Did you know that Mormons massacred 120 people in cold blood on September 11, 1857?

Comments

• Did any of you ever listen to yourselves??? Religion is wonderful! Do whatever, ask forgiveness , do it again, ask forgiveness. Oh yeah, and apologize

  • Report
  

  by angel on February 23rd, 2008

• Question is angel do you listen to yourself? If you would take the time to seek the truth you would find out that most people who say they are Christians are really not. They make their own God up because the one in the Bible does not fit their lifestyle. If you would really understand the Bible you would see and understand these things are done by questionable Christians. People don't like the Bible they don't like God why? Simple God has the 10 commandments and that means we are worthless sinners and fall short of the glory of God. Man does not want to hear that, so they make up their own God and call themselves a Christian. Problem is their not real Christians there mans Christians.

  • Report
  

  by binkys on March 6th, 2008

• I know what you are saying. I am not a Christian, but understand that some people bend things to what is convenient. As far as me seeking the truth. I have dug very deep and I would never be a Christian. To each his own.

  • Report
  

  by angel on March 6th, 2008

• I'll point out that it was an individual member of the Mormon Church that gave the order, and that is was never sanctioned by the church. In fact, as soon as the plan reached Brigham Young he immediately sent the order to let the settlers leave in peace, but it did not get there in time. Also, those settlers were very far from innocent. The movie, September Dawn, disguises complete fiction to look like fact, but does not change the fact that is was made to make Mormons look bad by any means necessary, even lies, because one was running for president.
  
  FACT : The settlers were aggressive toward the Mormons, one even claimed to have been the man to kill Joseph Smith. While the settlers were in the area, Mormons started getting sick, and the mormons were suspicious of the settlers, thinking they had poisoned the towns drinking water. A dead cow was found upstream from the town, and the Mormons thought it had died of the poison. More likely the dead cow in the water was making them

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 6th, 2008

• sick, but given all the hostility shown to them, the Mormons, for whatever reason, I don't know, did not think of that possibility. What they knew was the settlers had their own, unpoisoned water supply.
  FACT- At the time, the United States Military was planning to invade Utah, so the poisoning, and aggression, led the mormons to believe the Settlers were trying to weaken them befor the Military came in and wiped them out.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 6th, 2008

• Most if not all religious orders are responsible for such murders at some time or other. I’ve heard many people try to justify these things but at the end of the day does it really matter? All these stories are of ignorant and superstitious people from the distant past.
  Surely the point is that religious people should have leant from this past. Unfortunately looking at the current world conflicts it appears that they haven’t
  Jews, Muslims and Christians around the world still seem to have the blood lust.

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 6th, 2008

• What happened on September 11th, 1857 was a great tragedy, I do not deny that. The point I was trying to make is that the question doesn't say a group of Mormons did it, it says just Mormons, which could be read to sound as if the attack was approved by the church, and it was not. I went on to point out the very real suspicions held by the Mormons in question. I did this because, while the massacre happened, I don't deny that, the settlers weren't the innocent folk portrayed in the Movie 'September Dawn'. That was nothing but a lying, hateful, Mormon-bashing mockery. It tried to make the settlers out to be perfect Saints, and the Mormons out to be evil, hateful bastards. So I gave the real background information, just in case the lies of that movie are actually believed by people here.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 6th, 2008

• The point being that although these people were Mormons, the incident was not because they were Mormons, but in spite of it.
  Where as the twin towers tragedy for example was because they were Muslim, and the crusades because they were Christian.
  Right?

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 6th, 2008

• Exactly. The incident happened because they were human, and rushed to a bad decision, because they felt threatened. It's natural for an animal that feels like it's backed into a corner to attack, and that is what happened. It was a sign of individual human weakness, and should not be used as a means of attacking a good church that saves so many lives every time there is a natural disaster. That big tsunami in Indonesia, for example. I think it was Indonesia, you can correct me if I am mistaken, but that's not important. The Mormon church was the first to send aide there, even before the Red Cross. You see, the Church keeps supplies ready to go at a moments notice, so while the red cross was bringing their supplies together and gathering volunteers, members of the Mormon Church were already in the air, with supplies, and on their way. So when I say that the church saves lives, that's why. I consider attacking the church as an insult to each and every life that it has saved.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 6th, 2008

• Well.....just because an organisation or group may have saved human lives does not make them beyond reproach. Mormonism may well have many good intentioned, genuine and intelligence members of society among them, but that does not make it a good religion.
  I'm just saying that what people do is not always due to their religion, and in this case of 1857 I believe as you say this is the case.

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 6th, 2008

• There's an important difference. In the instance of the Mountain Meadow Massacre, it was perpetrated by Mormons without the approval of the church, they acted independently. In the example of the aide and supplies sent to the Tsunami Indonesia, that was the will of the church. Criticizing the Mormon faith is one thing, but do it respectfully, and base your criticism on what the church has done, not one what bad deeds individual Mormons may have undertaken.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 6th, 2008

• Exactly...I agree totally

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 7th, 2008

• What do you mean as soon as it reached BY. Young is the one that exicuted the plan, he is the one that was in fear of the people from Missouri

  • Report
  

  by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on August 7th, 2008

• Rushed to a bad decision, LOL

  • Report
  

  by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on August 7th, 2008

• If you believe that, Lola, then you are very Ill-informed. The order to initiate the attack came from John D. Lee, not from Brigham Young. Furthermore, when Brigham Young had the massacre investigated, Lee denied that the Mormons had been involved, saying it was all the Indians. He lied to President Young. It was fully investigated, and when it became clear that Lee had lied, he was executed. It is historical fact that Young condemned the massacre before it happened, and that the letter didn't reach Lee until the day after it was done. Well now, I guess it needs to be said, that you have been brainwashed. Now accept the truth and stop spreading lies when all the evidence proves it's a lie. Whoever taught you that had been brainwashed too. Or was just lying, or you are just lying

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 7th, 2008

• My previous messages was typed by memory, and I am human, if I made an error or two, it's because my memory is not perfect. But I know for a fact that the letter sent from Young to Lee before the Massacre does exist, and that it rejected Lee's suggestion of killing the settlers, it in fact ordered that they let the settlers leave in peace. It is also a matter of record that Young's letter arrived one day too late. So this much I know is without error. To say that Brigham Young ordered it, which is so contrary to the evidence, is nothing less then hate-mongering, which is not at all Christian-like.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 7th, 2008

• Well I’m certainly no expert here, and although many believe B Young was aware of the initial attack and that John Lee supported this belief, no evidence of any approval by B Young has ever been found. Although it is well documented that he did obstruct and inhibit investigations into the massacre and supported the theft of cattle and other live stock from travellers within these territories. Where B Young may not have been overly concerned about the occasional death of a traveller during these thefts I am sure he would never have supported the open execution that followed this attack and siege.
  I suppose it does not help that B Young was such a power monger, he had every intention on making sure he secured his position within the Mormon leadership after the death of J Smith, seeing himself as a leader of a country and not wishing to relinquish any of his authority over it.

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 8th, 2008

• Can I just comment on a couple of points made earlier? You said: ”The settlers were aggressive toward the Mormons, one even claimed to have been the man to kill Joseph Smith”. I don’t think this is correct; Parley Pratt the popular Mormon leader had been killed in Arkansas a few months earlier by the still husband of one of his wives’, his name being Hector McLean. Hector was out for revenge for Pratt stealing his children and wife, and it was either him or one of his associates that was reported as being in the camp.
  As for:” it was perpetrated by Mormons without the approval of the church, they acted independently”, this is not strictly true either, Philip Klingensmith a Mormon bishop was one of the murderers, Isaac C. Haight, the stake president (a stake is an administrative unit comparable to a diocese in Catholicism not that you didn’t know) and senior regional militia leader of the Mormon militia, was in on it too. In Lee’s 1877, Confession he says George A. Smith was sent to southern Utah to direct the massacre. Question is who sent him?
  Sure the order to attack came from John D. Lee, but it makes you wonder what compels someone to carry out such an order? Especially highly respected church officials.
  The letter sent by Young, well I’m not familiar with it my self, but I will say that no telegraph was available and any letter would need to be carried by horse back, Young was three days away so a reply would certainly have arrived at least a day late

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 8th, 2008

• As previously mentioned, I posted from memory, and that there was the possibility that I made mistakes in my recollection. One of the points I made, about the man claiming to have killed Joseph Smith, was an error. I seem to recall that he said he was there when Joseph Smith was killed, and had the gun that killed him. So he didn't confess to anything, but was just trying to make the Mormons come to a conclusion. He was looking to cause trouble. It was an error for me to say that he actually confessed, but it is a matter of record that this and many other acts was perpetrated by the settlers, who were angry that they could not resupply.
  
  Lee brought about the massacre, and there is absolutely no proof that George A. Smith was sent by anyone, but there is proof that Brigham Young did not approve of the idea to attack. That letter still exists and will continue to be maintained.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 8th, 2008

• As for what compelled him, I have already posted many here, the Mormons believed their water supply had been poisoned, and that the settlers were trying to weaken them before the army came to wipe them out. There was plenty of reason for Lee and the other conspirators to jump to the wrong conclusion, but what they did was not approved by the church, it was a Human mistake.
  
  And, as I said, Young's letter did get to the Mormons the day after the attack. He condemned the idea, saying that the settlers should be let go. He wouldn't have sent George Smith to do as Lee claimed and then send the letter with different directions. The only logical conclusion is that Lee was trying to spread the blame around before he died. Basically trying to reason out that it wasn't his fault.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 8th, 2008

• Also, it is my understanding, that Lee was the only conspirator that seemed to be unrepentant. And the fact that he tried spreading blame before he died supports that. The other conspirators eventually realized they reached the wrong conclusion, and we deeply saddened and tortured by what they had been part of, while Lee was the only one saying that 'it was his fault and his and his' and pointing at everyone but himself. So that is how I conclude he was unrepentent, and as the only unrepentent man, was the only one to be executed. They certainly gave him plenty of time to feel bad for what had happened, but he didn't.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 8th, 2008

• I do basically agree with what you have said, and I should have mentioned that I was aware you had posted from memory only.
  I will however add a couple more points though, the victims would have been unlikely to have been provoking trouble as they needed to resupply and were counting on doing deals with the Mormons. They may have goaded the Mormons after they were refused any supply deals but that would have been expected as they had counted on these supplies so as to continue their journey.
  And I agree that Lee no doubt would have tried to implicate others in order to try and save himself.
  The letter, well yes it would have been late anyway as I said, but thats not proof that Young was not implicated, and could be seen as a convenient alibi, although I myself would have said he would have been against such an execution style massacre anyway because of the outcry it would have caused nationally and amongst Mormons to, he was far too clever politically for such a stupid move.

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 8th, 2008

• Also what I mean by what could have driven these people to commit such atrocities should really have been how could they, in respect of appeasing their actions with your god. Killing in order to save your way of life is one thing but the heartless murder of innocent women and children? I think that where some people blame the church is because the church supports or at least supported extremist ideas such as the blood atonement.

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 8th, 2008

• they were angry at being refused and a few of them acted up, one in particular made that statement I mentioned, and that did not endear them to the Mormons. In short, the colonists used very poor judgment too.
  .
  I'm glad to hear you acknowledge, at least, that Brigham Young wasn't stupid enough to condone that sort of attack. It means you should also agree with me and understand that the only man to be executed for the attack was the one that wouldn't repent and kept blaming others. The church gave him plenty of opportunity. It didn't want to order his death. After all, what he did, he believed was for the good of the Mormon people at the time. He blamed everyone else but himself until his dying breath. He was no scapegoat, as he claimed. He was merely disillusioned. If he had just accept that what he'd done was wrong and felt bad about it and not blamed others, I believe he wouldn't have been executed. Of course, the church wont advertise executing him for not repenting, lol

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 8th, 2008

• And technically, he was executed because of his crimes, which was terrible. I don't think even the church could ignore them forever if he remained unrepentent. So, he forced their hand and brought about his own unnecessary death because of pride.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 8th, 2008

• Never happened. Blood atonement is a myth. I don't have Mormon Doctrine in front of me, but all too often one page of that Doctrine is shown to people, and it is claimed that Blood Atonement was practiced by Mormons, but the important second page of the topic is left out. The first page goes over the mechanics of how that doctrine works, and the second page says that it was practiced in the time of Moses, but was not and could not be practiced in this dispensation. It is a real, old testament doctrine, and it did get described in the book, entitled Mormon Doctrine, but that very source says it was never practiced by the church. And that is the only evidence the hate-mongers have that it supposedly happened. This is an issue where it was taken out of context, and taught to you wrong.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 8th, 2008

• I sense a similarity with Islam here, The Muslim religion prescribes death for most of what it calls crimes but at the same time cancels the death penalty if the accused repents openly and genuinely, except in countries like Iran, where they tend to forget about the second bit.
  
  
  Do you know why the Mormon church reinstated Lee in 1961?

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 8th, 2008

• I would guess to ease the minds of his family members, perhaps? His judgment by God would be based on the deeds of his life and his unwillingness to repent. I do not believe that reinstating his membership in the faith after he was dead changed anything, except maybe making those he left behind feel better.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 8th, 2008

• "except maybe making those he left behind feel better". I take it your not referring to the families of his victims?
  
  Don’t Mormons collect up names of the un-baptized dead so that they can baptize them? Or something like that, sorry if this not correct its no an assumption just a question,

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 8th, 2008

• No, I'm talking about his actual flesh and blood family. He was a good man once, and was swallowed up by pride in the end.
  .
  And yes, Mormons do do baptisms for the dead, but they still have to be willing to accept the baptism after death. We just give there souls the opportunity. That doctrine is rather far-reaching though and hard to explain in a few sentences.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 8th, 2008

• Reposting this message in response to Retrovampire's comment on Blood Atonement since he either missed it or ignored it:
  .
  Blood Atonement never happened within the LDS (aka Mormon) Church. Blood atonement is a myth. I don't have Mormon Doctrine in front of me, but all too often one page of that Doctrine is shown to people, and it is claimed that Blood Atonement was practiced by Mormons, but the important second page of the topic is left out. The first page goes over the mechanics of how that doctrine works, and the second page says that it was practiced in the time of Moses, but was not and could not be practiced in this dispensation. It is a real, old testament doctrine, and it did get described in the book, entitled Mormon Doctrine, but that very source says it was never practiced by the church. And that is the only evidence the hate-mongers have that it supposedly happened. This is an issue where it was taken out of context, and taught to you wrong.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 8th, 2008

• Not ignoring you, just trying to get round to answering other comments else ware and got a little side tracked.
  I think I need to do a little more study work about Mormons before I embarrass myself trying to debate urban myth as a fact.
  Thanks for the insight; you have been most patient with me. I am of to hit the sack now as it’s nearly midnight and I need all the beauty sleep I can get.

