham Young did not order 1857 massacre
185 comments | Read story
Here we go, conspiracy theorists | 12:58 a.m. May 25, 2008
I also heard that Mormons have horns as well.
I hate armchair engineers and their constant complaints with no actual substance to them.
I hate armchair engineers and their constant complaints with no actual substance to them.
Reader | 1:30 a.m. May 25, 2008
I'm not sure if BY directly ordered the massacre to happen, simply based on
how long it took to relay messages from SLC to southern Utah at the time.
I would be interested in seeing any role that he played in covering up what happened and/or getting Lee to be the scapegoat.
I also don't believe that any LDS-employed historian has the luxury of seeking the truth wherever it leads. There have been too many examples of church historians being excommunicated or disfellowshipped for publishing anything controversial.
Public statements by General Authorities seem to establish a policy of protecting the general membership of the church from any information that might shake their faith, even if it is true.
I would be interested in seeing any role that he played in covering up what happened and/or getting Lee to be the scapegoat.
I also don't believe that any LDS-employed historian has the luxury of seeking the truth wherever it leads. There have been too many examples of church historians being excommunicated or disfellowshipped for publishing anything controversial.
Public statements by General Authorities seem to establish a policy of protecting the general membership of the church from any information that might shake their faith, even if it is true.
Comments continue below
MMM 911 | 4:21 a.m. May 25, 2008
Why did they have to send a rider to seek BY's opinion? Did they not know
the mind and heart of their leader? Just who were the people in this wagon train
attacking?
SL Cabbie | 5:05 a.m. May 25, 2008
I hate to break it to John above, but James Haslam required longer than 66 hours
to make the trip from Mountain Meadows to Salt Lake and back. Haslam left on
Monday, the 7th, arrived in Salt Lake on the 10th (72 hours roughly), and was
back in Cedar City in time for church on the 13th (another 72 hours).
The note to BY said Lee and the Indians had the emigrants pinned down and asked for counsel. Young's reply said to let them pass unmolested except for a cryptic "The Indians will do what they will." Why did the question need to be asked if no order had been given?
Also, contrasting Young's reply with his testimony in Lee's second trial points to his baldfaced lies on the subject. Per Baskin's "Reminiscences of Early Utah," Young's affidavit claimed he didn't hear anything of the attack or destruction of the emigrant train until sometime afterwards, and then only by rumor. (p. 116).
Young's reply sent via Haslam impeaches that one . . . He knew at the time...
And why no mention that BY was present and orchestrated the destruction of the memorial rock cairn Carleton's men erected?
The note to BY said Lee and the Indians had the emigrants pinned down and asked for counsel. Young's reply said to let them pass unmolested except for a cryptic "The Indians will do what they will." Why did the question need to be asked if no order had been given?
Also, contrasting Young's reply with his testimony in Lee's second trial points to his baldfaced lies on the subject. Per Baskin's "Reminiscences of Early Utah," Young's affidavit claimed he didn't hear anything of the attack or destruction of the emigrant train until sometime afterwards, and then only by rumor. (p. 116).
Young's reply sent via Haslam impeaches that one . . . He knew at the time...
And why no mention that BY was present and orchestrated the destruction of the memorial rock cairn Carleton's men erected?
goergiaonmymind | 5:25 a.m. May 25, 2008
Wow y'all make me never want to move to Utah!
WHY PUBLISH THIS ?? | 5:36 a.m. May 25, 2008
WHY PLUBLISH THIS ?? A church historian has no public credibility in this case.
The ONLY conclusion that is acceptable to many from this historian was that
Brigham Young was involved --- why stir the pot ??
Heleninoz | 6:15 a.m. May 25, 2008
I was not there and I am sure NONE of you were there at the time of the MMM.
Anyone who can say they know that Brigham Young ordered the massacre is like
someone saying the Pope ORDERED priests to abuse people. Do you think he did?
Is Christ still the Christ? | 6:31 a.m. May 25, 2008
Even if Brigham Young ordered the massacre (which evidence, repeat evidence in
existance shows he did not), Christ is still the Christ. None of the weird
comments, sayings, pronouncements or "revelations" receieved by Joseph
Smith, Brigham Young, and subsequent prophets uttered change that fact.
I'm troubled my many things our prophets have said and done.... blacks and the priesthood being number one....BUT, taken as a whole, the Church's teachings and it's "religion" as a whole will bring mankind closer to the people Christ wanted/wants them to be than all other Christian interpretations.
The Massacre does not detract from the modern Church, it just embarasses it. Those who oppose the Church "know" Brigham Young ordered the massacre. Yet, they cannot prove it. Sounds like their arguement against the Church itself. If we can't prove there was a Book of Mormon, the Church is not true.
