Massacre At Mountain Meadows

[katherine the great]

They continued to make the best choice they could, based on their values and options.

Read the book.

[katherine the great]

Did you find reading the book to be emotionally draining? The reason I ask is that I just read the little passage from Andrew Jensonâ??s diary (page xi), and I have a regrettable tendency towards unhealthy empathy so Iâ??m now filled with a bit of trepidation.

Thanks,

Stu

I revise my answer to: By chapter 13, it becomes difficult to read.

[Theophilus07]

But he [Lee]was a control freak and ended up being a coward and murderer and Brigham Young excommunicated him. You really need to read this book.

Were you aware that Pres. E.T. Benson rescinded the excommunication and restored all of Lee's priesthood and temple benefits?

Theophilus07

[katherine the great]

Were you aware that Pres. E.T. Benson rescinded the excommunication and restored all of Lee's priesthood and temple benefits?

Theophilus07

My comment was not about Lee, it was about Haight.

[Daniel Peterson]

In his FAIR Conference presentation yesterday, Daniel Peterson mentioned a discussion he has been having on another message board with individuals who are certain the new book is a whitewash, that it is full of lies, etc., this without their having ever laid eyes on it.

Hate to say it, but such a reaction is rather predictable from some quarters. One would hope as the book becomes better known generally, such ignorant dismissal will be increasingly viewed as unacceptable.

One of the more vocal critics on that other board has ordered me to come here and point out that not all of the posters on that board have denounced Massacre at Mountain Meadows as worthless and "lame" without having ever seen it. Most have not gone so far. Instead, without having laid eyes on the book, they've been discussing the authors' bias, the authors' conflict of interests, the issues that the authors didn't deal with, etc.

One person on the board, it must be admitted, claims actually to have read the book. â??The book DOES explicitly state that the people didn't have it coming," he says. "This way critics can't claim it doesn't make the statement. But . . . " "Similarly," he reports, "the book DOES explicitly state that the vast bulk of the fighting and killing was done by white men and white men disguised as indians. This way critics can't claim that it doesn't make the statement. But . . . â?

It turns out, according to this fellow, that the real purpose of Massacre at Mountain Meadows is to reassure "TBMs" that the people of the immigrant wagon train did have it coming and that the vast bulk of the fighting and killing was really done by Indians. Fortunately, the mere fact that the authors expressly contradict both of those propositions was not enough to make this extraordinarily perceptive reader lose the scent. He immediately saw through the fiendishly cunning plan laid by the three so-called Mormon "historians."

[LifeOnaPlate]

One of the more vocal critics on that other board has ordered me to come here and point out that not all of the posters on that board have denounced Massacre at Mountain Meadows as worthless and "lame" without having ever seen it. Most have not gone so far. Instead, without having laid eyes on the book, they've been discussing the authors' bias, the authors' conflict of interests, the issues that the authors didn't deal with, etc.

One person on the board, it must be admitted, claims actually to have read the book. â??The book DOES explicitly state that the people didn't have it coming," he says. "This way critics can't claim it doesn't make the statement. But . . . " "Similarly," he reports, "the book DOES explicitly state that the vast bulk of the fighting and killing was done by white men and white men disguised as indians. This way critics can't claim that it doesn't make the statement. But . . . â?

It turns out, according to this fellow, that the real purpose of Massacre at Mountain Meadows is to reassure "TBMs" that the people of the immigrant wagon train did have it coming and that the vast bulk of the fighting and killing was really done by Indians. Fortunately, the mere fact that the authors expressly contradict both of those propositions was not enough to make this extraordinarily perceptive reader lose the scent. He immediately saw through the fiendishly cunning plan laid by the three so-called Mormon "historians."

A "reverse psychology" theory of historical analysis. I like it!

[Scott Lloyd]

One of the more vocal critics on that other board has ordered me to come here and point out that not all of the posters on that board have denounced Massacre at Mountain Meadows as worthless and "lame" without having ever seen it. Most have not gone so far. Instead, without having laid eyes on the book, they've been discussing the authors' bias, the authors' conflict of interests, the issues that the authors didn't deal with, etc.

