Reader comments
Book confronts LDS tragedy
339 comments | Read story
Kyle | 4:31 p.m. July 20, 2008
I don�t "hate" the LDS Church or leaders, but I
do hate that some members demand MMM be dropped because it's "ancient
history", yet they persist in defending the actions of murderers--or worse
lay blame on the Indians. Obviously, history gets distorted in the eyes of some
in order to avoid facing a few disturbing realities.
You cannot understand MMM if you don�t understand that early Mormons weren't exactly a peaceful, religious people. Leaders made vengeful, inflammatory speeches that stirred hate/fear in locals. Mormons raised a militia and there were clashes between Mormons and legal/military authorities BEFORE the infamous Missouri extermination order occurred. Plural marriage wasn't common knowledge in Missouri, and wasn't a factor then.
While BY can't be tied directly to MMM, he was no doubt indirectly responsible due to his OWN well-documented inflammatory rhetoric. Perhaps it was "misinterpreted" by the members as the leader's standing approval to avenge the murders of early saints and protect themselves from outsiders. Additionally, some culpability can be inferred by the behavior BY exhibited after the deed was done.
If one believes that God micro-manages the Church and prophets are infallible, then accepting the transgressions of history may prove far too problematic.
You cannot understand MMM if you don�t understand that early Mormons weren't exactly a peaceful, religious people. Leaders made vengeful, inflammatory speeches that stirred hate/fear in locals. Mormons raised a militia and there were clashes between Mormons and legal/military authorities BEFORE the infamous Missouri extermination order occurred. Plural marriage wasn't common knowledge in Missouri, and wasn't a factor then.
While BY can't be tied directly to MMM, he was no doubt indirectly responsible due to his OWN well-documented inflammatory rhetoric. Perhaps it was "misinterpreted" by the members as the leader's standing approval to avenge the murders of early saints and protect themselves from outsiders. Additionally, some culpability can be inferred by the behavior BY exhibited after the deed was done.
If one believes that God micro-manages the Church and prophets are infallible, then accepting the transgressions of history may prove far too problematic.
Leadership Ain't Easy | 5:04 p.m. July 20, 2008
Brigham was VERY inflammatory in MANY of his speaches!
Many True Blue Mormons will insist that doesn't make him responsible for MMM.
But "if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air." (1 Corinthians 14:8-9).
If a prophet is not clear, the blood spilt by his misunderstanding followers is on HIS hands!
If Prophets are going to claim to speak for God, they are responsible for being clear. Brigham wasn't, and there should be little doubt in anyone's mind that is why he tried to cover things up.
If Brigham couldn't handle the position, he should not have battled Sydney and others for it. He should have stepped aside and let a more competant leader take charge.
Many True Blue Mormons will insist that doesn't make him responsible for MMM.
But "if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air." (1 Corinthians 14:8-9).
If a prophet is not clear, the blood spilt by his misunderstanding followers is on HIS hands!
If Prophets are going to claim to speak for God, they are responsible for being clear. Brigham wasn't, and there should be little doubt in anyone's mind that is why he tried to cover things up.
If Brigham couldn't handle the position, he should not have battled Sydney and others for it. He should have stepped aside and let a more competant leader take charge.
Comments continue below
Lisa | 5:06 p.m. July 20, 2008
Hey Kyle , get over yourself.
Emmie | 5:14 p.m. July 20, 2008
RE: Kyle
I agree with you. Thanks
I agree with you. Thanks
Daniel | 5:23 p.m. July 20, 2008
Re:One who has questions
I have the same questions? I wonder if this new Richard Turley book will answer any of them?
I have the same questions? I wonder if this new Richard Turley book will answer any of them?
Tina | 5:31 p.m. July 20, 2008
Brigham Young was responsible for the MMM. No doubt in my mind.
Richard | 5:48 p.m. July 20, 2008
Kyle your words show an obvious prediscriminatory bias against LDS to begin with
and you do need to get over yourself. Of course it needs to be remembered but
who remembers any single atrocity committed by any other church during the
1800's off the top of their heads? Do the local masons, not the entire
masonry who denounced Joseph's murder, even take responsibility for killing
a masonic order brother? They never have but justify their actions by having
been a part of that mob. No one was ever punished for that, by the way. But some
of the men in the mob died grizzly deaths after participating in that terrible
act. History is written by the winners of wars and Utah (Deseret) never waged a
war against its inevitab le statehood in the U.S. so guess who gets to write the
history. Certainly it is a better thing there was not a war against statehood
but we will never get the truth and it is not "far worse" to blame the
indians especially since there was absolutely some culpability there. The Church
apologized because it feels it could have diffused the situation but did not and
therefore shoulders the blame/responsibility.
