Massacre At Mountain Meadows

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting Review ..

http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2008/06/rev...untain-meadows/

I like this assessment by Kramer:

As far as the Huntington diary goes, it bears mentioning that at precisely the time when Brigham Young was ostensibly sealing the fate of the Fancher party (to paraphrase Bagley) by telling Indian leaders they could have the emigrantsâ?? cattle, Haight and Lee were already conspiring with Indian leaders in and around Cedar City to attack the Fancher party and promising shared spoils. Of course, the fact that no evidence has been discovered directly implicating Young in the conspiracy (or the refutation of existing claims of such evidence) does not in itself constitute evidence that Young was not involved. Yet we should be careful not to ride that logic too far. Part of the appeal of the conspiratorial view of history - in addition to furnishing simple, often satisfying explanations for otherwise complicated and difficult-to-comprehend phenomenon - is that is governed by a circular logic that self-reinforces. When you look for mustache-twisting puppet masters pulling historyâ??s levers, the absence of evidence can be taken as evidence of the hypothesized conspiracy. The logic is not just circular; it entails a reversal of evidentiary standards. The fact that actual evidence cannot be discovered, rather than leading to a revised theory of what happened, actually reinforces the theory for which evidence is elusive.

This is why I continue to insist that in any debate, as in a court of law, the accuser must shoulder the burden of proof, or his assertion fails without need for rebuttal.

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting Review ..

http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2008/06/rev...untain-meadows/

"The area where I see the authors insufficiently treating the subject material is the ever-popular â??blood atonementâ? rhetoric of the Mormon Reformation (pg. 26). Only one moderate paragraph broaches the subject and no effort is given to contextualize or clarify the ramifications of the sermonizing. This lacuna is perhaps shaded by authorsâ?? quotation of Heber C. Kimballâ??s words at the July 24 canyon celebration. They ultimately temper Kimballâ??s comments by not showing that the words immediately preceding those quoted, curse the US President and his staff in the name of Jesus and by the Mormon Priesthood (pg. 44). Is this a systemic perspective in the volume?"

Without getting into whether Turley et al. should have quoted Kimball's declamatory rhetoric in full, I would offer my opinion that the actions of Buchanan and his cronies warranted cursing, and, had I been at the picnic that day, I would have given my hearty amen.

Moreover, it could be argued that the cursing had some effect, as the dispatching of the Utah Expedition will forever be known in history by the appellation "Buchanan's Blunder."

[Pahoran]

No, it's fully documented here.

I regret the circumstances of the case that make it impossible for me to accept that you have a good-faith basis to believe what you assert. As of course you know, a mere wave of the hand at the entirety of my posts does not constitute providing a reference in support of a specific interpretation of that body of work.

You misparse my umbrage. Since I never use the MMM as an argument against the Church's truth claims, I obviously don't qualify as one of the polemicists you are delighted to see prospectively silenced.

Oh, so you merely find yourself in general sympathy with those who are about to find one of their favourite bludgeons suddenly turned into a wet noodle. Got it.

No, my umbrage was at your misappropriation of this work of scholarship as a polemical tool.

I see.

Then, since you would never dream of operating under double standards, and since you quite plainly used Quinn's work for polemical purposes, I take it you don't regard it as a work of scholarship.

In which case, I agree.

Mainly, though, I was amused at your certainty (prior to any chance of having read it) that the book's scholarship would necessarily support your polemical position.

As you know, I don't have a polemical position; I have an apologetic one. Your continual and intentional misrepresentation of the nature of my position is growing tiresome.

My certainty, which you find so amusing, did not pop out of thin air; it is based upon my having followed the development of this book with considerable interest. The authors have made a number of public statements, as well as published articles detailing key features of their research.

Further, I am also aware of the "Brigham did it" conspiracy theory, and the various attempts that have been made to shore it up. I am quite au fait with the events surrounding the MMM, and can say with considerable confidence that Brigham didn't do it, and furthermore that being three hundred miles away, at the end of nothing we would recognise as a road, and in the absence of cell phones and owl post, he could not have done it.

I expect it to be a fine piece of scholarship independent of how it confirms or amends my opinions about the Church's truthfulness. And I am open to amending my position in any direction the data might take it, unlike your own august self.

I genuflect before your magnificent and heroic impartiality.

At least, I will, if ever I see any actual evidence thereof.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

For a while, I will be bumping this thread occasionally, just because I think that, as the book hits the stores and others have a chance to purchase copies, receive orders purchased on line, etc., they may have comments to add.

I'm struck a bit by the paucity of comment, so far, from those who have argued long and loud that Brigham Young just had to have ordered the massacre. Maybe that will change as the book becomes more widely available.

