Subject:

Subject:	Her'es what every Mormon and Ex-Mormon needs to know about the Mountain Meadows Massacre.....
Date:	May 07, 2007
Author:	Randy J.

Almost every day, there are threads here on RfM discussing the MMM and asking for details about it. Perhaps the most frequently asked question is, did Brigham Young's policies and/or orders factor in to the crime? The following comments and links are intended to lay out for newbies to the subject the documentation about who said and did what and when.

I'll put this info in the form of "assertion of Mormon apologists versus documented fact." I'll provide links to some of my old posts from alt.religion.mormon which include documentation from various historical sources and historians.

Apologist assertion: President James Buchanan unjustifiably sent federal troops to Utah because false reports had alleged that Brigham Young and other church leaders were defying and harrassing federal officials and engaging in an insurrection against the government. Government officials didn't tell Young why the troops were coming, so that's why he ordered that the army be prevented from entering the territory.

Fact: The reports of the Mormon lawlessness and insurrection were true. Young's plea of ignorance as to the purpose of the army's mission was a lie on his part. See details at

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/988578d3329389c1

Apologist assertion: Mormon apologists typically claim that the MMM was a single, isolated incident committed by unauthorized, "rogue" Mormons, and that such activity was not a product of the institutional church.

Fact: The MMM was merely one of many incidents of the time wherein Mormons conspired with various Indian tribes to attack and plunder emigrant trains. See details at

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/79e75472f75037d6

Apologist assertion: Some members of the Baker-Fancher train committed atrocities against southern Mormons and local Indians, such as poisoning cattle or springs, insulting church leaders, boasting that they were amongst the murderers of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, etc. Those acts incited the rage of the local Mormons to the point of massacring the emigrants.

Fact: Historical research shows that such reports of atrocities were concocted by Mormons in order to explain and justify the massacre. See details at

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/b27623d930402abe

Furthermore, as Utah historian Will Bagley noted, "all information about the emigrants' conduct came from men involved in their murder or its cover-up...In light of their origins, all reports of the reckless behavior of a company composed mostly of women and children must be regarded with profound skepticism...these impressions of the Fancher party's behavior were based on hearsay. Reliable accounts consistently identified the company's large cattle herd, not intentional insults, as the main cause of friction...Such confusion [in the Mormons' allegations of atrocities] led historian Josiah Gibbs to conclude that the poison stories were sheer nonsense...without the poison tales, there is no proof the Fancher party did *anything* to provoke Utah's Indians." (Excerpts, "Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows," pp. 99-110.)

Apologist assertion: Brigham Young did not know about, nor approve of, the attack on the Baker-Fancher emigrant train beforehand.

Fact: Brigham Young clearly planned and approved of the specific attack on the Baker-Fancher train, during a war council which he held with 12 southern Indian chiefs six days before the attack. Some of the documentation for that is in the above link. Here's more info on it:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/a74845c89a67dbfd

The relevant portions of Brigham Young's Indian interpreter Dimick Huntington's journal, which detailed Young's remarks in that meeting, are on-line at

http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/DepoJournals/Dimick/Dimick-2.htm

Apologist assertion: Brigham Young sent a letter to southern Mormon leader Isaac Haight instructing him to not meddle with the emigrant train; this is evidence that Young didn't approve of the attack, and therefore Young was innocent of wrongdoing.

Fact: Since multiple documentation shows that Young planned and approved the attack, the meaning of his remarks in his letter to Haight reflected what was planned in that September 1 war council: Young originally planned for *only* the Indians to attack and plunder the emigrant train. He didn't want any Mormons to personally help in the crime, because he wanted to be able to "plausibly deny" any Mormon involvement in such incidents in the event of future investigations. See details at

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/883a2eb7b53a2dcb

Mormons were forced to aid in the destruction because

a) The Indian attack failed because the emigrants fortified themselves

b) the Mormons feared that some of the emigrants would be able to identify white men amongst the Indian attackers if they were allowed to live (and some of the youthful survivors indeed did just that later on.) The Mormons also feared that some of the emigrants might escape at night to seek rescue along the trail. So that's why the Mormons decided to go ahead and massacre all those whom they believed were "above the age of accountability" (age eight in Mormon dogma,) without waiting for Young's reply to arrive.

