Obeying Orders at Mountain Meadows: Would You?

John D. Lee Mountain Meadows MassacreA piece on the USAToday.com website by conservative commentator Michael Medved criticizing the new film September Dawn (scheduled to be released on August 24th), has been getting much approval from the LDS community. Even Fox News chimed in with a very hastily put-together piece agreeing with Medved when he asks, “Why would Hollywood release a controversial feature film about alleged Mormon terrorists of 150 years ago while all but ignoring the dangerous Muslim terrorists of today?” Medved goes on to state, “Why frame an indictment of violent religiosity by focusing on long-ago Mormon leaders rather than contemporary Muslims who perpetrate unspeakable brutalities every day?”

Personally, I don’t see this as a pertinent issue. September Dawn is a Hollywood drama, not a documentary, and the Massacre was a real event that in less than a month will be having its 150th anniversary. The timing is understandable.

Medved showed an incredible amount of naiveté when he said, “Mormons won’t respond with any comparable rage, no matter how badly September Dawn tarnishes the memory of their faith’s founders.” One need only read the comments that followed his article to see how wrong he is. Sadly, in typical fashion, many Mormons who agreed with Medved wanted to make sure people understood that this film is just one more example of bigotry and hatred against the LDS Church. Hoping to add some thoughtful points to the discussion I wrote:

“I normally like Michael Medved’s commentary, but in this case he makes a terrible “either/or” logical fallacy. I too would like Hollywood to deal more with the Islamic terrorist problem we face, but this does not mean I’d like the rest of history to be ignored. Having studied Mormonism as an outsider for over 30 years, I can tell you that much of what we know about the Mountain Meadows Massacre is given to us by the perpetrators. Not even Mormon historians will deny that evidence has been tampered with or expunged. This could be why there is no smoking gun directly implicating Brigham Young.

The word is that a new book about the massacre by LDS historians is going to pin the order to kill the Fancher/Baker party on Isaac Haight, a Mormon stake president from Cedar City. Can we reasonably assume that around 50 devout Mormon men would kill 120 innocent men, women, and children, on the orders of a mere stake president when murder in LDS theology is an unforgivable sin? The idea is ridiculous to those who know how priesthood authority works in the LDS Church. It seems rather obvious that these men felt they would be protected, and the only man able to do that would be Brigham Young. Considering that John D. Lee was the only person to be executed for the crime, I’d say he did a pretty good job. I suggest that people interested in this topic read Will Bagley’s “Blood of the Prophets.”

In what I assume was a response to my main point, “Dr. H” wrote:

“The posts on this article show that there are plenty of people out there that would twist history to justify their hatred against people they disagree with. The new book coming out about the MMM, that clears Brigham Young and implicates Isaac Haight, shows very convincingly how it was that good Mormons, fearful of being wiped out by the US Army, would follow the orders of Haight and commit the atrocity. He was not only a stake president, but their militia commander. Regardless of the fact that everyone involved was Mormon, this was a civil militia affair, not a church doing. What started as a couple of foolish militiamen picking a fight ended as a community resorting to a murder in an ill-advised cover-up effort to prevent further agitation of the government against the Mormons.”

Under Siege at Mountain MeadowsAll I can say is “WOW!” Can I then assume that if Dr. H was transported back in time and fully cognizant of the “fearful” situation faced by the folks in southern Utah, that he would have followed Isaac Haight’s command to “do his duty” and put a bullet in the head of an unarmed civilian? Who cares if Haight was the militia commander? These were innocent men, women, and children they attacked and killed, not soldiers! Sidney Johnston’s army was hundreds of miles away, and like the Fancher/Baker party, posed no immediate threat. Besides, Mormons often praise General Alexander Doniphan for refusing a command by a superior officer to kill Joseph Smith. Doniphan argued that to do so would to be to kill him in “cold-blood.” What makes this so different?

I personally have no high hopes for the book coming out by the LDS Church. Like always, it is an in-house job that, like the massacre itself, comes with an oath of secrecy on the part of those involved. No outsiders were allowed to examine the information available to the three Mormon historians involved in the project. That being the case, how can any Mormon automatically assume with absolute certainty that Young was in the clear? Even Dr. H admits to a cover-up that had to obviously include Young and the rest of the LDS leadership. A common trait with people involved in cover-ups is that they lie. LDS Church historian Richard Turley himself admitted at the last Mormon History Association conference that evidence had been tampered with and was missing. How difficult would it have been for Young and others to cover their tracks given the fact that he was the most powerful man in the territory? If Mormons want to clear Brigham Young, then let them be the first to tell their church to open the archives to any and all responsible historians. It may not settle the issue once and for all, but at least it will demonstrate that the LDS Church really has nothing to hide.

I again state my premise: Can we reasonably assume that around 50 devout Mormon men would kill 120 innocent men, women, and children, on the orders of a mere stake president when murder in LDS theology is an unforgivable sin? Mormons reading this blog, I ask you, if you lived during that time, would you do that?

This entry was posted in Mormon History. Bookmark the permalink.

