Didn't Missouri already do something like this a few years ago?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Wow, something non-corrupt and altruistic finally happened in this state! It gives me something to be proud of for being a resident of IL, though not an IL native. I am glad this happened.
AJ
Posted by The Thnikkaman (Member # 6330) on :
That's awesome.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
As a symbolic gesture, it certainly was a nice show of goodwill, and as such, has a lot of value.
I'm nervous about anyone who says that they had an obligation to apologize, however. The current descendants of mid-1800 Illinois residents don't have any more responsibility for the Mormon expulsion than present-day Americans have for slavery. I know nobody here has said that, I'm just clarifying.
And I say that as a Mormon myself, so please don't anyone accuse me of being insensitive to their feelings.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:As a symbolic gesture, it certainly was a nice show of goodwill, and as such, has a lot of value.
I'm not a Mormon, but I think the best gesture would be to make sure the story of the expulsion and lynching get taught in the schools here in Illinois as part of the state history. I don't know if this is done already. If it isn't, it should be.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
Good point, sn.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
When (or have they already?) will the Mormon Church appologise to the people of the State of Arkansas and the members of the Methodist Church for the Mountain Meadows Massacre?
Former Arkansan, Former Methodist, Glad I didn't go through Utah on my way to California,
Pix
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
They already have, according to my Utah History Teacher. I'll go ahead and try to find a link for you, to make it a valid point.
Edited to add:
Ok, my mistake. Looks like it was more regret that it happened.
[ March 31, 2004, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: T_Smith ]
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I don't think there has technically been an "apology," because unlike the state of Illinois, the Church could be sued if it issued any statement that seemed to imply a recognition of responsibility or guilt. However, the Church has taken great pains to recognize the event and repudiate the actions taken, and has helped erect a new monument at the site in recent years.
If, as someone implied, one of Illinois' problems is that the events that took place there were not taught, then the Church does not have this same problem. I think most of us (at least those that live in the Western U.S.) know a lot about MMM.
Posted by Not a Danite (Member # 6185) on :
*Jots down The Pixiest's name for the next secret meeting*
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:When (or have they already?) will the Mormon Church appologise to the people of the State of Arkansas and the members of the Methodist Church for the Mountain Meadows Massacre?
Huh. It's interesting that you didn't mention the fact that those Methodist Arkansans were traveling through Utah bragging about how they and their relatives had beaten, raped and killed Mormons in Missouri and Illinois.
As a Mormon, I'm glad I didn't get driven into Illinois or Missouri in the 1800s.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Do you have any links that support that assertion, Dante?
Posted by Phil Tice (Member # 6370) on :
I took a class not too long ago where we talked extensively about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Although I don't know that any formal apology was ever issued I know that there was a trial held something like twenty-five years later. The results of the trial were basically one guy receiving full blame for the actions and results of that day.
-PT
Posted by Phil Tice (Member # 6370) on :
Oh yeah, the Massacre also happened when Utah was basically in a state of war. Not that this justifies anything that happened, but it does give some insight into the frame of mind the people were under at the time.
-PT
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
Nope, no links. I don't do research online.
However, I have been reviewing my books, and it looks like many researchers think the "Missouri Wildcats" part may be a later spurious addition, so I'll gladly retract that and note that the evidence doesn't support it.
However, one textbook notes that when the Utahans didn't offer supplies to the travelers because of their anger at the recent murder in Arkansas of one of their leaders, "the travelers responded with curses and bravado, promising that they would return from California with troops to help Johnston's army wipe out the Mormons. Some of the Arkansans questioned the virtue of Mormon polygamous wives, calling them little better than whores."
The so-called Mountain Meadows Massacre was wrong and should never have happened. But it was not unprovoked.
Posted by Phil Tice (Member # 6370) on :
Yeah, Parley P. Pratt gad recently been killed in Arkansas while serving a mission. Johnson's Army was on the way, circumstances were less than ideal.