Richard | 5:51 p.m. July 20, 2008
To Leadership Ain't Easy:
You likely never understood that in order to be heard over many people, one had to speak loudly before microphones and PA systems so of course BY had to have been loud, spiritually strong, etc. He was never ambiguous in what he meant to me. Do you understand everything Jesus meant or everything that was meant in Revelations? Those might be very well construed as to be unclear so by saying that BY should have given up to Sydney Rigdon, you are saying that Peter was the rightful ruler of the church and were Clementine and Linus his followers instead of John who was writing Revelations on Patmos. By was a man but like I said before, there was hardly time enough to get word from that local far end to SLC and back again with even an answer as the messenger arrived just after it ended. What was the message? Let them pass and keep the peace, certainly not decicde for yourselves or kill them all. If it had been the latter, there would not have been 30 some odd children who survived it.
You likely never understood that in order to be heard over many people, one had to speak loudly before microphones and PA systems so of course BY had to have been loud, spiritually strong, etc. He was never ambiguous in what he meant to me. Do you understand everything Jesus meant or everything that was meant in Revelations? Those might be very well construed as to be unclear so by saying that BY should have given up to Sydney Rigdon, you are saying that Peter was the rightful ruler of the church and were Clementine and Linus his followers instead of John who was writing Revelations on Patmos. By was a man but like I said before, there was hardly time enough to get word from that local far end to SLC and back again with even an answer as the messenger arrived just after it ended. What was the message? Let them pass and keep the peace, certainly not decicde for yourselves or kill them all. If it had been the latter, there would not have been 30 some odd children who survived it.
principal1950 | 6:07 p.m. July 20, 2008
My husband's 2nd great grandfather was the bishop in Cedar City, at the
time of the MMM, and deeply involved. I can attest to the pain that this
incident has caused to the descendants of the perpetrators of it. I consider
the descendants to be victims, also, and hope some resolution, peace and
understanding can come to all involved in some way from reading this new book.
Ridgerunner | 6:23 p.m. July 20, 2008
I have greatly enjoyed the debate on these blogs. I would like to weigh in with
my view just in case it helps someone who struggles with their faith (like I
used to)
There are but two possible scenarios. #1: There is a God, the B of M is true and the LDS church is the only true church (has all correct doctines).
#2: If the athiests are right, The B of M is a fraud, there is no God and the Church is deceiving people.
If #2 turns out to be correct, my faith has given me much joy and happiness all through my life as I share it with my loved ones. (only I would know this-not anyone else). Therefore, if the atheists are right, when we all die, everything goes dark and that is the end. What did my faith give me in this scenario? Happiness and joy!
If #1 turns out to be right I get happiness in this life and eternal happiness with my forever family!
I win in both cases because of my faith! What does the alternative bring? Despair, darkness and no hope! I choose faith every time!
There are but two possible scenarios. #1: There is a God, the B of M is true and the LDS church is the only true church (has all correct doctines).
#2: If the athiests are right, The B of M is a fraud, there is no God and the Church is deceiving people.
If #2 turns out to be correct, my faith has given me much joy and happiness all through my life as I share it with my loved ones. (only I would know this-not anyone else). Therefore, if the atheists are right, when we all die, everything goes dark and that is the end. What did my faith give me in this scenario? Happiness and joy!
If #1 turns out to be right I get happiness in this life and eternal happiness with my forever family!
I win in both cases because of my faith! What does the alternative bring? Despair, darkness and no hope! I choose faith every time!
To Richard @ 5:51 | 7:11 p.m. July 20, 2008
Other than the fact you say you studied MMM in college (BYU maybe?)
I�m not sure why you�re a
self-proclaimed expert, but the victim�s list is online.
Couldn't find 30 survivors.
18 children all under the age of 6 survived. Over 30 children between the ages of 7 and 17 (including some infants) were brutally murdered with their parents.
18 children all under the age of 6 survived. Over 30 children between the ages of 7 and 17 (including some infants) were brutally murdered with their parents.
the meadow attitude is alive | 7:25 p.m. July 20, 2008
and well, all one has to do is visit SE Utah , get a glimpse on how the natives
are treated...let me see the ex county commissioner and son are now in federal
prison cells...on a pyramid scheme which bilked some 111million dollars away
from hurting school districts..nationally the local papers showed pictures of
the ex county commissioner recieving some citizen of the year award while
awaiting their trial..then some crazy guy broke a restraining order a while back
, causing his friends to try to declare a militia just help save him...the
courts in that area were ordered to stop and desist on their practice of not
including native americans on the jury pool this in a county with 55% native
population well the list just goes on..all in the area of what's the couple
who kidnapped their daughter to keep her from getting married history bah hum
bug!