Apologist assertion: After the massacre, Brigham Young tried to help the government to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Fact: Young and other church leaders pretended to help government officials in prosecuting the killers, but in actual fact, they helped to protect the criminals for about 20 years. Young's true attitude towards the crime and its victims is displayed by his own words which are documented at

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/60581411253b453b

”If anyone wants to see a smoking gun in Young's hand, they can try this one on
for size:

In 1859, U. S. Army Brevet Major M.H. Carleton led the first official
investigation into the MMM. Upon visiting the site, his soldiers built a crude
memorial to the victims out of stones, with a wooden cross atop it, inscribed
with the saying "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord."

In 1861, Brigham Young visited southern Utah, including the MMM site. The
following statements were recorded of Young's reaction upon viewing the
memorial:

"We visited the Mt. Meadows Monument put up at the burial place of 120 persons
killed by Indians in 1857. The pile of stone was about twelve feet high but
beginning to tumble down. A wooden cross is placed on top with the following
words, Vengeance is mine and I will repay saith the Lord. Pres. Young said it
should be Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little." (Wilford Woodruff's
journal, May 25, 1861.)

"My grandfather, Dudley Leavitt, was present, and he told the incident
repeatedly, so that it has been verified by three of his sons. One preserved
it in these words, quoting his father: 'I was with the group of elders that
went out with President Young to visit the spot in the spring of '61. The
soldiers had put up a monument, and on top of that a wooden cross with words
burned into it, Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay. Brother
Brigham read that to himself and studied it for a while and then he read it out
loud, Vengeance is mine saith the Lord; I HAVE repaid. He didn't say another
word. He didn't give an order. He just lifted his right arm to the square,
and in five minutes there wasn't one stone left upon another. He didn't have
to tell us what he wanted done. We understood.' " ("Mountain Meadows
Massacre," Juanita Brooks, p. 183.)

"Went past the monument that was erected in commemoration of the massacre that
was committed at that place.....On one side of the cross is inscribed Mountain
Meadow Massacre and over that in smaller letters is vengeance is mine & I will
repay saith the Lord. On the other side.....some one has written below this in
pencil. Remember Haun's Mill and Carthage Jail....."
(Journal of Lorenzo Brown, as quoted in ibid, p. 183.)

Brigham Young's attitude and remarks clearly indicate that he was not sorry
that the MMM had occurred, and that the massacre was an appropriate act of
"vengeance."

On that same visit to southern Utah, Young spoke in a church meeting. Many
Mormons in attendance had been among the murderers at Mountain Meadows four
years prior, including Bishop John D. Lee, who recorded Young's comments in
that church meeting:

"Pres. Young said that the company that was used up at the Mountain Meadows
were the Fathers, Mothers, Bros., sisters
& connections of those that murdered the Prophets; they merited their fate, &
the
only thing that ever troubled him was the lives of the women & children, but
that under the circumstances this could not be avoided."
---John D. Lee's diary entry of May 30th, 1861, as published
in "A Mormon Chronicle: The Diaries of John D. Lee, 1848-1876", edited by
Robert G. Cleland and Juanita Brooks.

Several southern Utah Mormons had alleged that some members of the Fancher
emigrant train had boasted of being among the murderers of Joseph and Hyrum
Smith in 1844.

Also, LDS apostle Parley P. Pratt had been murdered in Arkansas a couple of
months before the Fancher train, which had originated in Arkansas, passed
through southwestern Utah. Some Mormons stated that it was Pratt's murder, in
Arkansas, that enraged them to massacre the party, on the spurious grounds that
they had something to do with Pratt's murder.

The reason Mormons would kill people whom they believed, or were told, had
murdered Joseph or Hyrum Smith, or Parley P. Pratt, is that Brigham Young had
implemented an "oath of vengeance" into the temple endowment ceremony, in which
patrons swore to "avenge the blood of the prophets unto the third and fourth
generation."

Since the doctrine of "blood atonement" was promoted by the institutional LDS
church, and specifically by Brigham Young-----

and the "Oath of Vengeance" against the killers of Mormon leaders which Mormons
swore allegiance to in the temple endowment ceremony was instituted by Brigham
Young-----

and participants in the MMM referred to that oath as being their "authority" to
commit the massacre-----

and Brigham Young spoke approvingly of the MMM as an act of justifiable
"vengeance", and that the victims (except for the women and children) "merited
their fate"---

then it is obvious that the man ultimately responsible for the Mountain Meadows
Massacre was Brigham Young.