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 8th, 2008

• It's all cool, you can't help that you were taught wrong. So much of what we believe is so far taken out of context, but Blood Atonement is only ever mentioned in that one book, and then only talking about it being practiced in old testament times, and saying that it could not be and was not going to be practiced by Mormons. It's kinda funny that they keep bringing it up when it's so easy to debate, lol! I got the feeling that you were just taught wrong, and that you seemed yo be politely debating, so it was fine. I'm glad I could educate you.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 8th, 2008

• Please, spare reaching conclusions about this entry until you reach the end. With the doctrine of Blood Atonement, there are some sins that Jesus's sacrifice alone cannot cleanse. It says for these sins, you are required to sacrifice an animal, or in the most heinous sins, your own blood or even your life.
  .
  Now, what this really means is that under the old testament law, without the authority of the Melchezedek (I'm sure I am spelling it wrong, but too tired to look it up) Priesthood, if you were Jewish, then you still had to obey the old laws. Jesus's atoning blood would not automatically save them if they lived without seeking the cleansing of their sins. So, it is an old testament law, very real, but one that has never been and that will never be required after Christs sacrifice. So, anyone that has studied the old testament should be able know that it was a real law back then, and so, I conclude, that Mormons never had to practice it

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 9th, 2008

• Brigham Young's blood atonement sermon of 1856:
  On 1856-MAR-16, Young delivered an instruction to the bishops. Referring to a hypothetical man who violated the solemn covenants he had made in the Temple, young said:
  "You say, 'That man ought to die for transgressing the law of God.' Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them. You would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands...."
  
  "There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man and woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants."
  Young indicates that Jesus' death on the cross can never wipe out an individual's serious personal sin. The sinner's own blood must be shed to atone for the sin.

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 9th, 2008

• Brigham Young's blood atonement sermon of 1867:
  On 1867-FEB-08, Young delivered a second important discourse in the Tabernacle at Salt Lake City on the topic of "blood atonement" He confirmed the concept that God cannot forgive serious sins unless the sinner is killed and his blood mixes with the earth. He also expressed confidence that the end of the world as he knew it would occur in his immediate future.
  Young said in part:
  "....the time will come, and is now nigh at hand, when those who profess our faith, if they are guilty of what some of this people are guilty of, will find the axe laid at the root of the tree, and they will be hewn down. What has been must be again, for the Lord is coming to restore all things....it is one of the laws of that kingdom where our Father dwells, that if a man was found guilty of adultery, he must have his blood shed, and that is near at hand. But now I say, in the name of the Lord, that if this people will sin no more, but faithfully live their religion, their sins will be forgiven them without taking life...

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 9th, 2008

• Brigham Young's blood atonement sermon of 1867: Continued:
  ...suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, 'shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods' ?"
  
  All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant. He never told a man or woman to love their enemies in their wickedness, never. He never intended any such thing.... Jesus Christ never meant that we should love a wicked man in his wickedness...."

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 9th, 2008

• Brigham Young's blood atonement sermon of 1867: Continued:
  "I could refer you to plenty of instances where men, have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil, until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up—conquers death, hell, and the grave. I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them...."
  "This is loving our neighbour as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind."

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 9th, 2008

• Thus, it would be an act of love to murder anyone who you felt had committed a serious sin which God could not forgive in any other way than to have the person die and his or her blood mixed with the earth.
  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints denounced the teaching of blood atonement in 1978. However, it is taught by other denominations within the Mormon movement.
  
  Your words:"I conclude, that Mormons never had to practice it" but that doesn't mean they didn't

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 9th, 2008

• John Lee was possibly reinstated by the LDS church in 1961 because they felt he had attoned for his sins.(fireing squad).
  Of caurse this can never be proved and considering the delicate nature of the Mountain Meadow Massacre I`m not exactly supprise the church was keeping that doctrine quite.

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 9th, 2008

• Retrovampire - Why do I have a feeling someone sent you this? Well, there is the fact that you didn't cite the sources of that information. It's hard to make a counter point if you just throw out quotes without citing where they came from. This is the first time anything other then the page out of the book Mormon Doctrine has been presented to me, so I have no idea whatsoever where those came from, and if I can't find them, how am I to read them in context? Also, without citing sourcing, your quotes have zero credibility right from the get go. This is not meant to anger you or anything, just to respectfully request your sources.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 10th, 2008

• 1. "Brigham Young Blood Atonement Sermon," Journal of Discourses, Volume 3, Pages 243 to 249.
  2. "Brigham Young 'Blood Atonement' Sermon," Journal of Discourses, Volume 4, Pages 215 to 221.
  
  For easier reference they should be Online at: http://www.utlm.org/
  I have never read this online copy but have been led to believe it is just as complete.

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 10th, 2008

• Ah, I wont go to the Utah Lighthouse Ministry Website any more. The Tanners are a pair of hateful bigots, and I have countered their propaganda in the past quite often. I will see if I can get those books instead, because I trust nothing from the Tanners

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 10th, 2008

• The Tanners are the most bigoted Mormon-Haters out there. They are always constructing new conspiracies, and then people like me do a little research and get to the bottom of it. Also, the books in that series had 12 different stenographers, and they took notes on these talks, and reconstruction them from memory. George D. Watt recorded both of those speeches. He would have done his best to be as much in line with the prophets actual speech as possible, but in this sort of speech, being off by even a few words or even one word would change the meaning of the whole Speech. So those speeches are not Brigham Young's speeches. They are George D. Watt's recollections of speeches. In short, unreliable. And George D. Watt was never a general Authority of the church, like Bruce R McConkie was. So without even looking into those books, they've lost a great deal of credibility. As I said though, I will see if I can get ahold of those books.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 10th, 2008

• George D. Watt recorded both of these speeches and sold them in the Journal of Discourses that were supported by Brigham Young, who authorized him to print his sermons. Brigham Young's daughter, "Miss Julia Young," also reported one of his speeches for the Journal of Discourses, although not one of the ones here.
  George D. Watt was given the blessing of the First Presidency who issued the following statement on June 1, 1853:

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 11th, 2008

• "Dear Brethren. — It is well known to many of you that Elder George D. Watt, by our counsel, spent much time in the midst of poverty and hardships to acquire the art of reporting in Phonography which he has faithfully and fully accomplished; and he has been reporting the public sermons, discourses, lectures, &c., delivered by the Presidency, the Twelve and others in this city, for nearly two years, almost without fee or reward.
  "Elder Watt now proposes to publish a Journal of these reports, in England for the benefit of the Saints at large, and to obtain means to enable him to sustain his highly useful position of Reporter. You will perceive at once that this will be a work mutual benefit, and we cheerfully and warmly request your co-operation in the purchase and sale of the above named Journal, and wish all the profits arising therefrom to be under the control of Elder Watt." [signed] BRIGHAM YOUNG, HEBER C. KIMBALL, WILLARD RICHARDS" (Messages of the First Presidency 2:119. This message is also found in the beginning of volume one of the JD).

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 11th, 2008

• Page 55 of the LDS Church manual Gospel Principles states that the inspired words of the living prophet are supposed to be accepted as scripture by Latter-day Saints. While someone might argue that the Journal contains the words of dead prophets, it cannot be overlooked that when their words were spoken, these men were very much alive and very much believed!

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 11th, 2008

• The phonograph wasn't invented until the 1877's. Both of these speeches were given prior to the invention of the phonograph. Also, I find it strange that the first presidency would refer to phonography 24 years BEFORE the invention of the phonograph by Thomas Edison, unless at the time phonography had a different meaning, like dictation. I mean, how could George Watt use an invention that hadn't been invested yet?

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 11th, 2008

• First phonograph
  
  
  Thomas Alva Edison conceived the principle of recording and reproducing sound between May and July 1877 as a byproduct of his efforts to "play back" recorded telegraph messages and to automate speech sounds for transmission by telephone.[4] He announced his invention of the first phonograph, a device for recording and replaying sound, on November 21, 1877, and he demonstrated the device for the first time on November 29 (it was patented on February 19, 1878 as US Patent 200,521). Edison's early phonographs recorded onto a tinfoil sheet phonograph cylinder using an up-down ("hill-and-dale") motion of the stylus.[5] The tinfoil sheet was wrapped around a grooved cylinder, and the sound was recorded as indentations into the foil. Edison's early patents show that he also considered the idea that sound could be recorded as a spiral onto a disc, but Edison concentrated his efforts on cylinders, since the groove on the outside of a rotating cylinder provides a constant

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 11th, 2008

• velocity to the stylus in the groove, which Edison considered more "scientifically correct". Edison's patent specified that the audio recording was embossed, and it was not until 1886 that vertically modulated engraved recordings using wax coated cylinders were patented by Chichester Bell and Charles Sumner Tainter. They named their version the Graphophone. Emile Berliner patented his Gramophone in 1887. The Gramophone involved a system of recording using a lateral (back and forth) movement of the stylus as it traced a spiral onto a zinc disc coated with a compound of beeswax in a solution of benzine. The zinc disc was immersed in a bath of chromic acid; this etched the groove into the disc where the stylus had removed the coating, after which the recording could be played.
  
  In May 1889, the first "phonograph parlor" opened in San Francisco. Customers would sit at a desk where they could speak through a tube, and order a selection for one nickel. Through a separate tube connected to a

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 11th, 2008

• cylinder phonograph in the room below, the selection would then be played. By the mid-1890s, most American cities had at least one phonograph parlor.
  
  By 1890, record manufacturers had begun using a rudimentary duplication process to mass-produce their product. While the live performers recorded the master phonograph, up to ten tubes led to blank cylinders in other phonographs. Until this development, each record had to be custom-made. Before long, a more advanced pantograph-based process made it possible to simultaneously produce 150 copies of each record. However, as demand for certain records grew, popular artists still needed to re-record and re-re-record their songs. Reportedly, the medium's first major African-American star George Washington Johnson was obliged to perform his “The Laughing Coon” (or "Laughing Song") literally thousands of times in a studio during his recording career. Sometimes he would sing "The Laughing Coon" more than fifty times in a day, at twenty cents per

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 11th, 2008

• rendition. (The average price of a single cylinder in the mid-1890s was about fifty cents.)

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 11th, 2008

• So, Thomas Edison made the first device for recording sound, more then 20 years after those speeches are supposed to have been made. It's just like the Tanner's to give bad information, to tell you he used a phonograph when it hadn't been invented yet. There was no way of recording sound then, all the speeches had to be taken notes at and reconstructed out of memory.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 11th, 2008

• I must apologies for Brigham Young's poor choice of words. “Phonography” is a miss leading description for George D. Watt’s trade. George D. Watt trained as a phonographer in England, which is a form of short hand. The equivalent today would be I suppose a stenographer.

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 11th, 2008

• Even so, those speeches are relying completely upon George Watt's skill at taking notes and ability to copy it word for word without missing anything, and since he didn't have an audio recording to review and confirm his notes, we have no way of knowing what mistakes he may have made or misheard. I'll still review the books when I can find them, but I am just saying that there are more accurate sources of information. I do not doubt that Watt was well-intentioned, but it's easy to be influenced by what you think, even without realizing it.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 11th, 2008

• The Journal was edited and published under the direct auspices of men who were either currently serving as a general authority or would later become one. The names are a veritable who's who list of Mormon leaders and include such men as Franklin Richards, Orson Pratt, George Q. Cannon, Amasa Lyman, Daniel H. Wells, Brigham Young, Jr., Joseph F. Smith, and Albert Carrington. Could it possibly be that such men would print something about the church that was not believed at the time?
  Except for volume one, every volume of the Journal comes with a publisher's preface. Many of these statements go out of their way to inform the reader that what they are about to read is esteemed as truth. For example, the preface to volume two was written by Franklin D. Richards. He said, "The Second Volume of the Journal of Discourses needs no recommendation to make it interesting to every Saint who loves to drink of the streams that flow from the fountain of Eternal Truth. It is made up of the choicest fruit that can be called from the tree of knowledge, suited to the tastes of all who can appreciate such delicious food."

  • Report
  

  by Retrovampire on August 11th, 2008

• I said I haven't gotten a hold of the books yet, so there's nothing for my to directly refute there just yet. And yes, they were published with the approval of the church, but they were still created by humans capable of mishearing and misreading their own shorthand. In other words, the Journal of Discourses was never perfect, and therefore could not be canonized, though some people thought they should be. Issues like this are probably the reason it was never considered for canonization, because one overlooked word could make a drastic difference.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 11th, 2008

• I would like to see documentation for the absurd claim of 2,000 Mormons killed by Christians. Even the official LDS history documents no more than a dozen or so Mormons killed by the U.S. government in skirmishes between the United States and Smith's personal army (the Nauvoo Legion). As a matter of fact, at the time of Joseph Smith's death in Carthage Jail, he was facing two warrants for Treason. Smith also had his band of Danites which he used for "blood atoning" people he considered troublesome.
  
  How many churches do you know of—beside the Mormon Church—which formed an army to fight other U.S. citizens?

  • Report
  

  by Judethree on March 2nd, 2009

• The order to attack from Isaac Haight - the Stake President. John D. Lee's adopted son was kidnapped by the Paiutes who threatened to kill him unless John personally participated.

