Mountain Meadows

[_the road to hana]

Over on the MA&D board, I asked if Larsen's take on the inscription could possibly be sustained by people who knew English really, really well.

So far the count is 7 to 1.5 The only votes for Larsen, come from Larsen, himself, and a sort of "I'm trying to be nice without actually say Larsen's post was a crock" from runtu. Well, maybe I read a little into runti's comment. But then he does know English pretty well.

The difficulty with the monument as placed by the LDS Church is that it makes it confusing who exactly lost their lives on that site. To someone unfamiliar with the story, it might appear that the reason the church had erected the monument is because it was Mormon pioneers who died there.

I think my monument goes further to decry the action than the one the church erected, and I also agree with those who suggest that the church is using product placement.

I think they should have chosen the better part by not putting their name on the monument at all, or having something at the bottom (in small print) that said that the monument was jointly placed by descendants of the survivors and the LDS Church.

[_Blixa]

You didn't think the green rolling hills, the pastures and horses and the surrounding trees were beautiful? I did. I could see why the early travelers would have thought it was a nice place to stop and rest.

The area had a eerie, haunted feeling, even though the countryside was lovely...also there were only a couple other people who came to visit it while I was there.

Maybe its an effect of when I've been there---always in the fall, so no greenery! I LOVE the southern Utah landscape, too, but my visits there have always been overwhelmed by my knowledge of events.

Apparently it was quite lush and verdant when emigrants did use it as a regular "recruiting" (meaning rest/grazing) stop. Did you know that Alexander Fancher had even been there before? He'd made the trip from Arkansas to California twice before---the other time he took the longer Northern route. I've heard contemporary historians opine that the meadow we see now is probably only a third of the actual land that was there in 1857. There's a fascinating article from 1929 that records the major environmental changes up to that point (and cateloges earlier descriptions of its pleasant qualities---John C. Fremont and Parley P. Pratt are mentioned in particular!)

[_Boaz & Lidia]

[_ludwigm]

Most appear quite reasonable, not out for LDS blood, and are still quite grieved over the fate of their descendents.

Pssst. "Ancestors." But that isn't even really a correct statement. There are few direct Fancher train descendants. (Remember they were killed. Dead people don't produce offspring. And only a few survived.) But there are many Fancher train relations.
And I wonder about those who grieve for people they were only marginally related to and never knew, after a period of at least 100 years has gone by. My great-greatgrandfather and one of his sons (a brother to my great grandfather) were ambused an killed by a neighbor. John Taney laid in wait and shot them in a dispute over the boundary of their land claims. These deaths happened in the 1860's. Do I expect the Taney family to erect a monument? NO. Do I grieve over these deaths? NO. And if I were to do so, it would be indicative of a dysfunctional personality.
Can I be sorry that this family tragedy occurred almost 150 years ago? Of course. But to "grieve?" Ask any grief counselor and he/she will tell you this is a sign of mental dysfunction.

Cold, just plain cold.

------------------------
"Remember they were killed"
- Yes. This is the goal. Remember them!

------------------------
"And I wonder about those ... after 100 years ..." & "Can I be sorry that ... 150 years ago ..."

- during Mongol (we call them "tartars") invasion of Hungary, in 1241-42 they destroyed the H. army including the king, then ransacked the area. The Mongol Republic of People - some way the successor state - around in 60's (~800 years later, use Google for correct data) has asked forgiveness. (apologized, if You like more this word. It is not the same as explaining that this was useful, as far as I know.)

- RC ( = the pope ) has burned Giordano Bruno at the stake on Feb. 17, 1600. They/he apologized around in 70's, I think. (~400 years later, use Google for correct data)

In the asking forgiveness, "The Church" has 250 or 450 years to reach the level of "The Church of the Devil" or of "the Barbarian Mongols".

[_antishock8]

From what I can read on your photos, John Larsen, if I were non-LDS traveling there and happened upon the monument, I would think it was a monument to Mormon's that had been massacred.

Exactly.

[_richardMdBorn]

Most appear quite reasonable, not out for LDS blood, and are still quite grieved over the fate of their descendents.

