Replies

I've had quite a few discussion with Mormons on this issue. In my experience, they don't atempt to deny that it happened. Most admit the truth of the incident, with the caveat that it cannot be understood without studying the historical context, which is a perfectly valid point. They seldom seem willing to make this same concession when discussing the attacks on Mormons in MO and IL. Many then attempt to establish a moral equivalency between this event and the mob attacks.

There is a moral equivalence between the two. The perps of both atrocities should have paid with their lives for their crimes and John D. Lee was deservedly executed at Mountain Meadows in 1877 for what he did.

John D. Lee, seated next to his own coffin, just before his execution for his role in the Mountain Meadows massacre.

We can blame all non-Mormons for mob attacks upon Mormons and we can blame all Mormons for attacks upon non-Mormons and try to justify the murders on both sides or we can blame the perps and condemn the murder on both sides without excuses.

That said, it is curious that a historical event most Americans have never heard of is made into a movie just when one of the GOP Presidential candidates happens to be a Mormon.

By contrast, nothing was heard about the Mountain Meadows Massacre when Democrat Mo Udall was a Presidential candidate in 1976 even though John D. Lee was Udall's great-grandfather.

The one-man wonder John D. Lee who was sixth in command at the Mountain Meadow Massacre, single-handedly shot 130 people in the head point-blank after disarming them.

Glad they caught and executed the perp. Can you imagine if he had lived? He would have been the 19th century’s answer to Jack Bauer or Chuck Norris!!

John D. Lee was deservedly executed at Mountain Meadows in 1877 for what he did.

True. As he admitted himself. He was understandably more than a little peeved that he was made the sole scapegoat, when he was himself just following orders of his Church superiors. Nine Mormons were indicted. Only Lee was ever tried.

I don't particularly care to go over it all again, but the only way there could be true moral equivalence is if the anti-Mormon mobs had:

1. Murdered dozens of women and children in cold blood.

2. Planned and schemed in advance to talk Mormons into surrendering and disarming, and then massacred them on a pre-arranged word of command.

As far as I'm aware, nothing remotely resembling either of these things ever happened in the anti-Mormon mob period.

The Mormons of the time were not the Mormons of today. You read the unfiltered speeches and diaries of the time, and they sound very much like a crazy Jim Jones type of cult of today. They scared the hell out of their neighbors, most of whom probably couldn't have cared less what they believed.

What shouldn't be forgotten is that many if not most of the "mob attacks" were engagements between two armed groups, which the Mormons generally lost due to being outnumbered. This is quite a different issue than the intentional massacre of unarmed people, or for that matter of religious persecution in its true form as of the early Christians.

“John D. Lee was deservedly executed at Mountain Meadows in 1877 for what he did.”

Fat chance of a Moslem committee ever deciding to execute a Moslem for bombing some non-Moslem locale.

Oh wait, they kill themselves anyway in the process. How convenient!

That said, it is curious that a historical event most Americans have never heard of is made into a movie just when one of the GOP Presidential candidates happens to be a Mormon.

By contrast, nothing was heard about the Mountain Meadows Massacre when Democrat Mo Udall was a Presidential candidate in 1976 even though John D. Lee was Udall's great-grandfather.

I didn't know Udall was related......of course, you're right. It would have been in bad taste to have "Swift-boated" Udall with something like that. Scurrilous, even.

I've noticed, however, that Hollywood does like to pop big, spectacular "message" movies in election and pre-election years. Have you noticed?

Waterworld (1995) and The Day after Tomorrow (2004) come to mind. Both qualify for the sobriquet, "ham-fisted". Both were released on the eve of presidential political campaigns -- Waterworld right in the middle of Bill Clinton's rehabilitation and sub rosa campaign to set the agenda for the 1996 election.

Also timed a year pre-election was the "I Hate Rush Limbaugh" screed, Arlington Road, which featured Mr. Susan Sarandon with Joan Cusack as an ultra-creepy nuclear-waste family of actual (brrrr!) conservatives. Who, of course, kill people and blow up FBI men.

Then there was Gary Oldman's portrayal of a Republican senator as a portrait in Ultimate Loathesomeness in The Contender, which he also produced, in 2000 (that year have any resonance?).

I'm surprised Hillary couldn't get Susan Sarandon and Oldman and Mr. Sarandon to come out with an epic new production of Oliver Twist this year. After all, it would be so.....timely.

“We can blame all non-Mormons for mob attacks upon Mormons and we can blame all Mormons for attacks upon non-Mormons and try to justify the murders on both sides or we can blame the perps and condemn the murder on both sides without excuses.”

The problem is that one of the biggest perps on the Mormon side was Joseph Smith himself. He lead a revenge posse of 200 (including Parley Pratt) to try and take back Jackson County (Zion) before Far West and the Missouri Mormon war started, that posse withdrew but it all might well have started there.

“That said, it is curious that a historical event most Americans have never heard of is made into a movie just when one of the GOP Presidential candidates happens to be a Mormon.”

Look up Parley Pratt, one of the twelve Apostles, and you will see why it all links up with Bishop Mitt, whether he was the original target or not.

“By contrast, nothing was heard about the Mountain Meadows Massacre when Democrat Mo Udall was a Presidential candidate in 1976 even though John D. Lee was Udall’s great-grandfather.

I think the Internet has allowed a greater depth of research by more people.