Mountain Meadows Massacre

[Calm]

I don't believe the underlined statements either. I think there was some misrepresentation here.

I think these were conclusions based on false information from those involved, not intentional misrepresentation by the writers. When better information was found, this was corrected (see the Ensign article, but has to wait for the next rewrite of this manual or a completely new manual for a correction in this text.

[Calm]

I think that when the manual was written they may have relied on Leonard Arrington. He was the church historian, I believe. His book that I listed is almost exactly as the manual with MMM. Of course, as more information is uncovered, there should be a rewrite. And Leonard was not known to whitewash lds history. There is no misrepresentation intended.

Exactly.

[why me]

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.

Not exactly unbiased sources. Sometimes we need to see the sources before we jump to a conclusion. The comments section of the SLT can be extremely hating toward the lds.

[ERayR]

Not exactly unbiased sources. Sometimes we need to see the sources before we jump to a conclusion. The comments section of the SLT can be extremely hating toward the lds.

Again there is no such thing as an unbiased source. Anybody interested enough to write about this is biased one way or the other. This only means that their material should be read with their biases in mind.

Edited September 18, 2012 by ERayR

[emeliza]

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.

I think some of this ends up getting talked about more in Institute and Seminary classes rather than on Sunday when we should be focusing on worshiping God and how to better ourselves. It becomes sticky if we take the focus away from God and put it on studying history. All the other classes are supposed to teach us how to better ourselves to serve God and our neighbor. I think a class outside of Sunday would be good though.

II 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.

I wish I owned these, but I do know, they are generally considered to be incredibly good and go into all the details on many issues. I think maybe for my birthday I will ask for the first book and start reading them. They are definitely a work I should own. Thanks for the reminder.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Which provides an illustration of what I keep stressing: the need for Latter-day Saints to study Church history on their own initiative from reliable sources, lest they be sent into a tailspin from the inevitable encounter with propaganda produced by the Church's antagonists.

And the antagonistic sources themselves ought to be viewed with a critical eye.

[why me]

I think some of this ends up getting talked about more in Institute and Seminary classes rather than on Sunday when we should be focusing on worshiping God and how to better ourselves. It becomes sticky if we take the focus away from God and put it on studying history.

One can put God into lds history very well. And we can also put human imperfections. At the end of the day, it can make for a good class for those interested.

[why me]

Which provides an illustration of what I keep stressing: the need for Latter-day Saints to study Church history on their own initiative from reliable sources, lest they be sent into a tailspin from the inevitable encounter with propaganda produced by the Church's antagonists.

And the antagonistic sources themselves ought to be viewed with a critical eye.

Unfortunately, very few know about the manuals that have been linked to on this thread and on the polygamy thread. Most will then go along with: the church hides its history and when proven wrong, they will bunker down in their new belief system for all its worth.

[Scott Lloyd]

Unfortunately, very few know about the manuals that have been linked to on this thread and on the polygamy thread. Most will then go along with: the church hides its history and when proven wrong, they will bunker down in their new belief system for all its worth.

The Church History in the Fulness of Times course manual that you have cited is constantly on the shelves at Church Distribution Center outlets or available for online order. These days, the Distribution Center stores have been included within the walls of Deseret Book stores, so the material is even more available than in the past. Sunday School gospel doctrine teachers are encouraged to consult it in conjunction with the Doctrine and Covenants and Church history course; hence, Sunday School teachers are apt to read or quote from it.

A Comprehensive History of the Church is available in various forms, including an iPhone/iPod download that can be acquired through the App Store for less than five bucks.

Again, so much of one's learning is dependent upon taking personal initiative, being proactive (making the study of Church history from reliable sources a personal and continual pursuit) as opposed to reactive (waiting until one runs across anti-Mormon propaganda, then getting upset and jumping to panicky and dogmatic conclusions).

Edited September 18, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

I think some of this ends up getting talked about more in Institute and Seminary classes rather than on Sunday when we should be focusing on worshiping God and how to better ourselves. It becomes sticky if we take the focus away from God and put it on studying history. All the other classes are supposed to teach us how to better ourselves to serve God and our neighbor. I think a class outside of Sunday would be good though.

