- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The MMM doesn’t cause me a great deal of consternation — it was over 150 years ago, and all of the personalities involved are long gone. One thing that bugs me a little are the apologists who say that since BY didn’t directly order the massacre (if that’s what you believe, and think the balance of evidence shows he didn’t directly order it) he has no responsibility for it. In WWII, the Japanese Imperial Army in the Philippines was led by Tomoyuki Yamashita after he was re-assigned there from China in 1944. He spent the next year+ commanding Japanese troops who committed brutal attrocities. At his war crimes trial, Yamashita’s defence was that he didn’t specifically order his men to commit war crimes — they had acted on their own accord. In finding him guilty nonetheless, the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal ruled that while Yamashita may not have specifically ordered war crimes to be committed, he was guilty based on two principles. First, he had created and fostered a command climate where brutality and inhumane treatment were more than tolerated – they were standard operating procedure. Second, even if he didn’t specifically order the atrocities, he knew or should have known of their existence and did nothing to stop them.
Applying that same rationale to BY, while he may not have ordered the MMM, he certainly put the saints on a war footing and created a climate where something like the MMM could be a reasonably foreseeable occurance. And to compound that problem, once the existence of the atrocity became known, he concocted a lame cover story about Indians and a rogue John D. Lee. Had there been a “Mormon Wars Tribunal” following the Mormon/federal dust-up in the 1850s, I think BY could have been convicted on the same basis Yamashita was.
Of course, different time and different circumstances. Again, this episode doesn’t affect my current faith at all. It jut takes a bit of the lustre off BY for me and makes me shake my head at the mental gymnastics the apologists engage in to keep BY clean.
I do think there are lessons to be learned from this one, more than what will make it into the church manuals: 1 –
overzealousnesson the part of church members is something we need to dial back. These folks behaved like radical terrorists, not people of God trying to live the gospel. I would say it’s a fine line, but it’s not, IMO. And they were firmly on the wrong side of it. 2 –
cover ups. I don’t like it that people cover things up or that we work so hard to ensure the church is above the fray that we soil our hands in the process. Sometimes this PR focus or loyalty to leaders is not right or ethical or moral. It goes too far. 3 –
isolation. As someone else said, isolation fosters paranoia. We need a little more in the worldwith our not of the world. +1 on last two posts. Isolation can be good in some circumstances though.
Yamashita is a good comparison, though more culpable than BY in general.
I think two factors came into play:
* Arrogance – we rule here and can do this.
* Paranoia – Mormons had been ethnically cleansed and murdered in the recent past.
For me the tragedy itself does not hurt my faith, but it was the cover up that lasted for almost two decades that rankles me. Brigham was fully aware ofthe facts afterward and allowed the perpitrators to go unpunished except for Lee (brigham’s adopted son thru sealing) which still took years and lots of outside pressure. Also the church has not apologized, they simply expressed “profound regret”. (Dont want to open doors for lawsuits)
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
Yes the cover up is troubling, all we can do is try to understand the position that BY and the SLC leaders who knew found themselves in. As far as the controversy around how much BY knew, I tend to believe JD Lee’s account that he told Brigham the whole story (or at least enough of it). This is impossible to prove because the written accounts in church archives fall far short. JD says Brigham told him to write an account blaming the action on the Indians, fuzzy but plausible. We do know enough people had the whole story that Brigham certainly knew the key facts long before JD Lee was tried. So why didn’t he go after the guilty on his own? I try to imagine the world through BY’s eyes at the time: he had a divine mission to fulfill, building up the great basin and the church. The outsiders were and had always been against this mission. He didn’t view the US Govt. or really any one else having real authority for anything that mattered. They didn’t come to the saints aid in times of need, why should he assist them in legal matters that would cast a shadow onto his church? Yes, today we can see a darker shadow was cast because of his unwillingness to help, but I don’t think his perspective at the time gave him that clear insight into the future. At the time when it happened he was occupied with trying to keep the army and outsiders out. As that situation changed it wouldn’t have been in his best interest short term either, there were always enough fires to put out that he didn’t need to start another one. When finally pressed into some form of resolution it was best to give up Lee and try to get the story under wraps, because by that time it would only cause more questions around why he didn’t prosecute the participants before he was made to.
Is it a good situation? Absolutely not. Can it make more sense than a harsh “Brigham covered it up because it was all according to his direct orders”, yes maybe a little bit.
I don’t think there is any way Brigham ordered the wholesale slaughter of the entire wagon train. I do think it’s plausible that he suggested the “Indians” could give them a brush and take their cattle. That type of activity is well enough documented in early Utah. Today we can see that everything went downhill in a hurry. Besides the prejudices that the Mormons had against the party being from Arkansas with possible ties to Missouri, the mistakes that tied whites to the raid made everyone involved paranoid enough to not want the train to reach California where they could accuse the Mormons of theft and murder. In my opinion the fuzzy line of war was a complicating factor, as well as the Mormons willingness to accept vengeance as a valid righteous action. The most troubling part of the Walker, Turley, and Leonard book for me was reading that the Cedar City Relief Society prayed for their husbands, sons, and brothers in their efforts to avenge the blood of the prophets.
