CUL:The Mountian Meadows Massacre by Walter Martin from "The Kingdom of the Cults" We cannot, of course, discuss the history of the Mormons under Brigham Young in great detail because that would easily necessitate a full volume by itself, but suffice it to say that Smith gave the movement its initial thrust and Brigham Young supplied the needed momentum necessary to establish it as a bona fide religion. Young himself was a character of many facets, and one cannot understand the theology of Mormonism without understanding the tremendous influence exercised upon it by the person of "prophet" Young and his teachings. Smith and Young, in company with the pronouncements of the succeeding presidents, have made Mormon theology what it is, and apart from Brigham Young, Mormonism cannot be thoroughly understood. Young was a man of indomitable courage, possessed of a canny nature, but given of fits of ruthlessness now conveniently forgotten by Mormon historians. One such evidence of his determination to control Utah was the order which he gave to massacre over 100 non-Mormon immigrants in what has now become known as the infamous Mountain Meadows Massacre. In this particular instance, for reasons known only to himself, Young entrusted to Bishop John D. Lee in 1857 the task of annihilating a wagon train of virtually helpless immigrants. This, Bishop Lee did faithfully, and 20 years later he was imprisoned, tried, convicted and excuted by the government of the United States for this vicious, totalitarian action. In his momorable book, the confessions of John D. Lee, a consistent sore spot in the Mormon scheme of historical "reconstruction," Lee confessed to his part in the infamous doings, but he swore that he acted upon the order of Brigham Young. However, the testimony of Lee and of some of his lieutenants and others connected with the massacre indicates beyond question that Young ordered and sanctioned the action. As we further study Mormon theology, it will become apparent that this was not at all beyond the limits of Young's character; he was the law in Utah; and as it has been so wisely observed, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Mormonism today, then, is a far cry from quite a number of the principles and practices of its early founders. To be sure, it remains faithful to their basic tenets, but, as in the case of polygamy, when those tenets come in conflict with government statutes or political influence, the latter-day saints have wisely chosen to ignore (the word commonly used is "re-interpret") the counsels of their two chief prophets. The history of the mormons is a vast and complex subject; it is a veritable labyrinth of books, testimonies, affidavits, photographs, hearsay and opinions, and it is only after the most careful analysis of the contemporary evidence that a picture emerges consistent with verifiable facts. For the average faithful Mormon, one can but have sympathy and regard. He is, by and large, honest, industrious, thrifty and zealous in both the proclamation and promulgation of his beliefs. One only regrets that he has accepted at face value a carefully edited "history" of the origin and doctrinal development of his religion instead of examining the excellent sources which not only contradict but irrefutably prove the falsity of what is most certainly a magnificent reconstructed history. It is to be hoped that as we further study the unfolding drama of Mormon doctrine, and the Mormonism and the pitfalls which most certainly exist in taking at face value the gospel according to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. The verdict of history, then, is overwhelmingly against the Mormon version, particularly where Smith and Young are concerned; and there is a vast amount of documentation all but a few Mormons seem content to ignore, but the facts themselves remain too well verified to be ignored.