False Stories that Caused the Utah War

[dblagent007]

Today's primary lesson refers to the Utah War and makes this statement: "The president of the United States had heard false stories that Church members were not obeying the law, so he sent an army to restore order." The president referred to is Buchanan and the army is Johnston's army. This occurred in 1857.

My question is what are the false stories mentioned in the quote? The underlying reasons for the Utah War as listed on Wikipedia are: polygamy, the belief in theodemocracy, and friction with federal appointees. I don't really see any false stories there.

Any ideas?

[USU78]

Ideas that primary kids could grasp and appreciate? Tough task.

[Aquilifer]

My question is what are the false stories mentioned in the quote? The underlying reasons for the Utah War as listed on Wikipedia are: polygamy, the belief in theodemocracy, and friction with federal appointees. I don't really see any false stories there.

Any ideas?

Read deeper into the federal appointees section -- that's the big trigger. Reports were being sent to Washington that blamed the Mormons for every problem under the sun, from corruption to treason to Brigham Young ordering the Gunnison Massacre. I think that this quote from the Wiki article sums it up nicely:

Furniss states that most federal reports from Utah to Washington "left unclear whether the [Mormons] habitually kicked their dogs; otherwise their calendar of infamy in Utah was complete."

The biggest blunder of Buchanan's Blunder was failing to adequately investigate these allegations before deploying the army. Of course, it was a comedy of errors on both sides. I'm not sufficiently versed in the ins and outs of the Utah War, but if you can find a copy of William MacKinnon's "And the War Came: James Buchanan, the Utah Expedition, and the Decision to Intervene" published last year in Utah Historical, he really helped me out. MacKinnon (who I understand to be one of the most knowledgeable chaps on the subject) also gives a succinct version his research in this Dialogue article, starting on page 11.

USU78 makes a good point about a kids lesson. Like the children's history books that basically say the Civil War is about slavery, blaming the whole Utah War on "false stories" is reductionist to the point of being both true and untrue at the same time.

[USU78]

I agree that there was a comedy of errors in certain circles.

I disagree that there were not those cynical few [many?] that exploited things for their own purposes.

I also disagree that errors were made in Utah. The man who was in command was the Butcher of Chapultapec, whose viciousness was well documented and well known in the Great Basin. If anything, their response was measured.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thomas Kane, IIRC, had warned the Saints about the possibility of being made into a Territorial government instead of a state. To be brief he told them that if they were made into a territory they would lose a lot of power to the Federal government, who would appoint territorial officials instead of allowing the people to elect their leaders. The relations between federal officials and the Latter-day Saints was strained to put it mildly. Many of the false stories were generated by the first three appointed officials who basically ran away with their pockets bulging with money that was supposed to be used in the territory.

A serviceable overview is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_Officials_of_1851

[dblagent007]

Read deeper into the federal appointees section -- that's the big trigger. Reports were being sent to Washington that blamed the Mormons for every problem under the sun, from corruption to treason to Brigham Young ordering the Gunnison Massacre. I think that this quote from the Wiki article sums it up nicely:

The biggest blunder of Buchanan's Blunder was failing to adequately investigate these allegations before deploying the army. Of course, it was a comedy of errors on both sides. I'm not sufficiently versed in the ins and outs of the Utah War, but if you can find a copy of William MacKinnon's "And the War Came: James Buchanan, the Utah Expedition, and the Decision to Intervene" published last year in Utah Historical, he really helped me out. MacKinnon (who I understand to be one of the most knowledgeable chaps on the subject) also gives a succinct version his research in this Dialogue article, starting on page 11.

Thanks for the link to the Dialogue article. It is very helpful. Here are a few quotes that I think are accurate:

"If pressed for details, some Utahns might be able to recite an account of unwarranted federal intervention or colonialism, but such descriptions tend to take on the flavor of an expensive but bloodless David-versus-Goliath affair

[charity]

I don't see anybody calling attention to the fact that the LDS had no reason to assume that any federal troups would do anything except repeat what had happened to them in Missouri and Illinois. It isn't paranoia if peole are really out to get you.

[LeSellers]

"Buchanan, for his part, was within his rights to appoint a new governor and to assign U.S. troops wherever in the country he deemed necessary. But he went about doing so ineptly

[katherine the great]

Good Heavens! Why is this even being taught in Primary? I'll especially bet the children in France and Japan just really look forward to that lesson!

[handys003]

Good Heavens! Why is this even being taught in Primary? I'll especially bet the children in France and Japan just really look forward to that lesson!

I would have to concur. It's hard enough to keep the childrens attention let alone give them a history lesson they won't remember 10 minutes after class. Especially on Fast Sunday!?

[ebeddoulos]

Just thought I would place the quote is context:

"The Foundation of the Temple Is Laid

In February 1853, five and a half years after the first Saints entered the Salt Lake Valley, Brigham Young and other brethren held a groundbreaking ceremony to begin construction of the Salt Lake Temple. Two months later they held another ceremony to lay the cornerstones of the temple. On this day President Young told the members of the Church that he saw a vision of the temple every time he looked at the place where it would be built.

