Mountain Meadows Massacre

[happy]

I think this is the best book out there with information so far (link below). It was also written by LDS members, but I don't believe it is all that bias. I thought it gave it like it was, just like Bushman did with Joseph Smith. I think one difference between Leonard Arrington and the new book linked below is that these three men took years to complie the information and they had and used full access to the church vault. I am not sure if Leonard Arrington had the time, energy or same resources.

http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/0195160347

One of the commentators of that book made an interesting point:

Another detail that I don't buy, is that the Mormon men did most of the actual killing. The author describes bodies in which a high percentage--especially women and children--had slit throats. Now let me posit that slitting a person's throat is more personal than shooting him/her in the head. On the other hand, death via knife, was entirely appropriate to various Indian tribes. Therefore and in my opinion there are one of two possiblities.

1. There were a number of victims with 'slit throats' meaning that the Indians killed off most of the helpless emigrants---OR

2. The 'slit throat' story was only a story contribed to gin up even more hatred against the Mormons. One or the other. I think there is virtually no possibility that a 19 y.o. kid from Cedar City held down a 10 y.o. girl and slit her throat. None.

Edited September 17, 2012 by happy

[Tacenda]

One of the commentators of that book made an interesting point:

Another detail that I don't buy, is that the Mormon men did most of the actual killing. The author describes bodies in which a high percentage--especially women and children--had slit throats. Now let me posit that slitting a person's throat is more personal than shooting him/her in the head. On the other hand, death via knife, was entirely appropriate to various Indian tribes. Therefore and in my opinion there are one of two possiblities.

1. There were a number of victims with 'slit throats' meaning that the Indians killed off most of the helpless emigrants---OR

2. The 'slit throat' story was only a story contribed to gin up even more hatred against the Mormons. One or the other. I think there is virtually no possibility that a 19 y.o. kid from Cedar City held down a 10 y.o. girl and slit her throat. None.

Possibly the white men thought they were helping the immigrants atone for their own sins. In other words making it better for them in the hereafter. Maybe this was the only way the men could dignify the evil of their doings. The immigrants are going to a better place and will be forgiven for their sins now.

“I swore by the Eternal Gods that if men in our midst would not stop this cursed work of stealing & counterfeiting their throats should be cut” (“Manuscript History of Brigham Young,” Feb. 24,1847).

[Danzo]

Possibly the white men thought they were helping the immigrants atone for their own sins. In other words making it better for them in the hereafter. Maybe this was the only way the men could dignify the evil of their doings. The immigrants are going to a better place and will be forgiven for their sins now.

“I swore by the Eternal Gods that if men in our midst would not stop this cursed work of stealing & counterfeiting their throats should be cut” (“Manuscript History of Brigham Young,” Feb. 24,1847).

Are you suggesting that it was common practice for LDS to Slit other people's throats?

[Scott Lloyd]

Possibly the white men thought they were helping the immigrants atone for their own sins. In other words making it better for them in the hereafter. Maybe this was the only way the men could dignify the evil of their doings. The immigrants are going to a better place and will be forgiven for their sins now.

“I swore by the Eternal Gods that if men in our midst would not stop this cursed work of stealing & counterfeiting their throats should be cut” (“Manuscript History of Brigham Young,” Feb. 24,1847).

The blood-atonement theory has always struck me as a fanciful, anti-Mormon effort to seize the Mountain Meadows Massacre as a weapon with which to bludgeon Mormonism in general.

To me, the episode is explainable in terms of wartime hysteria, mob mentality and groupthink spiraling out of control as misdeed after misdeed was perpetrated to cover up earlier wrongs. It could happen in any group, not just Mormons.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

Yes they did...it is a tradgey like few otthers.

This may be true or not true. When we give an historical background to what happened, there can be some understanding. But there have certainly been worse massacres in the world than this. Rwanda is a case in point. The extermination of the Armenians is another example etc. We must put everything in perspective.

[why me]

To me, the episode is explainable in terms of wartime hysteria, mob mentality and group-think spiraling out of control as misdeed after misdeed was perpetrated to cover up earlier wrongs. It could happen in any group, not just Mormons.

And this is Arrington's take on it too. And the manual's background information to the massacre.

[Scott Lloyd]

And this is Arrington's take on it too. And the manual's background information to the massacre.

Undoubtedly.

But what I had in mind was the analysis in the most recent book, the one by Turley, Walker and Leonard.

[why me]

Leonard had his talents.

