Mountain Meadows 1990

[Sentinus]

I found this interesting, and wanted to know if anyone here knew of this. If what this Woman claims is true, then the act is despicable at best.

Catherine Baker wrote:

My name is Catherine Baker. Captain John T. Baker was my grandfather's, Peter P. Baker 1879 - 1970, great-uncle. This wagon train was not the first trip west made by either, Captain John Baker, nor Alexander Fancher. John Baker had made previous trips to California for the purpose of herding cattle to sell. The members of this materially rich wagon train were headed to California to make it their permanent homes. I speak only for myself when I state that I attended the memorial services in Cedar City, UT in 1990 by invitation of President Hinkley. I was touched by President Hinkley's message of forgiveness and reconciliation when he acknowledged the Mormon Church's participation in the Massacre and simultaneously absolved the Piute Indian Nation. I remember too, following the speech of President Hinkley, a beautiful prayer given by a Piute Chief in his native language. I didn't understand the words, but my heart understood the melodic blessings. I regret being unable to recall his name. At the time, the descendents of the Massacre did not question President Hinkley's edict that no cameras, recorders etc would be allowed at the memorial (attended by hundreds), nor did we object to the Mormon members searching our pockets and handbags before we entered the roofed stadium. President Hinkley announced at the beginning of the ceremonies that "the Church" would be recording the ceremony on video and we could "obtain copies" at a later date. Ironically, none of the descendants have ever been able to "obtain" that video. I had always considered the delays a matter of massive-church-red-tape; until . . . Mr. Hinkley, current President of the Church of Latter-Day-Saints, stated at a public re-dedication ceremony at Mountain Meadows in 1999, "My presence here today is in no way an acknowledgement of the church's participation in what happened her in 1857." My family attended the memorial that was held in Cedar City in 1990. I'll never forget sitting in the front row of the "descendents," between my 85 year old uncle and my 81 year old father. One of the most touching moments was when President Hinkley spoke and said the Mormon church was "taking responsibility" for what happened that day. (My grandfather required all of us kids to read Juanita Brooks, "Mountain Meadows Massacre" when we reached the age of 13. Even as recent as the 1960s and 1970s, there were still some Mormons who insisted the Church was not involved; but instead, it was the Piutes. So, when President Hinkley made that statement we truly trusted and believed the sincerity of the extended hand of attempted resolution and forgiveness. President Hinkley, at one point, asked the Morman members sitting in the stands (surrounding the descendents sitting in chairs on the stadium floor) that if they were related to, or knew someone directly involved in the massacre to please stand. I'm guess-ti-mating that 60-75% of the people stood. It was a very powerful moment. I (and we) felt the enormity of feeling coming from those who stood and in so doing, we felt, took responsibility for the actions of their ancestors - something they, personally, did not do or condone stood in a way for us and extended their hearts to us. (A humorous aside: my 86 year old uncle always uncomfortable in emotional moments turned to me and whispered as the thousands of Morman church members stood, "look how many of them there are - wonder if they just brought us here to finish us off?") Now, sadly, it wasn't that long ago, I read the speech given by president Hinkley on the occassion of the 1999 memorial and he said, "my presence here is in no way an admission of our participation" in the event that took place here in 1857. For me all that feeling of healing dissipated in the words of one, short sentence. In 1990, after the formal ceremonies in Cedar City, everyone drove to Mountain Meadow for the dedication. Most everyone had nametags on, so it was easy to identify who was who and which side of the 50-yard line they stood. I didn't feel anger, but instead, I felt an immense sadness because of the number of Mormons who approached me to talk. Over and over I heard those words, "we understand" or "I understand" why they did what they did. They would tell me that our family had called them names, insulted them, poisoned their water, killed their farm animals etc. etc. In truth, several times, my face turned red with rage and frustration because I truly believe those folks did not hear what they were saying. To my ears, they were excusing, or at the very least "understanding" those murderous actions. In an nutshell, it is what I was told by my grandfather, whose father was a brother to Captain Jack Baker... he required in-depth reading of Mountain Meadow and in-depth discussion after we read it. He tried to teach us this "I do not want you to look upon these deaths and feel that your feelings of revenge or hate is justified. It is not. I want you to look upon this event as a repetition of man's inhumanity to man. We all have that potential to be evil and it is a choice we make. Look back through history and know 'the evil of men live after them and the good oft interred with their bones' . . . over and over again in history - the Egyptians enslaving the Jews, the Christians burning the 'heretics' at the stake, the Germans killing the Jewish people, the Americans enslaving the Blacks, the Irish Protestants and the Catholics killing each other for centuries, Henry VIII killing all the priests, nuns and Catholic people in his realm and then his daughter comes to power and kills all of Henry's people who converted along with him. Over and over and over and over for thousands of years and we still continue to choose evil."