Randy J. “

That's enough for one post. Hopefully, this will help clear up some confusion and misinformation on the subject.

Subject:	Thank you for outlining this and providing the links
Date:	May 07 22:19
Author:	Anony

I appreciate having this valuable information.
And I like the way you've presented it.

Exmo Anony

Subject:	Apologists…
Date:	May 09 13:43
Author:	Randy J.

>So-called Mormon "historians" like Davis Bitton and Daniel C. Peterson claim that the MMM never happened, or that it was done by Indians, but they're just liars.

Actually, I don't know of any current apologists who assert either of those positions. It's true that the first statements from church leaders asserted that Indians did it; however, those allegations were quickly demolished as evidence began coming out shortly after the massacre.

There are still a few Mormon nut jobs out there who repeat the nonsensical allegation "Mormons had to help kill the emigrants because the Indians threatened to kill the Mormons if they didn't help them" blah blah blah. All of that is refuted by the fact that the raid was planned and approved by Brigham Young in SLC six days before the initial Indian attack.

The current standard apologists' explanation for the incident is that it was planned and committed by unauthorized "rogue" local Mormons; that the emigrants had committed atrocities which enraged the Mormons to act violently against them; that the incident was committed in an atmosphere of fear and in a "fog of war" which was attributed to the impending arrival of US army troops into the SL valley; etc.

The current apologists' overall objective is to maintain the pretense that Brigham Young and other high-ranking church leaders didn't approve of the crime and didn't know about it in advance. The apologists' agenda is to protect church leaders' reputations as "prophets of God" who would never approve of, or be involved in such activities.

That position necessarily requires the apologists to also deny the reality of the "blood atonement" teaching and practice---they assert that blood atonement was merely a vocal threat used to keep wayward church members in line, and that there were no actual incidents of blood atonement punishments in all the history of 19th-century Mormonism. Of course, those apologists are merely in intellectual denial of the mountain of evidence from a wide variety of sources which very clearly relate incidents of blood atonement punishments ordered by church leaders and carried out.

The apologists realize that if they admit that the crime was planned and approved by church leaders in SLC, that the entire premise that church leaders are "led by God" falls like a house of cards, and the church's claims of divine guidance and "priesthood authority" fall along with it. So, rather than admit the truth and allow the church to be destroyed, the apologists instead choose to maintain a pack of lies. Their attitude is an insult to the victims of the massacre and to the cause of legitimate historical scholarship.

Subject:	And further regarding blood atonement
Date:	May 13 03:16
Author:	D. P. Gumby

Excellent summary as always Randy.
For another episode of blood atonement occurring just before MMM, read about the Santa Clara ambush here:

http://history.utah.gov/history_programs/utah_historic_quarterly/table_of_contents/documents/Winter2005-v73-01.pdf
[especially see pages 72-73]
I think this gives an excellent insight to the frame of mind of both BY, and local So. Utah leaders like William Dame.

You can also read (US Army) Major Carleton's official
report about MMM here:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/carletonreport.html

Subject:	No, no, no!
Date:	May 08 00:23
Author:	Hrefna

Noted LDS scholar Orson Scott Card defines the MMM as an event in which John D. Lee, a master of disguise, dressed up as dozens of Indians and single-handedly wiped out an entire wagon train.

Just about as believable as the official Mormon version...

Subject:	Re: No, no, no!
Date:	May 09 13:46
Author:	Randy J.

>Noted LDS scholar Orson Scott Card defines the MMM as an event in which John D. Lee, a master of disguise, dressed up as dozens of Indians and single-handedly wiped out an entire wagon train.

Card's the guy who writes science fiction novels, right?

Sounds like he needs to stick to fiction.

Subject:	Re: Her'es what every Mormon and Ex-Mormon needs to know about the Mountain Meadows Massacre.....
Date:	May 11 13:36
Author:	Rex

I've known about the MMM for about 25 years, having read about it in an 'unofficial' history of the church (title & author long expunged from my memory). I never really thought of the MMM as providing particular insights into the Mormon psyche.

What I did find instructive was the attitude shown by Mormon friends and acquaintances: most simply refused to believe that any such thing ever happened. One or two simply dismissed it with a hand-wave. I had the distinct impression that I was observing mindsets unacquainted with the necessity of truthfulness and candor, even when it might be a bit painful.

