The Mountain Meadows Massacre

[_Jutta]

I ask myself the question how it could come to that. How it came that a group of religious men murdered with the help of Indians 120 people and auctioned the possession in Cedar City? And, knew Brigham Young of this before the massacre? Could he have prevented it? Did he want to prevent it at all?

Here the voices from the transcript of the documentary movie "the Mormons" sent on PBS (frontline):

WILL BAGLEY: People were called to reform and repent and to step up to the mark and practice the old-time religion of Mormonism. The religious leaders were engaged in an orgy of fanatical rhetoric.
NARRATOR: As the Arkansas wagon train approached the town of Cedar City in southern Utah, local Mormon militia leaders, including Major John D. Lee, were on high alert. In Salt Lake City, Governor Brigham Young had promised the federal government he would protect immigrants passing through Utah. But he had also told local Native American leaders that they now had his permission to steal cattle from these wagon trains.
GLEN LEONARD, LDS Church Historian: It was a new policy- "We'll allow the Indians to take the cattle, which will teach the government a lesson that we can't control the Indians." And so the Cedar City leaders decided to take some cattle, using the Indians, "And by the way, if some of those bad guys are killed, we won't truly be sorry."
GLEN LEONARD: But the turning point was, for John D. Lee, "They saw me there. They knew I was there. They knew Mormons were involved. And we can't let them tell that story."
WILL BAGLEY: We know that there was a council meeting in Cedar City at which the military commanders decided that every adult who could testify or bear witness would have to die.
SARAH BAKER MITCHELL(Survivor) : "Each Mormon walking along with our men wheeled around suddenly and shot the man next to him, killing most of them on the spot. I was one of those children. At the time of the massacre, I wasn't quite 3 years old, but even when you are that young, you don't forget the horror of having your father gasp for breath and go limp when you have your arms around his neck, screaming with terror. You don't forget the screaming of other children and the agonized shrieks of women being hacked to death. And you wouldn't forget it, either, if you saw your own mother topple over in the wagon beside you with a big red splotch getting bigger and bigger on the front of her calico dress."
WILL BAGLEY: But the problem with trying to tell the story of Mountain Meadows- the sources are all fouled up. You've either got to rely on the testimony of the murderers or of the surviving children. And so what we know about the actual massacre is- could be challenged on almost any point. But what we do know is the cover-up. And the cover-up can be very clearly documented and it is not ambiguous. It is absolutely clear that this event was purposely distorted and misrepresented and hidden.
NARRATOR: Denials from the church began immediately. They sent letters to Mormon authorities outside Utah saying the Paiute Indians had done it and passed reports to Washington repeating this falsehood. The church's claims were countered within days. In 1858, a report on the front page of The New York Times identified John D. Lee as the instigator of the massacre.
RANDALL PAUL, Author: My great-great-grandfather was John D. Lee, who was the only one brought to trial and convicted for this, in which there was complicity of at least- at least five other leaders, I think, as you read the history, that should have been in that trial. Brigham Young, who was his adopted father, did not support him in the trial. He did not come in and say, "Let's find these other guys, it isn't only John D. Lee's fault here."
JUDITH FREEMAN: The people who participated in the massacre that day, the 75 or 100 men who were involved-I think I became more sympathetic to their plight because of this idea, this Mormon principle of perfect obedience.
These men were ordered to appear at Mountain Meadows. So in a way, they were victims of their own devotion and obedience. And if you can get people to believe that they are doing God's will, you can get them to do anything.
WILL BAGLEY: After having studied this for a decade and having looked at it in great detail, I'm convinced that this was done explicitly at Brigham Young's orders. Nothing happened in Utah Territory that Brigham Young didn't know about. It was an act of vengeance. It was a political act to demonstrate the Mormons controlled the overland road, and it was ordered from the very top.
GLEN LEONARD: As I explored the sources, I felt relieved at what I found. I felt comforted that Brigham Young did what he thought was best in his Utah war policy. But his own personality and his own flamboyant rhetoric caused him to go beyond where he should have gone. His mistake was to stir up some emotions which got out of control. But he didn't order it then, and he didn't condone it.
JUDITH FREEMAN: Shortly before the events took place on September 11, 1857, the day of the massacre, Brigham Young called a number of Indian tribal leaders to Salt Lake City. And in that meeting- Dimick Huntington was there actually taking notes, and in his diary we have an account of Brigham Young actually instructing the tribal leaders, telling them that they essentially may have all of the wagon trains on a certain route. The Mormons were preparing for war. In a way, it was Brigham Young saying, "Go ahead and have at it."
We have very little evidence of any involvement of Brigham Young in the Mountain Meadows Massacre but we do have this one indication in my great-great-grandfather's diary, saying that at least Brigham Young set the stage for certain events to take place.
DALLIN H. OAKS, LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: I have no doubt, on the basis of what I have studied and learned, that Mormons, including local leaders of our church, were prime movers in that terrible episode and participated in the killing. And what a terrible thing to contemplate, that the barbarity of the frontier, and the conditions of the Utah war and whatever provocations were perceived to have been given, would have led to such an
extreme episode, such an extreme atrocity perpetrated by members of my faith. I pray that the Lord will comfort those that are still bereaved by it, and I pray that he can find a way to forgive those who took such a terrible action against their fellow beings.

