Reader comments
LDS Church historian concludes Brigham Young did not order 1857 massacre
185 comments | Read story
Jonathan in Denver | 1:44 a.m. May 27, 2008
What happened at MMM is a tragedy no matter how you look at it. Those involved
will be judged of God so we need not worry about it.
What I find interesting is how so many people are outraged over MMM, but seem to be ok with the fact that many innocent Mormons were killed when the early members were driven from state to state before finally settling in a place that nobody else wanted. Whether you agree with the Mormon church or not, there is no justification for what happened to its early members.
What I find interesting is how so many people are outraged over MMM, but seem to be ok with the fact that many innocent Mormons were killed when the early members were driven from state to state before finally settling in a place that nobody else wanted. Whether you agree with the Mormon church or not, there is no justification for what happened to its early members.
ad infinitum | 4:50 a.m. May 27, 2008
Why is this "News"?
It has been a clearly established historical fact for more than a century and a half that Brigham Young had nothing to do with this atrocity.
Enough already.
It has been a clearly established historical fact for more than a century and a half that Brigham Young had nothing to do with this atrocity.
Enough already.
Comments continue below
NOT a member | 7:55 a.m. May 27, 2008
There was more going on in that Arkansas wagon-train then anyone knows.
Don't be fools. I have done some research and I am not a member of your
mormon church. But I do think the blame needs to go around a bit more to others
involved including the wagon train group, and even out the score just a bit
here.
Barnaby | 8:44 a.m. May 27, 2008
I wish someone would go back in time and stop the madness of MMM and also the
other million nightmares brought into this world. Hatred, vengeance, fear,
mindless testosterone-fueled competition, exclusionary isolationism,
brainwashing, loyalty over thoughtfulness, bitterness over forgiveness,
persecution, bigotry -- seeing fellow humans as impossible enemies instead of
children of God... Unfortunately, such things are part of our human experience.
Perhaps we can all learn something positive from MMM for our future as humans
beings.
Who Cares? | 9:33 a.m. May 27, 2008
Not too many people outside of Utah know anything about the Mountain Meadow
Massacre. So, who cares? So what if the Mormon church claims Brigham Young did
not have anything to do with it? They dictate what is believed and not believed
to their own whether you think it's right or wrong. The facts do show that
Brigham Young recruited a militia of men to squelch non-Mormons from not living
to their standards. His decision to use force was no different than those who
used force to drive the Mormons to the West. He may not have given a direct
order for the raid, but the implications were directed from him to rid this new
Mormon territory of outsiders. It is convenient to say that he had nothing to do
with the raid, and difficult to prove. But why prove it anyway, it accomplished
nothing.
This will never die | 10:12 a.m. May 27, 2008
Did you know that this is not a "Church" publication; it is produced
by Oxford Press, not Deseret Book or BYU. Oxford is one of the most respected
historical publishers in the world. Sure the Church hired their own people to do
the research, anyone they hired would be their own people, just like it the
Fancher family published a book you could say "well they just hired their
people." The bottom line is even if they found solid proof that Brigham had
not ordered the killings there would still be people who would claim a cover up,
and the same would happen if there was proof that he did order the killings.
Either way it is funny to watch the local "X-file" type people argue.
I wish that the U.S. government would take as much heat for massacres, like Bear
river, Bloody Island, and Sand Creek, as the Church has for Meadows. Take a look
at history people and learn from it.
Catholic guy | 10:21 a.m. May 27, 2008
To Who cares,
I think I may agree with you. I cannot understand how good religious Mormon men could have just set out one day to kill a bunch of people. Something just doesn't add up with the whole MMM disaster. Something is "VERY WRONG" and I don't care what anyone says. The pioneer Mormon men had children of their own so would they want to kill someone else's kids. Why would the Mormon men just go and kill these people for no reason at all. I believe what happen was wrong, but I do think there is a lot more to the story then what people are told that really happened. Perhaps Brigham Young was behind it because then the MMM would make more sense. As it is, the Mormon church seems to like to shift the total blame on the Mormon men only! And thats kind of dirty. None of them were witnesses there either. I really dislike stone pitchers.
I think I may agree with you. I cannot understand how good religious Mormon men could have just set out one day to kill a bunch of people. Something just doesn't add up with the whole MMM disaster. Something is "VERY WRONG" and I don't care what anyone says. The pioneer Mormon men had children of their own so would they want to kill someone else's kids. Why would the Mormon men just go and kill these people for no reason at all. I believe what happen was wrong, but I do think there is a lot more to the story then what people are told that really happened. Perhaps Brigham Young was behind it because then the MMM would make more sense. As it is, the Mormon church seems to like to shift the total blame on the Mormon men only! And thats kind of dirty. None of them were witnesses there either. I really dislike stone pitchers.
