The mountain meadows massacre wasn’t so bad

[Gadianton]

If you want to judge a religion "by its fruit" then Baháʼu'lláh is more likely a true prophet than Brigham Young. Baháʼís were persecuted far more than Mormons and to this day suffer severe persecution, way more than Dan thinks Mormons suffer at that hands of say, Jewish people who forbid temple ordinances be done for their dead relatives. Baháʼís have never committed a "mountain meadows" of their own, in fact, prescriptions against violence, or rather, how to rationally handle violence is a core part of Baháʼu'lláh's teachings. If there is a God, and if God is going to give the ultimate truth to one small group of individuals, then I'd put my money on the ones who received revelation on how to effectively deal with adversity given a minority religion that claims they are right and everyone else is wrong is highly likely to suffer adversity.

[drumdude]

I've said that Latter-day Saint theology didn't cause or motivate the Massacre. I stand by that

This is the core of Dan Peterson's traditional apologetic approach: by defining "theology" in the strictest possible sense—as formal, canonical doctrines written in church textbooks—he can argue that because there is no official LDS scripture commanding the murder of passing tourists, the theology itself is innocent.

From a strict, literal standpoint, he is right. There was no official edict from Salt Lake City saying, "Go slaughter the Fancher party." In fact, Brigham Young’s delayed letter explicitly told them to let the emigrants pass.

But modern historians and critics point out that this defense relies on a very narrow view of how religion actually functions in the real world. They argue that Peterson is ignoring the powerful cultural, rhetorical, and political ecosystem that church theology created in 1857.

Historians who argue that theology did motivate the massacre point to concrete, documented evidence from 1857. They look at the official church literature, written records, diaries, and transcripts of public sermons.Even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' own official Gospel Topics Essay on the event acknowledges that "defiant sermons given by President Young and other Church leaders... helped create an environment of fear and suspicion." The primary historical evidence that ties the theology to the killings breaks down into several key categories:

1. Transcripts of the "Mormon Reformation" Sermons

During 1856 and 1857, top church leaders traveled the territory delivering highly graphic sermons. These were recorded by scribes and published officially in the Journal of Discourses. The Doctrine of Blood Atonement: Leaders openly taught that some sins were so severe that Christ's compounding grace could not save the sinner—their literal blood had to be poured out on the ground as a smoke offering to heaven for forgiveness. Brigham Young (Sept 1856): "There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground... I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins."Jedediah Grant (Second Counselor, 1856): He publicly asked why people shouldn't be executed for breaking covenants: "We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of filthiness, who are guilty of covenant-breaking... I say, there are men and women that I would advise to go to the President immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and let their blood be shed and smoke up to heaven."While apologists argue this language was metaphoric or meant only for apostates, critics argue that broadcasting graphic, violent theological justifications for killing from the highest level of priesthood authority desensitized ordinary settlers to the act of shedding blood.

2. The Oath of Vengeance (Temple Liturgy)

At the time, every adult who went through the LDS temple endowment ceremony was required to make a covenant called the Oath of Vengeance. The exact text varied, but the core pledge was written into the liturgy:Participants swore to "never cease to importune High Heaven to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation."The Arkansas Connection: The Baker-Fancher party was a wealthy train explicitly originating from Arkansas. Just four months prior, in May 1857, Parley P. Pratt—one of the original LDS Apostles—was murdered in Arkansas. Local diaries and trial records show the southern Utah settlers were hyper-aware of this, consciously viewing this specific wagon train as representatives of the "wicked nation" that murdered their prophets.

3. The Structure of Theocratic Command

In 1857, the lines between church theology, civic government, and military operations did not exist. They were a singular unit.Dual Roles: The primary planner of the massacre was Isaac C. Haight. He was simultaneously the Stake President (the top regional spiritual leader) and a Colonel in the Iron County Militia. John D. Lee (the major who carried the white flag) was a prominent priesthood leader and Brigham Young's adopted son.The Evidence of Obedience: When Haight and his council met to decide the fate of the emigrants, they did so as a council of priesthood holders. The militiamen who carried out the shooting were operating under the explicit doctrine of strict obedience to priesthood authority. They were told by their ecclesiastical leaders that killing these people was a religious obligation to protect the kingdom of God, making the act a matter of religious duty rather than individual malice.