If the Mormon church had simply acknowledged the fact of the MMM decades ago and expressed sincere regrets - no one would think much about now. Maybe no one would even have bothered to make a movie about it.

Subject:	Here's the sum total of what I was taught in church about the MMM.....
Date:	May 12 12:03
Author:	Randy J.

In 1977 or '78, when I was a recently returned missionary, our adult SS class that year dealt with church history. The teacher briefly mentioned the MMM, I suppose whatever was in her lesson manual. We had a young (age 33) bishop at the time who had previously been an institute director for 8 years. Meaning, he was someone who should have known something about church history. He was in the class that day, and he made comments about the MMM to the effect of "It was committed by a rogue bishop named John D. Lee who was later tried, found guilty, and was executed for it." That was all that was said on the subject, and the teacher went on to something else.

That was *all* I ever heard about the MMM in any church meeting during my 42 years as a Mormon. When my bishop made those comments, I remember thinking that there must be much more to the story than that, and questioning how and why someone could become a "rogue bishop" to the point of committing mass murder. But since I didn't know any more about the subject than that, I shoved those thoughts to the back of my mind, just like all the other questions and doubts we all had while we were TBMs.

About the same time, I bought a 1974 copy of the church's seminary textbook on church history, "The Restored Church," by William E. Berrett. I had never attended seminary as a teen, so I wanted to learn more in-depth about church history.

That book used three pages to discuss the MMM, but it merely repeated all of the pro-church side of things which we still hear from Mormons today. It repeats the false allegations about "Missouri Wildcats" and the emigrants poisoning cattle and springs, and of boasting that they had helped to oust the Mormons from Missouri and Illinois.
Rather than coming right out and saying "Mormons were involved in the killing," it merely identifies them as "white men," and emphasizes the Indians' part more than the whites.

It only mentions John D. Lee's name in the context of his report to Brigham Young shortly after the massacre, and references the "report of Lee trial" for the quote of Young's response telling the rider, James Haslem, to return to the MM area "with all speed; spare no horseflesh." The book closes the subject by stating "the Church must not be condemned because of the vile deeds of a few of its members." IOW, the book is purely apologetics, and completely ignores all the evidence that the crime was planned and approved at the highest levels of church leadership.

That's the sum total of everything I knew about the MMM until I began studying my way out of the church about 11 years ago. And everything I learned about the MMM other than that has come from non-church-published sources.

Subject:	One explanation of Brigham Young's motives ...
Date:	May 12 13:28
Author:	One Viewer

(1) Young knew he couldn't eventually win any war against America.

(2) He realized that the strongest "card" the church held was America's need for overland travel to the west coast. The Mormons were the only source of re-supply for wagon trains and only the Mormons could control the Indians.

(3) Young needed to "demonstrate" to the American Government and people what overland travel would be like without the help of the Mormons.

(4) He arrange for a massacre of one wagon train already on the path southward. The southern Utah Indians would be blamed for it.

(5) American citizens would be outraged that their government was keeping the Mormons from doing their part, and that the "Utah War" was going to make overland travel dangerous and impossible if it wasn't settled soon.

(6) With all the public pressure against the American Government, it would be forced to negotiate with the Mormons to ensure safe travel to the west coast.

(7) As a result, there would be no war and the Mormons would have political recognition and independence from America with Young as its head.

But all this blew up in Young's face.

Subject:	The Most Telling Evidence Of BY's Knowledge And Complicity
Date:	May 12 20:54
Author:	John Taylor

The most telling evidence of Brigham Young's knowledge and complicity in this crime, the worst massacre in U.S. history, is his lack of action against it.

As governor of the territory it was his duty to have the crime investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice. His total lack of inactivity is very indicative of his involvement. If he were REALLY appalled by the murders, the killers would have been hunted down like the cowardly dogs they were.

Just the least amount of research into Utah's early history shows Brigham's near-total control over what went on in the Territory. A simple pronouncement from him that he wanted to perpetrators turned in and brought to justice would have them all in jail.

NOTHING HAPPENED to further any investigation.

Subject:	Good point. And not only that...
Date:	May 13 00:26
Author:	Squid

... but the local Mormons also failed to BURY THE BODIES!!!!... thus showing how they truly felt. The U.S. army had to do that the following summer, after the animals had gotten to them. A most clear indication of BY's complicity.