Catherine Baker

Regards,

Sentinus

[LifeOnaPlate]

I found this interesting, and wanted to know if anyone here knew of this. If what this Woman claims is true, then the act is despicable at best.

Catherine Baker wrote:

My name is Catherine Baker. Captain John T. Baker was my grandfather's, Peter P. Baker 1879 - 1970, great-uncle. This wagon train was not the first trip west made by either, Captain John Baker, nor Alexander Fancher. John Baker had made previous trips to California for the purpose of herding cattle to sell. The members of this materially rich wagon train were headed to California to make it their permanent homes. I speak only for myself when I state that I attended the memorial services in Cedar City, UT in 1990 by invitation of President Hinkley. I was touched by President Hinkley's message of forgiveness and reconciliation when he acknowledged the Mormon Church's participation in the Massacre and simultaneously absolved the Piute Indian Nation. I remember too, following the speech of President Hinkley, a beautiful prayer given by a Piute Chief in his native language. I didn't understand the words, but my heart understood the melodic blessings. I regret being unable to recall his name. At the time, the descendents of the Massacre did not question President Hinkley's edict that no cameras, recorders etc would be allowed at the memorial (attended by hundreds), nor did we object to the Mormon members searching our pockets and handbags before we entered the roofed stadium. President Hinkley announced at the beginning of the ceremonies that "the Church" would be recording the ceremony on video and we could "obtain copies" at a later date. Ironically, none of the descendants have ever been able to "obtain" that video. I had always considered the delays a matter of massive-church-red-tape; until . . . Mr. Hinkley, current President of the Church of Latter-Day-Saints, stated at a public re-dedication ceremony at Mountain Meadows in 1999, "My presence here today is in no way an acknowledgement of the church's participation in what happened her in 1857." My family attended the memorial that was held in Cedar City in 1990. I'll never forget sitting in the front row of the "descendents," between my 85 year old uncle and my 81 year old father. One of the most touching moments was when President Hinkley spoke and said the Mormon church was "taking responsibility" for what happened that day. (My grandfather required all of us kids to read Juanita Brooks, "Mountain Meadows Massacre" when we reached the age of 13. Even as recent as the 1960s and 1970s, there were still some Mormons who insisted the Church was not involved; but instead, it was the Piutes. So, when President Hinkley made that statement we truly trusted and believed the sincerity of the extended hand of attempted resolution and forgiveness. President Hinkley, at one point, asked the Morman members sitting in the stands (surrounding the descendents sitting in chairs on the stadium floor) that if they were related to, or knew someone directly involved in the massacre to please stand. I'm guess-ti-mating that 60-75% of the people stood. It was a very powerful moment. I (and we) felt the enormity of feeling coming from those who stood and in so doing, we felt, took responsibility for the actions of their ancestors - something they, personally, did not do or condone stood in a way for us and extended their hearts to us. (A humorous aside: my 86 year old uncle always uncomfortable in emotional moments turned to me and whispered as the thousands of Morman church members stood, "look how many of them there are - wonder if they just brought us here to finish us off?") Now, sadly, it wasn't that long ago, I read the speech given by president Hinkley on the occassion of the 1999 memorial and he said, "my presence here is in no way an admission of our participation" in the event that took place here in 1857. For me all that feeling of healing dissipated in the words of one, short sentence. In 1990, after the formal ceremonies in Cedar City, everyone drove to Mountain Meadow for the dedication. Most everyone had nametags on, so it was easy to identify who was who and which side of the 50-yard line they stood. I didn't feel anger, but instead, I felt an immense sadness because of the number of Mormons who approached me to talk. Over and over I heard those words, "we understand" or "I understand" why they did what they did. They would tell me that our family had called them names, insulted them, poisoned their water, killed their farm animals etc. etc. In truth, several times, my face turned red with rage and frustration because I truly believe those folks did not hear what they were saying. To my ears, they were excusing, or at the very least "understanding" those murderous actions. In an nutshell, it is what I was told by my grandfather, whose father was a brother to Captain Jack Baker... he required in-depth reading of Mountain Meadow and in-depth discussion after we read it. He tried to teach us this "I do not want you to look upon these deaths and feel that your feelings of revenge or hate is justified. It is not. I want you to look upon this event as a repetition of man's inhumanity to man. We all have that potential to be evil and it is a choice we make. Look back through history and know 'the evil of men live after them and the good oft interred with their bones' . . . over and over again in history - the Egyptians enslaving the Jews, the Christians burning the 'heretics' at the stake, the Germans killing the Jewish people, the Americans enslaving the Blacks, the Irish Protestants and the Catholics killing each other for centuries, Henry VIII killing all the priests, nuns and Catholic people in his realm and then his daughter comes to power and kills all of Henry's people who converted along with him. Over and over and over and over for thousands of years and we still continue to choose evil."

