Mountain Meadows Massacre

[Scott Lloyd]

Below are three chilling words that corroborate my interpretation of their motives.  For those of you take issue with my perspective, in what way was it their duty to pull the trigger when John Higbee yelled:

 

“Do your duty!”

Is it definitive that these words were the pre-arranged signal, or is that merely what has been handed down through legend and lore?

 

As I recall, Turley, Walker and Leonard, who did the more recent and more thorough research on the event, said the signal was merely the single word, "Halt." (See, for example, my 2007 story here).

 

Non-definitive legend seems a rather wispy corroboration on which to hang your interpretation of motives.

 

Edited to add:

 

I just checked my copy of the Turley, Walker and Leonard book. Documentation on the signal being the single word "Halt" (not "do your duty") is cited in note 105 of Chapter 13 (page 361).

I know old misconceptions die hard, but I do believe it is high time this one is given a decent burial. Especially if it is being used as an excuse on which to prop up a blanket accusation of the entire Church of Jesus Christ and its people for the behavior of relatively few under circumstances of wartime hysteria and panic.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Oaths of Vengeance were/are for God to carry out not Brigham Young and definitely not John D. Lee and co-conspirators. 

 

 

The reliance on such an absurd attenuated argument demonstrates about as well as anything I can think of the lengths the True Believer will go to tie MMM to BY.

 

"Vengeance is Mine, saith The Lord."

 

Brigham said it.

 

But he was quoting somebody else.

 

"I The Lord will forgive whom I will forgive; but of you it is required that ye forgive all men."

 

"But USU78," says the hypothetical critic, "don't Mormons supposedly have their own scripture trump the Bible?"

 

Oh wait! That is from "Mormon scripture." It's Doctrine and Covenants 64:10.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

Is it definitive that these words were the pre-arranged signal, or is that merely what has been handed down through legend and lore?

 

As I recall, Turley, Walker and Leonard, who did the more recent and more thorough research on the event, said the signal was merely the single word, "Halt." (See, for example, my 2007 story here).

 

Non-definitive legend seems a rather wispy corroboration on which to hang your interpretation of motives.

 

Edited to add:

 

I just checked my copy of the Turley, Walker and Leonard book. Documentation on the signal being the single word "Halt" (not "do your duty") is cited in note 105 of Chapter 13 (page 361).

I know old misconceptions die hard, but I do believe it is high time this one is given a decent burial. Especially if it is being used as an excuse on which to prop up a blanket accusation of the entire Church of Jesus Christ and its people for the behavior of relatively few under circumstances of wartime hysteria and panic.

 

"Do Your Duty" is a line from a very bad movie which the screenplay writer gleaned from . . . Jerald Tanner!

[Scott Lloyd]

"Do Your Duty" is a line from a very bad movie which the screenplay writer gleaned from . . . Jerald Tanner!

It's too melodramatic even for inclusion in a bad movie.

[Analytics]

It's too melodramatic even for inclusion in a bad movie.

 

As if 19th Century Mormons weren't melodramatic.

 

The cynical side of me was sure you'd deny it was even said.  I laughed out loud when that is what you did.

 

Will Bagley says:

 

 There, the senior Mormon officer escorting the men gave an order: perhaps "Halt!" but by most accounts, "Do your duty!"

 

http://www.historynet.com/mountain-meadows-massacre

 

Douglas O. Linder says

 

When the escorted men had fallen a quarter mile or so behind the women and children, who had just crested a small hill, Higbee yelled, "Halt! Do your duty!" Each of the Mormon men shot and killed the emigrant at his side.

 

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/leeaccount.html

 

Juanita Brooks says:

 

At the command "Halt! Do your duty!" each Mormon man was to shoot the emigrant at his side.

 

The Mountain Meadows Massacre, Page 52

 

Sally Denton says

 

Higbee fired a shot into the air, and gave the fateful order to his brethren: "Halt! do your duty!" Or, as some later reported, it was not Higbee but either Lee or Klingensmith who shouted, "Halt! Do your duty to Istrael!"