-PT
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I don't know guys, seems like you are trying to justify the murder of several women and children.
You can say that horrible things had been done to the Mormons, but unless it was done specifically by the wagon train, it doesn't excuse anything.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:I don't know guys, seems like you are trying to justify the murder of several women and children.
You can say that horrible things had been done to the Mormons, but unless it was done specifically by the wagon train, it doesn't excuse anything.
I agree; it excuses nothing, but it does at least help us understand the mindset of those who did it; they weren't sociopathic, but people functioning in circumstances that you or I have never imagined.
In regards to the 'Missouri Wildcats,' there has been a lot of dispute about exactly who they were and what - if any - provocative actions the Fancher party did. According to John D. Lee, who was a participant in the massacre and had his own biases (he was obviously there, but by the end of his life, deeply resented the church heirarchy. This was written just before he died), but remains just about the best source we have on exactly what happened:
quote:They swore and boasted openly... that Buchanan's whole army was coming right behind them, and would kill every God Damn Mormon in Utah.... They had two bulls which they called one "Heber" and the other "Brigham," and whipped 'em through every town, yelling and singing... and blaspheming oaths that would have made your hair stand on end.
(The Last Confession and Statement of John D. Lee, in Lee's _Mormonism Unveiled_ published by Fierra Blanca Publications, 2001.)
Lee's is not the only statement; there are diary sources from nearly every town the party moved through recounting some difficulties with them. It's important, though, to know the context - the Mormons had discovered only a month earlier that the US Army had been sent by President Buchanan to forcibly remove Brigham Young as governor of Utah, and would arrive in Utah in a matter of weeks. The entire state was locking down and preparing for war; Young had ordered that no food or supplies would be sold to any travelers. This made the Fancher party understandably upset.
Will Bagley, who has written the most well known book on the subject, _Blood of the Prophets_, argues that the Fanchers did nothing to provoke the Mormons; he's probably right about some of the more ridiculous tales of the Fanchers purposefully giving Indians diseases and poisoning wells, but there's just too much primary documentation in diaries and suchlike to dismiss the stories entirely. Bagley's is probably the best-researched book on the Massacre at this point, but he goes into it intent upon proving that Young ordered the thing - and can't manage to do it, which even he admits.
Sally Denton's book _American Massacre_ is the most recent, and is published by a national press, but it's useless; she obviously knew nothing about 19th century Mormonism before sitting down to write, and the only book about the topic that she seems to have read is Bagley's.
The best book, though rather dated, is Juanita Brooks's _The Mountain Meadows Massacre_. She's not so agenda-driven as Bagley, nor as clueless as Denton; she's a Mormon, but is not hesitant to cast blame.
So, that's probably more than you wanted to know. Ah, well.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I wish I hadn't read about that.. That was horrible... How can people do things like this? Keep doing things like this?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
You know I grew up in CA and before I had been on this board I'd never heard of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, or Nauvoo. So I suspect the "taught generally in western US history" is an over generalization.
AJ
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Are you kidding?
This apology is AWFUL!
Where will we Mormons get our sense of sacrifice from now?
Oh, wait. . . hmm. . . there's still Russia!
YES!! WE'RE STILL MARTYRS!!
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
When I said that most of us (at least in the Western U.S.) know about MMM, I meant most Mormons. And it's not that it's taught in the sense of having lessons on the subject. It's just a relatively common topic that most Mormons are exposed to on a fairly regular basis.
And as for those who try to give justifications for why the settlers did what they did, I think that's just wrong. I think the impulse is to point out that it wasn't common Mormon practice to randomly attack wagon trains passing through the territory, which is true. But no amount of explanation of the facts and rumors makes what they did one whit less vile.
I think the only explanations that are really acceptable are those that talk about WHO was involved rather than WHY it happened. For example, we can be very remorseful and apologetic and still deny that either the Church itself or its top leaders (e.g. Brigham Young) had anything to do with it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"they weren't sociopathic, but people functioning in circumstances that you or I have never imagined."
