would you????

Guilt?

There is no evidence that the leaders of the Church had anything to do with the massacre. It was conducted by a group that was acting on it's own. Brigham Young even wrote a letter telling the settlers in Cedar City to get the wagon train safely out of the territory when he heard about what was happening. Unfortunately it did not arrive in time. So, why should the Church admit to guilt that is not the case?

The very first answer is a very educated one. It is important to be educated about the things that you are talking about. My question is...How can so many people be negative toward the church and be so uneducated about it at the same time?

First off, I must admit I have ties to the Mountain Meadow Massacre. Apostle Parley P. Pratt (my progenitor) was murdered mere months before the incident at Mountain Meadows. Indeed, his murder may have been a major factor in what happened. Bishop John D. Lee (another progenitor) was the only person charged for the crimes. What he told his family goes against nearly everything in his so-called confession (published by his lawyer after his execution). Secondly, we may be at odds over what constitutes "the best books" which cover the massacre. Everything published which does not place direct blame on Brigham Young (another progenitor) is dismissed as being too soft on the Mormons. All books which claim Brigham Young gave the order are labeled as anti-Mormon. The background to the massacre and subsequent Utah War are often forgotten. Mormons had been driven from state to state to finally out of the country. The Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. was murdered while awaiting trial in jail on false charges. An Apostle was murdered in Arkansas. The US Army was rumored to be marching against Utah in Buchanan's "wag the dog" scenario. The main company of the caravan came from Arkansas, with one man boasting how he helped Hector track down and kill Apostle Pratt. Several other members of the caravan claimed to have been part of the Missouri Wildcats - the very gang which committed the atrocities at Haun's Mill and murdered Joseph and Hyrum. I don't condone what happened, but understand it. The fact is that we KNOW that Isaac Haight (the stake president) proposed the plan for the massacre. John D. Lee was a bishop of his stake; and like the other bishops originally believed Haight had direct orders from Brigham Young. However, days later a rider arrived with a letter from Brigham Young mandating safe passage for the caravan. John D. Lee was excommunicated. The LdS Church has provided a monument. There is not solid evidence to suggest that more is required - especially 150 years after the fact.

STOP SHOUTING! Take caps-lock off when you ask questions.

There is a dvd available, September Dawn, it is worth watching. It is very depressing. Why would they want to admit to murder? That would make the whole church responsible...then they would have to make restitution to the families of the ones who died there.

Author Will Bagley wrote a book about the massacre in which he uses a single, highly ambiguous sentence from the diary of Dimick Huntington to "prove" that Brigham Young ordered the massacre. Bagley's entire argument rests on this single, very weak piece of evidence, but fails to look at other entries in Huntington's diaries which, in context, show that the passage in question is almost certainly about something else; it is not saying what Bagley wants it to say. Why does Bagley put so much importance on that one flimsy piece of evidence, and ignore the context? Because it's all he has, and his argument (and his book) fall apart without it. The LDS Church actually issued an apology for the involvement of local Church leaders in the massacre, on the 150th anniversary (September 11, 2007). http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695209359,00.html As for September Dawn, this says it best: http://en.fairmormon.org/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre:September_Dawn_film