Posted on 05/20/2009 7:03:27 PM PDT by Colofornian
I'd be interested in hearing what overtures have been made through the decades from the descendents of perpetrators to the descendents of the victims.
From the article: Mountains Meadows marks a dark moment in the history of the Church -- one that has often been left out of history books.
Which textbooks and why? (Anybody know?)
From the article: On Sept. 11, 1857, the Baker-Fancher party was attacked by area church and militia leaders disguised as a local Indian tribe. After a five-day siege, the Arkansans forged what turned out to be a false truce with a local LDS church leader, laid down their weapons and were slaughtered as they were being led out of the meadow on foot.
Ah. Deception ("false truce") leads to mass death. Not unique for Utah or elsewhere.
From the article: The church had historically denied or downplayed its role in the killings, but in 2007 expressed its regret. Today, two monuments in the meadows memorialize the victims and the church is seeking National Historic Landmark status for the site.
OK, who can do the math of 1857 --> 2007? Did it really take the lds church 150 years to express regret, or is this AP reporter/KSL report -- which BTW -- is owned by the lds church -- missing something?
Why was the church engaged in ensuring it "denied and downplayed" its role for so long? And why even now do we still only know of a few of the perpetrator-agents of this slaughter? Is that not still yet another form of denial and downplaying?
Oh, come on, I mean really how many times on FR have we been told this massacre never happened.
You mean, like cards and flowers on major holidays?
Is this event considered so sinister just because they were whites murdering whites? What about all the massacres of Indians happening around the same time, by settlers and military who were not Mormon?
I’ve read two books on this massacre, one by a non Mormon and the other by Mormons. The basic difference is that the non Mormon claimed Brigham Young ordered the massacre, while the Mormons say wanted the settlers left alone.
The consensus, though, was that the bodies were buried in shallow graves and then dug up by coyotes, etc. The perpetrators were concerned about the other wagon trains that would soon pass through the meadows. They buried the dead because they wanted to cover their tracks. It is dishonest for the paper to report that the dead were not buried.
I’m not defending the massacre. It was wrong and terrible. I just find it ironic that we will trust every word of the press when they agree with our agenda, while cursing the same press when they report something we don’t agree with.
Holocaust deniers...
9/11 deniers...
Mountain Meadows Massacre deniers...
You mean, like cards and flowers on major holidays?
To begin with, the LDS Church could admit some responsibility for the massacre and issue an apology rather than merely "express regret."
Then, the Church could open its archives so Brigham Young's personal involvement in the massacre could be resolved.
Then the Church could allow the American Archaeological Association to complete their excavation of the site in order to determine if Indians were even involved in the tragedy.
Finally, the church could allow the victims' descendants to erect a simple cross over their relatives' mass graves.
Note: These ideas immediately come to mind. I'm sure others can think of many more.
What about all the massacres of Indians happening around the same time, by settlers and military who WERE Mormon?
The Bear River Masssacre, Utah Territory, (Idaho) 1863
The Circleville Massacre, Utah Territory, (Utah) 1866
I think I was one of the first to mention it happened, and it would have been about 6 years ago
I think that is why my name is on that Mormon anti-Freeper site.
That and cuz I realize I wont get my own planet and celestial sex for eternity cuz I aint mormon...
Because white men openly spoke of the Indian Wars where both sides killed many of the other side.
Mormons NEVER spoke of this and called it a lie, including Mormons on this website.
Reparations? Foot massages?
"The scene was one too horrible and sickening for language to describe. Human
skeletons, disjointed bones, ghastly skulls and the hair of women were scattered
in frightful profusion over a distance of two miles." (1859 report)
You might want to check out this account of the massacre, cover up, and trial of John D. Lee by a University of Missouri KC Law School Professor.
Note: These ideas immediately come to mind. I’m sure others can think of many more.
____________________________________
I’m sure that the descendants get a warm fuzzy feeling to know that their massacred loved ones were dead dunked by their murderers
Im ok with anything that happened 150 years ago. Just a cool story as far as im concerned and i blame nobody living today for it. Slavery, us killing indians, them killing us, the Crimean war, anything the Pope did,,,etc etc,,
Its history, and its fun. But its utterly idiotic to take it personally. If modern day descendents can’t sit down and flip burgers as the read through the archives, they are simply immature.
And thats descendents of Mormon shooters and the Arkansas shootees. Flipping burgers. Its idiotic to hote people today about it or require them to hate as ancestor.
It was a hard time, it made hard people.
If modern day descendents can’t sit down and flip burgers as the read through the archives, they are simply immature.
______________________________________________
That’s one of the big points...
Nobody has been allowed to “flip or read through the archives” in SLC about that event you so callously refer to as “cool”
Its idiotic to hote people today about it or require them to hate as ancestor.
________________________________________
How are you on the mormon temple endowments which require modern day mormons to swear to the death to avenge the death of Joey Smith ???
Christian Crusade denier. Just think, the Mormons have millions of people to kill before they can catch up with “real Christians”.
Bear River was done by the U.S. Military sent there to protect the overland route. Col. Conner was promoted to General after he slaughtered 250 indians, including women and children. Connor was not Mormon, neither were the participants.
I can’t speak about the Circleville massacre, don’t know anything about it.
(I guess I've never put those two 19th-century developments together -- lds-fueled Mountain Meadow Massacre [1857] & lds-fueled necro-baptism [1839])
Good suggestions!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.