I would argue that they WERE sociopathic, albeit because they were functioning under unusual circumstances.
Posted by PurplePacker (Member # 6398) on :
Ok, about MM
1. It was something that should never have happened. I don't know anybody that would say any different.
2. I do believe that the group from the east behaved badly. I think snide remarks, name calling, provocation, and general bad behavior were exhibited by the group. There may or may not have been threats as well. It's at least possible, and maybe likely.
3. The Settlers already in the area had been greatly wronged by the people in the east. Some settlers who came across the plains had lost loved ones. Most had been robbed of their property and homes. They were forced to leave the very city they built out of nothing but swampland and mosquitos. They had the right to be suspicious of people from the same area.
Having said this, however...
4. The settlers overreacted in the worst way possible. Those who murdered and conspired to murder the easterners were completely in the wrong. According to my understanding of the event, it was cold bloded and planned out. This was not self-defense. I don't know how to make it much clearer. The culprits were murderers.
5. This is just as important. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints had nothing to do with the planning and/or commision of these murders. The action was an independent action, taken by the settlers in the area.
6. The Church tried to *stop* a conflict from occuring. One settler was disturbed by the way things were going, and was afriad something bad would happen. He rode several days ride up to Salt Lake City to inform President Young and get his help. President Young sent the man back with a message to leave the easterners alone and let them pass through. The man made the several day ride again. When he arived, he delivered the message, only to be told, in tears, that it was too late. The massacre had already occured.
Summary: The settlers who commited the crimes deserve full punishment, blame, and retribution for the acts. They are(were) responsible for their deeds. What happened ws terrrible and should never be repeated. It was wrong.
The LDS church in no way encouraged, planned out, or assisted in the commision of these crimes. They are not the guilty party and are not to be blamed for the incident. Blame belongs to the murderers in question.
That is why the church has stated that it regrets the incident. We do--it was a terrible historical event. However, the blame is mis-placed. The church cannot and will not apologize for somthing it never did.
[ April 01, 2004, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: PurplePacker ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
That's cool and all, but the coolest thing ever to come out of Illinois is clearly HAL.
Hobbes Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It doesn't matter if the circumstances were unusual. Wrong is wrong. They killed children... Innocent children. There is no black or white when it comes to it. It was a horrible, horrible act.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I became operational at the H-A-L plant in Urbana Illinois, on the 12th of January, 1992
Hobbes Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote: Didn't Missouri already do something like this a few years ago?
Until 1976 it was technically legal to kill a Mormon in Missouri.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Expecting the LDS church to apologize for vile acts committed by a small group of its members (acts condemned by the church leadership and membership in general) is different than expecting the state of Illinois to apologize for acts that the government itself supported. (Like making it legal to kill a Mormon.)
I am glad that the church expressed regret over the MMM. That was a graceful act on their part. But "the church" was not responsible for it anymore than the state of Arkansas was responsible for the death of Parley P. Pratt. The state of Illinois *was* responsible for much (not all) of what happened to the Mormons.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Um, Beverly, Illinois never had an extermination order. That was Missouri.
The state government in Illinois was mostly just responsible for doing nothing. The Mormons asked for help and protection and got nothing. IIRC, the governor made a token effort, but then backed out when he saw that public sentiment was against him.
I think the recent apology is mostly a recognition that Illinois citizens were in the wrong, and that the government should have done more to prevent those wrongs. And again, only a government entity could get away with such an admission without being sued.
Posted by Krepta3000 (Member # 6397) on :
This is really awesome. I mean, I'm hearing way too much negative stuff in the news all the time, and it is such a nice change to hear something like this. Wow. I wanna congratulate IL for this step towards resolution and closure of such a painful event in history.
Krepta.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Oops, my bad.
Posted by UTAH (Member # 5032) on :
Brian, Whew! So glad I never had the urge to travel through Missouri. . . I think it's great that Illinois is apologizing. I think people should apologize and forgive each other more often.
