Massacre At Mountain Meadows

[katherine the great]

I would guess neither Brooks nor Bagley were allowed access to holdings in the First Presidency vault, where the Andrew Jenson material was contained. Can't answer you on BYU Studies.

Just out of curiosity, what kinds of things are in this vault and does the first presidency regularly review the contents? Do they even have time? (not that you would know the answer to this, but just putting the question out there.) If I were called to the first presidency, I'd probably be very curious to see what's inside. It sounds so mysterious!

[gmormon]

Only 474 more posts 23 more pages and we will be caught up with the other board "that shall not be named". However we are going to need to work on our.. "How did you put that Scott?"...exercise in vacuity

[Scott Lloyd]

Only 474 more posts 23 more pages and we will be caught up with the other board "that shall not be named". However we are going to need to work on our.. "How did you put that Scott?"...exercise in vacuity

We've far outdone them on number of views, though. We're closing in on 10,000.

[gmormon]

We've far outdone them on number of views, though. We're closing in on 10,000.

Scott you better get back over there, and you no where . There's rumbling of starting another thread that deals with content and discontinue the exercise in vacuity and we don't want them getting out of shape do we ?

[alter idem]

I would guess neither Brooks nor Bagley were allowed access to holdings in the First Presidency vault, where the Andrew Jenson material was contained. Can't answer you on BYU Studies.

You are correct, Brooks and Bagley were not given access to Andrew Jenson's material. However, I'm wondering at the suggestion that it was "discovered". I think that scholars have known for many years that Jenson went to Southern Utah to get information and that the information was in the church's possession--but it was not accessible for review. I know that Bagley mentioned it in his book and that was the one thing that I have been curious to see any references to Jenson's findings in Turley's since I know he was given access to it. I seem to remember that there was a footnote to it in the Ensign magazine article from a year ago--so I knew he had read it.

Just out of curiosity, what kinds of things are in this vault and does the first presidency regularly review the contents? Do they even have time? (not that you would know the answer to this, but just putting the question out there.) If I were called to the first presidency, I'd probably be very curious to see what's inside. It sounds so mysterious!

The one thing that I know is kept in the "first Presidency vault" or in other words, things that have limited access, are the private papers and diaries of church presidents. Our family found a box of letters written by Joseph F. Smith which my grandfather had saved. We decided not to donate them to the church--if we had, there would have been no access to them--they would have had to go in the "vault". Instead, we loaned them to the church and to the Univ. of Utah to copy and catalog. This way they are available to the public.

[TAK]

You are correct, Brooks and Bagley were not given access to Andrew Jenson's material. However, I'm wondering at the suggestion that it was "discovered". I think that scholars have known for many years that Jenson went to Southern Utah to get information and that the information was in the church's possession--but it was not accessible for review. I know that Bagley mentioned it in his book and that was the one thing that I have been curious to see any references to Jenson's findings in Turley's since I know he was given access to it. I seem to remember that there was a footnote to it in the Ensign magazine article from a year ago--so I knew he had read it.

The one thing that I know is kept in the "first Presidency vault" or in other words, things that have limited access, are the private papers and diaries of church presidents. Our family found a box of letters written by Joseph F. Smith which my grandfather had saved. We decided not to donate them to the church--if we had, there would have been no access to them--they would have had to go in the "vault". Instead, we loaned them to the church and to the Univ. of Utah to copy and catalog. This way they are available to the public.

Given that the Jensen work was 35 years after the murders I wonder how much is fact and how much is a result of all those years of rumors. Beyond that it is unfortunate that they have been locked away.

It is curious to me that the LDS church has the capacity to make available to anybody the 17th century birth and death records from obscure villages from places like Italy and Romania but not the 100s of pioneer journals and other pieces of LDS history from the last 150 years that have been locked away.

As to the contents of the vault - a couple of things I have heard were the minutes of the Council of the 50 and the minutes of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. Both would be equally fascinating but will most likely never see the light of day.

[katherine the great]

You are correct, Brooks and Bagley were not given access to Andrew Jenson's material. However, I'm wondering at the suggestion that it was "discovered". I think that scholars have known for many years that Jenson went to Southern Utah to get information and that the information was in the church's possession--but it was not accessible for review. I know that Bagley mentioned it in his book and that was the one thing that I have been curious to see any references to Jenson's findings in Turley's since I know he was given access to it. I seem to remember that there was a footnote to it in the Ensign magazine article from a year ago--so I knew he had read it.