Ryan | 7:27 p.m. July 20, 2008
I think beyond the issue of whether Brigham Young knew about the massacre, the
event is instructive for any follower of Jesus Christ. Leaders play an
important role in any great effort--especially in serving God. But the Holy
Ghost and personal revelation play an imparative role. Most leaders are
righteous, and adhering to their counsel can result in much greater achievements
than the individual acting in isolation coul accomplish. But in my strong
opinion, it's wrong to say "Do Everything the Stake President Asks
Without Question." At the end of the day, obedience refers to obedience to
God. While hopefully not often, this will sometimes mean dissobedience to a
Bishop Stake President or other church leader. While the lesson is nuanced,
it's one that I think leaders must articulate.
Ken | 7:45 p.m. July 20, 2008
Geez. This is anews story not time time for testimony. Some of you look very
silly and are the reason why people look upon us as the rabid mormons you all
depict.
Ernest T. Bass | 7:45 p.m. July 20, 2008
Looks like my little brother, D. Michael Bass received a dictionary for
Christmas.
Here's one: Why don't we ever hear the truth about the Nauvoo Expositer? There is background to why William Law published it but we never hear what it is.
That, my friend, is spin. Massive amounts of spin.
Here's one: Why don't we ever hear the truth about the Nauvoo Expositer? There is background to why William Law published it but we never hear what it is.
That, my friend, is spin. Massive amounts of spin.
How About the Movie | 8:09 p.m. July 20, 2008
So, how can I see the Jon Voight movie about this, or do I need to get it from
Netflix or go out-of-state. Mormons like to tell of the offenses in Missouri,
which is understandable, but never seem to tell of the massacre in Utah against
non-Mormons.
Amy | 8:10 p.m. July 20, 2008
One thing I never understood was why these people even NEEDED to send a message
to ask Brigham Young whether or not they should attack a wagon train full of
settlers. I mean, it�s sort of a common sense type of
thing. Brigham Young was a very powerful leader, so I have to wonder how much
brain-washing was going on.
Kyle | 8:59 p.m. July 20, 2008
Richard,
You�ve erred. I have no "prediscriminatory bias" (is that even a word?) toward the LDS...I am one. And following your suggestion, I will try to "get over myself", but as a history professor, I do often enjoy these types topics.
You�ve erred. I have no "prediscriminatory bias" (is that even a word?) toward the LDS...I am one. And following your suggestion, I will try to "get over myself", but as a history professor, I do often enjoy these types topics.
Ernest T. Bass | 9:33 p.m. July 20, 2008
It looks like my little brother, D. Michael Bass received a dictionary for his
birthday.
Just one example is the reason WHY William Law published the Nauvoo Expositor. We never hear the reason behind it, instead it's implied that we were the victims.
That is just one of MANY examples of spin.
Just one example is the reason WHY William Law published the Nauvoo Expositor. We never hear the reason behind it, instead it's implied that we were the victims.
That is just one of MANY examples of spin.
Its a no Brainer! | 9:34 p.m. July 20, 2008
Can anyone imagine for even for a second that the Leaders of the day would do
anything without Brigham Youngs permission?? And especially something like
this!! He ruled with an iron fist and everyone knew what it meant to be on the
wrong side of him!! Some say he tried to stop it, so therefor he knew about it,
and if he knew about it, then someone must have asked him for his permission. So
if they asked for permission they certainly would not have proceeded without
knowing the answer. Either way, he set up the feelings and attitude that led to
this awful event. So in reality he is accountable for the action of his
influence over his followers.
Ted | 10:14 p.m. July 20, 2008
To 7:11pm
The list you speak of is inaccurate. So perhaps you don't know any more than anyone else on here. And you are no self proclaimed expert either.
To- Principle 1950
I agree with you, a great many LDS descendants from the perpetrators of M. M. M., are as well VICTIMS and suffer greatly over the M. M. Massacre. A lot of people seem to over look this. Why should their feeling not be included?
The list you speak of is inaccurate. So perhaps you don't know any more than anyone else on here. And you are no self proclaimed expert either.
To- Principle 1950
I agree with you, a great many LDS descendants from the perpetrators of M. M. M., are as well VICTIMS and suffer greatly over the M. M. Massacre. A lot of people seem to over look this. Why should their feeling not be included?
Anonymous | 10:29 p.m. July 20, 2008
Well said, Ryan. I fully agree.
Ben | 10:31 p.m. July 20, 2008
Ridgerunner,
This is a poor version of the classic "Pascal's Wager" and it amounts to placing a bet in favor of God.
That is not real faith. That is gambling. According to my understanding of Christianity, if all you are doing is gambling on God, you lose!