[TAK]

For a while, I will be bumping this thread occasionally, just because I think that, as the book hits the stores and others have a chance to purchase copies, receive orders purchased on line, etc., they may have comments to add.

I'm struck a bit by the paucity of comment, so far, from those who have argued long and loud that Brigham Young just had to have ordered the massacre. Maybe that will change as the book becomes more widely available.

Kinda tough to discuss something that is not even out yet - except in some limited distribution so it appears..

I am looking forward to see how Elder Geo A Smith's trip south prior to the Fancher train is discussed.

[emeliza]

It is a good book so far. I am not too far into it yet as real life has kept me away from it. Right now the book is just discussing how BY heard that the army is coming there way lead by a ruthless general, their mail contract has been cancelled and Washington hasn't provided them any information. It appears this stemed from a letter BY send Washington stating they would turn out goverment officials that did not act appropriately when in their territory.

[Scott Lloyd]

Kinda tough to discuss something that is not even out yet - except in some limited distribution so it appears..

I am looking forward to see how Elder Geo A Smith's trip south prior to the Fancher train is discussed.

That is covered primarily on pp. 70-73. The purported confessions of John D. Lee are cited to the effect that apostle Smith was sent to southern Utah "to prepare the people for the work of exterminating Captain Fancher's train of emigrants" and that "he was sent for that purpose by the direct command of Brigham Young."

The book's authors then comment:

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 the southern Utah people. Moreover, Lee's attorney and editor, William W. Bishop, almost certainly reworked Lee's "confessions" in Mormonism Unveiled after Lee died to make the book more sensational and improve its sales, including the charges against Smith and Young. Bishop had a motive for making these changes as his legal fees were tied to the book's royalties.

Also quoted is Lee's reply to an inquiring reporter from the then-unabashedly anti-Mormon Salt Lake Tribune, just moments before Lee's execution:

"[George A. Smith] was visiting all the settlements and preaching against the emigrants." Then, referring to the people killed at Mountain Meadows, he added, "I don't know that he meant those particular emigrants." This â?? Lee's final statement on the subject â?? makes it unlikely that he made the statement attributed to him in Mormonism Unveiled, especially since he had been offered his life by prosecutors if he would just charge Smith and Young with ordering the massacre. He went to his death instead.

Furthermore, Jacob Hamblin, who traveled with Elder Smith during part of that August 1857 journey, is quoted as saying:

George A.'s instructions to the people were that our enemies were going to make us more trouble, and that the people should be careful to save every spoonful of grain. I never heard from George A. an idea of a hint that we should molest or mistreat an emigrant.

The authors speculate that Elder Smith's comments to Lee, and to Isaac Haight, likely had to do with the possibility of an army contingent approaching the Iron County settlements and what the militia would do in case that happened.

I have now finished reading the entire 231-page narrative and am working my way through the appendices â?? which list the victims, militia members and Indians involved in the massacre â?? and the notes, which, for the most part, I haven't yet had occasion to examine because I have been in a rush to get through the narrative.

Part of my overall impression is to be more convinced than ever how absurdly naive the notion is that that the massacre resulted from a single directive from Brigham Young or anyone else. The reality is far more complicated, nuanced and intellectually challenging than that. It has to do with group psychology and the propensity for rampant rumor and unrestrained escalation of hostility to wreak horrific damage.

[Scott Lloyd]

It is a good book so far. I am not too far into it yet as real life has kept me away from it. Right now the book is just discussing how BY heard that the army is coming there way lead by a ruthless general, their mail contract has been cancelled and Washington hasn't provided them any information. It appears this stemed from a letter BY send Washington stating they would turn out goverment officials that did not act appropriately when in their territory.

That and fabricated and sensational reports from government-appointed territorial officials, coupled with editorializing by newspapers assuming the worst about conditions in the territory and general political sentiment against Mormons and Mormonism. (See pp. 28-30.)

[Scott Lloyd]

As I have read Massacre at Mountain Meadows, it has been more than clear to me that the massacre stemmed not from any conditions that are pathologically inherent within Mormonism, but rather, the circumstances leading up to the mass killing fit a pattern identified by scholars of group violence, that pattern being characterized by, one, unreasoned submission to authority unmitigated by moral instincts; two, peer-group pressure and, three, the propensity to demonize the victims and view them as the enemy. Part of the latter characteristic is the unwillingness or incapability of separating the actions of a few from the group as a whole. That is to say, the Cedar City settlers were unable to isolate the insults and abuses made by a few members of the Fancher train from the entire group. In their minds, the offenses were attributable to the group as a whole.