Subject:	Additionally, Brigham Young Dispatched Agents . . .
Date:	May 13 05:56
Author:	SL Cabbie

To confiscate copies of John D. Lee's journals . . . Inquiring minds want to know why . . .
Subject:		Why should Mormons care about MMM today?
Date:		May 09 18:12
Author:		Deconstructor

I've been asked this several times since the airing of the PBS documentary.

Even if Brigham Young directly ordered the massacre and it was indeed committed by priesthood brethren, what does that mean for today's Mormons?

Should Mormons leave the church today because of the MMM?

Before you answer, think about this: What if you learned that the founding fathers were a bunch of corrupt racists assholes? Or what if you were convinced the US Government was behind the massacre of hundreds or thousands of innocent lives in the 19th century. Would you feel the need to leave the country and renounce your citizenship now?

In other words, why is the MMM grounds for someone today to leave the Mormon church, even if everything we say about it is true?

Subject:	Re: Why should Mormons care about MMM today?
Date:	May 09 18:32
Author:	Stunned in Idaho

I would think that MMM or a scandal regarding the Founding Fathers would lead one to conclude that there was faulty reasoning in the past. Hopefully the result will lead to less faulty reasoning in the present and future, from both adherents and purveyors of a doctrine - not necessarily leaving the Church or departing the country.

If the MMM incident is a causing an individual to question their faith then by all means let them continue to question and see where it leads. What harm can there be in inquiry and seeking truth?

Subject:	A president or government is just agroup that can be changed.
Date:	May 09 18:46
Author:	befree
Mail Address:

the church is based on the fact that JS,BY,prophets have spoken with the almighty god of the universe, therefore the MMM was a commandment from god.You can say that clinton slept with that woman and oops,he's human.But, you cannot say that the almighty god thier father commanded MMM,56 wives, Castration,hate of someone for thier color or sexual needs,and more.A corrupt president is a corrupt president, a corrupt prophet is a corrupt god.

Subject:	the difference is...
Date:	May 09 18:39
Author:	scarecrowfromoz

that the U. S. Government doesn't claim to be divinely led by God (despite what some radicals Evangelicals believe). The Morg Cult claims to be divinely led by God and Jesus, and says that God would never allow the Profit to lead them astray. I would call ordering the mass murder of innocent people being led astray, which means BY was never a Profit, and therefore the Morg Cult is not now and never was what it claims to be.

Subject:	Maybe.
Date:	May 09 18:53
Author:	larry

Depends on whether or not you think Brigham's order of the massacre has any bearing on his role as prophet. IMO, prophets of any God I'm comfortable with wouldn't order the massacre of 120 men, women and children. So if TBMs accept BY did it, then maybe they should question whether he was a prophet, received revelations etc. I mean if someone can't be EQ president because they drink beer I'm guessing that God wouldn't allow his prophet to order mass murders. Just a guess though. =)

If members conclude BY was not a prophet then they could conclude that the church that he played such a pivotal role in establishing-- is not what it claims to be.

So maybe-- if the member holds the prophets to any standard of moral behavior.

Subject:	The question is Divine Authority vs. Secular Authority....
Date:	May 09 19:20
Author:	Chad (Swedeboy) Spjut

This topic is very relevant to the present day church as the present day church derives its "authority" from those who came before. Although the atrocities of the American Government against the American Indians are reprehensible, it was done under the authority of a secular organization, not one claiming to be the organization established by god himself, with its priesthoods, powers and dominions.

Mormonism stands on the shoulders of "authority" from the past. If that authority was corrupt or non-existent than the present day Mormon Church cannot be what it claims to be today.

If Mormonism is god's true church on the earth, what does that say about him and his leaders of this supposed kingdom? Is this a god worth honor and worship? Is this an organization worthy of honor and deference including our income, time and very lives if necessary?

Brushing this off by saying that those in authority were just fallible men, who were full of faults and imperfections does not diminish what this event and several other Mormon sponsored murders like it spell out for Mormonism and its past. Corruption, greed, and a lust for power were at the heart of Mormonism then and the Mormonism of today.

This event proves that there was not divine authority in Brigham Young or his subordinates. It was simply a case of crazed fanatics butchering innocents in a delusional rampage.