Perhaps more importantly, the exact same logic (playing the odds) is used to justify an atheist, criminal lifestyle.
Your logic is not Christian. Better luck next time!
This is a poor version of the classic "Pascal's Wager" and it amounts to placing a bet in favor of God.
That is not real faith. That is gambling. According to my understanding of Christianity, if all you are doing is gambling on God, you lose!
Perhaps more importantly, the exact same logic (playing the odds) is used to justify an atheist, criminal lifestyle.
Your logic is not Christian. Better luck next time!
Verl Doman | 11:08 p.m. July 20, 2008
Real devotion to the LDS Church is a matter of personal spiritual conviction.
The conclusions of this book or the wish of some to discredit the Church will
not impact those with such a conviction.
We aready know that humans make mistakes. The massacre was an horrible, inexcusable mistake, and is not the only mistake ever made by members of the LDS church or of other churches. There may be other gross things done by some that would embarrass or offend, but the Spirit does not lie and will sustain those who have been blessed to be recipients of its powerful witness in spite of whatever is suggested or supposedly discovered by those who do not understand this source of truth. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
(1 Corinthians 2:14)
We aready know that humans make mistakes. The massacre was an horrible, inexcusable mistake, and is not the only mistake ever made by members of the LDS church or of other churches. There may be other gross things done by some that would embarrass or offend, but the Spirit does not lie and will sustain those who have been blessed to be recipients of its powerful witness in spite of whatever is suggested or supposedly discovered by those who do not understand this source of truth. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
(1 Corinthians 2:14)
To Tina and all the others | 1:26 a.m. July 21, 2008
I am amazed at how many people come on here and proclaim that Brigham Young most
certainly was responsible for MMM. Are you the same people who insisted, with
equal lack of evidence, that JonBenet Ramsey's parents were responsible for
her murder? I hope none of you will read this book, because heaven forbid that
true scholarship and examination of the historical record should stand in the
way of something your hunches tell you is true.
Re: Ben | 2:08 a.m. July 21, 2008
It's not gambling at all, it's a choice, a decision like everything
else in life. Thanks for your comments.
ED | 4:22 a.m. July 21, 2008
Conundrum
With the MMM becoming more well known around the world the Church is facing a real problem with the declared statement that following the direction (and atittudes) of our leaders (who presumably speak for the prophet) will never lead us astray. In this instance this caused a major problem --- and it probably hasn't been the first time before or since. Not even prophets are perfect. In the final analysis one has to look at that rare commodity called "common sense" for direction.
With the MMM becoming more well known around the world the Church is facing a real problem with the declared statement that following the direction (and atittudes) of our leaders (who presumably speak for the prophet) will never lead us astray. In this instance this caused a major problem --- and it probably hasn't been the first time before or since. Not even prophets are perfect. In the final analysis one has to look at that rare commodity called "common sense" for direction.
Anonymous | 5:39 a.m. July 21, 2008
As Einstein said, "Blind respect for authority is the greatst enemy of
truth." The real essential question isn't whether or not Brighan
Young ordered the masacre (he probably didn't) or whether he created an
atmosphere that led otherwise church-going, law-abiding men to commit such a
grotesque atrocity (he probbly did), but rather whether these church-going,
law-abiding men who were asked to undertake the most horrible deed imaginable
would have "prayed over it" before doing it and if so, what questions
does that raise?
Jack from Ark | 8:15 a.m. July 21, 2008
Great Idea for this book now lets do the prequel Let this be the forth in a
series. The first could be the Missouri years "run the Mormons out"
second Hauns mill"the planning to run the Mormons out" City of Joseph
"oh yeah run the Mormons out" I absolutely abhor what happened at MMM
and there is no justification for it, but context is a strange phenomenon, we
try to judge what happens through todays eyes. This is impossible. We can never
know what was in the hearts of these men. Bottom line It happened a long time
before I became aware of the church and it has absolutely no affect on what I
believe today.
Our detractors have always tried to judge our Church by the actions of a few. Please let them judge by the works as a whole and in context. The reality is that these things shouldn't have happened, but they did and nothing we can do or say will appease the detractors or please the others.
Please lets just move on and let this book be put in the archives for all to see and read and make up their own mind.
Our detractors have always tried to judge our Church by the actions of a few. Please let them judge by the works as a whole and in context. The reality is that these things shouldn't have happened, but they did and nothing we can do or say will appease the detractors or please the others.
Please lets just move on and let this book be put in the archives for all to see and read and make up their own mind.
D. Michael Bass | 8:23 a.m. July 21, 2008
Ernest T.,
If "perogitive" looks or sounds right to you, you probably shouldn't be using it.