106 Responses to Obeying Orders at Mountain Meadows: Would You?

  1. Rick, For the record, I actually was referring to Medved’s criticism of the movie when I said, “A piece on the USAToday.com website by conservative commentator Michael Medved criticizing the new film September Dawn (scheduled to be released on August 24th), has been getting much approval from the LDS community.” Mormons overall, are not very pleased with the film (even though very, very few have seen it).

    Amanda, I’m still waiting for your response to the queries posed by Aaron and myself. You aren’t bothered by the fact Brigham Young did nothing to punish the murderers of the Fancher/Baker party?

  2. Lancaster says:

    Amanda, learn to recognize when people are agreeing with you. Or are at least objectively clarifying actual Mormon doctrine. “Outer darkness” is not to be confused with the three degrees of glory (Celestial, Terrestrial, Telestial). The following paragraph is from the “Gospel Topics” section of http://www.lds.org (which I can only hope you take as authoritative):

    Those who are not redeemed by the Atonement are in outer darkness, which is the dwelling place of the devil, his angels, and the sons of perdition (see D&C 29:36–38; 76:28–33). Sons of perdition are those who receive “no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come–having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame” (D&C 76:34-35; see also D&C 76:31–33, 36–37). Such individuals will not inherit a place in any kingdom of glory; for them the conditions of hell remain (see D&C 76:38; 88:24, 32).

    Note the two very clear and limited provisions. They have nothing to do with being “wicked” in the conventional sense. According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, the lowest of the Three Degrees of Glory (Telestial) is reserved for those who “willfully reject the gospel of Jesus Christ, and commit serious sins such as murder, adultery, lying, and loving to make a lie (but yet do not commit the unpardonable sin [see above]), and who do not repent in mortality.”

    In other words, what I said Clark said (and again, I’m pretty sure from this thread that Clark is trying to agree with you).

    So the participants in the Mountains Meadows Massacre, providing they did not repent “in mortality,” will at worst end up in the Telestial kingdom.

    Oh, and doing something evil (such as selling your soul to the devil) with a “good conscience” is the very definition of an oxymoron. I’ll leave it to you to consult a dictionary for further clarification in that regard.

  3. Rick B says:

    Sorry about the mistake Bill. But like you said, not many have or will see the movie, sad, you can say the movie is wrong but you will not watch it, so how do you know it’s wrong. Rick b

  4. Jeff says:

    Sadly thats what a lot of LDS people tend to do with any information that isn’t given in a general conference/sunday school/church publishing. My wife isn’t open at all to hear anything other than what she hears in church or reads in the Ensign. What’s even more sad is that the Church has put a lot of pressure on its members to automatically disregard anything other than that. I read an article in the New Era magazine about closing your ears to all “anti-mormon” information because its “probably” wrong. I bet my wife hasn’t ever even heard of Mountain Meadow’s Massacre. After all, she’s never heard of Joseph Smith’s many wives either.

  5. Rick B says:

    Jeff, I have had many MM’s over my house, no sooner do I pull out “Official” lds books and show them problems they say thats anti mormon and refuse to even look and then leave. I remember talking to Bill M, and he was telling me he owns the original 1830 BoM, he was telling me he has pulled it out to show LDS missionarys the problems between the 1830 edtion and the newest version, they refuse to look and then left.

    It’s sad, were told were anti-mormon, yet many LDS refuse to look at the problems, they just assume were lying. Rick b

  6. Burt T. says:

    Rick, Bill, Aaron,

    You are against the Mormon Church. If you are not anti-mormon, then what are you! PLEASE TELL ME!!!!

    Give me a break, at leat admit what you are. You can’t call our leaders “cowards” and mock Joseph Smith, and love us at the same time. It doesn’t work.

  7. Jeff says:

    You know whats funny. I was preparing probably 5 pages worth of information with referenced sources to back it up, and I told my wife that I am going to want some missionary discussions in the near future to talk these issues over with them, but as I have been gathering info, I have noticed that they won’t even talk to me about the shady history of the LDS church. Pretty much the same thing you experienced. I didn’t even realize that they are taught to avoid any “anti-mormon” material brought up by investigators. I also realized that many of these missionary’s wont even know half the stuff I am going to talk about because they too have been given the water-downed happy go lucky history of Joseph Smith. My brother in law just moved away to college and is to start being a missionary in a years time. His parents are very adamant and pushy about him being a missionary even though he doesn’t event want to. Unfortunately the young man has gotten into alcohol and what not so I think he’s going to have that decision taken from him regardless. I know he hasn’t even heard of half the stuff that I have because he hasn’t once questioned his religion in his teenage years.

    It’s the ignorance is bliss type of thing. “If something negative about my leader is said, I don’t want to hear it! It’s probably taken out of context anyway!”

    I thank God that we have Christ Jesus to look up to, instead of sinful man.

  8. Burt T. I sense a spirit of contention in your post.

  9. Burt T. I’ll let Brigham respond to your accusation:

    “If I should hear a man advocate the erroneous principles he had imbibed through education, and oppose those principles, some might imagine that I was opposed to that man, when, in fact, I am only opposed to every evil and erroneous principle he advances” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p.251).

