Mountain Meadows In The News Again.

[bluebell]

An archaeologist claims he has found the burial spot of those murdered during the massacre.  Interestingly, the article quotes him as claiming that the church culpbable in putting the monument in the wrong spot.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/09/22/archaeologist-thinks-has-found-graves-americans-massacred-in-1857/
 
"He says the families of the victims deserve an explanation. "It makes us want to say to the Church, 'You either intentionally didn't tell us or you weren't as thorough as we thought you were capable of,'" he explains."

I'm not that familiar with this topic. Did the church claim that they either put the marker where the graves were, or that they tried to locate the graves but could not find them?
 

[smac97]

An archaeologist claims he has found the burial spot of those murdered during the massacre.  Interestingly, the article quotes him as claiming that the church culpbable in putting the monument in the wrong spot.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/09/22/archaeologist-thinks-has-found-graves-americans-massacred-in-1857/

 

"He says the families of the victims deserve an explanation. "It makes us want to say to the Church, 'You either intentionally didn't tell us or you weren't as thorough as we thought you were capable of,'" he explains."

I'm not that familiar with this topic. Did the church claim that they either put the marker where the graves were, or that they tried to locate the graves but could not find them?

Actually, the quote is from Phil Bolinger, president of Mountain Meadows Monument Foundation Inc. (and, IIRC, a descendant of some of the victims of the massacre). The archaeologist is named Everett Bassett. The article you linked to incorrectly attributes to Basset the statement made by Bolinger.  See the Tribune article for the original quote (at the end).  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Thinking]

I think the families of the victims are entitled to bury them where they see fit.

 

After all, Joseph Smith (also a victim of murder) was reburied.

[Calm]

My memory...which isn't always accurate...is that when the construction crew accidentally dug up some remains, while there was the standard forensic team willing to investigate, there was a push from a good many families to stop digging and rebury as quickly as possible so the investigation was stopped.  But it makes sense that the Church would assume along with everyone else apparently that they had enough info to determine the site of the graves at that time.

 

add-on:  placing the memorial uncovered almost 30 bodies.  It may not be the main burial site if he is right, but it is not like there wasn't reason to believe or a grave site there to put an appropriate marker on.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

My memory...which isn't always accurate...is that when the construction crew accidentally dug up some remains, while there was the standard forensic team willing to investigate, there was a push from a good many families to stop digging and rebury as quickly as possible so the investigation was stopped.  But it makes sense that the Church would assume along with everyone else apparently that they had enough info to determine the site of the graves at that time.

 

add-on:  placing the memorial uncovered almost 30 bodies.  It may not be the main burial site if he is right, but it is not like there wasn't reason to believe or a grave site there to put an appropriate marker on.

This is consistent with my recollection as well.

[Calm]

There was a lot of disagreement between the families, some were insisting on instant reburial, others were insisting on full investigation and continue to do so.  In the end it was one of the descendants who was the liaison with the families who ignored everyone else and threatened Gov. Leavitt with a demonstration at the memorial placement if the investigation didn't cease immediately and the bones were reburied.

 

Given the furor over that incident, it is no wonder that the Church did not continue any further investigation...one, it looked like they got the right site to many people, and two, they were respecting what they probably saw as the majority position of the families and they probably saw digging and testing would cause more anger and pain than not continuing the investigation.

[Scott Lloyd]

After this long the descendants must number in the thousands. I don't how one particular set of descendants has standing today to set themselves up as advocates for the victims more than do other descendants.

[smac97]

After this long the descendants must number in the thousands. I don't how one particular set of descendants has standing today to set themselves up as advocates for the victims more than do other descendants.

 

IIRC, a former participant of this board, "Confidential Informant", is a descendant of the massacre victims.  And also a strong and faithful member of the LDS Church.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Thinking]

After this long the descendants must number in the thousands. I don't how one particular set of descendants has standing today to set themselves up as advocates for the victims more than do other descendants.

