The Mountain Meadows Massacre
Posted by Dave Keller on October 3rd, 2006
I have been away for awhile, first with various school projects and then getting involved with various topics in Mormon apologetics. One exciting event that I attended and actually guest posted about on the popular Mormon blog was Dr. Thomas Alexander’s Arrington lecture about the massacre. Some fireworks started when Will Bagley–or perhaps someone posing as him–challenged my opinion that the correspondence between a troublemaker named George Hicks and Brigham Young helps vindicate Brigham Young from being involved in any cover-up. But that is a long story and probably more minutia than a pro-positive oriented blog should get into.
To make this somewhat relevant to adherents of both faiths, I find it somewhat interesting that the Catholic church apologizes for problematic incidents in their history, whereas the Mormon church does not. The Mormon rationale was presented by Elder Boyd K. Packer in this week’s General Conference, but I await a transcription. I do not have an in depth grasp of Catholic problems other than to say that Mormons often use some of the Dark Age excesses of Christianity to find kindred spirits with the Protestant reformers and Catholic counter-reformers. However Mormons are in the process of reassessing the so-called Dark Ages as noted in an essay in Early Christians in Disarray.
I think the main need after such faith disturbing events occur is to undergo individual and collective healing made possible through the atonement of Christ. We can also learn from mistakes and do our part to avoid them being repeated. We do like to see justice be visited on the perpetrators and whatever institutional failures that may have contributed be corrected. However, I am happy to leave the final judgment of guilt to God and this was Brigham Young’s attitude as well. When I see evil deeds enacted it makes me strengthen my resolve to do even the little things right, so I don’t contribute negatively to those contemplating much worse. As President Young said “I wish to meet all men at the judgment Bar of God without any to fear me or accuse me of wrong action.”
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:37 pm
How do you figure that the LDS Church doesn’t apologize for problems they have created? My understanding is that most churches do not take responsibility for what some of the members do, but generally do take responsibility for when their leaders cause problems. The LDS Church doesn’t believe that BY was the cause for the MMM. However they still set up the Memorial (although most likely too late in many people’s eyes) and did hold a ceremony honoring those that were victims of such a horrid crime.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Nicole,
First, I agree that neither the LDS church nor Brigham Young were responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Perhaps I should have made that more clear and in fact I am an outspoken defender of that notion. I do find it less than optimal for an institution to apologize for dead members who acted against the most fundamental teachings and values of that institution. The chief perpetrator, Isaac Haight, was a stake president and thus could be considered a church leader. But I feel he acted more as a high ranking officer in the territorial millitia.
You have appealed to what most churches do, but the Mormon Church marches by a different tune. While there have been incidents where Mormon leaders have confessed their own mistakes, I don’t think we will see the day when Mormon leaders apologize for a past leader’s mistake. President Hinckley’s general response is to put the past behind us, move forward with faith, and accentuate the positive. As sociologist Armand Mauss put it, past errors and misunderstanding pass out of Mormon consciousness by the principle of “benign neglect”. That is why it is important for Mormons to follow the current prophet’s emphasis and not things in the past that are not included in that emphasis.
Other churches are more direct in how they acknowledge problematic activities of past church members. They choose to accept some level of responsibility and ask for (and to some extent expect) forgiveness. In some ways this is admirable because it grants some institutional closure. However, the downside risk factor is perhaps apologizing for some undeserved guilt.
October 4th, 2006 at 7:42 am
We all tend to discuss the sins of others freely, like pointing to the mmm. As if these were others that sinned and not each one of us. It is much easier to do this than to look into our own souls to find our own sin small or large as they may be. The peace of Christ comes to those that are able to do this, the judgment of others in a prideful way who have sinned and are sinning can then cease.