Franz | 10:29 a.m. May 27, 2008
Just set out the honey and attract the flies. Amazing how anything remotely
talking about the LDS Church brings the anti-LDS posts from where ever they hide
during the day. Show us your scholarly research. As I have watched over the
years, the LDS Church seems to be as open as any group I have seen; more than
most religious organizations.
Try this one | 10:30 a.m. May 27, 2008
Credibility is always an issue in emotionally charged issues. I believe Turley,
but having said that I do not believe, based on the totality of the evidence,
that Brigham Young is exhonorated.
Here's why.
First, BY and other LDS leaders of the time period created the atmospherics necessary for a group of otherwise religious and decent people to committ such an atrocity. Mountain Meadows Massacre was the worst, most henious crime committed in the American west--over 120 dead people.
Second, Brigham Young could have facilitated a quick resolution (if he had wanted to) of the aftermath. Instead, it took almost twenty years to punish just one man (JD Lee). Coverup.
Third, and I know LDS folks won't like to hear this, but the LDS Church has had a history of not always telling the truth about things (re: Polygamy denials, manifesto of 1890 & 1904, etc.,etc.). This leads people to distrust statements from BY or historians like Turley. That's why there is such a gulf of credibiilty and an unwillingness to believe even though the evidence shows BY did not order the massacre. That doesn't mean he's innocent though, just couldn't be proved guilty.
Here's why.
First, BY and other LDS leaders of the time period created the atmospherics necessary for a group of otherwise religious and decent people to committ such an atrocity. Mountain Meadows Massacre was the worst, most henious crime committed in the American west--over 120 dead people.
Second, Brigham Young could have facilitated a quick resolution (if he had wanted to) of the aftermath. Instead, it took almost twenty years to punish just one man (JD Lee). Coverup.
Third, and I know LDS folks won't like to hear this, but the LDS Church has had a history of not always telling the truth about things (re: Polygamy denials, manifesto of 1890 & 1904, etc.,etc.). This leads people to distrust statements from BY or historians like Turley. That's why there is such a gulf of credibiilty and an unwillingness to believe even though the evidence shows BY did not order the massacre. That doesn't mean he's innocent though, just couldn't be proved guilty.
TIMOTHY | 10:44 a.m. May 27, 2008
re: Try this one
You hit the nail on the head. My hats off to you. You seem to be one who is informed and with some good intelligence posting on here. Great post.
You hit the nail on the head. My hats off to you. You seem to be one who is informed and with some good intelligence posting on here. Great post.
Again, who cares? | 10:52 a.m. May 27, 2008
No doubt, Brigham Young created an atmosphere for his militia to carry out
orders to rid the new territory of outsiders. But to say that the Mormon Church
has scholars who did research and kept an open mind is absurd. Try reading the
latest Smithsonian Magazine about the Raid and see if you can stick to your
story, Franz.
Smithsonian Magazine - June | 11:17 a.m. May 27, 2008
Thanks for the tip on Smithsonian Magazine.
The June issue mentions "The Utah War" and what Mormon apostle Henry B. Eyring told the world last September about this tragic event and an apology to the Paiutes.
The June issue mentions "The Utah War" and what Mormon apostle Henry B. Eyring told the world last September about this tragic event and an apology to the Paiutes.
Mike | 11:28 a.m. May 27, 2008
Brigham Young may have or may not have "ordered" the massacre. The
preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that he did not. However, was he
complicit in a subsequent cover up of the crime? And, did he tacitly approve of
the murders later? "Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord, and I have just taken
a little." This comment has been attributed to Brother Brigham in regard
to the Mountain Meadow incident. If Young, or other high 19th century church
leaders susbsequently validated the crime or stonewalled federal investigations,
it seems to me that Young and any other culpable church leaders might justly be
labeled as "accessories-after-the-fact".
Get Real..... | 12:16 p.m. May 27, 2008
I know this can only mean something to LDS folks, but, get real, people!
Brigham Young ordering the slaughter of men, women and even children? I
don't think so.....
By that time in his life Brigham Young had been given his "calling and election made sure" by the Lord. The only way you can lose this sure promise is to commit blasphemy against the Holy Ghost or to kill someone in cold blood. However, if Brigham would have done that do you really think the Lord would have allowed him to continue to serve in the position of Prophet?