 

What would be the harm in allowing a descendant to bury the related victims? If a thousand descendants come forward, let them or the courts decide who has the most standing.

[Calm]

If a thousand descendants come forward, let them or the courts decide who has the most standing.

 

 

If the previous decision is to be opened up, I would agree it would be best to let the courts or the families decide among themselves (and if they can't, have a mediator or a court decide).  The Church can't win imo by it being the one choosing which group of families to let direct them on what to do at this point.  

 

At this point, the land for these proposed gravesites does not belong to the Church, so let the interested families deal with the private land owner and buy the land from him and then turn it over to the Feds for safekeeping if that is still what the dissenting group wants and the rest of the families agree with them.  

 

They can then compare the treatment from the government of the heritage site as opposed to the Church's treatment of the memorial site and which does a better job of caring for historical sites that aren't likely to get much tourism (having seen what has happened to a number of sites over the decades, I have little doubt which will demonstrate better custodianship).

[The Nehor]

You know if we had just killed everyone involved and their families this whole problem would never have existed. Lesson learned I suppose.

[Calm]

It is a wonder you haven't been struck by lightening yet.

[Zakuska]

You know if we had just killed everyone involved and their families this whole problem would never have existed. Lesson learned I suppose.

 

Apparently... if BY was actual the tyrant they made him out to be in September Yawn... 

Edited September 22, 2015 by Zakuska

[The Nehor]

It is a wonder you haven't been struck by lightening yet.

 

Yeah, I get that said about me a lot. In college at Institute people would often do the lightning rod gesture.

[bluebell]

What would be the harm in allowing a descendant to bury the related victims? If a thousand descendants come forward, let them or the courts decide who has the most standing.

 

I don't think anyone has argued that the descendants have no rights.  My specific question was is the church at fault for not having the monument exactly on the spot where they now believe the grave to be.

[bluebell]

Actually, the quote is from Phil Bolinger, president of Mountain Meadows Monument Foundation Inc. (and, IIRC, a descendant of some of the victims of the massacre). The archaeologist is named Everett Bassett. The article you linked to incorrectly attributes to Basset the statement made by Bolinger.  See the Tribune article for the original quote (at the end).  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

Thanks for correcting. I thought it was a really odd thing for an archaeologist to say.

[Scott Lloyd]

IIRC, a former participant of this board, "Confidential Informant", is a descendant of the massacre victims. And also a strong and faithful member of the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, I recall that clearly.

[carbon dioxide]

I think the families of the victims are entitled to bury them where they see fit.

 

After all, Joseph Smith (also a victim of murder) was reburied.

I think if the Church was to cover the cost of any DNA testing that could be done to give these individuals a proper burial would be a great move by the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think if the Church was to cover the cost of any DNA testing that could be done to give these individuals a proper burial would be a great move by the Church.

How would DNA testing give them a proper burial? I don't get it.

Furthermore, I think we need to ask what the purpose of the monument is. Is it to mark specific grave sites, or is it to memorialize the overall location of the massacre?

Edited September 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

Well, B.H. Roberts dressed up in a hobo outfit, got a wagon and a mule, headed on down to

Cane Creek to retrieve the bodies of the two missionaries murdered by a Tennessee mob near

my great-grandfather's home, and sent them back to their grieving families in Utah.

 

Maybe someone should get an outfit, a mule, and a wagon and make things right.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Thinking]

I don't think anyone has argued that the descendants have no rights.  My specific question was is the church at fault for not having the monument exactly on the spot where they now believe the grave to be.

 

I think that Everett Bassett is being a little too critical about the location of the monument.

 

Mountain Meadows Massacre

Grave Site Memorial

 

Built and maintained by

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

out of respect for those who died and

were buried here and in the surrounding area

following the massacre of 1857.

