Is the Church to Blame for Mountain Meadows?

As I have written elsewhere, it is impossible for the Church to say that it has nothing to do with the Mountain Meadows Massacre. We are quick to tell people to judge us by our fruits. Usually that argument works in our favor. If we are to be consistent then we must also accept the argument when it doesn't make us look so good such as in the case of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. But how much culpability do we, as a Church, bear for these criminal acts?

The following is an account of what happened when the leaders of this conspiracy presented their plan to a council of civic and church leaders. Isaac Haight referred to in this quote is a Stake President (local leader).

On Sunday, September 6, Haight presented the plan to a council of local leaders who held Church, civic, and military positions. The plan was met with stunned resistance by those hearing it for the first time, sparking heated debate. Finally, council members asked Haight if he had consulted with President [Brigham] Young about the matter. Saying he hadn’t, Haight agreed to send an express rider to Salt Lake City with a letter explaining the situation and asking what should be done.

William Dame, another Stake President and district commander of the militia, advised Haight and others. “Do not notice their threats,” words are but wind—they injure no one." He later convened another council under pressure from Haight and that second council decided that "men should be sent to help the beleaguered emigrants continue on their way in peace." These local councils never authorized the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Haight would not be placated and later cornered Dame, sharing with him additional information, and without the moderating influence of the council, managed to persuade Dame to rescind his earlier order. This was the fatal decision that later left Haight lamenting that "I would give a world if I had it, if we had abided by the deci[s]ion of the council."

An Ensign article of September 2007 describes Brigham Young's reply to the dispatch as follows:

President Young’s express message of reply to Haight, dated September 10, arrived in Cedar City two days after the massacre. ...

“In regard to emigration trains passing through our settlements,” Young continued, “we must not interfere with them untill they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them. There are no other trains going south that I know of[.] [I]f those who are there will leave let them go in peace. While we should be on the alert, on hand and always ready we should also possess ourselves in patience, preserving ourselves and property ever remembering that God rules.”

When Haight read Young’s words, he sobbed like a child and could manage only the words, “Too late, too late.

In the interest of brevity I have summarized this story but there is no credible critic who denies the events as I have detailed them. While it is true that some local Church leaders were tragically involved, the Church as an institution both in its councils, and by direction of its Church President Brigham Young, were innocent of any involvement in this horrible tragedy. In each instance, the Church as an institution through its councils and its leader counseled against the action and refused to sanction it. As much as they were able, they did their best to prevent this tragedy from ever happening.

Individuals committed this crime. Were some of them also local Church leaders? Yes, they were. Did this series of actions have anything to do with their official church duties? Absolutely not.

Logical Fallacies in the Criticisms of the Mountain Meadows Massacre

Enemies of the LDS Church have tried to paint the Church as somehow being responsible for the tragedy at Mountain Meadows. While it is impossible to deny that these actions are the fruits of the Church, they are an anomaly. Anyone who knew Mormons then, or today for that matter, would agree that cowardly massacring men, women, and children under a flag of truce; and then trying to cover it up by blaming the Indians is not normal behavior taught or endorsed by the Church or its leaders.

My problem with our critics is when they try to blame the whole Church because of the actions of a few. This kind of reasoning is what is called a logical fallacy. A website devoted to the discussion of logical fallacies explains them in this manner:

The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others, and to avoid them in one’s own arguments, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric.

A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy.

I can identify at least four errors in reasoning that our enemies use in regards to the Mountain Meadows Massacre. There are probably many more, but this should be sufficient to show the flawed thinking that they employ.

• Correlation Does Not Mean Causation is one of the errors in reasoning mentioned above. Just because all of the conspirators were Latter-day Saints does not mean that being a Latter-day Saint caused this behavior.

• Fallacy of a Single Cause occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause when in reality it may have been caused by a number of things.

• A third logical fallacy used by our enemies in blaming the Church for this tragedy is called the Historian's Fallacy. This occurs when one assumes that decision makers in the past viewed events with the same perspective and information as us in the present.

• Mostly this reasoning is a Fallacy of Composition. This arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true for part. Since some members of the Church did this horrible crime, then the whole Church is smeared by it.

If we discover that the leaders of the Church (Brigham Young et al.) were involved then that would dispute my logical fallacy argument. We will address in our next post the historical facts of whether Brigham or other high ranking leaders were involved, or endorsed the actions at Mountain Meadows.

Mountain Meadows Massacre

A website devoted to telling the story of the Mountain Meadows Massacre explains it as follows:

The Mountain Meadows Massacre was the killing of roughly 120 emigrants who were passing through Southern Utah in September 1857. The massacre occurred on September 11, 1857. The emigrants--men, women, and children--were traveling from Arkansas to California, part of the Baker-Fancher wagon train. They were killed by a group of Mormons with the help of local Paiute Indians.

After leaving Arkansas, the Fancher party traveled west through Kansas and Nebraska territories before entering Utah territory. In Utah, the party passed Fort Bridger and Salt Lake City, traveling south west until reaching Cedar City. Cedar City was the last stop before California. In Cedar City, the Fancher party attempted to buy grain and supplies but was refused by the local Mormons due to the Mormons' suspicion of aiding potential enemies.

After the Fancher party left Cedar City, frustrated with the refusal of local Mormons to sell them needed goods, they continued southwest through the mountain pass called Mountain Meadows. There they were attacked by Mormon assailants, some of them killed. The remaining emigrants pulled their wagons into a tight circle for protection. Over the next five days, the emigrants were held at siege in their wagon circle. During this period they were attacked two more times.

On September 11, 1857, John D. Lee entered the wagon circle with a white flag, convincing the emigrants to surrender peacefully. Required to put down their guns, the women and children were escorted out first, then the men and boys. Each man and boy was escorted by an armed militiaman.

They walked about a mile when, upon a predetermined signal, the militiamen turned and fired on each man and boy. Indians who had been convinced to participate in the massacre came out from their hiding places to attack the women and children.

While most of the Fancher party was killed (about 120 people), there were 17 young children who survived. These 17 children were adopted by local families. Two years later in 1859, the U.S. government reunited the children with their extended families in Arkansas

In our next post we will discuss whether the LDS Church had anything to do with this tragedy.

Mountain Meadows Massacre

One of the ugliest parts of Mormon history - the Mountain Meadows Massacre - will be our next topic. Because of the nature of this cold-blooded massacre of men, women, and children on 11 September 1857; some preliminary historical explanations need to be done in order to put this tragedy in context.

Over the course of several posts I will address this horrific crime with a promise to tell the whole story. We will also address some of the criticisms of the Church over this event in what will probably be 3 or 4 different posts. Stay tuned!