The mountain meadows massacre wasn’t so bad

[Everybody Wang Chung]

If I recall correctly, Peregrinus once arrived at the chilling conclusion that, under the same circumstances, he would have been holding a weapon.

[Tom]

The Mountain Meadows Massacre occurred under very specific circumstances, which were, in a sense, a kind of “perfect storm” that would lead basically good people (their fundamental decency is demonstrated by their lives both before and after that fatal September 1857) to commit an unspeakable offense against a basically good group of strangers[.]

I invite the Proprietor to elaborate on what the fifty to sixty perpetrators of the massacre at Mountain Meadows did to demonstrate their “fundamental decency” in the aftermath of “that fatal September 1857.” Which perpetrators of the massacre took immediate and full responsibility for their heinous crimes? Which perpetrators of the massacre made, or attempted to make, recompense to the victims’ families?

[Marcus]

Too much plagiarism has apparently stunted someone's faculties of logical thought:

I see little if anything to suggest that the Latter-day Saints of Cedar City and its environs attacked the Baker-Fancher emigrant train solely or largely because it was made up of non-Latter-day Saints.

Except that later he agrees:

Was it a matter of “us versus them”? Of course it was. That’s a trivially obvious fact, common to every struggle between differing groups.

And again:

I see no evidence for the insinuation that a sense of “exceptionalism” led “the LDS pioneers” to see themselves as superior to moral law.

Except that later he, again, agrees:

Antidikos claims that “the LDS pioneers” viewed their action as “a holy act of survival.” I agree that they saw it, quite incorrectly but also, alas, rather understandably, as an act of survival.

Rearranging a few adjectives, his go-to for (inadequately) masking his plagiarisms, doesn't change the meaning.

In a prior post, this was stated:

...We make, and will make, no effort to justify the Massacre. It was a tragedy and a flagrant, murderous, injustice, and it is the worst black mark in its history against the Latter-day Saints and, unfortunately, their Church. That any of the Saints, who had long been driven and robbed and pillaged and oppressed and murdered, could have done such evil is almost beyond fathoming...

DCP would have made a better impression in this discussion if he had kept his word and just stopped there.

This from DCP:

...The Mountain Meadows Massacre occurred under very specific circumstances, which were, in a sense, a kind of “perfect storm” that would lead basically good people (their fundamental decency is demonstrated by their lives both before and after that fatal September 1857) to commit an unspeakable offense against a basically good group of strangers...

And since DCP's sense of morality seems fatally skewed, here is a reminder of some historical facts about these "basically good people" and their "fundamental decency":

...During the militia's first assault, the travelers fought back, and a five-day siege ensued. Eventually, fear spread among the militia's leaders that some immigrants had caught sight of the white men, likely discerning the actual identity of a majority of the attackers. As a result, militia commander William H. Dame ordered his forces to kill the travelers. By this time, the travelers were running low on water and provisions, and allowed some members of the militia – who approached under a white flag – to enter their camp. The militia members assured the immigrants they were protected, and after handing over their weapons, the immigrants were escorted away from their defensive position. After walking a distance from the camp, the militiamen, with the help of auxiliary forces hiding nearby, attacked the travelers. The perpetrators killed all the adults and older children in the group, in the end sparing only seventeen young children ages six and under.[a]

Following the massacre, the perpetrators buried some of the remains but ultimately left most of the bodies exposed to wild animals and the climate...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre

DCP described these attackers as "basically good people" with "fundamental decency." Dear God.

[drumdude]

DCP's sense of morality seems fatally skewed

Are you a Christian, MS? Genuinely curious. Or are you merely a run-of-the-mill atheist like most of the others who populate the Obsession Board, performing faux outrage?

As run-of-the-mill atheists, we apparently have no grounds to comment on Christian morality.

A large part of the time I read Dan’s blog, I think of that scripture mastery quote that they will make good evil and evil good. Isaiah 5:20. He’s a master at getting it exactly backwards. But I’m just a run of the mill atheist, I believe we’re all just molecules in motion.

[Rivendale]

Fundamentally decent both before and after the incident? Was it fundamentally decent to leave most of the victims laying on the ground? Was it Fundamentally decent to cover up the incident for over 20 years? Was it Fundamentally decent to petition the government for payment for housing the orphans? Was it Fundamentally decent to be on the lam for decades. Was it fundamentally decent to kill 60 women and children associated with the Sauk tribe before the massacre?

[Physics Guy]

No number of years of not murdering any children can establish that those who murdered once must have been fundamentally decent. No fundamentally decent person ever slaughters harmless and helpless people.

[drumdude]

No number of years of not murdering any children can establish that those who murdered once must have been fundamentally decent. No fundamentally decent person ever slaughters harmless and helpless people.

Religion is famously useful for getting decent people to do horrific things in the name of God. That’s the uncomfortable aspect of this that Dan wants to sweep under the rug.

[Gadianton]

And since DCP's sense of morality seems fatally skewed, here is a reminder of some historical facts about these "basically good people" and their "fundamental decency":

Right, this is run-of-the-mill Hitler apologetics. What would we have done if we'd lived during the Weimer Republic? Would we have been any better? We know Mormons thrived under Hitler, and I'd at least hope given I reject its complicit attitude under the less severe circumstances of our times that I'd have rejected it all the more then, but, we can never get too comfortable thinking that we'd behave rightly during periods where many if not most behaved wrongly.

