Mountain Meadows Massacre

[why me]

I don't see a single word of fiction in that quote. If you've read the book by Turley, Walker and Leonard, I think you will understand that all of those things are true. There is no doubt that religious authorities were involved in this heinous crime.

Truth can be stated in two ways. Either it can be presented in sensational terms or just plainly stated. And I think that this is what he meant.

[why me]

Hmmm....I wonder why the History Channel doesn't cover the following?

Aug. 6, 1838 - A mob attacked about 12 members as they attempted to vote at Gallatin, Daviess County, Mo.

- Sept. 21, 1838 - The saints were ordered to leave De Witt by Oct. 1.

- Oct. 17-18, 1838 - Mobs burned saints' homes in Daviess County.

- Oct. 25, 1838 - Apostle David W. Patten and Patrick O'Bannion were killed at the Battle of Crooked River, near Far West.

- Oct. 27, 1838 - Gov. Lilburn W. Boggs issued the order for the state militia to "exterminate" or drive Mormons from Missouri.

- Oct. 30, 1838 - Mob killed 17 saints at Haun's Mill, Mo.

- Nov. 1, 1838 - Joseph Smith and others were sentenced at a court martial to be shot at Far West. Gen. Alexander W. Doniphan of the Missouri militia refused to carry out the order.

- November 1838 - Approximately 50 LDS men, taken as prisoners at Far West, arrived Nov. 12 at Richmond, Mo., for trial. Joseph Smith and others were committed in Liberty, Clay County, Mo., for trial.

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/18647/Hardship-persecution-continue-as-LDS-move-to-northern-Missouri.html

And that was my point. Such information is not recognized by the critics who are 'recovering' or by critics who throw up the MMM when suitable. No one talks about the past and how the past impacts the present. But it is great that you posted that information. When critics bring up MMM, such information can be presented not as justification but as a psychological explanation for what occured. But there can be no excuses, just understanding.

[Scott Lloyd]

Truth can be stated in two ways. Either it can be presented in sensational terms or just plainly stated. And I think that this is what he meant.

And alas, the quote in question is a textbook example of stating something in sensational terms and leaving out essential context, such as the fact that the governor (Michael O. Leavitt) was under pressure from descendants of the vitims to have the bones immediately re-interred.

The quote was a classic case of slanting; indeed, it was dishonest. If I were a journalism instructor, I would flunk the student who submitted a piece to me that contained a paragraph like that.

[Calm]

And alas, the quote in question is a textbook example of stating something in sensational terms and leaving out essential context, such as the fact that the governor (Michael O. Leavitt) was under pressure from descendants of the vitims to have the bones immediately re-interred.

The quote was a classic case of slanting; indeed, it was dishonest.

It also implied....though perhaps I just inferred it....that the coverup was a modern one as well (when they neglected to mention the pressure the governor was under, but instead focused on his descent).

I don't remember any new info that was discovered at the time that related to a coverup as opposed to the method of death (how, what order individuals were killed, that sort of thing). Anyone remember anything that might be considered as new information that was discovered as a result of the burial discovery?

At the very least, the implication of religious authorities being involved was certainly not a "new story".

[Scott Lloyd]

It also implied....though perhaps I just inferred it....that the coverup was a modern one as well (when they neglected to mention the pressure the governor was under, but instead focused on his descent).

I don't remember any new info that was discovered at the time that related to a coverup as opposed to the method of death (how, what order individuals were killed, that sort of thing). Anyone remember anything that might be considered as new information that was discovered as a result of the burial discovery?

At the very least, the implication of religious authorities being involved was certainly not a "new story".

Gene Sessions talked about it in his FAIR Conference presentation some years ago, but I don't remember specifics about what, if any, new information was discovered. I'm certain the verbatim transcript of his talk is on the FAIR Web site. I've seen it there.

