“Disobeying a Stake President’s order to kill people would certainly be desirable. Luckily, this has not been a common dilemma in the Church. Since blind obedience of leadership has not and does not figure prominently in the Church, the Mountain Meadows Massacre serves to reinforce why it is not desirable. Rather, all Church members should be encouraged to follow Brigham Young’s counsel:

I will say a few words in regard to your belief in being led, guided, and directed by one man. . . . Do not be deceived, any of you; if you are deceived, it is because you deceive yourselves. You may know whether you are led right or wrong, as well as you know the way home; for every principle God has revealed carries its own convictions of its truth to the human mind, and there is no calling of God to man on earth but what brings with it the evidences of its authenticity. . . .

What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually. (Brigham Young, “Eternal Punishment,” Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt 12 January 1862, Vol. 9 (London: Latter-Day Saints Book Depot, 1862), 150.)

Unfortunately, this well-known quote from Brigham Young does not feature prominently in treatments by outsiders of his tenure as leader of the Church and the Utah Territory or of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.”

John F., why did you cite to the Journal of Discourses? Most Mormons don’t have those books. Perhaps you could provide a cite to that quote where it appeared in the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church volume on Brigham Young. Surely, this wonderful quote was included, no? For a more comprehensive treatment of church teachings on the subject of obedience to church leaders, you might consult this wonderful essay posted by GDTeacher at my blog: http://equalitysblog.typepad.com/equality_time/2006/04/obedience_in_th.html

Thanks for having her on again John. She’s a gem.

Clay read my point as I intended it. I’m not saying that Brigham Young definitely ordered the massacre — that would also not be responsible. I’m saying that various legitimate arguments can be made about what happened. You can responsibly argue that this or that interpretation is most likely in a way that avoids making unsound definitive assertions.

What does being honest about our history get us? Credibility. In reply #52, Charles D.’s gives the comparative example of European American treatment of Native Americans. We all know that our treatment of the Indians was terrible and full of atrocities. If we, as Americans, were to be constantly denying the record where possible, minimizing the record where necessary, and absolving leaders and scapegoating locals in order to explain this narrative — our credibility would be nil. (Of course we did that when the events were fresher and US culture was more defensive and less mature.)

Admitting to terrible acts in American history does not mean that America is not a great nation and it does not mean that America has not done great things. Being upfront with the bad allows us to explain failings in their context (giving understanding without condoning) in a credible way. In the end, this tactic makes our contention that America is a great nation more believable, because if we insisted on a defensive, hagiographical narrative, we would always be open to critics who could point out that we were being misleading.

Hi Bill! Welcome to our discussion at MormonMatters. I apologize for ignoring you earlier. I’ve been traveling for the past 3 weeks and away from my books. I wasn’t able to read your article until I got home late last night. I just finished reading it. Excellent article — you’ve done a great job of highlighting these multiple incidents of the Utah war and illustrating how they fit together in a consistent pattern. I find your argument extremely compelling. I recommend it for everyone to read (Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 33, No. 1, Spring 2007), and I wish I had been able to read it prior to our episode. Thanks! Are you planning to expand your work (here and in your previous articles) into a book on the Utah War?

I see that you’re based here in southeastern lower Michigan (I’m in Ann Arbor). I hope we’ll have the opportunity to meet and talk history.

I am not surprised that the church leaders were in denial or hesitant to broadcast the sins of this group. Would the United States and its people be understanding or forgiving if the Church was more forthcoming. Real people had died in previous conflicts, and there was a distinct possibility that more would die if national prejudice was further inflamed. Perhaps with this siege mentality, they felt the a cover-up was the only viable choice.

“The procession marched for a mile or so until, at a prearranged signal, each militiaman turned and shot the emigrant next to him, while Indians rushed from their hiding place to attack the terrified women and children. “

The author makes a small effort to say that perhaps the militia did most of the killing, but I believe even putting the above statement in leads people down an incorrect path.

The second part of this article that causes me stress is the intent of the author to make us believe it took the leadership of the church many years to discover the truth about MM.

“Although Brigham Young and other Church leaders in Salt Lake City learned of the massacre soon after it happened, their understanding of the extent of the settlers’ involvement and the terrible details of the crime came incrementally over time.”