In the Prologue to Massacre at Mountain Meadows, the words of Brevet Major James Henry Carleton are quoted. Carleton was the army officer ordered to have his unit bury the bones of the massacre victims at Mountain Meadows. In a letter written after he returned to California, Carleton wrote:

I would to God that General Clarke [Carleton's commanding officer] with an adequate force, and with his hands unfettered by red tape, could have the management of those damned Mormons just one summer, and that I could be there to see. Major, it is no use to talk or split hairs about that accursed race. All fine spun nonsense about their rights as citizens, and all knotty questions about Constitutional Rights should be solved with the sword. Self preservation, the first law, demands that this set of ruffians go out from amongst us as a people. ... Give them one year, no more; and if after that they pollute our soil by their presence make literally Children of the Mist of them.

If these words represent sincere sentiments and not just blustery venting, then Carleton shows himself here as being disposed to committing the same sort of atrocity as that of which the perpetrators at Mountain Meadows were guilty.

(In a footnote, the book's authors comment: "Carleton's later actions demonstrated he was serious in advocating retributive violence. His reputation was later stained by 'brutally harsh' Indian campaigns and the ruthless internment of Navajos at Bosque Redondo.")

I wonder if stridently hostile anti-Mormons ever consider that their sentiments make them eerily similar, in some respects, to the perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

[Scott Lloyd]

Dang, this thing has fallen off the first page again.

Doesn't anybody have a response to my remark about Carleton?

[emeliza]

Dang, this thing has fallen off the first page again.

Doesn't anybody have a response to my remark about Carleton?

Per that same page it also appears that Carleton might not have had a real group hate as he allowed Jacob Hamblin, a local Mormon, show him where some of the bones were. It is very obvious though that he was quite distraught over the scene and probably more so since this was the third attempt to try and get the bones buried as it says, "their bones--like the truth--refused to stay buried".

I do agree that when I read Carleton's remark I thought that this once incident though obviously jaded him on all Mormons, but per the footnote it does not appear that Carleton went after the Mormons for this as your footnote speaks of Indians he went after. It is pretty clear by Carleton's remarks he believed the deaths were due to the Mormons, not the Indians.

(Of course I might be misreading the footnote)

[Scott Lloyd]

Per that same page it also appears that Carleton might not have had a real group hate as he allowed Jacob Hamblin, a local Mormon, show him where some of the bones were. It is very obvious though that he was quite distraught over the scene and probably more so since this was the third attempt to try and get the bones buried as it says, "their bones--like the truth--refused to stay buried".

I do agree that when I read Carleton's remark I thought that this once incident though obviously jaded him on all Mormons, but per the footnote it does not appear that Carleton went after the Mormons for this as your footnote speaks of Indians he went after. It is pretty clear by Carleton's remarks he believed the deaths were due to the Mormons, not the Indians.

(Of course I might be misreading the footnote)

I don't read the footnote as pertaining to Mountain Meadows Massacre, but rather, to events in his later career as a army officer. It's saying that he had a general penchant for retributive violence.

As for his accepting the cooperation of Jacob Hamblin, I don't see that as evidence against his general hatred for Mormons. He needed Hamblin's cooperation to do his job.

[TAK]

Scott:

If these words represent sincere sentiments and not just blustery venting, then Carleton shows himself here as being disposed to committing the same sort of atrocity as that of which the perpetrators at Mountain Meadows were guilty.

(In a footnote, the book's authors comment: "Carleton's later actions demonstrated he was serious in advocating retributive violence. His reputation was later stained by 'brutally harsh' Indian campaigns and the ruthless internment of Navajos at Bosque Redondo.")

I wonder if stridently hostile anti-Mormons ever consider that their sentiments make them eerily similar, in some respects, to the perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

"stridently hostile anti-Mormons" ?? Sheesh..

Ignoring your hype.. I fail to see the similarities..

Mormons killed 120 California settlers passing through the area for reasons that I have yet to see well articulated. Carleton was ordered to bury the remains of said massacre. He vocalized anger and revenge but did nothing. Lets see.. Mormons did something evil. Carleton did not. If this is the kind of historical analysis/rationalization we can expect from the book, I do not predict it will fair well with the critics.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott:

"stridently hostile anti-Mormons" ?? Sheesh..

Oh, I forgot. You are one of those who claim there is no such thing as an anti-Mormon, let alone a stridently hostile one.

Ignoring your hype.. I fail to see the similarities..

Mormons killed 120 California settlers passing through the area for reasons that I have yet to see well articulated. Carleton was ordered to bury the remains of said massacre. He vocalized anger and revenge but did nothing.