Pssst. "Ancestors." But that isn't even really a correct statement. There are few direct Fancher train descendants. (Remember they were killed. Dead people don't produce offspring. And only a few survived.) But there are many Fancher train relations.

And I wonder about those who grieve for people they were only marginally related to and never knew, after a period of at least 100 years has gone by. My great-greatgrandfather and one of his sons (a brother to my great grandfather) were ambused an killed by a neighbor. John Taney laid in wait and shot them in a dispute over the boundary of their land claims. These deaths happened in the 1860's. Do I expect the Taney family to erect a monument? NO. Do I grieve over these deaths? NO. And if I were to do so, it would be indicative of a dysfunctional personality.

Can I be sorry that this family tragedy occurred almost 150 years ago? Of course. But to "grieve?" Ask any grief counselor and he/she will tell you this is a sign of mental dysfunction.

One thing is certain. If the situation was reversed, and more than 100 LDS including women and children had been murdered by non-LDS, we would never hear the end of it from LDS apologists.

[_antishock8]

Anyway. I think critics of the Mormon church get a lot of traction out of this small religious incident. To put it in perspective:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ details current Islamic violence perpetrated against apostates and the kaffir, but for a really interesting perspective on their capacity for violence one should become familiar with the Muslim conquest of India. Who cries for the Hindu tens of millions killed by Muslim overlords, invaders, and occupiers?

What's my point? This Mountain Meadows thing is nothing. NOTHING, compared to what's going on in the world right now, and the faux outrage critics levy at the church is assholish. I don't see anyone commenting on Darfur, where Christians and Animists are getting slaughtered by Islamic militias (funded by Wahhabist money and armed by Chinese guns and bullets). I don't see anyone bitching about Islamic conquests of Christian lands in Europe, where hundreds of thousands were slaughtered and even more were sold into slavery in Muslim lands. I don't see anyone griping about Ican conquest, that in less than 250 years covered more territory than most empires could dream of... But in doing do indigenous peoples were murdered and enslaved by the hundreds of thousands. And the critics of the church want to keep harping on the Mountain Meadow Massacre? Really? Because nearly a million Tutsis were murdered by Hutus, and you want me to get hung up on 120 something settlers? Jesus. A million plus Armenians by Muslim Turks. Droves killed by Aztecs. Bucket loads slaughtered by the Khans. Hundreds of thousands killed by the Han and Ming dynasties. And you want me to feel perpetually pissed off over 120 Arkansas settlers? C'mon now. This is pure propaganda by critics. The church admitted enough, built some monuments, and too many books have been written about this. Hell, Tacitus records hundreds of thousands being slaughtered by the Romans and vice versa just in his lifetime. The cruelty and barbarity of the world is etched and memorialzed in blood, oceans of blood.

And the critics want me to rend my garmets over 120. Jesus. It's foul. The critics disrespect the billions killed and forgotten by far crueler hands. But damn us all to hell if we don't feel bad about a 120 at Mountain Meadows. In ONE week Islamists have:

Feb. 09 - Feb. 15

Jihad Attacks: 39

Dead Bodies: 228

Critically Injured: 288

Critics of the church, and the Mountain Meadow Cultists need a reality check. Was it tragic? Yes. All deaths are tragic. Was the church involved? Yes. It was. Did the church offer a mea culpa? Pretty much. Time to move on. Jesus. There are far more pressing emergencies, and far more vicious and aggressive religions and ideologies in this world that offer more of a threat than the Mormon church does. 228. This week alone. THIS. WEEK.

Let it go, people. Let it go...

[_sunstoned]

Here's the monument I'd erect on the site:

ON THIS SITE IN SEPTEMBER 1857
OVER 120 INNOCENT SOULS
JOURNEYING WESTWARD FROM ARKANSAS TO CALIFORNIA
IN SEARCH OF A BETTER LIFE
WERE MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD
BY THOSE WHO SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THEM SAFE PASSAGE

MAY THOSE MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN OF THE BAKER-FANCHER PARTY
WHO ON THIS PLAIN LOST THEIR LIVES
REST IN A PEACE THEY NEVER FOUND

AND MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON THE SOULS OF THOSE
WHO WERE THEIR EXECUTIONERS

And those who covered it up and claimed to be prophets of God.

