Recently I saw a documentary on Mormons, as it traced their history, it came to the events at Mountain Meadow or Mount Meadow. I seems one group of Mormons (if I understand correctly) kill, nay murdered, another group of Mormons.
What I don't understand is why? What was the perceived offense of this group of Mormon's that justified their death. From what I can tell they were traveling to some new location to establish a new Mormon colony.
If someone could summaries the overall events, and explain the logic behind their death, that would help.
I realize this is a very touch and sore subject with Mormons and I am not trying to create any conflict. I'm just wondering what the thinking behind this event was.
Thank to any who reply.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Sorry, you are wrong on the history. I don't mean that to be negative, just factual.
The wagon train was from Kentucky, and none of them were Mormon. Why it happened has always been the biggest question. To answer that seems to determine your attitude toward Mormons.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Well, I admitted I was confused about the events. OK, so they weren't Mormons traveling through the Mountain Meadow. But still, I am confused as to what their offense was. It seemed in the beginning that the Mormons had come to rescue them, then they just turned and shot them. It's very confusing.
Again, I know I am rubbing a sore spot, but an overview of the events would help me.
As far as my attitude toward Mormons, it's the same as my attitude toward Catholics, Romans, Protestants, and others. Mistakes were made in the past, but those people who made those mistakes are not the same people who live today by the creed of whatever group they belong to. I no more blame Mormons for this event, than I blame todays Catholics for any negative events that might have occurred in their past.
I just found the whole event confusing, and am looking for some clarification.
Thanks again.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Blue Wizard, I will (if no one else does before me) try to help you in more detail. I am busy at the moment and don't have the time. Give me about an hour.
I was wrong on the history myself. It was Arkansas. Here is a Wiki entry on the subject.
[ May 07, 2007, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I can't imagine why either, except they were from Arkansas, a state in which a prominent well-beloved Mormon had recently been murdered. Could there have been state-ism in those days such that people would say "oh those Arkansans, you know how they are!" and stereotyped them as all alike or whatever? I know that states were a lot more like independent countries early in U.S. history. Could it have been sort of similar to the way people in the U.S. for completely inexplicable reasons attacked random Islamic people after 9/11? (I heard even Sikhs were targeted. )
[ May 07, 2007, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Whyever it happened, it's a very sordid episode in our history, the main controversy (apart from how the action could have been taken in the first place) being whether Brigham Young knew and approved the incident. As I understand it, most historians (Mormon and non-Mormon alike) believe he didn't, but there are a minority who do, one of whom was the one they apparently chose to feature on the documentary.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Whatever was going on, I believe that Lee was an evil man. And those who followed his orders were cowardly or evil themselves, or both.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
More than a few think he did, actually, and most of those aren't Mormon themselves. It is a minority view, but not a fringe one by any means.
At the time there was a possible war about to occur (and it did, eventually), and tensions were high for some very real reasons.
Just for the record, I know a bit about the time and the event, but an not an expert by any means....nor am I Mormon myself. : Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
To be honest, the polygamy bit and racial history are relevant to modern day mormons, I think, because both those speak to lingering questions and the eccentricities within the church doctrine and perpetual revelation.
To be honest, the only people I've heard speak ill about the [edit]Mount[/edit] Meadows Massacre are other mormons, doing pre-emptive spin control. This is a nation that exterminated entire tribes of Indians, we can stomach a little clan violence. As I see it, the massacre has very little to do with faith and everything to do with how the west was "tamed." It's a dead issue. It's an American West Issue. It may even be a gun control issue. But I just don't see how it's a mormon issue.
[ May 07, 2007, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: To be honest, the only people I've heard speak ill about the Mound Meadows Massacre are other mormons, doing pre-emptive spin control.
Well, there is that high-profile indie film starring Jon Voight coming out this summer, "September Dawn"...Voight (definitely not a Mormon) has been very public in proclaiming that in his opinion Brigham Young was an insane, murderous fanatic and that nothing was done by Mormons in those days without his knowledge and approval. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
A character story on Young would be fascinating, but a story on Mount Meadows in particular seems like a snorer.
[ May 08, 2007, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I disagree...depends on how well it is filmed.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
"Mound" Meadows?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:To be honest, the only people I've heard speak ill about the Mound Meadows Massacre are other mormons, doing pre-emptive spin control.
Ha! Couldn't be because they were truly ashamed of it, and thought it was a terrible thing.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
I posted extensively on the massacre on the last two pages of this thread. This post summarizes what happened.
Will Bagley, the bearded guy from the documentary, is the most prominent historian who claims Young ordered the massacre. I think he's wrong, but he's also published what is the most extensively researched book on the topic to date. So leaving him out of the documentary would have been a mistake.
It should be noted that Glen Leonard, who is part of a team of historians who will produce another extensively documented study of the massacre in the next year or so, also appeared in the documentary and stated he did not believe Young ordered it. I think he's right; I also think Young and George A. Smith and several other Mormon leaders (with some justification) created an atmosphere of crisis and fever-pitch hostility to outsiders that allowed the folks in southern Utah to rationalize destroying the wagon train. Young also certainly tried to cover it up afterward.
I don't believe Lee was evil; indeed, he wasn't even in charge of the whole thing, merely the coordinator on the ground. I do believe he and William Dame and Isaac Haight and all the other southern Utah Mormons involved in the massacre lived under circumstances that would seem very foreign to us. They made a horrible choice; our responsibility, I think, is to try to understand why.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Thanks for the Wikipedia link and for MattB's comments, that helped clear things up. Still it is a strange occurrence in our (American) history. I guess we have to make some allowances for the times. These were times when you made your own law because real law was a long way off. But still, it is hard to understand how God-Fearing people could act so coldly.
I guess we never will know the real answers.
Thanks again.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But still, it is hard to understand how God-Fearing people could act so coldly.
A fear of God has never in the history of mankind correlated to compassion.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But still, it is hard to understand how God-Fearing people could act so coldly.
A fear of God has never in the history of mankind correlated to compassion.
Oh I don't know, Jesus suffering for the sins of all mankind throughout history, and giving himself up to die for all of us, indicates perhaps alittle compassion.
edit: Heck, when Muslims kill one of their own for converting they believe they are commiting an act of compassion as it will be better for them in the next life then to live as an infidel.
You definition of compassion may vary, mine does, but that is still the motif behind the act.
[ May 08, 2007, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:when Muslims kill one of their own for converting they believe they are commiting an act of compassion as it will be better for them in the next life then to live as an infidel. ....That is still the motif behind the act
I am actually very skeptical of this assertion. An excuse is not the same thing as a motive.
(Note, by the way, that I'm not saying that individuals who fear God are incapable of compassion. I'm saying that there's no observed correlation between the two.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:when Muslims kill one of their own for converting they believe they are commiting an act of compassion as it will be better for them in the next life then to live as an infidel. ....That is still the motif behind the act
I am actually very skeptical of this assertion. An excuse is not the same thing as a motive.
(Note, by the way, that I'm not saying that individuals who fear God are incapable of compassion. I'm saying that there's no observed correlation between the two.)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
)![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)