But I think your assertion does a disservice to the strides that have been made in the Church History Department since then, especially under the leadership of Elder Marlin K. Jensen as Church Historian/Recorder and with the development of the Joseph Smith Papers Project, etc.

The book that has been mentioned in this thread about Mountain Meadows is an example of the quality of output of the Church History Department today, as it was co-authored by the man who was the managing director of the department at the time and who today is the Assistant Church Historian/Recorder.

What I meant was the period in the 80's and 90's. I remember the controversy when Leonard was released and I do believe that it was at this time, that things began to change. The ensign became very benign in content among other things. But what is in the manual that I linked practically came right of Leonard's book. With Jensen, I think that we will see a difference in what is presented for church history. More addressing the critics problems and complaints. Of course he is retired now but his work must be continuing.

[why me]

Undoubtedly.

But what I had in mind was the analysis in the most recent book, the one by Turley, Walker and Leonard.

I know. This is one reason why the church may need to update somethings in the manual. History becomes revised with new information uncovered. My point was: there was no intentional misrepresentation of history as stated by Walden.

[Scott Lloyd]

What I meant was the period in the 80's and 90's. I remember the controversy when Leonard was released and I do believe that it was at this time, that things began to change.

It was in the mid-'80s that Richard E. Turley Jr. was appointed as managing director of the department (Today, he is Assistant Church Historian). He immediately infused it with a degree of professionalism and stature that it had not theretofore enjoyed. Arrington was a good writer and historian, but was less able as an administrator.

Elder Marlin K. Jensen was called as Church Historian and Recorder in 2005. He made a tremendous mark in terms of restructuring the department, defining its mission, pursuing landmark initiatives such as the Joseph Smith Papers Project, supervising the move into the new state-of-the-art Church History Library, improving relations with the public and with the historian community and in so many other ways. But the department was already on a trajectory of quality and continued improvement begun years before.

Whatever might be said about the "Camelot" era of Church history, I think things are better today than ever before.

The ensign became very benign in content among other things.

Whatever the perceived role of the Ensign might be or what it might have been in the past, it is not primarily a Church history publication. Consumers of Church history must look to other sources for that -- such as the output of the Church History Department.

But what is in the manual that I linked practically came right of Leonard's book.

I'm sure he made a great contribution during the years he served as Church Historian and beyond.

I mentioned B. H. Roberts' treatment of Mountain Meadows in A Comprehensive History of the Church. Have you seen that? It was published very early on, and its accuracy and candor strike me as remarkable for its time. Roberts was definitely not into whitewashing the event.

With Jensen, I think that we will see a difference in what is presented for church history.

Well, Elder Jensen's period as Church Historian now belongs to the ages. We must look to others to carry forward the work, including the newest Church Historian, Elder Snow.

More addressing the critics problems and complaints. Of course he is retired now but his work must be continuing.

I am personally acquainted with Elder Jensen and know that his humility is one of his endearing qualities. I think he would be the first to say that others deserve a great deal of credit for the direction and accomplishments of the Church History Department.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I know. This is one reason why the church may need to update somethings in the manual. History becomes revised with new information uncovered. My point was: there was no intentional misrepresentation of history as stated by Walden.

I agree fully.

[emeliza]

One of the commentators of that book made an interesting point:

Another detail that I don't buy, is that the Mormon men did most of the actual killing. The author describes bodies in which a high percentage--especially women and children--had slit throats. Now let me posit that slitting a person's throat is more personal than shooting him/her in the head. On the other hand, death via knife, was entirely appropriate to various Indian tribes. Therefore and in my opinion there are one of two possiblities.

1. There were a number of victims with 'slit throats' meaning that the Indians killed off most of the helpless emigrants---OR

2. The 'slit throat' story was only a story contribed to gin up even more hatred against the Mormons. One or the other. I think there is virtually no possibility that a 19 y.o. kid from Cedar City held down a 10 y.o. girl and slit her throat. None.

Or another possibility is that the white men were trying to come across as Indians. Remember many of the white men involved dressed up like Indians to fool the emmigrants. Not saying that happened or didn't happen, but there are more than just the two possibilities.

Possibly the white men thought they were helping the immigrants atone for their own sins. In other words making it better for them in the hereafter. Maybe this was the only way the men could dignify the evil of their doings. The immigrants are going to a better place and will be forgiven for their sins now.

“I swore by the Eternal Gods that if men in our midst would not stop this cursed work of stealing & counterfeiting their throats should be cut” (“Manuscript History of Brigham Young,” Feb. 24,1847).