Read the first "Official Declaration" in the Doctrine and Covenants, in particular, this part: "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would REMOVE ME OUT OF MY PLACE, and so He will ANY OTHER MAN who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." - Wilford Woodruff, Semiannual General Conference, October 6th, 1890, Salt Lake City
By that time in his life Brigham Young had been given his "calling and election made sure" by the Lord. The only way you can lose this sure promise is to commit blasphemy against the Holy Ghost or to kill someone in cold blood. However, if Brigham would have done that do you really think the Lord would have allowed him to continue to serve in the position of Prophet?
Read the first "Official Declaration" in the Doctrine and Covenants, in particular, this part: "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would REMOVE ME OUT OF MY PLACE, and so He will ANY OTHER MAN who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." - Wilford Woodruff, Semiannual General Conference, October 6th, 1890, Salt Lake City
Give me a break! | 12:39 p.m. May 27, 2008
Mike tells us "Brigham Young may have or may not have 'ordered'
the massacre..."
Give me a break!
We all know how this organization worships authority. Who do you think was the authority 150 years ago? President Buchanan?
Give me a break!
We all know how this organization worships authority. Who do you think was the authority 150 years ago? President Buchanan?
fbear0143 | 12:56 p.m. May 27, 2008
All of you know-it-alls, INCLUDING the ones who think B.Y .did NOT order the
massacre, based on your faith or whatever. And all you who WANT to believe he
did because it tickles your fancy to believe the worst of the LDS Church, just
rememner this: Whatever you THINK does in no way alter fact. And not one of you
on either side has the facts, nor ever will. So ZIP IT and stop making fools of
yourselves!! Even these historians have the good sense to say "based on
all available evidence," they reached their conclusion. They are not
stupid enough to say they KNOW the unknowable, like so many of the idiots who
have posted on here.
Get Real...are you? | 1:05 p.m. May 27, 2008
I think if you read all accounts correctly, Brigham Young never ordered any
slaughters, (the Mountain Meadow Massacre spared those under 17, about 7 total).
However, his explicit instructions was to form a militia with the intent to bar
outsiders from settling in their claimed territory. His problems were heaped on
with the news that the U.S. Calvary was preparing to remove him as governor. If
it hadn't been for Thomas Kane, Brigham Young never would have made it to
his "calling and election". So the timing of all this has nothing to
do with what he claims as being the prophet.
Funny business | 1:12 p.m. May 27, 2008
I think it's well past time to organize a group and go after all the
descendants of the ones who shot those people in MMM. However, it would be a big
mess because there are thousands and thousands of descendants. But heck, if
Brigham Young's group can't fess-up, then for heck sakes lets go after
John Lee's group & all the rest of those darn descendants...
It sound to me like this is what some of you people out there want? You will never quit stone throwing until you have a war with the descendants of the innocent ones living today.
It sound to me like this is what some of you people out there want? You will never quit stone throwing until you have a war with the descendants of the innocent ones living today.
Does it matter? | 1:17 p.m. May 27, 2008
Does it matter what really happened? Is anybody's testimony hanging on
whether Brigham is guilty or not? Is someone going to swear out a warrant
post-humously if he was involved? If he's guilty, he's guilty; if
he's not, he's not. History belongs where it is, in the past. Study
it, learn from it, and move on. geeez.
Anonymous | 1:23 p.m. May 27, 2008
There is a sinister side to the Saints.
There still is.
From murdering innocent women and children 150 years ago to not allowing blacks to be priests - it is all well-documented.
Give up the attempted coverups.
There still is.
From murdering innocent women and children 150 years ago to not allowing blacks to be priests - it is all well-documented.
Give up the attempted coverups.
Raymond Takashi Swenson | 1:46 p.m. May 27, 2008
Anyone who is considering the Mountain Meadows Massacre and pondering how people
who otherwise seemed to worship the Prince of Peace were able to engage in mass
murder must also consider the many massacres of Indians that were conducted by
both local militias and organized units of the US Army.
The soldiers in Johnston's Army marching to Utah in 1857 soon committed a massacre of Indian families on a scale comparable to the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Such massacres were a feature of Western history for another four decades. Surely one of the fears that led to the terrible acts of Mormons in Southern Utah in September, 1857, was the fear that Johnston's Army would treat the Mormons as less than human and engage in precisely the kind of mass murder that the troops in fact practiced upon the Indians.
These Army units were not Mormons, but rather were ordinary Americans of that day, a mixture of Protestants and Catholics (especially Irish). Despite their divergent religions, they were fully capable of committing organized slaughter of largely defenseless families when ordered by their officers.
The Mormon attackers are more representative of such military massacres than of Mormons as a church.
The soldiers in Johnston's Army marching to Utah in 1857 soon committed a massacre of Indian families on a scale comparable to the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Such massacres were a feature of Western history for another four decades. Surely one of the fears that led to the terrible acts of Mormons in Southern Utah in September, 1857, was the fear that Johnston's Army would treat the Mormons as less than human and engage in precisely the kind of mass murder that the troops in fact practiced upon the Indians.