You raise an interesting question, though: why did William Law publish the Nauvoo Expositor? You then evade your own question with an insinuation that the Church is guilty of misrepresenting history, without offering one shred of supporting evidence or dealing with a single fact pertinent to your question. Sounds like "spin" to me.
This kind of laziness is typical of your posts.
If "perogitive" looks or sounds right to you, you probably shouldn't be using it.
You raise an interesting question, though: why did William Law publish the Nauvoo Expositor? You then evade your own question with an insinuation that the Church is guilty of misrepresenting history, without offering one shred of supporting evidence or dealing with a single fact pertinent to your question. Sounds like "spin" to me.
This kind of laziness is typical of your posts.
Running Off the Ridge | 8:39 a.m. July 21, 2008
Ridgerunner - There are a lot more scenarios available to all of us.
That's a pretty limited choice you've relegated yourself to.
Bear Rug | 8:46 a.m. July 21, 2008
I am so glad that I live in an enlightened society, where everybody knows
everything about something that happened over 100 years ago. It is comforting
to know that we can read a newspaper article and then pass judgment on others.
I know, I know, some of you have the inside track on the history of the LDS
religion. You KNOW ALL there is to know about the leadership, and their
actions, as well as those of the general membership.
The MMM was a terrible thing. Those that perpetrated the act will answer for those crimes. We weren't there. We won't be able to answer EVERY question about this episode. Our modern-day leaders will not be able to answer every question. The best thing to do is to make sure that WE are doing right things, that our behaviour is correct. We will NEVER have to answer for the sins of others. We also need to remember that when we point a finger at someone, we have three pointing back at us.
The MMM was a terrible thing. Those that perpetrated the act will answer for those crimes. We weren't there. We won't be able to answer EVERY question about this episode. Our modern-day leaders will not be able to answer every question. The best thing to do is to make sure that WE are doing right things, that our behaviour is correct. We will NEVER have to answer for the sins of others. We also need to remember that when we point a finger at someone, we have three pointing back at us.
Ben | 9:01 a.m. July 21, 2008
Just saying it isn't gambling doesn't change the realty. You are just
gambling on God and religion. That is not true faith. In fact, it is cowardice.
It suggests that IF the odds were "likely" to go the other way, you
would abandon God and the Church because the odds went the other way. What kind
of religious baloney is that?
You need to do some real soul searching, because you really are not a sincere believer!
Good luck.
You need to do some real soul searching, because you really are not a sincere believer!
Good luck.
Let's not forget | 9:28 a.m. July 21, 2008
As a Latter-day Saint I welcome this full and frank discussion. "The truth
will set you free." It is a sad part of our history. We've owned it,
apologized, and life can go on. But let's never forget the victims.
Elizabeth | 9:52 a.m. July 21, 2008
Apologies are not enough for some people. There are people out there who rather
enjoy festering up evil hate against the Mormons, and with their evil websites
that are full of nothing but lie after lie. I say, let this rest once and for
all! And, I hope after Richards Turleys book release next month there will be no
more said. I hope and pray Mr. Turleys book is fair to all involved, or this may
never end.
Good day folks!
Good day folks!
Phil | 9:55 a.m. July 21, 2008
This book will never be published. They've promised its release for 10
years. These historians are incapable of actually producing anything. Not
because the subject is controversial but because they never finish anything.
Raymond Takashi Swenson | 10:15 a.m. July 21, 2008
Many of the worst things that people do are done out of fear for themselves and
their families. The same US Army troops who were marching toward Utah and the
Mormons when the Mountain Meadows Massacre took place performed their own
massacre of Indians soon after their arrival. Other massacres of Indian
encampments happened all over the West for decades. It should not be forgotten
that abnormally brutal behavior is possible for ordinary people when they are
enlisted in military units that are badly led. The My Lai massacre and the
massacres of Filipino civilians by Japanese troops share a common psychology
with the Nazi murder of millions of Jews and others. The random bombings of
London and the mass fire bomb raids against Dresden and Japanese cities killed
millions of civilians. The nuclear weapons still in the arsenals of many
nations threaten the killing of millions in one blow. 21st Century humans are
still ready to kill not 120, but 120,000 at a time. And over 3000 people were
killed on 9/11/2001 by a few Islamic jihadists. This is a problem not of
Mormons, but of all human beings.
Anonymous | 10:22 a.m. July 21, 2008
Bear Rug,
Your sarcasm is a juvenile as your little "fingers pointing back" cliche (which means absolutely nothing, by the way). Save it for the playground.
What is wrong with people today believing they can actually know about something that happened over 100 years ago? Don't YOU claim to "know" (beyond a shadow of a doubt ) that Joseph Smith had a vision over 100 years ago? And don't you claim to "know" so many things about his life -- so much so that you "have a testimony" and savor the wonderful images in your mind of him praying innocently in the grove of trees, and you have confidence in you IMAGINATION of all those events that happened well over 100 years ago!?