[Calm]

thanks for the pointer, here's the link if anyone else is interested: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Shining_New_Light_on_the_Mountain_Meadows_Massacre.html

[Calm]

thanks for the pointer, here's the link if anyone else is interested: http://www.fairlds.o...s_Massacre.html

Pretty much the relevant part of the speech relating to my question about what was new info about any coverup:

Anyway and the end of that story is; then the story is that in March of 2000, a yellow journalist by the name of Chris Smith at the Salt Lake Tribune (he's not; his skin's not yellow it's what he does) published a three-part series in which he announced rather bald-faced (he knew better) that the bones were full of secrets that would have been revealed if the archaeologists had been allowed more time with them and that the Mormon Church conspired with the governor, who was a descendant of one of the killers. (Although the governor's ancestor claims that he was just a picket rider, most of the people who were there were just there. Picket riders, eh? Didn't do anything!) That the bones were then, under this conspiracy, quickly replanted.

The Associated Press and every other wire service in the world picked that up and here's the message that went out to the world and which is now in all these books (Krakauer's book, Denton's book, et cetera): The bones came out of the ground, they were revealing the nasty truth that the Mormon Church didn't want out there and so the Mormon Church conspired to get them buried quickly so those truths could not be revealed.

That bit of misinformation has been enormously damaging. It is one of those myths that all of you who understand history know how these things happen shows up in one book and pretty soon a graduate student puts it in his dissertation and pretty soon it's in ten other books and pretty soon it's the truth.

So the "truth" is, my friends, that we had twenty-nine partial remains that were going to tell us the Mormons--not Indians--killed these people and because the Mormon Church didn't want that information out it conspired to get those bones buried quickly in order to hide the truth. That is the "truth" now.

And if you want to stand up in front of a crowd like I've done over and over again and try to persuade folks that isn't the truth--you're wasting your time. But let me tell you in just a couple of sentences how you don't have to take my word that it's not the truth.

In 1859 of May of that year, Major Carleton came up out of California with a bunch of guys. They'd met some other guys from Camp Floyd who were already there. And Carleton, surveyed the remains that were strewn all over the Meadows by wolves and wolverines or badgers or whatever they are. Major Carleton said this; it's on our website,<a href="http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Shining_New_Light_on_the_Mountain_Meadows_Massacre.html#en1">¹ it's everywhere. It's been public record for 144 years: "...nearly every skull I saw had been shot through with rifle or revolver bullets."

So what truths were there in the bones? Well were they smokers? Did they; were they malnourished? What did they eat? It didn't tell us who killed them any better than we already knew. Who killed them? Who had guns in Iron County in 1857? Who? The Mormons. Did Carleton's sentence tell how they were killed? Yes, a coup de gr?ce, they were shot in the head. So the idea that there was a new truth here, that the Church had to be afraid of is just hogwash.

And secondly, it is also hogwash there's (in 10 minutes on the phone you can demonstrate this) J.K. Fancher is not a Mormon. He's a distinguished citizen of Harrison. He has no sympathy for the Mormon Church. He's a lateral descent of Alexander Fancher. He'll tell you, 'I called Dixie and said, you better get your son to bury those bones or there's going to be hell to pay.' That's how it happened. And Mike Leavitt called the state archaeologist and said, 'Turn them over to those people so they can bury them or there's going to be trouble.'

But the truth is not the truth anymore because Chris Smith said otherwise and so forth.

[Scott Lloyd]

thanks for the pointer, here's the link if anyone else is interested: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Shining_New_Light_on_the_Mountain_Meadows_Massacre.html

Sessions's account of the incident is very illuminating in view of what has been posted here. Thus, I feel justified in quoting it at length:

In October 1998 I was invited with the rest of the Mountain Meadows Board--including descendants of the Bakers and the Fanchers and the Dunlaps and others--to visit with President Hinckley in the Church office building. President Hinckley was with us for about fifty-five minutes. It was an amazing event. He talked about his history with the mass graves, taken to the Meadows the first time in 1947 by his father; they walked the ground silently, shed tears. President Hinckley said he walked away knowing that this was a sacred place and so he had a feeling for the incident.

And then in 1998, President Hinckley was at Dixie College to dedicate the pioneer camping ground there on the campus, asked his folks to take him up to the Meadows, was ashamed at the condition of the Church property there. Called us together to say, 'What do you want to do?' and the result was we built this beautiful monument down there that some of you I'm sure have seen and I hope most of you have seen. It is a replica of the original cairn that the army constructed over the rifle pit where 34 partial remains were chucked in May of '59.