I wish I owned these, but I do know, they are generally considered to be incredibly good and go into all the details on many issues. I think maybe for my birthday I will ask for the first book and start reading them. They are definitely a work I should own. Thanks for the reminder.

I have the complete sets of the History of the Church and A Comprehensive History of the Church. But then I could go book poor if I didn't put tight reins on my one vice. Buying books.

[Walden]

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.

I see this as part of the problem. I think that church history, and any history for that matter, should be taught with a focus on promoting truth, rather than promoting faith. Much of the church history that I learned growing up in the LDS faith was so sugar-coated, watered down and abbreviated, that when I discovered the actual truth and studied the facts, the stories that I was taught in the church seemed to be shells of the actual events that transpired. It appeared that the church, in the past, had been so preoccupied with controlling it's history and teaching it in a "faith promoting" manner, that truth and honesty became a secondary goal, well behind the number one goal of promoting the faith. I think that the problem arises when one discovers that they were sold a faith promoting history that excludes some of the known facts and truths of the actual events, which natually leaves one wondering what else did they learn that was not "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

This is not to say that the critics version of history is any closer to the truth than the church's. Personally, I think that the truth is somewhere in the middle (for instance, unlike many critics, I don't believe Brigham Young gave the orders to murder the settlers at Mountain Meadows, but unlike most TBMs, I don't believe that he was completely innocent either). I think that the danger of historical interpretation arises when one side claims that their history is completely valid, and that their "enemies" interpretation is complete hogwash. The key is understanding the motivations and agendas of those interpreting the history, do the heavy lifting of sifting the propaganda from the facts, and then let the truth fall where it may.

[thesometimesaint]

Walden:

The truth is seldom in the exact middle of defenders and critics. Most often it leans one way or the other.

No mortal has completely pure motives, but it is a stretch too far to state that BY was responsible for the MMM. I see the MMM as a tragic confluence of events, and rumors that led to its misguided, and criminal culmination.

[KevinG]

Well this TBM believes that Brigham's polemics may have contributed to the heated situation, but that he didn't order the massacre, indeed he tried to prevent it.

How does that fit with your model of a clean break between the opinions of critics and the opinions of TBMs?

Who is guilty of black and white thinking here?

[Walden]

Kevin, you and I appear to have come to the same conclusion, that while Brigham's fiery rhetoric and paranoia regarding the federal government was a contributing factor to MMM, he did not give the direct orders to murder innocents at MMM. I came to this conclusion simply becasue I have never seen any substantiated evidence that BY ordered the murders, simple as that.

I don't think that my "model" espouses a clean break between opinions of critics and TBMs. Quite the contrary, my model espouses that one looks at the facts presented by both sides, sift the propaganda from the facts, and then attempt to come to an understanding of the truth. One has to consider both sides, not just the LDS version or the critics version. This is how I came to the determination that BY did not order the murders at MM.

Personally, I think that both sides are guilty of black and white thinking, and that boths sides harbor some semblences of truth, but that neither side has cornered the market on truth. As a critic and an atheist, I readily admit that I could be completely wrong about the whole thing (for I have yet to corner the market on truth ), including the truth claims of the LDS church, and I am fine with that. Now try getting a TBM to admit the same. This is the black and white thinking that I consider most dangerous.

[emeliza]

I have the complete sets of the History of the Church and A Comprehensive History of the Church. But then I could go book poor if I didn't put tight reins on my one vice. Buying books.

Agreed.

Well this TBM believes that Brigham's polemics may have contributed to the heated situation, but that he didn't order the massacre, indeed he tried to prevent it.

Agreed as well.

[KevinG]

I readily admit that I could be completely wrong about the whole thing (for I have yet to corner the market on truth ), including the truth claims of the LDS church, and I am fine with that. Now try getting a TBM to admit the same.