Each person becomes loved in your eyes and in your heart because you are able to see through the heart of God, you can find the good in them even among the bad in them, this includes all of us. We all die because of our sin, not one of us will live and this is fact. By turning to Jesus we get a ticket to enter into an eternal life with and in Him. It is not by what we do and how we do it that saves our souls, it is always because of what Jesus has already done period. In these matters of someone else’s distant sin we need only remember that it is forgiveness and reconciliation always, even to the point of death that will keep us sane in Christ’s wisdom, which is found at the foot of the Cross.
“Once there was a very holy abbot called Anastasius. In fact, he was considered a saint by his fellow desert monks. One day when a monk by the name of James sinned and was told to leave the community. Anastasius got up and walked out with him, saying: “I to am a sinner.†James however, did not reform. Years later he came to visit Anastasius as he was saying his evening prayer.
“Don’t worry,†Anastasius replied, “ My rule is to receive you with hospitality.â€
And he gave him food and lodging for the night. Anastasius had an old copy of the Bible which was worth quit a bit of money. Seeing the book, James took it with him when he was leaving the next morning. When Anastasius realized that he had stolen the book, he did not follow him. Fearing that he might only make him add the sin of perjury to that of theft, James went to a nearby merchant to sell the book, asking a high price.
“Give me the book for a little while so that I can find out whether it’s worth that much,†the merchant said.
He took it to Anastasius. Anastasius took one look at it and said. “Yes this is a splendid book. In fact it’s worth much more.†The buyer came back and told the thief what Anastasius had said.
Stunned he asked, “ Was that all he said? Did he make no other remarks?â€
“No,†said the merchant, “he did not say another word.â€
On hearing this James was deeply moved, and said, “I have changed my mind. I don’t want to sell the book after all.†And he hastened back to Anastasius and, with tears in his eyes, gave him back the book and begged for his forgiveness. Anastasius received him with the same kindness as before.
He simply said, “ I forgive you. Keep the book. Read a little from it each day, and pray to Christ who received sinners like us, and brought them back to Gods love and friendship. Now go in peace.
His fellow monks were surprised to see him wasting his time on someone like James, but he said, “Tell me, if your robe is torn, will you throw it away?†And they replied, “No, we will mend it and put it back on.†Then he said, “If you take such care of your robe, will not God be merciful to one who bears his image?â€
The kindness of Anastasius paid off. James changed his life. He returned to the life of a monk and became known for his goodness and holiness.†– http://www.wau.org
The Pharisees despised sinners, but Jesus befriended sinners. It was not a question of a few kind words, or a gesture or two, on his part. He associated with sinners. He shared their food and drink. He did not just tolerate them. He welcomed them. In his presence they felt accepted and loved just as they were. It is not surprising then that ,many of them heard his message and changed their lives. Matthew is an example of this.
Jesus’ attitude to sinners was one of kindness and persuasion rather than condemnation and denunciation. He did not wait for sinners to repent before becoming their friend. No, he befriended them in their sinfulness. This is what scandalized the religious authorities: that he associated with sinners and rejoiced in their company while they were still sinners. Just as today some people see compassion for the criminal as a betrayal of the victim, so the Pharisees saw Jesus’ compassion for the sinner as a betrayal of the virtuous.
Jesus defense was very strait forward; he said he went where the need was greatest. In associating with sinners he was not condoning their situation, rather, he was trying to show them a new life. But he could not do this without associating with them and being sympathetic towards them. You never improve people by shunning them. In acting the way he did, Jesus revealed the mercy of God towards sinners.
Jesus did not show a lack of moral principles by sitting at table and consorting with sinners. Rather, his humility was rich and deep enough to make contact, even in them, with that indestructible core of goodness which is found in all, and upon which the future was to be built. He put them in touch with that in them selves. His goodness evoked goodness in them.
It would be easier, safer, and more popular for him to go among the good. But he was not thinking of himself. He was thinking of others, and of the mission given him by his father. He did not come to call the virtuous but rather sinners to repentance. From the Word Among Us-www.wau.org
All we need do is remember that we all played a part in the MMM, even Catholics good or bad, we play this part towards others daily in one way or another. Rising above these things through honest confessions does not make us a better breed of people; it just makes it easier for Christ to work through us in order for others to find these important truths in order for them to find their creator. There is no other calling as freeing as this one.