Conclusion:

1) Both under Joseph Smith's leadership and under the leadership of Brigham Young; was an absolute obedience demanded by the members. Something we mention in Germany "blind obedience"(Kadavergehorsam). The power under Hitler is a good example for this.
2) Brigham Young played a double game by permitting the Indians to attack, to murder and to rob settlers traveling through.
3) Brigham Young gave speeches which have incited other members to the massacre. One says "Biedermann and arsonists" to it in Germany.
4) The massacre was committed because settlers recognized Mormons and knew that it was not a normal Indian attack. So, they wanted to take the witnesses to be silence.
5) 17 children who were "saved"; were the members given back to against a financial payment later.
6) The massacre was hushed by Brigham Young.
7) Nothing happened in Utah which Brigham Young a little did not know about. It has to be so assumed that he heard about it before the massacre. But even if he had heard about it after the massacre; he did nothing to submit the perpetrators to the police.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

This book, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, was supposed to be the first in a series of two books published by the Church.

The first book in the series, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, would deal with the massacre, while the second (unpublished) book would deal with the massacre's aftermath, along with the Church's efforts to conceal its complicity in the massacre.

The Church seems to have quietly canceled plans for the second book in the projected series...why? What are they still trying to hide after all these years?

Conclusion:

1) Both under Joseph Smith's leadership and under the leadership of Brigham Young; was an absolute obedience demanded by the members. Something we mention in Germany "blind obedience"(Kadavergehorsam). The power under Hitler is a good example for this.
2) Brigham Young played a double game by permitting the Indians to attack, to murder and to rob settlers traveling through.
3) Brigham Young gave speeches which have incited other members to the massacre. One says "Biedermann and arsonists" to it in Germany.
4) The massacre was committed because settlers recognized Mormons and knew that it was not a normal Indian attack. So, they wanted to take the witnesses to be silence.
5) 17 children who were "saved"; were the members given back to against a financial payment later.
6) The massacre was hushed by Brigham Young.
7) Nothing happened in Utah which Brigham Young a little did not know about. It has to be so assumed that he heard about it before the massacre. But even if he had heard about it after the massacre; he did nothing to submit the perpetrators to the police.

I agree with all of these conclusions except for No. 7--Brigham Young may have been malicious enough to create an atmosphere in which a massacre was inevitable, but I don't think he directly ordered the Cedar City Mormons to slaughter the Fancher train. Though I would hasten to add that knowingly creating an atmosphere in which a massacre was inevitable is just as malicious as directly ordering Mormons to commit said massacre.

In my mind, Brigham Young's complicity in the massacre is similar to that of Charles Manson in the Tate-LaBianca murders, because:

• Charles Manson was absent from the scene of the crime,
• No reliable, unimpeachable testimony exists that Charles Manson directly ordered the Tate-LaBianca murders,
• Charles Manson is only guilty of "creating an atmosphere" in which the murders were inevitable, and
• The fact that Charles Manson tried to hide his "family's" complicity in the murders doesn't necessarily make him guilty of said murders.

If these circumstances are sufficient to convict Charles Manson of multiple murder, then why not Brigham Young?

The only difference between Charles Manson and Brother Brigham is that Charlie had better taste in music.

[_Jutta]

The Church seems to have quietly canceled plans for the second book in the projected series...why? What are they still trying to hide after all these years?

This would be only speculation. I think, however, that the church has an enormous knowledge about it; how to cover-up something. Many members of FBI, CIA, are members of the church; and the NSA loved by so many Germans at the moment (it's ironicly)..
By the way; what do you think over the NSA and Chancellors Merkel? I think she has earned this disgrace.