I'm troubled my many things our prophets have said and done.... blacks and the priesthood being number one....BUT, taken as a whole, the Church's teachings and it's "religion" as a whole will bring mankind closer to the people Christ wanted/wants them to be than all other Christian interpretations.
The Massacre does not detract from the modern Church, it just embarasses it. Those who oppose the Church "know" Brigham Young ordered the massacre. Yet, they cannot prove it. Sounds like their arguement against the Church itself. If we can't prove there was a Book of Mormon, the Church is not true.
A. Nony Mouse | 7:31 a.m. May 25, 2008
Please. Historical evidence proves otherwise. Turley's saying that
there's more evidence against than proving, in light of facts and truth,
shows that he is definitely the apologist who would rather make Mormonism look
good than truthful.
TO "why publish historian" | 7:41 a.m. May 25, 2008
I am one of those dreaded Anti-mormons and I have reached a very different
conclusion based on the political and religious environment at the time. There
was no need for BY to have ordered anything.
mark justice | 8:19 a.m. May 25, 2008
the authors are employees of the church and they not
surprisingly conclude that the leaders in slc at the time are not to blame and that misguided and out of control local leaders in southern utah did the deed. this is an outrage and a continuation of the cover-up that has been going on for 150 years.
whatever the evidence is about Brigham Youngs involvement in the actual massacre, there is ample evidence of obstruction of justice after the fact.
surprisingly conclude that the leaders in slc at the time are not to blame and that misguided and out of control local leaders in southern utah did the deed. this is an outrage and a continuation of the cover-up that has been going on for 150 years.
whatever the evidence is about Brigham Youngs involvement in the actual massacre, there is ample evidence of obstruction of justice after the fact.
Benjamin | 8:46 a.m. May 25, 2008
It seems to me that anyone who would claim a belief that Brigham Young ordered
the attack is basing their position on complete and utter conjecture.
As the LDS authorities have stated, this event was a reprehensible act which is so gruesome it is difficult to contemplate. I agree with this statement. Be that as it may, I find it interesting that nobody seems to take an interest in understanding or explaining the conditions these LDS pioneers were subjected to prior to making such an awful decision. Nobody would take such horrific actions unless placed under their own set of horrific circumstances. I'm not trying to excuse their actions in the least, but I think it helps to understand the bigger picture.
As for anyone who would discount the apparent conclussions of this book, or would press forward with accusations of culpability aginst Brigham Young, I would say please present the proof.
Alternatively, let's theorize that irrefutable proof existed. The result would be a terrible pronouncement of guilt upon a church leader, not the church itself. There are examples of prophets in the bible that fell from their calling due to sin, without calling into question Christ's church.
As the LDS authorities have stated, this event was a reprehensible act which is so gruesome it is difficult to contemplate. I agree with this statement. Be that as it may, I find it interesting that nobody seems to take an interest in understanding or explaining the conditions these LDS pioneers were subjected to prior to making such an awful decision. Nobody would take such horrific actions unless placed under their own set of horrific circumstances. I'm not trying to excuse their actions in the least, but I think it helps to understand the bigger picture.
As for anyone who would discount the apparent conclussions of this book, or would press forward with accusations of culpability aginst Brigham Young, I would say please present the proof.
Alternatively, let's theorize that irrefutable proof existed. The result would be a terrible pronouncement of guilt upon a church leader, not the church itself. There are examples of prophets in the bible that fell from their calling due to sin, without calling into question Christ's church.
rt | 8:56 a.m. May 25, 2008
I find it interesting that a "totality of evidence" is spoken of,
while focusing on the single question of whether BY ordered the MMM.
As an interested person from Europe, the "totality of evidence" suggests to me that Utah under BY was, by all accounts, a theocratic police state.
It is hard to imagine that one would NOT in any way assign responsibility for this atrocity to the person who was primarily responsible for creating the authoritarian system under which the crime was committed.
As an interested person from Europe, the "totality of evidence" suggests to me that Utah under BY was, by all accounts, a theocratic police state.
It is hard to imagine that one would NOT in any way assign responsibility for this atrocity to the person who was primarily responsible for creating the authoritarian system under which the crime was committed.
Sure | 8:57 a.m. May 25, 2008
See also the 'payday loans a good thing' letter in the opinion section
today, written by someone from the payday loan association.
You can say it, maybe even believe it. But it ain' true all the same.
You can say it, maybe even believe it. But it ain' true all the same.
I see... | 9:31 a.m. May 25, 2008
LDS historian states that BY did nothing wrong re: Mountain Meadows.
Dick Cheney says the Iraq war has been a tremendous success.