One person on the board, it must be admitted, claims actually to have read the book. â??The book DOES explicitly state that the people didn't have it coming," he says. "This way critics can't claim it doesn't make the statement. But . . . " "Similarly," he reports, "the book DOES explicitly state that the vast bulk of the fighting and killing was done by white men and white men disguised as indians. This way critics can't claim that it doesn't make the statement. But . . . â?

It turns out, according to this fellow, that the real purpose of Massacre at Mountain Meadows is to reassure "TBMs" that the people of the immigrant wagon train did have it coming and that the vast bulk of the fighting and killing was really done by Indians. Fortunately, the mere fact that the authors expressly contradict both of those propositions was not enough to make this extraordinarily perceptive reader lose the scent. He immediately saw through the fiendishly cunning plan laid by the three so-called Mormon "historians."

JUst about the time I think I can no longer be astounded by anti-Mormon rhetoric and spin, somebody comes along to disprove that notion.

[Scott Lloyd]

Were you aware that Pres. E.T. Benson rescinded the excommunication and restored all of Lee's priesthood and temple benefits?

Theophilus07

I think you're wrong about it being President Benson. I think it happened earlier than that.

At any rate, I heard Turley briefly address this at a conference when somebody posed a question about it. The gist of his response, as I recall, was that the restoration of blessings was in the interest of placating descendants and leaving the matter to God.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

I thought it was Grant or Joseph F. Smith that restored him posthumously.

Er something.

[Scott Lloyd]

... I don't know if this incident pricked Dame's conscience or if he simply didn't want to be involved in the attack, but he was not at all supportive of the massacre--nor was anyone from Parowan (that anyone knows about.)

I think you're letting Dame off a bit too easily. Dame let Haight pressure him into it and, as militia commander, bears some degree of guilt. See the account of the "tan bark council" on pages 178-79.

I thought it was Grant or Joseph F. Smith that restored him posthumously.Er something.

Yeah. I'm fairly certain it happened before I was born -- which would pre-date David O. McKay.There may be something about it in Juanita Brooks's book, but my copy is at work.

[Theophilus07]

The messenger left before the arrival of the train, and obviously before the massacre.

No, LeSellers, though much of the rest of your posts depends on this mistaken belief, the truth is that, according to Turley et al, Haight dispatched Haslam to ride to SLC that Monday hours after the attack and hours after Haight learned by messenger of Lee's disastrous initial attack. [MAMM, p162]

Theophilus07

[Theophilus07]

One person on the board, it must be admitted, claims actually to have read the book. â??The book DOES explicitly state that the people didn't have it coming," he says. "This way critics can't claim it doesn't make the statement. But . . . "

The entire quote (which Dr. Peterson redacts to the above) said: "I can tell you, as you'll discover for yourself, that the book DOES explicitly state that the people didn't have it coming. This way critics can't claim it doesn't make the statement. But it also spends much of the narrative on the rumors and presents the southern Utah leaders and populace as reacting to the information in the rumors. Of course, if they're not true, then the southern Utah leaders and populace couldn't be reacting to them. But by focusing a significant amount of narrative on the rumors and their effect in southern Utah, I'm sure Chapel Mormons will remember that part and discount the "they didn't have it coming" part as inconsistent with what they've been taught."

As it turns out, I, too, have read MMAM and I agree with the unnamed poster on the unnamable board about the classic attorney doubletalk in which MMAM says the Francher party didn't have it coming, but the threats meant they did have it coming. That is, the threats didn't justify the massacre, but they did make it understandable. MMAM uses much of Chapter 9 to detail the threats. Pages 132 and 133 are particularly interesting about the "little over one hour" the Francher party spent in Cedar City generating enough threats and meanness that the Saints had no choice but to chase after them to Mountain Meadows to kill all the men, women, and most of the children.

I don't know about how Chapel Mormons will react, though I suspect the unnamed poster is correct about their interpretation, but I do know that here in this forum, the discussion has been about how the threats forced the Cedar City Saints to kill the Francher party.

Scott Lloyd @ Aug 6 2008, 05:05 PM) Post 132, quotes the Turley book as saying:

"These statements, however, would have required remarkable prescience on Smith's part. Even if he knew which trains would take the northern or southern routes to California, it is doubtful that he knew their behavior on the road would include making threats against southern Utah people."

