I did a report long ago on the MMM. I was in junior high, so it wasn't the best researched report I've ever done, but I don't recall a lot of church involvement. Please enlighten me.
"When you walk, you might like to take the hand of a child. She will receive your concentration and stability, and you will receive her freshness and innocence." -Tich Naht Hanh
if you or I permitted a wanted person to hide in our house, the system would lock us up for "aiding and abetting". what BY did is no different.
Following the massacre, Young stated in public forums that God had taken vengeance on the Baker–Fancher party.
crime #2: speaking out against the innocent victims.
image for just a minute... what would happen if anyone suggested the holocaust was deserved payment because God was taking His vengeance on the Jews for something they did.
we would rightfully have an uproar the likes of which hasn't been seen before.
now, explain how "the innocense of the Fancer-Bakers is any different than the innocense of the Jews"?
both crimes provide solid evidence of a prophet "speaking his own human will, and not the Will of God".
therefore it becomes possible, in fact highly probable... that everything spoken by church leaders has been "their own will, rather than the Will of God".
one could estimate "the Will of God" as being "He wants the church to issue a formal apology for the criminal acts of church leaders".
if this were so... church leaders are too deaf to hear it, and too egotistical to conclude it for themselves.
the descendants of victims deserve an official apology for the illegal, immoral, and unjust action of the church.
it's shameful that all the church wants to do is distance itself from it's own disgraceful behavior.
how does that feel to be a lawnmower man? must be a real rush.
if you or I permitted a wanted person to hide in our house, the system would lock us up for "aiding and abetting". what BY did is no different.
Following the massacre, Young stated in public forums that God had taken vengeance on the Baker–Fancher party.
crime #2: speaking out against the innocent victims.
image for just a minute... what would happen if anyone suggested the holocaust was deserved payment because God was taking His vengeance on the Jews for something they did.
we would rightfully have an uproar the likes of which hasn't been seen before.
now, explain how "the innocense of the Fancer-Bakers is any different than the innocense of the Jews"?
both crimes provide solid evidence of a prophet "speaking his own human will, and not the Will of God".
therefore it becomes possible, in fact highly probable... that everything spoken by church leaders has been "their own will, rather than the Will of God".
one could estimate "the Will of God" as being "He wants the church to issue a formal apology for the criminal acts of church leaders".
if this were so... church leaders are too deaf to hear it, and too egotistical to conclude it for themselves.
the descendants of victims deserve an official apology for the illegal, immoral, and unjust action of the church.
it's shameful that all the church wants to do is distance itself from it's own disgraceful behavior.
I see.
I should take more of an interest in the subject. I count John D Lee among my ancestors.
"When you walk, you might like to take the hand of a child. She will receive your concentration and stability, and you will receive her freshness and innocence." -Tich Naht Hanh
I did a report long ago on the MMM. I was in junior high, so it wasn't the best researched report I've ever done, but I don't recall a lot of church involvement. Please enlighten me.
Furniss and a few others have effectively debunked the whole "BY ordered it!" conspiracy theory.
When the Francher party started running low on supplies, they tried to barter and trade with the local Paiute band of Native Americans. Unfortunately, the inexperienced Franchers didn't realize that their cattle had been eating poisonous weeds, and so didn't realize that they'd just given the Paiutes animals whose meat had been tainted. This resulted in several Paiutes getting sick and one of them dying.
The local leadership, who were already itching for a fight, presented the matter to Young as "hey - these yokels just tried to poison the Paiutes, so the Paiutes want blood".
As Young knew some of the local leaders personally, he had no reason to doubt their report, either before or after the incident took place. However, Young felt that the matter was best left to the Paiutes to resolve; in that sense, he ordered the locals to not get involved either way. Sadly, his orders arrived a day too late to be effective (a previous member of my congregation was descended from the courier who was tasked with bringing Young's message to the region).
When Young found out that the Franchers had been obliterated, he was led to believe that the Paiutes had done it; as he was too busy dealing with the defense of the region, he didn't have the time or energy to personally investigate matters.
What's more, there was no cover-up. Rather, as Furniss notes, Young volunteered to assist the federal government's original 1858/9 investigation, offering to use his authority as head of the church to compel people to answer subpoenas. Instead, the government itself dropped the investigation; the Buchanan administration was in deep doggy doo over the whole invasion fiasco, and there is reason to believe that the administration ordered the investigation scrapped lest its findings support the "Paiute" story and remove the last pretense for federal involvement in the region.
Once again, Ironhold, the information that Furniss offers about what the Francher party may or may not have done or said prior to their murders is unsubstantiated, and originates with the local population, many of whom were involved in the murders.
IMO, this renders the account that Furniss provides unusable as a reliable source. Certainly it's not a source I would accept.
When Young found out that the Franchers had been obliterated, he was led to believe that the Paiutes had done it; as he was too busy dealing with the defense of the region, he didn't have the time or energy to personally investigate matters.
BY didn't have the time or energy to investigate the murder and looting of an entire wagontrain of 120 people in territory over which he had jurisdiction???
If one man ordered it or encouraged it (Brigham Young here), that is not a "Conspiracy Theory." The concept requires a group of some sort plotted some thing, and it's secret. Now since the allegation has Young acting alone, clearly this is not a conspiracy theory.
This would indicate that the claim suggests to use the word as a synonym for "nonsense." Just call it nonsense then, at least it will make sense. Further, it's a simple word, it means no such thing. Take 9/11: They call the theory that the US Govt was behind it the "Conspiracy Theory" but the Official Story is also a conspiracy theory, they both are-the question is "which conspiracy theory is true?"
K, I think we all understand the concept a little better now, please continue AKA.
When Young found out that the Franchers had been obliterated, he was led to believe that the Paiutes had done it; as he was too busy dealing with the defense of the region, he didn't have the time or energy to personally investigate matters.
BY didn't have the time or energy to investigate the murder and looting of an entire wagontrain of 120 people in territory over which he had jurisdiction???
The church was operating under the impression that Johnston's Army was being sent for the sole purpose of genocide. As such, not only was BY focused expressly upon repelling them, the vast majority of the militia in the state were also focused expressly on repelling them and so had actually been moved to the borders.
There wasn't much that Young could do about anything internal at that point, and he knew it. In fact, Young actually made treaties with several Native American bands which basically said "you can do as you please so long as you don't actually attack any Mormon settlements until the crisis is over".