    Now, back to the topic, would you Burt T., join in killing 120 men, women, and children if your stake president told you to?

  10. Jeff says:

    Hey Burt, don’t leave me out, I’m anti-mormon too! ;o)

    I think its a “no-duh” that the majority if not all Christians on this site are anti(against)-mormon. I do oppose the religious beliefs that you have, however I do not oppose you as a person because I know you have a lot of good inside you.

    My wife is Mormon, and I love her more than any other human being on this planet (our two girls are tied at a VERY VERY close second). Just because I oppose her beliefs doesn’t mean I hate her. A religion is an organization, not a characteristic of human kind. I believe the church leaders are deceivers of human kind, and I think their actions are horrendous, especially when it leads to the murder of innocent women and children. It’s sad when one hears/reads/see’s these things, but its even more sad when one tries to defend evil wrong-doings by throwing them in a washing machine and packing it full of bleach.

  11. Ralph says:

    Just my opiniion, but I think one of the reasons we are told to steer clear of ‘anti-mormon’ stuff is the same reason you all advise most ‘Christians’ not to read the Book of Mormon. Only the ‘spiritually strong’ (or brain dead idiots like me 🙂 ) are able to go through literature that is anti their opinion and be reasonably unscathed. The devil is cunning and even if something is wrong, he can make it look good and nice, or vice versa, if something is from God he will make it look evil. He does this to take us away from God. So I don’t think its a bad idea for the church leaders to advise the general members to steer clear of ‘anti-mormon’ literature.

    As for the question above about the movie – Because I am not living in those times at that place I do not know the stresses and initiating factors, so honestly I cannot answer if I would have taken part in the atrocity or not. I would not ‘blindly’ follow a stake president, but seek confirmation of his intent. As for the prophet, I would not ‘blindly’ follow the prophet either, but since I already have my ‘evidence’ that the prophet is a man of God and His mouthpiece on this earth, I know that the prophet would not lead me astray. So if the prophet, himself, told me (not by phone, mail etc, but face to face) to do something I would do it no hesitation. Like Samuel told King Saul (1 Sam 15) to have the Israelites kill every man, woman, child (including sucklings) and animal in the Amalekite city. The Israelites kept the king alive and some of the choicer animals – which Samuel said displeased God immensly and was the last reason that made Saul lose his kingship. God had a reason for this total destruction. So if the prophet came to me and told me to do something, because of my testimony of the prophet I would do it. As for a stake president, I would ask for confirmation from God first.

  12. “As for a stake president, I would ask for confirmation from God first.”

    Ralph, what would that “confirmation” sound, look, or feel like?

    Do you want us to assume that those involved in the massacre didn’t do this?

  13. Rick B says:

    Ralph, the Problem with LDS saying I cannot read or look into anti Mormon stuff is very weak, the reason why is this, almost every so-called anti Mormon I know simply shows what LDS prophets, Presidents and other LDS leaders or teachers have said or taught.

    When I speak on blogs, web sites or even face to face, I point out the contrdictions I see with one lds saying one thing verses another lds person saying something worlds apart. I did this with Amanda, I showed here the differences between the Bible, the BoM and Mormon Scripture, nothing Anti Mormon about it, unless your own church is teaching anti Mormon things. So because she could not refute her church’s teachings, she came back and said, you need years of study to understand this stuff.

    Like I then pointed out to her, you mean when a person is looking into your church simply prays to know the truth? No years of study first? I did a topic on my blog, I posted it before, but it shows how LDS Prophets and Pastors cannot agree on what is true, of all the people who have years of study under their belt, I would expect it to be the mouth piece of God. If they cannot agree, who can I trust? You can read my topic here:

    http://mormonismreviewed.blogspot.com/2006/02/lds-prophets-cannot-agree.html

    As to the Issue of me being Anti-Mormon, My thoughts on that are here:

    http://mormonismreviewed.blogspot.com/2006/05/am-i-anti-mormon.html

  14. Ralph, as a Latter-day saint, if the stake president told you to kill, wouldn’t you also want to consult the “Lord’s anointed”, his “choice seer”, his mouthpiece as a means of discerning what the Lord wanted?

  15. Ralph says:

    Bill,

    I know you and quite a few others will not accept this answer, but it comes from the LDS interpretation of the Bible and our teachings, and is a standard answer. I would first question the stake president about where he got the idea and what it was all about, just to understand the ‘motive’. Then I would decide for myself if it makes sense, considering what I know to be true. Then I would pray about it and ask God for confirmation of my decision. The confirmation would be through the Holy Ghost and that could come in a variety of different ways. Just look in the Bible and it tells you a number of the ways the Holy Ghost can reveal the truth. I really don’t know if those involved would have done this. As I said I wasn’t there and I don’t know what they were going through. They could have been cought up in the hype at the time. I have heard many ‘reasons’ as to why it happened, like revenge for Haun’s Mill, bad intellegence passing the group off as militants, etc. So honestly I don’t know if they did or didn’t.