Anyone who has studied the MMM knows how long it took for BY and the rest of the leadership to know what transpired and who did it. The above statement again leads folks down an incorrect path. Somewhere in a seminar class I remember being taught the methodology of putting out 49 truths to get one or two lies believed.

I wish we had the courage to face up to our history instead of continuing the pain we cause by our denials.

Regarding your quote from BY, I have always loved that quote. However, it becomes very hard to really grasp the true character of Young when those good kinds of things are juxtaposed with statements like this

The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth.
-Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 289

And also:

What man or woman on earth, what spirit in the spirit-world can say truthfully that I ever gave a wrong word of counsel, or a word of advice that could not be sanctioned by the heavens?
-Journal of Discourses, Vol. 12, p. 127

and again:

I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason.
-Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, page 161

Its very hard to make sense between the contrast. Who in mormon history is more confusing and suspect than Brigham Young?

Conceding your point that BY ordered the massacre, where does that bring us, in your view.

Again — if I’m the leader of a group and I write a letter ordering the group not to commit a crime and then the crime occurs a week later, the letter does not exonerate me from potential complicity in the crime. The act of writing a letter does not prove that I didn’t previously order my followers to commit the crime. I could have ordered them to commit the crime and then written the letter as an attempt to distance myself from the crime.

Because that scenario is quite possible, your insistence that the letter exonerates Young is not a responsible historical position. In my view, it’s no better than the slipshod liberties taken by the producers of September Dawn.

Unfortunately, it’s not effective to fight error with error. If the Mormon position is not credible (based here on a demonstrably false premise), that actually gives credibility to the September Dawn position. If it’s clear that Mormons are white-washing their history, it’s much easier for outsiders to believe an extreme counter-narrative.

In other words, it sounds as if we may have a similar point of view on this, albeit with somewhat different emphases.

BEAUTIFUL stuff. I wish that quote would show up yearly in the manuals…but I’m totally with you on this.

The brethren are most often better followed than not…but there are important exceptions that we should always be in-tune about.

I hope this can become more ingrained in the minds of the members going forward. My mission showed me that we still have a long ways to go on this front. The “Exact Obedience” taught in the MTC caused a lot of missionaries to do horrific things (that Elder Oaks called abominations and priestcraft) — because the mission president required it of them — and they didn’t feel good about dissenting.

We may not be killing people today, but there are lesser instances of great import where we still have a lot to learn/grow in this regard. In many small ways, we too often give up what is right, or best for us, out of blind obligation or duty (neglect families, pursue callings that aren’t good for our health, etc.). I know that the brethren are really trying to curb this, but I also know it’s still quite prevalent.

But thanks for helping inch us towards a healthier balance.

I will say a few words in regard to your belief in being led, guided, and directed by one man. . . . Do not be deceived, any of you; if you are deceived, it is because you deceive yourselves. You may know whether you are led right or wrong, as well as you know the way home; for every principle God has revealed carries its own convictions of its truth to the human mind, and there is no calling of God to man on earth but what brings with it the evidences of its authenticity. . . .

What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually. (Brigham Young, “Eternal Punishment,” Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt 12 January 1862, Vol. 9 (London: Latter-Day Saints Book Depot, 1862), 150.)

Unfortunately, this well-known quote from Brigham Young does not feature prominently in treatments by outsiders of his tenure as leader of the Church and the Utah Territory or of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

What about a reminder that we should be very cautious in trusting church (or any) leadership without reserve — that the ultimate guide still needs to be our own good judgment and conscience, over blind obedience of leadership?

The big picture is similar to that expressed in the Ensign article. The historical fact of the Mountain Meadows Massacre should cause all Latter-day Saints to ask how religious men could have thought up this scheme, decided to go forward with it after debate, and chosen not to wait for word from Brigham Young about whether they should proceed with their plan or not. On a more common human level, it should cause all people to scrutinize themselves to find whether they would ever act in such a manner based on their prejudices.

What’s your view on the big picture? The whole enchilada, vs. the technicalities and interpretations of the note?

If you were the judge, not the defense attorney, how would you see the overall case?