I just binged watched American Primeval

[webbles]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Are you sure Brigham Young wasn't overly authoritatively?  That he didn't try to control outside influences as much as he possibly could?  I have to admit, I was surprised to learn that Brigham Young did in fact buy Fort Bridger and then burned it down to make it more difficult for the U.S. army to have a foothold they could use against the Church.  Why else would he burn it down?  Afterall, it was an important resupplying station for both the Saints and outsiders traveling to Utah.  Does the series portray the Mormons as being more aggressive then they were?  Probably.  But that doesn't mean there isn't some truth in that portrayal.  

Brigham didn't buy the fort to burn it down.  They had control of the fort for from 1853 to 1857 (and technically bought it in 1855).  They used it as supply station for pioneers.  But when the army advanced, they burned it down as well as the fort they had built (Fort Supply) to slow down the army.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Like I said. I nor the production company is claiming to be historically accurate, but rather drawing from real events

And yet from your above questions it looks like you see it as historically authentic in terms of portraying personalities, etc outside of the “probably” with “more aggressive” but then you say there’s “some truth in that portrayal”.

Which is my problem with the series and excuses being made for it.

Reminds me of making exaggerated assumptions about people based on the idea of “where’s there’s smoke there is fire”.

Quote

think you are looking for an accurate portrayal of events in a series that is not designed to be that.  They are more interested in a drama to entertain. 

Not in the least. I don’t expect events to be accurately portrayed.  But when you are dealing with a community, I believe efforts to portray the community’s general behaviour (as in personality responses) accurately to avoid stereotyping and bigotry justification should be made and efforts that inflate negative qualities should not be waved away by excuses of ‘it’s entertainment’.

I don’t like it when I see it done to Muslims, Mexicans, Native Americans, Blacks, Jews, Germans, Chinese, LGBT+, etc.  Why should I be okay when it’s with my own people?

Edited January 12, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Now about the quotes you lifted from the article, are you saying none of what you quoted is true or that those events didn't actually happen??

I was challenging your dismissal of concerns with the series about the portrayal as fiction or entertainment, etc. 

I am challenging the portrayal of Saints as excessively violent.

Edited January 12, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

A recap of the series by episode, with the good and not so good identified.

”This six part mini-series set in 1850s Utah follows a makeshift family of people struggling to survive the various threats in the wilderness, including the Mormons who are depicted as a ruthlessly violent organization that uses religion to control others and justify violence against anyone they see as a threat.”

CB, sunstoned, MSeed, and anyone else who has watched the series, do you disagree with this assessment of portrayal of the Mormons in general or at least the leaders in this series?  And if you do, why?

text.pdf

Edited January 12, 2025 by Calm

[Tony uk]

I noticed many years ago, that in the media. That wethere it be movies, or on TV. For myself, there appears, subtly, a negative perseption, especially with people of faith. A cliche, based on a personal view, taken, and used, inappropriately, for the sake of viewing entertainment. And in some way, the same attitude, at times, maybe used with cultures.

 Recently, a movie the Heretic, although I have not seen this movie, I am aware of the storyline. It has the potential to show people, and or their beliefs in a subtle, negative way. 

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

And yet from your above questions it looks like you see it as historically authentic in terms of portraying personalities, etc outside of the “probably” with “more aggressive” but then you say there’s “some truth in that portrayal”.

Which is my problem with the series and excuses being made for it.

Reminds me of making exaggerated assumptions about people based on the idea of “where’s there’s smoke there is fire”.

Not in the least. I don’t expect events to be accurately portrayed.  But when you are dealing with a community, I believe efforts to portray the community’s general behaviour (as in personality responses) accurately to avoid stereotyping and bigotry justification should be made and efforts that inflate negative qualities should not be waved away by excuses of ‘it’s entertainment’.

I don’t like it when I see it done to Muslims, Mexicans, Native Americans, Blacks, Jews, Germans, Chinese, LGBT+, etc.  Why should I be okay when it’s with my own people?

Yes there is some truth in that portrayal.  It does draw upon some actual events and then sensationalizes those events to portray a lawless ruthless and violent period in American history.  I do agree that it portrays the Mormons as being more militant and aggressive then what I believe they actually were.  Most of that is in their effort to try and not let any of what happened at Mountain Meadow get back to the government in Washington.  From what little I know about Mountain Men Massacre there was an effort by the Church to distance themselves from what happened and suppress as much as they possibly could the violence that took place.  I don't believe the Church made a huge effort to punish all that were involved in that event.  They made John Lee a scape goat and hoped that would be enough.  But we all know, he was definitely not the only Mormon involved in the attack. So where is the truth coming from the Church during that time about what happened?  Did the Church make a concerted effort to track down and find every single person involved?  

