Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[_moksha]

In the Brigham Young era of blood atonement being required of murderers, I wonder why the Church took such a forgiving stand on the hundred plus unindicted co-conspirators. Was the blood of sacrificial lamb John D. Lee sufficient to expiate the sins of all those involved?

[_Morley]

If local officers of the Communist Party of the USA had raised a small army that murdered Kennedy and 119 other people, however, I'd assume that you might be more inclined to hold the organization responsible.

I would. But that's not comparable to what happened in Utah.

Please elaborate how it's not comparable.

.....

Re-posting a second and last time for Daniel.

I can understand why you may not wish to reply, so I'll let it go after this.

[_RayAgostini]

In the Brigham Young era of blood atonement being required of murderers, I wonder why the Church took such a forgiving stand on the hundred plus unindicted co-conspirators. Was the blood of sacrificial lamb John D. Lee sufficient to expiate the sins of all those involved?

John D. Lee was reinstated as a member of the Church, in the 1960s, if I recall correctly.

[_Morley]

Since I find it hard to imagine an event of this character or magnitude happening at that time outside of the context it happened, I'd say yes. Remove the church from the story and you remove the event from taking place.

Are modern Germans responsible for Nazi Germany? Are modern Japanese responsible for Imperial Japan? Are modern Australians responsible for Aboriginal mistreatment?

Emphasis mine.

As to one of your questions: The Australian government apparently considered the issue to have some merit a few years ago. Australia apology to Aborigines.

[_RayAgostini]

As to one of your questions: The Australian government apparently considered the issue to have some merit a few years ago. Australia apology to Aborigines.

Thanks for pointing that out. [sarcasm]I was completely unaware of it[/sarcasm].

There's a lot more to this story, but don't let me bore you with Australian politics. You have to understand "grassroots" problems, and even why the apology was issued, and why the prime minister before Rudd refused to issue an apology. What has the apology accomplished? Nothing. Except feelgood feelings. Not a single thing has changed. But it was a good show.

So when Mormons apologise for MMM (your style), will you and others stop criticising them for the most trivial things? Not going to happen. When they apologise for MMM (your style), you're going to find some other bone to pick with them, until you bring them under your agenda, whatever that might be, and make them a Secular Church indistinguishable from Universal Unitarianism.

[_Willy Law]

There is no reason to believe that nineteenth-century prophets were responsible in any significant way for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

It seems ironic to have to remind people here (given the pretensions of the place) that dogma doesn't Trump facts. But, plainly, I do.

You truthfully do not place any blame on Brigham Young for creating a culture of violence and blind obedience during the Mormon Reformation?

In my mind Brigham did not just supply the match, but also the tinder for what happened at Mountain Meadow.

Perhaps parsing words like "in any significant way" is your way of carefully saying you understand that Brigham shares some blame in what happened?

[_Willy Law]

They were militia commanders, agents of the territorial government, abusing their offices to carry out a horrific event.

Again, I find it hard to believe that these are your true thoughts on the matter. You believe that their "territorial governmental" positions with the militia overruled their priesthood authority?
Sorry, can't buy it.

[_Morley]

As to one of your questions: The Australian government apparently considered the issue to have some merit a few years ago. Australia apology to Aborigines.

Thanks for pointing that out. [sarcasm]I was completely unaware of it[/sarcasm].

There's a lot more to this story, but don't let me bore you with Australian politics. You have to understand "grassroots" problems, and even why the apology was issued, and why the prime minister before Rudd refused to issue an apology. What has the apology accomplished? Nothing. Except feelgood feelings. Not a single thing has changed. But it was a good show.

So when Mormons apologise for MMM (your style), will you and others stop criticising them for the most trivial things? Not going to happen. When they apologise for MMM (your style), you're going to find some other bone to pick with them, until you bring them under your agenda, whatever that might be, and make them a Secular Church indistinguishable from Universal Unitarianism.

Ray, I don't know your history or background, so I wasn't aware you knew about the apology. The lead up to it was a big deal, years ago, when I was there. My apologies if the link offended.

I haven't suggested that the church apologize for Mountain Meadows; in fact, if you read through the thread, you'll see where I said as much.