 

American Massacre, page 137

Edited September 13, 2014 by Analytics

[Analytics]

CFR on the source.  And CFR for supporting documentation demonstrating the accuracy of the report, preferably first hand contemporary accounts from other Utah Mormons who said the same thing.  If the sentiment is accurate, then such statements would be easy to find among the other Mormons.

 

The source is, of course, Last Confession and Statement of John D. Lee, page 221.

 

For supporting documentation, see Chapters 10-11 of Massacre at Mountain Meadows by Walker et. al.  These chapters goes into great detail about the thought process of the Mormons as they were planning the massacre.  Here are a few relevant quotes:

 

A persistent element in the stories told against the emigrants was that one boasted of having a gun that killed Joseph Smith. The Benevolent Society minutes suggest that vengeance for Smith’s death was a current topic during the week of the massacre.

Walker, Ronald W.; Turley, Richard E.; Leonard, Glen M. (2008-07-22). Massacre at Mountain Meadows (p. 135). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

 

Lee, the religious zealot, wanted to play a meaningful role in what he supposed to be God’s purpose. The emigrants “were enemies to us, & … this was the beginning of great and important events,” he said shortly after the massacre. Haight was caught up by the threat he perceived in the emigrants and wanted “to put them out of the way before they done any more harm.” Both men also felt the need to settle old scores with the “gentiles,”

Walker, Ronald W.; Turley, Richard E.; Leonard, Glen M. (2008-07-22). Massacre at Mountain Meadows (p. 144). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

 

 

At 4:00 p.m. on Sundays, after the regular worship service, the local leaders sometimes convened a council meeting to discuss and coordinate policy. At the September 6 meeting, Haight sought the council’s support for the plan to attack the emigrant train as he had earlier promised Lee to do. The meeting included members of the Cedar City stake presidency—Haight and his two counselors, John Higbee and Elias Morris; the Cedar City bishopric—Klingensmith and his counselors, James Whitaker Sr. and Morris’s father, John; and members of the stake high council....

 

Morrill remembered, however, that Klingensmith, Haight, “and one or two” others thought it best to destroy the emigrants. “Some had heard the statement that they had helped to kill Old Joe Smith out."

Walker, Ronald W.; Turley, Richard E.; Leonard, Glen M. (2008-07-22). Massacre at Mountain Meadows (p. 155-156). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Analytics

[Scott Lloyd]

As if 19th Century Mormons weren't melodramatic.

 

The cynical side of me was sure you'd deny it was even said.  I laughed out loud when that is what you did.

I did more than deny it. I cited Turley, Walker and Leonard, who have done the best and most recent research, using source material that was not previously available, though it is now to any researcher. I even gave the page number in the book by Turley et al that has the chapter note that cites the documentation.

All you've done, on the other hand, is given hackneyed legend and lore from older sources, some of whom cribbed from others, and then arrogantly deride me for setting the record straight, even as you ignored the citation I gave.

Did you examine the documentation given by Turley, et al? Have you ever even opened their book? If not, stop wasting our time.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

I did more than deny it. I cited Turley, Walker and Leonard, who have done the best and most recent research, using source material that was not previously available, though it is now to any researcher. I even gave the page number in the book by Turley et al that has the chapter note that cites the documentation.

All you've done, on the other hand, is given hackneyed legend and lore from older sources, some of whom cribbed from others, and then arrogantly deride me for setting the record straight, even as you ignored the citation I gave.

Did you examine the documentation given by Turley, et al? Have you ever even opened their book? If not, stop wasting our time.

 

Of course I did.  Here is the entirty of their argument:

 

Corr2; Corr1; Whitney, 1:706n†; NJ1908; Philip Klingensmith, JDL1-BT 3:81; Joel White, JDL1-BT 3:126–27, JDL1-PS 4:23–24, JDL1-RS 3:30–31; Chatterley. Others who confirmed that Higbee spoke the order include George Washington Adair, in David O. McKay, Diary, July 27, 1907, UofU; NJ1917; Rogers; Carleton, 21. “The fatal signal … consisted of calling out in a loud tone the word, ‘halt’ (not ‘do your duty’).” Corr2.