This is a violent movie.  There isn't a single group that is not aggressive and violent.  I think this is more about the kind of movie they wanted to make.  It isn't a historical movie about what happened at Mountain Meadow.  And what did happen there is also indefensible in my opinion.  Without what happened at Mountain Meadow, there would be no aggressive Mormons out to kill any possible witnesses of what happened.  As I understand it, the whole point of the movie is to show how violent, lawless and ruthless the wilderness of the Utah territory was back then.  There are no scenes of what Salt Lake City or other large Mormon settlements and what was going on there.  

[webbles]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yes there is some truth in that portrayal.  It does draw upon some actual events and then sensationalizes those events to portray a lawless ruthless and violent period in American history.  I do agree that it portrays the Mormons as being more militant and aggressive then what I believe they actually were.  Most of that is in their effort to try and not let any of what happened at Mountain Meadow get back to the government in Washington.  From what little I know about Mountain Men Massacre there was an effort by the Church to distance themselves from what happened and suppress as much as they possibly could the violence that took place.  I don't believe the Church made a huge effort to punish all that were involved in that event.  They made John Lee a scape goat and hoped that would be enough.  But we all know, he was definitely not the only Mormon involved in the attack. So where is the truth coming from the Church during that time about what happened?  Did the Church make a concerted effort to track down and find every single person involved?  

They didn't try to stop news of the Massacre getting back to Washington.  There were a few other wagon trains on the trail just behind the Massacre and they passed through the area.  They saw evidence of the Massacre and when they made it to California, it was published.  The Church's response was that Paiutes did it, not the Mormons.  The leaders of the Church told people to not talk about it and hope it goes away.  There was no suppression of what happened, only who was involved.

[california boy]

29 minutes ago, webbles said:

They didn't try to stop news of the Massacre getting back to Washington.  There were a few other wagon trains on the trail just behind the Massacre and they passed through the area.  They saw evidence of the Massacre and when they made it to California, it was published.  The Church's response was that Paiutes did it, not the Mormons.  The leaders of the Church told people to not talk about it and hope it goes away.  There was no suppression of what happened, only who was involved.

Well isn't suppressing who was actually involved pretty important and central to the story?  If you and others are upset that the Mormons in the film that participated in the massacre are portrayed as violent, and lawless, then prove it.  Point to the effort the Church made to bring every single person involved in the massacre responsible to justice.  Where are the court records that show there was any effort at ALL to bring all those members that participated in the killing of men, women and children to justice?  Show me where that law abiding governor Brigham Young pursued making sure law and justice was carried out in the territory he governed and made sure the legal system enforced the rule of law?  Does ANYONE really believe that John Lee was the only Mormon that participated in the slaughter?

The movie, not do I say that the Church was successful at stopping the news of what happened, but I strongly believe the Church did as much as they possibly could to hide the Mormon involvement in the slaughter.  The suppression of the information, while probably not accurately portrayed, still happened.

 

Edited January 12, 2025 by california boy

[webbles]

34 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well isn't suppressing who was actually involved pretty important and central to the story?  If you and others are upset that the Mormons in the film that participated in the massacre are portrayed as violent, and lawless, then prove it.  Point to the effort the Church made to bring every single person involved in the massacre responsible to justice.  Where are the court records that show there was any effort at ALL to bring all those members that participated in the killing of men, women and children to justice?  Show me where that law abiding governor Brigham Young pursued making sure law and justice was carried out in the territory he governed and made sure the legal system enforced the rule of law?  Does ANYONE really believe that John Lee was the only Mormon that participated in the slaughter?

The movie, not do I say that the Church was successful at stopping the news of what happened, but I strongly believe the Church did as much as they possibly could to hide the Mormon involvement in the slaughter.  The suppression of the information, while probably not accurately portrayed, still happened.

 

There's a difference between the Church actively hunting down and slaughtering people who might testify against them vs the Church just not saying anything and telling those involved to go hide in the mountains.  From reviews of the TV show, it shows the former and that did not happen.   In fact, after the Utah War was resolved, there were rumors that children had survived.  The family members back in the East asked for them to be found and brought back home.  The Church helped with that.  If the Church was trying to ruthlessly suppress knowledge of what happened, why did they give back children who actually could speak of what happened?