The Clinton administration said Janet Reno was blameless for Waco.
Hmmm ... maybe a more independent analysis would be useful.
Dick Cheney says the Iraq war has been a tremendous success.
The Clinton administration said Janet Reno was blameless for Waco.
Hmmm ... maybe a more independent analysis would be useful.
coverup | 11:35 a.m. May 25, 2008
Nixon didn't order the Watergate break-in, but he certainly was heavily
involved in the cover-up.
BY may not have ordered the MMM, at least directly. However, he certainly tried to erase it from history, rather than admit to the sins and crimes of his followers, and demand proper restitution.
Whether or not he ordered it is, in my mind, a distraction. He was involved, yet denied involvement. He lied.
BY may not have ordered the MMM, at least directly. However, he certainly tried to erase it from history, rather than admit to the sins and crimes of his followers, and demand proper restitution.
Whether or not he ordered it is, in my mind, a distraction. He was involved, yet denied involvement. He lied.
Mountain... | 12:46 p.m. May 25, 2008
All you who oppose this article have not produced any evidence (or at least
cited anything) to suggest anything else. Please produce it if you can, contrary
to your belief the church would welcome it. Having an imagination doesn't
cut it in this type of research, have some facts.
RPackham | 1:14 p.m. May 25, 2008
And Henry II did not order the murder of Thomas Becket, either. He just let it
be known that Becket was a problem. His loyal followers murdered Becket, and
Henry was "horrified".
NO Mormons in Utah would have murdered 120 people unless they had Young's approval, even if only tacit.
NO Mormons in Utah would have murdered 120 people unless they had Young's approval, even if only tacit.
Not worth a dime | 1:34 p.m. May 25, 2008
to- R Packham,
You have a good point. Leaders have always tried to cover their tracks when they made a mistake. In this case it was definitely a cover-up in the very best way possible. All a person has to do is make up a few documents change the dates and find a few liars in the church, and it is done. I really dislike COWARDS!
You have a good point. Leaders have always tried to cover their tracks when they made a mistake. In this case it was definitely a cover-up in the very best way possible. All a person has to do is make up a few documents change the dates and find a few liars in the church, and it is done. I really dislike COWARDS!
anon | 1:39 p.m. May 25, 2008
Before you go trying to give blame search your own lives out. If you don't
trust a church historian then go research it on your own. The resources of what
happened are all on record and are all on the internet or the library quit
spouting words of personal belief and go find the historical fact.
Oh yeah? | 1:53 p.m. May 25, 2008
Well I have a REALLY REALLY old grandfather, pushing 137 years (On route to win
the oldest person EVER contest) and HE says that his dad was actually at the
massacre and the massacre DIDN'T EVEN HAPPEN!!! It was just a HUGE
misunderstanding! If you ask me, I'd say that this conspiracy along with
the holocaust and AIDS can all be blamed on President Bush. NADER '08!
Glado | 3:52 p.m. May 25, 2008
God had nothing to do with this.
Brigham ordered the murder of these people. That is a fact. All the denial in the world can't change history or the death of these people.
Brigham ordered the murder of these people. That is a fact. All the denial in the world can't change history or the death of these people.
The Texan | 7:22 p.m. May 25, 2008
Let's see,
One side says he did and the other side says he didn't. Both can't be right.
Look for the axe to grind and see whose hand it's in.
Doesn't take any imagination.
One side says he did and the other side says he didn't. Both can't be right.
Look for the axe to grind and see whose hand it's in.
Doesn't take any imagination.
To Glado: | 10:28 p.m. May 25, 2008
Okay, where's your proof of this supposed "fact"? Show me the
handwritten order stating it to the be the case. Show me one shred of evidence,
other than the "confession" of a man who was convicted and sentenced
for his role in organizing this tragedy. Of course somebody on trial would want
to shift the blame to somebody else, it happens daily in this country.
Lynn | 11:49 p.m. May 25, 2008
Blame it on the lack of technology. They didn't have cell phones, laptops,
or the Internet back then. They only had men on horses. Travel was much slower
back then, so there was no way Brigham Young could have stopped a massacre that
probably had already started before the rider got very far down the trail. The
saints had been persecuted, threatened with extermination, had finally gone to
the deserts of the West, and even there, they were not safe. I'm not at
all surprised that some of them might have decided that they'd had enough
and had to fight back, especially since some of the people in the wagon train
were bragging about how they'd treated the Mormons, and would do so again.
Also, consider that an Apostle, Parley P. Pratt, had just recently been killed
in AR. And, it was during the Utah War. It was a fire just waiting for enough
fuel. What they did was wrong, but I can certainly understand why they did it.
I just wish the anti-Mormons would get off their high-horse over this.