Walker, Ronald W.; Turley, Richard E.; Leonard, Glen M. (2008-07-22). Massacre at Mountain Meadows (p. 365). Oxford University Press.

 

Their point is that the offical signal was "halt."  However, this doesn't prove that he didn't also say "do your duty!"  Mutliple sources do in fact claim that, "Halt! Do your duty!" was in fact said.

[ERayR]

Of course I did.  Here is the entirty of their argument:

 

 

 

Walker, Ronald W.; Turley, Richard E.; Leonard, Glen M. (2008-07-22). Massacre at Mountain Meadows (p. 365). Oxford University Press.

 

Their point is that the offical signal was "halt."  However, this doesn't prove that he didn't also say "do your duty!"  Mutliple sources do in fact claim that, "Halt! Do your duty!" was in fact said.

 

 

And this is relevant and significant?  Why?

[Analytics]

And this is relevant and significant? Why?

Walker et.al. claim that gibberish proves the agreed upon signal was "Halt!" Scott thinks that proves that Higbee didn't actually say, "Halt! Do your duty!" I don't follow Scott's logic.

Multiple credible historians claim that "Do your duty!" was spoken. If the evidence proves they are all wrong, we need a better argument than the footnote Scott referenced.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Analytics

[Tacenda]

As if 19th Century Mormons weren't melodramatic.

The cynical side of me was sure you'd deny it was even said. I laughed out loud when that is what you did.

Will Bagley says:

http://www.historynet.com/mountain-meadows-massacre

Douglas O. Linder says

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/leeaccount.html

Juanita Brooks says:

The Mountain Meadows Massacre, Page 52

Sally Denton says

American Massacre, page 137

Wow, why do people want to cut off the "do your duty"? They want to believe it was just "Halt", halt and then what, nothing? Halt is the order? Wouldn't they actually just halt verses shoot, common sense. Doesn't hold much water to me.

[ERayR]

Walker et.al. claim that gibberish proves the agreed upon signal was "Halt!" Scott thinks that proves that Higbee didn't actually say, "Halt! Do your duty!" I don't follow Scott's logic.

Multiple credible historians claim that "Do your duty!" was spoken. If the evidence proves they are all wrong, we need a better argument than the footnote Scott referenced.

 

And this is relevant and significant?  Why?

[Analytics]

Wow, why do people want to cut off the "do your duty"? They want to believe it was just "Halt", halt and then what, nothing? Halt is the order? Wouldn't they actually just halt verses shoot, common sense. Doesn't hold much water to me.

It reminds me of my first Boy Scout camping trip. At the end of one night, we were told to walk one at a time down a dark trail exactly 100 paces, at which point we'd see pebbles arranged to spell a word, which we were supposed to read in the moonlight. We then needed to return and whisper the secret word to the leader.

Being the youngest, I was the first to go. After walking 100 steps in the dark by myself, I saw the word. The pebbles spelled the word "STOP." At that point I followed the directions of the pebbles and stopped the exercise and waited for something to happen. Nothing did. I finally went back. It turned out I wasn't supposed to stop like the word said. Rather, I was supposed to go back and tell the leader the word was "STOP".

Adding "do your duty!" Would certainly clarify that "Halt" meant to carry out the plans rather than abort them, as "halt" would literally mean.

[Analytics]

And this is relevant and significant? Why?

Apparently USU78 thinks Juanita Brooks's source for "do your duty" is Jerald Tanner, and Scott thinks it's been proven that those words weren't spoken and that reasonable people should stop pretending that the were.

I'm simply explaining why I think they really were spoken.

[ERayR]

It reminds me of my first Boy Scout camping trip. At the end of one night, we were told to walk one at a time down a dark trail exactly 100 paces, at which point we'd see pebbles arranged to spell a word, which we were supposed to read in the moonlight. We then needed to return and whisper the secret word to the leader.

