Mountain Meadows myths

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting talk by Robert H. Briggs at the Mormon History Association Conference. Here is my Church News report of it.

It made it clearer than ever for me why Lee wasn't convicted the first time. The prosecution wasn't out to win the case. They were intent on vilifying Mormonism to a nationwide public. They expected a hung jury; it mattered little to them.

[alter idem]

Interesting talk by Robert H. Briggs at the Mormon History Association Conference. Here is my Church News report of it.

It made it clearer than ever for me why Lee wasn't convicted the first time. The prosecution wasn't out to win the case. They were intent on vilifying Mormonism to a nationwide public. They expected a hung jury; it mattered little to them.

Very true. Mormonism was on trial during that first trial--the agenda was clear--it's no wonder Mormons weren't cooperative. As I recall, the prosecution was serious about actually trying John D. Lee for the crime and they made this clear--subsequently, they were able to get the cooperation of church leaders for the second trial.

[katherine the great]

While I am convinced that the general leadership was not directly responsible for the massacre, I don't know how the rest of the country was supposed to view it unbiasedly. Brigham Young ruled with an iron fist, so why would any outsider of the time assume that he was NOT behind the massacre? Even if it was wrong, considering the time and place, it was not an outrageous supposition. The massacre itself was outrageous. I have relatives who were there and I think they should have laid down next to Lee, and taken their punishment as well.

[Scott26.2]

While I am convinced that the general leadership was not directly responsible for the massacre, I don't know how the rest of the country was supposed to view it unbiasedly. Brigham Young ruled with an iron fist, so why would any outsider of the time assume that he was NOT behind the massacre? Even if it was wrong, considering the time and place, it was not an outrageous supposition. The massacre itself was outrageous. I have relatives who were there and I think they should have laid down next to Lee, and taken their punishment as well.

I have always been a bit uncomfortable with these sorts of sweeping remarks about BY. While I understand where the sentiment comes from, I hardly think that all of the negativity which surrounds someone who really does rule with an iron fist can be associated with the tenure of Brigham Young.

Scott26.2

[cinepro]

Interesting talk by Robert H. Briggs at the Mormon History Association Conference. Here is my Church News report of it.

It made it clearer than ever for me why Lee wasn't convicted the first time. The prosecution wasn't out to win the case. They were intent on vilifying Mormonism to a nationwide public. They expected a hung jury; it mattered little to them.

Did the presentation touch on John D. Lee's posthumous reinstatement back into the Church in 1961?

[Confidential Informant]

I have always been a bit uncomfortable with these sorts of sweeping remarks about BY. While I understand where the sentiment comes from, I hardly think that all of the negativity which surrounds someone who really does rule with an iron fist can be associated with the tenure of Brigham Young.

Scott26.2

I agree. Where is the evidence of said dictatorship? I seem to recall several statements from BY that the people wouldn't do damn thing he told them to. I think the vision of Young as Territorial Mussolini is fictitious creation of fiction writers such as Will Bagley.

C.I.

[AndyOne]

See chapter 11 in the attached: http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/EstZi...1.htm#chapter11

I think the reformation was a tough time - and the socioeconomic conditions were not great then either. Probably people can debate the degree of "dictatorship" - but doesn't seem to have been a good time to be a lazy donkeyed member!

[katherine the great]

I agree. Where is the evidence of said dictatorship? I seem to recall several statements from BY that the people wouldn't do damn thing he told them to. I think the vision of Young as Territorial Mussolini is fictitious creation of fiction writers such as Will Bagley.

C.I.

If you think that Will Bagley created this image then you need to brush up on your reading of materials written from 1847--2000. Brigham Young's hold over the people certainly loosened over the years, but it was absolutely at it's peak shortly before and after the massacre.

[AndyOne]

If you think that Will Bagley created this image then you need to brush up on your reading of materials written from 1847--2000. Brigham Young's hold over the people certainly loosened over the years, but it was absolutely at it's peak shortly before and after the massacre.