There is nothing other than this quote to support that thought.

I agree with Scott that it was a mob mentality due to the impending war and all the people had been thru. It was sort of a Lord of the Flies type situation where they all listened to a few of the area leaders, or just those who took charge, who made them fearful and that this was the only way to deal with the 'enemies'.

I also agree that the Church isn't necessarily covering it up so much as they just haven't updated their manuals.

[Tacenda]

It was in the mid-'80s that Richard E. Turley Jr. was appointed as managing director of the department (Today, he is Assistant Church Historian). He immediately infused it with a degree of professionalism and stature that it had not theretofore enjoyed. Arrington was a good writer and historian, but was less able as an administrator.

Elder Marlin K. Jensen was called as Church Historian and Recorder in 2005. He made a tremendous mark in terms of restructuring the department, defining its mission, pursuing landmark initiatives such as the Joseph Smith Papers Project, supervising the move into the new state-of-the-art Church History Library, and in so many other ways. But the department was already on a trajectory of quality and continued improvement begun years before.

Whatever might be said about the "Camelot" era of Church history, I think things are better today than ever before.

Whatever the perceived role of the Ensign might be or what it might have been in the past, it is not primarily a Church history publication. Consumers of Church history must look to other sources for that -- such as the output of the Church History Department.

I'm sure he made a great contribution during the years he served as Church Historian and beyond.

I mentioned B. H. Roberts' treatment of Mountain Meadows in A Comprehensive History of the Church. Have you seen that? It was published very early on, and its accuracy and candor strike me as remarkable for its time. Roberts was definitely not into whitewashing the event.

Well, Elder Jensen's period as Church Historian now belongs to the ages. We must look to others to carry forward the work, including the newest Church Historian, Elder Snow.

I am personally acquainted with Elder Jensen and know that his humility is one of his endearing qualities. I think he would be the first to say that others deserve a great deal of credit for the direction and accomplishments of the Church History Department.

Put in a good word for us that are waiting for more historical works so our children won't feel the pangs of the crisis of faith too.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

Dbl post

Edited September 17, 2012 by Tacenda

[Nevo]

One of the commentators of that book made an interesting point:

Contrary to your commentator's assertion, the book doesn't claim that "a high percentage--especially women and children--had slit throats." Probably the number was quite small. Shannon Novak's analysis of the skeletons of 28 victims found that most of the women and children died of blunt force trauma.

Secondly, the book narrates episodes of throat slitting by whites. So it's not as though it is inconceivable that a Mormon could ever do such a thing. John D. Lee admitted to slitting a twelve-year-old girl's throat, and he probably killed her sister the same way (see Massacre at Mountain Meadows, 206–207). "They was too big and too old to let live," he told Jacob Hamblin.

[why me]

Put in a good word for us that are waiting for more historical works so our children won't feel the pangs of the crisis of faith too.

You can begin to talk to your children now about church history. We need to remember that history is just that history. and if a parent tells the history, and it is told in a faith promoting way, there should be no problem.

[Scott Lloyd]

Put in a good word for us that are waiting for more historical works so our children won't feel the pangs of the crisis of faith too.

I'll be interviewing the new Church Historian.

But what if I mention this and he asks me if I've read what has already come out? I'd have to tell him I've hardly begun to digest the Joseph Smith Papers volumes now in print or the online content now freely accessible on the Joseph Smith Papers website.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

I'll be interviewing the new Church Historian.

But what if I mention this and he asks me if I've read what has already come out? I'd have to tell him I've hardly begun to digest the Joseph Smith Papers volumes now in print or the online content now freely accessible on the Joseph Smith Papers website.

When you mentioned the Joseph Smith Papers, I thought of the show they had once, on the many versions of the First Vision and was impressed that they undertook this matter and showed plausible reasons for them. And in my search to find the exact title of the show I stumbled across this site. I believe they've made over 90 shows that are taken from the JS papers.

http://byutv.org/watch/0152504a-a7f2-4323-913f-84b9c0c2bfec/the-joseph-smith-papers-part-2-question-and-answer-forum

Good luck with the interview with the new Church Historian. I've no idea of what to tell you on even beginning to cover the vast amount of documentation available on MMM. Maybe we should start a new thread and find out questions for your interview. My first would be, "what are they doing about new church curriculum and putting in history to help innoculate the younger generation from stumbling onto history they were unaware of and is shocking to them?".