    Aaron,

    I believe (and I know you don’t so please don’t argue this point) the prophet holds the position like Moses did – when he speaks it is for all the world to hear, not just the members of the LDS church. He has the stewardship of everyone on this planet at this point in time. I do not want to bother him about a small question or problem unless unless it was something very important – like an apostate stake president. If I were to recieve confirmation that what the stake president was asking me to do was wrong I would go the the General Authorities and let them know that the stake president is doing/teaching the wrong thing so they can take the matter into hand. I know what the scriptures say as to what is right and wrong but I also know that sometimes there are acceptions and its up to God what these exceptions are. So I know I can go to Him for the answer.

  16. Ralph says, “but it comes from the LDS interpretation of the Bible and our teachings, and is a standard answer.”

    So Ralph, how do Mormons interpret the Sixth Commandment?

  17. Ralph says:

    Exactly as it stands, with the exception that if God tells you to do otherwise, as in the example I gave above with Samuel the prophet. There are other examples in the Bible of this exception, but this one actually includes babies as well as adults and children.

    But the quote you gave was my answer to your question about “what would that confirmation sound, look or feel like?” – Not the way we interpret the 10 commandments.

    Just to reiterate what I said earlier – I would not question the prophet, as I have my testimony that he is God’s mouthpiece on this earth today. If he came to me personally and told me to do somethng, I would do it. But that is the prophet. Any other person, I would question, including stake presidents. (BTW my brother-in-law is my stake president at the moment and I would still question him, even though I know him.)

    On another slightly different path – if I were in the army I wouldn’t have a problem with fighting a war and killing peolpe that way. We are taught in the LDS church that it is the governments in power who would be held ‘accountable’ for the killings, not the soldiers themselves, unless the killing is unjustified – like an unarmed prisoner, or for instance the news story about the Iraqi family that was killed in order to hush up the rape of their daughter. The people that were involved in the MMM, from what I understand (but Amerrican history is not taught here so I don’t know much about his topic) believed they were in a war situation, so they may have been following ‘battle orders’ from their leader at that time. As I wrote earlier, I have read that there was a possibility that they were told the company was a military unit and not families. But that’s just one excuse. I wasn’t there so I can’t comment on their mind frame at that point in time.

  18. amanda says:

    LANCASTER

    there is no need to be smug…i simply didn’t read the comments that came before and i responded without context…an easy mistake to make on a chat thread like this. a lot of different conversations at once.

    and i don’t know who was claiming that these mormons who killed these innocent victims are going to the telestial kingdom…last time i checked, that was for God to decide..we don’t know each individual and their true intentions.

    look, not every mormon is 100% on the same page as every other mormon, sometimes we misunderstand, sometimes we have a lot to figure out. that’s the human condition.
    the real issue here is whether or not brigham young ordered these assumed mormons to kill these innocent people…and it is only a claim the movie makes, and other ambitious modern-day anti-mormon mobs. this claim is far-fetched at best. all i have heard is that “brigham young most certainly ordered it, and the only reason we don’t have the proof is because brigham young (or the church)covered it up”

    Brilliant!

  19. amanda says:

    and am i to assume that there aren’t any bad catholics, any bad evangelicals, methodists, muslims? hey, maybe there are mormons out there now, and in the past who were bad eggs…did anyone think of that???

  20. amanda says:

    sorry to continue to post, but i post before i finish my thought process….

    and let’s assume SOMEONE covered it up, and they were members of the church, AND it was to make the church look better…they will most likely answer for that on judgment day…it doesn’t mean the gospel, according to mormons, is inherently flawed.

  21. amanda says:

    RICK B (sorry again guys, but i haven’t been on all day and i have a ton to respond to)

    in reference to studying gospel principles in the Lds paradigm:

    i agree with you that you don’t need years of study to have a testimony of the gospel…what i was actually saying though had to deal with doctrinal points that are hard to understand or accept without an initial testimony of the book of mormon. you brought up several points of doctrine that were advanced (for lack of a better term) in terms of years of study.

    Isaiah 28:10 (king james version)
    “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:”

  22. amanda says:

    Aaron and Bill

    (again, i apologize everyone, but i’m accused of not responding…sorry but i don’t check up on blog postings throughout the day, it’s not a priority)

    you guys were attempting to point out Brigham Young’s lack of adequate response to the outrageous atrocities. I am comfortable to say that i don’t know what he did or did not do, despite what others say he did or did not do…and i’m uncomfortable having an opinion when it comes to judging someone who lived more than a century before me. and i should hope the two of you would show more restraint in that regard as well.

    i am certain however, that where there was wrongdoing, God will deal justly. and that’s really all i can say given my lack of omniscience.

  23. Amanda, for you to be comfortable with Young’s lack of response towards LDS members who committed murder, are we to assume that you take the position that Young really didn’t know the facts? How long ago it happened is really of no consequence if we have evidence to show Young did know and did nothing.

  24. Burt T. says:

    Jeff,

    I appreciate your response. You make a lot of sense. I will say, it is one thing to oppose ones religous beliefs (as you do), but it is completely different to mock and ridicule ones beliefs (as Aaron, Bill, and others have done).