I just wish the anti-Mormons would get off their high-horse over this.
John D. Lee confess... | 11:54 p.m. May 25, 2008
Historians aren't even certain John Doyle Lee's confession is the
truth. They said he started making up lies and names about people who were not
participants in the MMM, and that Mr Lee put them into his confession. The man
completely lost his mind before he was executed. There were things written that
didn't even match John Lee's handwriting that were possibly even
forged and not written by Mr John D. Lee himself. So who do we believe? I SAY NO
ONE!
Just me | 12:13 a.m. May 26, 2008
Read the book then draw a conclusion. So many of your comments make me think if
such a thing were to happen today you would be the first ones in on the
massacre. You certainly wouldn't wait for any information correct or
otherwise before you were to act.
Who Signs Papers For Murder? | 12:26 a.m. May 26, 2008
To Glado:
"Okay, where's your proof of this supposed "fact"? Show me the handwritten order stating it to the be the case. Show me one shred of evidence, other than the "confession" of a man who was convicted and sentenced for his role in organizing this tragedy."
You're bring very silly aren't you? Knowing that there is no proof that ever existed, since it's not a Congressional or Presidential law that is decided that a murder it must be signed.
Who in this world has papers signing they are going to committ murder?
C'mon, you're not serious are you?
Or, ARE YOU??????
Besides, say that there was a signing, surely, Brigham must be smart enough not to incriminate himself by leaving paper evidence behind?
Surely, your question must no leave enough thought to give that, a murder is an offence that can put the perpetrator behind bars for a long time, and in the case of the massacre, will end one's life from a firing squad, electrocution or lethal injection.
So, who can you think of in Brigham Young's administration that would incriminate themselves that way to make sure that they will be convicted?
Anyone dare to challenge the prophet?
"Okay, where's your proof of this supposed "fact"? Show me the handwritten order stating it to the be the case. Show me one shred of evidence, other than the "confession" of a man who was convicted and sentenced for his role in organizing this tragedy."
You're bring very silly aren't you? Knowing that there is no proof that ever existed, since it's not a Congressional or Presidential law that is decided that a murder it must be signed.
Who in this world has papers signing they are going to committ murder?
C'mon, you're not serious are you?
Or, ARE YOU??????
Besides, say that there was a signing, surely, Brigham must be smart enough not to incriminate himself by leaving paper evidence behind?
Surely, your question must no leave enough thought to give that, a murder is an offence that can put the perpetrator behind bars for a long time, and in the case of the massacre, will end one's life from a firing squad, electrocution or lethal injection.
So, who can you think of in Brigham Young's administration that would incriminate themselves that way to make sure that they will be convicted?
Anyone dare to challenge the prophet?
Ok | 1:29 a.m. May 26, 2008
Don't confuse me with facts (the fact that there is no evidence), my mind
is made up! I don't need facts, I don't need evidence! He did it
because I need him to have done it so I can justify my hated!
Phillip C. Smith, Ph.D. | 10:43 a.m. May 26, 2008
It is sad to see such anger and accusation over this tragic incident. We should
adopt the standard of considering how we would feel if we were accused of
something like this. We would hope that those looking at our situation would be
fair and would do all they could to make sure that their information was
accurate. If there was any question we would hope that our critic would err on
the side of mercy rather than harshness.
A true historian sets high standards of evidence acceptance, and tries to make sure that bias is reduced by seeking to treat fairly contrary views. Only balanced accounts can approach historical accuracy.
We need to remember that if we judge others harshly we will be judged by God by the same measure. If we wish truth and forgiveness from God we should show the same for others.
I have been in touch with a member of the Fancher family. I hope that they will leave the judgment to God on this matter and learn as we all must to show love. After 150 years this issue should be put to bed.
A true historian sets high standards of evidence acceptance, and tries to make sure that bias is reduced by seeking to treat fairly contrary views. Only balanced accounts can approach historical accuracy.
We need to remember that if we judge others harshly we will be judged by God by the same measure. If we wish truth and forgiveness from God we should show the same for others.
I have been in touch with a member of the Fancher family. I hope that they will leave the judgment to God on this matter and learn as we all must to show love. After 150 years this issue should be put to bed.
SouthernUtahGal | 11:10 a.m. May 26, 2008
This is crazy! Seriously. "The church" has denied involvement in this
for over a century now. Do you really think they would keep any evidence that
tied them to this? lol. How absurd! Of course they didn't find any
evidence! It's all been destroyed!
Neal Kramer | 12:11 p.m. May 26, 2008
Most of you are acting like this is an internal church publication, published by
a local press. It is not.