Scott Lloyd @ Aug 6 2008, 05:44 PM) Post 139

â??The documented scenario in the book is essentially that against the background of alarm engendered by the advance of the U.S. army, rumors along the trail and the reckless behavior and taunts of some of the emigrants started a spiral that culminated with the massacre. The plan first was to effect a "brush" against the Fancher train, steal some cattle and blame it all on the Indians. It became complicated when some of the surviving emigrants observed participation by white men. Then, it became a matter of leaving no one alive who was old enough to tell any tales"

LeSellers Aug 7 2008, 11:20 AM Post 168

"My view of their motive is that the F-B folks were mad about not being able to buy what they wanted, and were threatening the Saints with a reprisal in the form of US Army Troops from California. Given that Johnston's Army was enroute at that very minute, the threat was more than just credible. Their primary motivation was abject fear, as I see the situation."

LeSellers Aug 7 2008, 11:28 AM Post 170

"We must look at their motivation. The only one that makes the grade as far as I can tell is their deep-seated fear of their own destruction. Theirs was a preemptive defensive strike. Ill-timed, ill-conceived, and wholly beyond the pale, it is at least understandable when we consider the times and threats they faced. What motivation could have prompted them to attack without massacring them?

The only reason for the Saints to have attacked was to keep them from reaching their destination so their threat of retaliation by means of the Army could not be realized. "

LeSellers Aug 7 2008, 08:11 PM Post 197

"One's first duty is to protect his family.

The Saints of Parowan, as I have evaluated the evidence, were terrified that the Fancher-Baker party would complain to the Army in California (as they had threatened to do) and bring back troops to punish them for not selling them provisions (among other things). They knew their situation was precarious, at best: poor defenses and isolated from any succor or support. Doing away with the train was the only way (and try as I might, I cannot envision another myself, in my comfortable chair and not feeling the threat personally, 160 years later â?? given their fears) they could fulfill that duty. "

Before MMAM, the Church's defense of the MMM was "the Francher party had it coming." As far as I can tell, MMAM says, "no the Francher party didn't have it coming, but it did have it coming." And the Internet Mormons on this forum appear to be saying that the Francher party didn't have it coming, but that Francher party threats forced the Cedar City Saints to massacre the party, anyway.

Theophilus07

[Zakuska]

The entire quote (which Dr. Peterson redacts to the above) said: "I can tell you, as you'll discover for yourself, that the book DOES explicitly state that the people didn't have it coming. This way critics can't claim it doesn't make the statement. But it also spends much of the narrative on the rumors and presents the southern Utah leaders and populace as reacting to the information in the rumors. Of course, if they're not true, then the southern Utah leaders and populace couldn't be reacting to them. But by focusing a significant amount of narrative on the rumors and their effect in southern Utah, I'm sure Chapel Mormons will remember that part and discount the "they didn't have it coming" part as inconsistent with what they've been taught."

Rumors... even if not true doesn't mean the people can't react to them.

For example... the Poison in the water whole... turns out it was probably anthrax. It doesn't mean that the rumor did not fly that they had poisoned the water whole or what not... and the Indians etc. did think it was them instead of Anthrax.

[TAK]

Scott:

If Bagley et al. could so badly garble the facts on the subject of the massacre, I don't have much reason to trust them on the subject of the alleged cover-up.

Scott since you have read both.. Can you identify the facts that Bagley so â??badly garbledâ??

[gmormon]

...

Katherine and gmormon, I'm glad you are enjoying (if that's the right word) the book. Analytics, I'm glad you have pledged to read it. It would seem that Katherine has powers of persuasion that others of us lack.

Enjoying... wouldn't quite be the word I would use. However I am being edified and looking at some events and things closer with questions. With this said my overall opinion hasn't changed, however I am only to chapter nine. "That darn honey dew list got in the way of me just reading, and church responsibilities, and the kids, ..., and then of course there is that big Sabbath Day Breaking Event going on that has caught my very much "divided" attention."

[Doctor Steuss]

I revise my answer to: By chapter 13, it becomes difficult to read.

Thank you for the heads-up Katherine. It is very appreciated.