    Bill, you are asking the classic unanswerable question in an attempt to find fault. If my stake president today asked me to join in killing 120 people, I would say no. However, I am not a Latter-Day Saint living 150 years ago. I did not get pushed out of Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. I did not witness my wife or other women get raped. My friends were not murdered at Haun’s Mill. I did not suffer and watch others die at Winter Quarters. Would you like me to continue? Does this justify their actions? NO. It simply adds context to show how such a thing could have evolved. How people could have been persuaded. It was not right.

    Bill, are you also as concerned with those who commited the numerous atrocities against the LDS Church taking responsibility for their actions? Few were punished for what they did. I haven’t seen any posts on these issues. MRM prides itself on looking at both sides. Be fair.

  25. amanda says:

    Burt, i was going to make the same point, but i figured i would spare everyone who already had to read like 5 of my posts in a row.

    BILL said:

    “Amanda, for you to be comfortable with Young’s lack of response towards LDS members who committed murder, are we to assume that you take the position that Young really didn’t know the facts? How long ago it happened is really of no consequence if we have evidence to show Young did know and did nothing.”

    who said i was comfortable with anyones’ actions?? i merely stated that i am incapable of fully understanding why someone did or did not do something. and i am in complete awe that many of you who are so adamantly opposed to Brigham Young’s handling of the situation, feel equipped to make such an assessment. whatever happened to walking a mile in someone’s shoes?

    my ONLY assertion was that none of us really know, and God is in charge. bill, why is that such an offensive conclusion?

  26. Burt, I have never justified the persecution faced by Mormons in years past, never. So please, don’t play the victim card. Your church is coming out with a book soon that compels us to believe that over 50 devout Mormon men killed 120 people at the orders of a stake president. My question was very simple. No Mormons responding to my question seem comfortable with this scenario.

    I’ve not hidden the fact that I personally think Young was involved with the deaths of the Fancher/Baker party. Outside of Dimmick Huntington’s Journal I have no smoking gun, but it does seem clear that such an extreme act could not have happened just because of a “renegade” stake president.

    I did find Ralph’s comment especially chilling:

    “As for the prophet, I would not ‘blindly’ follow the prophet either, but since I already have my ‘evidence’ that the prophet is a man of God and His mouthpiece on this earth, I know that the prophet would not lead me astray. So if the prophet, himself, told me (not by phone, mail etc, but face to face) to do something I would do it no hesitation.”

    This seems to follow my premise. If it was an order from the Prophet – no problem. Why do Mormons want to assume the men in 1857 had any different standard? I have no doubt that they felt Young was involved in the decision. They, like modern Mormons, would have never done such an act based on an order from a mere local leader like Haight.

    Could Haight have lied to them and made it seem like Young was behind the order? Sure, he could have. But we will never know because, as Mormon historians admit, evidence has been tampered with and destroyed. And that, my friends, is why Mormons can never say with a certainty that Young is in the ‘clear.’ His two-decades of lying and cover-up will always be a cloud over him.

  27. Amanda, you said

    “I am comfortable to say that i don’t know what he did or did not do, despite what others say he did or did not do.”

    Please Amanda, we do know Brigham Young knew what happened and who was involved and we do know he did nothing to bring the guilty to justice.

  28. Burt T. says:

    Bill,

    I am not playing the “victim card.” Before you got defensive, you should have read my post. I used the history of the LDS Church to show why LDS members could have been persuaded to follow Haight’s instructions. It is certainly not far-fetched. Your question is not simple because you want to make inferences of the past by comparing it to today.

    You said: “They, like modern Mormons, would have never done such an act based on an order from a mere local leader like Haight.”

    You can’t say this with any amount of certainty. A statement like this proves my point. You so quickly push aside the history of these saints, because, as you say, that would be playing the “victim card.” No “victim card” Bill, just the facts. Again, does the history justify the action? NO! It simply shows that you cannot draw any conclusions of Brigham Youngs involvement from the argument you presented.

  29. Rick B says:

    Ralph said

    Like Samuel told King Saul (1 Sam 15) to have the Israelites kill every man, woman, child (including sucklings) and animal in the Amalekite city.

    Please do not try to put what BY did in the same group as King Saul. We know for a fact God told King Saul to do it, and it was justified by God. Yet when BY did the MMM he does not come forward and say, I commanded the People to do this because God told me to have them killed.

    1Sa 15:2-3 says

    1Sa 15:2 thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember [that] which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid [wait] for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

    1Sa 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

    Read your Bible better, Boy I seem to say that to you LDS a lot, For a group who claims to read and love the word you don’t seem to know it very well.

    Read all through the Scripture, You mess with Israel and God well mess you up.
    Then another thing here is that the Amaleks are always a type of the flesh in the Bible. The Amaleks being a type of the flesh; God is ordering the utter destruction of the flesh. “Wipe it out completely, don’t give any place for the flesh.”

    The Bible says, “to fulfill the desires thereof. Crucify the old man, the old nature. If you by the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the flesh, put it to death” (Romans 8:13). God says, “don’t give place for it, utterly wipe it out.”

