Tweet
An example of Mormon terrorism, the Mountain Meadows Massacre where 120 innocent American Christian men, women and children fell victim to Mormon terrorists and their Injun pals on 9/11 the year 1857
9/11 Attack 144 Years Prior -- Mormon Terrorist, John D. Lee
One hundred and forty four years prior to the fated day of September 11, 2001, another day of ignominy transpired.
September 11, 1857 is the day the Mountain Meadows Massacre transpired in southern Utah. Approximately 120 men, women, and children in a wagon train from Arkansas were murdered by a band of Mormons set on holy vengeance. The Native Americans who were also involved had been spurred by the Mormons, some of whom dressed as Indians to conceal their identity. John D. Lee pretended to come to the Arkansans' aid, and after having them lay down their weapons in truce, enabled a defenseless bloodbath to ensue.
This 1870s T.B.H. Stenhouse sketch depicts
the horrors at Mountain Meadows.
That event, in its day, was abhorred by a shocked country, nearly as much as the world was horrified by the brutal events of 911, 2001. Lee, whose name became synonymous with the attack 144 years prior, was called "The Great Terror of the West."
Like the attack on America on 911, in its day the Mountain Meadows Massacre was justified by its perpetrators on fundamentalist religious grounds -- rationalizations that a civilized world, set aside from such indoctrination, finds abhorrent and patently evil.
Mormonism itself soon came to loath the very doctrine they once propounded, when the deed that was born of that doctrine was manifest in bloody horror before them, giving their collective conscience a hard slap.
That transformation did not happen suddenly, but it did take place, and to such an extent that not long afterward, behavior that at one time would be seen as evidence of faithfulness became grounds for removal from the Church. John D. Lee, who had enjoyed a son-like fealty with the Mormon Prophet, Brigham Young--even years after the deed--was eventually excommunicated and then executed, also at the instigation of President Young, who followed Lee by an untimely death of questionable circumstances less than six months later.
The Mormon doctrine of "blood atonement" stated that some crimes were so terrible they could only be repaired by the taking the life of the perpetrator; and that taking such a life was seen as a favor to the perpetrator.
On top of that, each of the more faithful Mormons who were considered righteous enough to receive ordinances in a Mormon temple took an oath to continually pray for the avenging of the blood of the prophet Joseph Smith, as part of their endowment.
The treatment of the Mormons in their removal from place to place, finally exiling them to the Rocky Mountains, is certainly a shocking tale in itself. Many thousands of Mormons died when driven from their homes under excruciating circumstances.
Now, coming through their midst, was a wagon train of people from a region where one of their beloved apostles, Pratt, had recently been killed in cold blood. It was also thought that some of the party had been involved in Joseph Smith's martyrdom. One report claims that a man on the wagon train actually boasted of being the one to pull the trigger of the gun that killed Joseph Smith.
The doctrine of blood atonement had ripened, the patience of the Saints had expired, and an oath of vengeance was waiting execution. Mountain Meadows Massacre was the result.
Because of the religious belief they had by then fostered, John D. Lee and others did not view themselves as murderers. Rather, they viewed themselves as carrying out the Lord's arm of vengeance.
But cruel experience has a way of exposing faulty doctrine to the light of reality and truth of conscience.
Murderers they were, and the deed they committed was an evil deed. The fact that the Mormons themselves had been victims of such evil did not give them license to return that evil. The law of "an eye for an eye" [comment] had long ago been superceded by a higher law of "love your enemy, do good to them that persecute you and despitefully use you," a law that was also part of Mormon doctrine.
It was that higher law that worked on the conscience of the Mormons, brought to their attention by their Christian neighbors and a world that watched on with horror.
Given the choice to adhere to their barbaric doctrine of blood atonement and be annihilated by it or to embrace the higher law given by Jesus Christ nearly 2000 years prior, they opted to trash the barbaric doctrine.
That much is to their credit.
But what is not to their credit is the dishonesty with which they remember this chapter of their history. Mormons generally refuse to believe that the Church leadership of the day had any culpability in the massacre. Two easily verifiable facts prove that the Church Authorities at least encouraged the deed by their doctrine: (1) blood atonement, (2) oath of vengeance of the blood of Joseph Smith.
