Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
Let me ask this (I'm sure it's less than 50/50 anyone will have the gumption to answer). Given what we know about Mormon culture and respect for chain of comand even today, and the size of the Mormon community at that time and Brigham Young's stature and presence in it, how much sense does it make that the actual perpetrators of the crime did this on their own initiative?
This reminds me more of the Manson murders than anything else. Charles Manson was never at the scene of any murder for which he was convicted. The prosecutor's theory, which carried the day, was that he was the puppeteer of the Tate LaBianca murderers who wielded the knives. Obviously, such a case could only be proven circumstantially.
|
Really? I think it makes a ton of sense.
You simply need to put the event into a historical context. The handcart company that was slaughtered came from Arkansas where a prominent Mormon had just been murdered. They were boasting that they had played a part in the murder. They also boasted during their journey from SLC to MM that they had poisoned the wells of the Mormons. They named their oxen Joseph Smith and then roundly whipped them.
The Mormons were already a paranoid bunch, after having been run out of several states by mobs and had the US army sent to destroy them. Can you imagine a more paranoid environment?
Then you have BY saying very inflamatory things, talking about blood atonement, and you have an explosion waiting to happen.
I think history shows that he had no idea they were going to be slaughtered. But I think it also suggests that he helped foster an environment where it could happen.
To say that something like this simply couldn't happen in the early church without direct orders just isn't true.