No, nobody alive today was at Mountain Meadows. But neither was anybody alive today at the "Sacred Grove"! So by your own admission, "We weren't there. We won't be able to answer EVERY question about this episode. Our modern-day leaders will not be able to answer every question."
But you still claim to "know"! How foolishly arrogant and self-deceived you are!
Your sarcasm is a juvenile as your little "fingers pointing back" cliche (which means absolutely nothing, by the way). Save it for the playground.
What is wrong with people today believing they can actually know about something that happened over 100 years ago? Don't YOU claim to "know" (beyond a shadow of a doubt ) that Joseph Smith had a vision over 100 years ago? And don't you claim to "know" so many things about his life -- so much so that you "have a testimony" and savor the wonderful images in your mind of him praying innocently in the grove of trees, and you have confidence in you IMAGINATION of all those events that happened well over 100 years ago!?
No, nobody alive today was at Mountain Meadows. But neither was anybody alive today at the "Sacred Grove"! So by your own admission, "We weren't there. We won't be able to answer EVERY question about this episode. Our modern-day leaders will not be able to answer every question."
But you still claim to "know"! How foolishly arrogant and self-deceived you are!
K2 | 10:25 a.m. July 21, 2008
Good move by Chuckles55 and wife to visit the site and also, Lee's Ferry.
This will give helpful insight as to our viewpoints other than just reading the
book.
And Richard, concerning everything coming out being hypothetical - we study and learn about the past such that we can ponder our present and future. I'm not sure that hypothetical is the right word when pertinent information has been stored in private vaults and not accessible. Good point of yours, that apparently not too many fully grasp, is that one must try (the difficult part) to view events in the continuity of the social dynamic of the time and circumstances, e.g., no cell phones. [:>)
And Richard, concerning everything coming out being hypothetical - we study and learn about the past such that we can ponder our present and future. I'm not sure that hypothetical is the right word when pertinent information has been stored in private vaults and not accessible. Good point of yours, that apparently not too many fully grasp, is that one must try (the difficult part) to view events in the continuity of the social dynamic of the time and circumstances, e.g., no cell phones. [:>)
Anna Rose | 10:27 a.m. July 21, 2008
I agree with Elizabeth. This book needs to be fair for both sides of the M.M.M.
fence or it will indeed never end. There are thousands and thousands of Mormon
descendants form the M.M.Massacre who suffer over this horrible event, just as
those do from the massacred group. It is time for peace. Some people out there
need get over their hate, venomous anger and learn to forgive. We need the
spirit of God, and not the spirit of the devil to heal, so that there can peace
for all.
William | 11:23 a.m. July 21, 2008
Re Raymond Takashi Swensen, Elizabeth, & Anna Rose
Thank for writing comments that make sense. I fully agree with you 3 people. Peace & Forgiveness = Love and Godliness.
Hate, hating and stirring up Hate = The Devil & Hell.
Thank for writing comments that make sense. I fully agree with you 3 people. Peace & Forgiveness = Love and Godliness.
Hate, hating and stirring up Hate = The Devil & Hell.
Does it matter? | 11:32 a.m. July 21, 2008
Does it really matter who did what?
Can we move past this?
Are we going to dig BY up from his grave and try him?
Can we move past this?
Are we going to dig BY up from his grave and try him?
Anonymous II | 11:40 a.m. July 21, 2008
Raymond,
You are partially correct. What you ignore is that all of these examples you cite are examples NOT of horrible things being done "out of fear for themselves and their families." Rather, they are done by people who identify themselves with an organization, and who are coerced or deceived into such horrible acts by powerful leaders who use them like pawns to manipulate and deceive.
The Stake President who ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre claimed to be acting on orders from above, as did John D. Lee. Massacres of Indian encampments happened in the name of "Manifest Destiny" and the policy of the U.S. Government at the time. Those like my uncle who participated in the My Lai massacre DID NOT VOLUNTEER to go to Vietnam! They were DRAFTED! The SS members were also COERCED in the Nazi murder of millions of Jews and gays.
The Obedience to authority doctrines in the Church are no different in that regard than the obedience to authority policies in the military. It is the glue that binds the exploited pawn to their kings so the kings can carry out their will and then deny the bad stuff by blaming the pawns!
You are partially correct. What you ignore is that all of these examples you cite are examples NOT of horrible things being done "out of fear for themselves and their families." Rather, they are done by people who identify themselves with an organization, and who are coerced or deceived into such horrible acts by powerful leaders who use them like pawns to manipulate and deceive.