As for why justice wasn't done, I'd strongly recommend reading Vengeance Is Mine by Turley and Brown.  There was a lot of complications.  The foremost is that the President of the United States gave a blanket pardon to everyone in the Utah territory after the Utah War was resolved.  Also, Brigham was no longer governor after the Massacre so he only had ecclesiastical authority.  That still is a lot of power in Utah but he couldn't bring people to trial.  He actually did offer help to track down those involved but his help was not accepted.

I'm not trying to discount what happened in the Massacre and afterwards.  It was horrible and shouldn't have happened.  But now, people will watch this TV show and will have false ideas of what happened.  From what I've read of the TV show, the Massacre portrayed and the aftermath have almost nothing to do with what happened.  The only similarity that I've found is that a Massacre happened and Mormons and Paiutes were involved.  The place of the event, how the people were killed, who was in the wagon party, etc are all wrong.  The cover-up afterwards is all wrong.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

 As I understand it, the whole point of the movie is to show how violent, lawless and ruthless the wilderness of the Utah territory was back then.

But was it that violent and ruthless?  If that is the whole point of the movie and it’s not that accurate, why should it not be criticized as a misrepresentation?

According to the records we have, Utah territory was significantly less violent than the territories around it, so why didn’t they use events that happened elsewhere as their theme if they wanted to portray a violent American culture?  Why instead use one of the least violent places?

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Did_Brigham_Young_create_a_'culture_of_violence'_in_19th_century_Utah_with_his_incendiary_speeches%3F

Quote

Statistics of murders for the nineteenth century are difficult to come by, as I learned with the help of Kathryn Daynes and Craig Foster. The available evidence shows, however, that beyond a few well-publicized murders, we have every right to believe that compared with surrounding territories, Utah was a relatively murder- and violence-free community. Historians regularly cite such murders as the Potter-Parrish homicides of 1857 and the killing of J. King Robinson and S. Newton Brassfield in 1866 as evidence of Utah's violent character. Instead of making generalizations from juicy anecdotes, historians ought to use statistical and comparative methodology to interpret these events.

Although we do not have good statistics on murders for the nineteenth century, we do have statistics on lynchings. Unfortunately, the series begins in 1882 rather than in 1847. Lynching is defined as the taking of life by mob action without legal sanction. It does not include such things as murders committed in robberies or other such violent acts, but it would include murders perpetrated for such reasons as blood atonement. These statistics reveal that during the late nineteenth century Utah was one of the least violent of the American West's nineteen states and territories. With 7 lynchings—one of an African American—between 1882 and 1903, Utah had a better record than all the other jurisdictions except Minnesota (6) and Nevada (5). Montana (85), Colorado (65), New Mexico (34), Arizona (28), and even Iowa (16) exhibited a great deal more violence….

Although we lack a thorough comparative study of murders in Utah and other western areas, the available statistical information contradicts Bagley's [and the other critics'] impression of Utah society. The best evidence we have at this time is that Bagley is wrong when he insists that "what made Utah's violence unique in the West was that it occurred in a settled, well-organized community whose leaders publicly sanctioned doctrines of vengeance and ritual murder." In fact, barring further evidence to the contrary, the best evidence we have at this point is that Utah was one of the least violent jurisdictions in the western United States.^[2]

My bold

added:

David T. Cartwright, Violent Land: Single Men and Social Disorder from the Frontier to the Inner City (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996),

“Violence in America has long manifested this uneven quality [of levels of violence]. Some regions, such as the South and the frontier and urban ghettos, have experienced very high levels of violence and disorder, while others, such as rural New England or Mormon Utah, have been far more tranquil places.“

Again my bold

Edited January 12, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

https://www.facebook.com/ScripturePlus/videos/1410676400376248/

What they got wrong with the Nauvoo Legion

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1527872041240326/

Two LDS filmmakers’ reaction 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Show me where that law abiding governor Brigham Young pursued making sure law and justice was carried out in the territory he governed and made sure the legal system enforced the rule of law?  

As webbles mentioned, BY was not governor of Utah territory after 1857.  Even so, he had a lot of influence as president of the Church.  So how did he use it?  He was ready to support the law in prosecution.  The actual governor at that time, a nonMormon, was the one who said the amnesty meant no prosecution.  When the DA wanted to reopen the investigation, the US Attorney, a nonMormon, vetoed the request.