The book is published by Oxford University Press, the most distinguished scholarly press in the world. It has been subject to careful review by scholars with no connection to the LDS church. While these scholars do not know exactly what happened in the Meadows, they do know good scholarship and are familiar with the questions this book attempts to answer.
While this book will not be the last word on what happened before, during, and after the massacre, it offers considerable clarification about the current state of the evidence. It also supports, for the most part, the work done by Juanita Brooks, the most important scholar of the massacre.
It cannot answer all the questions about the massacre. It can only reflect careful interpretation of the evidence available. But it can and does make clear that the Mormons did murder innocent people in the Meadows. It was cowardly, despicable, and unjustifiable.
One thing we can be certain of, however, is that this book is not investigative journalism passing as scholarship. Certainly a step in the right direction.
The book is published by Oxford University Press, the most distinguished scholarly press in the world. It has been subject to careful review by scholars with no connection to the LDS church. While these scholars do not know exactly what happened in the Meadows, they do know good scholarship and are familiar with the questions this book attempts to answer.
While this book will not be the last word on what happened before, during, and after the massacre, it offers considerable clarification about the current state of the evidence. It also supports, for the most part, the work done by Juanita Brooks, the most important scholar of the massacre.
It cannot answer all the questions about the massacre. It can only reflect careful interpretation of the evidence available. But it can and does make clear that the Mormons did murder innocent people in the Meadows. It was cowardly, despicable, and unjustifiable.
One thing we can be certain of, however, is that this book is not investigative journalism passing as scholarship. Certainly a step in the right direction.
It's ok, calm down | 12:19 p.m. May 26, 2008
Even if Brigham Young did have something to do with the mountain meadows
massacre, would it make him any less of a man? I say, NO it would not. We all
make mistakes in our lives, and I believe Brigham Young was entitle to make a
few of his own, as well as anyone else. Although it's always greater, and
looked upon, and admired when one admits to his mistakes instead of hiding them.
(active member)
(active member)
Anonymous | 4:29 p.m. May 26, 2008
In other news today, The White House hired Karl Rove to investigate allegations
that the Bush administration has misappropriated billions of dollars during the
Iraq conflict.
Blood Atonement | 5:37 p.m. May 26, 2008
These facts are clear: Johnston's army was marching towards Utah. Brigham
Young ordered martial law in the Utah territory. No outside wagon trains could
pass through without authorization. There were rumors that members of the
particular wagon train had been involved in Joseph Smith's murder. Some
Mormons had taken an oath to avenge the blood of Joseph Smith. Brigham Young
had preached the doctrine of blood atonement(you can find extensive references
to it in Journal of Discourses and the Deseret News archives from the period.
Given these circumstances, and the unquestioning obedience of the the S. Utahn
mormons to their leaders, this was a recipe for disaster!
Rich | 6:07 p.m. May 26, 2008
There are multiple sources of evidence for this story and most of it is not
disputed. This was a horrific tragedy every way you look at it. The fact is,
there is no consistent evidence linking Brigham Young. After reading some of
the posts here you would have to think that multiple sources for the event tore
those pages out of their diary that dealt with Brigham Young ordering the
massacre. They go into detail about the meetings that took place, the
confusion, the lies and coverup, but no evidence that Brigham ordered the event.
If he had, there would not have been confusion, or meetings to discuss what to
do, and certainly there would have been some consistancy in the evidence. It
was a tragedy, the church most definately acknowledges it's involvement,
but you can't ask those involved to lay on the tracks just because some
want them to.
Wowsers! | 6:30 p.m. May 26, 2008
I just read through the comments and whoa! There are frayed nerves on both end
of the spectrum when it comes to this subject even after so much time has passed
from the actual event. I can appreciate concerns from those who believe the
author cannot be objective with the evidence because of who he is affliated
with. I disagree however with a statement made stating that only Anti-Mormons
can be objective. What if an Anti-Mormon scholar were to find evidence
indicating B.Y. had no hand in this? Would they bring it to light regardless of
the consequence? I doubt they could. There would be immense pressure to not
destroy the case generations of their associates made in attacking the church.
Their newfound evidence in effect would destroy the old arguments. The person
who found the evidence would also find it difficult to present it because it may
put their livelihood at risk. Remember, many an Anti has made a good career out
of attacking the LDS church. The Anti cannot be objective either. In the
meantime, I'll look at both sides of the story and make up my own mind
which is usually somewhere in the middle...
Journal of Discourses B.Y. | 7:26 p.m. May 26, 2008
10:104
In 1857 it is estimated that eleven thousand troops were ordered here; some seven thousand started for this place, with several thousand hangers on. They came into this Territory when a company of emigrants were traveling on the south route to California. Nearly all of the Company were destroyed by the Indians. That unfortunate affair has been laid to the charge of the whites. A certain judge that was then in this Territory wanted the whole army to accompany him to Iron county to try the whites for the murder of that company of emigrants.