In the course of preparing to put that new monument there, we made every effort in the Association to discover where the remains were because we knew that cairn had migrated a bit over the years--farmers had knocked it down, vandals had carried off rocks and so forth. Brigham Young ordered it knocked down once according to Dudley Leavitt, he was there with a party in the 1860s and they came up to it and he ordered it destroyed.

So we were worried that there were bones that we might discover and the descendants of the Bakers and the Fanchers and others had made it very clear that they did not want that to happen. So we did a lot of cores. We had an archaeologist from BYU, Shane Baker, come down and do some cores to try to find the- whatever graves might be there. Long story made short, he missed. He (inaudible) the grave by six inches and the second scoop of the backhoe dug them up. That was on August 3, 1999.

This resulted in a firestorm of activities. The remains, and all kinds of confusion about what state law had to say about these things, the sheriff came immediately and pronounced it was not a recent murder site, so it was an archaeological site and et cetera.

Eventually the remains wound up in BYU. I saw them just a few days after they were brought to BYU for the public archaeology folks to try to make some sense out of what they had. The partial remains, they found 29 individuals. We've known for years that some of that grave had washed away and we've had accounts of farmers seeing bones sticking out of the ground and so forth.

So anyway, eventually because the BYU people didn't have the people to take care of it they transferred the cranial matter to the University of Utah where an archaeology graduate student (now has her Ph.D.) Shannon Novak was commissioned to take a hard look at the cranial material to see what she could determine from the cranial matter.

In the meantime, the descendants in Arkansas became very angry. They wanted them reburied immediately and enormous pressure began to come upon us in the Association to try and keep this whole thing afloat--to get the Church and the state and whoever else we could to get those bones back in the ground--so we worked hard to get that done.

And finally, the week before the dedication of the new monument which was to take place on September 11, a Saturday, 1999, a man in Harrison, Arkansas named J.K. Fancher who is friends with Dixie Leavitt the governor's father, got on the phone and called Dixie and said, 'Your son's got to intervene.' So the governor called the state archaeologist and within a few hours the bones had been removed from the University of Utah and brought altogether and on Friday morning, the day of the funeral that had been scheduled for the bones, they were brought to St. George and brought to a funeral parlor where they were placed in four small little caskets and buried that afternoon in a Baptist funeral.

You should've heard all the Mormons there trying to sing "Amazing Grace." Then the next day you should've heard all the non-Mormons trying to sing "We Thank Thee O God for a Prophet." There was some humor.

Anyway and the end of that story is; then the story is that in March of 2000, a yellow journalist by the name of Chris Smith at the Salt Lake Tribune (he's not; his skin's not yellow it's what he does) published a three-part series in which he announced rather bald-faced (he knew better) that the bones were full of secrets that would have been revealed if the archaeologists had been allowed more time with them and that the Mormon Church conspired with the governor, who was a descendant of one of the killers. (Although the governor's ancestor claims that he was just a picket rider, most of the people who were there were just there. Picket riders, eh? Didn't do anything!) That the bones were then, under this conspiracy, quickly replanted.

The Associated Press and every other wire service in the world picked that up and here's the message that went out to the world and which is now in all these books (Krakauer's book, Denton's book, et cetera): The bones came out of the ground, they were revealing the nasty truth that the Mormon Church didn't want out there and so the Mormon Church conspired to get them buried quickly so those truths could not be revealed.

That bit of misinformation has been enormously damaging. It is one of those myths that all of you who understand history know how these things happen shows up in one book and pretty soon a graduate student puts it in his dissertation and pretty soon it's in ten other books and pretty soon it's the truth.

So the "truth" is, my friends, that we had twenty-nine partial remains that were going to tell us the Mormons--not Indians--killed these people and because the Mormon Church didn't want that information out it conspired to get those bones buried quickly in order to hide the truth. That is the "truth" now.

And if you want to stand up in front of a crowd like I've done over and over again and try to persuade folks that isn't the truth--you're wasting your time.