Subject:	Yes!! Morg authority is always based on a "pure" lineage ... if/since BY ordered MMM, all authority since him
Date:	May 09 19:28
Author:	anon

is corrupted just like BY was if/when he ordered the massacre.

The US gov is NOT based on a chain of authority, but only on the latest vote and current laws.

MMM stains the Morg so deeply that only full admission of guilt, payment to the survivors, AND fully dismantling the Morg (the Morg "dying" to pay for the mass shedding of innocent blood) might be enough to atone for what the Morg did to those innocent settlers.

Subject:	My Sources--Including Will Bagley--Tell Me . . .
Date:	May 09 19:36
Author:	SL Cabbie

That the impetus for a takeover of the "Salt Lake Tribune" was the Trib's story of the unearthing of the remains of MMM victims during 1999 monument reconstruction.

Here is a link to a reprint of the original Christopher Smith story . . .

http://www.cesnur.org/testi/morm_01.htm

AT&T had acquired the Trib as part of a deal that allowed the former owners, the McCarthy family, to divest themselves of stock in TCI Cablevision (Which AT&T purchased) and retain an option to re-purchase the paper.

In a deal one insider informs me was orchestrated by no less than Thomas Monson, the LDS Church first tried to purchase the Trib directly, and then when prohibited by anti-trust statutes, solicited Dean Singleton and MediaNews to purchase it from AT&T . . .

Singleton then first refused to acknowledge the option (contesting it in court), and then when its validity was uphelp, managed to have the newspaper and its assets appraised at approximately twice the amount he paid for it.

The Mormon-owned Deseret News also exercised "veto power" over the the McCarthy re-acquisition because of joint assets held in Newspaper Agency Corporation . . .

Arguments in the case were heard by Mormon Judge Ted Stewart (a chrony of then-Utah Governor Mike Leavitt and Senator Orrin Hatch--both of whom had ancestors who participated directly in MMM) who ruled against the McCarthys repeated only to have decisions handed back to him by the Appeals Court in Denver.

The lawsuit is now being heard by Judge Teena Campbell, and what's clear to this outsider is that Singleton has so fragmented the Trib (moving it from 143 South Main Street to the Gateway Mall) that any semblance of justice is a farce.

The last I talked to one of my sources, he concluded matters had deteriorated to little more than a pissing contest between Singleton and Phil McCarthy . . .

This subject was covered in-depth on this BB about five years ago, and I called for a boycott of the Trib back then, and I have continually refused to re-instate my subscription despite solicitations from NAC promoters who seem to have learned their sales tactics from Mormon missionaries . . .

So, Decon, the reason Mormons should care about MMM today is they should be proud of their church leaders for defending their beloved church against the forces of truth and enlightenment . . .

That dedication has extended to effectively effecting the death of the free press in Utah . . .

They're doing old Joey proud on that one . . .

Subject:	Victim Mentality
Date:	May 09 20:01
Author:	Sasquatch Crotch

Because it shatters the victim mentality of the LDS church. Mormons want everyone to believe that they were peaceful, God fearing people & driven out of the Mid West for no good reason. Instead, the truth shows the Mormons to be vengeful people.

To those Mormons who say MMM doesn't matter & we should forget about it....why can't you do the same about Haun's Mill? Both incidents were WRONG and should never be forgotten even if they are not flattering to either side.

Subject:	Re: US Government was behind the massacre of hundreds or thousands of innocent lives in the 19th century. I cannot believe how ignorant and naive statement is this!!!!!!!!!
Date:	May 09 20:12
Author:	Quinlansolo

Helooo, where did Native Americans disappear to?
Dude, I understand your beef with the CULT, but being ignorant about US history makes you a fool.
Native Americans in multiple occasions were butchered in the same manner as MMM victims.

Subject:	Ummm, I think that was exactly his point . . .
Date:	May 09 20:24
Author:	some guy

That Indians were massacred and yet we don't move to France over it.

Subject:	I'm fully aware of that. My point is...
Date:	May 09 20:36
Author:	Deconstructor

...we all know about the massacres committed by our government leaders in the 19th century, yet none of us renounce our citizenship over it and move to Canada.

I'm been asked by Mormons why they should disrupt their families, face rejection from their parents and leave the Mormon Church over what its leaders did at MMM in the 19th century. All of those people are long since dead - both victims and perpetrators. So what point is there in leaving the church now over what happened so long ago?