  • Report
  

  by laie_techie on March 17th, 2009

• >Did you also know that over 2,000 Mormons were killed by other Christians between the time of 1830 and the turn of the 20th centur?<
  .
  Citation?
  .
  <Did you also know that they saved over 120 slaves during that same time from being killed?<
  .
  Citation?
  .
  >DId you also know that they have fought in every single war against those that have tried to destroy this country since 1830?<
  .
  Citation?
  .
  Without citations all these assertions are nothing more than unsubstantiated assertions. In other words, rumor and innuendo.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• .
  As for the "apology" let's hear what some of the descendants of the Fancher Party and other non-LDS have said about it:
  .
  "Historian Will Bagley, who wrote Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, appreciated the expression of contrition to the Paiutes, but he felt the church -- as an institution -- fell short in owning up to its culpability.
  .
  ''I don't think shoving it off on local [Mormon] leadership is an apology,'' he said. ''Did you hear an 'I'm sorry?' ''
  .
  Added Priscilla Dickson, 60, of St. George, a descendant of the Tackett family, which was among the emigrants, ''Simply saying 'I'm sorry,' would go a long way.' "
  .
  Patty Norris of the Arkansas-based Mountain Meadows Massacre Descendants organization referred to the statement as an ''almost apology.''
  .

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• ''I don't think they came right out and apologized, but I did feel like it was an apology,'' said Norris, whose organization represents descendants of child survivors of the massacre. ''It's closer than anything we've ever had, and I appreciated at least, the effort.''
  .
  The scars of that time have been long-lasting for the Paiutes, said Lora Tom, a representative of the Paiute Nation.
  .
  "For 150 years no one asked for our account," she said.
  .
  Tom, whose remarks elicited a standing ovation, said long-perpetuated lies faulting her ancestors have hurt Paiute youth who've grown up reading about this in history books. She said her ancestors had remained silent because they were trying to survive. They feared speaking up because they relied on local Mormons.
  .
  http://www.nhne.org/news/NewsArticlesArchive/tabid/400/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3554/Default.aspx

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• Or even more simply:
  .
  "When will the church issue a REAL apology and amends for this outrage?
  http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ORD4bRclc6NriC2eBjavvtc_4pF6AsM-?cq=1"
  .
  And, BTW, the link is to the poster's letter of resignation from the LDS Church. You can read it for yourself - it's interesting reading!
  .

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• Why should the Church issue an apology? The Church has already denounced the actions of those few individuals. It has expressed regret and condolences to the relatives of the victims. What more can the Church do?
  -
  An all-out apology would be admission to culpability which it doesn't bear. The Church has gone as far as saying it's sorry that some of its members committed the atrocity. That should be enough.
  -
  Am I also to apology to every descendant of every slave just because I have some European blood? Maybe I should petition the Church of England because their actions drove my ancestors to the American Colonies were they could practice their religion in peace. Maybe I should sue Arkansas for retributions for my ancestors killed or otherwise persecuted under their Extermination Order.
  -
  The point is I wasn't involved, my parents weren't involved, my grandparents weren't involved, my great grandparents weren't involved. I think the statutes of limitations has expired.

  • Report
  

  by laie_techie on May 12th, 2009

• >An all-out apology would be admission to culpability which it doesn't bear<
  .
  Why? This is ridiculous. Making amends and acknowledging culpability isn't a burden it's a redemptive, freeing practice that facilitates healing and reconciliation.
  .
  >Am I also to apology to every descendant of every slave just because I have some European blood?<
  .
  No, but you also shouldn't deny that your people group sinned again African American.
  .
  I did this at a Promise Keepers event and it was incredible!
  .
  We sat by some guys from South Central, held hands with them, prayed with them, and apologized to them on behalf of our ancestor's sins against theirs.
  .
  The funny thing is that it seemed to be HARDER for them to hear our apology than for us to speak it.
  .
  But it was an incredibly FREEING thing for both them and I.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• .
  >Maybe I should petition the Church of England because their actions drove my ancestors to the American Colonies were they could practice their religion in peace<
  .
  No need, the CofE has already acknowledged their culpability and apologized.
  .
  >Maybe I should sue Arkansas for retributions for my ancestors killed or otherwise persecuted under their Extermination Order<
  .
  No need. They've issued a formal apology to the LDS Church and Mormons for their actions.
  .
  Golly Laie, it seems like the ONLY people group that seems to be too damn prideful to admit culpability for their ancestors sins are Mormons.
  .
  Catholics do it, Protestants do it, even stupid, prideful, sinful White Guys in Orange County do it.
  .
  Why can't the LDS Church leaders do it?

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• It would be acknowledging guilt for something they didn't do. That's the crux of the matter. The Church has issued as big an apology it can without acknowledging culpability.

  • Report
  

  by laie_techie on May 12th, 2009

• I would like to ask E-8 where he got the "2000 Mormons killed". I'd like to look that up. I've studied LDS history fairly thoroughly and the most I have run into are, maybe, a dozen or so most of those were in self-defense.
  
  That aside, there were 120 men, women and children murdered in cold blood by Mormons in southern Utah in 1857. Not JUST murdered, but promised safe passage if they would give up their arms and surrender. They did so--and were gunned down at point blank range by their LDS "saviors".
  
  As of this date, the LDS Church has never apologized for this incident and they excuse this by saying it wasn't officially ordered by Brigham Young, therefore the LDS are not culpable. The anti-thesis to that argument is that this was NOT a spur of the moment event. It was several days in the planning--by LDS Bishops and a couple of Stake Presidents. But the Church was not responsible??
  
  What would a sincere apology hurt when it would bring closure to so many families?

  • Report
  

  by Zelph on August 25th, 2009

• It would shine guilt on the LDS. And show weakness.
  Great job Zelph

  • Report
  

  by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on August 26th, 2009

• E-8, are you a Mormon? I have not read all of this thread nor all of the other answers, but I have read enough to see other Mormons saying God will deal with them while you are saying they have been forgiven. I have not read anywhere in the New Testament where any of Christ followers have murdered anyone after becoming Christians.

  • Report
  

  by Texasescimo on September 9th, 2009

• E-8 has been inactive since 2008.
  .
  If you check his profile you will see that he is very much LdS. And his answers and comments were always laced with misinformation, dogma spewing, and other overtly skewed and biased so-called "facts" that couldn't be supported by evidence.
  .

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on September 9th, 2009

• Sounds Like Joey Smithers is at it again.

  • Report
  

  by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on September 9th, 2009

• Is there a link about the facts of this massacre?

  • Report
  

  by Texasescimo on September 9th, 2009

• .
  Oh yes! There are hundreds of links - maybe even thousands.
  .
  Here's a Google Search String to get you started . . .
  .
  http://www.google.com/search?q=the+mountain+meadows+massacre&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on September 9th, 2009

• I read the one on wiki-pedia and this one: http://mountainmeadowsmassacre.com/. Is that link considered reliable in its portrayal of events? Was the Church and that B. Young guy against it?

  • Report
  

  by Texasescimo on September 9th, 2009

• I am pretty sure the B Young guy was a main orchestrator of the events. He was intimadated by the folks. He believed them to be there to persicute and/or kill him and the other Mormons.

  • Report
  

  by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on September 9th, 2009

• Joe, that's Will Bagley and Leo Lyman's take on it too. D. Michael Quinn has hinted at it but has yet to overtly state that.
  .
  The evidence is circumstantial but its OVERWHELMINGLY circumstantial. Here are some GREAT Sunstone resources on this:
  .
  https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage_session&category_id=11&product_id=571&Itemid=41
  .
  https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_file_index&key=263&name=125-62-65.pdf
  .
  https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage_session&category_id=11&product_id=1233&Itemid=41
  .

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on September 9th, 2009

• >I read the one on wiki-pedia and this one: http://mountainmeadowsmassacre.com/. Is that link considered reliable in its portrayal of events?<
  .
  No, that's NOT a reliable site because it's heavily skewed toward Faithful rather than Truthful Mormon History and it's steers readers to OTHER faithful LdS websites for cross referencing.
  .
  There no "best" site. You have to go through several websites and do a LOT of reading to get a fair and balanced view of The Mountain Meadows Massacre.
  .
  Or you can just order and read Juanita Brook's classic work on the Massacre from Amazon (or check it out from your local library):
  .
  http://www.amazon.com/Mountain-Meadows-Massacre-Juanita-Brooks/dp/0806123184

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on September 9th, 2009

• Thanks Mr It.

  • Report
  

  by Texasescimo on September 10th, 2009

• .
  You're very welcome - it's a very interesting and telling incident in both American and Mormon History.
  .

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on September 10th, 2009

• They apologized and asked for forgiveness???? Is that what "bring them young" was doing when he pushed the cavalry's marker down and said "Vengeance is mine, sayith the Lord and I just got a little of it".

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 17th, 2009

• Techie asked "What more can they do?' I have a suggestion. An impartial group can attempt to value all the goods the mormons stole from the wagon train, approximate it in today's money, and pay it back to the victim's surviving families. Fat chance of that ever happening, ya, Techie?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 17th, 2009

• Fat chance at getting an impartial group together. Fat chance of coming up with an accurate list of what was lost. Fat chance of nailing the actions of those few to the whole Church. Fat chance of any of the descendants of the perpetrators carrying the blame of something that happened 150 years ago. Might as well have all White Americans make retribution to all the descendants of slaves.

  • Report
  

  by laie_techie on September 17th, 2009

• If you can find an impartial group to come up with that figure, send them to New York, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois to come up with a price tag on all the properties Mormons lost when they were driven from their homes by hate-mongering ignoramuses who acted on
  fear and innuendo instead of truth and facts.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 21st, 2009

• > ... all the properties Mormons lost when they were driven from their homes by hate-mongering ignoramuses who acted on
  fear and innuendo instead of truth and facts <
  .
  Oh are you referring to the property that the Mormons obtained through political intimidation, ballot stuffing, and land grabbing squatting in New York, Ohio and Illinois?
  .
  Yes, I'm sure that the original owners would happily take restitution from the LdS Church.
  .
  > hate-mongering ignoramuses who acted on fear and innuendo instead of truth and facts <
  .
  Oh, by the way, all the evidence that I've cited by faithful and practicing Mormon Historians NOT "Anti-Mormons".
  .
  http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=79258&catid=514
  http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=79235&catid=514
  http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=74191&catid=530
  http://books.google.com/books?id=IhkUAAAAYAAJ&q

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on September 21st, 2009

• OK. Let's add the millions of dollars in personal goods and livestock that it's said the mormons stole in their trek to Utah. I remember the Tanner's saying there was lots of newspaper accounts to substantiate this from that time period. I don't think I am remembering this wrong. It's been 20 years since I read it, so maybe someone can help me out here. I don't have the time or resources to check all the newspaper archives.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 21st, 2009

• .
  I suspect that the Tanners may have been referring to this:
  .
  "Thus [the Mormons] allow that mistakes have been made by individuals in carrying out their doctrines; for instance, many have supposed that the time was come when they should take possession of the property of the Gentiles, and that it would be no theft to secure cattle and grain from the neighboring pastures and fields, thus "spoiling the Egyptians," and we are told by themselves that such conduct had been forbidden from the public desk. This instance of wrong application of the dogma that they are "the stewards- of the Lord, and the inheritance of the earth belongs to the saints," shows that some foundation exists for the charges against them, on the score of insecurity of property, in Illinois, and Missouri --and that abuses can easily arise from their principles, when residing near people of other religious views."

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on September 21st, 2009

• (J. W. Gunnison. The Mormons, or Latter-Day Saints, in the valley of the Great Salt Lake. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1856. p.66)
  .
  And you might find this 1979 University of Idaho article enlightening in this regard as well:
  http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/special-collections/papers/utah.htm

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on September 21st, 2009

• This may be a tad late, but Eleanor had left her husband Hector for spousal and child abuse. She converted to Mormonism after leaving Hector. Hector brought charges against Parley for stealing his wife, but Parley was found not guilty. Hector, not happy with the verdict, chased him down in Arkansas and shot him in the back.

  • Report
  

  by laie_techie on September 21st, 2009

• .
  Well the whole Parley Pratt episode was tragic from just about any perspective. The whole sad saga was messy and complex.
  .
  And we lost a great Theologian in the process. One can't help but wonder what shape LdS Theology would look like today if Parley Pratt had lived longer than he did.
  .
  He died at a key juncture in Mormon History to everyone's loss.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on September 21st, 2009

• Someone made a comment that they thought BY ordered the murders because he "was afraid" the wagon train was there to attack the mormons? After they had already left Salt Lake City? Woundn't they have been outnumbered at least 100 to one had they went all the way back to attack the city. I can never believe it was anything else than murder for profit. (prophet)

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 25th, 2009

• You may have someting there. Yet I have always understood it to be BY's fear that led to this horrible incidient. BY IMHO, believed these folks to be after him and the rest of the young Morgonians.

  • Report
  

  by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on September 25th, 2009

• .
  I think it's more likely that BY thought that they were Federal Spies.
  .
  Remember paranoid hysteria was running high in Utah at the time as it feel that the Federal Government was poised to invade at any time.
  .
  However, those were AWFULLY fine and rare horses that they were running.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on September 25th, 2009

• It had something to do with the women wearing pants.

  • Report
  

  by DudeLer 2 on November 5th, 2009

• ROFLOL!
  .
  Classic! Just classic!
  .
  I love it!
  .
  Oh . . . I wish I could give points for a comment!
  .
  Nice! Very nice!

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on November 5th, 2009

• you could give points to my answers.

  • Report
  

  by DudeLer 2 on November 5th, 2009

• .
  You've got it mate!
  .

