Hollywood's terrorists: Mormon, not Muslim (Medved reviews "September Dawn")

Ran across an interesting discussion of the tar and feathering of Joseph Smith and possible reasons behind the attack. Probably an anti-Mormon site, but seemed reasonably balanced in its presentation.

http://www.saintswithouthalos.com/n/1832_tar.phtml

One of the things that bothers me about Mormon discussion of their history is their general automatic assumption that the only possible explanation for attacks such as this is religious prejudice. One possible explanation given on the website for the motivation of the attackers is that Joseph Smith had been intimate with teenage Marinda Johnson, whose father and brother were in the mob. Frontier Americans of the time took quite a dim view of this type of behavior, and tarring and feathering was quite a frequent response to it.

Interestingly, Marinda Johnson later married another Mormon. However, Mr. Smith “married” her, apparently without bothering with anything resembling a “divorce,” while her husband was in England on a mission, then apparently returned her to him on his return. She continued to live with her “first husband” for the rest of her life.

Behavior like this could very easily get a man killed in frontier America, quite regardless of his religious practices.

>>>However, I assume you will agree that it is on a somewhat different level of atrocity than if one of the mob members had intentionally cut the baby’s throat.

Here is why I get bothered by those who try to discuss the depredations against Mormons. We are talking about the murder of a baby that you admit is an atrocity. Then you go on to intellectually say it would be worse if the baby's throat was slit. I contend there is not much difference. The outcome was the same. I am guessing if you had an infant killed in either way you would not be so quick to try and intellectualize the argument.

Your basic stance has not changed even in light of the fact that Joseph's baby was murdered. You go on to try to justify the "frontier justice" of the murderers involved. So baby killers are allowed a little "Frontier Justice" but the MMM group is not. Your argument is contradictory. It can't be ok for atrocities on one side and not the other. I say it is wrong for both sides to commit atrocities. Why do you seek to downplay the atrocities committed by one side?

I fully admit MMM was an atrocity and should never have happened. However, I also admit that the murders against Mormons were an atrocity that should have never happened.

>>>One of the things that bothers me about Mormon discussion of their history is their general automatic assumption that ththe only possible explanation for attacks such as this is religious prejudice.

I didn't make this argument. I specifically opened a line on the political angle which has not been discussd at all but which I find very intriguing. Besides your offered explanation was "Frontier Justice". Tell me is "Frontier Justice" is a better justification for murdering a baby than Religious Prejudice?

This article was just released by the Church for the upcoming 150th anniversiary.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre

This September marks the 150th anniversary of a terrible episode in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On September 11, 1857, some 50 to 60 local militiamen in southern Utah, aided by American Indian allies, massacred about 120 emigrants who were traveling by wagon to California. The horrific crime, which spared only 17 children age six and under, occurred in a highland valley called the Mountain Meadows, roughly 35 miles southwest of Cedar City. The victims, most of them from Arkansas, were on their way to California with dreams of a bright future.

For a century and a half the Mountain Meadows Massacre has shocked and distressed those who have learned of it. The tragedy has deeply grieved the victims’ relatives, burdened the perpetrators’ descendants and Church members generally with sorrow and feelings of collective guilt, unleashed criticism on the Church, and raised painful, difficult questions. How could this have happened? How could members of the Church have participated in such a crime?

Two facts make the case even more difficult to fathom. First, nothing that any of the emigrants purportedly did or said, even if all of it were true, came close to justifying their deaths. Second, the large majority of perpetrators led decent, nonviolent lives before and after the massacre.

Sharon Chambers of Salt Lake City is a great-granddaughter of child survivor Rebecca Dunlap. “The people who did this had lost their way. I don’t know what was in their minds or in their hearts,” she said. “I feel sorrow that this happened to my ancestors. I also feel sorrow that people have blamed the acts of some on an entire group, or on an entire religion.”