The Stake President who ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre claimed to be acting on orders from above, as did John D. Lee. Massacres of Indian encampments happened in the name of "Manifest Destiny" and the policy of the U.S. Government at the time. Those like my uncle who participated in the My Lai massacre DID NOT VOLUNTEER to go to Vietnam! They were DRAFTED! The SS members were also COERCED in the Nazi murder of millions of Jews and gays.
The Obedience to authority doctrines in the Church are no different in that regard than the obedience to authority policies in the military. It is the glue that binds the exploited pawn to their kings so the kings can carry out their will and then deny the bad stuff by blaming the pawns!
Jackie | 12:08 p.m. July 21, 2008
To Anonymous
I agree, leaders of people can bring their followers down to hell, and than run from the hell that they themselves have created for their followers. And then act pious and innocent like they never, never knew or had anything to do with the evil massacre they encouraged and created their followers to engage in. Leaders and their cowardly acts always SHOVE SHOVE SHOVE the blame to someone else... that makes them a true coward.
I hope someday there will be peace for MMM ALL VICTIMS on BOTH SIDES!
I agree, leaders of people can bring their followers down to hell, and than run from the hell that they themselves have created for their followers. And then act pious and innocent like they never, never knew or had anything to do with the evil massacre they encouraged and created their followers to engage in. Leaders and their cowardly acts always SHOVE SHOVE SHOVE the blame to someone else... that makes them a true coward.
I hope someday there will be peace for MMM ALL VICTIMS on BOTH SIDES!
Ernest T. Bass | 12:21 p.m. July 21, 2008
D. Michael, thanks again for the dictionary lesson. Saves me the need to buy
one.
And yes, "perogitive" sounds right to me and 99% of the population. Or maybe I'm just "ignernt".
So, why don't we EVER hear an objective history of the Church unless we go to a source other than the Church itself?
Why don't they tell us the background on the expostor or the background on the extermination order; with regards to Sidney Rigdon's speech, or polygamy; the ages of some brides along with the fact they many of them were already married to other men.
"Spin" is not objective. The LDS Church as a source is not objective, therefore they "spin" things to sound favorable.
Maybe I should type slower so you could understand.
Doubt it.
And yes, "perogitive" sounds right to me and 99% of the population. Or maybe I'm just "ignernt".
So, why don't we EVER hear an objective history of the Church unless we go to a source other than the Church itself?
Why don't they tell us the background on the expostor or the background on the extermination order; with regards to Sidney Rigdon's speech, or polygamy; the ages of some brides along with the fact they many of them were already married to other men.
"Spin" is not objective. The LDS Church as a source is not objective, therefore they "spin" things to sound favorable.
Maybe I should type slower so you could understand.
Doubt it.
Let's Learn From the Past | 12:39 p.m. July 21, 2008
As I've read these comments, it is clear there are two lessons to be
learned from the Mountain Meadows Massacre:
1) NEVER put blind faith in authority of any kind! This is especially true of religious authority because the emotions associated with spirituality are confusing and dangerous.
2) LDS Church leaders are NOT immune from making mistakes, sinning, and leading their followers wrong ("astray").
So long as we keep those two very important lessons in mind, perhaps something good can come from this tragedy.
But if we fail to learn these two important lessons, not only will those people have died in vain, but history will repeat itself and more people will be harmed or murdered in the name of obedience to authority!
1) NEVER put blind faith in authority of any kind! This is especially true of religious authority because the emotions associated with spirituality are confusing and dangerous.
2) LDS Church leaders are NOT immune from making mistakes, sinning, and leading their followers wrong ("astray").
So long as we keep those two very important lessons in mind, perhaps something good can come from this tragedy.
But if we fail to learn these two important lessons, not only will those people have died in vain, but history will repeat itself and more people will be harmed or murdered in the name of obedience to authority!
Just the Facts | 12:45 p.m. July 21, 2008
Chuckles55,
It is good you saw the monument.
Too bad you couldn't have seen several of the previous monuments that have been erected there over the years.
Brigham Young ordered at least one of those previous monuments destroyed!
That is an historical fact.
Sounds like he wasn't interested in the truth, doesn't it.
Would any of you apologists like to try to explain how ANY circumstances (fear of the government, etc.) could possibly explain Brigham Young ordering a monument destroyed years after the fact?!
It is good you saw the monument.
Too bad you couldn't have seen several of the previous monuments that have been erected there over the years.
Brigham Young ordered at least one of those previous monuments destroyed!
That is an historical fact.
Sounds like he wasn't interested in the truth, doesn't it.
Would any of you apologists like to try to explain how ANY circumstances (fear of the government, etc.) could possibly explain Brigham Young ordering a monument destroyed years after the fact?!