I'm sorry. Really, I am. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:And again, only a government entity could get away with such an admission without being sued.
I'm wondering, could the Utah government appololgize on behalf of the LDS church? Not that I believe the Church has anything to apologize for, but what a PR chance. On the other hand, it will never change anyone's mind on what did or did not happen.
By the way, what kind of legal action could be taken after so many years? Isn't there such a thing as statute of limitations?
Frankly, at first is was a thrilling bit of recognitions, but that soon wore off. The Mormons I have talked to who are aware of the resolution think its a hallow action that happened 160 (?) years too late. For those, the true "closure" was the rebuilding of the Nauvoo Temple without threat of its destruction or the death of the Mormons.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Well, the State of Illinois has retracted a key portion of the resolution they passed just a couple of days ago. It is no longer worded as an "apology," but merely as a statement of regret. Link
[ April 02, 2004, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: UofUlawguy ]
Posted by The Thnikkaman (Member # 6330) on :
However, I don't think the Church was clamoring for apologies. It would be extremely rude for Church members to be mumbling "Yeah, it's about time." There aren't any Church-sanctioned grudges.
Link's wrong, UofU. Add an "e" in deseret.
[ April 02, 2004, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: The Thnikkaman ]
Posted by PurplePacker (Member # 6398) on :
"regret" is probably a bit better. I think it's a nice gesture, though not required.
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
I read the Juanita Brooks account. I think that with what we saw in the My Lai massacre in Vietnam it was similar.
I saw a problem also in the crossing of authority lines between the church and the military. That is, when it was over the military blamed their superiors in the church who in turn blamed the military superiors. In addition to John D. Lee who was executed, the Stake President Isaac Haight was excommunicated. There are dozens of others who maintained secrecy, and one guy who was apparently murdered for breaking the secrecy. But his death could have been an accident. That's really nauseating.
Finally, the Native Americans were very much involved, though the Mormons should have risked themselves to stop them for the Natives sakes, rather than help them. Apparently, the Native Americans said they would also open war on all the Mormon (who were already being beseiged by the United States) if this particular group of settlers didn't help them. And it was around 120 people, including women and injured men, and older children, who were killed.
Maybe part of it is an inability for most present day Mormons to comprehend why we would have more readily aligned with Native Americans than Whites.
I agree that the best action is to deal with these matters truthfully and openly. I don't agree with the "blame the victim" strategy, which is seen in much of the church published histories. (in terms of where Dante probably got his view).
My grandpa was alienated from the church his whole life because he believed that Brigham Young ordered the whole thing, all the whites involved dressed up as Natives, and that the story only got out because the children who survived let it slip later. He was a good friend of a descendant of Lee, and very skewed against Brigham Young. Not against Mormons as a whole, but that Lee felt personally betrayed by Young because they were related in some way.
quote: with the story of the most horrible massacre of white people by religious fanatics of their own race
This is a quote from Pixiest's fist link... Why is it less horrible to massacre people of a different race?
[ April 02, 2004, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: skrika03 ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't think that was the point, quite the opposite in fact -- they were implying that much worse massacres had occurred with people of differing races, but that among people of the same race this was the worst ever (for religious reasons).
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Hardly the worst. There have been much, much worse massacres for religious reasons between members of the same race. Anyone ever heard of the Inquisition, for starters? That lasted several years and killed hundreds if not thousands. Not to mention the history of the Native Americans before the whites came, filled with religious wars of horrible cruelty and death.
Is the horribleness of history an excuse for the MMM? NO. But, I do think to be fair you have to put things in real persepctive and not hyperbolic sentements.
[ April 03, 2004, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I would still like an answer to my question, how can you sue 100 year old history?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Hardly the worst. There have been much, much worse massacres for religious reasons between members of the same race. Anyone ever heard of the Inquisition, for starters? That lasted several years and killed hundreds if not thousands. Not to mention the history of the Native Americans before the whites came, filled with religious wars of horrible cruelty and death.