Mountain Meadows Massacre: Why I'm Mad as Hell

All over the web, discussions keep mounting over the Mountain Meadows Massacre. You would have thought it happened two weeks ago. And in reality, it feels just like that to many Mormons who are just learning about it for the FIRST TIME EVER in this latest issue of the Ensign Magazine. I have been following this story for months, ever since I found out that September Dawn was going to be distributed across the country. Evidently, the church thought it must be time to talk about it, now, 150 years later.

I remember growing up as a kid in Primary and Seminary hearing about such things as the Haun's Mill Massacre and the assorted violent attacks that Mormons suffered while trying to homestead in Missouri, which ultimately led to an extermination order by Governor Boggs. I remember feeling persecuted as well, just by association of being Mormon. I was very upset that Mormons were treated so bitterly and harshly, and that innocent children had sometimes fallen victim to these violent outbursts of vigilante justice. And that's exactly how I was supposed to react, I was justified in my reaction. I was even angry that it was never discussed in history class in my high school, and the subject of Mormons was hardly broached at all, even though they were pioneers in the wilderness and were responsible for populating large portions of Missouri and Illinois. I learned more from my church than I ever did in my high school, and I felt pretty special for having knowledge about such important historical events that my poor non-Mormon peers would never know. I even wrote a paper on the Haun's Mill Massacre for a history project in my high school, where I went on and on about the unfair attack against Mormons by cowardly men who hid in bushes waiting to surprise innocent women and children.

But never have I heard of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, either from my history class or from Seminary lessons in the Mormon Church. Why is this? Why did it take so long for this story to come out? It should have been taught right along with Haun's Mill or Carthage Jail, but instead it was ignored. Think of the lessons we could have learned all along the way about how we shouldn't take the prophet's words as revelation in every possible instance. The church could have used many opportunities to point out how fanaticism will never be God's way, and that the words of the prophets and apostles still need to come under critical analysis and prayerful consideration before being obeyed by the members of the church. Somehow, we never got these lessons growing up in church. And then one fateful day, the LDS church was faced with the accidental uncovering of the mass burial site, and state laws which had to be obeyed regarding the examination of the remains. Had it not been for this one event, the LDS faithful all over the world wouldn't have ever needed to know that this massacre took place. Oh yeah, the rock cairn was there, Hinckley did a dedication of the site back in 1999, and the descendants of the victims were part of the ceremonies. But all Hinckley would say about the event is that we don't know what happened, nobody can explain it, so let's put it all behind us now, and by the way, don't take our actions here to mean that we are admitting any fault for this massacre. What a guy. Carefully making sure that the corporation of the LDS church won't get sued by the descendants of that wagon train. Was this dedication broadcast on Deseret News Channel? Did it get a mention in the Ensign back then? Did anyone in the broader area past Utah even know that a murderous rampage against unarmed men, women and children took place? And now, while reading the Ensign article printed in this current issue, we learned that this event has "shocked and distressed those who have learned of it. " Those five words speak volumes. It means that the church did not do anything out of its way to make sure that the whole body of the church new about it, that they acknowledge their part in it, that it was a mistake made by individuals who 'misinterpreted' Brigham Young's insertion into the temple covenants to seek vengeance upon Joseph's murderers unto the fourth generation, or his sermons on blood atonement and how to help your fellow man gain exaltation by spilling his blood for him so he can atone for his sins. All we ever hear in connection with the Mountain Meadows Massacre are the excuses: we are supposed to put ourselves in the Mormons shoes and ask how we would feel if we were run out of every settlement we built, had our wives and children murdered before our eyes by our enemies, and lost all worldly goods in fires set by angry mobs.

This is what I am coming across now, when I visit the Mormon Apologetics message board. Cries of Haun's Mill! and Carthage Jail! come loud and clear. An eye for an eye, too bad for them! But I have taken the time to go all the way back to the early beginnings of Mormonism, to the roots of persecution, in order to try to solve the puzzle of which-came-first. And I sincerely believe that if all Mormons took the time to look before Haun's Mill, before the move to Missouri, before the Kirtland Era, all the way back to Joseph Smith's character and history, and then trace the events in a solid timeline all the way down to his murder in Carthage, we could finally see both sides of the coin, and realize that maybe the Mormons weren't quiet, mild-mannered settlers after all.

Where I live, there are hardly any Black families, but there are lots of Ukrainian immigrants. In the next county, there has been an influx of Mexican workers moving in to the communities. In another county nearby, there are lots of Transcendental Meditationalists and a special college for them. I think nearly everyone can work together to promote peace and prosperity to the community regardless of religious or ethnic backgrounds. But if we suddenly had about 100 newcomers move into our town, proclaiming their church to be superior to all others, claiming their living prophet has promised them all of this area will belong to their church someday, how many days or weeks would it take to set the entire town against them? A careful study of historical accounts (not just a one-time through on Ensign articles) will paint a much more complete picture of how the Mormons were viewed by others. Here lies the problem with limiting your research to only those written by the Mormon faithful---you can't really know how others see the Mormons if you only read the Mormon point of view.