I agree with all of these conclusions except for No. 7--Brigham Young may have been malicious enough to create an atmosphere in which a massacre was inevitable, but I don't think he directly ordered the Cedar City Mormons to slaughter the Fancher train. Though I would hasten to add that knowingly creating an atmosphere in which a massacre was inevitable is just as malicious as directly ordering Mormons to commit said massacre.

In my mind, Brigham Young's complicity in the massacre is similar to that of Charles Manson in the Tate-LaBianca murders, because:

• Charles Manson was absent from the scene of the crime,
• No reliable, unimpeachable testimony exists that Charles Manson directly ordered the Tate-LaBianca murders,
• Charles Manson is only guilty of "creating an atmosphere" in which the murders were inevitable, and
• The fact that Charles Manson tried to hide his "family's" complicity in the murders doesn't necessarily make him guilty of said murders.

Young had some days before the massacre, some Indian chiefs as guests; and he asked them to attack the settlers. Whoever incites to a criminal offense is just as guilty as this one have committed the deed. Therefore your argument for me does not work!

If these circumstances are sufficient to convict Charles Manson of multiple murder, then why not Brigham Young?

The only difference between Charles Manson and Brother Brigham is that Charlie had better taste in music.

Don't Forget, that BY lives in the 19th century, not at the Beatles era

[_The Erotic Apologist]

By the way; what do you think over the NSA and Chancellors Merkel? I think she has earned this disgrace.

Sadly, I know very little about German politics. Still, Merkel reminds me a little of the French policeman in Casa Blanca who says, "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

Young had some days before the massacre, some Indian chiefs as guests; and he asked them to attack the settlers. Whoever incites to a criminal offense is just as guilty as this one have committed the deed. Therefore your argument for me does not work!

Fair enough. I haven't studied Mountain Meadows to the extent that others in this forum have. On the other hand, it's pretty much common knowledge that much of the documentation surrounding the event has been destroyed or squirreled away where it will never see the light of day. Our view of exactly what happened will always be incomplete. So yes, it's entirely possible that Brigham Young had foreknowledge of the massacre.

Don't Forget, that BY lives in the 19th century, not at the Beatles era

Okay, you got me there.

[_Jutta]

I write also in another forum of members of the church. I have the impression there; is that overwhelm proof situation, still tempted the despite; justifying the massacre somehow. Or explaining so that the fault of the church is soothed. Why do you think that's so?

[_Quasimodo]

In my mind, Brigham Young's complicity in the massacre is similar to that of Charles Manson in the Tate-LaBianca murders, because:

• Charles Manson was absent from the scene of the crime,
• No reliable, unimpeachable testimony exists that Charles Manson directly ordered the Tate-LaBianca murders,
• Charles Manson is only guilty of "creating an atmosphere" in which the murders were inevitable, and
• The fact that Charles Manson tried to hide his "family's" complicity in the murders doesn't necessarily make him guilty of said murders.

Neither did Brigham. Coincidence?

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Neither did Brigham. Coincidence?

Hmm...they both had creepy looking beards, too. And they were both into heavy duty wife swapping on an industrial scale...

...great Caesar's ghost, I believe you're on to something!

I write also in another forum of members of the church. I have the impression there; is that overwhelm proof situation, still tempted the despite; justifying the massacre somehow. Or explaining so that the fault of the church is soothed. Why do you think that's so?

It's because faithful Mormons can no longer hide behind the lie that the Indians were the ones who wiped out the Fancher train. I think more than a few faithful Mormons regret the Church's decision to publish Massacre at Mountain Meadows, which concedes the Church's culpability in the massacre. Before Massacre at Mountain Meadows, faithful Mormons could still comfort themselves with the erroneous belief that the Church was somehow not responsible. Assuming I understand you question.

[_ZelphtheGreat]

Believers, and wannabee believers will do anything if the desire to belong is strong enough.

Look at the LDS who supported Hitler because their church leaders told them to support their government.

Look at the evil teaching 'do what your leaders say even if you know it is wrong..., and you will be blessed for it'.

That type of teaching is evil but believers buy into it way too often.

Just as the raghead trash talks younger followers into killing themselves for the glory of Allah - yet the old guys never seem to do it themselves - so do many other religions use the faith of the weak to do what they want done while they don't have the stones to do it or lead it themselves.

[_Jutta]

Believers, and wannabee believers will do anything if the desire to belong is strong enough.
Look at the LDS who supported Hitler because their church leaders told them to support their government.