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on November 5th, 2009

• righton, +60

  • Report
  

  by DudeLer 2 on November 5th, 2009

• LOL!
  .
  Now I have to give you some more to get caught up with you!
  .
  ;-)

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on November 5th, 2009

• Is this a random fact that you just suddenly came across and thought would be a good idea to share? Like, "Hey! Can you friekin' believe this, this is incredible! I need to share this with other people, regardless of whether it looks uneducated and uncouth (not to mention unkind) to spread absolutely unasked for, random, negative information about a group of individuals that dates back over 150 years and has absolutely nothing to do with anything happening in the world today...but I need to educate people just in case there happens to be 1 out of the 6 billion people on this planet, whom actually may need to know this!!!" If that was not your train of thought, then you are either a.)the Useless Facts Bunny (second cousin twice removed to the Easter Bunny), b.)a vampire, no, no...a vampire DATING A MORMON GIRL(to whom an act happening 150 years ago would actually be a current event and relatively important), c.)you're just expressing a random thought like I am right now or d.)it's actually an important fact to you for whatever reason that may be. If the latter is truly the case, I do apologize if anyone's feelings were hurt...now you can say sorry to everyone else for spreading this useless negativity into all of our lives. And no, I'm not a Mormon, I'm a Christian, I just thought this display of knowledge on your part was kind of random and weird, but good lookin' out.

  • Report
  

  by courtneyluv on March 22nd, 2010

• CourtneyLuv this would be a non-issue if the LdS Church would stop trying to bury Mountain Meadows and issue a REAL apology rather than the pseudo apologies that they've issued over the years along with the white washing.
  
  That would indeed make this ancient history.
  
  However, because they continue to spin doctor, white wash and deflect it remains a current issue.
  
  For example, the majority of Mormons don't know about the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the minority of them that do continue to spread the LdS Church's lies regarding what really happened on September 11, 1857. To cite just ONE of the many, many, many examples this site http://mountainmeadowsmassacre.com/ is run by The More Good Foundation which is an LdS out reach organization with strong (but unofficial) ties to the Lds Church. In the "links" section you will find ONLY Mormon-biased links that do NOT tell the whole story. An innocent, unknowing person could stumble onto this site (which comes up one or two on Google searches) and not realizing that they're reading Mormon propaganda.
  
  So I would suggest that you get a more complete data set before harshly judging others.
  
  SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND RESOURCES:
  http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/
  http://1857massacre.com/
  http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/meadowscontents.htm
  http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_mass.htm

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on March 22nd, 2010

• Mister IT, you know there's not enough evidence to convict Brigham Young of ordering the attack. Given the lack of concrete evidence, we must accept Young's account. Innocent until proven guilty, eh?

  • Report
  

  by laie_techie on March 23rd, 2010

• I can't leave without you going on a lie-spewing rampage, can I Lola? Brigham Young was not responsible for the MMM at all, he opposed the idea from the start, and sent a letter condemning and forbidding it, however the letter did not arrive in time. This is what the evidence supports. There is no evidence to support your wildly offensive accusation that BY orchestrated it and plenty of evidence that he did not, so get off your high horse and if you can'-t tell the truth then don't talk and- make a fool of yourself.
  
  Lola=Mister It

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on March 24th, 2010

• Well, well, well WishUponAStar is back with a whole new set of Ad-Hominems - which of course is sure sign that he has no REAL evidence to support his claims. Such as:
  
  >Brigham Young was not responsible for the MMM at all, he opposed the idea from the start, and sent a letter condemning and forbidding it, however the letter did not arrive in time<
  
  And your evidence of this is of course none other than . . .
  (drum roll puh-lease!)
  
  Brigham Young
  
  "On September 10, 1858, James Holt Haslam arrived in Salt lake city, after experiencing long delays during his nearly 300 mile journey, to deliver a message from the acting commander of the Iron Brigade, Isaac C. Haight to the Mormon leader Brigham Young.[6] The letter has yet to be found.[7]
  
  President Young’s message of reply to Haight, dated September 10, read: "In regard to emigration trains passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them. There are no other trains going south that I know of[.] [I]f those who are there will leave let them go in peace."[8]
  
  Yet, by the time the express rider delivered Young's letter to Haight, ordering that the emigrants not be harmed, the murders at Mountain Meadows had already taken place. According to trial testimony given later by express rider Haslam, when Haight read Young’s words, he sobbed like a child and could manage only the words, "Too late, too late."[9]
  
  Historians debate the letter's contents. Brooks believes it shows Young "did not order the massacre, and would have prevented it if he could."[10] Bagley argues that the letter covertly gave other instructions.[11]"
  
  >This is what the evidence supports<
  
  Really? Exactly WHOSE evidence are you referring to? These citations are from a third party source:
  
  "There is consensus among historians that Brigham Young played a role in provoking the massacre, at least unwittingly, and in concealing its evidence after the fact;[70] however, they debate whether or not Young knew about the planned massacre ahead of time and whether or not he initially condoned it before later taking a strong public stand against it. Young's use of inflammatory and violent language[71] in response to the Federal expedition added to the tense atmosphere at the time of the attack. After the massacre, Young stated in public forums that God had taken vengeance on the Fancher party.[72] It is unclear whether Young held this view because he believed that this specific group posed an actual threat to colonists or because he believed that the group was directly responsible for past crimes against Mormons. According to historian MacKinnon, "After the [Utah] war, U.S. President James Buchanan implied that face-to-face communications with Brigham Young might have averted the conflict, and Young argued that a north-south telegraph line in Utah could have prevented the Mountain Meadows Massacre."[73] MacKinnon suggests that hostilities could have been avoided if Young had traveled east to Washington D.C. to resolve governmental problems instead of taking a five week trip north on the eve of the Utah War for church related reasons.[74]"
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre#Alleged_involvement_of_Brigham_Young

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on March 25th, 2010

• "I had many to assist me at the Mountain Meadows. I believe that most of those who were connected with the Massacre, and took part in the lamentable transaction that has blackened the character of all who were aiders or abettors in the same, were acting under the impression that they were performing a religious duty. I know all were acting under the orders and by the command of their Church leaders; and I firmly believe that the most of those who took part in the proceedings, considered it a religious duty to unquestioningly obey the orders which they had received. That they acted from a sense of duty to the Mormon Church."
  (...Life and Confessions of John D. Lee..., p. 213)
  
  Further evidence:
  http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/leeaccount.html
  http://www.lds-mormon.com/brigham_young_mmm.shtml
  http://www.salamandersociety.com/interviews/willbagley/
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_and_the_Mountain_Meadows_massacre
  
  So the issue is NOT as cut and dry as you claim it is.
  
  >There is no evidence to support your wildly offensive accusation that BY orchestrated it and plenty of evidence that he did not<
  
  Really? I believe that I have just presented evidence that discredits this assertion and NO reputable Mormon Studies Scholar - be they LdS or not - would agree with your clearly biased and uninformed assessment of the issue.
  
  >so get off your high horse and if you can'-t tell the truth then don't talk and- make a fool of yourself<
  
  Well let's see here . . .
  
  I have produced cited, verifiable evidence to support my assertions and you have produced . . .
  
  - Insults
  - Angry Comments
  - Unsupported Assertions
  - And NO evidence
  
  I really don't think that I'm the one who's making an arse out of himself in public here!
  
  In fact, I think you're projecting.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on March 25th, 2010

• Anyone can copy and paste out of the anti-Mormon handbook. There is significant evidence validating Brigham Youngs non-involvement. Many journals were collected from that time period concerning that horrible event, and also your allegations of secret orders in the letter is false because as you said, the courier didn't arrive in time, but then you knew that, you just didn't care about the truth.Sure, I may not be able to quote my proof, not having copies of the journals myself, but they do exist.
  
  Furthermore, the church denied involvement at first because the stake president in question denied his involvement. There was an investigation. Others repented and the one that did not repent of his deeds was executed, but the church didn't even want to do that. He went to his grave trying to spread the blame on everyone else but him. He did not own up to his part in the ordeal, so he was the only one executed.
  
  Anyway, Lola, I apologize for my previous attitude. It's late and my life is not great lately, and your words just struck a nerve. I should have kept my cool better. I admit my shortcomings, can you do the same?

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on March 25th, 2010

• Wish, I am curious why you called Mr IT Lola.

  • Report
  

  by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on March 25th, 2010

• A couple years ago when I last logged in on Answerbag, wasn't Lola part of your id Mr It? The impression I got from reading some back posts was that you were the answerbagger formerly known as Lola.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on March 25th, 2010

• Regarding Mr It's weblinks, anyone can create a website and say anything they want. For example, I could create a website and say that the surprise invasion of Japan went off without a hitch, and they agreed to an unconditional surrender, and that the war against Great Britain is going equally well, that Scotland, Ireland, and Wales have all been liberated from England under the guiding hand of President Mitt Romney. Now, just because someone goes and makes a website saying that doesn't make it so. Everyone has their own motives for making websites, and there are an overwhelming number, like the Tanners, who are willing to lie through their teeth to make Mormons look bad, so it's very hard to know who to trust on the internet. What I do know is that the witness accounts still exist from that time period, and that there is no physical evidence to contradict what the witnesses wrote in their journals. Anyone who says Brigham Young somehow ordered the attack is either lying or delusional. Mr. It did admit that the courier arrived 'too late' remember? So how could he have ordered it?

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on March 25th, 2010

• Oh, I reread what I said and thought I should add that I love England and Japan, and that I only used them in my example because it was so impossible that it would ever happen. I was going for an absolute extreme, to prove a point. I apologize if anyone was offended.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on March 25th, 2010

• >I got from reading some back posts was that you were the answerbagger formerly known as Lola<
  
  You are in error.
  
  >Regarding Mr It's weblinks, anyone can create a website and say anything they want<
  
  I see so Wikipedia - which is compiled, monitored, and reviewed by peers as well as section editors, as well as respected Mormon Studies Scholars like Will Bagley, not to mention original source documents documents and a wide range of BOTH Latter-day Saint AND non-Mormon Scholars are ALL wrong and suspect because . . . . ?
  
  Oh yeah! Because you don't like what they're saying and they're presenting evidence that unsettles you!
  
  Now I get it.
  
  >like the Tanners, who are willing to lie through their teeth to make Mormons look bad<
  
  Really? You know I dialog with a lot of Mormon Studies Scholars - Mormon and non-Mormon alike and benefit from the work of both. The general consensus that I hear from LdS Scholars is that while they dislike the tone, attitude, and presentation of the Tanner's materials they have a hard time finding fault with the evidence that they produce.
  
  In addition, Jerald Tanner in particular is held in high regard for "sticking to his guns" on the White Salamander Letter and insisting that it was a fraud when everyone else - including the First Presidency - was insisting that it was genuine.
  
  And, ironically, had the White Salamander Paper indeed been genuine the content would have done untold harm to both the reputation of Joseph Smith and the LdS Church.
  
  However, Mr. Tanner absolutely refused to endorse the document (Mark Hofmann brought it to him first BTW) and refused to "bend" even when he was under incredible pressure from BOTH Mormon Critics AND the LdS Church to declare it legitimate. (see http://articles.latimes.com/1987-03-29/magazine/tm-788_1_lost-mormon-document-simmonds-golden-plates,
  
  So strangely, these people that you have declared "liars" (something that Leonard Arrington, Mike Quinn, and other famous LdS Scholars have NEVER done) are consistently upheld as an example of unyielding honesty and integrity within Mormon Studies. For example:
  
  "On occasion, the Tanners have publicly challenged irresponsible critics of Mormonism.
  
  The Tanners were among the first public critics of forger (and later, murderer) Mark Hofmann. Though Hofmann's "discoveries" of important Mormon documents often appeared to bolster the Tanners own arguments, Jerald Tanner had, by early 1984, concluded there was significant doubt as to the Salamander Letter's authenticity, and "to the astonishment of a community of scholars, historians and students, published an attack on the so-called Salamander Letter".[6] By late 1984, Jerald Tanner questioned the authenticity of most if not all of Hofmann's "discoveries" based in large part on their unproved provenance. (The Tanners concur with Hofmann, however, in contending that the LDS church's apparent inability to discern the forged documents is evidence against church leadership being divinely inspired.) Mark Hofmann (born December 7, 1954), a disaffected member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was a prolific counterfeiter who murdered two people in Salt Lake City, Utah. ... The Salamander Letter was one of hundreds of documents concerning the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church; see also Mormon) that surfaced in the early 1980s. ... Provenance is the origin or source from which anything comes. ... Revelation This article is about prophecy. ...
  
  The Tanners have also debunked false claims circulated by Christian evangelist Ed Decker in his support of the misrepresentations of the LDS Church found in films such as The God Makers. [7] [8]."
  http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Jerald-and-Sandra-Tanner
  
  Perhaps you should update your data set mate - because you're WAY off base in your assessment of the Tanners.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on March 25th, 2010

• >What I do know is that the witness accounts still exist from that time period, and that there is no physical evidence to contradict what the witnesses wrote in their journals<
  
  Really? Let's see your evidence - you still haven't produced any. An assertion without evidence to back it is called "an opinion" and so far that's all we've gotten from you - opinions. Loud, obnoxious ones that are completely unsupported by evidence - and drowning in bias, not facts!
  
  >Anyone who says Brigham Young somehow ordered the attack is either lying or delusional<
  
  Again, really? The evidence doesn't support your angry denunciation of respected LdS (read that again - these are MORMONS) Scholars like Leo Lyman, Mike Quinn, Todd Compton, Robert H. Briggs, Van Hale, Gene A. Sessions, Sterling McMurrin who have ALL publicly acknowledged that the evidence leaves a great deal of doubt regarding Young's innocence.
  
  >Mr. It did admit that the courier arrived 'too late' remember? So how could he have ordered it?<
  
  That shows me that you are ignorant of the FULL body of evidence.
  
  There is evidence that Brigham Young was secretly communicating with John D. Lee courier throughout the time frame prior to the massacre. He then sent the letter and deliberately arranged it so that it would occur AFTER the massacre so he would have plausible deniability.
  
  That way the US Federal Government and the public (especially gullible Mormons) would be deceived into believing that Brigham Young had NOTHING to do with the Mountain Meadows Massacre. However, when you look at the FULL body of evidence it's "grey" and not "black or white" in either direction. Neither side can prove with 100% certainty either Young's innocence or guilt.
  
  And you're slamming me because I won't exonerate Young when all I'm doing is acknowledging what the FULL body of evidence indicates. So of the two of us who: a) has considered the full body of evidence BOTH for and against; b) who is keeping an open mind and not holding to a dogmatic, absolutist stance?
  
