Thursday, September 13, 2007
another mormon thing
saw this on mormon stories. take a look at our official stance on the mountain meadows massacre.
i just finished re-reading Juanita Brooks book on the subject, and I still know little about what actually happened. this new book that is coming out seems interesting. Elder Eyring claims Brigham Young is completely absolved of responsibility with this new research. sister brooks definitely didn't come to such a powerful conclusion, although she claims he probably wasn't to blame. however, she certainly does hold that he was responsible for some kind of cover up.
was there press on the movie september dawn in Utah? nothing much out here. the movie definitely places all the blame on Brigham Young, and almost none on local leaders, something that is not at all supported by the historical documents (at least probably, anyway).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
stephen,
mountain meadows eh? well stevie boy, whenever you enter the world of mormon history you enter a dangerous world, but then again, you know that already.
well, thus far, historical evidence doesn't point at all to brigham young. however, we don't have all the historical evidence and what if, one day, a descedant of mr. lee found a letter that directly implicates president young.
does that mean the church is any less true? does that mean brigham wasn't a prophet? if the answer is no, why do we even worry about it? if the answer is yes, then the problem most likely isn't brother brigham.
stevie: i would like to read juanita's book. do you own it or did you check it out at the library? it's funny that you mentioned dehlin's website as i just posted about the recent mormon matters series here
skinny: i don't think any evidence uncovered would lead to the church being any less true; however, it might lead one to find the church true in ways different than they previously thought.
i like that elder eyring apologized in so many words for what happened. any comment on september dawn coverage here in california is tainted by the fact that i read the deseret news several times a week, i read the mormon internet often and a very loud lady bore her testimony on sunday about it...
Paul: i bought the book. i can bring it out at thanksgiving for you. i took a lot from Elder Eyring and I appreciated how heartfelt his comments were. He is always very sincere and kind. at the end of september dawn, they claim the church has never apologized for what happened; however, the spirit of understanding and sympathy that is displayed in this clip directly contradicts such claims.
skinny: i'm not sure what you mean by a dangerous world. i wouldn't say that the historical evidence doesn't point at all to brigham young. he had a meeting with multiple indian chiefs several weeks before the massacre and we don't know what was said. he called the indian's the battle ax of the lord, and he riled the saints up in a time of war. certainly there is no evidence that proves conclusively brigham young had a hand in what happened, and it looks like he did want the 'mericrats' to pass by unharmed, as he sent a runner on september 10 with that information. however, the evidence does point to brigham young in some sort of cover up for what happened, as he most likely had some part in the part of the conviction and scapegoating of john d. lee.
if brigham young were somehow directly implicated, i don't believe that would make the church any less true. we don't demand perfection of our leaders or prophets. you ask why we would worry about it? why do we worry about history at all? obviously what happened was a horrible thing: stake presidents and bishops in southern utah were implicated. 120 men, women and children were killed. it is something we must come to terms with in our own history, and recognize what made it happen. if brigham young were involved (i personally don't think he was directly involved) we should find out what led to that, and make sure it doesn't happen again.
Such an awful part of our past... it really is surprising to me that the anti-s don't talk about it more. Perhaps the general ignoring of this striking story by church history has served us well???
Regardless... once the story is known, and the initial shock is taken in, assimilating it somehow is important. Such a horrible part of history does not change the truths of the gospel, but it does taint the rosy church history picture many church members cling to.
Post a Comment