  30. Rick B says:

    Finishing my thought from above,

    Now another reason why Saul should have killed them all like God told him to is because, when Ester was chosen queen in Persia, there was one man in the kingdom of Persia that was seeking to destroy all the Jews because he could not stand this Jew “Mordecai”, who refused to bow to him. He had such a hatred for this man, he perpetrated a scheme whereby all of the Jews were to be wiped out and he had the king sign a decree that on a given day, all the Jews would be wiped out in all the kingdom of Persia.

    This wicked man’s name was Haman. Now soon the Jews are gonna have, I think March second, the feast of Purim. The feast of Purim is in celebration of God’s delivering them from the hand of this wicked “Haman”.

    The nationality of Haman. He was a descendant of the king of the Amaleks, “Agag”. He was an Agagite. A descendant from Agag, so that Saul failing to completely obey God, almost cost Israel its whole national existence later on because he failed to completely obey the command of God. It almost cost the Jews in later history their very existence. This Haman the Agagite almost wiped them out completely. Did this happen with BY and the MMM? No I dont think so. Rick b

  31. Burt T: “I used the history of the LDS Church to show why LDS members could have been persuaded to follow Haight’s instructions. It is certainly not far-fetched.”

    Burt, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. 50 independent(?) thinkers all join in to break their own commandments on the word of a stake president is to me, absolutely far-fetched.

    And as I stated before, only Young had the power to protect these men and he did a pretty good job given the fact that John D. Lee was the only one held accountable for the crime. Haight certainly could not have done this. I have to conclude that when the men were ordered to attack the wagon train, that someone out of the group of 50 souls had to have asked, “Does Brigham know this?” But then, we’ll never know, will we? Why? Because someone felt it necessary to doctor and destroy evidence. Not an act normally performed by the innocent.

  32. amanda says:

    BILL
    i used the word comfort to convey to you that i am not worried about it. nothing i can do or say will change what happened, we can’t bring those responsible to justice now! which is why i find peace and “comfort” in knowing God is in charge. so stop trying to make this into some kind of indifference on my part to the suffering of other people. WHICH IS WHY I SAY TO YOU RICK…your scripture:
    “to fulfill the desires thereof. Crucify the old man, the old nature. If you by the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the flesh, put it to death” (Romans 8:13). “don’t give place for it, utterly wipe it out.”
    part of that is forgiving the perpetrators in order to completely remove the “flesh” from your heart. that is why you leave it in the Lords hands to make sense of the confusion or even outright wrongdoing, and don’t give place for it in your heart. it’s about forgiveness.

    Matthew 6:14-15
    14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
    15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

    we aren’t counseled to only forgive those who haven’t done any wrong. so my suggestion to all of you who think that brigham young is an awful man, just forgive him…otherwise you come under condemnation.

    amanda

    ps, this is in NO WAY me admitting to allegations brought against a man whom i have great respect for. nor does anything anyone say change my ACTUAL faith in Christ. and if you disagree, i guess you’ll just have to forgive me and move on.

  33. amanda says:

    RICK said,

    “Please do not try to put what BY did in the same group as King Saul. We know for a fact God told King Saul to do it, and it was justified by God. Yet when BY did the MMM he does not come forward and say, I commanded the People to do this because God told me to have them killed.”

    rick, do you think honestly that brigham young ordered those people dead? there is no substantial proof to suggest that. perhaps he didn’t “come forward” because he never ordered it…and if he was the religious fanatic that you say he is, he wouldn’t have had a problem announcing it to the world what he had done, had he done anything. that’s the MO of most fanatics isn’t it? yet by all accounts the church has apologized. the Prophet Gordon B. Hinkley has made reparations by dedicating a memorial to these victims…yet he still considers Brigham Young to be a prophet.

    “we know for a fact God told King Saul to do it” interesting phrasing rick…i’m sure many people would refute any stories in the bible as being “fact” have you forgotten it is your FAITH that leads you to the knowledge you have of Saul’s directive from God. do you consider your condoning these actions taken by saul to mean that you are following him blindly? i don’t think you see it that way, neither do i. You have faith that Saul was doing Gods will. but why? only faith could make you sure. you don’t bother yourself with what the opposition is saying THEY believe to be the case. this is the same motivation many have for giving Brigham Young the benefit of the doubt. I believe him to be a prophet by his teachings and his actions, not actions or teachings alleged by his opposition.

  34. Ralph says:

    Rick B,

    I did not put Brigham Young in the same context as Samuel the prophet in my statement above. I never mentioned Brigham Young as ‘giving the order’. I was using an example from the Bible to say that if the prophet told me God wanted me to do something I would do it, regardless of what it was. And it was Samuel the prophet that told King Saul, not God. If you read the story, the only person that remained alive from that city was the king, and Samuel, himself, killed the king. Haman may have been a relative of the king, but he did not live in that city when the Israelites destroyed it.

    Bill,

    I stated that the prophet would have to tell me directly face-to-face. Not over the phone, by email, letter or through someone else. So if my stake president came to me and said this is what the prophet wants me to do, I would take it as the stake president told me to do it and as I said earlier, I would question it first because it did not come from the prophet directly. So please do not put words in my mouth to make it look as if I said that I would follow the order if someone else said it was from the prophet.