  Hint: It's not you.
  
  >I could create a website and say that the surprise invasion of Japan went off without a hitch, and they agreed to an unconditional surrender, and that the war against Great Britain is going equally well, that Scotland, Ireland, and Wales have all been liberated from England under the guiding hand of President Mitt Romney<
  
  Given the level of objective, well-headed "scholarship" that you've demonstrated in this discussion thread thus far frankly I suspect that you may have that site waiting in the wings and ready to go!
  
  Should we consider this your web site roll-out announcement?
  
  >Oh, I reread what I said and thought I should add that I love England and Japan, and that I only used them in my example because it was so impossible that it would ever happen. I was going for an absolute extreme, to prove a point. I apologize if anyone was offended<
  
  No problem you can publish your retraction on your web site!
  
  Now Wish it's clear that you have absolutely NO interest in the truth and are only interested in the truth that you want to believe. Unfortunately you seem to be too immature to allow others to disagree with you so unless I see a change of behavior - and soon - I'm simply going to sign off and let you argue with your cognitive dissonance and high functioning schitzophrenia.
  
  BTW, if I were investigating Mormonism and read your posts I would quickly determine that Mormons don't listen and aren't interesting in hearing responsible opposing points of view. I would also come to the conclusion that Mormons can't carry on a civilized dialog in a respectful tone.
  
  Hardly an organization that I would want to be a part of if this is the type of fruit it produces in it's members!
  
  Something to think about WishUponAStar...
  
  Maybe you should go talk to your Bishop about how Mormons should conduct themselves in public with those they disagree with. If it will help I have some good Gordon B. Hinckley quotes that mig

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on March 25th, 2010

• Quoting you Mister It "Neither side can prove with 100% certainty either Young's innocence or guilt."
  
  So you do admit that your alleged evidence is unprovable speculation? Then I was right. Glad you admit it, even if you didn't mean to. So you asre stating, as fact, what amounts to theories. And the evidence that the church has is stored in Utah, the journals of members from that time period. I consider first hand accounts of honest men and women more credible then unprovable and deflamatory speculation. Also, the editors of wikipedia can only do so much, and anyone can edit the content of it. Not very reliable.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on March 25th, 2010

• >So you do admit that your alleged evidence is unprovable speculation? Then I was right<
  
  Actually there are other adjectives that describe you and your behavior but the two that fit the best are "biased" and "selective" - or if you prefer, just "blind" will suffice.
  (and those are the nicer ones that I thought of actually)
  
  You weren't (and aren't) right because you absolutely and dogmatically insist that there is NO possible way that Brigham Young had ANYTHING to do with the Mountain Meadow Massacre slaughters.
  
  And the evidence does NOT support such that absolute stance.
  
  >So you asre stating, as fact, what amounts to theories<
  
  Theory = An unproven conjecture; An expectation of what should happen, barring unforeseen circumstances.
  
  What I am doing is PRESENTING EVIDENCE not generating theories. What you're doing is:
  
  1) Drawing a conclusion prior to examining the full set of evidence.
  
  2) Refusing to acknowledge any evidence that doesn't support #1.
  
  3) Refusing to adjust or soften #1 - period.
  
  In other words you're trying to bend the evidence to fit a predetermined conclusion: That Brigham Young had NOTHING at all to do with the MMM slaughter.
  
  And the evidence is just NOT strong enough to support that extreme stance.
  
  >And the evidence that the church has is stored in Utah, the journals of members from that time period<
  
  Great! Stop talking about it and present it.
  
  >I consider first hand accounts of honest men and women more credible...<
  
  Great! I'm glad you said that because here's some first hand accounts for you to consider:
  
  "I have always believed, since that day, that General George A. Smith was then visiting southern Utah to prepare the people for the work of exterminating Captain Fancher's train of emigrants, and I now believe that he was sent for that purpose by the direct command of Brigham Young."
  
  "I do not believe everything that is now being taught and practiced by Brigham Young. I do not care who hears it. It is my last word... I have been sacrificed in a cowardly, dastardly manner."
  (John D. Lee, "Mormonism Unveiled; Or The Life and Confessions of the Late Mormon Bishop John D. Lee")
  
  "Evidence has been brought against me which is as false as the hinges of hell, and this evidence was wanted to sacrifice me. Sacrifice a man that has waited upon them, that has wandered and endured with them in the days of adversity, true from the beginning of the Church! And I am now singled out and am sacrificed in this manner! What con­fidence can I have in such a man! I have none, and I don't think my Father in heaven has any.
  
  Still, there are thousands of people in this Church that are honorable and good hearted friends, and some of whom are near to my heart. There is a kind of living, magnetic influence which has come over the people, and I cannot compare it to anything else than the reptile that enamors his prey, till it captivates it, paralyzes it, and it rushes into the jaws of death. I cannot compare it to anything else. It is so, I know it, I am satisfied of it."
  (The Last Words of John D. Lee, March 28, 1877)
  
  >then unprovable and deflamatory speculation<
  
  Oh you must be referring to an absolutist stance that there is absolutely NO way that Brigham Young had ANYTHING at all to do with the MMM slaughters, still the evidence is inconclusive EITHER way!
  
  After all the family members of the MMM slaughter victims feel THAT stance is, "unprovable and deflamatory speculation."
  
  >first hand accounts of honest men and women more credible<
  
  Again, you keep talking about them - let's see them.
  
  In other words: Put up or shut up.
  
  I'm tired of your unsubstantiated opinions and gross, biased exaggerations of what the FULL data set concludes - which is that it's neither black or white!
  
  So either produce it or stop referring to it! Is THAT clear enough?
  
  I have produced evidence after evidence that can be checked and verified. You, on the other hand, have produced NOTHING but insults, slurs, and unsubstan

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on March 25th, 2010

• Your evidence i.e. John D. Lee's statement, prove nothing, really. If he were truly the victim he pretended to be, then why was he the only one involved in the MMM to never repent? I would think that if he were truly being made a sacrificial lamb, as you want to believe, that he would have been repentant of his part in the attack.
  
  Also, if you want evidence, the book here is a good place to start.
  
  http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=8368
  
  I've been wanting to buy it to read, but I am unemployed and on a tight budget at the moment. Financial worries have me really stressed out lately, and snappy.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on March 25th, 2010

• >Your evidence i.e. John D. Lee's statement, prove nothing, really<
  
  Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!
  
  You were the one who said, "I consider first hand accounts of honest men and women more credible..."
  
  So can we conclude that they're ONLY honest if they support and reinforce the conclusion that you'd come to before examining the evidence?
  
  >If he were truly the victim he pretended to be, then why was he the only one involved in the MMM to never repent?<
  
  In other words, "If he was innocent why didn't confess to being guilty?"
  
  I believe that's called "circular logic".
  
  >http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=8368<
  
  OK, once again you said: "And the evidence that the church has is stored in Utah, the journals of members from that time period."
  
  To which I replied: "Great! Stop talking about it and present it."
  
  Elsewhere you said: "first hand accounts of honest men and women more credible"
  
  To which I said: "Again, you keep talking about them - let's see them.
  
  In other words: Put up or shut up."
  
  Now WishUponAStar you seem a little confused. When someone says, "Present your evidence" that means "Present your evidence" NOT "Make me do my own research so I can prove your arguments for you!".
  
  A link to a book is NOT evidence. It's a link a book.
  
  And the onus REMAINS on YOU - the one making the absolutist, extremist assertions - to prove your arguments WITH cross referenced, verifiable EVIDENCE!
  
  So let's try this again:
  
  You keep talking about incredible original source testimonies, journal entries, and other 19th Century evidence that exonerates Brigham Young - let's see it.
  
  Present it NOW.
  
  In other words: Put up or shut up."
  
  And I keep saying and I will say it AGAIN until you get it: I have produced evidence after evidence that can be checked and verified. You, on the other hand, have produced NOTHING but insults, slurs, unsubstantiated opinion, and assertion after assertion after assertion with NO, zip, nada substantive to back it up.
  
  What other conclusion can I and the other readers come to but that you are ALL bluster and growl, shuck and jive, and smoke and mirrors with NO real evidence to support your absolutist and extremist claims?

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on March 25th, 2010

• And here is a summary of the hard, verifiable, cited evidence that I have presented in this thread.
  
  General Google Search String for "The Mountain Meadows Massacre"
  http://www.google.com/search?q=the+mountain+meadows+massacre&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
  
  Victim's Response to what Mormons erroneously refer to as "The Apology"
  http://www.nhne.org/news/NewsArticlesArchive/tabid/400/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3554/Default.aspx
  
  (BTW, pull quotes were included in the discussion thread - see above)
  
  Some suggested Sunstone Presentations examining Brigham Young's role in MMM:
  https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage_session&category_id=11&product_id=571&Itemid=41
  
  https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_file_index&key=263&name=125-62-65.pdf
  
  https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage_session&category_id=11&product_id=1233&Itemid=41
  
  References to the practice of "plundering the Egyptians" prior to MMM from MORMON SOURCES ONLY!
  http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=79258&catid=514
  http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=79235&catid=514
  http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=74191&catid=530
  http://books.google.com/books?id=IhkUAAAAYAAJ&q
  
  Pull quote on "plundering the Egyptians":
  
  "Thus [the Mormons] allow that mistakes have been made by individuals in carrying out their doctrines; for instance, many have supposed that the time was come when they should take possession of the property of the Gentiles, and that it would be no theft to secure cattle and grain from the neighboring pastures and fields, thus "spoiling the Egyptians," and we are told by themselves that such conduct had been forbidden from the public desk. This instance of wrong application of the dogma that they are "the stewards- of the Lord, and the inheritance of the earth belongs to the saints," shows that some foundation exists for the charges against them, on the score of insecurity of property, in Illinois, and Missouri --and that abuses can easily arise from their principles, when residing near people of other religious views."
  (J. W. Gunnison. The Mormons, or Latter-Day Saints, in the valley of the Great Salt Lake. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1856. p.66)
  
  Supporting link to a related article:
  1979 University of Idaho article enlightening in this regard as well:
  http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/special-collections/papers/utah.htm
  
  Specific resources related to the MMM:
  http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/
  http://1857massacre.com/
  http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/meadowscontents.htm
  http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_mass.htm
  
  "On September 10, 1858, James Holt Haslam arrived in Salt lake city, after experiencing long delays during his nearly 300 mile journey, to deliver a message from the acting commander of the Iron Brigade, Isaac C. Haight to the Mormon leader Brigham Young.[6] The letter has yet to be found.[7]
  
  President Young’s message of reply to Haight, dated September 10, read: "In regard to emigration trains passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them. There are no other trains going south that I know of[.] [I]f those who are there will leave let them go in peace."[8]
  
  Yet, by the time the express rider delivered Young's letter to Haight, ordering that the emigrants not be harmed, the murders at Mountain Meadows had already taken place. According to trial testimony given later by express rider Haslam, when Haight read Young’s words, he sobbed like a child and could manage only the words, "Too late, too late."[9]
  
  CONTINUED

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on March 25th, 2010

• Historians debate the letter's contents. Brooks believes it shows Young "did not order the massacre, and would have prevented it if he could."[10] Bagley argues that the letter covertly gave other instructions.[11]"
  
  "There is consensus among historians that Brigham Young played a role in provoking the massacre, at least unwittingly, and in concealing its evidence after the fact;[70] however, they debate whether or not Young knew about the planned massacre ahead of time and whether or not he initially condoned it before later taking a strong public stand against it. Young's use of inflammatory and violent language[71] in response to the Federal expedition added to the tense atmosphere at the time of the attack. After the massacre, Young stated in public forums that God had taken vengeance on the Fancher party.[72] It is unclear whether Young held this view because he believed that this specific group posed an actual threat to colonists or because he believed that the group was directly responsible for past crimes against Mormons. According to historian MacKinnon, "After the [Utah] war, U.S. President James Buchanan implied that face-to-face communications with Brigham Young might have averted the conflict, and Young argued that a north-south telegraph line in Utah could have prevented the Mountain Meadows Massacre."[73] MacKinnon suggests that hostilities could have been avoided if Young had traveled east to Washington D.C. to resolve governmental problems instead of taking a five week trip north on the eve of the Utah War for church related reasons.[74]"
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre#Alleged_involvement_of_Brigham_Young
  
  "I had many to assist me at the Mountain Meadows. I believe that most of those who were connected with the Massacre, and took part in the lamentable transaction that has blackened the character of all who were aiders or abettors in the same, were acting under the impression that they were performing a religious duty. I know all were acting under the orders and by the command of their Church leaders; and I firmly believe that the most of those who took part in the proceedings, considered it a religious duty to unquestioningly obey the orders which they had received. That they acted from a sense of duty to the Mormon Church."
  (...Life and Confessions of John D. Lee..., p. 213)
  
  Further evidence:
  http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/leeaccount.html
  http://www.lds-mormon.com/brigham_young_mmm.shtml
  http://www.salamandersociety.com/interviews/willbagley/
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_and_the_Mountain_Meadows_massacre
  
  CONTINUED IN NEXT POST . . .

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on March 25th, 2010

• Lee showed no remorse at all, even for his part in the attack. If he showed some remorse, then maybe he'd seem more credible, but his lack of remorse does not shine him in a very good light. He doesn't seem very credible. Lee's pointing of the finger at Brigham Young is just dreadful evidence. And I already told you, I don't have the resources. Do you think I am some rich guy that has every LDS source there is? I'm not. I am a 28 year old, presently unemployed man who lives alone and is just struggling to make ends meet. But the evidence IS out there, and I gave you one source for it that I want to get eventually, when I can afford it, but right now I just can't.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on March 25th, 2010

• Pull quote from a third party source discrediting your claim that the Tanners are unscrupulous liars who lack integrity:
  
  "On occasion, the Tanners have publicly challenged irresponsible critics of Mormonism.
  