These Army units were not Mormons, but rather were ordinary Americans of that day, a mixture of Protestants and Catholics (especially Irish). Despite their divergent religions, they were fully capable of committing organized slaughter of largely defenseless families when ordered by their officers.
The Mormon attackers are more representative of such military massacres than of Mormons as a church.
Thanks, Raymond | 2:28 p.m. May 27, 2008
Not only did you hit the nail on the head, but your explanation is clear,
concise and to the point. I agree with you that mass murders in the West were
fairly common and well documented. It is a shame that Mormons in the late
1800's and today cannot admit that a mistake was made.
Janet/ re: Raymond | 2:50 p.m. May 27, 2008
I second that Raymond, hitting the nail on the head.
I don't know how one will ever get this through to some of these posters. This kind of stuff has gone on since the beginning of time. I'm not certain why, or what makes it so hard for some people to admit this?
I don't know how one will ever get this through to some of these posters. This kind of stuff has gone on since the beginning of time. I'm not certain why, or what makes it so hard for some people to admit this?
James Winter | 3:09 p.m. May 27, 2008
I love how people downplay Haun's Mill Massacre and how the Missouri
Executive Order 44 means absolutely nothing.
If the LDS faith and its members were laid out like the Jews in the Holocaust, the only thing you would even remember is the Mountain Meadow Massacre.
It simply would not matter and it would only be in the news because it would be difficult to avoid...after all, the LDS Church isn't JUST in the USA anymore, it is everywhere!
There are more than a million members of the LDS Church in Mexico another Million in Brazil. It is the largest religion in the southern pacific especially in Samoa and Tonga.
The LDS faith has done more for natural disasters than ANY other faith on this planet...yet...we get crapped on for this incident that occurred over 100 years ago when Bush is responsible for over 4000 lives. I am not about to trivialize 120 lives, that isn't the point, but we see thousands die in a bogus war and we're worried about 120 people who died over a century ago?
Ok, it happened and nothing will change that, regardless of who is to blame..MOVE ON in your lives!
If the LDS faith and its members were laid out like the Jews in the Holocaust, the only thing you would even remember is the Mountain Meadow Massacre.
It simply would not matter and it would only be in the news because it would be difficult to avoid...after all, the LDS Church isn't JUST in the USA anymore, it is everywhere!
There are more than a million members of the LDS Church in Mexico another Million in Brazil. It is the largest religion in the southern pacific especially in Samoa and Tonga.
The LDS faith has done more for natural disasters than ANY other faith on this planet...yet...we get crapped on for this incident that occurred over 100 years ago when Bush is responsible for over 4000 lives. I am not about to trivialize 120 lives, that isn't the point, but we see thousands die in a bogus war and we're worried about 120 people who died over a century ago?
Ok, it happened and nothing will change that, regardless of who is to blame..MOVE ON in your lives!
thou shall not kill | 3:14 p.m. May 27, 2008
where was authority that day?
Really? | 3:17 p.m. May 27, 2008
BY had his calling and election made sure at that point? Source, please.
Prophet is incapable of leading us astray. Check out some books at the library:
1) "In Sacred Lonliness" by Todd Compton
2) "Rough Stone Rolling" by Richard Bushman
3) "Mormon Polygamy" by Richard Van Wagonner
4) "Studies of the Book of Mormon" by BH Roberts
Read these (and other books, like the JD) and then report back to me on the infallibility of LDS leaders.
Prophet is incapable of leading us astray. Check out some books at the library:
1) "In Sacred Lonliness" by Todd Compton
2) "Rough Stone Rolling" by Richard Bushman
3) "Mormon Polygamy" by Richard Van Wagonner
4) "Studies of the Book of Mormon" by BH Roberts
Read these (and other books, like the JD) and then report back to me on the infallibility of LDS leaders.
Anonymous | 3:26 p.m. May 27, 2008
Of course Brigham Young was involved.
Don't be absurd.
Don't be absurd.
what he doesn't know wont ... | 4:31 p.m. May 27, 2008
Why do some fools think it went this way? -
"Hey brothers, let's slaughter these Gentiles and blame it on the Paiutes. We don't have to tell Brother Brigham anything."
"Hey brothers, let's slaughter these Gentiles and blame it on the Paiutes. We don't have to tell Brother Brigham anything."