In 1857 it is estimated that eleven thousand troops were ordered here; some seven thousand started for this place, with several thousand hangers on. They came into this Territory when a company of emigrants were traveling on the south route to California. Nearly all of the Company were destroyed by the Indians. That unfortunate affair has been laid to the charge of the whites. A certain judge that was then in this Territory wanted the whole army to accompany him to Iron county to try the whites for the murder of that company of emigrants.
Anonymous | 7:36 p.m. May 26, 2008
I think it's laughable that an LDS historian thinks he can write an honest
history of the Massacre and not think he'd be punished if his conclusions
were not supported by the church. The church has a history of making life
miserable for scholars who don't share their conclusions. I'll give
some examples: Leonard Arrington, D. Michael Quinn, Lester Bush, Juanita Brooks,
etc., etc. I wish the church would let their historians write the history and
let the chips fall where they may. As Brigham Young said over and over again,
"we have nothing to fear when the truth is told."
Marie Devine | 7:48 p.m. May 26, 2008
Recorded in the Doctrines and Covenants, the Lord spoke of why He allowed the
Latter Day Saints to be persecuted etc. It was for unbelief, failure to follow
the commands given, etc. The church did not hide those reports.
Regardless of who killed the 120 people, God's law showed itself true: "That which you fear shall come upon you." In Independence, Missouri, at the LDS center, you can see murals of the LDS with rifles that they used for protection. (Again, that which you fear shall come upon you.) People still do not understand that Jesus reminded us of God's laws to be kept to receive the blessings of God and not the cursings like Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28.
We are supposed to watch over our leaders and inform them when they are not following God's commandments; that is how we are kings and priests.
This is a time of restoration; if you want to be critical of the church, point out where they are not following the word of God through Jesus who said to follow every word out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4. All Christianity is in error. Salvation is of the Jews. Follow Jesus.
Regardless of who killed the 120 people, God's law showed itself true: "That which you fear shall come upon you." In Independence, Missouri, at the LDS center, you can see murals of the LDS with rifles that they used for protection. (Again, that which you fear shall come upon you.) People still do not understand that Jesus reminded us of God's laws to be kept to receive the blessings of God and not the cursings like Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28.
We are supposed to watch over our leaders and inform them when they are not following God's commandments; that is how we are kings and priests.
This is a time of restoration; if you want to be critical of the church, point out where they are not following the word of God through Jesus who said to follow every word out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4. All Christianity is in error. Salvation is of the Jews. Follow Jesus.
Rosie Exaulted | 8:15 p.m. May 26, 2008
I think it time for people to read and study for themselves and not make so many
judgments of others. None of us know the hearts of any man living today. As we
did not know the hearts of any of those living during the MMM.
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
Matthew 7.1-5
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
Matthew 7.1-5
Re: It's ok, calm down | 8:17 p.m. May 26, 2008
Your statement: "Even if Brigham Young did have something to do with the
mountain meadows massacre, would it make him any less of a man? I say, NO it
would not. We all make mistakes in our lives, and I believe Brigham Young was
entitle to make a few of his own, as well as anyone else."
You MUST be KIDDING!!!!
Murder???? That's not a mistake, and if you think that is, then you have a very distorted view of what is acceptable to God when it comes to murder!
I'm sorry, if Brigham was involved, his salvation is no longer available. He was entrusted with the lives and spirituality of those who was willing to jump off a cliff, and by the virtue that his entrustment ended up in murder of so many lives, including innocent young children, well......Christ said, it better that a rope be upon his neck and he be cast into the sea.
Christ's words, not mine.
So many LDS have closed their minds to the possibility that Brigham was involved, it immediately eliminates his spiritual status, as the consequences for such actions are great in the eyes of God.
You MUST be KIDDING!!!!
Murder???? That's not a mistake, and if you think that is, then you have a very distorted view of what is acceptable to God when it comes to murder!
I'm sorry, if Brigham was involved, his salvation is no longer available. He was entrusted with the lives and spirituality of those who was willing to jump off a cliff, and by the virtue that his entrustment ended up in murder of so many lives, including innocent young children, well......Christ said, it better that a rope be upon his neck and he be cast into the sea.
Christ's words, not mine.
So many LDS have closed their minds to the possibility that Brigham was involved, it immediately eliminates his spiritual status, as the consequences for such actions are great in the eyes of God.
What's new ? nothing... | 8:54 p.m. May 26, 2008
I've been raised on lies... The church is always covering up false
statements, false doctrine, false prophecies and any historical events that hurt
the church. It's not even a church, it's a stake! Anti, Anti, Anti...
yea right! The Bible is ANTI!