  The Tanners were among the first public critics of forger (and later, murderer) Mark Hofmann. Though Hofmann's "discoveries" of important Mormon documents often appeared to bolster the Tanners own arguments, Jerald Tanner had, by early 1984, concluded there was significant doubt as to the Salamander Letter's authenticity, and "to the astonishment of a community of scholars, historians and students, published an attack on the so-called Salamander Letter".[6] By late 1984, Jerald Tanner questioned the authenticity of most if not all of Hofmann's "discoveries" based in large part on their unproved provenance. (The Tanners concur with Hofmann, however, in contending that the LDS church's apparent inability to discern the forged documents is evidence against church leadership being divinely inspired.) Mark Hofmann (born December 7, 1954), a disaffected member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was a prolific counterfeiter who murdered two people in Salt Lake City, Utah. ... The Salamander Letter was one of hundreds of documents concerning the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church; see also Mormon) that surfaced in the early 1980s. ... Provenance is the origin or source from which anything comes. ... Revelation This article is about prophecy. ...
  
  The Tanners have also debunked false claims circulated by Christian evangelist Ed Decker in his support of the misrepresentations of the LDS Church found in films such as The God Makers. [7] [8]."
  http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Jerald-and-Sandra-Tanner
  
  NOW LET'S LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU'VE PRODUCED TO SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTIONS:
  
  http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=8368
  
  Here's the deal. Until you can produce some cross referenced, verifiable evidence from OBJECTIVE sources (that means NO official LdS Church sources - including BYU, no LdS Apologists - that means REAL scholars) this discussion is over.
  
  I am no longer willing to listen to the prejudiced ramblings of a biased, opinionated, fool who can't produce a lick of serious evidence to support his arguments.
  
  Until you can produce some REAL evidence I'm done here.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on March 25th, 2010

• >But the evidence IS out there, and I gave you one source for it that I want to get eventually, when I can afford it, but right now I just can't<
  
  Your pleas are lost on me. I'm unemployed too.
  
  AND I have produced post after post of FREE fully cited, verifiable evidence that cost neither myself nor the readers - including YOU - a penny.
  
  So your excuses are just THAT - excuses.
  
  You claim that you have evidence to back your stance - ONE MORE TIME . . .
  
  Let's see it.
  
  No more B.S., no more dodges, no more deflections via ad-hominem attacks, insults and slurs.
  
  Deliver the goods or shut the frak up!
  
  More examples:
  
  >Lee showed no remorse at all, even for his part in the attack<
  
  Citation? Source? Evidence?
  
  >Lee's pointing of the finger at Brigham Young is just dreadful evidence<
  
  Really? Says who? You?
  
  Well you're the guy who said that first hand original sources are the best. That is indeed a first hand, original source from the one man who knew MORE than anyone else.
  
  And it's "dreadful evidence"?
  
  Yet somehow any evidence - even second-hand, third-hand, or opinions of LdS Leaders over 150-years later are "honest" and "reliable"?
  
  LOL! And you were accusing the Tanners of a lack of integrity!
  
  ROFLOL.
  
  Now in all seriousness - either put up or shut up!

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on March 25th, 2010

• I went to the Tanners website once and they had an article on it about how early Mormons used a phonograph to record speeches, but the phonograph hadn't even been invented at that time. I assume that by now they've noticed the error and removed that article, but I just figure if they were such good researchers why would they make that mistake in the first place? Also, just because some of what the Tanner's claim can't be discredited, doesn't mean it can be substantiated either. They lost me at phonograph.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on March 25th, 2010

• You really have NO idea how pathetic you are do you?
  
  In the end all you're left with is yet another attack on the Tanners - and one that ISN'T and CAN'T be substantiated with a scrap of evidence.
  
  Even to the last post you demonstrate the same utter disregard for the truth and same snapped unreality that you did in your first post.
  
  Well good luck with ALL THAT!
  
  I'm done here.
  
  I'm not in the habit of talking to men behind walls of glass and I'm not going to start now.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on March 25th, 2010

• "A couple years ago when I last logged in on Answerbag, wasn't Lola part of your id Mr It? The impression I got from reading some back posts was that you were the answerbagger formerly known as Lola."
  
  So, wishing upon a star (what other options do you have?), If this person (Mr IT) goes by this current screen name... What would be the reason for calling him "Lola"? If that was a previous screen name for him, why would you call him that now? The only reason I can assume, is it was meant as a derogatory attack.
  
  Now you take one of the many many people on here who can not come up with a screen name, hum anonymous. Bob Blaylock switched from his real name to anonymous. Why, to hide from his in ability to carry on an intelligent conversation.
  
  So, if Mr IT's name was previously Lola, than that would be reflected in current posts now and again.
  
  But, like a good Morg member, you had a thought that went very well with your confusion, and you ran with it. No evidence, nothing to support your stance. You just had a burning in the bosom, that you were right.
  
  You're wrong, ask me how I know?

  • Report
  

  by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on March 25th, 2010

• Mit, I truly do not know how you put up with it. Day in and day out. You pour living waters of truth on a burning pit of lies that grows and grows.

  • Report
  

  by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on March 25th, 2010

• Thank you, Lola, er I mean Joe!
  
  ;-)
  
  I appreciate your kind words.
  
  BTW, I have posted this new question for those who are interested in discussing this further:
  
  YOU'RE THE JURY: Is the defendant, Brigham Young, guilty or innocent of compliancy of murder in the matter of the Mountain Meadows Massacre?
  http://www.answerbag.com/polls/jury-defendant,-brigham-young,-guilty-innocent-compliancy-murder-matter-mountain-meadows-massacre_1970292

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on March 26th, 2010

Comments

• Or Mormons for that matter!

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

Comments

• I don't recall the question being about the slaughter of Native Americans.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

Comments

• However, not explaining and just saying other people have done worse is also suspicious. I don't know if you are related to any religion and I'm not implying anything but it seems to be the trend of a lot of people nowadays to point to something else when something inconvenient is brought up.

  • Report
  

  by Koz - Passion Perseverance Patience on August 16th, 2007

• I agree that people try to do that. But Ridiculour didn't ask why they did it, he asked if I knew it. In any case, I forget the murderers' rationale for doing it, but of course it was an atrocity. I'm definitely not a Mormon, don't even know any that I know of.

  • Report
  

  by Amorphous Blob on August 16th, 2007

• To be honest, I'm not really concerned about something that happened a hundred and fifty years ago as we can't go on forever saying "Remember the Alamo" however, saying "But these guys are worse because they did that" is all to commonly heard nowadays even from the head of governments.

  • Report
  

  by Koz - Passion Perseverance Patience on August 16th, 2007

• Sure.

  • Report
  

  by Amorphous Blob on August 16th, 2007

• I know the motive, and there was a good one. I am not saying they made the right decision, because I do not believe they did, but they had good reasoning. They didn't just wake up one day and say they wanted to kill people.
  
  http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1c234dc029133110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on February 5th, 2009

• They reached the wrong decision for the right reasons. I encourage you to read that article, which is historically accurate. Lots of hate-spreaders weave tales that the evidence directly disputes. Don't be fooled. This article has details of events mentioned in the journals of multiple early Mormons. My opinion is that people don't generally lie to their journals, and even if you want to say a person might, then two or more people wont tell the same exact lie. The people writing in their journals probably weren't thinking that they would one day be a part of church record, and sense they based that article only of facts verified by two or more unrelated people, I find it very credible. The part about Brigham Young's not approving of the massacre is verified both by his letter to Lee still existing, and by journals or early Mormons.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on February 5th, 2009

• It was individuals. It was NOT the Chruch of Jesus Christ of latter day saints!(mormons). You can not blame the actions of the members on the organisation. It is like saying that because a few terrorist kill thousands of people it was ISLAM, just because they happen to be muslims

  • Report
  

  by masterwerx on October 31st, 2009

Comments

• Good answer... I assume speaking for and killing for God...is a little wrong in His eyes. and they are in trouble!

  • Report
  

  by Go know thyself is THE RED QUEEN on May 13th, 2009

• a little....

  • Report
  

  by Britt Read on September 11th, 2009

Comments

• Where was there stone throwing in the question? I'm not seeing it.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• In simple terms Miss Vampire is saying why are there so many Christians who like to destroy. Pretty silly they all claim to believe in the same god and kill each other. I don't think that was his message.
  
  If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England.
  -- Benjamin Franklin, An Essay on Toleration

  • Report
  

  by Dave2222 on May 14th, 2009

• .
  This dynamic, of course, isn't limited to Christians. Obviously there's something in human nature that makes it prone to contemplate murdering those who disagree with or are different than us.
  .
  Factor God out and this is just as true one need only consider brutal secular tyrannies - such as Communism - for example.
  .
  However, all I see in the question is a question.
  .
  It's no different than asking, "Did you know that Christians murdered thousands of people in the Crusades?"
  .

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 14th, 2009

• But did you notice, the question is loaded?

  • Report
  

  by edndori on July 7th, 2009

Comments

• Unfortunately, there is a lot more to it that this simple explanation, that actually had nothing to do with the massacre, it dealt with the US goverment, fear, mistrust, and local leadership in the area taking action upon themselves without the knowledge of Brigham Young; coupled, with the past persecution and anger of the local membership. Regardless of the reason why, the fact is that it was wrong, it has been acknowledged by the Church it was wrong, as it was acknowledged by the Church then that it was wrong, and those involved were dealt with through excommunication and the legal system.

  • Report
  

  by E-8 on October 24th, 2007

• Unfortunately, your last statement is not entirely correct. Only one person, John D. Lee, was ever actually tried for the massacrer. The rest disappeared before the law could catch up with them. However, I have no doubt that God is taking care of their punishment.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on December 22nd, 2007

• Eleanor McLean had left Hector. Hector sued Parley for stealing his wife, but a judge (in Kansas, IIRC) found Parley innocent. Hector didn't like te verdict and followed Parley to Arkansas and shot him in the back.

  • Report
  

  by laie_techie on March 2nd, 2009

• .
  This answer is UTTER rubbage!
  .
  In the words of Gordon B. Hinckley at the Dedication of the Mountain Meadows Memorial in 1999:
  .
  "They did nothing wrong and didn't deserve what they received."
  .

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• I am not sure that I entirely agree with President Hinkley on this. The events leading up to this massacre are so clouded by rumor that I don't know that we can be entirely certain as to what, if anything the members of this wagon train may have done to exacerbate the situation. However, whatever they may or may not have done, they certainly did not deserve what happened to them.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on May 12th, 2009

• Even at the time of the massacre things were unclear. A dead cow ruined a well, so the Mormons thought members of the caravan had poisoned the well. Members of the caravan bragged about their mistreatment of Mormons back east, and some even vowed to return to Utah from California to help the Army. These threats were meant to intimidate the Mormons into trading, but it just riled them up more. Then the actions of "the Dutchman" as the caravan went from city to city. It didn't justify the massacre, and they didn't deserve death, but they acted extremely foolishly given the climate.

  • Report
  

  by laie_techie on May 12th, 2009

Comments

• I hope you aren't referring to that hideously dishonest movie, September Dawn, are you? Look it up on Wikipedia. Ebert and Roeper and many other movie critics reviewed it and said that it was basically fantasy designed to promote the persecution of Mormons with absolutely no basis in facts. The critics, again, not Mormons, said that they were way off, and went out of their way to make Mormons out as monsters.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on February 5th, 2009

• Still haven't seen it - couldn't tell you.

  • Report
  

  by LadyLuck on February 6th, 2009

• well, that's the only movie supposedly about Mountain Meadows, at least the only one I know about, and it was horribly dishonest,historically inaccurate, and preaching religious intolerance towards Mormons. If you want the historically accurate truth, I can provide you with an article.
  -
  http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1c234dc029133110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on February 6th, 2009

• Thank you.

  • Report
  

  by LadyLuck on February 7th, 2009

• You're welcome. :-)

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on February 7th, 2009

• Here are some references that aren't Official LDS Church sources like those that WishUponAStar provided:
  .
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre
  .
  http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/mormons.html
  http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/massacre/
  .
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7746783936377320259&ei=UMMJSqWbKaD8qAPS3uSUCw&q=mountain+meadows+massacre&client=firefox-a
  .
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-194844516208724308&ei=UMMJSqWbKaD8qAPS3uSUCw&q=mountain+meadows+massacre&client=firefox-a
  .
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZnZdFSrFjs

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• I saw the movie and thought it was well done, although there is always that need to add and dramatize things to keep people's interest. But I've read A LOT of the reports on it, from when it happened, and I believe the writers actually tried to tell the story as it happened.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 17th, 2009

Comments

• Do you also consider it an atrocity that this wagon train (said to be one of the richest, or so I read somewhere in my research) had all it's worldly goods end up in the church coffers? Probably not. Anything to advance the kingdom, right?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 17th, 2009

• >somewhere in my research< is a bit too vague to take seriously.
  .
  You are welcome to repeat that accusation if and when you can provide documentation for the existence of the "riches" and what became of it.