Mike | 4:36 p.m. May 27, 2008
to "Give Me a Break"
Your supposition that BY ordered the attack because of the more attachment to authority is nothing more than an Ad Hominum attack. Your statement does not cite evidence, just the supposition that because Mormons "worship" authority it necessarily means that they would not have acted without his prior permission. Your supposition fails to recognize that in the nineteenth century, communication was much slower than now, and as a result, outlying Mormon settlements had to be much more self reliant.
In any case, my main point is that what really matters is: what does the evidence show as to how BY conducted himself after the incident? If he conducted himself illegally by obstructing justice, then he is guilty of a serious crime regardless of whether or not he ordered the killings in the first instance. In my view there is much more evidence of that proposition.
Your supposition that BY ordered the attack because of the more attachment to authority is nothing more than an Ad Hominum attack. Your statement does not cite evidence, just the supposition that because Mormons "worship" authority it necessarily means that they would not have acted without his prior permission. Your supposition fails to recognize that in the nineteenth century, communication was much slower than now, and as a result, outlying Mormon settlements had to be much more self reliant.
In any case, my main point is that what really matters is: what does the evidence show as to how BY conducted himself after the incident? If he conducted himself illegally by obstructing justice, then he is guilty of a serious crime regardless of whether or not he ordered the killings in the first instance. In my view there is much more evidence of that proposition.
Proof | 4:42 p.m. May 27, 2008
Why is it so many are happy to add their two cents to a story they admittedly
have no way of understanding. So many comments. So little knowledge. Zero
understanding.
The Church did not request this book, nor the research, nor did they assign the historians to research it. The historians approached the Church. Finally the Church allowed these men to make Church records public which had never before been made public. This is not a Church publication. Sadly, still there is no way to give the story a positive spin. Even without involvement in the massacre the massacre happened. If we do not learn from it and become less judgmental ourselves, as a result, then we are no better than the murderers ourselves. Do not allow these men women and children to have died in vain. Please, all of us, let's be less judgmental. Yes, that applies to me too.
The Church did not request this book, nor the research, nor did they assign the historians to research it. The historians approached the Church. Finally the Church allowed these men to make Church records public which had never before been made public. This is not a Church publication. Sadly, still there is no way to give the story a positive spin. Even without involvement in the massacre the massacre happened. If we do not learn from it and become less judgmental ourselves, as a result, then we are no better than the murderers ourselves. Do not allow these men women and children to have died in vain. Please, all of us, let's be less judgmental. Yes, that applies to me too.
Ray May Be Right | 5:05 p.m. May 27, 2008
To Raymond,
Not only are you correct, but you also implicate Brigham Young completely! He was the head of the military/militia in the territory at the time! As such, he was DEFINITELY culpable for MMM!
Perhaps historians have been looking at MMM from a religious perspective and THAT is the problem! Treat it as a military event, and it is obvious that Brigham Young was guilty of at least negligence, and at most orchestrating "plausible deniability"!!
Not only are you correct, but you also implicate Brigham Young completely! He was the head of the military/militia in the territory at the time! As such, he was DEFINITELY culpable for MMM!
Perhaps historians have been looking at MMM from a religious perspective and THAT is the problem! Treat it as a military event, and it is obvious that Brigham Young was guilty of at least negligence, and at most orchestrating "plausible deniability"!!
somebody's lying again | 5:46 p.m. May 27, 2008
These poor saps.
They just can't imagine Brigham Young, their prophet, seer and revelator was told by God to wipe out those people.
And most likely was NOT told this.
They just can't imagine Brigham Young, their prophet, seer and revelator was told by God to wipe out those people.
And most likely was NOT told this.
End | 5:54 p.m. May 27, 2008
I wish the church would end this and just come out and admit the Brigham Young
was just a man who made mistakes just like everyone else living on this earth,
and then perhaps this whole thing would end...whewwwwww!
Anonymous | 5:57 p.m. May 27, 2008
It's all in the June edition of Smithsonian magazine.
Check it out for yourself.
Check it out for yourself.
To "Really" at 3:17PM | 6:04 p.m. May 27, 2008
You're not LDS, are you? Or, if you are, I predict you won't be for
long....
As far as my sources, OK, my grandfather received HIS calling and election made sure and to my knowledge he never even served as a bishop (will I give you a name? Out of respect for my grandfather, no, to which you will say "It never happened!", but I know it did and you will most likely judge me as a liar and I will misplaced antagonism speak for itself) so if he received his calling and election made sure I'm just a wee bit confident that every Prophet called in these last days has received his too.
Second, you cite 4 books about how prophets have led others astray, but yet not a single source you hold on to has ever served as a prophet of God.
And you call ME biased?.....
The caravan moves on!
