Close Topic Options

Mountain Meadows Massacre - Page 3

I was not trying to compare them as "tragedies" but merely point out that when an event like this happen (whether it was planned or isolated) whoever is responsible carries a very heavy load probably forever.

Well, it is not the Church bringing it up but the whole world that is aware of it. There is nothing the Church can do about it. Like I said, it is one of those issues that no matter what Church may or may not do will NOT satisfy some people (particularly the descendants of the people who were brutally murdered in the massacre).

Massacre Meadows Mountain

Massacre at Mountain Meadows

If you have read Massacre at Mountain Meadows by Richard E. Turley, Jr., Richard Walker and Glen M. Leonard then please place a review here.

Mountain Meadows Massacre Studies Doctrine Mormon

BOOK PROVIDES AN UNFLINCHING LOOK AT MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE
See Source 4

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah - Scholars are praising a new book that offers an in-depth look at one of the greatest tragedies in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The new book, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, published by Oxford University Press, is not a Church production but was co-authored by Mormon historians Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard.

Page 3 Massacre Meadows Mountain

This is a very long waited book for me and I was not let down. It is very good book. They do a good job in their analysis. I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in this topic. They had access to sources that no other author has had, so it gives a great perspective on the whole issue, and all of the external and internal factors and pressures that helped create an atmosphere that ignited this terrible incident. However they did a great job of never losing sight of what it was- a terrible slaughter or human life. It was a good book, and I cannot wait for volume 2 which gets into the trial and the aftermath.

Massacre Meadows Mountain

This is how I view this event:
It's based only on my opinon.

I kinda' lean to the Mormons side.

The mormons had been persecuted since the restoration, from Palmyra, Missouri, Nauvoo etc. They bothered no one, just tried to live a peaceful life and worship what they believed. They moved/forced to indian territory where they could bother no one, or be bothered by no one. Along this process, there were thousands of mormons killed, material goods lost and a lot of hard-honest work lost, as they tried to re-strart every time, a lot of families were separated, children left without a father and/or mother, wives without a husband etc. Almost nobody tells this part of the event, all they focus is in telling about the 120 deaths.

After moving in to indian territory, mormons were still threatened by the U.S. Government to "bring them to order" becasue of their religious beliefs. They could do nothing else (other than disappearing from earth). Some may say: What about moving to the North or South? but if they would have, things wouldn't have changed. They would still be persecuted. So, they had to stand-up for themselves.

The Arkansas/Missouri people were frustrated because they could not re-stock their supplies form the mormons. The mormons had instructions not to get rid of their food, guns ammunition etc. Because were preparing to protect themselves form a military invasion from the East.
The Arkansas/Missouri people, in their frustation, stole crops etc. (I would have done it in their place). When confronted by the mormons, threats came about from both sides; Including that the Arkansas/Missouri people would come back with an army against the mormons, once they made it to California.

This was a key piece of the event. The mormons had nowhere to go! now they had a threat from the East and from the West. Keep in mind that the mormons had been driven from Missouri, and Parley P.Pratt had just been shot in Arkansas. So the mormons could not take this threat lightly, they knew what these people could do to them, they had gone through it several times. The Arkansas/Missouri people even claimed they had one or more guns used to kill Joseph and Hyrum, right there. This alone, tells me that these people were not as friendly and /or innocent like some atricles describe them, much less how the movie "September Dawn" shows them. I believe both sides were agitated and both sides were threatening each other. - perfectly understandable - I guess I would have acted the same way if I were on either side. It was just a tough situation.



Imagine if these people would have made it to California. . .
would the Church History be the same? Would the Church had been wiped out?
Would we be the same without our belief? Would it have been preserved?

I think there was a lot of tenison and mixed feelings in this situation. But I think it was a necessary event, . . . Just like the Nephi and Laban event. Just like in numerous accounts described in The Book of Mormon between Lamanites and Nephites.

I think life is that way. All these events described in the Book of Mormon are harsh. It is not as simple as many of us may imagine them. Just picture the "real" scenarios at every battle. . . Thousands killed to protect liberties, families, beliefs etc.

Just my opinion.

Mountain Meadows Massacre

I absolutely but respectfully disagree with your analysis, specially the part that "it was a necessary" event. Even the Church, does not try to justify what happened that day that caused the deaths of hundreds of people including women and children. Church leaders were responsible, it is historically proved. Nothing "necessary" about that.

Mountain Meadows Massacre - Page 3

Yeah, I know. "At a glance", it's seemed that way to me too ( that it was not necessary).
That is what I meant with:

(People in agreement and disagreement with this whole situation, Including the very people who carried out the massacre).

It was a matter of survival for both sides. Arkansas/Missouri was trying to survive their journey to California; In that process, Mormons were being threatened for not providing the expected assistance, maybe it was a desperate attempt to obtain such needed provisions, but none the less, it was a threat (in a nutshell). And I don't blame them, their lives, their family's lives were at stake, they had to do whatever they did.


We tend to just see things from an outside point of view, just like a story (or maybe it's just me). And because of our human nature and common sense, we automatically reject some "outcomes" of a certain event, because it just seems wrong to us, like this one.

I imagine that many didn't agree in the Laban/Nephi event. But we don't have any record of it, except from Nephi himself, when he questioned His instructions.
After the fact, I imagine that many thought that whoever had done it, was under the influence of the adversary, and that what had happened was totally wrong.
I know that when I first read about it, I had mixed feelings about Nephi. And I know that several members had gone throught the same process, including having mixed feelings about the gospel. Because of our human nature and common sense.

But, what would have happened if Nephi had spared Laban's life?
Would we have The Book of Mormon as we have it today?
Would Laban had chased down and killed Lehi and his family, once he was sober?

. . . What would have happened if Moroni and others would have ignored Lamanites threats to them? . . . That is what I mean when I say that it was a necessary event.

I wonder if the Church may say the same about all the killing that took place during the Book of Mormon account . . . Because church leaders were also responsible for many deaths, and it is historically proven as well.

LDS, please don't take this the wrong way. I'm just trying to make sense out of these thing here. I'm not trying to challenge anyone; so, please don't take it that way.

Message Edited... Persephone: Do not double post, instead EDIT your post and correct your mistake. Please look at how we use the Quote Tags here. When you do not use these tags source material that is not your own may appear to be yours when it is not. See our Constructive Posting Policy.

Mountain Meadows Massacre Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 3

Wes, don't worry about me taking it the wrong way, I love a good debate.

It seems in this case though that there is too much "mixed" information and is truly hard to know what is myth and what is fact. We can only speculate. In my opinion, I am not totally convinced of the non-involvement of Pres. Brigham Young. Again, only those who were there know what truly happened.