Are the Mormons really in a position to relay how others view them?

Can they accurately describe what the Missouri settlers might have felt towards them, or why the folks in Kirtland, Ohio turned against Joseph Smith?

Not every account of Mormons is necessarily Anti-Mormon, just because it wasn't written by a Mormon. But time and time again, most talks center around how to maintain your testimony, how to limit influences from outside the church to sway your thinking, and how to be sure that what you read is really the inspired truth from God.

When I was a member, I was given a calling as a Primary Music instructor. I have had no training in music, can't even read music well, and don't know the first thing about playing a piano. How inspired could this calling have been? My assigned format was "Follow the Prophet" and I taught children as young as 3 years old how to always follow the advice of the living prophet of the church and to not go astray. I watched Gordon Hinckley proclaim during General Conference that tattoos, piercings, and body jewelry were unnecessary and unnatural, and I paused with baited breath as I waited for him to make his judgment on my one hole piercings in my ears. I actually reached up and held on to my right earlobe as he went on to say that the church would not take a position on one pair of piercings for women. I let out my breath, and so did TWELVE OTHER WOMEN. In that moment I knew that I had passed a judgment by a living prophet, and was grateful I hadn't gone to get a second piercing done.

How screwed up is this thinking?

Gordon Hinckley is not the kind of guy to go around making prophecies, even thought he is a prophet. So when he took the opportunity to tell us his personal opinion, Mormons throughout the country treated it as if it was a prophecy. This is why following a prophet is so crazy. If he were a prophet, we would be able to easily identify what what opinion and what what prophecy. But because he doesn't make prophecies, and doesn't predict anything at all for us in our lives, EVER, we really have no option but to rely on his opinions as God's word. And that's how it was treated. Women and girls all over the country took out their second piercings, and men removed their single earrings, or they couldn't pass sacrament, give a talk, get a temple recommend renewed, or receive a blessing from priesthood holders. It became a measuring stick for the faithful. Adherence to Gordon's 'opinion' meant the difference between reverence for God's anointed prophet, and rebellion against the prophet's counsel. And since we have all likely heard, "follow the prophet, he knows the way" in our youth, and have once or twice gotten up on the stand on F&T Sunday to proclaim our belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet and Gordon Hinckley as a prophet today, rebellion against suggestions of any kind would not have been looked upon too favorably, especially the closer you get to Utah.

Reverence for the living prophet is still very much the norm in today's Mormon world, much like it was 150 years ago, isolated in the wilderness of Utah Territory. Anyone reading the Journal of Discourses can plainly see that it is full of the opinions of men, and not counted as scripture among the Mormon faithful, and for good reason. But, imagine living there during the moment the words were uttered. Imagine what it would mean to be building up a kingdom for God and to have a living prophet to guide you. Would there really be any such thing as 'rogue Mormons' who took those speeches just a bit too seriously? Or is it more likely that Brigham did not actually forsee an instance where his words could actually be taken as God's instruction on how to handle any intruders into the Utah territory? I'm in the camp of placing blame at Brigham's door step because his claims of being a living prophet cannot be demonstrated by the evidence available. I have not received any proof given by Mormons that he was an inspired man, destined to lead the church forward after Joseph's death, and that he had any skills other than as a great orator and had a magnificent stage presence. He commanded attention, and he got reverence and respect because he cultivated fear in those who placed him there. He can't be called a prophet if he can't see future events. He can't be called a prophet if he can't see the consequences of his words. And he certainly should not be revered as a prophet by the Mormon faithful if he can discredited so easily.

I'm mad as hell for the Mountain Meadows Massacre because Brigham Young never corrected his blood atonement doctrine after the event was carried out. He never spoke out to congregations that followed that this was not what he intended by his words, and that those who committed the crime would be accountable for it. He never assumed responsibility for the furor his speeches created, instead choosing to rest on the excuses of blaming the immigrants for being there in the first place, and for the Indians attacking them in conjunction with a few 'rogue Mormons'.

I'm still mad at the Mormon church because they have the same reverence for Gordon Hinckley as the old saints did for Brigham Young. Gordon Hinckley has yet to make ONE single prophecy, how can he be called a living prophet? What proof is there that he has this power at all?

But mostly I'm mad because one of the main questions still asked during an interview to receive a temple ticket is: Do you sustain Gordon Hinckley as prophet, seer, and revelator?

Why the hell should I, when he has never prophesied, seer'd, or revelated anything EVER?

Which one of the Mormon prophets ever DID get a prophecy right? More importantly, when was the last time a Mormon prophet made prophecies of any sort?

The reverence for living prophets is what makes it impossible to place Mormons within the realm of Christianity. It's also what makes Mormons "rogue". Listening to the opinions of a single man in regards to how you can best show your loyalty and worthiness to God is what makes a cult. It's not hard to draw the conclusion here.