As far as my sources, OK, my grandfather received HIS calling and election made sure and to my knowledge he never even served as a bishop (will I give you a name? Out of respect for my grandfather, no, to which you will say "It never happened!", but I know it did and you will most likely judge me as a liar and I will misplaced antagonism speak for itself) so if he received his calling and election made sure I'm just a wee bit confident that every Prophet called in these last days has received his too.
Second, you cite 4 books about how prophets have led others astray, but yet not a single source you hold on to has ever served as a prophet of God.
And you call ME biased?.....
The caravan moves on!
crazy? | 6:14 p.m. May 27, 2008
I'll try it again. There are a lot of foaming at the mouth hate mongers out
there. Get a life.
Pop quiz! | 6:42 p.m. May 27, 2008
After reading all the opinions on this blog, as a former school teacher, I deem
it necessary to have a test to measure all we have learned from this article!
First part: True or False
#1: There is one shread of evidence that B.Y. was involved.
#2: Presumption of guilt without evidence is rampant on this blog.
#3: What anyone thinks personally about B.Y. is irrevalent to the facts of this issue.
#4: Why do so many of you desperately hope he was involved? (Choose one or multiple answers)
A:Hatred
B:Ignorance
C:Malace
D:Revenge
E:No real life of my own or feelings of self worth.
Self graded quiz! Be honest now! You may learn something about yourself from this test!
First part: True or False
#1: There is one shread of evidence that B.Y. was involved.
#2: Presumption of guilt without evidence is rampant on this blog.
#3: What anyone thinks personally about B.Y. is irrevalent to the facts of this issue.
#4: Why do so many of you desperately hope he was involved? (Choose one or multiple answers)
A:Hatred
B:Ignorance
C:Malace
D:Revenge
E:No real life of my own or feelings of self worth.
Self graded quiz! Be honest now! You may learn something about yourself from this test!
JD | 7:19 p.m. May 27, 2008
Brigham Young presided over the Church during the MMM, and taught a lot of
questionable things, including the restriction against blacks in the priesthood.
He was not even close to perfect, let alone a competent leader. Joseph Smith
started the whole polygamy thing (that Brigham took to the next level), and
presided over the Church during the Danite era, the unlawful destruction of the
press, a fraudulent bank, among other things. John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff
continued the polygamy while adding the requirement for tithing (turning the
Church explicitly into a business). Lorenzo Snow and others through to Heber J.
Grant tried to correct some of the mistakes of their predecessors, but engaged
in deception and lies in order to do it. That tradition has continued to this
day, with only a slight hint that current LDS Church leaders (since Kimball) are
willing to try to fix the mistakes of the past while never admitting that they
were mistakes.
Seems to me like a long history of liars and deceivers exploiting gullible believers for as much money as they can get (estimated $6 billion/year revenue). And what do members get besides "taken"? Boring meetings, guilt trips, and contention.
Seems to me like a long history of liars and deceivers exploiting gullible believers for as much money as they can get (estimated $6 billion/year revenue). And what do members get besides "taken"? Boring meetings, guilt trips, and contention.
To Pop quiz @ 6:42 | 7:25 p.m. May 27, 2008
What a strange quiz coming from a former school teacher. Were all of your past
multiple choice test questions so lacking in possibilities?
Just commenting on #4 -- Why do you assume so many "desperately hope he was involved?"
Is it even possible in your own mind that some people may be:
A: Searching for the truth
B: Interpreting evidence differently than yourself
C: Willing to consider sources other than those that are "Church approved."
D: Have a "real life" that includes an interest in accurate historical events.
Self graded quiz! Be honest now! You may learn something about yourself from this test
Just commenting on #4 -- Why do you assume so many "desperately hope he was involved?"
Is it even possible in your own mind that some people may be:
A: Searching for the truth
B: Interpreting evidence differently than yourself
C: Willing to consider sources other than those that are "Church approved."
D: Have a "real life" that includes an interest in accurate historical events.
Self graded quiz! Be honest now! You may learn something about yourself from this test
William (again) | 7:46 p.m. May 27, 2008
The LDS Church keeps a number of historians and other types of scholars on their
payroll, mostly at BYU, so they can cover-up the truth. It is not surprising
that they fired a legitimate historian (Quinn) and hire their own historian who
can give the party-line rhetoric to make the Church and its history look as good
as possible. To other "real" historians, however, these people just
look like fools on the take whose academic and professional integrity is
completely absent.
The only thing more pathetic than the Church using hired guns to do their scholarly-bidding is all the foolish Church members who will chant in mindless unison "The Church is True!" whenever they are fed a bowl of pro-Church propoganda, but then they dismiss, discount, and turn a blind eye to any research, history, or science that contradicts their precious beliefs!