The Mountain Meadows Massacre has continued to cause pain and controversy for 150 years. During the past two decades, descendants and other relatives of the emigrants and the perpetrators have at times worked together to memorialize the victims. These efforts have had the support of President Gordon B. Hinckley, officials of the state of Utah, and other institutions and individuals. Among the products of this cooperation have been the construction of two memorials at the massacre site and the placing of plaques commemorating the Arkansas emigrants. Descendant groups, Church leaders and members, and civic officials continue to work toward reconciliation and will participate in various memorial services this September at the Mountain Meadows.

____________________

How long do you think until the "Christian" descendants of the Missouri mob will erect a monument to those they murdered in Missouri and elsewhere? How about a monument at Winter Quarters for the 600 who died there as a direct result of the forced migration. Most of them are between age 0-5.

If I have been unclear, I apologize. Of course atrocities committed by both sides are by definition unacceptable.

My comments with regard to the death of the baby were not intended to downplay the tragedy of the event, but were rather with reference to the fact that the accounts do not indicate that anybody ever intended a baby to die, or indeed that any of the attackers were necessarily aware that a baby was present or in danger. That is quite a different thing from intentional and premeditated murder as was committed at MM.

I’ll try to sum up my viewpoint so we can both get back to our lives:

You seem to be very interested in assigning moral equivalency for the two groups of actions, the mob attacks on Mormons and MM. My entire point is that MM was worse, both in number of deaths and in the cold-blooded and treacherous way it was carried out. While there was much hollering about “extermination” by both sides in MO, the relatively low number of people actually killed indicates that both sides shrank back from actually attempting any such thing. At MM, OTOH, the attackers did indeed exterminate the wagon train.

You, of course, have every right to disagree with this conclusion. And the fact that MM was to some extent a revenge attack, as opposed to being unprovoked, does put some weight on your side.

I have also tried to point out that some unknown percentage of the attacks on Mormons such as Joseph Smith and Parley Pratt are quite understandable based on their known actions and the morality of the time, leaving religion completely out of the issue. IOW, religious bigotry or persecution is not necessary to explain them, since messing about with another man’s wife or daughter was a dangerous activity for any man at the time.

Yet these attacks are generally portrayed by Mormons as motivated entirely or primarily by religious bigotry and hatred.

Fair enough. I have no ancestors who were involved in the MMMassacre but feel the shame and guilt based on being a member from the same church. (Not to digress but It shames me that Harry Reid claims Mormon status in the same way I assume it shames some Catholics that Kerry claims to be Catholic). I do have ancestors that died on the plains so that obviously colors my view of the history. It is a chiefly untold story outside of Mormon circles.

>>>the relatively low number of people actually killed indicates that both sides shrank back from actually attempting any such thing.

This is what I contend is the untold story. There is a mass grave site in Winter Quarters with over 600 people mostly under the age of 5. It was the intention of the mob to drive them out and force death upon them. It's why it was done in the middle of winter contrary to the peace treaty signed and after they had confiscated the Mormons weapons.

If in the MMM they had instead of executing them just burned their wagon supplies, took their food and clothes and left them to die on the plains (in winter) would you really arguee that it was much less of an atrocity?

I guess I just find it hard to let go of. Its like the Church said in thier official apology. Nothing justified the murder at MMM. IMO, also nothing justified the Mass Grave site of 600 people at Winter Quarters.

Agreed.

However, this was not an uncommon proceeding for the time and place. Frontier Americans played very rough. See Huck Finn.

My point is that such things were common. They happened for all kinds of reasons. Prominent abolitionists, for example, were tarred and feathered. Some were murdered by mobs.

One of the best ways to get tarred and feathered, surviving the experience if you were lucky, was to become overly friendly with the neignbors’ female family members. The early Mormons, and most specifically Joseph Smith, seemed to have a real talent for this.

I find it odd that theological disagreement is given as THE reason for this and other attacks, when they can probably be explained more easily by the normal response, for the time, of outraged husbands, fathers and brothers.

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.