...and their cold hearted leader who had the original monument torn down.

[_richardMdBorn]

Anyway. I think critics of the Mormon church get a lot of traction out of this small religious incident. To put it in perspective:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ details current Islamic violence perpetrated against apostates and the kaffir, but for a really interesting perspective on their capacity for violence one should become familiar with the Muslim conquest of India. Who cries for the Hindu tens of millions killed by Muslim overlords, invaders, and occupiers?

What's my point? This Mountain Meadows thing is nothing. NOTHING, compared to what's going on in the world right now, and the faux outrage critics levy at the church is assholish. I don't see anyone commenting on Darfur, where Christians and Animists are getting slaughtered by Islamic militias (funded by Wahhabist money and armed by Chinese guns and bullets). I don't see anyone bitching about Islamic conquests of Christian lands in Europe, where hundreds of thousands were slaughtered and even more were sold into slavery in Muslim lands. I don't see anyone griping about Ican conquest, that in less than 250 years covered more territory than most empires could dream of... But in doing do indigenous peoples were murdered and enslaved by the hundreds of thousands. And the critics of the church want to keep harping on the Mountain Meadow Massacre? Really? Because nearly a million Tutsis were murdered by Hutus, and you want me to get hung up on 120 something settlers? Jesus. A million plus Armenians by Muslim Turks. Droves killed by Aztecs. Bucket loads slaughtered by the Khans. Hundreds of thousands killed by the Han and Ming dynasties. And you want me to feel perpetually pissed off over 120 Arkansas settlers? C'mon now. This is pure propaganda by critics. The church admitted enough, built some monuments, and too many books have been written about this. Hell, Tacitus records hundreds of thousands being slaughtered by the Romans and vice versa just in his lifetime. The cruelty and barbarity of the world is etched and memorialzed in blood, oceans of blood.

And the critics want me to rend my garmets over 120. Jesus. It's foul. The critics disrespect the billions killed and forgotten by far crueler hands. But damn us all to hell if we don't feel bad about a 120 at Mountain Meadows. In ONE week Islamists have:

Feb. 09 - Feb. 15

Jihad Attacks: 39

Dead Bodies: 228

Critically Injured: 288

Critics of the church, and the Mountain Meadow Cultists need a reality check. Was it tragic? Yes. All deaths are tragic. Was the church involved? Yes. It was. Did the church offer a mea culpa? Pretty much. Time to move on. Jesus. There are far more pressing emergencies, and far more vicious and aggressive religions and ideologies in this world that offer more of a threat than the Mormon church does. 228. This week alone. THIS. WEEK.

Let it go, people. Let it go...

I agree that Islamic persecution is terrible. But note this article from the 1978 Ensign:

n October 1838, an anti-Mormon mob fell upon Smith Humphrey, pillaged his Missouri home, burned it, and ordered him to leave the area. He did, but not long afterward another mob abducted him, took four hundred dollars in cash from his wagon and a thousand dollars worth of goods, and drove him out of the state. (History of the Church, 4:62)

Experiences such as this happened again and again in the early days of the Church. The Mormons received brutal treatment almost steadily from the time Joseph Smith announced his first vision in 1820 until nearly the end of the century. And we cannot help asking: “Why were the Saints so severely persecuted?”

http://www.LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?v ... urceId=f37 4d0640b96b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
If the LDS church can complain about events that occurred 140 years ago (1978-1838), critics whould be allowed to disucss events that occurred 150 years ago.

[_antishock8]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... index.html

An Islamic suicide-murderer exploded a bomb in a crowd of people gathering to watch dog fighting, killing at least 80 people and wounding dozens more in the western section of Kandahar continuing over a thousand years of religiously motivated murder which has amassed more than a hundred million deaths.

In one sentence a myopic thread like this is rendered inane and ridiculous.