Mormons, why does the argument of Brigham Young's participation in the mountain meadows massacre matter?

Question

Whether brigham young participated or not, the massacre was carried out by mormons. It would be only slightly worse if Brigham Young ordered it. Either way there was no justification for the slaughter. Imagine what would happen now if a bunch of mormons banded together to go slaughter innocent men, women and children whether ordered by the prophet or not.

http://www.exmormon.org
much more informative than that other mormon site

Jonas, ignorance is bliss, right?

Answer 1

I think it matters because if it were indeed shown that Brigham ordered the massacre, it would finally mean that "The Church" is indeed not "perfect," and not just the people. The order was given through the ranks of the Priesthood leadership, and the highest level at which it was given is also the highest level of the Church that was apostate at that time. If the Young Presidency was "apostate" at the time, that would mean that the Church was apostate, and that the "President of the Church led people astray," as Wilford Woodruff is famous for saying the Lord wouldn't allow.

It comes down to whether the massacre just makes them feel bad or whether it makes them lose their testimony. They usually won't think about it to the point of analyzing the psycho-cultural aspects of the LDS theocracy that led the people to perform it; they will simply say it was the "wrong choice" of those particular people, thereby absolving the Church (on a general level, at least) of any liability. What they forget is that no non-mormons participated in the massacre, even though there were several in the area at the time. It really was a result of the religion's "groupthink" and not of the poor choices of individuals.

Edit: Ms come again-

The question featured no accusative verbiage and was simply an inquiry on what the author deems to be a paradox in Mormon thought. If you can't ask such a question to LDS people on Yahoo! Answers, where can you ask it? The author has personally "looked up" the MMM several times, both as a member and a former member, and is well versed on "the facts" as both revisionist and literal history have recorded them.

I think you need to quit "crying wolf" at every question that challenges your belief system. Remember that "challenging" and "insulting" are not the same thing. Nobody gets mad when a Mormon says "Why do you guys believe in the Trinity if the Bible doesn't support it," so I don't think Mormons should get mad at a question like this.

Answer 2

As Dances With Penguins states (and others), whether or not President Young was a participant or not matters, albeit somewhat more to those who are against the church.

However, Penguins states that if Young had ordered it, then the church was false or apostate, which is not entirely true. It is true Mormons believe God will not lead His people astray, and will not allow His prophets to lead them astray, but that does not mean a prophet could not act on his own free agency, and then be removed from his calling as prophet (Obviously there have been prophets go against the will of God in the past, e.g. King David, but they have been held accountable).

It is true these murders were carried out by Mormons, and I don't think any Mormon denies this. Additionally, the Mormon Church has publicly apologized and stated how horrible these events were and that there is no justification for the acts of those who committed them. How much more we must hold those who now lead the church accountable for the acts of those 150 years ago is up to the individual.

I guess I'm unclear on your point. They don't cover it up, but rather have agreed with the critics regarding the nature of the killings (that it was horrible). There is insufficient evidence of whether Young was involved, so all we can do is have regret and wish it hadn't happend, just like all the other atrocities many American's have committed.

God Bless.

Answer 3

Al,

Regardless of who ordered the massacre, or who didn't, it was an awful, deplorable act carried out by people who obviously thought they were above the law. The fact that it was Mormons doing it doesn't change the heinousness of their actions. As a Latter-day Saint, I don't deny this event happen. And I also wonder about the legal process that went into finding and charging the people responsible.

The fact that several men were never charged does not make their descendents responsible, any more than it makes current members of the LDS Church responsible. Nor does it make Gordon B. Hinckley responsible for what Young did or did not do.

Also, the fact that the Mormons had traversed across many lands and had the same things happen to them, and that this could have been seen as an act of attrition, again, doesn't make it ok.

That being said, the fact that these people did something so awful and heinous does not make the Gospel of Jesus Christ any less true.

Answer 4

Yes it is a horrible tragedy perpetrated by Mormons 100+ years ago.

The fight over Brigham Young is separate from the Massacre in that there is no dispute that the massacre took place, BUT there is NO evidence that Brigham Young ordered the killing of Women and Children and/or any kind of massacre.

Answer 5

First and foremost, let me say that I am an EX- Mormon, so that you don't just dismiss this as more of the Mormon "group thinking".

It matters quite a bit whether Young ordered the massacre or not! If he ordered it, then it was officially a Church sanctioned action... if he did not, it was just the horrible actions of a group of men.

Now, don't get me wrong. It was inexcusable, either way. Things like this should definitely be remembered, and hopefully learned from. But if it was not sanctioned by the Church, then you cannot say that it was an action by and of the Church.

As someone earlier pointed out, we cannot blame an entire religion for the actions of some of it's members. We cannot say that Christianity as a whole is "wrong" or "evil" because of the Crusades. We cannot say that Islam is "wrong" or "evil" as a whole because of suicide Bombings carried out by extremists. So how can we condemn the ENTIRE LDS Church because of one horrific event? Simply put... we can't.

The massacre happened a long time ago. Many other horrible things have happened since then, and many more horrible things will happen in the future. Rather than argue about them, we should be trying to learn from them.

Answer 6

I think it makes a large difference. Unless there were circumstances that have never been found, if Pres. Young issued, or sanctioned the attack, it would have been an unprovoked violent attack on the order of an assumed prophet of God. If Pres. Young had nothing to do with it, then there is no claim (in this instance) against him or the Church, just the perpetrators.

You are right that in either instance there is no justification for the slaughter (again, unless there were circumstances that we are unaware of. I can't think of any, but there might have been.)

Answer 7

For something that happened around 150 years ago, I think the argument of how Brigham Young may or may not have been involved doesn't really matter. No one alive today had anything to do with it.

gw

Answer 8

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

" Mormons, why does the argument of Brigham Young's participation in the mountain meadows massacre matter?"

Of course it matters! You Antis are always saying how we are evil people because we participated in the "Mormon Meadows Massacre" but WE did not because we were not told to do it. It was a group of Members who did it themselves. The fact that Brigham Young had no participation in it clears the Church as a whole of any blame.

Answer 9

Read the September issue of the Ensign magazine. The Church puts forth an official report on the events. Brigham told the people to leave the immigrants alone. The massacre was carried out by some zealous overreactionary individuals. The same thing has happened in many other cultures and societies. The terrorist attacks of our day are carried out by overzealous individuals that have become organized in their zealous behavior. Are we to condemn all members of Islam because of a couple reactionary sects? I don't think so. Are we to condemn all Catholics because of the inquisition? Are we to condemn all Christians because of the Crusades? Are we to condemn all Protestants because of the Haun's Mill Massacre in Missouri or the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith? I don't think so. I dare say that the Mormon history has been more consistently good than most other sects that you care to examine.
Let's move on in a better spirit of brotherhood.

Answer 10

Mercy has its place, yet so does justice. I certainly have little doubt that Brigham youthful believed that justice had finally come to a pair of people who killed men, women folk and babies in the Hawn's Mill bloodbath. The saints could not place self belief in the government to inforce justice. not between the mob that killed the prophet and his brother grew to become into ever prosecuted for his homicide. not purely grew to become into the U. S. government denying justice to the saints, they have been sending a militia to get rid of Brigham youthful. immediately we've an analogous situation to the Mountain Meadows bloodbath wherein harmless Muslims, men, women folk and babies, have become killed because of the fact of their proximity to terrorists. however the human beings of u.s. look happy with that. i've got confidence there is extra suitable than a sprint hypocrisy occurring.