4. Public Deception and the Scapegoat

The cover-up itself provides indirect evidence of the perpetrators' mindset. The militia explicitly dressed up as Native Americans (Paiutes) during the initial attacks and later blamed the entire massacre on them.Historians point out that if the perpetrators had acted purely out of frantic, chaotic wartime survival panic, they would have reported it to the federal government as a standard, tragic wartime engagement. The fact that they immediately engineered an elaborate theatrical ruse to hide their identity shows they knew they were executing an ordered, extrajudicial liquidation of witnesses.

[huckelberry]

Large and small cultures have been and can be extremely violent: Bleeding Kansas was going on at the same time that the Mountain Meadows Massacred occurred, not to mention the U.S. Civil War that would begin in a few years, and all these type of attacks continue to this day.

The massacres by the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists in 1943 against Polish citizens, occurring mainly in the regions of Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, made hardened Nazi soldiers in the area sick as they watched the atrocities occur. Bullets were too good for the 50,000 to 100,000 Polish men, women, and children who were murdered with farm tools, set on fire, had their eyes gouged out, and had boiling water poured on them all because this militia wanted an ethically pure Ukrainian State, and these people were outsiders and a threat to their populist dream.

How about the six million Jews (outsiders) in Europe? Rwanda? Yugoslavia? and Iran, Israel, and Gaza at the moment; in fact, the whole Middle-East in the last 50-years.

I read yesterday about the Latakia Offensive by Sunni militias against coastal villages in Syria and the men, women, and children massacred that began in 2013 and is still occurring today. It's all because of the stories old men tell themselves about outsiders and the threats they pose.

Hi Yellowstone. I think you make an important point here. You do not offer an explanation, cause, or excuse. Instead you point to dark dimensions of human experience that do happen without excuse.

I had only vaguely and recently heard of those WWII Ukrainian atrocities. I suppose they have been lost in the shuffle for many of us who are not Poles.

[Rivendale]

LDS theology most certainly played a part in the massacre. How else do you explain blood atonement?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

LDS theology most certainly played a part in the massacre.

Well, according to the Afore, the whole massacre was really just a tragic combination of fear and groceries.

[drumdude]

LDS theology most certainly played a part in the massacre.

Well, according to the Afore, the whole massacre was really just a tragic combination of fear and groceries.

He might just have stumbled on a very fascinating new lens to view history through. What other world events could be explained similarly?

I expect the consensus won’t change quickly but give it a few hundred years and they’ll be saying Dan was way ahead of his time.

[I Have Questions]

I've said that Latter-day Saint theology didn't cause or motivate the Massacre. I stand by that

This is the core of Dan Peterson's traditional apologetic approach: by defining "theology" in the strictest possible sense—as formal, canonical doctrines written in church textbooks—he can argue that because there is no official LDS scripture commanding the murder of passing tourists, the theology itself is innocent.

From a strict, literal standpoint, he is right. There was no official edict from Salt Lake City saying, "Go slaughter the Fancher party." In fact, Brigham Young’s delayed letter explicitly told them to let the emigrants pass.

But modern historians and critics point out that this defense relies on a very narrow view of how religion actually functions in the real world. They argue that Peterson is ignoring the powerful cultural, rhetorical, and political ecosystem that church theology created in 1857.

Historians who argue that theology did motivate the massacre point to concrete, documented evidence from 1857. They look at the official church literature, written records, diaries, and transcripts of public sermons. Even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' own official Gospel Topics Essay on the event acknowledges that "defiant sermons given by President Young and other Church leaders... helped create an environment of fear and suspicion." The primary historical evidence that ties the theology to the killings breaks down into several key categories:

1. Transcripts of the "Mormon Reformation" Sermons

During 1856 and 1857, top church leaders traveled the territory delivering highly graphic sermons. These were recorded by scribes and published officially in the Journal of Discourses. The Doctrine of Blood Atonement: Leaders openly taught that some sins were so severe that Christ's compounding grace could not save the sinner—their literal blood had to be poured out on the ground as a smoke offering to heaven for forgiveness. Brigham Young (Sept 1856): "There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground... I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins." Jedediah Grant (Second Counselor, 1856): He publicly asked why people shouldn't be executed for breaking covenants: "We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of filthiness, who are guilty of covenant-breaking... I say, there are men and women that I would advise to go to the President immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and let their blood be shed and smoke up to heaven." While apologists argue this language was metaphoric or meant only for apostates, critics argue that broadcasting graphic, violent theological justifications for killing from the highest level of priesthood authority desensitized ordinary settlers to the act of shedding blood.