I have no agenda with the Church, in fact, part of me kind of hopes they don't change too much. They are so entertaining, so fascinating, just they way they are. The church is a deep part of my heritage and culture and history--they belong to me (and others here) as much as they do to anyone. And I do love to discuss and learn. Pax, Ray.

[_ludwigm]

Since I find it hard to imagine an event of this character or magnitude happening at that time outside of the context it happened, I'd say yes. Remove the church from the story and you remove the event from taking place.

Are modern Germans responsible for Nazi Germany? Are modern Japanese responsible for Imperial Japan? Are modern Australians responsible for Aboriginal mistreatment?

- 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".

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=126825#p126825

Edited to add:

something about modern Australians responsible for Aboriginal mistreatment...

[_Daniel Peterson]

Lol...yes, there were no Mormon fundamentalists living in southern utah that believed that avenging the blood of the prophet joseph was part of their religious covenants and i am sure that their self-proclaimed prophet's teachings on "blood atonement" had nothing to do with anything that occurred in MM.

There is, as I've pointed out, no evidence to suggest that such beliefs played any role in the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

And, as I've been at pains to point out here, history is an empirical discipline.

It doesn't proceed via deductions from axioms any more than physics does. (Consider the case of Galileo and the famous leaning tower of Pisa.) It builds on actual data.

It was just a normal everyday activity for people living in southern utah (and surrounding territories) to wake up, dress up like indians and murder 120 innocent people traveling to California...

Nobody, of course, has suggested any such thing.

You can beat up your straw man all day long, as far as I'm concerned. Just don't try to pretend that anybody here holds such a position.

oh, well, if they "felt like they were being attacked" then its ok that they killed a bunch of innocent people (including women and children)...those little kids must have been terrifying and intimidating to all those armed Mormon men...

Again, nobody here has claimed that the Mountain Meadows Massacre was "ok."

Since I find it hard to imagine an event of this character or magnitude happening at that time outside of the context it happened, I'd say yes. Remove the church from the story and you remove the event from taking place.

I find it hard to imagine the early Arab conquests happening in the seventh century outside of the context in which they happened. They could not, for example, have happened at the expense of the Byzantine Empire if the Byzantine Empire had not existed. And the Byzantine Empire would not have existed had Constantine not founded the city of Constantinople in the fourth century. Remove Constantine from the story, and you remove the event from taking place. But Constantine wouldn't have founded the city of Constantinople had Augustus not established the principate three centuries earlier. Remove Augustus from the story, and you remove the Arab conquests of Byzantine territory from the picture. And so on and so forth.

It's obvious but trivial that, had the Mormons not been in Utah, and specifically in Cedar City, the Mountain Meadows Massacre wouldn't have happened.

Likewise, John F. Kennedy wouldn't have been shot in Dallas if (a) his father hadn't begotten him, (b) Dallas hadn't been settled, (c ) Lee Harvey Oswald had been blinded by a neighbor, and (d) gunpowder hadn't been invented. Accordingly, the assassination of John F. Kennedy was (a) Joseph P. Kennedy's fault, (b) the fault of the early settlers of Texas, (c ) the fault of some neighbor who failed to blind young Lee, and/or (d) the responsibility of the ancient Chinese.

You truthfully do not place any blame on Brigham Young for creating a culture of violence and blind obedience during the Mormon Reformation?

Not much, no.

In my mind Brigham did not just supply the match, but also the tinder for what happened at Mountain Meadow.

But we're talking about history, not about things "in your mind."

Perhaps parsing words like "in any significant way" is your way of carefully saying you understand that Brigham shares some blame in what happened?

It's my way of saying that innumerable factors came together to cause the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The founding of Utah militias, poor communications, a legacy of persecution (particularly in Missouri), threats relating to the "Utah War," inflamed rhetoric, sheer geographic chance, rumors, hot tempers, fear -- these and many other elements played a role. But there is not a shred of evidence for any order from Salt Lake to commit mass murder, nor do Brigham Young and other Church leaders in Salt Lake bear any significant moral responsibility for the killings.

Again, I find it hard to believe that these are your true thoughts on the matter. You believe that their "territorial governmental" positions with the militia overruled their priesthood authority?

Sorry, can't buy it.

As I've said, you can't separate the two completely. But the fact is that Dame and Haight were acting in their capacity as local militia officers. And that is significant.