Catherine Baker

Regards,

Sentinus

Which "act"?

[bluebell]

Could it not be a misunderstanding in the wording-

As far as i have read-the church, in this era, has never denied that church members committed the murders, but the church has never ever claimed that the Church as an organization was behind it.

In that light, it would be very possible for pres. hinckely to acknowledge that church members were invovled and at another time declare that the Church was not without any deceit being intended.

[spunky_christine]

I think there must be several versions of this story out there and if the one you post is her own words then perhaps she misunderstood. I don't think GBH took responsibility on behalf of the Church/BY, I think he expressed regret for the tragedy and admitted that there was definite action on a local level.

But I am no expert on this by any means. In fact, I have just recently learned what MMM was all about. It is a sad/terrible story, as are many others in our world's history. You and I had nothing to do with these events; therefore, our only responsibility where they are concerned is to learn what we can about them and make sure we and our loved ones are in no way involved in such hideous acts in the future.

Christine

[rick7475]

What act are we talking about?

The MMM, yes, it was horrible.

Members approaching her family and trying to lay the blame on the Fancher party for inciting the militia, yes, if, and that's a big if, her version of events are to be believed.

That the video of the event has not been available? Has she asked the church about a video? Is she saying it has been denied to the descendants?

That President Hinckley said the church was taking full blame for the MMM. No, President Hinckley never said the church was to blame, or BY was to blame. She read Juanita Brooks, she should know that BY did not order the massacre.

So, in conclusion, the dispicable act involved here is tha anti-Mormon retoric that continues to try and pin the blame of the MMM on the LDS church. The blame goes to the stake president and several milita officers from Cedar City and surrounding areas. The church is not run soley by militia officers or one or two stake presidents.

[Confidential Informant]

Just out of curiosity: Why would "president" Hinckely have conducted the meeting in 1990 when President Benson was the prophet and Howard W. Hunter was next in seniority.

Moreover, can anyone verify the 1990 meeting? Surely there must be some other eyewitness to the events descwibed. Surely if a church official had accepted church responsibility then Will Bagley, et. al., would have ntoed such an event.

I sorry to play the defense lawyer role again, but something about this stinks.

C.I.

[Calm]

Here, CI. I think this is what you want: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/respons...Meadows_EOM.htm

Yet for more than another century after Lee's death, the community guilt of those who participated in the massacre continued to fester alongside the collective pain of both the children who survived it and the relatives of those who did not. Then in the late 1980s, the descendants of those affected by the tragedy began meeting to bind the wounds and achieve a reconciliation. On September 15, 1990, many of them gathered to dedicate a memorial marker to those who died at the Mountain Meadows.

One speaker at the marker dedication was Judge Roger V. Logan, Jr., of Harrison, Arkansas, a man related to twenty-one of the massacre victims listed on the marker, as well as to five of the children who survived. "I am happy to say that thanks to the work, cooperation and gifts of many of you," he said, "there is now an appropriate monument standing in the place of the emigrants' demise; a monument containing the names of eighty-two persons who died and seventeen who survived and [that] also contains reference to many others who may have been a part of the caravan." As he read the victims' names, he asked all related to them to stand in their honor.

Brigham Young University President Rex E. Lee, a descendant of John D. Lee, also spoke at the memorial service, saying he found little solace in recognizing that similar tragedies had occurred across time and space. "Any attempt to recreate the human dynamics that were at work in southern Utah in the fall of 1857 can only leave us bewildered as to how rational human beings at any time, in any place, under any circumstances could have permitted such a tragedy to occur."

"Fortunately," he added, "full comprehension of the reasons is as unnecessary as it would be impossible. Our task for today is not to look backward, nor to rationalize, nor to engage in any kind of retroactive analysis nor apology. Our focus is not on 1857. It is on 1990. It is on our generation, and on those that are yet to come. And whatever drove the actions of those who came before, ours must be driven by something higher and more noble."

Gordon B. Hinckley, First Counselor in the LDS Church First Presidency, offered the prayer dedicating the new monument. In a talk delivered before the prayer, President Hinckley said he came "not as a descendant of any of the parties involved at Mountain Meadows" but "as a representative of an entire people who have suffered much over what occurred there."

