Okay, I’ve avoided commenting on the whole Romney-Mormon issue, even where the Mountain Meadows Massacre was brought in. I’m going to post this once, and will make no further comment. I will immediately be accused of (a) hating Mormons; (b) taking things out of context; (c) being ignorant; or any number of other things by people who can’t/won’t take an objective approach to LDS history. None of the accusations will be justified, but they will flow freely from people who upon investigating the church’s claim to authority, immediately cast aside the very means by which God instructed us to test such claims. There is plenty of documentation for what I post here, but if your mind is open enough to truth, you will investigate things for yourself. I have no patience for leading someone by the nose through each and every historical record.
To claim that the Mountain Meadows Massacre was some aberration that Brigham Young knew nothing about or tried to stop is twelve kinds of absurd.
Utah at that time was comparable to Iraq under Saddam Hussein. You didn’t blow your nose without Young’s permission. Troublemakers disappeared, and their possessions were redistributed on the QT.
John D. Lee, eventually made the fall guy and executed for his part in the massacre, was the leader of the Danites, a group which served Brigham Young in much the same way that the SS served Hitler. Further, Lee had been “sealed” to Young in a temple ceremony that, in effect, made him Young’s adopted son. So there is no credible way that the attack did not take place without the express knowledge and approval of Young. One account cites a chief from the Indian tribe involved as stating that he received a message from Young asking for his cooperation.
To this day, the official LDS line is to somewhat excuse the attack as a response to Mormon persecution in Missouri, and the rumor spread at the time the Fancher train was passing through Utah — to the effect that Missouri “wildcatters” were among the group and were purposely insulting Mormons and their leadership — continue to be dragged out without a shred of evidence to back such an absurd premise up. To believe that a train would provoke the very populace on whom they would depend for supplies during their passage strains credibility beyond the breaking point.
However, regardless of any other specifics, or the lack of a “smoking gun,” I return to my first point; that, given Lee’s relationship with Young and his role as leader of the Danites, there is simply zero chance that Young didn’t sign off on the attack.
Care to challenge these assertions? Fine, do your homework. Read the various books that document the times, the people, and the massacre.
Oh, and to those who think that it’s irrelevant to how we should regard the LDS church today; if Brigham Young was part of such a horrible atrocity, it taints his claim to being a man of God just as much if the apostle Peter were accused of same. We are not talking about some rogue church member or official. We are talking about the man who picked up the alleged prophetic mantle from Joseph Smith, the church founder; and who arguably did even more to shape the direction of the church.
I haven't even read past this line, but this is absolutely an outrageous comment. To even compare a God-fearing man like Brigham Young to a murderous tyrant is completely unacceptable, and I ask you to take this back. Brigham Young may have been the governor, but he did not have absolute power and was not a violent dictator. If he was, the US government would not have allowed him to remain as governor.
Now I will go back and read the rest of your post, but I ask you to moderate your statements.