Pathetic. Is it any wonder only uneducated, poor people are joining the Church? Only those who are so desparate they will believe anything would join a Church that expects you to believe everything!
The only thing more pathetic than the Church using hired guns to do their scholarly-bidding is all the foolish Church members who will chant in mindless unison "The Church is True!" whenever they are fed a bowl of pro-Church propoganda, but then they dismiss, discount, and turn a blind eye to any research, history, or science that contradicts their precious beliefs!
Pathetic. Is it any wonder only uneducated, poor people are joining the Church? Only those who are so desparate they will believe anything would join a Church that expects you to believe everything!
Anonymous | 8:16 p.m. May 27, 2008
I see an "anti", "anti's" and "caravan moves
on" statements in this post. I am not mormon but I do believe these are
very "proud" but defensive statement and meant to be snubbish or
derogetory comments. Let it go my friends and let your emotions flow as they
have been held in long enough. Now remember that an opinion against your opinion
is not anti and there is no need to attack nor defend as it is merely a
different opinion. Settle down all and I hope you all don't treat nor react
to everything that is this uncomfortable in your lives. Is this what the mormon
culture has developed, if so I am sorry for the level of emotional problems that
occur in this culture.
Re: William | 8:30 p.m. May 27, 2008
Wow, what a slam! I am a convert and I am not uneducated or desperate. I suggest
you take a deep breath! Please say what you think but please think before you
say it!
Fawn Brodie | 8:45 p.m. May 27, 2008
How could the LDS church allow an idiotic story like this even be in the paper.
A MORMON historian finds Mormon leader innocent!
The LDS leaders are drinking the purple cool aid to even allow this story in the paper.
The LDS leaders are drinking the purple cool aid to even allow this story in the paper.
My two sense | 9:02 p.m. May 27, 2008
Whether or not Brigham Young personally ordered MMM, we all need to understand
that statements given from the pulpit in the SL tabernacle likely served as a
catalyst for the actions on that fateful day. The following two quotes are
examples.
"When it is necessary that blood should be shed, we should be as ready to do that as to eat an apple." (Heber C. Kimball: Journal of Discourses 6:35.)
Will you love your brothers or sisters when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? . . . that is loving our neighbors as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; if he needs salvation, and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. That is the way to love mankind. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 4:219-220, September 21, 1856)
Early Mormons, like many Mormons today, had dedicated themselves completely to the church, and whether or not the above statements were meant to be interpreted literally, many early Saints did interpret these statements literally.
"When it is necessary that blood should be shed, we should be as ready to do that as to eat an apple." (Heber C. Kimball: Journal of Discourses 6:35.)
Will you love your brothers or sisters when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? . . . that is loving our neighbors as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; if he needs salvation, and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. That is the way to love mankind. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 4:219-220, September 21, 1856)
Early Mormons, like many Mormons today, had dedicated themselves completely to the church, and whether or not the above statements were meant to be interpreted literally, many early Saints did interpret these statements literally.
Kyle | 9:08 p.m. May 27, 2008
With all that is going on in Texas I would question why the mormon church would
bring more scrutiny on themselves with releasing this story.
To SL Cabbie (1) | 9:45 p.m. May 27, 2008
"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?"
Are you serious? If an order _had_ been given to massacre the settlers, why would they ask for counsel? If BY had said, "Kill them all!", what kind of moron would go back and ask, "We have them pinned down. Now what?" The answer would be, "Hey, stupid! I already told you to kill them all. Why are you asking me again?"
As far as the "cryptic" "The Indians will do what they will" is concerned, how is that "cryptic"? BY had no control over the Indians. His message was to let those poor people pass through unmolested, and that the Indians would do whatever seemed them best.
Or wait. Maybe it was all code for "Murder them all and blame the Indians." Wait. They didn't get the message until it was all over and Lee "wept like a baby" upon reading the message.
You, sir, fail logic 101.
Are you serious? If an order _had_ been given to massacre the settlers, why would they ask for counsel? If BY had said, "Kill them all!", what kind of moron would go back and ask, "We have them pinned down. Now what?" The answer would be, "Hey, stupid! I already told you to kill them all. Why are you asking me again?"
As far as the "cryptic" "The Indians will do what they will" is concerned, how is that "cryptic"? BY had no control over the Indians. His message was to let those poor people pass through unmolested, and that the Indians would do whatever seemed them best.
Or wait. Maybe it was all code for "Murder them all and blame the Indians." Wait. They didn't get the message until it was all over and Lee "wept like a baby" upon reading the message.
You, sir, fail logic 101.
To SL Cabbie (2) | 9:54 p.m. May 27, 2008
"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..."