DCP is in a severe fork here. His argument that "aw shucks, it was understandable that guy became a serial killer given how he was brought up" saws off the branch of moral high ground upon which he sits. It won't be hard to find secular theories suggesting that people are products of their environments, and that an insular religious offshoot at war with society at large overreacted and resorted to violence. Yeah, it's not unpredictable. This argument, however, assumes that there really isn't a such thing as "good" and "bad" people, that people behave similarly under pressure. Recall that Dan believes the people who committed this act had the benefit of the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, a living prophet -- the only one on the earth -- and the only 100% correct book of scripture ever written to guide them. Under the theory that moral behavior correlates with true religious enlightenment, Mormonism is proven horribly false by this incident alone. And it's proven even more false as apologists try to justify it.

People who have the fulness of the gospel, the constant companionship of the holy ghost, and the guidance of a living prophet would not be the typical predictable cult that overreacts to persecution. They'd be the exception to the rule -- the ones who took the high road where others wouldn't no matter how badly they were treated. The fact Dan must resort to "anyone else would have done it" just admits his church is false, that his chosen people have no access to greater enlightenment than anyone else -- that the Book of Mormon is a complete fraud.

As far as Mormons feeling superior, of course they did. That goes hand-in-hand with any insular new religious movement. Mormons weren't outsiders because they had a different skin color and spoke a different language, they were outsiders because they'd decided their peers were wrong about religion, that all churches but theirs were corrupt -- that God was only "well pleased" with them. The only "condemnation" they received was in not taking insular practices that remove themselves further from society in general more seriously.

[sock puppet]

And since DCP's sense of morality seems fatally skewed, here is a reminder of some historical facts about these "basically good people" and their "fundamental decency":

Right, this is run-of-the-mill Hitler apologetics. What would we have done if we'd lived during the Weimer Republic? Would we have been any better? We know Mormons thrived under Hitler, and I'd at least hope given I reject its complicit attitude under the less severe circumstances of our times that I'd have rejected it all the more then, but, we can never get too comfortable thinking that we'd behave rightly during periods where many if not most behaved wrongly.

DCP is in a severe fork here. His argument that "aw shucks, it was understandable that guy became a serial killer given how he was brought up" saws off the branch of moral high ground upon which he sits. It won't be hard to find secular theories suggesting that people are products of their environments, and that an insular religious offshoot at war with society at large overreacted and resorted to violence. Yeah, it's not unpredictable. This argument, however, assumes that there really isn't a such thing as "good" and "bad" people, that people behave similarly under pressure. Recall that Dan believes the people who committed this act had the benefit of the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, a living prophet -- the only one on the earth -- and the only 100% correct book of scripture ever written to guide them. Under the theory that moral behavior correlates with true religious enlightenment, Mormonism is proven horribly false by this incident alone. And it's proven even more false as apologists try to justify it.

People who have the fulness of the gospel, the constant companionship of the holy ghost, and the guidance of a living prophet would not be the typical predictable cult that overreacts to persecution. They'd be the exception to the rule -- the ones who took the high road where others wouldn't no matter how badly they were treated. The fact Dan must resort to "anyone else would have done it" just admits his church is false, that his chosen people have no access to greater enlightenment than anyone else -- that the Book of Mormon is a complete fraud.

As far as Mormons feeling superior, of course they did. That goes hand-in-hand with any insular new religious movement. Mormons weren't outsiders because they had a different skin color and spoke a different language, they were outsiders because they'd decided their peers were wrong about religion, that all churches but theirs were corrupt -- that God was only "well pleased" with them. The only "condemnation" they received was in not taking insular practices that remove themselves further from society in general more seriously.

Spot on, and precisely worded. If Mormonism doesn't make people do and act better, then why bother?

[MsJack]

"Fundamentally decent" people take accountability for their actions. The people who perpetrated MMM acted with malice, deception, and forethought, and then they behaved exactly the way you would expect a group of people who knew they had done something wrong and wanted to get away with it to behave: they lied, they obfuscated, they adopted a pact of silence, they blamed others, and they interfered with a federal investigation to the point that US Marshals could not arrest a single perpetrator despite knowing who a few of them were. They even tore down the monument that US government agents had set up to honor the victims.

This isn't like other historical problems where men who are otherwise regarded as great and noble (like George Washington) occasionally did things that are now regarded as extremely evil (like own slaves), because those happened in cultures and times and places where said evils were common and accepted. We don't see Jonathan Edwards trying to hide the fact that he owned slaves or John Calvin apologizing for the Genevan government torturing people because those evils were culturally normal when those men lived. But massacring passing wagon parties of fellow Americans was not normal in 1857, and everything about the Mormons' actions pre- and post-massacre shows they were well aware of this. They knew what they did was wrong, or at least, would be widely seen as wrong by the outside world, and they acted accordingly.

It certainly did not happen exclusively for religious reasons, but unless we think the Mormon settlers would have just as likely fired on a passing Mormon wagon party, then religion was at least a slice of the blame pie chart here. If the head of Mormonism concluded the massacre was ultimately God's judgment against the wagon party ("Vengeance is mine, and I have taken a little"), it isn't such a stretch to think the murderers and their enablers (both before after the crime) believed they had God's approval for their actions.

The massacre was the product of territorialism, paranoia, tensions between Utah and the US government over polygamy and past treatment of Mormons, the poverty of the Utah settlers leading to jealousy of affluent Baker-Fancher parties, misdirected reactive abuse en masse, and yes, a theology that enabled zealous people to believe they were God's special chosen agents and sometimes God commands things that the outside world sees as wrong (an "Abrahamic sacrifice" theology of sorts). We can argue over how big each piece of the blame pie is, but the real problem here isn't just that the massacre happened; it's that top church leaders, who had plenty of time to think through their actions and study their sacred Scriptures and divine the will of God, both covered it up and showed zero compassion for the victims.

Given those circumstances, labels like "fundamentally decent" probably are neither helpful nor accurate here.