President Young drew an outline of the temple as he saw it in his vision, and architect Truman O. Angell made detailed plans of how the temple should be built. President Young sent Brother Angell to England to study the magnificent buildings there so that he would know how to make the temple beautiful and strong. President Young said he wanted to see the temple built so strong that

[Scott Lloyd]

Good Heavens! Why is this even being taught in Primary? I'll especially bet the children in France and Japan just really look forward to that lesson!

This strikes me as a provincial view in itself. For part of its history, the Church was located almost entirely in Utah Territory; ergo, the history of the Church will, to a significant extent, overlap with the history of Utah. The heritage those early settlers left belongs to every Latter-day Saint, whether one has Mormon pioneer ancestry or only joined the Church yesterday. Implying that the history is irrelevant is like ignoring the account of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea because it happened to an ancient people in a remote part of the world.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just thought I would place the quote is context:

Ah. So an exhaustive lecture about the political nuances of the Utah War is not necessary to teaching the content of this Primary lesson as outlined in the curriculum of the Church. It would seem that the OP of this thread has raised a non-issue.

[katherine the great]

This strikes me as a provincial view in itself. For part of its history, the Church was located almost entirely in Utah Territory; ergo, the history of the Church will, to a significant extent, overlap with the history of Utah. The heritage those early settlers left belongs to every Latter-day Saint, whether one has Mormon pioneer ancestry or only joined the Church yesterday. Implying that the history is irrelevant is like ignoring the account of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea because it happened to an ancient people in a remote part of the world.

Well Eb's post put it into it's proper context. But yes, if it were a major part of the lesson it would be inappropriate to teach such things in Primary. Just like it is inappropriate to teach nuclear physics in the second grade. I never implied that history is irrelevant. I love history. I implied that it should be taught in it's proper age and culture-appropriate context.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well Eb's post put it into it's proper context. But yes, if it were a major part of the lesson it would be inappropriate to teach such things in Primary. Just like it is inappropriate to teach nuclear physics in the second grade. I never implied that history is irrelevant. I love history. I implied that it should be taught in it's proper age and culture-appropriate context.

That would have been more apparent to me had you not mentioned hypothetical children living in France and Japan. Location of residence really has no bearing on the importance of learning about the history of the Church, wouldn't you agree?

[dblagent007]

Ah. So an exhaustive lecture about the political nuances of the Utah War is not necessary to teaching the content of this Primary lesson as outlined in the curriculum of the Church. It would seem that the OP of this thread has raised a non-issue.

I never claimed that the statement was "necessary to teaching the content of this Primary lesson." I only said that it was in there, and I wondered what facts it was based upon.

As is often the case when it comes to correlated Church history, the statement is "true" in a highly technical sense but very misleading.

[Scott Lloyd]

I never claimed that the statement was "necessary to teaching the content of this Primary lesson." I only said that it was in there, and I wondered what facts it was based upon.

As is often the case when it comes to correlated Church history, the statement is "true" in a highly technical sense but very misleading.

I don't think it's misleading. All things taken into account, I regard it as quite true that falsehoods spread by incompetent federal appointees who were scoundrels precipitated the Utah war. I would have no problem with my children being taught such a thing in Primary class. In fact, I would probably tell them so myself.

On the other hand I would object, vocally, if I learned that my child's Primary teacher was denying it in class.

[LifeOnaPlate]

As is often the case when it comes to correlated Church history, the statement is "true" in a highly technical sense but very misleading.

Nope.

[handys003]

That would have been more apparent to me had you not mentioned hypothetical children living in France and Japan. Location of residence really has no bearing on the importance of learning about the history of the Church, wouldn't you agree?

There's hypothetical children in France and Japan? In one of the rare instances I agree with ktg she has a good point. Basically outside the USA even in Hawaii with different cultures young children under a certain age are not just going to really understand any significance on how the details of the Utah War such as who's to blame. They are brought up in a different cultural environment. They won't know anything about US History let alone their own cultures history. Kids like you and me basically learn from repetitive lessons and not just be taught one time then forgotten. Now their may be your one rare exception kid that may pop up but most are mostly concerned of where's Mom and Dad after class and let's go I'm hungry attitude anf the lesson is more than a distant memory. It is a subject that's better suited for a mature age to digest.

[Scott Lloyd]

There's hypothetical children in France and Japan? In one of the rare instances I agree with ktg she has a good point. Basically outside the USA even in Hawaii with different cultures young children under a certain age are not just going to really understand any significance on how the details of the Utah War such as who's to blame. They are brought up in a different cultural environment. They won't know anything about US History let alone their own cultures history. Kids like you and me basically learn from repetitive lessons and not just be taught one time then forgotten. Now their may be your one rare exception kid that may pop up but most are mostly concerned of where's Mom and Dad after class and let's go I'm hungry attitude anf the lesson is more than a distant memory. It is a subject that's better suited for a mature age to digest.