It was about more when only the support of the government. An acquaintance of mine, also a former member of the church; wrote an article on the church in Nazi Germany. She wrote (in German):

And the Mormons?
These were filled with enthusiasm most completely over Hitler. Many Mormons considered Hitler as aforerunner of Christ (to accept this at a hater of Jews sounds strange), as a job initiator of the millennium (the second comming of Christ), The "united order" (a social structure appearing communist), so that many Mormons entered the Nazi party, and some into as well the SS.

Later she quoted this statement:

"Hitler enjoyed at least as much popularity among German Saints as he did among the population in general. His apparent dynamism and self-confidence seemed to show a way out of the chaos and weakness of the Weimar years. Moreover, as ‘good Germans,' the Mormons were acutely aware that Hitler had risen to power through legal channels... Some Church members even saw Hitler as God’s instrument, preparing the world for the millennium. Superficial parallels were drawn between the Church and the Nazi party with its emphasis on active involvement by every member... The vital importance of ‘Aryan’ ancestry gave new significance to genealogical research. And the Fuhrer himself, the non-smoking, non-drinking vegetarian who yielded to no one in his desire for absolute law and order, seemed to embody many of the most basic LDS virtues."

Source: Alan F. Keele and Douglas F. Tobler, “The Fuhrer’s New Clothes: Helmuth Huebner and the Mormons in the Third Reich,” Sunstone, Bd. 5, Nr. 6, S. 20-29, zu finden unter: http://www.ils.unc.edu/~unsworth/Mormon/nazi.html

And then this interesting Quote:

“Paul Kayser proved to be a true father of the Saints in Alsace. In the first two years of the German occupation he had a difficult time as the branch president in Strassburg, because many of the presiding brethren were 100% Nazis who tried, during their visits to the branch, to preach National Socialism instead of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Saints were admonished, both at home and in church meetings, to pray for the Fuhrer, and to consider him called of God. They said Hitler would prepare the world for the United Order.

These brethren must have said some very stupid things, and the members did not always know what the Church´s actual stand was. Many had the impression, that we as a Church were in favor of National Socialism. They tried to reconcile the Nazi salute with the teachings of the Church, and to prove that the Nazi Party was organized according to the way the Church was organized. They said that the Fuhrer was like the president of the Church, and we should obey him. The SS was compared with the Melchisedek priesthood, and the SA (brownshirts) with the Aaronic priesthood. The Gau leaders were compared with stake presidents, district and neighborhood leaders with home teachers, etc. It was good that Brother Kayser was there. He did not let himself get converted to National Socialism, but rather held to the iron rod and finally was able to get the brethren to leave him alone and let him lead his branch in the right way.”

Quelle: http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtop ... 95b0d0de...

Sources of all quotes: http://www.mormonen-wissen.de/Hitler-ko ... -Macht.htm

She wrote also about the Helmuth Huebener case, that Young LDS man which wer murdered by Nazis:

When the arrest of Helmuth Hübener was announced in the branch; what several eyewitness reports; a Mormon with the name Jacobi got up, and said, that he would find it good; that Helmuth Hübner was arrested. And, that; if he in the past had known about Hübener's activities; HAD SHOT him PERSONALLY. The branch president of the branch of saint Georg, excommunicated Hübener two days after his arrest. He was a loyal Nazi, and he escaped after World War 2 to Utah.

Source: http://www.mormonen-wissen.de/Helmuth-H.ue.bener.htm

[_Bazooka]

"Although they are Church employees, the authors have retained full editorial control and have drawn their own conclusions from the exhaustive body of historical material they assembled. They have been given full access to all relevant materials held by the Church. Two of the significant conclusions they have reached are (1) that the message conveying the will and intent of Brigham Young not to interfere with the immigrants arrived too late, and (2) that the responsibility for the massacre lies with local leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the regions near Mountain Meadows who also held civic and military positions and with members of the Church acting under their direction.

"Although no event in history can fully be known, the work of these three authors has enabled us to know more than we ever have known about this unspeakable episode. The truth, as we have come to know it, saddens us deeply. The gospel of Jesus Christ that we espouse abhors the cold-blooded killing of men, women, and children. Indeed, it advocates peace and forgiveness. What was done here long ago by members of our Church represents a terrible and inexcusable departure from Christian teaching and conduct. We cannot change what happened, but we can remember and honor those who were killed here.

"We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time."

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mountain-meadows-massacre

7 Nevertheless I went forth, and as I came near unto the house of Laban I beheld a man, and he had fallen to the earth before me, for he was drunken with wine.
8 And when I came to him I found that it was Laban.
9 And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel.
10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.
11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.
12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;
13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.
14 And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.
15 Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law.
16 And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass.
17 And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.
18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own asword.

http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/1-ne/4?lang=eng