Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply

Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

 
Total votes: 0

_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Should the Church apologize for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Post by _moksha »

Of course Brigham Young was not involved. He was in Salt Lake City.

Still, I wonder why he had the cross destroyed and the stones of the burial cairn strewn about and what did he mean by "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord and I have taken some"? As far as I know, he had never met any of the wagon train members and grave desecration is not sanctioned anywhere in Mormon Doctrine. Did he really view these departed souls as the enemy?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Yahoo Bot
_Emeritus
Posts: 3219
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:37 pm

Re: Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Post by _Yahoo Bot »

Buffalo wrote:
bcspace wrote:As with all MMM threads so far, there seems to be no evidence that "the Church" or Brigham Young were involved in it or even responsible for it; just hopeful and vulture-like speculation.


They covered it up, which makes them, at minimum, accessories to mass murder.


What is the best evidence that th Church covered it up? Anything better than your sig line quote which is evidence of nothing?

Your posts can be disingenuous only so long before mainstream LDS posters tire of it, so I'm hoping you'll give me response.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Post by _Quasimodo »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Buffalo wrote:Proven: the church covered it up.

Buffalo wrote:Is this supposed to be a meaningful response?

Yes, it is.

History, as I understand it, is an empirical discipline.

When the facts are presented in the forthcoming book, I think they will show your confidence to have been misplaced.

In the meantime, this is helpful:

http://www.fairwiki.org/Mountain_Meadow ... rosecution

And you might want to get a copy of Professor Thomas Alexander's presentation on the topic, given up in Logan some years back.


Sorry, Doc. The church has to take the fall on this one.

The perpitraitors were agents of the Church. Brigham ruled with an iron fist and I don't think the militia would have acted in such a violent manner had it not been approved beforehand.

I can understand your desire (emotional) to defend Brigham in this, but I don't think it will stand up to scrutiny.

If you can post an unbiased history that does not blame the Church, I will give it some consideration.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_Yahoo Bot
_Emeritus
Posts: 3219
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:37 pm

Re: Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Post by _Yahoo Bot »

Quasimodo wrote:perpitraitors


Perhaps you haven't even read Brooks, Bagley, Wise or Bancroft.
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Post by _Quasimodo »

Yahoo Bot wrote:
Quasimodo wrote:perpitraitors


Perhaps you haven't even read Brooks, Bagley, Wise or Bancroft.


Nope, I haven't. If I can find them, I will.

I do have an in law that is a direct descendant of Daniel Duncan McArthur. Their family history has Brigham as the villain. They believe that John D. Lee was a scapegoat.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_Willy Law
_Emeritus
Posts: 1623
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:53 pm

Re: Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Post by _Willy Law »

Yahoo Bot wrote:
What is the best evidence that th Church covered it up? Anything better than your sig line quote which is evidence of nothing?



You have stated in the past that you believe there was a cover up by the higher ups in the church. Do you no longer believe this?
It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent.
Bruce R. McConkie
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Post by _cinepro »

liz3564 wrote:
jon wrote:Descendants of the Baker-Fancher wagon train have fought for years to memorialise their ancestors and to wrestle an apology from leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Those words have not come. (from The Daily Mail online newspaper article about the new memorial)

Please feel free to provide supporting references for your vote

When the memorial was built, I was under the impression that the Church gave a very heart-felt apology regarding the loss of those who suffered. I don't think that the Church took complete blame, but I was under the impression that they did give a nice tribute to the families, and funded the memorial.

True, or untrue?

And, does someone have on file exactly what WAS said by the Church when the memorial was established?


LDS Church Issues Apology Over Mountain Meadows
_Baker
_Emeritus
Posts: 490
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:01 am

Re: Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Post by _Baker »



Elder Eyring doesn't seem at all confused that it was local "church" leaders who directed the massacre. Given the expression of "regret", I don't see the value in pushing for anything more. As I noted earlier, both victims and perpetrators are long deceased. The separate expression of "regret" to the Paiutes seems more significant, as that reputational stain carried on for some time afterwards.
"I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. ... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I." - Joseph Smith, 1844
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Post by _Quasimodo »

Baker wrote:Elder Eyring doesn't seem at all confused that it was local "church" leaders who directed the massacre. Given the expression of "regret", I don't see the value in pushing for anything more. As I noted earlier, both victims and perpetrators are long deceased. The separate expression of "regret" to the Paiutes seems more significant, as that reputational stain carried on for some time afterwards.


I agree that an apology now would have no value. I'm guessing that the descendants of the victims have long forgotten that they are descendants of the victims.

I do think that it is an important event in the history of the Church. I think it gives an insight as to how the Church (Brigham Young as dictator) was organized and operated in those days and should be examined.

The LDS Church in Utah is the creation of Brigham Young (marginally of Joseph Smith). Church history has a bearing on current Church practices.

If the LDS Church wants to be honest, it needs to accept and own up to it's own history.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_Yahoo Bot
_Emeritus
Posts: 3219
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:37 pm

Re: Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Post by _Yahoo Bot »

Willy Law wrote:
Yahoo Bot wrote:
What is the best evidence that th Church covered it up? Anything better than your sig line quote which is evidence of nothing?



You have stated in the past that you believe there was a cover up by the higher ups in the church. Do you no longer believe this?


No I haven't.

What's a coverup?

Federal authorities knew within two or three weeks, as did Brigham Young, that John D. Lee and the Mormons led the Indians into the attack. This information was reported in California papers within a month. Major Carleton clearly understood that the Mormons were responsible, as he was the first federal authority on the scene a few weeks after the incident. He authored a report to Congress recommended that all Mormons in Utah be killed.

Although the U.S. Marshal's office had a devil of a time locating and arresting the perps, federal surveyors used them as guides, including Lee, knowing they were hunted men.

And then, of course, Brigham Young offered to provide a Mormon territorial marshal to the offices of the U.S. Marshal to arrest all the perps. Brigham Young knew who the perps were. But, the U.S. Marshal's office had a policy of not hiring Mormons and foreigners.

So what is the coverup? That the Mormons did it? The whereabouts of Lee, Haight, Dame and the others?
Post Reply