Agreed. See this site for some quotes from some faithful members who were living it:

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/from-the...ion-of-1856-57/

[katherine the great]

Agreed. See this site for some quotes from some faithful members who were living it:

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/from-the...ion-of-1856-57/

Interesting reading. People's grammar was certainly atrocious back in the day! I'm not really trying to be hyper critical of Brigham Young. I really believe that his strong armed approach to leadership saved the church during this very vulnerable time. For members to think though, that he didn't already have a national reputation as a "dictator" or "king" is to be ignorant of history. Even Mark Twain referred to him as the only monarch in America.

[Scott Lloyd]

Did the presentation touch on John D. Lee's posthumous reinstatement back into the Church in 1961?

No. I think that would have been outside the scope of Briggs's presentation, which focused on the political dynamics pervading and surrounding Lee's first trial.

I heard Rick Turley discuss it briefly, though, three years ago at a question-answer session following his Mormon History Association presentation. As I recall, the gist of Turley's response was that the reinstatement was by way of placating Lee's descendants and leaving the final judgment to God.

[Scott Lloyd]

While I am convinced that the general leadership was not directly responsible for the massacre, I don't know how the rest of the country was supposed to view it unbiasedly. Brigham Young ruled with an iron fist, so why would any outsider of the time assume that he was NOT behind the massacre? Even if it was wrong, considering the time and place, it was not an outrageous supposition.

Be that as it may, we see people even today expressing contempt for the Church and its members back then for not convicting Lee in the first trial when he was clearly guilty. The 9-3 vote in the hung jury was along Mormon/non-Mormon lines except for one gentile who voted to acquit.

What I drew from Briggs's talk was that Baskin, the prosecutor, was not out to win, at least not in the first trial. His intent was to turn the national sentiment against Mormonism and, locally, to further the fortunes and prospects of the anti-Mormon Liberal Party. As Briggs said, Baskin succeeded brilliantly in these goals. He won in his intended venue, which was the court of public opinion.

He seemed to bend over backward to alienate the Mormon jurors. In my article I didn't report some of the quotes Briggs gave of the vile things Baskin said about the temple endowment and any Mormon men on the jury who had made temple covenants. And Baskin â?? improperly, in my view â?? tried to make it a trial in absentia for Brigham Young.

[katherine the great]

Be that as it may, we see people even today expressing contempt for the Church and its members back then for not convicting Lee in the first trial when he was clearly guilty.

I guess I don't really move in circles who are informed or interested enough to know the details of the aftermath but as just a regular LDS person, I've never heard anyone even address the first trial. I have often heard the massacre itself criticized and also the fact that Lee was the only person brought to justice. I personally didn't know that much about it until my genealogical research took me to Washington and Cedar City in 1857. After that, I've tried to read everything I can on it to try to understand it from every angle possible.

[alter idem]

No. I think that would have been outside the scope of Briggs's presentation, which focused on the political dynamics pervading and surrounding Lee's first trial.

I heard Rick Turley discuss it briefly, though, three years ago at a question-answer session following his Mormon History Association presentation. As I recall, the gist of Turley's response was that the reinstatement was by way of placating Lee's descendants and leaving the final judgment to God.

My own experience would validate what Richard Turley said. I dated a descendant of John D. Lee way back in the late '70's and he told me about the posthumous reinstatement. I can tell you that he admitted that the family worked hard to get the reinstatement. I think Will Bagley mentioned it in his book as well. I don't know what they told the church leaders, but he and his immed. family did not believe Lee was guilty. Personally, I think they refused to face facts--he WAS guilty. But so were a few others who never had to answer for their crimes in this life. Even though I believe he was guilty, I have no problem with the posthumous reinstatement. Leave the final judgement up to God.

I also agree with KTG. I love Brigham Young and I think he kept the Saints together and made them--yes, forced them prosper and survive--In my mind, there's no question that what he could control, he did control-but he was limited with how much control he had over the people when they were far away from Salt lake. I think if you read much about him, you'll get a pretty good idea of the kind of man he was. One of my favorite books is "Brigham Young, American Moses"

When I read Will Bagley's book, he reported quite a bit on the first trial and it was clear that the prosecutor had made the whole trial about getting Brigham Young and the church. I had to admit, after reading about the trial, if I'd been on the jury, I couldn't have convicted Lee--because essentially, I would have been convicting Pres. Young. and the church for the massacre. Consequently, I sympathized with the jury that they were unable to convict--even though they knew that Lee was guilty.

The second trial was much different--the focus was on Lee and not the church.