I'm not saying Primary-age children need to be given in-depth instruction about the Utah war. I'm saying that Church history is relevant to Latter-day Saints everywhere, regardless of culture or nationality, and should never be dismissed as strictly a Utah or an American thing. Heaven help us if we ever get so disunified that we cease to regard the foundational events of the Restoration of the gospel and growth and development of the Church as personally applicable.

[dblagent007]

I don't think it's misleading. All things taken into account, I regard it as quite true that falsehoods spread by incompetent federal appointees who were scoundrels precipitated the Utah war. I would have no problem with my children being taught such a thing in Primary class. In fact, I would probably tell them so myself.

The manual is misleading because it implies that the falsehoods were the only reason Buchanan sent an army to Utah. Sure Buchanan probably heard some false stories, but, judging from the research I quoted above, he also heard a lot of true stories, both of which combined to cause him to send an army to Utah.

On the other hand I would object, vocally, if I learned that my child's Primary teacher was denying it in class.

What if the primary teacher said "the president of the United States had heard true stories that Church members were not obeying the law, so he sent an army to restore order."

This doesn't deny that false stories also existed and played into the president's decision making. They are just omitted from the statement.

[wenglund]

Good Heavens! Why is this even being taught in Primary? I'll especially bet the children in France and Japan just really look forward to that lesson!

Are you suggesting that the Church should white-wash its history? (Yes, I am being facetious)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[katherine the great]

Are you suggesting that the Church should white-wash its history? (Yes, I am being facetious)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, if it needs to be washed, it should at least be washed by people tall enough to reach the washing machine and old enough to read the instructions (in the proper language!)

[Scott Lloyd]

The manual is misleading because it implies that the falsehoods were the only reason Buchanan sent an army to Utah. Sure Buchanan probably heard some false stories, but, judging from the research I quoted above, he also heard a lot of true stories, both of which combined to cause him to send an army to Utah.

Whatever Buchanan may have heard that was true would not have justified his taking the action he did (sending an invasion force to replace Brigham Young as territorial governor, failing to inform Gov. Young beforehand, cutting off mail service to the territory in the manner of a despot, etc.) It is clear that the proximate cause of Buchanan's Blunder is that he chose to believe false and inflammatory reports without first investigating them.

Therefore, if I am to give Primary children a one-sentence summary of the reason construction of the Salt Lake Temple was interrupted, I probably phrase it similarly to what has been quoted on this thread from the Primary teacher's manual.

What if the primary teacher said "the president of the United States had heard true stories that Church members were not obeying the law, so he sent an army to restore order."

I would regard it as misleading to the point of being dishonest.

This doesn't deny that false stories also existed and played into the president's decision making. They are just omitted from the statement.

It presents a highly debatable opinion as fact, while ignoring germane information. It is as bad as an overt lie. And no, I don't accept your implication that what's in the Primary manual is just as bad. What's there is about as accurate as a one-sentence summary can be.

Furthermore, as the father of children in Primary, I will not tolerate teachers presenting their highly questionable and cynical opinions pertaining to Church history. I want them teaching what has been approved by the Church for inclusion in the curriculum materials. And I'll go to the bishop about it, if need be.

[dblagent007]

Whatever Buchanan may have heard that was true would not have justified his taking the action he did (sending an invasion force to replace Brigham Young as territorial governor, failing to inform Gov. Young beforehand, cutting off mail service to the territory in the manner of a despot, etc.) It is clear that the proximate cause of Buchanan's Blunder is that he chose to believe false and inflammatory reports without first investigating them.

Scott, I can't help but note that you seem to have no idea what Buchanan heard that was true, yet you have no problem dismissing it (whatever it is) as not being enough to cause his actions. Well, as they say, don't let the evidence get in the way of your predetermined conclusion (are you a believer in global warming too?).

I would be very interested in exactly what evidence you think makes it crystal clear that Buchanan acted based on false reports and would not have acted absent the false reports. I admit I am a bit puzzled since whatever it is was obviously overlooked by those that have carefully studied the events in question (see links provided by Aquilifer).

I would regard it as misleading to the point of being dishonest.

It presents a highly debatable opinion as fact, while ignoring germane information. It is as bad as an overt lie.

Exactly, Scott. Exactly.

And no, I don't accept your implication that what's in the Primary manual is just as bad. What's there is about as accurate as a one-sentence summary can be.

And just when I thought we were making progress...

Yeah, that's it. It's impossible to be more accurate in one sentence.

I can see that to you there is no problem with using half-truths to reaffirm and maintain faith. You are in good company, no doubt.

Furthermore, as the father of children in Primary, I will not tolerate teachers presenting their highly questionable and cynical opinions pertaining to Church history. I want them teaching what has been approved by the Church for inclusion in the curriculum materials. And I'll go to the bishop about it, if need be.

Oh absolutely.