[why me]

My first would be, "what are they doing about new church curriculum and putting in history to help innoculate the younger generation from stumbling onto history they were unaware of and is shocking to them?".

I think that they know what needs to be done. We already see this with The Fulness of TImes manual and other manuals too that are now easily accessed from the internet. I think that some people will always be shocked out of the church. And it is difficult to know who is unaware of this or that. But what they can do is to have a church history class that would be faith promoting. But the teacher would need the details too and not be surprised with the information that will be presented.

But it can be done and I think that it will be done eventually. I wouldn't be surprised if they are planning such a manual in the future. This could be one question that scott could ask: is the church preparing a history to be taught in sunday school that would address the controversies.

[Tacenda]

I think that they know what needs to be done. We already see this with The Fulness of TImes manual and other manuals too that are now easily accessed from the internet. I think that some people will always be shocked out of the church. And it is difficult to know who is unaware of this or that. But what they can do is to have a church history class that would be faith promoting. But the teacher would need the details too and not be surprised with the information that will be presented.

But it can be done and I think that it will be done eventually. I wouldn't be surprised if they are planning such a manual in the future. This could be one question that scott could ask: is the church preparing a history to be taught in sunday school that would address the controversies.

Maybe they could put together a class similar to the Gospel Essentials, Family History, Marriage & Teacher Enrichment classes. I've attended every one of these in the past.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Tacenda

[USU78]

Are you suggesting that it was common practice for LDS to Slit other people's throats?

It is certainly what the boobirds and anti-former-LDS assert whenever the subject comes up:

That is why the Blood Atonement Slander is such a hot topic hereabouts.

[Tacenda]

It is certainly what the boobirds and anti-former-LDS assert whenever the subject comes up:

That is why the Blood Atonement Slander is such a hot topic hereabouts.

Not really but I believe it may have occurred.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think that they know what needs to be done. We already see this with The Fulness of TImes manual and other manuals too that are now easily accessed from the internet. I think that some people will always be shocked out of the church. And it is difficult to know who is unaware of this or that. But what they can do is to have a church history class that would be faith promoting. But the teacher would need the details too and not be surprised with the information that will be presented.

But it can be done and I think that it will be done eventually. I wouldn't be surprised if they are planning such a manual in the future. This could be one question that scott could ask: is the church preparing a history to be taught in sunday school that would address the controversies.

I would certainly be willing to ask. But we need to remember that Elder Snow, as Church Historian and Recorder, is not in charge of preparing Church curriculum materials, although I understand the Church History Department does provide assistance on matters of Church history when curriculum materials are being prepared. And Elder Snow, like Elder Jensen, is a General Authority, so he might be somewhat in the know on this matter.

The point I was endeavoring to make is that a good deal of material has already been published under Church auspices and that Church members as a whole need to take better cognizance of it. So often, some among us encounter something put out by antagonists for its shock value, and they jump to the conclusion that they were misled or underserved, when they have not been duly diligent about studying what material has already been available.

I keep bringing up Roberts's account of Mountain Meadows in A Comprehensive History of the Church, and how thorough and candid it was, especially for the 1930s. I fear, though, that relatively few Latter-day Saints have ever bothered to open that classic work, even to consult it for reference on this or that matter.

[Tacenda]

I would certainly be willing to ask. But we need to remember that Elder Snow, as Church Historian and Recorder, is not in charge of preparing Church curriculum materials, although I understand the Church History Department does provide assistance on matters of Church history when curriculum materials are being prepared. And Elder Snow, like Elder Jensen, is a General Authority, so he might be somewhat in the know on this matter.

The point I was endeavoring to make is that a good deal of material has already been published under Church auspices and that Church members as a whole need to take better cognizance of it. So often, some among us encounter something put out by antagonists for its shock value, and they jump to the conclusion that they were misled or underserved, when they have not been duly diligent about studying what material has already been available.

I keep bringing up Roberts's account of Mountain Meadows in A Comprehensive History of the Church, and how thorough and candid it was, especially for the 1930s. I fear, though, that relatively few Latter-day Saints have ever bothered to open that classic work, even to consult it for reference on this or that matter.

Sorry I hadn't taken the time to look over this, I'll be sure and read over it, thanks.

[DavidB]

And that was essentially what I was taught in Seminary 50 years ago.

I learned about MMM from a supervisor at my job who was less than friendly towards the LDS.

I learned more about MMM from the salt lake tribune and the comments therein.