That's the question I'm getting asked today and I don't seem to be able to offer a compelling reason to them.

Part of me understands their argument. I wouldn't renounce my citizenship no matter what I learned about 19th century government leaders, or founders of the country. Would you?

Subject:	So MMM Isn't a Good Reason to Leave the Church?
Date:	May 09 21:14
Author:	SL Cabbie

Okay. What constitutes a good reason? You, as well as any here, are aware of the lies, from the situation I documented above back through the Mark Hofmann episode to the racism that traces from 1978 at least to Brigham Young . . .

Are those good enough reasons not to give the requisite 10%? It's a culture of deceipt, deception, and cover-ups at the highest levels (don't even get me started about the sexual-abuse garbage on the local level); what earthly reason is there to support it?

No, there's no "single bullet" to shoot someone with to turn them into an exmo, and the church PR machinery is constantly trying to spin the bullets we let fly into something they insist is harmless or at least non-threatening . . .

Is a magic bullet what you're after? I know some "psychological dirty tricks" beyond the blunt one-liners I use in conjunction with the facts here, but there use is problematic as well . . .

Who was it that said you could lead a horse's ass to ponder, but you can't make him think?

Subject:	Present-day problems are the reason to leave
Date:	May 09 22:50
Author:	alex71va

(1) Brigham Young is still honored as a true prophet of God. The church is naming universities after him. Why call it BYU? Why not AHU in honor of the German chancellor of 70 years ago?

(2) The seers still are seering. The revelators still aren't revealing. And the prophets just say, "I don't know what the future holds", and they get blindsighted on a regular basis by various problems.

(3) The fire insurance is awfully expensive compared to market rates. Or are people just buying temple movie tickets or the right to wear some sexy Mormon underwear ;)

(4) Their fanaticism with guilt trips and control over the members is still going on. And that's where something like MMM comes into relevance. They haven't learned their lessons from MMM. They still do things secretly and expect completely loyalty from the church members.

(5) They still deceive on their church history. For example, why do they only ever mention one of the first vision renditions and why do they only ever mention one of Joseph's wives? MMM is just one of the items on a long, long list.

I could go on and on with reasons why someone should feel no guilt for leaving. But most important IMHO is that the church doesn't think it needs to be honest to the world. And that's why they are so controversial and will continue to be so controversial. If they were honest then so much of the controversy they breed would go away.

Subject:	The consequences of blind obedience
Date:	May 09 20:45
Author:	Dbradhud

The LDS church still indoctrinates its members with the same principle that led to the MMM: follow the prophet. Yes, the prophet can act as a man, but we only determine that after the prophet is dead. The current prophet is always infallible, can never lead us astray, and must be obeyed without question.

That's why current LDS should care. There is a lesson there that should not be ignored. Failure to learn from it leads to Jonestown or Waco.

Subject:

Re: A simple apology would go a long way to heal wounds, but as stupid and arrogant GBH is he could never muster one. n/t

Subject:	Re: Why should Mormons care about MMM today?
Date:	May 09 22:28
Author:	Lee

Esteemed Deconstructor,
You ask a good question. Obviously individual Mormons today are not responsible for what happened in the 1850's. What they are responsible for is a continuance of the cover-up, refusal to recognize the truth about the murders and teaching their children these same behaviors. The murders alone would not be a reason for one to leave the SCC today. The lies and cover-ups, the accusations against those who want to speak about the truth, the character assassinations still going on today should make any rational person wonder about the SCC and its leadership. I don't wonder anymore. I know the SCC is all a ghastly, monumental lie. Mormons today should care as long as the SCC insists on betraying the truth, as well as the loyalty of its membership. I don't know about you, but I tend to get a tad annoyed by serious betrayal.

Subject:	If you were God ordaining leadership to your one true church
Date:	May 09 22:52
Author:	Taddlywog

There are some mistakes: murder, molesting children, intentional lying and misdirection that go beyond excusing as simple human frailty. If I am supposed to follow leaders who are capable of things I could never bring myself to do I think I am in the right to consider if I believe God would really call such a man to lead me. Be it prophet, stake president or bishop it is the actions not the words that betray the church is a church of man and not of God.