[katherine the great]

No, LeSellers, though much of the rest of your posts depends on this mistaken belief, the truth is that, according to Turley et al, Haight dispatched Haslam to ride to SLC that Monday hours after the attack and hours after Haight learned by messenger of Lee's disastrous initial attack. [MAMM, p162]

Theophilus07

I agree with you on this. If I remember correctly, the original plan was for the attack to happen at the Santa Clara River--further down the trail from Mountain meadows. Haight had reluctantly agreed to send a messenger to Brigham Young at the Sunday night meeting (Sept. 6.) Lee had changed the plan and the initial attack (which killed at least five emigrants) happened Monday morning (Sept 7) at Mountain Meadows. Haight had still not sent the messenger when he heard about the "stand off", and THEN he hastened to send a messenger to Young and a messenger back to Lee telling him to hold off.

[gmormon]

Signed 1st MASSACRE AT MOUNTAIN MEADOWS Mormon History

SOLD OUT FIRST PRINTING - SIGNED BY ALL 3 AUTHORS Mint Item number: 270263992881

Available on Ebay $49.99 starting bid "BTW this isn't my auction"

[katherine the great]

As it turns out, I, too, have read MMAM and I agree with the unnamed poster on the unnamable board about the classic attorney doubletalk in which MMAM says the Francher party didn't have it coming, but the threats meant they did have it coming. That is, the threats didn't justify the massacre, but they did make it understandable. MMAM uses much of Chapter 9 to detail the threats. Pages 132 and 133 are particularly interesting about the "little over one hour" the Francher party spent in Cedar City generating enough threats and meanness that the Saints had no choice but to chase after them to Mountain Meadows to kill all the men, women, and most of the children.

I don't know about how Chapel Mormons will react, though I suspect the unnamed poster is correct about their interpretation, but I do know that here in this forum, the discussion has been about how the threats forced the Cedar City Saints to kill the Francher party

I disagree with you on this part. It is true that the book does detail the days preceding the event quite closely. This is something no other book has done, and I think it is what makes this book so superior to the others. It does not only include rumors. It also has footnotes of minutes of some of the local meetings that demonstrate that there was some trouble with the emigrants. I think the book is very fair in this respect. There are many accounts of settlers who report that the emigrants seemed very nice. Other accounts say that there were a FEW of them who were extremely obnoxious in their behavior. One thing that cannot be doubted is that the emigrants had a very hard time securing supplies along the way. Any reasonable person would agree that a wagon train of that size would have some members who would react to the settler' constant refusal to help them. I find it understandable that the Cedar City residents were annoyed with a few of the emigrants. I can even see them staying mad at them for a day or two. I have a hard time seeing past that though. I think that if Isaac Haight had actually been present for the attack, he might have called it off. I mean, really. He would have seen that the wagon train was made up mostly of children and women. How they could have felt threatened by them is still a mystery to me.

[gmormon]

A little off thread but has anybody here puchased and read this book yet "House of Mourning: A Biocultural History of the Mountain Meadows Massacre"?

[Daniel Peterson]

As it turns out, I, too, have read MMAM and I agree with the unnamed poster on the unnamable board about the classic attorney doubletalk in which MMAM says the Francher party didn't have it coming, but the threats meant they did have it coming.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. I see no "classic attorney doubletalk" in the book, and I certainly don't see anything in the book or in anything that they've ever said to suggest that the authors believe that the victims "did have it coming." Precisely and repeatedly the opposite, in fact.

That is, the threats didn't justify the massacre, but they did make it understandable.

Sigh. To try to understand the factors that led otherwise good and decent people to do a horrifically evil act is a very different thing from attempting to justify that act.

Pages 132 and 133 are particularly interesting about the "little over one hour" the Francher party spent in Cedar City generating enough threats and meanness that the Saints had no choice but to chase after them to Mountain Meadows to kill all the men, women, and most of the children.

Oh come on. Massacre at Mountain Meadows absolutely never claims that "the Saints had no choice but to . . . kill all the men, women, and most of the children."

Good grief.