  • Report
  

  by edndori on September 17th, 2009

Comments

• I gave you 5-points for your answer but I would also like to encourage you to do a bit more research about the both the Nazis and the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
  .
  Your answer demonstrated that you're not very well informed on either. Further, were I Mormon (which I'm not) I would be offended at drawing parallels between Nazism and Mormonism.
  .
  Which is probably why you're getting DR'd for your answer.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• I meant no offense to the Mormons. The people I know that are Mormom are wonderful people with a deep religious faith and a wonderful family value and attitude. I was actually trying to point out that there are many groups that have had things happen and they are not to be singled out as a group

  • Report
  

  by Karen Anne Queen of AB on May 12th, 2009

• .
  Well, again, I think that you should do a LOT more research. Here, let me give you a "leg up" on the Mormonism side of the fence . . .
  .
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre
  .
  http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/mormons.html
  http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/massacre/
  .
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7746783936377320259&ei=UMMJSqWbKaD8qAPS3uSUCw&q=mountain+meadows+massacre&client=firefox-a
  .
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-194844516208724308&ei=UMMJSqWbKaD8qAPS3uSUCw&q=mountain+meadows+massacre&client=firefox-a
  .
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZnZdFSrFjs

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• Thank you

  • Report
  

  by Karen Anne Queen of AB on May 12th, 2009

• The Mountain Meadows massacre was a mass slaughter of the Fancher-Baker emigrant wagon train at Mountain Meadows, Utah Territory, by the local Mormon militia on 11 September 1857. It began as an attack, quickly turned into a siege, and eventually culminated in the execution of the unarmed emigrants after their surrender. All of the party except for seventeen children under eight years old—about 120 men, women, and children—were killed.[1] After the massacre, the corpses of the victims were left decomposing for two years on the open plain,[2] their children were distributed to local Mormon families, and many of their possessions auctioned off at the LDS Cedar City tithing office.[3]

  • Report
  

  by Karen Anne Queen of AB on May 12th, 2009

• The Arkansas emigrants were traveling to California shortly before the Utah War started. Mormon leaders had been mustering militia throughout Utah Territory to fight the United States Army, which was sent to Utah to restore US authority in the territory.[4] The emigrants stopped to rest and regroup their approximately 800 head of cattle at Mountain Meadows, a valley within the Iron County Military District of the Nauvoo Legion (the popular designation for the Mormon militia of the Utah Territory).[5]

  • Report
  

  by Karen Anne Queen of AB on May 12th, 2009

• Initially intending to orchestrate an Indian massacre,[6] local militia leaders including Isaac C. Haight and John D. Lee conspired to lead militiamen disguised as Native Americans along with a contingent of Paiute tribesmen in an attack. The emigrants fought back and a siege ensued. When the Mormons discovered that they had been identified as the attacking force by the emigrants, Col. William H. Dame, head of the Iron County Brigade of the Utah militia, ordered their annihilation.[7] Intending to leave no witnesses of Mormon complicity in the siege and also intending to prevent reprisals that would complicate the Utah War, militiamen induced the emigrants to surrender and give up their weapons

  • Report
  

  by Karen Anne Queen of AB on May 12th, 2009

• After escorting the emigrants out of their hasty fortification, the militiamen and their tribesmen auxiliaries executed the emigrants. Investigations, interrupted by the U.S. Civil War, resulted in nine indictments in 1874. Only John D. Lee was tried in a court of law, and after two trials, he was convicted. On March 23, 1877 a firing squad executed Lee at the massacre site.

  • Report
  

  by Karen Anne Queen of AB on May 12th, 2009

• All comments were copied and pasted from
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre

  • Report
  

  by Karen Anne Queen of AB on May 12th, 2009

• Thanks everyone for the points

  • Report
  

  by Karen Anne Queen of AB on May 13th, 2009

• If you knew the story you wouldn't have taken this stance. Mormons were driven from state to state to state, then finally left the boundaries of the USA. Mormons heard the US Army was marching against them and so decided to fight instead of giving up yet another home. Brigham Young declared martial law and forbade trading food or munition with outsiders. The caravan arrived at that time and was frustrated that no one would sell them food. Members of the caravan made not-so-veiled threats against the Mormons. Haight (a stake president) organized a party to attack the caravan. The rest is history.
  -
  I don't think the Nazis were persecuted before they slaughtered the Jews.

  • Report
  

  by laie_techie on September 9th, 2009

• >Mormons were driven from state to state to state, then finally left the boundaries of the USA<
  .
  Q: And they did NOTHING to illicit ANY hostility towards themselves? They and their leaders were COMPLETELY without blame?
  .
  (And Laie, I encourage to consult with sources OTHER than spin-doctored official Church propaganda before you answer. TRUTHFUL History always trumps faithful History - because it's TRUE)
  .
  >Members of the caravan made not-so-veiled threats against the Mormons<
  .
  Evidence?
  .
  Your assertion flies in the face of Gordon B. Hinckley's "They did nothing wrong and did not deserve their fate." statement in the September 15, 1990 dedication of the new MMM Memorial.
  .
  If you doubt the veracity of that statement the FULL dedication speech is contained in Brian Patrick's superb documentary "Burying The Past". Unfortunately, that's the only place I've found it. The Church seems to have conveniently "forgotten" about GBH's excellent speech.
  http://www.amazon.com/Burying-Past-Mountain-Meadows-Massacre/dp/B001RFEJIQ
  .

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on September 9th, 2009

• I agree with President Hinckley that the massacre wasn't merited. The not-so-veiled threats included threatening to come back and help the US Army kill the damn Mormons. All this from a book you've recommended in the past: Massacre at Mountain Meadows, by Walker, Turley, and Leonard.

  • Report
  

  by laie_techie on September 9th, 2009

• .
  I think that you're mistaken - I would NEVER recommend that book since it's a known LdS white wash propaganda piece.
  .
  Ron Huggins "nailed it" in his review of this "Faithful History" work.
  .
  "It is, I think, significant that Massacre at Mountain Meadows appears 150 years after the murders because it shows that even now the possibility of good Mormon historical treatments of controversial issues by LDS historians appears to be something for the future. Hopefully the LDS Church will someday come to a place psychologically where they are willing to take a look at their own past honestly and without having to boost themselves up by trying to recast motives and personae to fit a modern Mormon ideal. Until then the greatest enemy to good Mormon history will continue to be the LDS institution itself."
  http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no111.htm#Review
  .
  And I was referring to the overstated "persecution" skew at the beginning of your post. The Missouri Mormons were FAR from blameless.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on September 9th, 2009

• .
  Ditto for the New York, Pennsylvannia, and Illinois Mormons.
  .
  There ARE two-sides to the story and the "Mormons are ALWAYS poor, persecuted victims" card is NO exception.
  .

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on September 9th, 2009

• Karen- The only trouble with working for "The Kingdom of God" with the mormons is- they want their prophet to be the leader of it. AND THEY WON'T TAKE NO, FOR AN ANSWER.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 17th, 2009

• Not so many folk are aware that Catholic priests were involved in the holocaust in Croatia (a Nazi puppet state at the time). One charming priest, Miloslav Filipovic, was named the "devil of Jasenovac", but he didn't act alone. Historians Fulcotti and Phayer note that it was unlikely that the pope was oblivious to such heinous crimes, but he never did anything.

  • Report
  

  by Henderson on February 25th, 2010

• Yes and the Catholic Church has acknowledged their error, accepted culpability, and sought reconciliation with Judaism. Here you go:
  
  http://www.google.com/search?q=catholic+apology+to+jews&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
  
  The LdS Church has yet to show this degree of responsibility and continues to try to white wash and spin doctor Mountain Meadows away.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 25th, 2010

Comments

• Oh those poor inocient Mormons. boo hoo

  • Report
  

  by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on February 5th, 2009

• Thank you, Lola, for revealing just what kind of "Christian" you really are. No condemnation of those that committed such atrocities, just mocking of those that were subjected to them. How very Christ-like of you to mock the suffering of others.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on March 2nd, 2009

• .
  Based on the lastest Mountain Meadows research this answer now looks rather foolish and fraught with error.
  .
  Further, it is a modern day evidence of the type of Mormon thinking that LED to the MMM! Notice, "We're right to seek revenge!" rhetoric in particular.
  .
  MMM was no accident. It's thinking like this that got these innocents killed and their children and possessions looted by Utah Mormons.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• No, I don't think that this is a justification for what happened at Mountain Meadows. There is not justification for that. This is points out a couple of things about those that keep bringing up this tragic piece of history. One thing it does is to help illustrate the events that contributed to this event. It wasn't simply people deciding to go at and massacre a wagon train full of people for the fun of it. It was an abused people who were once again facing the possibility of being driven from their homes overreacting to the situation. Again, this is not trying to justify what they did, but given the situation, it was understandable.
  -
  Second, this points out the utter hypocrisy, of those that keep trying to beat up the Church over this incident. People like Joe Fraud are very quick to condemn all Latter-day Saints for the actions of these few people. However, they don't show the same outrage for the mobs that raped, murdered, and pillaged the LDS as they drove them from...

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on May 12th, 2009

• ...one place to another. As a matter of fact, many of these people seem to think that those mobs were perfectly justified in their actions. So, when people leave comments such as Joe Fraud did here, they reveal how truly hateful, vicious, and utterly hypocritical they are.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on May 12th, 2009

• Glenn, I was addressed the Answerer. Joe Fraud's behavior was reprehensible - no doubt about it.
  .
  However, on this question, the questioner got BADLY piled on by LDS and others. And the LDS response was eery given that they were using EXACTLY the same rationale that the MMM murderers used for their crimes.
  .
  C. Jess Groesbeck, a Mormon Stalwart, was 100% accurate when he said:
  .

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• "One of the most dangerous traits and trends of any culture that claims, 'to have the truth,' is the tendency to not see it's blind side and it's capacity to project it's own shadow onto others. And then identify with only what is light and good and right from God. And assume that all others that are different belong to the Devil.
  .
  This is, in my estimation, one of the most serious - if not THE most serious problem we face in collective Mormonism today. Our inability to acknowledge or see our own shadowy side.
  .
  How desperately do we need to hear, '. . . why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?' (Matthew 7:3)"
  .

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• -AND-
  .
  "But when no one looks behind the scenes at the collective elements that fomented and set the stage for these kinds of individuals, then painful realities need to be acknowledged in this culture.
  .
  As Richard Howard, Historian for the Reorganized Church said to me, 'When individuals are isolated and their own religious outlooks are not honored or given at least legitimate discussion, does this not produce the kind of isolation that breeds idiosyncrasy, anger, frustration, alienation and hence aggression toward others?'
  .
  The answer to that question would have to be a painful, 'Yes!'"
  .
  http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=78591&catid=526#78591

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• There may be something to the idea that isolation had a part in breading the conditions that led to the MMM. However, one must also ask why it was that the Saints had isolated themselves. The fact of the matter was that they were driven to it by the intolerant mobs that refused to allow them to live in peace among others. Such treatment will also tend to breed paranoia in a people that are abused as the early LDS were. When a group of people are continually driven out from among their fellow men, they tend to be distrustful of those that are not of their group. This is especially true when face by a group from are region where the persecution was particularly severe. So, the isolation of the Saints may have helped contributed to the situation, but remember that they were driven to it by those that were intolerant of their beliefs and that was also a very significant factor in the situation here.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on May 12th, 2009

• .
  Glenn, absolutely!
  .
  The irony was that Brigham Young thought that he was heading OUT of the U.S. into Mexico on 24 July 1847.
  .
  Then the U.S. signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on 2 February 1848 and, whaddya know, he's back in the same neighborhood again.
  .
  The problem was that the Mormons followed the same St. Louis to California trail - which went straight through Utah - that those after the Mormons followed to get TO California and Oregon.
  .
  That combined with the culture of violence (that D. Michael Quinn and Will Bagley have documented so well) cross pollinated with the culture of revenge (that E. Leo Lyman has documented so well) created a situation where MMM was bound to happen eventually.
  .
  And Leo Lyman has documented the OTHER incidents of violence that aren't quite so well known in the following Sunstone Preso:
  .

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• SL01371, Violence on the Mormon Frontier: Fact or Fiction?
  Elder Bruce R. McConkie insisted: 'There is not one historical instance of so-called blood atonement in this dispensation," yet recent researchers have concluded that Brigham Young's support of "holy murder" helped create a "culture of violence" that promoted crimes ranging from individual murders to massacres. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism characterized blood atonement as a "rhetorical device" that "has never been practiced by the Church at any time." Yet historian Juanita Brooks concluded blood atonement was a "literal and terrible reality." What was the actual level of religously motivated violence in frontier Mormonism?
  https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/audio/SL01371.mp3
  .
  As well as this one:
  .

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• SL03363, The other massacres that could have occurred
  In the early autumn of 1857, many Southern Paiute Indians and some fanatical Latter-day Saint militiamen came to believe they hadpermission to attack and loot not just the Fancher-Baker Party, whose members became the victims of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but several other emigrant groups then alsotraveling through southern Utah territory. This paper focuses on the efforts (some might even be considered heroic) of Amasa M. Lyman, Jacob Hamblin, and Pauvant Ute Chief Kanosh inMormon Quest for Utah Statehood and San permission to attack and loot not just the Fancher-Baker Party, whose members became the victims of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but several other emigrant groups then alsoMormon Quest for Utah Statehood and San
  https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/audio/SL03363.mp3
  .
  And this one explains How and Why this social alienation occurred using the San Bernadino Mormons as a case study:
  .

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• SW95018, Alienation of the California Mormons from Their Fellow Citizens in 1857-1858
  https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/audio/SW95018.mp3
  .
  I can recommend any or ALL of these presentations highly enough. Mr. Lyman has a way of making you feel like you're there living in the skin of those folks!

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• Mister it. Where did all the "loot" from the wagon train go? Did it go to the indians? Did it go to the "few" renegade mormons? Reports from the time said it went directly into the church coffers! Or did I read it wrong?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 21st, 2009

• .
  Well account differ but we know that the majority seems to have gone to the Mormon assassins - a practice known at the time as "spoiling the Egyptians".
  .
  There's an interesting article from 1979 that I think you might find enlightening. Here's an excerpt:
  .
  "...one result of the Mormons' sense of in-group/out-group was a lack of regard for the property of non-church members. J.W. Gunnison, in his very early account of the Utah pioneers, refers to Mormon beliefs regarding the ownership of material goods:
  .
  Thus [the Mormons] allow that mistakes have been made by individuals in carrying out their doctrines; for instance, many have supposed that the time was come when they should take possession of the property of the Gentiles, and that it would be no theft to secure cattle and grain from the neighboring pastures and fields, thus "spoiling the Egyptians," and we are told by themselves that such conduct had been forbidden from the public desk.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on September 21st, 2009

• This instance of wrong application of the dogma that they are "the stewards- of the Lord, and the inheritance of the earth belongs to the saints," shows that some foundation exists for the charges against them, on the score of insecurity of property, in Illinois, and Missouri --and that abuses can easily arise from their principles, when residing near people of other religious views.
  (J. W. Gunnison. The Mormons, or Latter-Day Saints, in the valley of the Great Salt Lake. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1856. p.66)
  .
  This sense of the insecurity of non-Mormon property persisted for many years after the erroneous application of dogma had been corrected."
  http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/special-collections/papers/utah.htm

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on September 21st, 2009

Comments

• The church has never supported murder? I know you can't be serious!