I just did. Perhaps your opinion that TBMs don't admit they are ever wrong comes from your confrontational approach. It is rare that someone being confronted will react in any way but to oppose that confrontation.

[USU78]

Not really but I believe it may have occurred.

In the absence of evidence, always go with your true gut feeling.

[USU78]

Well this TBM believes that Brigham's polemics may have contributed to the heated situation, but that he didn't order the massacre, indeed he tried to prevent it.

And this TBM believes the first clause of this sentence is an exercise in presentism. We must remember when and where when we engage a phenomenon. Read sometime the hours long address at the first centennial of the Wyoming Massacre sometime to get a flavor of the kind of public speaking that people engaged in during this time period: and that address occurred 20 years after the Utah War.

When war is at hand, there is a certain kind of rhetoric that necessarily ensues. The person who wars upon another is responsible for that rhetoric, since its occurrence is inevitable and, therefore, foreseeable. When Buchanan authorized the expeditionary forces to Utah Territory in the summer of 1857, he set in motion and caused the events which reasonably flow from that decision, including but not limited to BY's and other Mormon leaders' wartime rhetoric, and, IMNSHO, MMM.

People need to be prepared for the rigors and horrors of war. That's what leaders do when war is thrust upon them: engage in those preparations.

BY bears, in my judgment, no moral and certainly no proximate responsibility for what ensued after 24 July 1857.

[Rivers]

Walden:

The truth is seldom in the exact middle of defenders and critics. Most often it leans one way or the other.

No mortal has completely pure motives, but it is a stretch too far to state that BY was responsible for the MMM. I see the MMM as a tragic confluence of events, and rumors that led to its misguided, and criminal culmination.

It seems likely to me that Young had involvement in the massacre itself, but I think that it is clear that he was involved with the cover-up. So he is certainly not completely innocent. I would really like to know more about this part of the story. Are there any good books currently out there that go into detail about the aftermath and cover-up?

Edited September 18, 2012 by Rivers

[Calm]

It seems likely to me that Young had involvement in the massacre itself

Is this what you meant to say?

Turley, etc. have a book dealing with the aftermath in the same detail as their first one sometime in the future. The first one was delayed quite a bit due, I believe, the tremendous amount of documents they found that they hadn't quite expected. If anything, I would be surprised if there wasn't more available for the aftermath so I expected the same amount of delays...but it will be definitely worth the wait if it is of the same quality as the first.

[Danzo]

Not really but I believe it may have occurred.

Is there any reason you believe it may have occured?

[emeliza]

Turley, etc. have a book dealing with the aftermath in the same detail as their first one sometime in the future. The first one was delayed quite a bit due, I believe, the tremendous amount of documents they found that they hadn't quite expected. If anything, I would be surprised if there wasn't more available for the aftermath so I expected the same amount of delays...but it will be definitely worth the wait if it is of the same quality as the first.

My understanding is that they took a break from it a bit as well due to burn out on MMM. I haven't heard a release date on the second book or even where it is at yet in terms of completion, but I look forward to it.

[Calm]

My understanding is that they took a break from it a bit as well due to burn out on MMM. I haven't heard a release date on the second book or even where it is at yet in terms of completion, but I look forward to it.

Understandable. Even the aftermath must be a pretty depressing subject.

[emeliza]

Richard E. Turley Jr. has signed a contract with Oxford University Press to publish the second volume; as of April 2010 this sequel is tentatively titled After the Massacre.

This is per Wikipedia...so who knows how accurate it is.

[why me]

I see this as part of the problem. I think that church history, and any history for that matter, should be taught with a focus on promoting truth, rather than promoting faith.

The problem Walden is that we all have our version of the truth. Certainly you have your own version of the truth and I am not sure if it is possible for you to accept someone else's truth that would be different from your own.

With history we generally not just deal with fact but also interpretations of that fact. It seems that you have embraced a 'truth' that would be very critical of the lds church when it writes about its history. Or its interpretation of its history. And this is the problem. My truth about MMM might be different from yours even though we agree on the same fact because my interpretations of that fact are different from your interpretation.