Rich
October 10th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
To whom does the Church apologize?
And are we really entitled to apologize for God without being asked to by Him?
October 12th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
In general, I don’t pass judgment on an organization that doesn’t apologize when some members do something bad, especially when what was done is contrary to the purpose of organization itself. Whether or not the LDS Church is culpable to any degree, an apology could be, or could have been offered. But there are many things to consider. Perhaps harm can be done to apologize for something that had little to do with them.
With this particular incident, I think anti-Mormon and secular historians place too much importance on the John D. Lee autobiography. When the memoirs of a condemned man claim that he alone tried to save the doomed party, a few red flags should go up. I liken him to a former-day Dick Clarke, as we tend to see people who write the story after a tragedy, they portray themselves as the “if only they had listened to me†character. John D. Lee was probably a fall guy. But if we accept that, we still know that his story is ridiculously self-serving and not credible. And there exists motivations to cover-up the true story that are far more likely than to protect BY or any church leadership.
Many historians promote the idea that nothing in Utah could possibly happen without the expressed permission of BY. BY certainly did wield tremendous dictatorial power in the territory. Mark Twain wrote of this in his book, Roughing It. In that book, there was an instructive section that shows the folly of historians who take this position. Twain recounts how a non-Mormon had a contract with Mormons to train his party through the territory. After figuring that they wouldn’t earn much, the Mormons reneged on the contract, claiming that no one would enforce a contract with a non-Member in Utah. The non-member found this to be the case until he was granted an audience with BY to make his appeal. On hearing his story, Young was able to summon the contracted men in under an hour to hear their side. Upon hearing his decree, the contract was abundantly honored.
This story paints Young’s power as deep and wide-ranging. And thus, historians can’t fathom a massacre without Young’s orders. But what is also shown with this particular story of the train contractors? These men did something, or at least tried to do something, that was contrary to the wishes of Young. The contracted men either felt free to interpret how Young would react to this matter, or they simply felt they could get away with it. Either way, even in well-ordered Deseret, men still acted opposite to the will of the prophet. And as much control as Young would have liked to exercise, he did not control the Saints like God commands his angels. They could, and often did, act autonomously, especially when their lives were lived in the rugged wilderness 250 miles from the seat of power. It is truly odd that rational historians can’t see that.
Many critics try to tie this massacre to “blood atonementâ€, which is awful theology, but hardly related to this event at all except in the most tangential way.
The problem with this bloody massacre when it comes to offering an apology is that it remains shrouded in mystery, and perhaps always will. BY and other high leaders can’t be implicated. No motive offered for LDS Church involvement has ever seemed all that plausible to me. So a Church apology for the massacre itself would be gratuitous and empty. There might be something else, though. One reason that there is such a mystery surrounding the massacre is that there was some kind of cover-up going on. Certainly with the political difficulties of the time, this event was bad news for the LDS Church, and they certainly did have motive to blame the Piute, and eventually blame a solitary conspirator. But it certainly hasn’t been determined if this was done. It might have just been a community cover-up as opposed to a Church cover-up, and it is important to note that the Cedar City community was highly motivated to avoid the truth in this matter, as we can assume many more than John D. Lee would have had to choose their execution.
So on the issue of an apology, one should not be offered at this point. But it might be wise for the LDS Church to do their best to study the massacre and the subsequent pursuit of justice, and find out to the best of their knowledge if they as an organization had any hand in covering-up the truth. And if they do find that this was likely, then they should consider an apology. If not, release the findings and let it go from there.
JPII offered several apologies for many of the RC Chuch’s sins of the past. At the time, I thought such a move lacked pragmatism, as it would be used by critics to justify their bad treatment of the Church in history. But I look at it differently today. You don’t ask offer an apology to gain something. It’s offered because it’s the right thing to do, and trust that in doing the right thing, God’s will is done, which is the most important consideration. It was comprehensive and honest, and it of course didn’t make any critics happy, nor did it offer consolation to many, if any, victims. So I don’t know if the question of finding someone to apologize to is all that important. Simply announcing to the world a mia culpa is sufficient.