The whole thing has been a lie from the beginning.
Quote from Marie: "if you want to be critical of the church, point out where they are not following the word of God through Jesus"
I've found truth in Biblical doctrine... straight from our first book, I�ve spoke to my leaders till blue in the face. There is so much overwhelming evidence that JS & BY had it very wrong. Who will listen? Oh, so now I am an anti? Well, I'm not.. I love my family and the Mormon people. The difference is I'm a reborn believer and I love the Word of God. That hunger has caused me to study. What God has previously said, that which precedes the other 3 in my quad is now the acid test! No one has anything truth to stand on until they will listen. I was challenged so many times and never listened. NOW EVERYTHING IS UN-COVERED! I�M SAVED
The whole thing has been a lie from the beginning.
Quote from Marie: "if you want to be critical of the church, point out where they are not following the word of God through Jesus"
I've found truth in Biblical doctrine... straight from our first book, I�ve spoke to my leaders till blue in the face. There is so much overwhelming evidence that JS & BY had it very wrong. Who will listen? Oh, so now I am an anti? Well, I'm not.. I love my family and the Mormon people. The difference is I'm a reborn believer and I love the Word of God. That hunger has caused me to study. What God has previously said, that which precedes the other 3 in my quad is now the acid test! No one has anything truth to stand on until they will listen. I was challenged so many times and never listened. NOW EVERYTHING IS UN-COVERED! I�M SAVED
Davey Crocket | 9:14 p.m. May 26, 2008
Brigham Young was the presiding officer in the Church when MMM happened. It
doesn't matter that he did not issue an order to kill off the Fancher
party. What matters is that he failed to preside and to exercise presidential
control in such a way to prevent those under his command (both ecclesiastical
and territorial) from committing one of the most terrible acts of murder in the
history of the West. Even if he was not guilty, he was negligent as President of
the LDS Church, and both guilt as well as negligence are exacerbated by the
claims that he was a "prophet of God"! A prophet of God cannot be
negligent in such a matter as this. Where was the revelation? Where was the
foresight? Where was his clairvoyant powers of the priesthood that could have
saved the lives of over a hundred innocent men, women, and children? A prophet?
Ha! What a crock!
Robert | 9:25 p.m. May 26, 2008
To- 8:17p.m. May 26th
from-(descendant of accused perpetrator),
It would be nice if you would use your own posting name so some of us would know who to post back to.
How do you know so much about the massacre?? Please write on here and let us all know of your knowledge and involvement in the MMM. Let us know what you saw and witnessed 151 years ago, meaning that none of us living today has had that kind of privilege. It might be wise for you to study the event instead of jumping off into some kind of crazed anger zone. No one living today knows "exactly" what took place during the MMM.
from-(descendant of accused perpetrator),
It would be nice if you would use your own posting name so some of us would know who to post back to.
How do you know so much about the massacre?? Please write on here and let us all know of your knowledge and involvement in the MMM. Let us know what you saw and witnessed 151 years ago, meaning that none of us living today has had that kind of privilege. It might be wise for you to study the event instead of jumping off into some kind of crazed anger zone. No one living today knows "exactly" what took place during the MMM.
Sad To Hear Murder is Justified | 9:29 p.m. May 26, 2008
To Rosie Exaulted:
"None of us know the hearts of any man living today. As we did not know the hearts of any of those living during the MMM. Judge not, that you be not judge?"
It's sad to hear people say that we're judging when we abhor dark sins such as murder. To say, forget about it, and walk away, it's been too long and that we don't know the reasons why they killed, well, I ask you, does it matter what reasons that man kill?
Does it matter that murdering the innocent happened 150 years ago?
Moreover, does it matter that the killer is likely the head of the Mormon church?
God never taught that sins are to be let go, otherwise, there would not be a disciplinary counsel in the LDS church.
If they don't let sins go, do you suppose that they have more power over you to judge you, but we shall forget their sins?
The biggest reasons that this Mormon church had feared of the true outcome is because it would've been one of the biggest scandal that were to happen to any Christian institution in history.
That scandal would destroy the Mormons.
"None of us know the hearts of any man living today. As we did not know the hearts of any of those living during the MMM. Judge not, that you be not judge?"
It's sad to hear people say that we're judging when we abhor dark sins such as murder. To say, forget about it, and walk away, it's been too long and that we don't know the reasons why they killed, well, I ask you, does it matter what reasons that man kill?
Does it matter that murdering the innocent happened 150 years ago?
Moreover, does it matter that the killer is likely the head of the Mormon church?