BY's reply sent via Haslam indicates ONLY that he was aware that the Utahans had the immigrants pinned down. His order was to let them pass. Why should he not have assumed his people would have obeyed him and not murdered those innocent people?
How could he have heard of the destruction beforehand? Also, in the absence of today's high-speed communication mediums, rumor was the way much news passed around--especially news that you didn't want to get out.
In high school, when two people were secretly dating, others became aware of it only through the rumor mill. Lee had every reason to not want Young to know what he did.
Your logic here is along the lines of, "I see red berries growing on a vine. You must have planted peach trees!"
Young's reply sent via Haslam impeaches that one . . . He knew at the time..."
BY's reply sent via Haslam indicates ONLY that he was aware that the Utahans had the immigrants pinned down. His order was to let them pass. Why should he not have assumed his people would have obeyed him and not murdered those innocent people?
How could he have heard of the destruction beforehand? Also, in the absence of today's high-speed communication mediums, rumor was the way much news passed around--especially news that you didn't want to get out.
In high school, when two people were secretly dating, others became aware of it only through the rumor mill. Lee had every reason to not want Young to know what he did.
Your logic here is along the lines of, "I see red berries growing on a vine. You must have planted peach trees!"
To: To SL Cabbie 1&2 | 10:02 p.m. May 27, 2008
Nice try my friend but sir you also fail logic 101. Good effort but time to go
bed bye now...
Sarah | 10:13 p.m. May 27, 2008
Nobody ever said the church leaders were infallible, especially not the church
leaders themselves. They're human, they make mistakes. Every LDS around the
world knows that.
The evidence points that Brigham Young didn't order the massacre. Did he cover it up? Possibly. Nobody's fully researched that yet. But if you weren't so blind as to ignore the evidence, then you would be pretty sure that he didn't give the order, at least.
The LDS at the time were forced from their homes on multiple occasions at gunpoint. They crossed an entire continent to escape persecution. Then a beloved Apostle was murdered. Then the US army was coming supposedly to murder the Prophet and route the Mormons from the territory. The state was in lockdown, and they horded their supplies from the wagon trail, and treated them with suspicion, who in turn became upset. Some of the members of the train, in order to goad the settlers, may have claimed to have taken part in the murder of Parley Pratt. That was the rumor that spread, anyway. Some impetuous LDS took matters into their own hands and committed a horrible act.
It doesn't mean that anybody supports it, Mormon or not.
The evidence points that Brigham Young didn't order the massacre. Did he cover it up? Possibly. Nobody's fully researched that yet. But if you weren't so blind as to ignore the evidence, then you would be pretty sure that he didn't give the order, at least.
The LDS at the time were forced from their homes on multiple occasions at gunpoint. They crossed an entire continent to escape persecution. Then a beloved Apostle was murdered. Then the US army was coming supposedly to murder the Prophet and route the Mormons from the territory. The state was in lockdown, and they horded their supplies from the wagon trail, and treated them with suspicion, who in turn became upset. Some of the members of the train, in order to goad the settlers, may have claimed to have taken part in the murder of Parley Pratt. That was the rumor that spread, anyway. Some impetuous LDS took matters into their own hands and committed a horrible act.
It doesn't mean that anybody supports it, Mormon or not.
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.
- Vegas, Poinsettia bowls or bust 2:01 a.m.
- Wildcats face tough defense 1:59 a.m.
- Aggies look to Idaho for an example 1:58 a.m.
- Aggies host Southern Utah 1:53 a.m.
- Cougars turn back Wildcats' 1:44 a.m.
- Cougar women lose at home 1:41 a.m.
- Sloan's two point guard lineup 1:39 a.m.
- BYU football: 5 keys to victory 1:36 a.m.
- RSL's Movsisyan departs 1:36 a.m.
- Glover gives Utes last-second upset 1:27 a.m.
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
264 - Protests against Phoenix LDS temple211
- Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin133
- Boys basketball rankings128
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin112
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies109
- Letters: Trump card for believers93
- Rivalry Week is highly profane84
- Utah, BYU are top choices for bowls75
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
"You are the very epitome of self-indulgence liberal crassness. You care...
I thought it was a great parade. Isn't it the only one in Salt Lake County?...
is struggling in some aspects of his game. We saw what he did last year early...
Having explored caves as a youth and spent 31 yrs working occasionally...
How do the Utes continue to do this? They are bad enough to lose to lousy...
A little help here. Harmon says Utah should be on a 3-0 win streak. I assume...
disgruntled parents need to stay off the blogs...
Honk if you intercepted Max Hall.
however it pertinent to look at their schedule and then look at ours. Because...
and there are no ute fans, only bandwagon fans, nice try though
Advertisements
I for one don't believe he ordered the masacre.