October 13th, 2006 at 5:41 am
John,
I stand in awe of the perspective you as an outsider have of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I hope I can learn to look at problematic events in Catholic history (which may have been perpetrated in spite of Catholicism instead of as a product or fruit of it) as charitably. I haven’t read Twain’s work, but some of humor at Mormon expense has tended to stick with me over time in an enjoyable, contemplative way. Twain was a very keen observer, so thanks for sharing that anecdote and seeing through some of his cynicism.
I have to agree with you about the notion of blood atonement as not really all that relevant to the MMM and I have been hammering that home on the Times and Seasons blog. It was an awful teaching and was the rhetorical Mormon equivalent of the fire and brimstone sermons about Hell, with the purpose of scaring people from doing evil.
October 15th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Dave,
I appreciate your kind comments. That’s what I strive for - to be both fair, honest, and true to the best of my abilities. It’s good to receive that kind of feedback. From some of your recent blog entries that Brad links, I assure you that you are certainly fair, and often complimentary, toward the modern Catholic Church. I think my perspective comes from years of being an unfair critic of the Catholic Church, so I understand that a few bad facts can be used to pile-on. And even if I did call you once (actually twice) “willfully blind”, I find both you and Seth R. to be particularly fair.
As far as historical Catholicism goes, I truly bought the Protestant line that the Catholic Church tried to hide the Bible and keep people ignorant to what it contained. Never did I consider (probably because secular historians fail to mention it) that Bibles were particularly expensive before the printing press. They had to be hand-written. The Church also had to guard against heresy, which was very easy to perpetrate simply by mistranslating the sacred Word. Few historians in fact ground themselves in the realities of the time, and few allow for the fact that the Catholic Church may have had pure motives for maintaining one Latin bible for all. This is just one example where I misjudged the Catholic Church. I will do my best to remember the Catholic Church isn’t the only one that receives historical mistreatment. The LDS Church most certainly does as well.
JPII didn’t just apologize for the actions of the Church, but also for the actions of members of the Church, but these were for large-scale issues, like anti-semitic persecution. As bad as the MMM was, it was isolated and small-scale. And the murdering party involved was in fact kinder to the victims than Joshua was to the Jerico-ites. There is nothing at this time to apologize for, but I do encourage the LDS to investigate the matter further for the reasons I specified earlier.
October 17th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Hi! to all I am a decendient of one of the surviving children. The fact a monument was erected in memory of the lives lost by the Mormons does not work for me as a form of looking for forgiveness John D. Lee was in on it with many many other Mormons. The fact remains the Mormons were still responsible and have yet accepted responsibility yes. “BY” (as previouly used for B Young) still knew about it all even if after the fact did not tell athorities and there by 17 children were placed in to slavery (not even taken into consideration) Maybe all sides should be looked at and taken into consideration.
October 20th, 2006 at 8:26 am
Mary,
I can’t speak for my church. But I’m personally sorry about the massacre at Mountain Meadows.
Now, how about the state of Missouri apologizing for the Haun’s Mill massacre? At the moment, I’d even settle for a monument.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:00 am
Mary,
One point to consider is “the Mormons” are not necessarily a monolithic group any more than “the Christians” or “the Catholics” are. Sometimes people take the strangest things, even criminal things, into their own hands. They will be held accountable by the Lord, that we can be sure.
December 1st, 2006 at 8:34 pm
I don’t mean to intrude with something a little off topic, but I’m doing a report on MMM for an english class and I find it very interesting. I think that anyone can take any piece of history and distort it to match their own personal paradigm. Although what happened was tragic, I don’t see why people need to tirelessly bag on Brigham Young to satisfy their bloodlust. From what I have read so far their is nothing solid about his involvement in the massacre at all.