Subject:	The given analogy is very interesting.
Date:	May 09 23:00
Author:	Mad Viking

If the LDS church is considered to be the same type of organization as the U.S. government, that being a "man made" instituion, then I would say that the MMM should hold the same place in the mormon psyche as does the atrocities that the U.S. government committed against the american indians. However, if the LDS church is considered to be the only organization on earth ordained by the creator of the universe to represent him, then the MMM should loom large in the psyche of the average mormon as being the certain indication that something is/was amiss.

Subject:	Both Jefferson and Washington were racists, being slaveholders...
Date:	May 10 00:03
Author:	bishop Rick

http://www.mclemee.com/id33.html

Neither of them were noble or free-thinking enough to rise above contemporary societal barbarisms and just do what was right.

"Or what if you were convinced the US Government was behind the massacre of hundreds or thousands of innocent lives in the 19th century"

From the southern confederate point of view, the US government was indeed "behind the massacre of hundreds or thousands of innocent lives in the 19th century", having sent its armies to quash a "rebellion" seen by much of the south as simply a decision to try to control their own destiny.

Subject:	Fawn Brodie was vilified for suggesting that Jefferson fathered a baby via one of his slaves...
Date:	May 10 00:15
Author:	bishop Rick

and she was subsequently shown to be correct via DNA testing:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/video/report4.html

Our experiences with cult propoganda must teach us that we must deeply question *everything* that we or other people hold to be true or great. We might be in a religious cult, a political cult (cult of Chairman Mao), a nationalist cult, a "Founding Fathers cult", or an "our divine constitution cannot be changed" cult.

Subject:

Absolutely correct! Question everything! It's not a trite bumper sticker, it is very sage advice! n/t

Subject:	OF COURSE all Mormons who have any integrity should leave the church because of the MMM.....
Date:	May 10 07:52
Author:	Randy J.

...and here's why: The church itself demands that its members be "honest in their dealings with their fellow man." Also, the church's self-proclaimed process for repenting of personal wrongdoings involves recognizing that you have sinned, accepting responsibility for your sin, asking forgiveness of those whom you have wronged, and promising to not repeat the sin.

The MMM was the product of the preachings and policies of the church's highest leaders. No church leader has ever admitted that, much less apologized or accepted institutional responsibility. In fact, Gordon B. Hinckley perpetuated that refusal to repent when he said at the MMM memorial dedication in 2000:

"That which we have done here must never be construed as an acknowledgment of the part of the church of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful day."

See full article at

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/3f08f03ebe3b5b40

Because the institutional church obstinately and hypocritically refuses to repent of its sins, it has no moral authority to demand that rank-and-file church members be honest with their fellow man, or to follow the repentance process themselves. And because the church has no moral authority, there is no reason for any rank-and-file church member who has any personal integrity to remain a Mormon. These Mopologists such as Richard Turley, Robert Crockett, and Thomas Alexander, who continue to assert that the MMM was not the product of the institutional church, have no personal integrity.

In recent years, the Catholic Church admitted to and apologized for the horrors of the Inquisition.

The Southern Baptist Convention admitted to and apologized for its former support of slavery and racial bigotry.

Until the LDS church admits and repents of its role in the MMM, its leaders are telling the world that they have less honesty and integrity than do the leaders of the Catholics and Southern Baptists.

Subject:	Re: Why should Mormons care about MMM today?
Date:	May 10 10:51
Author:	kangaroo

My answer would be that even though it is May 2007 and we are many years away from the massacre, we just listened to Oaks say that we don't criticize even if it's valid. We don't question our leaders. One of the tragedies of the massacre was that there was nobody courageous enough to question or to say no, or maybe anyone strong enough to do so. I don't want my children to have that mindset, because I believe in the old line that history repeats itself. The mindset of obedience is still, to this day, carefully nurtured.

Subject:	If not for tje massacre itself..
Date:	May 10 11:07
Author:	Bamboozled

Then how about leaving the church for intentionally lying about, covering up and obfuscating the whole thing?

The LDS Church has even purchased the land where the MMM happened in an attempt to control information about it.

Think TBM's! What is the church so afraid of????

Subject:	Decon, short answer
Date:	May 10 11:27
Author:	exedmo

Because the church claims to be god's church, his representation here on earth, operating with his authority and guidance. The MMM is fundamentally incompatible with a non-evil god.

The US makes no such claims.

Recovery from Mormonism - The Mormon Church www.exmormon.org

Listing of additional short Topics | Main Page