He did nothing, because he lacked the power.

If the words in his letter are to be taken seriously (and I left open the possibility that he was merely venting), he was advocating something remarkably similar to Boggs's Extermination Order: Giving the Mormons a year to leave United States territory or be annihilated. That would make him hardly better than the MMM perpetrators.

Lets see.. Mormons did something evil. Carleton did not.

You're giving him a pass on the " 'brutally harsh' Indian campaigns and the ruthless internment of Navajos at Bosque Redondo." Got it.

If this is the kind of historical analysis/rationalization we can expect from the book, I do not predict it will fair well with the critics.

What's the book got to do with it? It was my own analysis. I didn't write the book, nor did the authors consult with me on it. This statement of yours makes no sense.

[TAK]

Scott

I didn't write the book, nor did the authors consult with me on it.

No doubt a wise move on their part..

[kamenraider]

Sorry to anyone who was offended by the MMM poll I just did. I have ancestors from both Cedar City and Parowan and am a little hesitant to consider them to be murderers and I wanted to see how other members would view the situation. I haven't been able to get the new book yet because Deseret Book in Orange, CA doesn't have it yet (I went there and asked yesterday).

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott

No doubt a wise move on their part..

Cheap shot.

[Zakuska]

Sorry to anyone who was offended by the MMM poll I just did. I have ancestors from both Cedar City and Parowan and am a little hesitant to consider them to be murderers and I wanted to see how other members would view the situation. I haven't been able to get the new book yet because Deseret Book in Orange, CA doesn't have it yet (I went there and asked yesterday).

I wonder if I have any "Murderers" in the wood pile? My Great Grandpa Terry is from down there. I better look into it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sorry to anyone who was offended by the MMM poll I just did. I have ancestors from both Cedar City and Parowan and am a little hesitant to consider them to be murderers and I wanted to see how other members would view the situation. I haven't been able to get the new book yet because Deseret Book in Orange, CA doesn't have it yet (I went there and asked yesterday).

I can understand not wanting the memory of one's ancestors to be sullied. Examining this dreadful part of the past is painful for Church members in general. I can only imagine it must be much more so for descendants of those involved. Ultimately, though, I think we have to come to terms with the truth, as best we can determine it, or this thing will continue to haunt us for who knows how long. Also, there are great lessons to be learned to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

[selek]

Sorry to anyone who was offended by the MMM poll I just did. I have ancestors from both Cedar City and Parowan and am a little hesitant to consider them to be murderers and I wanted to see how other members would view the situation. I haven't been able to get the new book yet because Deseret Book in Orange, CA doesn't have it yet (I went there and asked yesterday).

Truth be told, I was more offended by DerAlte's smug and cynical little attempt to game the poll than the questions themselves.

Seems to me that if you can't be intellectually honest, you should at least be silent.

I think the questions in your poll needed to be worded better, but I don't think the issue itself was that blatantly offensive.

[Scott Lloyd]

I wonder if I have any "Murderers" in the wood pile? My Great Grandpa Terry is from down there. I better look into it.

The book includes an appendix listing all of the militia members involved in the massacre. No Terry is included.

[DerAlte]

Truth be told, I was more offended by DerAlte's smug and cynical little attempt to game the poll than the questions themselves.

Seems to me that if you can't be intellectually honest, you should at least be silent.

I think the questions in your poll needed to be worded better, but I don't think the issue itself was that blatantly offensive.

Excuse me?

How was I not intellectually honest?

[Zakuska]

The book includes an appendix listing all of the militia members involved in the massacre. No Terry is included.

How many names are listed? Because I have more than just one family member from down there. I might just have to go get the book.

[selek]

Excuse me?

How was I not intellectually honest?

You answered specific questions about whether God had provided revelation which precipitated the massacre affirmatively, knowing full well that you do not believe God even exists.

You were using a rhetorical sleight-of-hand to attempt a cheap shot against religion.

You answered the question affirmatively, then proceeded to argue that the believers invented the answer themselves (which directly contradicts your answer to the poll question) and subseuqently attributed it to a non-existant God.

And that is intellectually dishonest.

The honest answer to the question would have been "No, God did not inspire the revelations, men did it themselves and attributed it to God."

Instead, you attempted to be "cute" and "smarmy", but achieved only "asinine".

[Scott Lloyd]

How many names are listed? Because I have more than just one family member from down there. I might just have to go get the book.

There are 68 names with a brief paragraph of information about each one. Where the evidence of involvement is inconclusive, it is so indicated. And the book indicates you can go to mountainmeadowsmassacre.org for additional information on the militiamen.