Comments about ‘LDS Church historian concludes Brigham Young did not order 1857 massacre’

So, the Church hired one of its own to determine if one of its own ordered an act of brutality and found insufficient evidence -- way to go LDS!

Well that's a surprise!!!

lololol you both are soo funny. What you are saying is that the only out come that you would find acceptable and believe is one of "guilt" by brigham young??

I'm not even a Mormon. active or jack, but i recognize that there are different possablities than just guilt.

What did your research show? and can you share it with the community to discredit this story?

If so I will listen with open ears and mind. Until that time, this looks like the best report on the subject.

Oh by the way they did say that it was thier oppinion that there was'nt enough evidence to say that he did or did not order it.

Inconclusive but wieghing against the oppinion that he (brigham) did order the massacre. By deduction, there is still that possiblity,

which leaves the door open even in thier minds (although slightly ajar). Do your scholarly best and prove them wrong. We all (the christian community) are is search of the truth. "for it shall set us free"

Another case of the powerful attempting to rewrite history. Old Brigham ordered the attack, and everyone knows it.

Matrix, did you skip reading the second paragraph in the article, a direct quote, second sentence. To wit:
... on Saturday his conclusion, "based on the totality of evidence, is that Brigham Young did not order the massacre."

You say you will listen with open ears and mind, however it appears you wear blinders. Guess it is true that some hear(see) what they want to hear (see) and disregard the rest.

Do your scholarly best to refute the quoted expert.

Come now, Historian, don't say completely idiotic things without backing them up.

Hey! No one in their right mind would ever believe Brigham Young had nothing to do with the Mountain Meadows Massacre. This is an total insult, a total lie, and to blame only faithful LDS members who were involved in the massacre, and most of them did not run and hide from the fact of the matter. Just because Brigham Young was not right at the massacre, and was the president of the LDS church makes him NO LESS guilty then all the rest of the LDS Mormon members. That really burns me up! That is SO COWARDLY! Many of those members in southern Utah gave everything they owned to the church. Now the church turns it's back on those pioneer members and lets them take the complete blame. SHAME ON THE SO CALLED RESEARCHER! Sounds to me like a mafia group.

What a coincidence! You wouldn't expect a MORMON historian to say that there actually is evidence to the contrary.

This is a lie! I am so appalled! There are others who have written diaries that say differently. Shame on the LDS church. Sounds like we are headed in the same direction as the FLDS liars.

In secular news;there is insufficient evidence to say that Joseph Smith & the church is true & ample evidence that it's not!
Next week- church leaders find that Mark Hoffman never existed.

I have studied and read all the history I could find on the MMM, and Brigham Young most definitely ordered the Massacre. Those faithful LDS member of Southern Utah did not think this up all by themselves. This was Brigham Young's paranoia. John D Lee was Brigham Young's adopted and faithful servant, and would have done anything Brigham had of asked him to do, as would have all the rest of the Southern Utah LDS pioneers. I don't think it is fair to mark the rest without marking President Brigham Young as well.

I'm starting to think I should waste less time arguing on here. You people don't get anything straight.

Is it a crime now that the LDS holds in it's possession evidence? People attack the church saying that one of it's OWN historians with it's OWN evidence proving it is obviously false.

The early church members looking for shelter came to Utah. They were hated by many and most people tried to falsify things relating to the LDS church and many people tried to cover up ANYTHING good from the church. Members collected items and records partly because of revelation from Joseph to do so but also because no one else at that time cared enough for 'Mormons' to keep their history straight or at all anyway. So the church had good reason then, and what's wrong with keeping it now?

If you want to learn about my grandfather do you ask the man who hated him or do you ask me? I probably have his journal and my dad knew him better than the man who hated him...

It's a VERY logical thing for the Church to keep records and defend against any attack, especially a stupid/false one like this.

I too reject the conclusion of this historian. Everyone knows that a church historian can't possibly have any integrity and that only a good anti-mormon historian is capable of conclusions based on unbiased truth.
I also reject the so called evidence because it doesn't support the conclusion I prefer. After all, TV tells me that all tragedies can be traced to some high level of authority involved in some grand conspiracy. TV never lies people, therefore Brigham Young must be guilty!

Pravda...lol you are so funny....

(I love watching you mormons and non mormons go the rounds... are you a non or anti or exed mormon??)

both side should be fair... and none of you here are.. this is great a non-mormon deffending the mormons @ killing non-mormons I LOVE IT!!!

....you must have skipped the first paragraph just to zero in on the second one... haha... my every blinded by hate friend read:


"There is insufficient evidence to say former LDS Church President Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and ample evidence that says he did not, according to the church's assistant historian."

read what is said and interpret. He did not say that there was no evidence... "just insufficient evidence" (that means that there was evidence.. in case you were wondering)

and more or sufficient,(that's what ample means) evidence that says he did not. He did not say for sure or beyond a shadow of a doubt.

more like he meant beyond a reasonable doubt or even beyond a preponderance of the evidence.

lol your turn
sincerely,

your brother in christ matrix

You are nothing EVEN CLOSE to a historian.

The powerful? It isn't like there are a lot of people against them, good reason to put a lot of effort into DEFENDING yourself. How are they rewriting history by presenting evidence which cannot be falsified and stating that there is no for certain fact but that there is more evidence on one side for the time being... how is that forcing history to be rewritten?

Oh and the whole bit about everyone 'knowing it' is as un-fact/historian/truth-seeking as you could have possibly made it.

I KNOW that Brigham didn't do it simply because NOTHING in his life at any other point could reference this type of decision when ALL others by him and the church leadership at the time don't have any relationship to this type of behavior.

The only purpose for pushing this event at this day and age with out ANY WHERE NEAR enough evidence to prove anything is ONLY to try to disprove the LDS church as a true church or only to hurt the church.

I'm not saying this in ignorance; I only state that without sufficient evidence this is only an attack.

Shame on anti-thinking.

This was no Salem witch hunt! Give me a break!

Google "Wife No. 19" and you'll get the shock of your life.

I am a very old man and my great grandfather remembered the Massacre. He always said Brigham Young ordered the massacre. That those Mormon men would do anything Brother Brigham Would want them to do. It's not good to blame the faithful servants without blaming the leader.

You mean like the ad in the Trib years ago searching for someone to write the MMM history such that it would implicate Brigham Young, to which Will Bagley replied, auditioned, and won the all-expensed paid job? You mean THAT kind of unbiased history?

Bagley himself admits his own evidence, interpreted in the most generous way in his favor, is still only circumstantial. I've read his so-called "damning evidence" (Huntington journal), and it is weak at best. Mulitiple other interpretations are possible and much more likely given the full body and string of evidence.

The first paragaph of the article states the reality of the evidence very accurately and succinctly. Unfortunately, for a certain audience, anything but a guilty verdict for BY will be unsatisfactory. For those people, the absence of evidence seems to be the best evidence of all. Such hand wringing does injustice to MMM victims' memory.

Google "Sounding Brass" to see how reliable Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning's history is, if she could ever get it straight. 19th century melodrama at its worst.