Reader comments
Young 'did not order massacre'

How is this news? This fact was known for at least 150 years and was recently reiterated prior to the release of that farce of a film staring Jon Voight.

What the heck is the ongoing fascination with this subject? Mormon bashers can't seem to get enough of this kind of sensationalism. I frankly don't care one way or the other what Brigham Young did or did not order. He's dead and they're dead and we have our own present-day problems to contend with. If you insist on looking back, try looking at how the United States government persecuted and then massacred thousands of American Indians and stole their lands. The early Mormons had a similar experience, albeit on a much smaller scale. Were they paranoid? Probably. I think I would be too.

Of course, the LDS historian is going to say that the former LDS president didn't do it. DUH. That's not impartial investigating.

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 the 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.

It is so difficult for us, living as we do today, to judge the deeds of another time and of people in a different situation. Although some will deny any findings of research contrary to their predetermined mindset, others are grateful for illumination about a most difficult time and a most tragic event of the old west. I know of many pressures that were simmering to make this area and time and situation a powder keg. May God help us to learn from the past so we do not allow ourselves today to become so volatile. With the teachings we have, we need to learn and grow and do better today and in the future.

This will not stop anti-Mormon pseudo-scholars, hobbyists, and other bitter disaffected-types from continuing the fun fact-free romp through fantasy-land.

Why let a little thing like "lack of evidence" get in the way of a Don Quixote-esque quest for "truth"?

On to the windmills!

I would agree with the "Tough to Judge" analysis. And, I would further say that those who attempt to judge past generations and individuals for their actions in light of today's often 'pollitcally correct' standards do so unwisely. Relative isolation, past wrongs done to them, and rumours all likely combined to create a paranoia and skewing in judgement to create what became a lamentable scenario.

Look at how often the Saints had been wronged in the past. Look and see how their naivetee about what their enemies would and did do to them in New York, Ohio, Missouri and Illinois, led to the trampling of their rights, and horrible treatment.

We "Mormons" today should see the prejudice and misjudgement of us by our countrymen today as a likely precursor to renewed and growing discrimination and persecution. Between the Romney campaign, and even something as trivial as David Archuleta and "Idol", with the accompanying FLDS crises in TX, UT & AZ, and the misassociation of them with us, should help us see how bigoted and undiscriminating so many 'gentiles' are of us and those they lump us with.

You could debate and research this your whole life and never find conclusive evidence one way or another. I live in Europe and read lots of history and biographies so find the topic interesting and like to hear balanced sounding opinions but...how much is really worthwhile and how do you really want to spend your time? Reading up on endless opinions in books (we really can't know the truth on this for sure)? Or getting involved in some worthwhile causes.

I suggest it is better to find ways to serve others, help with young people, the poor and homeless, the elderly, local schools, the unemployed or underemployed. The list goes on. What would you rather be known for??

Another question is: what is the ultimate objective of the people who want to destroy the LDS (or any other) faith? What will they really find at the end of their journey? What a sad way to spend your life!!!

Finally some final closure to a bad memory. It is as it is now move on. The book has been written and it's not pleasant but the hard work was written and good can be done with those descendants who mourne their relatives on both sides of the old issue. Finally some good reading and getting to know some old stories, I ;ove history don't you.

Don't just toss your stereotypes out there. They are insulting, to you. I am ex-mormon and often accused of being Anti-mormon. I am also a big fan of history. I see no reason for surprise in suggesting Brigham Young did not order and attack. The political and religious tension was exceptionally high at the time and I liken it to the 9/11 Iraq events with Iraq as MMM. Lincoln broke his promise to "leave the mormons alone" instead threatening to send troops out. Mormons were already in fear of war directed at them and hoarded ammunitions. That a few overresponded isn't shocking in the least. Where are those weapons of mass destruction in Iraw? OH, it was all false rumor, that oddly most forget the early church members were not immune from either. Was it a tragedy? Yes, as are all actions involving murder. Don't paint all people with the same broad brush stroke and I in turn will follow suit.

Stenar, the only way we'll know if their investigation was partial or not is to wait for scholars to critique their research. I'm waiting for the book, and I'm waiting for comments from scholars who will have studied the research.

I don't believe Young ordered it.
However, a church investigation isn't exactly an impartial one, despite what the researcher claims.

Genocide? My how we throw around terms we don't understand. For all the similarities between MMM and other "genocides" out there, there are twice as many glaring differences. First and foremost is scale--120 deaths, while horrible and inexcusable, does not approach the genocidal numbers we've seen with the Jews in Europe (6 million), the Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda (800,000), or the victims of the Janjaweed in Darfur (400,000). For this and many other reasons, throwing around the term "genocide" in an MMM discussion is irresponsible and just plain ignorant.

We all agree that the MMM was a despicable act. Anyone responsible or involved is long dead. There are no responsible PEOPLE left to point fingers at, only an organization, the members of which are plenty disgusted that this event took place. As another pointed out, we have today's problems to deal with. Let's ALL move on. The Haun's Mill Massacre is a good example of how easily this can be done.

People who look for wrongdoing don't believe the evidence when the truth is presented one way or another. They just continually search to prove the LDS church leaders are at fault.
I believe there are many who are bitter with the church who continually desire to tear it down no matter what is found.

There are just as many people in the church who say Brigham Young was guilty of the Mountain Meadows Massacre as there are non-members. I personally know one of his descendants who thinks he master minded the whole event. As for me, I do not care one way or another. I still go to church, If he did have something to do with the massacre, so be it. Things were different back then, and the massacred wagon train probably had a part in causing the fight, as did the Indians. The Indians had guns not arrows and most Indians disliked the white man.

There are many Scholars who say Brigham Young was involved. Lets not get bias on this matter or shove all the blame on some hard working LDS settles. Have an open mind.

Um, Bitter, Lincoln wasn't President for another, what, 5 years. Now, Buchanan you can blame.

As for whether Young was involved, there can always be a seed of suspicion (whether founded or not). The only way this could have been put to rest is if the researcher has presented evidence that he had ordered it. Presenting a case that Young wasn't involved just leaves room for conspiracy charges against the Mormon Church. I can't see any non-Mormon researchers having total access to Mormon records, so this is unlikely to be settled.

Deseret News is owned by the LDS Church and censors opposing opinions. They don't have the guts to even let this show up.

DLT, who cares what someone thinks? What are the facts? Have you seen any credible evidence, outside of theory, that would suggest BY ordered this masacre? BTW......who ordered the Hauns Mill masacre? We do know a governor had an extermination order out on a group of people. That is fact. And dispicable!