  35. Rick B says:

    Amanda said

    “we know for a fact God told King Saul to do it” interesting phrasing rick…

    Do you read your Bible? Do you speak just to have people say, look Amanda spoke?

    You say to me, interesting phrasing,

    But remember, I did not say that, God said that, Re-read this

    1Sa 15:2 thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember [that] which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid [wait] for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

    1Sa 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

    I suggest you learn to read better. Then you try and quote scripture and say to us, forgive men their trespasses,

    Honestly Amanda, I do not not recall you asking anyone here if we forgave BY. Then even if we did forgive him, that does not change the fact that he appears to have called for the murders of 150 people.

    I do not know if you have kids or not, but lets say a guy rapes your little girl, after you forgive him, do you say to the police or judge, let him go free, I forgave him, no need to punish him. Then after you forgive him, do you let him babysit your daughter because you forgave him? I dont think so.

    Then read Romans all of Romans Chapter 13 for the full context, but here is one verse,

    Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

    verse 1 says governing authorities. In other words, the govermant who lays down laws. Please give more thought to what you say, I dont know as much as I like, but unlike you, I know my Bible and will quote scripture to back up what I say, not simply speak and say, I think…

    Use Acts 17:11 better. Rick b

  36. Ralph, I merely quoted what you said, and after reading your post again, I still find your comment disturbing.

  37. Ralph says:

    Bill,

    I can see why you would find it disturbing, because you do not believe in the prophet as I do. I find other religions (eg David Koresh’s group, the hard line Muslims, etc) that do a similar thing disturbing, because I believe them to be false religions.

    But as for what I said about not putting words in my mouth – yes you copy/pasted a quote from me, but then you said that “Why do Mormons want to assume the men in 1857 had any different standard? I have no doubt that they felt Young was involved in the decision. They, like modern Mormons, would have never done such an act based on an order from a mere local leader like Haight.” (sorry can’t italicise) This means (to me) that you are saying they followed the local leader just because he possibly said that the order was from Brigham Young, and they would follow the prophet as I would – thus implying that I would follow someone’s order if they said it was from the prophet. I said that the prophet would have to tell me face-to-face, not through another person – I would have questioned the stake president and then asked God for confirmation, as I have written in earlier posts. Maybe I have misunderstood what you have written, if so sorry for carrying on, if not then I am trying to clarify my position.

  38. Ralph, OK, I get what you mean.

  39. amanda says:

    rick, i really think its incredibly disrespectful to talk about someone possibly raping my daughter as an appropriate scenario to make your point…that’s despicable, truly.

    and i’m not as impressed with you as you are with yourself.

    brigham young is dead. so what kind of justice do you wish upon him? rick, you missed the whole point of what i was trying to say.

    the tone of your comment speaks volumes of the kind of person you are. you have little patience for anyone who sees the world differently than you…you put yourself up on a pedestal and expect everyone to converse or argue within YOUR parameters. that makes you a completely ineffective. i don’t follow rick b’s rules.

  40. Ralph says:

    Let’s turn this question around a little. What would you non-LDS do if Jesus came to you directly (ie face-to-face or in a vision or however you please – but enough evidence for you to know it is actually Him) and told you to do something similar? Would you do it? If not why? Please do not use the excuse that He wouldn’t ask you to do something like this, because the Bible has numerous examples of people being told by God (or His prophet) to kill, as well as people killing in His name. As the Bible states, God is the same yesterday, today and forever – if He can tell someone then to do something like this, He can definately tell someone to do it today.

    If you answer ‘No’ then this begs the question – why believe in a God if you will not do something He asks you directly to do?

    As I have said in earlier posts – I do not know the stresses, initiating factors, facts and mindset of the people in that area at that time. But as we all know God is our final judge. If we do something He asks us to do then we will be justified before Him. If (and I am saying IF) these people who committed the massacre were doing God’s will then they will be justified and be able to go to heaven (ie Celestial Kingdom for LDS). If they were not doing God’s will then they will not be justified and will not go to heaven (again Celestial Kingdom for LDS).

  41. Greg Sanders says:

    I have had the chance to see this flick and get to know some people on the film. They uncovered a big story and have turned the Mormon faith on its side. Now the LDS are scrambling to save face for the actions of their forefathers. The truth is there on the big screen now and they can’t hide it anymore from the world and from themselves! Brigham Young based his thoughts on his greed and over bearing jealous pride. He was a liar and a thief and a murderer and now to date has lead millions away into “outer darkness”. What is Outer Darkness? They hide the truth to their fatih even today. I can go into any church in the world in the holiest of Holy and worship yet this religion will not allow me to see the temple if I want to become a member… bull! No way!

    Thank goodness this film is out there telling us the truth. A great story, great film production and great acting. Go and see it.

  42. Ralph, an interesting scenario, but it has nothing at all to do with the topic. None of the murderers at the Mountain Meadows claimed to have received orders to kill people after seeing God the Father or Jesus.