"You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation." (The Reed Smoot Case, vol. 4, pp. 495-496)
It resembles the Arab leadership that denies any responsibility for Osama Bin Laden. Yet their own diatribes are punctuated with statements that foster the Muslim terrorists of our day.
It took 20 years to bring John D. Lee to justice, sacrificed as the scapegoat for many others, including key leaders in the Church all the way up to Brigham Young, who should have also been tried and convicted for their role.
Indeed, the crimes committed against the Mormons in their exile to the West went virtually without punishment. The world meted a double standard. It reeled in horror when some of their own were victims of atrocity at Mountain Meadows; but it essentially ignored the atrocities heaped upon the Mormons.
Meanwhile, Mormon fundamentalism toned down, and they settled into a mode of increasing comfort and acceptance, sprinkled throughout the valleys of the West.
We probably won't see the Mormons admit any time soon to their collective guilt in the Massacre that took place 144 years prior to a parallel event that we now know as 911 in our recent collective conscience. But perhaps we can see the parallel as a beacon of hope regarding Muslim fundamentalism.
Perhaps with the stark horror of 911, they have gotten their thirst for vengeance out of their system, so that fewer and fewer of them will be supportive of such extreme measures.
If we can be more understanding of the pains they have endured, before and after 911, we have a better chance that they will not be pushed further into a corner of persecution so as to levy an atrocity even more ferocious than the attack of Sept. 11.
Meanwhile, the Mormons might consider practicing what they preach and repent of their culpability in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, beginning with a confession of guilt, rather than of continued cover up.
Their recent attempt to cover up actually resulted in the accidental unearthing of bones from the site.
Meanwhile their Christian friends can practice what they preach in turn, and forgive the Mormons for the terrible dead. And the Christians can likewise admit to their guilt in their horrendous treatment of the Mormons, and the Mormons can forgive the Christians.
Then, the Muslims might consider forgiving us, as we forgive them.
Then the scales of justice that are so far out of balance might begin to be satisfied, as mercy, rather than vengeance, meets the demands of justice.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." And as long as we follow a law of vengeance, seeking "an eye for an eye," terrorism will persist and even grow.
The parallel anniversaries of September 11 are a witness from the universe to the parallels between the deeds.
May we be wise, and learn.
Sincerely,
Sterling D. Allan
One hundred and forty four years prior to the fated day of September 11, 2001, another day of ignominy transpired.
September 11, 1857 is the day the Mountain Meadows Massacre transpired in southern Utah. Approximately 120 men, women, and children in a wagon train from Arkansas were murdered by a band of Mormons set on holy vengeance. The Native Americans who were also involved had been spurred by the Mormons, some of whom dressed as Indians to conceal their identity. John D. Lee pretended to come to the Arkansans' aid, and after having them lay down their weapons in truce, enabled a defenseless bloodbath to ensue.
This 1870s T.B.H. Stenhouse sketch depicts
the horrors at Mountain Meadows.
That event, in its day, was abhorred by a shocked country, nearly as much as the world was horrified by the brutal events of 911, 2001. Lee, whose name became synonymous with the attack 144 years prior, was called "The Great Terror of the West."
Like the attack on America on 911, in its day the Mountain Meadows Massacre was justified by its perpetrators on fundamentalist religious grounds -- rationalizations that a civilized world, set aside from such indoctrination, finds abhorrent and patently evil.
Mormonism itself soon came to loath the very doctrine they once propounded, when the deed that was born of that doctrine was manifest in bloody horror before them, giving their collective conscience a hard slap.
That transformation did not happen suddenly, but it did take place, and to such an extent that not long afterward, behavior that at one time would be seen as evidence of faithfulness became grounds for removal from the Church. John D. Lee, who had enjoyed a son-like fealty with the Mormon Prophet, Brigham Young--even years after the deed--was eventually excommunicated and then executed, also at the instigation of President Young, who followed Lee by an untimely death of questionable circumstances less than six months later.
The Mormon doctrine of "blood atonement" stated that some crimes were so terrible they could only be repaired by the taking the life of the perpetrator; and that taking such a life was seen as a favor to the perpetrator.
On top of that, each of the more faithful Mormons who were considered righteous enough to receive ordinances in a Mormon temple took an oath to continually pray for the avenging of the blood of the prophet Joseph Smith, as part of their endowment.