Typical LDS logic | 12:52 p.m. July 21, 2008
To Tina and all the others | 1:26 a.m
"heaven forbid that true scholarship and examination of the historical record should stand in the way of something your hunches tell you is true."
You should try applying that same logic to the Book of Mormon.
You can't pick and choose where to apply facts in order to determine the truth.
"heaven forbid that true scholarship and examination of the historical record should stand in the way of something your hunches tell you is true."
You should try applying that same logic to the Book of Mormon.
You can't pick and choose where to apply facts in order to determine the truth.
D. Michael Bass | 1:43 p.m. July 21, 2008
Ernest T.,
On the contrary, I think a dictionary would be a rather sound investment for you. And, yes, type slower, you might make fewer mistakes(e.g., "expostor").
Just how would you define "objective"? And when did it become the Church's responsibility to present opposing viewpoints? If you don't trust the Church--and clearly you don't-- you can go to other sources.
But can you even name an "objective" source? The Church is no less "objective," than its critics (you included.) Consequently your frequent shouts of "spin! spin!" continue to ring hollow. You have yet to show how the Church and FARMS "spin" anything. You have failed to even define "spin" in any cogent way. You simply continue to assert that people "spin." You seem to assume that "viewpoint" and "spin" are synonymous. They are not.
Just asserting something over and over--the broken record approach--does not make said assertion a fact. And, yes, "broken record" is an apt metaphor here considering your fondness for the word "spin."
If you have all the facts regarding MMM, polygamy, the Nauvoo Expositor episode, etc., by all means lay them out and enlighten us all. You still haven't cited one.
On the contrary, I think a dictionary would be a rather sound investment for you. And, yes, type slower, you might make fewer mistakes(e.g., "expostor").
Just how would you define "objective"? And when did it become the Church's responsibility to present opposing viewpoints? If you don't trust the Church--and clearly you don't-- you can go to other sources.
But can you even name an "objective" source? The Church is no less "objective," than its critics (you included.) Consequently your frequent shouts of "spin! spin!" continue to ring hollow. You have yet to show how the Church and FARMS "spin" anything. You have failed to even define "spin" in any cogent way. You simply continue to assert that people "spin." You seem to assume that "viewpoint" and "spin" are synonymous. They are not.
Just asserting something over and over--the broken record approach--does not make said assertion a fact. And, yes, "broken record" is an apt metaphor here considering your fondness for the word "spin."
If you have all the facts regarding MMM, polygamy, the Nauvoo Expositor episode, etc., by all means lay them out and enlighten us all. You still haven't cited one.
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.
Richard Turley, left, and Ron Walker, co-authors of "Massacre at Mountain Meadows," at the Church Office Building in Salt Lake City in June.
- Comparison of health care bills 5:29 p.m.
- Man holding wife mentally captive 5:28 p.m.
- Dems seek expansion of Medicare 5:28 p.m.
- Pet treats for the holidays 5:26 p.m.
- TCU versus BSU unpopular 5:24 p.m.
- Purr-fect presents for pets 5:23 p.m.
- Mantel enhances the season's mood 5:19 p.m.
- Man accused of making threats 5:18 p.m.
- BCS reform still needed 5:10 p.m.
- Messy Monday commute 5:04 p.m.
- Letters: Liberal because LDS
277 - Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing253
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl199
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry190
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage140
- Cougars going back to Vegas140
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil125
- Letters: Global warming a lie120
- George lost in rivalry hatefest119
That does it — I'm having an affair! Thanks to Tiger Woods, David...
Latest comments
How can Cincinnati Leap over TCU to No. 4 on a last second missed extra point...
Mr. Holmoe, taking the necessary action requires leadership. If you are not...
Guess we'll find out if your logic holds next year. Breaking in a new QB...
RE: Todd | 4:19 p.m. | 4:40 p.m. Dec. 7, 2009 Democratic (possiably...
Your response is pretty "fishy" too. Anyway royalty isn't red; even its...
No debate is allowed. "Climategate" has verified that if you criticize...
Normally I would cheer for BYU against Oregon State but seeing that I have no...
UTe fans logic? | 4:34 p.m. Dec. 7, 2009 It doesn't matter that Wynn will...
Isn't it funny how a nation like Iran, who has never invaded another nation...
CJ,first off,no one hates you but a bunch of us question your commitment and...
Advertisements
Apprently their was something very disagreeable or wrong with this wagon train.
What is it?
What is being covered up or atleast not talked about?
Why were the people told not to help this wagon train as opposed to other wagon trains?
Why is all focus on the church and who was or wasn't involved in the massacre?
Who were these wagon train people?
Why do we know so little about them and their past?
Why were they denied help in their travels through utah?
Who are these arkansasans? what is their past?