[Scott Lloyd]

The entire quote (which Dr. Peterson redacts to the above) said: "I can tell you, as you'll discover for yourself, that the book DOES explicitly state that the people didn't have it coming. This way critics can't claim it doesn't make the statement. But it also spends much of the narrative on the rumors and presents the southern Utah leaders and populace as reacting to the information in the rumors. Of course, if they're not true, then the southern Utah leaders and populace couldn't be reacting to them. But by focusing a significant amount of narrative on the rumors and their effect in southern Utah, I'm sure Chapel Mormons will remember that part and discount the "they didn't have it coming" part as inconsistent with what they've been taught."

Seems to me from this that Dr. Peterson's rendition was quite accurate.

As it turns out, I, too, have read MMAM and I agree with the unnamed poster on the unnamable board about the classic attorney doubletalk in which MMAM says the Francher party didn't have it coming, but the threats meant they did have it coming. That is, the threats didn't justify the massacre, but they did make it understandable. MMAM uses much of Chapter 9 to detail the threats. Pages 132 and 133 are particularly interesting about the "little over one hour" the Francher party spent in Cedar City generating enough threats and meanness that the Saints had no choice but to chase after them to Mountain Meadows to kill all the men, women, and most of the children.

With all his blustering about "classic attorney double-talk" Theophilus07 is ignoring very clear and unequivocal statements such as the following from page 115:

There were conflicts on the southern road. But the emigrants did not deserve what eventually happened to them at Mountain Meadows. The massacre was not ineveitable. No easy absolution for the perpetrators is possible. Their later posturing and rationalization cold never overcome one irrefutable fact: All the purported wrongs of the emigrants -- even if true -- did not justify the killing of a single person. The best that could be argued was that during the a time of uncertainty and possible war, some of the Mormons, like other men and women throughout history, did not match their behavior with their ideals.

I don't know about how Chapel Mormons will react, though I suspect the unnamed poster is correct about their interpretation,

I reject the "chapel Mormon/Internet Mormon" dichotomy as an extremely simplistic myth created by anti-Mormons to explain why their deficient arguments don't hold sway with knowledgeable Church members. But if one must apply the label "chapel Mormon," I am as much a candidate as anybody else. And I have not reacted to the book in the predicted way.

but I do know that here in this forum, the discussion has been about how the threats forced the Cedar City Saints to kill the Francher party.

In cherry-picking these quotes from this thread, Theophilus07 has distorted the position of LeSellers and of me in the same way his buddies on the other board have distorted the position of the authors of the new book. Thus, they are subject to the very same selective view as they attribute to their fictitious "chapel Mormon" population. I'm trusting that a reasonable person can see through such sophistry.

Before MMAM [sic], the Church's defense of the MMM was "the Francher [sic] party had it coming."

Call for references. Show us even one instance in which "the Church" has said "the Fancher party had it coming." Since the book was not published until late last month, I could insist that your example be very recent. But I'll give some leeway of, say, the past 25 years or so. And remember, since it is "the Church" that you are libeling, your example must be by way of an official statement, or something from officially published Church curriculum material or magazines.

[katherine the great]

I think you're letting Dame off a bit too easily. Dame let Haight pressure him into it and, as militia commander, bears some degree of guilt. See the account of the "tan bark council" on pages 178-79

I agree. I didn't mean to take responsibility away from him, just to point out that he had nothing to do with planning it and was opposed to it all along.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree. I didn't mean to take responsibility away from him, just to point out that he had nothing to do with planning it and was opposed to it all along.

Up until the "tan bark council," it would seem, which was when he acquiesced. Or rather, approved it as militia commander.

[Scott Lloyd]

I couldn't disagree more strongly. I see no "classic attorney doubletalk" in the book, and I certainly don't see anything in the book or in anything that they've ever said to suggest that the authors believe that the victims "did have it coming." Precisely and repeatedly the opposite, in fact.

Sigh. To try to understand the factors that led otherwise good and decent people to do a horrifically evil act is a very different thing from attempting to justify that act.

Oh come on. Massacre at Mountain Meadows absolutely never claims that "the Saints had no choice but to . . . kill all the men, women, and most of the children."

Good grief.

It says just the opposite, in fact: "The massacre was not inevitable. No easy absolution for the perpetrators is possible." I repeat: Just when I thought anti-Mormons could no longer astonish me ....