 

Dedicated 11 September 1999

Edited September 23, 2015 by Thinking

[Bob Crockett]

There will always be critics over this issue.   There is a website dedicating to smearing my name over the MMM, and the author (a Fancher defendant) has sent me email after email boasting that he knows how to get his website high on the search statistics so that when people google my name they'll see his smear.  I have told him time and again that he just hasn't read my publications, and it is false to say that I have defended the massacres and the common rationales offered for it. 

 

I had a cousin contacct me in hysterics after reading the website to accuse me of being a monster.   I asked her if she had actually read my two book reviews (of Bagley and Denton) and she admitted she had not.

 

There is no doubt that the descendants have a good right to get worked up about the massacre, but none of my ancestors had anything to with it and I see no reason to accept blame for it.  (I have been somewhat critical of Rex Lee sticking up for his ancestor, but I'm not Rex, either.)

Edited September 23, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

Furthermore, I think we need to ask what the purpose of the monument is. Is it to mark specific grave sites, or is it to memorialize the overall location of the massacre?

 

 

I think that Everett Bassett is being a little too critical about the location of the monument.

DSC_7518.JPG

 

Mountain Meadows Massacre

Grave Site Memorial

 

Built and maintained by

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

out of respect for those who died and

were buried here and in the surrounding area

following the massacre of 1857.

 

Dedicated 11 September 1999

So it is just as I thought, then.

[Mormon Dude]

There's nothing an evangelical Christian loves more than being able to claim victim status at the hands of the Mormons (even if it was only an event which happened to your 3rd great auntie). The current relations with and feelings of descendants are varied and sometimes super irrational. This is why there are three separate descendant clubs: the Mountain Meadows Association, Mountain Meadows Monument Foundation, and finally the Mountain Meadows Massacre Descendants group (these separate groups range from having good relations with the Church and its historians to being kind of radical).

 

The story is lacking in several details, which makes for a poor telling of history. First off when the Church built the 1999 monument, they did in fact locate a grave. This upset some descendants quite a lot. The remains were quickly examined by professional archaeologists, including Shannon A. Novak at the University of Utah. In 2008 she published House of Mourning: A Biocultural History of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. This book includes photographs of the skeletal remains. These remains were reburied under the monument, and in a classic moment which exemplifies the whole story of relations with the evangelical descendants, one of the descendants, who wanted to share a Bible verse at the mortuary, refuses to do so once he finds out the only Bible to read from is in a quad which includes the Book of Mormon too (this episode is memorialized in Burying the Past: Legacy of the Mountain Meadows Massacre).

 

Anyhow the massacre happened over multiple days and occurred in several locations within the meadow. There is evidence that the killers buried some bodies, while some of the first victims were buried by kin in the wagon train, plus other remains were buried by soldiers. There is no doubt that there are numerous gravesides. There are currently five separate monuments in the meadow, four built by the Church and one by the state. The article's photo captions seem to point that two of the more recent monuments (one to the women and children and the other to the men and boys) are dishonest and in the wrong place. In fact neither monument claims to mark the actual locations of burial, and the women's monument actually reads "Most lie in unmarked graves somewhere in this valley."

 

So I fail to see how in the world the Church has been dishonest in regards to the graves. Elder Marlin K. Jensen, back in 2007, said there are likely other grave sites in the meadow (http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/2009_07_Newsletter.pdf). While I am interested to see the final report, if it is truly published, much of the rhetoric found in this article is no different than what we have heard over and over again for decades. Since 2008's Massacre at Mountain Meadows published an image of Brigham Young's letter telling the saints not the meddle with the wagon train, the anti's have had to dig all the more to make the Church look bad.

 

 

The Men and Boy's monument was added four years ago.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Mormon Dude

[gmormon]

······ Since 2008's Massacre at Mountain Meadows published an image of Brigham Young's letter telling the saints not the meddle with the wagon train, the anti's have had to dig all the more to make the Church look bad. ······

btw any word on volume 2. Not very good at using my dum smart phone...

Edited September 24, 2015 by gmormon