The one thing that I know is kept in the "first Presidency vault" or in other words, things that have limited access, are the private papers and diaries of church presidents. Our family found a box of letters written by Joseph F. Smith which my grandfather had saved. We decided not to donate them to the church--if we had, there would have been no access to them--they would have had to go in the "vault". Instead, we loaned them to the church and to the Univ. of Utah to copy and catalog. This way they are available to the public.

Thanks for doing that. I can kind of understand though why some families might opt to not make private writings public though, depending on what is in them!

[alter idem]

Thanks for doing that. I can kind of understand though why some families might opt to not make private writings public though, depending on what is in them!

This was the case in our experience also. One relative wanted to give them to the church because she felt the letters were private and there were things she thought were embarrassing or of a concern at making public. She was in the minority though and after reading through the letters and discussing it (and her giving the letters to my family) we decided since all parties had been dead for almost a 100 years, there was no reason to keep them from the public.

I also felt strongly that the timing of finding the letters helped our case to make them public. Had my grandmother still been alive, I think she would have given them to the church--mostly because she had given other prized family heirlooms to the church in the past.

It was incredible that my grandmother who was so organized and an impeccable housekeeper would not know about the letters. I can only surmise that my grandfather put them away many, many years before and he probably thought they were of little interest to anyone(the box looked like 1940's) but himself. So, I felt they'd been saved for us to be able to make them public, but also to allow us to have something very personal that had belonged to my great-grandfather.

I have often wondered if there are LDS families out there who might just have in their possession letters or diaries which could add some light to mountain meadows--maybe someone will find a dusty old box, hidden way back in a dark corner of an elderly relative's basement which will add new light to MMM.

[gmormon]

...I have often wondered if there are LDS families out there who might just have in their possession letters or diaries which could add some light to mountain meadows--maybe someone will find a dusty old box, hidden way back in a dark corner of an elderly relative's basement which will add new light to MMM.

I have wondered about this too. I have two relatives who where both in the militia at that time that I wondered about. One we loose track of in fact by the next US Census after that he disappears and we cann,t find any other information about him, and the other one was a semi prominative person down there, (this one is more qustionable though we have more documentation on him,) but he dies within a few years of MMM. Neither one is listed as a particapent but still I wonder.

[Scott Lloyd]

Given that the Jensen work was 35 years after the murders I wonder how much is fact and how much is a result of all those years of rumors.

The value of the Jenson material (note the o-n spelling on Jenson) is that it probably includes some of the best information available in terms of eyewitness accounts.

As for the veracity of the accounts, that is always a question with any source at any point in time. It is the historian's task to sift through the information, look for corroboration, scrutinize it for accuracy, and ultimately judge its reliability. In any case, having the Andrew Jenson material puts the authors of the most recent book at a decided advantage over previous researchers and writers.

It is curious to me that the LDS church has the capacity to make available to anybody the 17th century birth and death records from obscure villages from places like Italy and Romania but not the 100s of pioneer journals and other pieces of LDS history from the last 150 years that have been locked away.

CFR that "hundreds of pioneer journals and other pieces of LDS history" have been locked away and that the Church lacks the capacity to make them available to anybody. It may be a matter of prudence. The Huntington Library, for example, doesn't make its holdings available to just "anybody."

As to the contents of the vault - a couple of things I have heard were the minutes of the Council of the 50 and the minutes of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. Both would be equally fascinating but will most likely never see the light of day.

Since you have no idea what such sources would contain, it is mere conjecture that they would be "fascinating."

[Scott Lloyd]

You are correct, Brooks and Bagley were not given access to Andrew Jenson's material. However, I'm wondering at the suggestion that it was "discovered".

I don't think there was a suggestion that the existence of the material itself was discovered. The term "discovered" pertained to bits of information that were found in examining the records.

In skimming over the end notes, for example, I see that some of the detail about the behavior of some members of the emigrant train while in Cedar City prior to camping at Mountain Meadows comes from recollections obtained from witnesses by Jenson in his interviews in southern Utah.

[TAK]

Scott:

Since you have no idea what such sources would contain, it is mere conjecture that they would be "fascinating."

Really..

You think the minutes from Council of the 12 Apostles discussing the abandonment of polygamy as a practice or the change in status of Blacks would not be interesting or fascinating?

Or are you suggesting those topics would not have been discussed or are you suggesting that were purged from the records?

[TAK]

Scott

CFR that "hundreds of pioneer journals and other pieces of LDS history" have been locked away and that the Church lacks the capacity to make them available to anybody. It may be a matter of prudence. The Huntington Library, for example, doesn't make its holdings available to just "anybody."

The Huntington Library does not have the resources the LDS church has. The LDS Church can make available the birth and death records of millions of people but not its own historical archives? Why!! ?