"In our time," he said, "we can read such history as is available, but we really cannot understand nor comprehend that which occurred those tragic and terrible September days in 1857. Rather, we are grateful for the ameliorating influence that has brought us together in a spirit of reconciliation as new generations gather with respect and appreciation one for another. A bridge has been built across a chasm of cankering bitterness. We walk across that bridge and greet one another with a spirit of love, forgiveness, and with hope that there will never be a repetition of anything of the kind." (Excerpts from the talks are all taken from unpublished manuscripts found in the Mountain Meadows Memorial collection, LDS Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

[Pahoran]

Just out of curiosity: Why would "president" Hinckely have conducted the meeting in 1990 when President Benson was the prophet and Howard W. Hunter was next in seniority.

IIRC, President Hinckley has been in the First Presidency continuously since about the mid 1980's.

Moreover, can anyone verify the 1990 meeting? Surely there must be some other eyewitness to the events descwibed.

Descwibed? Dwat that wascawwy wabbit!

Surely if a church official had accepted church responsibility then Will Bagley, et. al., would have ntoed such an event.

Oh, yes. They'd all over it like flies on manure. It's what they'd love more than anything. That way, it wouldn't matter what subsequent scholarship showed, they'd forever after be trying to shove that admission down our throats as canonised Church doctrine.

I sorry to play the defense lawyer role again, but something about this stinks.

For my money, I think Ms. Baker heard only what she wanted to hear. President Hinckley probably said something equivalent to, "and worst of all, the perpetrators of the massacre were members of the Church," and she took that to mean that he was admitting that the Church was responsible for the massacre. So when he subsequently said that the Church was not responsible, she saw some kind of backpedalling, when in fact no such admission as she imagined had ever been made.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hawkmoon]

I found this interesting, and wanted to know if anyone here knew of this. If what this Woman claims is true, then the act is despicable at best.

...

Regards,

Sentinus

Is that all you have to add? Really? Are you going to enlighten us as to what "despicable act" you are referring to? Or is this just another MMM drive-by?

[Oshman]

An ensign article is scheduled for September 07, which deals with the MMM, which maybe of interest to all.

"Richard E. Turley Jr., â??The Mountain Meadows Massacre,â? Ensign, Sep 2007

This September marks the 150th anniversary of a terrible episode in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On September 11, 1857, some 50 to 60 local militiamen in southern Utah, aided by American Indian allies, massacred about 120 emigrants who were traveling by wagon to California. The horrific crime, which spared only 17 children age six and under, occurred in a highland valley called the Mountain Meadows, roughly 35 miles southwest of Cedar City. The victims, most of them from Arkansas, were on their way to California with dreams of a bright future.

For a century and a half the Mountain Meadows Massacre has shocked and distressed those who have learned of it. The tragedy has deeply grieved the victimsâ?? relatives, burdened the perpetratorsâ?? descendants and Church members generally with sorrow and feelings of collective guilt, unleashed criticism on the Church, and raised painful, difficult questions. How could this have happened? How could members of the Church have participated in such a crime?"

To read on go here.

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu...__&locale=0

[Deborah]

It sounds like this was written several years after the 1990 ceremony, and if that is the case then it is not only a matter of hearing what one wants to hear, as Pahoran said, but of remembering what she thinks she heard. Memory is very faulty, especially when one has an agenda.

The church has never accepted blame for this horrible incident, nor should they. Those who were responsible will be held accountable in the eternities.

Nice try Sentinus.

[cjcampbell]

I am often struck by the parallels between the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the massacre of the MacDonalds at Glencoe. Both of these were heinous crimes, and both have large victim associations that insist on group guilt for the actions of a few members of the group. In the one case, people seem to insist on blaming the entire church for the Mountain Meadows massacre, while in the other, people want to blame all Campbells for Glencoe (despite the fact that no Campbells were present -- indeed, my own ancestors were already in America at the time).

There is something extremely immoral about the concept of collective guilt. This is how long-running feuds get started. "Your brother killed my brother, therefore I am going to kill you" gets extended down through the generations until you have conflicts such as those that have been running in the Middle East since the days of Abraham.

The Church will never be able to apologize enough for an event for which the general body and leadership had no responsibility. If the Church was so intent on murdering the Fanchers, why did so many members and leaders, Brigham Young included, render so much assistance to the train despite the fact that there was a serious drought and the members expected, at any moment, to have the might of the armed forces of the United States to descend on them at any moment like a pack of howling wolves? Why blame the Church for the actions of John D. Lee and not give the Church credit for the actions of Jacob Hamblin who guided the party to water and grass and who tried to stop the massacre?

Those who insist on collective guilt are essentially making the same error as those who committed the atrocity at Mountain Meadows. It was wrong to blame the Arkansans for the persecutions that the Saints had endured up to that time. It is just as wrong for the Bakers and Fanchers of today to blame the entire Church for the massacre.