As far as the apology, I have heard everything that I could expect to hear from any church leader today. Pres. Hinkley’s remarks fell short, but others since have been much better. There is the difficulty that an apology is supposed to come from the offending party. All the participants are long dead. If I had an ancestor participant would my personal apology be what the descendants and others want to hear? Where is the appropriate voice and what exactly is it supposed to say? I don’t see how any words from today could open the doors to a law suit any more than what is already open.
To me, “profound regret” is an apology in every way that matters – and those exact words mean more to me than, “We are sorry for what happened.” Really, they say the same general thing, but I actually like “regret” over “sorrow”. I don’t think it really makes sense to compare Haun’s Mill to MMM. 17 deaths vs. 140 is really not even in the same category. My grandmother actually met one of the victims. He was a child that wasn’t killed in the massacre, and was found and adopted by an Indian tribe. He became friends with her family (she was born in 1908 so he would have been an old man and she a child) and was an artist and calligrapher and made her a gift that she showed to me when she was in her 90’s.
MMM seems a very Old Testament type action. To me, it points out that people need to decide what to do when religion teaches something that seems immoral. Killing people in the name of God is one of those times. For me decided what to do about same-sex marriage is another.
MMM would have probably never happened without Haun’s Mill etc. Nor the move to Utah. rebecca, as Sam implied, the mention of Haun’s Mill is about the mentality that was pervasive at the time – and the willingness of the early saints to be defensive and even a bit paranoid. Frankly, that event alone isn’t the full picture, either. The early saints had been driven from place to place and seen friends and family members killed and die as a result of persecution, so it’s understandable that they were on edge. It’s not close to an excuse for MMM, and I condemn MMM unequivocally, but it certainly was a contributing factor in understanding the instability of the situation.
Old-Timer wrote:rebecca, as Sam implied, the mention of Haun’s Mill is about the mentality that was pervasive at the time – and the willingness of the early saints to be defensive and even a bit paranoid. Frankly, that event alone isn’t the full picture, either. The early saints had been driven from place to place and seen friends and family members killed and die as a result of persecution, so it’s understandable that they were on edge.
It’s not close to an excuse for MMM, and I condemn MMM unequivocally, but it certainly was a contributing factor in understanding the instability of the situation.
I couldn’t agree more. It is easy to make a judgment after the fact We condemn the NAZIS for killing the Jews, but after the war the Jewish Brigade which was part of the British Army went on campaign of revenge and killed hundreds of Germans and they were considered heroes by many. Remember the way many celebrated in the middle east after 9/11, and they were doing it in the name of God. I went to Iraq and saw first hand America’s response and most of us Americans were okay with that at that time. There are so many stories like that in history, and only after history was made and people had time to think about it did the regrets and shame and sometimes the justification set in. There have always been cover ups, also, so I don’t find that too disturbing either, but I wish it wasn’t the case. After I got back from Iraq and saw the senseless taking of lives on both sides I began to understand how bad we can treat our fellow men. I can feel pride and shame at the same time. I also think that the Mormons involved in the MMM probably had to deal with their guilt during their time on earth and in heaven. Taking a live whether justified or not will haunt most people the rest of their lives.
Church, some of that footage of 9/11 celebrations was later proven to be bogus, not even shot at the same time. Sometimes I wish I knew Arabic. At one “Libyan” anti-Gadafi protest on the BBC someone pointed out Indian flags. The footage didn’t even come from Libya! The BBC had to retract it.
church0333 wrote:Old-Timer wrote:rebecca, as Sam implied, the mention of Haun’s Mill is about the mentality that was pervasive at the time – and the willingness of the early saints to be defensive and even a bit paranoid. Frankly, that event alone isn’t the full picture, either. The early saints had been driven from place to place and seen friends and family members killed and die as a result of persecution, so it’s understandable that they were on edge.
It’s not close to an excuse for MMM, and I condemn MMM unequivocally, but it certainly was a contributing factor in understanding the instability of the situation.
I couldn’t agree more. It is easy to make a judgment after the fact We condemn the NAZIS for killing the Jews, but after the war the Jewish Brigade which was part of the British Army went on campaign of revenge and killed hundreds of Germans and they were considered heroes by many. Remember the way many celebrated in the middle east after 9/11, and they were doing it in the name of God. I went to Iraq and saw first hand America’s response and most of us Americans were okay with that at that time. There are so many stories like that in history, and only after history was made and people had time to think about it did the regrets and shame and sometimes the justification set in. There have always been cover ups, also, so I don’t find that too disturbing either, but I wish it wasn’t the case. After I got back from Iraq and saw the senseless taking of lives on both sides I began to understand how bad we can treat our fellow men. I can feel pride and shame at the same time. I also think that the Mormons involved in the MMM probably had to deal with their guilt during their time on earth and in heaven. Taking a live whether justified or not will haunt most people the rest of their lives.
Ray adds some great insight and church0333 some really good perspective that is hard to come up with on my own but when I see it I understand and identify with wholly. Thanks guys, this is why I lurk often.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.