[wenglund]

Scott

The Huntington Library does not have the resources the LDS church has. The LDS Church can make available the birth and death records of millions of people but not its own historical archives? Why!! ?

You are rather liberal in making publically available your opinions on a variety of matters, but yet you don't make publically available your social security number or your tax records. Why?!?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

ScottThe Huntington Library does not have the resources the LDS church has. The LDS Church can make available the birth and death records of millions of people but not its own historical archives? Why!! ?

The point is that any good archives has its standards and it's doubtful than just anyone from off the street would be able to walk in to, say, the Huntington Library, and demand to see this or that item. It's not a matter of capability. It's a matter of prudence.

Scott:Really.. You think the minutes from Council of the 12 Apostles discussing the abandonment of polygamy as a practice or the change in status of Blacks would not be interesting or fascinating? Or are you suggesting those topics would not have been discussed or are you suggesting that were purged from the records?

As I said, it's all a matter of conjecture.

You are rather liberal in making publically available your opinions on a variety of matters, but yet you don't make publically available your social security number or your tax records. Why?!?Thanks, -Wade Englund-

He doesn't even use his real name in offering his opinions.

[TAK]

You are rather liberal in making publically available your opinions on a variety of matters, but yet you don't make publically available your social security number or your tax records. Why?!?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hmm lets see in two years I have made 500 postings - In five years you have made over 4000..

I think you are the one that a tad excessive in throwing out your opinions..

[TAK]

Scott

He doesn't even use his real name in offering his opinions.

Are you suggesting that people who dont use their full name are dishonest?

[emeliza]

So back to the subject at hand, I have started reading Bagley's book and it is already harder to read because he jumps to conclusions that I wouldn't see from the same material. He also a few times spoke of speculation as fact. However that being said, it isn't a terrible read so far, just makes it easier for a reader to believe he has the answers sometimes with his writing. Basically reading it with an open mind is a bit harder.

[TAK]

So back to the subject at hand, I have started reading Bagley's book and it is already harder to read because he jumps to conclusions that I wouldn't see from the same material. He also a few times spoke of speculation as fact. However that being said, it isn't a terrible read so far, just makes it easier for a reader to believe he has the answers sometimes with his writing. Basically reading it with an open mind is a bit harder.

I dont disagree but I have no problem drawing my own conclusions or leaving the conclusion for later until I have more information.

[Pahoran]

Scott

Are you suggesting that people who dont use their full name are dishonest?

Probably no more than an archive is for keeping its archived material archived.

It's not about honesty, it's about double standards.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Probably no more than an archive is for keeping its archived material archived.

It's not about honesty, it's about double standards.

Regards,

Pahoran

Exactly. It is a constant phenomenon that critics demand from the Church a degree of openness far beyond what they are willing to apply to themselves.

[Scott Lloyd]

The one thing that I know is kept in the "first Presidency vault" or in other words, things that have limited access, are the private papers and diaries of church presidents.

It's not a matter of "in other words." The First Presidency vault is a physical location separate and apart from the Church Archives. While the Church Historical Department controls access to its own holdings, the items in the First Presidency vault are under the control of, well, the First Presidency.

Our family found a box of letters written by Joseph F. Smith which my grandfather had saved. We decided not to donate them to the church--if we had, there would have been no access to them--they would have had to go in the "vault". Instead, we loaned them to the church and to the Univ. of Utah to copy and catalog. This way they are available to the public.

Just curious: Did someone from the Church say that there would be no access to the letters, or is that just what the family surmised in deliberating whether to make the donation?

[TAK]

Exactly. It is a constant phenomenon that critics demand from the Church a degree of openness far beyond what they are willing to apply to themselves.

That is certainly a giant leap of logic even for you and Pahoran - His real name I am guessing...

Edit ..

BTW saw this on the Huntington Library website.. sounds like they dont have a problem with access.

Every year more than 1,700 scholars come from all over the world to study these rare materials. The results of their work are published in books, journals, and textbooks for colleges and universities.

[emeliza]

I dont disagree but I have no problem drawing my own conclusions or leaving the conclusion for later until I have more information.

Agreed, but if it were the only book I read on the subject, I would probably have just assumed Bagley was correct in some of his opinions being stated as facts.

[gmormon]

Scott I have my book with me today so I can see what you where talking about. So...my question is now was the documents that where not available, let's say to a Bagley or a Brooks, only in the First Presidency Vault or where there other holdings in the Church History Library, Family History Library, BYU Library that where also not accessible to professional historians? Also where there other new findings from other institutes that weren't contolled by the church?