Being the youngest, I was the first to go. After walking 100 steps in the dark by myself, I saw the word. The pebbles spelled the word "STOP." At that point I followed the directions of the pebbles and stopped the exercise and waited for something to happen. Nothing did. I finally went back. It turned out I wasn't supposed to stop like the word said. Rather, I was supposed to go back and tell the leader the word was "STOP".

Adding "do your duty!" Would certainly clarify that "Halt" meant to carry out the plans rather than abort them, as "halt" would literally mean.

 

You are still not answering the question: And this is relevant and significant?  Why?

 

I will add Hilary Clinton's observation at a different atrocity:  "At this point what difference does it make". 150 years down the road.

Edited September 13, 2014 by ERayR

[Analytics]

You are still not answering the question: And this is relevant and significant? Why?

I will ad Hilary Clinton's observation at a different atrocity: At this point what difference does it make. 150 years down the road.

Scott is the one who thinks the historical record should be rewritten to remove this phrase. If you don't think it's significant one way or the other, take it up with him for wanting to rewrite history. For my part, I think it is important to know what was said.

[ERayR]

Scott is the one who thinks the historical record should be rewritten to remove this phrase. If you don't think it's significant one way or the other, take it up with him for wanting to rewrite history. For my part, I think it is important to know what was said.

 

It is apparent to me that it is not at all certain your version of the events is at all accurate.  That said either way it doesn't change what an isolated group of angry, terrified men did, nor does it implicate anyone but themselves.

[Analytics]

It is apparent to me that it is not at all certain your version of the events is at all accurate. That said either way it doesn't change what an isolated group of angry, terrified men did, nor does it implicate anyone but themselves.

Understanding their motivarions can help us understand the human condition. What they said can help us understand their motivations. Debating the evidence can help us arrive at the correct conclusion of what they said.

If you aren't interested in these things, you don't need to read what I write.

[Analytics]

.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Analytics

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[ERayR]

Understanding their motivarions can help us understand the human condition. What they said can help us understand their motivations. Debating the evidence can help us arrive at the correct conclusion of what they said.

If you aren't interested in these things, you don't need to read what I write.

 

Do you actually think knowing what the exact signal, to commit mass murder, was is going to help you understand what their motivations were?  

[Tacenda]

Do you actually think knowing what the exact signal, to commit mass murder, was is going to help you understand what their motivations were?

Do your duty signifies it wasn't something they really wanted to do but adhering to somebody or something higher, and IMO they were helping those immigrants atone for their own sins, which was taught to these men by their current prophet.

[rodheadlee]

Yes, of course anytime we can blame the Church or BY for MMM we should by all means jump on it.

[Tacenda]

Yes, of course anytime we can blame the Church or BY for MMM we should by all means jump on it.

No, but it is in the JoD that this was taught by BY, I'd rather state what's in our history, if anything it might have some kind of redeeming benefits for those poor (most were duped, some may have been evil) men who believed it was from God to do their duty, since they believed BY spoke for God. Of course now in our church, according to those on this board a prophet can be fallible, and that is exactly where it all went to heck, when thinking the thinking had been done. They didn't trust their own intuitions or have that relationship with God in that moment, IMO.

[ERayR]

Do your duty signifies it wasn't something they really wanted to do but adhering to somebody or something higher, and IMO they were helping those immigrants atone for their own sins, which was taught to these men by their current prophet.

 

 

No, but it is in the JoD that this was taught by BY, I'd rather state what's in our history, if anything it might have some kind of redeeming benefits for those poor (most were duped, some may have been evil) men who believed it was from God to do their duty, since they believed BY spoke for God. Of course now in our church, according to those on this board a prophet can be fallible, and that is exactly where it all went to heck, when thinking the thinking had been done. They didn't trust their own intuitions or have that relationship with God in that moment, IMO.

 

This is a CFR that they believed BY meant for them to murder men, women and children.