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 14th, 2009

• Murderers come from every religion and many use thier religion as reason to do it; this doesn't mean the religion supported it.

  • Report
  

  by Observer on November 3rd, 2009

• How can you say that the Church does not support murder??? In their endowment ceremony one must take the oath directly showing the sign of cutting their throat, expelling their intestines, and having their tongue ripped out by the roots! WHAT... Do not support murder?
  Secret hand shakes, secreat vails, washing of body parts, hands on. It is all wicked witchery and magic. No god would command that a human give his life for telling what the secret ceremony entailed. But.. Mormons do. And once you are in, it is near impossible to get out.

  • Report
  

  by seafairy53 on February 8th, 2011

Comments

Comments

• Only John D. Lee was tried for the massacre. IMNSHO, Isaac Haight (the stake president) should also have stood trial, but what are we going to do about it 150 years after the fact?

  • Report
  

  by laie_techie on March 2nd, 2009

• Once again, virtually the same post as the answerer's first one with NO citation or backing evidence to support his claims.
  .
  You can file this answer under "rumor and innuendo" until some backing evidence is produced to support his claims.
  .
  Also his presentation of what happened in Early Mormon is just as biased and one-sided as he accused the other side of being.
  .
  It is fraught with error.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• .
  SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
  John Farkas 'Mormons: Persecuted, Persecutor, or BOTH?'
  http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=77131&catid=530#77131
  .
  'Blood Atonement, Capital Crimes and Mormon Murders'
  http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=78591&catid=526
  .

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

Comments

• yes, i agree with you. There are only 365 1/4 days a year and massacres outnumber the days of the year enormously.

  • Report
  

  by devil is back on October 24th, 2007

• .
  You are correct SlothMister, the dates coincidental.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• Ya, right! With so many massacres going on and so few days of the year- it just had to be a co incidence.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 22nd, 2009

Comments

• HanginJudge, that’s a pretty warped interpretation of the Blood Atonement doctrine. The Blood Atonement doctrine is that only through Christ’s atoning blood can we be saved. While what you have said does have some basis in Christian doctrine, President Young made it quite clear that such actions could only be taken by an authorized, theocratic government (which neither the United States nor the nation of Deseret ever had). He *never* taught that people should take the law into their own hands, especially to such an extreme extent as to commit murder.
   
  The Mountain Meadows Massacre was and is a barbaric chapter in the history of both the United States and the Church of Jesus Christ; it’s just incredibly unfortunate that when President Young learned of these misguided, so-called Saints’ intentions, the best he could do was dispatch a letter forbidding the Massacre—a letter that took 3-4 days in transit, arriving two days after the horrific event.

  • Report
  

  by the Otter on January 20th, 2008

• I am aware of all of that. I was LDS for 10 years. I love Church history. You should be aware though that there are several accounts that differ on Young's knowledge and involvement in the Massacre. He also preached a sermon about Blood atonement in which he stated that it is better to shed the blood of a sinner than to allow him to spend another minute on the earth putting his eternal soul into further peril(paraphrase) So there is some debate on his role in this incident. I have a deep respect for President Young and the Church. These doctrines as understood by most LDS are taken as you described but as you and I are both aware there are others that have a more extreme view of things. Perhaps President Young could not control the interpretations and or actions of others in these doctrines or matters. I am simply bringing forth another historical viewpoint in this matter. After all, it could be argued that Young sent that letter to cover his butt. I am not saying he did.

  • Report
  

  by Vampyre Bat on January 21st, 2008

• Thank you! What Vampyre Bat is 100% true and correct and you can see the evidence for her assertions via these links:
  .
  LDS Church blood atonement (from Mormon friendly sources)
  http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=75028&catid=530#75028
  .
  Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage by Elder Joseph F. Smith Jr and Richard C. Evans
  http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=74539&catid=524#74539
  .
  'Blood Atonement, Capital Crimes and Mormon Murders'
  http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=78591&catid=526#78591

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• I wrote that a long time ago. But thanks for the back up Mister_IT. The fact is, that Young did in fact preach this doctrine. The evidence is quite clear on this. What we see in the above responses is a revisionist attitude about unpleasant matter in the church's past.

  • Report
  

  by Vampyre Bat on May 12th, 2009

• > What we see in the above responses is a revisionist attitude about unpleasant matter in the church's past<
  .
  Exactly. Mormon Historian Will Bagley has taken a LOT of heat for "connecting the dots" back to Brigham Young in his book on MMM. Bagley makes the point that Young was THE most powerful man in the Southwest at the time of the Massacre. He was even given weekly status reports on crop and cattle from all over Utah.
  .
  To deny that he was intimately involved with MMM is just loopy. What he DID was create "plausible deniability" and John D. Lee said as much in his infamous confession - which I have discovered is VERY accurate and not corrupted as claimed by LDS.
  .
  Oh, Bagley's book...here's the link:
  http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Prophets-Brigham-Massacre-Mountain/dp/0806136391/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242193033&sr=8-2
  .
  And John D. Lee's confession:
  http://www.amazon.com/Mormonism-Unveiled-Confession-Complete-Brigham/dp/0826345670/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242193103&sr=8-9

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

• Here’s Lee’s confession:
   
  http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/mountainmeadows/leeconfession.html
   
  …and Richard E. Turley’s treatment of the event.
   
  Unfortunately, it’s one of those areas where we’ll never know exactly what happened—at least, not in this life. ;-)

  • Report
  

  by the Otter on May 13th, 2009

• .
  Well I have "dibs" on the first interview with both Brigham Young and John D. Lee once we get past the veil!
  .
  ;-)

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 13th, 2009

• LOL. ;-)
   
  Btw… major oops on the Turley citation. Link, please? :-P
  http://tinyurl.com/mountainmeadowsmassacre

  • Report
  

  by the Otter on May 13th, 2009

• Hey, Bat. How many gentiles have been "saved" since (9/11/57. Their friends and families (who had to bury them) must have been grateful for the favor, ya?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 22nd, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Citation?

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 13th, 2009

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Death_tolls

  • Report
  

  by Hardcore Conservative on May 14th, 2009

• .
  OK, that covers the Spanish Inquisition - which is "At least 1080"
  .
  Now what about the "Islamist each side" side?

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 14th, 2009

• http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
  
  Just add up the numbers listed here.
  
  2,974 were killed in only one day, within a couple of hours time. You do the math.

  • Report
  

  by Hardcore Conservative on May 15th, 2009

• .
  Thank you. That's the supporting evidence that I was looking for - despite the condescending tone that the last piece of evidence came wrapped in.
  .

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 15th, 2009

• Didn't mean to be condenscending at all.

  • Report
  

  by Hardcore Conservative on May 15th, 2009

• .
  Don't worry it about it - I do the same thing and get called for it. It was the " You do the math" that pushed it over the line.
  .
  It's called "a hook" and I pretty darn good at them myself!
  .
  But, again, o worries man - we're all just doing the best that we can and we all have blind spots.
  .
  ;-)

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 15th, 2009

Comments

• The "great movie" got zero stars from Roger Ebert. Also, the Missouri Governor attacked them, and they were peaceful to the Utes and in fact Young's Indian policy was to make peace. It was unprecedented at the time.

  • Report
  

  by bytebear on March 7th, 2009

• yada yada yada.
  
  Still funny Mormons. I gave it $ stars and a snap

  • Report
  

  by tony b on March 8th, 2009

• Sadly, the women were also killed (in reality, it's sad anyone at all was killed). All children over the age of 8 were killed.
  -
  The Utes and Paiutes attacked the caravan alongside the Mormons.

  • Report
  

  by laie_techie on March 17th, 2009

• Mountain Meadows Massacre. I gotta see that movie no matter how many stars it got. Joseph Smith said "If you can change the past,you can change the future" Now I know what he meant.

  • Report
  

  by tony b on March 18th, 2009

• Polemic tone but the underlying facts are true and correct.
  .
  However, I would ask the answerer to exorcise the polemics from the answer - I'm not LDS but I was offended by the TONE and spirit of the answer.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

Comments

• Why's that?

  • Report
  

  by MisterKnowItAll on May 13th, 2009

• Because their first instinct is to lie. And for them to even take a small amount of blame is surprising. After all, they are poor persecuted, misunderstood, Christians who have only wanted to be left alone (While they murdered, and stole, and planned a complete takeover of the country. LOL)

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 22nd, 2009

Comments

• And now the THIRD nearly identical post with more unsupported assertions and NO evidence to back it's claims.
  .
  So, again this answerer's presentation of what happened in Early Mormon is just as biased and one-sided as he accused the other side of being.
  .
  It is fraught with error and demonstrates the EXACT revenge based thinking that lead to the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
  .
  SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
  John Farkas 'Mormons: Persecuted, Persecutor, or BOTH?'
  http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=77131&catid=530#77131
  .
  'Blood Atonement, Capital Crimes and Mormon Murders'
  http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=78591&catid=526

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• It should matter to every single non-mormon in the world. A mormon woman told me that she heard it said in the church that the mormons are the latter day saints because they are named after the Saints of the last days., as described in the Book of Daniel. And they believe that the scripture that says "ALL THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS WILL BE FORGIVEN AND THEY WILL RULE THE WORLD FOREVER" gives them the right to do things (like the mountain meadows massacre) for the advancement of their "kingdom". That's EXACTLY WHY IT'S BEEN SAID THAT "IF MORMONISM IS WRONG THERE'S NO WAQY THEY CAN BE SAVED". OPEN YOUR EYES- EVERYBODY!

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 17th, 2009

• again who cares... murder happens in every religion... slaughters happen of whole villages and towns... people say god told them to do stuff like jump off a clif and kill their mother... their are just messed up people doesn't matter the religion. i mean didn't cane kill able? and southern babptist have weird beliefs and it also depends what church you go to... has nothing to do with mormons i have tons of mormon friends.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 20th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• OK, this is now ridiculous. The same post, the same unsubstantiated claims.
  .
  Here's the short version - this poster's claim are bogus and biased.
  .
  You can check the links that I have put on any of his OTHER posts to this question for links to validate my statements.
  .
  I'm not going to do AGAIN for the 4th of 5th time!

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• And I recommend the following links to counter the link to FAIR - which is an LDS Apologetics web site:
  .
  http://1857massacre.com/index.htm
  .
  http://www.greaterthings.com/Topical/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre/index.html
  .
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commemorations_of_the_Mountain_Meadows_massacre

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 12th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• There were a lot of circumstances that the question ignored. Yes, the massacre happened, I am not denying it, but it is common practice to ignore the important details. For example, the American Military was mobilizing, preparing to invade Utah. It was a known fact that they were about to be invaded, so the Mormons were suspicious. President Young told the Mormons to stockpile their goods and to not sell them in case they needed them during the war to come. The settlers came through, and enraged that the Mormons wouldn't sell them supplies, go to using very poor judgment, and created tension with the Mormons. One of the Settlers even claimed to have the gun that was used to assassinate the first President of the Church, and there was a poisoning of their water supply, and all and all, a series of events that led to the wrong decision being made by one human that happened to be a Mormon.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 7th, 2008

• It is unlikely that the water supply was ever poisoned, just tainted, but the limited knowledge in that area at that time probably made it difficult to distinguish that. There was a dead cow found upstream from the town. The Mormons determined that the poison in the water had killed the cow, but of course, the dead cow in the water supply was more then likely the actual cause for many Mormons getting sick. John D. Lee sent a letter to President Brigham Young, concluding that he believed the settlers were sent by the US Military to weaken them before the invasion, and said that he wanted to attack these enemies. As soon as Brigham Young got the letter, he immediately replied, and said that the settlers were to be left alone to go on their way. Unfortunately, Lee acted a day before President Young's letter arrived, and by then it was too late. Also, Mormons didn't kill anyone. An individual Mormon, John D. Lee, convinced the Indians to kill the settlers.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 7th, 2008

• All that being said, the Mountain Meadow Massacre was a regrettable event that should not have happened, but the way this question was worded was made to imply that the Mormon Church was behind the Massacre, and it was not. What it comes down to is that anyone who brings up the Mountain Meadow Massacre as an attack on the Mormon faith is actually condemning millions of people for the poor judgment of one man, for an action that was condemned by the Church even before it happened. The Church itself had nothing to do with the massacre.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 7th, 2008

• Oh ok.Ty for spending your time to explain me the situation.

  • Report
  

  by Heo1. on August 8th, 2008

• no problem. That's why I studied the matter in the first place, so I'd be able to educate others who might get the wrong idea. And I do not believe that Lee's plan was right, but I do understand why he felt they were a threat. The only reason Utah did not get invaded is because Winter beat the Army there. and the President ordered them to withdraw. The United States Army did march with the intent of chasing the Mormons out of Utah, and they had been pushed and pushed and they'd been the victims of so much persecution, they they pretty much reached the conclusion they they were given the Utah Territory, and they were going to fight to keep it, if necessary. But an early winter halted the invasion.

  • Report
  

  by WishUponAStar on August 8th, 2008

• And the church kept all their worldly goods because?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 22nd, 2009

Comments

• No it is pretty much the truth...
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

  • Report
  

  by Ridiculous on August 7th, 2008

• Robbery and murder. Follow the money (and livestock, and clothes, and the pretty, handmade horse cart Bring'em Young was seen driving around shortly afterward.)

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 22nd, 2009

Comments

• Just like "every small cancer cell" isn't responsible for the whole tumor, right.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 17th, 2009

• well.. the cancer cells that are around at the time can contribute to one tumour - but the cancer cells in your body cannot contribute to the tumour in mine!

  • Report
  

  by dea_ex_machina on September 17th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• You have to go back 150 years to find something bad to accuse them of??? That's probably hilarious to those mormons who've gotten away with all their criminal acts toward the gentiles since then. They must love people like you (and your money).

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 22nd, 2009

Comments

• Yeah, and the vast majority of the blood spilled was that of Mormons who were persecuted by others.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on December 22nd, 2007