God never taught that sins are to be let go, otherwise, there would not be a disciplinary counsel in the LDS church.
If they don't let sins go, do you suppose that they have more power over you to judge you, but we shall forget their sins?
The biggest reasons that this Mormon church had feared of the true outcome is because it would've been one of the biggest scandal that were to happen to any Christian institution in history.
That scandal would destroy the Mormons.
Rich | 9:44 p.m. May 26, 2008
What interests me most about this story is the reaction to it. It strikes me as
odd that people can be so biased by their antipathy to a religion that they see
evidence where none exists and fail to accept any facts that surface if those
facts tend to disagree with their pre-existing opinions. These people who
continue to insist that Brigham Young ordered the murders are exhibiting the
same hatred, intolerance and prejudice that they abhor in the murderers who
perpetrated the massacre. Did Brigham Young participate in a coverup? I would
like to see a study regarding that, but I would want to see the study done by
historians who are not LDS but who are not Mormophobes. I am interested in
evidence, not opinions. Turley's opinion is not as important to me as his
inability to find evidence incriminating Young in ordering the massacre.
sureschott | 10:23 p.m. May 26, 2008
Me thinks the one who pulled the trigger was the one who was at fault...
To look an innocent (or anybody else for that matter) person in the eye and kill them is wrong and that person is at fault unless that person had a gun pointed at his/her head (and in this instance would still be guilty). End of story.
Brigham Young is still the responsible leader; however, if the leaders at the crime scene took matters in their own hands, they and they only would be guilty.
To look an innocent (or anybody else for that matter) person in the eye and kill them is wrong and that person is at fault unless that person had a gun pointed at his/her head (and in this instance would still be guilty). End of story.
Brigham Young is still the responsible leader; however, if the leaders at the crime scene took matters in their own hands, they and they only would be guilty.
Rachel | 11:40 p.m. May 26, 2008
All I can say is that the last comments 9:29 & sureschott 10:23 P. M. came
from two very disturbed people. I hope God can forgive you for all your hate,
because none of you have been personally affected by (The Mountain Meadow
Massacre) what happened over a hundred and fifty years ago is really none of
your business. May God have mercy on your angry souls. All you are looking for
is attention. Sorry you are so starved.
Descendant of many Mormon pioneers.
Descendant of many Mormon pioneers.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Man dies in dirt bike crash 3:25 p.m.
- Woods, wife unavailable for interview 3:22 p.m.
- Utes vs. Cougars live game blog 3:11 p.m.
- Working in your garden 3:08 p.m.
- TCU wraps up 12-0 season 2:51 p.m.
- Orlando forward Matt Barnes fined 2:26 p.m.
- Black Friday store spending up 2:13 p.m.
- Gamecocks top No. 15 Clemson 1:51 p.m.
- A naturally 'green' Christmas 1:42 p.m.
- AP: Iverson retirement may be brief 1:26 p.m.
- Cave to be sealed with body inside
- Predicting the unpredictable: BYU wins
- Vegas, Poinsettia bowls or bust
- Glover gives Utes last-second upset
- Cougars turn back Wildcats'
- BYU football: 5 keys to victory
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies
- Rivalry Week is highly profane
- Running game key to BYU offense
- Budget cuts won't help in 2011
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
272 - Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin134
- Boys basketball rankings133
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin113
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies111
- Cave to be sealed with body inside110
- Letters: Trump card for believers98
- Rivalry Week is highly profane88
- Utah, BYU are top choices for bowls76
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
Re: Earnest T. Bass... It don't matter Earnest T. If a woman is happy...
The back of the lot of the one house adjacent to the temple lot would be the...
I may not agree with your rankings, but your commentary is, "witty and wise!"...
I think that the right decision was made. No more loss of life in rescue...
3 and out AGAIN!!! BYU can't run so far its only a matter of time Max gets...
hope there aren't any underlying problems between them as a husband and wife....
I'ts not sloan that keeps some biggies in the league not wanting to come...
Once the leftist leaders have convinced ENOUGH of the population that...
I haven't been able to get this out of my mind. It truly is the stuff of...
Why is the division of wildlife releasing the cubs at this time of year? As...
Advertisements
This kind of thinking isn't exclusive to the MMM or to other aspects of early LDS Church history. Didn't the president of Iran recently hold a conference, concluding that the Holocaust never occured? Are there not some scientists who believe in global warming, while others feel it isn't true?
Some people, including some lawyers, doctors and college professors, believe that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government, and these people claim to have air tight proof. Others however, believe it was Al-Queada and they too have proof to back up their claim.
So when all is said and done, few minds will be changed, no one will be totally satisfied, and everyone will just go back and wait until the next MMM book comes out.