[Scott Lloyd]

Pretty much the relevant part of the speech relating to my question about what was new info about any coverup:

Thanks, cal. You included some stuff I should have.

[Doctor Steuss]

Ugh.

Whenever I encounter that speech/paper of Sessions' it just reminds me of how long I had to wait for the first volume of the MMM book.

[Calm]

Tried to edit my post and somehow got signed out so am adding the tidbit, a correction offered by Sessions at the end of the linked talk:

Editor's note: The following information was provided by Gene Sessions on February 6, 2007:

When I spoke at the FAIR Conference some time ago on the Mountain Meadows Massacre, I talked about a good friend from Arkansas named J.K. Fancher. J.K. read the transcript of my speech on the FAIR Web site and contacted me to correct a couple of statements I made about his role in the 1999 reburial of remains at the Meadows. I indicated in my remarks that J.K. "is no friend of the Mormons." I only meant by that remark that he is not a Mormon apologist and on the other hand is certainly a concerned member of the victims' family. J.K. definitely is a friend to the Mormon people and has spent his life kindly and positively relating to Mormons and participating in bridging the gap between Mormons and descendants of the victims of the Massacre.

I also reported false information I had received that J.K. had been involved directly in getting Governor Leavitt to release victims' remains for reburial at the Meadow on September 10, 1999. J.K. tells me categorically that he was not involved in that fashion at all and asked me to post a correction on the FAIR site that would fix this bit of mythmaking I had unwittingly perpetuated.

In spite of this correction to that detail of the story, I stand by my contention that the bones were reburied quickly to satisfy the wishes of their kin and not to hide the truths they might reveal about the Massacre. Anti-Mormons continue to report that the Church conspired with the State and the Mountain Meadows Association to get the bones quickly back into the ground because they threatened to tell a more damaging version of what happened. This is a blatant falsehood that has become accepted history. Thank you for allowing me to correct these statements.

[Scott Lloyd]

Tried to edit my post and somehow got signed out so am adding the tidbit, a correction offered by Sessions at the end of the linked talk:

Thanks for including this, cal. Sessions, evidently, is more committed to accuracy than a number of authors who purport to tell about the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

[cinepro]

Anti-Mormons continue to report that the Church conspired with the State and the Mountain Meadows Association to get the bones quickly back into the ground because they threatened to tell a more damaging version of what happened.

Good grief. What could the bones reveal that is more damaging than what the historians and the Church have already documented?

[SoBenign]

I saw the history channel special, and I've been doing some reading on it.

I have a question. the wikipedia page says that 12 hours into the attack,

they sent Haslam to SLC to "ask" B.Y. what they should do. It then states

that Brigham Young received the rider at his office on the same day. Does

that mean The same day he rode? or the same day meaning Sept 11th?

Obviously it's not the same day (the 6th) so that means it took him 4 and

a half days to get to SLC. on the other hand - it only took him less than

2 days to get back, arriving on the 13th.

This makes no sense to me.

any references to point me to, or any theories?

[Calm]

Thanks for including this, cal. Sessions, evidently, is more committed to accuracy than a number of authors who purport to tell about the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

It was my impressions (then and now) that he didn't pull any punches in his talk as well. The fact that he is willing to be so harsh in some very uncomfortable aspects of it gives me greater confidence when he is less harsh that it is a fair evaluation and not just wishful thinking.

[Calm]

I saw the history channel special, and I've been doing some reading on it.

I have a question. the wikipedia page says that 12 hours into the attack,

they sent Haslam to SLC to "ask" B.Y. what they should do. It then states

that Brigham Young received the rider at his office on the same day. Does

that mean The same day he rode? or the same day meaning Sept 11th?

Obviously it's not the same day (the 6th) so that means it took him 4 and

a half days to get to SLC. on the other hand - it only took him less than

2 days to get back, arriving on the 13th.

This makes no sense to me.

any references to point me to, or any theories?