2. The Oath of Vengeance (Temple Liturgy)

At the time, every adult who went through the LDS temple endowment ceremony was required to make a covenant called the Oath of Vengeance. The exact text varied, but the core pledge was written into the liturgy: Participants swore to "never cease to importune High Heaven to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation." The Arkansas Connection: The Baker-Fancher party was a wealthy train explicitly originating from Arkansas. Just four months prior, in May 1857, Parley P. Pratt—one of the original LDS Apostles—was murdered in Arkansas. Local diaries and trial records show the southern Utah settlers were hyper-aware of this, consciously viewing this specific wagon train as representatives of the "wicked nation" that murdered their prophets.

3. The Structure of Theocratic Command

In 1857, the lines between church theology, civic government, and military operations did not exist. They were a singular unit. Dual Roles: The primary planner of the massacre was Isaac C. Haight. He was simultaneously the Stake President (the top regional spiritual leader) and a Colonel in the Iron County Militia. John D. Lee (the major who carried the white flag) was a prominent priesthood leader and Brigham Young's adopted son. The Evidence of Obedience: When Haight and his council met to decide the fate of the emigrants, they did so as a council of priesthood holders. The militiamen who carried out the shooting were operating under the explicit doctrine of strict obedience to priesthood authority. They were told by their ecclesiastical leaders that killing these people was a religious obligation to protect the kingdom of God, making the act a matter of religious duty rather than individual malice.

4. Public Deception and the Scapegoat

The cover-up itself provides indirect evidence of the perpetrators' mindset. The militia explicitly dressed up as Native Americans (Paiutes) during the initial attacks and later blamed the entire massacre on them. Historians point out that if the perpetrators had acted purely out of frantic, chaotic wartime survival panic, they would have reported it to the federal government as a standard, tragic wartime engagement. The fact that they immediately engineered an elaborate theatrical ruse to hide their identity shows they knew they were executing an ordered, extrajudicial liquidation of witnesses.

Yes. [sarcasm] Young's war and vengeance fiery rhetoric played no part whatsoever in Mormon's thinking that war and vengeance was the right way to go about things in certain situations. Just like Trumps fiery storm the capital rhetoric played no part in his supporters storming the capital. And just like Hitler's anti-semitic/ethnic cleansing fiery rhetoric played no part in atrocities against Jews. It's all just a coincidence and the perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre just suddenly, out of the blue, decided to turn violent. [/sarcasm]

When a leader speaks, he ought to be choosing his words very carefully and consider what supporters and followers might take them to mean. I suspect Young, and Trump, and Hitler, did choose their words carefully. In the hopes that their supporters and followers might follow the breadcrumbs within them. In all three examples, they did.

Perhaps Peterson is floating his own personal belief that you should take the President of the Church's word with a large grain of salt. And that in some cases you should realise that the President is talking fiery nonsense. I'd like to see support for that idea from official sources in relation to the living President and Apostles of the Church. "When the Prophet speaks, don't take him literally" is the principle that Dan is promoting.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Dunkin’ Dan is a walking Motte-and-Bailey fallacy:

It’s an informal rhetorical tactic where an arguer conflates a controversial, hard-to-defend claim (the "bailey") with a modest, universally accepted position (the "motte"). When challenged on the controversial claim, the speaker retreats to the modest one to avoid scrutiny.

I never said such and such a thing …

He’s such a transparent blob of rhetorical nonsense.

[Rivendale]

Dunkin’ Dan is a walking Motte-and-Bailey fallacy:

It’s an informal rhetorical tactic where an arguer conflates a controversial, hard-to-defend claim (the "bailey") with a modest, universally accepted position (the "motte"). When challenged on the controversial claim, the speaker retreats to the modest one to avoid scrutiny.

I never said such and such a thing …

He’s such a transparent blob of rhetorical nonsense.

A great example of this is the second Watson letter.