  43. amanda says:

    i agree with bill, ralph. i think your intention however was to reiterate the sentiment us LDS post-ers have said time and time again;

    it doesn’t much matter what happened a hundred plus years ago–there is literally nothing the church or any individual can do about it except apologize for any wrongdoing, which they have. it’s time now to move on…but, if you all insist on dragging this topic out further, let’s discuss all the atrocities in the name of religion evangelicals have perpetrated on early americans, including mormons, blacks, hispanics..and STILL do. you’re running out of stones to throw in your glass house.

  44. amanda says:

    and now for something completely different (monty python)

    i find it interesting that evangelicals typically find themselves at odds with hollywood… it rarely represents their values, yet, when it suits their agenda, they are all excited to support it’s work of fiction about the MMM. awfully convenient.

  45. Amanda, when did the church apologize? The closest thing I’ve heard to an apology was Dallin Oaks in the PBS program, but that was not an apology. Said Oaks:

    “As a fourth- or fifth-generation Mormon growing up in Utah — but not in the area where the Mountain Meadow Massacre happened — I have learned about that tragic episode, and my heart has gone out to the descendants of those who perpetrated that atrocity and to the relatives of those who suffered it. I can only imagine the kind of pain that comes from contemplating the involvement of those that you love in such a tragic episode in the history of the West, so unexplainable. I have no doubt on the basis of what I have studied and learned that Mormons were prime movers in that terrible episode and participated in killing. What a terrible thing to contemplate, that the barbarity of the frontier and the conditions of the Utah War, 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 grieved by it and I pray that He can find a way to forgive those who took such a terrible action against human beings.

  46. amanda says:

    bill,
    sympathy is a form of apologetic-ism. the church has built a memorial, and comments like the one above qualifies as concern and sympathy.

    i have been sick all week…like a dog. my husband said to me last night that he was sorry i have been so sick…does that mean he caused the sickness? no, arby’s did.

    in addition, you all make the assumption that the church is at fault…there is nothing we can say or do that will satisfy you people..you hold us to a higher standard than you hold yourselves.

    i have a close family member who did drugs their entire teenage years and some adult years. they caused a lot of pain throughout the years. one day though, he quit…he began to repair his life and the only thing left to do was forgive and move on. recently he has been diagnosed with bipolar. it took years for us to understand his behavior..but we forgave before we understood. and now that we have added perspective, we realize at the time we don’t always have wisdom.

  47. Sorry Amanda (and I don’t mean this as an apology), but I don’t buy your argument. I am sure many feel bad for the people who died in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but I refuse to believe that these feelings of remorse should ever be interpreted as some sort of apology. Harry Truman said the buck stopped with him. This buck needs to stop with the president of the LDS Church (not in an interview with an apostle). During the re-dedication of the MMM site, Hinckley purposely skirted the apology issue. The descendants have been waiting for this and in my opinion, it could only help the image of the LDS Church if it did. Let the church take the initial criticism for waiting 150 years too long, but at least it will have acted with some integrity.

  48. Rick b says:

    Amanda said

    rick, i really think its incredibly disrespectful to talk about someone possibly raping my daughter as an appropriate scenario to make your point…that’s despicable, truly.

    I made my point, you simply do not like how I did it, you never said one way or the other if you should let the guy go free. Since you did not like that scenario, let me use a real life one.

    Back in 1999 till 2004 a guy in my church was molesting the pastors daughter, the guy was a doctor for kids, his wife was a docter here in the twin cities also, After 5 long years the girl told her dad what was going on.

    My wife and I went to every court trial proceding as a witness along with many church members. The Doctor finally admited what he did, the pastor said in front of the entire court, I forgive this man, but still he must be sentanced by the courts. The Pastor forgave, but did not say, let him go free to do it again. What about you, you quote, Forgive, lest you be forgiven. So we forgive, does that mean then the crime never took place and we act like nothing ever happended? Rick b

  49. amanda says:

    well, bill, my argument isn’t for sale 😉 but i like your style.

    did it occur to you, bill, that the reason hinkley didn’t “apologize” (according to your definition) is because it is ridiculous to expect the entire body of the church to take responsibility for a few evil men whose names were on church records? well, if thats the standard bill, maybe all you real “Christians” should reconvene at Nicea and figure out how you are going to erect monuments and construct apologetic speeches to the jews, blacks, muslims…

    rick, nice story, very touching. but you’re still making a logical mistake…brigham young is dead, so he cannot defend himself OR confess to these alleged crimes…so in terms of temporal justice, there really isn’t anything we can do, i hand that one over to God.

    i think we are called to forgive even if the perpetrator never repents. why? one compelling reason to forgive is to allow the atonement of our Savior to carry that burden because we are not strong enough to carry it. the sins of others can truly burden us…we need to have faith that all will be made right by Christ and his atoning sacrifice.

    the only reason i want people to go to jail isn’t to force my justice on them, it’s to protect the common welfare of the people of this country…philosophically? i forgive them (or at least i know i should), and hand it over to God.

  50. “well, if thats the standard bill, maybe all you real “Christians” should reconvene at Nicea and figure out how you are going to erect monuments and construct apologetic speeches to the jews, blacks, muslims…”

    HUH?

Comments are closed.