Mountain Meadows

[_the road to hana]

One wrongful death is one too many. One act of vengeance is one too many. One use of religion to cloak violence is one too many.

[_John Larsen]

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 think you are missing the point. My criticism is about a monument that exists today.

[cacheman]

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.

What?? I said I can see exactly where John is coming from. I said the same thing there that I said here. I can indeed see how that monument would be seen as self-congratulatory. There's no acknowledgment of who did the killing, who died and why, and certainly no expression of remorse. Nope, it just says the church honors the dead.

[Anonymous]

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 think you are missing the point. My criticism is about a monument that exists today.

Reducing this to a discussion of numbers slain misses the point as John Larson said. While I suppose that's one way to looks at it, its not the way anyone is looking at it here. The thread is about the encoding of history via monuments and the creation of pubilc historical memory.

Anyway, I don't think the church did offer a mea culpa. I was standing 10 feet from Eyring during the alleged mea culpa and didn't hear one. Nor apparently did the Piaute representative that spoke next hear one. The reaction of the church's PR department to the suggestion that there was some sort of apology was pretty swift and certain on this point, as well.

Finally, are all deaths tragic? I don't think so.

Anyway, I'm interested in the event in terms of issues of the formation of cultural memory, the study of public monuments and monumental art and western americana. There's also an element of personal nostalgia in that I grew up in Utah and find its history and landscape of interest for that reason as well. I even acknowledge (as I did in a post on the thread on "substantial discussion" where JAK asked why I, and others "like me," were not as interested in criticizing all of Christianity) that the study of Mormonism is small and less urgent than other things. I don't however think that devoting time to the discussion of one topic can be seen as denigration of all other topics. I'm interested in questions of the representation of history and the MMM offers an interesting "laboratory" for some aspects of that study. The presentation of contemporary terrorism provides another instance for study of other angles of the issue as well.

[_Runtu]

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.

I can't believe I'm hearing this. Of course people grieve for their ancestors. We Mormons get all weepy over the events at Carthage, about the suffering of the Willie-Martin handcart company, and about the massacre at Haun's Mill. And we're most likely not related to these people! "Ask any grief counselor and he/she will tell you this is a sign of mental dysfunction."

It's unbelievable to me that you cannot even acknowledge the grief and pain these descendants feel. We grieve for our dead. Let the Fanchers grieve for theirs.

[_Always Thinking]

I seriously doubt that Hinkley or any other Mormon wishes that more people had been killed on that day. I'm quite certain that they would wish for the opposite, that it had never happened at all.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

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.

I tried to make this exact same argument to a group of sweet LDS sisters who were tearfully discussing the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and also the Hausn Mill massacre. You TBMs need to get over it. It's 2008 for crying out loud.

[_karl61]

That's a cool tie. Note that his pocket square just echoes it but does not match. Only thing he needs is a nice panama hat with a dark blue band.

[_the road to hana]

I tried to make this exact same argument to a group of sweet LDS sisters who were tearfully discussing the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and also the Hausn Mill massacre. You TBMs need to get over it. It's 2008 for crying out loud.

The last time I was at Liberty Jail in Carthage, Illinois, I got to endure a tour guide saying how this was, for Mormons, "Our Calvary."

I can't imagine that goes over well with nevermos.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

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.

And at least one chapter in the correlated lesson manuals would be dedicated to it.