The treatment of the Mormons in their removal from place to place, finally exiling them to the Rocky Mountains, is certainly a shocking tale in itself. Many thousands of Mormons died when driven from their homes under excruciating circumstances.
Now, coming through their midst, was a wagon train of people from a region where one of their beloved apostles, Pratt, had recently been killed in cold blood. It was also thought that some of the party had been involved in Joseph Smith's martyrdom. One report claims that a man on the wagon train actually boasted of being the one to pull the trigger of the gun that killed Joseph Smith.
The doctrine of blood atonement had ripened, the patience of the Saints had expired, and an oath of vengeance was waiting execution. Mountain Meadows Massacre was the result.
Because of the religious belief they had by then fostered, John D. Lee and others did not view themselves as murderers. Rather, they viewed themselves as carrying out the Lord's arm of vengeance.
But cruel experience has a way of exposing faulty doctrine to the light of reality and truth of conscience.
Murderers they were, and the deed they committed was an evil deed. The fact that the Mormons themselves had been victims of such evil did not give them license to return that evil. The law of "an eye for an eye" [comment] had long ago been superceded by a higher law of "love your enemy, do good to them that persecute you and despitefully use you," a law that was also part of Mormon doctrine.
It was that higher law that worked on the conscience of the Mormons, brought to their attention by their Christian neighbors and a world that watched on with horror.
Given the choice to adhere to their barbaric doctrine of blood atonement and be annihilated by it or to embrace the higher law given by Jesus Christ nearly 2000 years prior, they opted to trash the barbaric doctrine.
That much is to their credit.
But what is not to their credit is the dishonesty with which they remember this chapter of their history. Mormons generally refuse to believe that the Church leadership of the day had any culpability in the massacre. Two easily verifiable facts prove that the Church Authorities at least encouraged the deed by their doctrine: (1) blood atonement, (2) oath of vengeance of the blood of Joseph Smith.
"You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation." (The Reed Smoot Case, vol. 4, pp. 495-496)
It resembles the Arab leadership that denies any responsibility for Osama Bin Laden. Yet their own diatribes are punctuated with statements that foster the Muslim terrorists of our day.
It took 20 years to bring John D. Lee to justice, sacrificed as the scapegoat for many others, including key leaders in the Church all the way up to Brigham Young, who should have also been tried and convicted for their role.
Indeed, the crimes committed against the Mormons in their exile to the West went virtually without punishment. The world meted a double standard. It reeled in horror when some of their own were victims of atrocity at Mountain Meadows; but it essentially ignored the atrocities heaped upon the Mormons.
Meanwhile, Mormon fundamentalism toned down, and they settled into a mode of increasing comfort and acceptance, sprinkled throughout the valleys of the West.
We probably won't see the Mormons admit any time soon to their collective guilt in the Massacre that took place 144 years prior to a parallel event that we now know as 911 in our recent collective conscience. But perhaps we can see the parallel as a beacon of hope regarding Muslim fundamentalism.
Perhaps with the stark horror of 911, they have gotten their thirst for vengeance out of their system, so that fewer and fewer of them will be supportive of such extreme measures.
If we can be more understanding of the pains they have endured, before and after 911, we have a better chance that they will not be pushed further into a corner of persecution so as to levy an atrocity even more ferocious than the attack of Sept. 11.
Meanwhile, the Mormons might consider practicing what they preach and repent of their culpability in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, beginning with a confession of guilt, rather than of continued cover up.
Their recent attempt to cover up actually resulted in the accidental unearthing of bones from the site.
Meanwhile their Christian friends can practice what they preach in turn, and forgive the Mormons for the terrible dead. And the Christians can likewise admit to their guilt in their horrendous treatment of the Mormons, and the Mormons can forgive the Christians.
Then, the Muslims might consider forgiving us, as we forgive them.
Then the scales of justice that are so far out of balance might begin to be satisfied, as mercy, rather than vengeance, meets the demands of justice.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." And as long as we follow a law of vengeance, seeking "an eye for an eye," terrorism will persist and even grow.
The parallel anniversaries of September 11 are a witness from the universe to the parallels between the deeds.
May we be wise, and learn.
Sincerely,
Sterling D. Allan
Comment