According to the Ensign article (which provides a good summary of the context imo) the letter was dated the 10th (I believe the rider arrived and left on the same day, which would be the 10th): "On Sunday, September 6, Haight presented the plan to a council of local leaders who held Church, civic, and military positions. The plan was met with stunned resistance by those hearing it for the first time, sparking heated debate. Finally, council members asked Haight if he had consulted with President Young about the matter. Saying he hadn’t, Haight agreed to send an express rider to Salt Lake City with a letter explaining the situation and asking what should be done." (Haslam left the day after on the 7th.)

and

"President Young?s express message of reply to Haight, dated September 10, arrived in Cedar City two days after the massacre." http://lds.org/ldsor...000176f620a____

From the FAIR wiki:

Eager for knowledge, I discovered that he was the courier who traveled the road between Salt Lake City to Parowan and back to help President Young establish friendly feelings among the emigrant company, the settlers, and the Indians. The Indians were giving chief concern. He described minutely the trip from Cedar City to Salt Lake City riding three hundred miles in three days, to warn President Young that trouble for the traveling company was brewing in the south. Brigham Young was greatly troubled. Within a few hours after his arrival Brother Haslam was again in the saddle to instruct the people at Parowan and neighboring communities to do everything in their power to protect the emigrants. When he reached Parowan, the massacre had already occurred. He had come too late!

[Doctor Steuss]

I saw the history channel special, and I've been doing some reading on it.

I have a question. the wikipedia page says that 12 hours into the attack,

they sent Haslam to SLC to "ask" B.Y. what they should do. It then states

that Brigham Young received the rider at his office on the same day. Does

that mean The same day he rode? or the same day meaning Sept 11th?

Obviously it's not the same day (the 6th) so that means it took him 4 and

a half days to get to SLC. on the other hand - it only took him less than

2 days to get back, arriving on the 13th.

This makes no sense to me.

any references to point me to, or any theories?

I'm sure someone can give the exact details (nothing I can do but speculate until I get home), but if there is a discrepancy between how long it took him to get to SLC, and how long it took him to get back, it is likely because BY told him to "spare no horse flesh" (at least I believe that was the phrase) in getting back.

The following is coming from memory, and I personally doubt my memory's accuracy (just a warning): IIRC, Brigham even provided him a note so he could get fresh horses along the way (for some reason I recall that one individual did so only begrudgingly).

[mysteryman]

Yeppers.

My dig on the channel (i.e. "revisionist") wasn't aimed at this special (I didn't, after all, even get to see enough of it to make any form of judgment), but the channel as a whole.

I've just noticed, the few times they've done a subject I actually know something about, that they like to sometimes sacrifice accuracy for general watch-ability (if that makes sense).

That, and I enjoy not liking things. Makes me feel powerful (tremble before me, things I don't like). And, I've noticed I have a penchant for pretentiousness.

---------------------------------

Dr. Peterson,

As someone on the "inside," do you happen to have any updates on the general ETA for the second volume?

Hopefully not summer of 2018...

Edit:

Scott Lloyd, you out there? You sometimes know stuff about stuff.

Your certain this is a new show? I saw a program about it 4 years ago with those same people, Turley, Denton, and Bagley.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]"spare no horse flesh" [...]

Google Books Rocks

Edit: Go to pages 185-186 (looks like the link didn't preserve the page)

[Doctor Steuss]

Your certain this is a new show? I saw a program about it 4 years ago with those same people, Turley, Denton, and Bagley.

After putting some effort into checking, I'm definately wrong, and you and cinepro are correct that this isn't new. I just checked Amazon for DVDs of this series and they have one for this episode released July 17, 2008.

[Zakuska]

I don't see a single word of fiction in that quote. If you've read the book by Turley, Walker and Leonard, I think you will understand that all of those things are true. There is no doubt that religious authorities were involved in this heinous crime.

And I fail to see where the parts I hightlighed were called "Fiction" or claimed religious leaders "weren't" involved.

Local leaders definately where involved, as well as being involved in a cover up.

And as others have poignantly pointed out Governor Leavitt did not perpetuate the cover up in modern times as the (Revisionist) History Channel insinutated that he had to stir up a little contraversy and drive up the viewership polls. It was exactly what I called it. A classic peace of Anti-Mormon tripe.

[SoBenign]

thanks for the explanation - maybe someone should edit the wikipedia page.