Quote

Critics charge that Brigham Young blocked prosecution of those who committed the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

LaJean Purcell Carruth deciphered Brigham Young's presidential office journal (and other items) written in Deseret Alphabet. This newly discovered information makes it clear that federal prosecutors —not Brigham Young!—-are the most responsible for not bringing the perpetrators to justice.^[1] Thomas Alexander writes:

On July 5, 1859, after the public knew that Cumming had received word from Washington placing the army under the governor’s control, Young met with George A. Smith, Albert Carrington, and James Ferguson. They discussed the "reaction to the Mountain Meadow Massacre." Young told them that US. attorney Alexander Wilson had called "to consult with him about making some arrests of" the accused.[95]

On the same day, Wilson had met with Young. Young told him "that if the judges would open a court at Parowan or some other convenient location in the south, .. . unprejudiced and uninfluenced by. . . the army, so that man could have a fair and impartial trial He would go there himself, and he presumed that Gov. Cumming would also go . . . " He "would use all his influence to have the parties arrested and have the whole. . . matter investigated thoroughly and impartially and justice meted out to every man." Young said he would not exert himself, however, "to arrest men to be treated like dogs and dragged about by the army, and confined and abused by them,’ presumably referring to the actions of Cradlebaugh and the army in Provo. Young said that if the judges and army treated people that way, the federal officials "must hunt them up themselves."[96]

Wilson agreed that it was unfair "to drag men and their witnesses 200 or 300 miles to trial." Young said "the people wanted a fair and impartial court of justice, like they have in other states and territories, and if he had anything to do with it, the army must keep its place." Wilson said he felt "the proposition was reasonable and he would propose it to the judges."[97]

Now confident that the army would not intrude and abuse or murder Mormons, and that the US. attorney and governor would support them, the church leaders lent their influence to bringing the accused into court. On June 15, 1859, to prepare the way for the administration of justice, Brigham Young had told George A. Smith and Jacob Hamblin that "as soon as a Court of Justice could be held, so that men could be heard without the influence of the military he should advise men accused to come forward and demand trial on the charges preferred against them for the Mountain Meadow Massacre" as he had previously done. Then he again sent George A. Smith and Amasa Lyman south, this time to urge those accused of the crime to prepare for trial and to try to suppress Mormon-authored crime[98].^[2]

However, Utah's governor felt that any such crimes would be covered by the post-Utah war amnesty. 

Quote

There is no evidence the Church blocked prosecution of the Massacre perpetrators. There is substantial evidence that poor federal organization, infighting, and refusal to deputize LDS lawmen played a role in slowing the process. When presented with evidence by lawful authorities, LDS juries returned indictments.

The post-Utah war amnesty led some non-members to believe that the massacre was covered under the presidential amnesty.

There was a long-running dispute over jurisdiction and tactics between the judiciary and the executive (i.e., federal prosecutor) branches. This had nothing to do with the Mormons, but hampered prosecution.

Disputes between the above groups also led to difficulties with the army, something also not under Mormon control or influence.

Judges' meddling in the arrest process made it virtually impossible to properly arrest and indict perpetrators.

The grand jury in southern Utah was never asked to indict anyone for the Massacre during their first session. When presented with the opportunity, they returned indictments later that same year.

The Mormons did not, as claimed, insist on the right to dictate who sat on petit juries. Other federal officials declared this to be completely false.

Federal officials and judges refused to deputize or use LDS lawmen to make arrests.

The U.S. attorney general refused the district attorney's request to reopen the investigation in 1872—once again, this was beyond the Mormons' control or influence.

Brigham Young had been relieved of his position as territorial governor. He had no secular authority to directly arrest or charge perpetrators.

 

Quote

[U.S. President] Buchanan issued an amnesty for all crimes of the Mormons related to the claimed acts of sedition and treason [during the U.S. army's assignment to Utah in the abortive "Utah War"]. Governor Alfred Cumming announced a broad interpretation of that amnesty to the Saints on 14 June 1858. Certainly, by the date of the amnesty, federal officials believed that Mormons had directed the massacre, and they believed that John D. Lee was one of the leaders. One might reasonably conclude that the amnesty was intended to cover the massacre participants.

Some in the federal government and the press believed that Buchanan intended to pardon the massacre perpetrators. Indian superintendent Jacob Forney was so upset with U.S. District Court Judge John Cradlebaugh's massacre investigation that he cursed Cradlebaugh's name, citing the amnesty as the basis for his objections, or so we are told from a source hostile to Forney. Non-Mormon U.S. District Attorney Alexander Wilson and non-Mormon U.S. District Court Judge Charles C. Sinclair disagreed over the application of the amnesty, with Wilson refusing to present to the jury bills of indictment. Harper's Weekly noted the conflict over the amnesty in the prosecution of the massacre. The New York Post opined that the amnesty excused the massacre crimes because it was an aspect of the Utah war intended to come within the amnesty's scope. It is no wonder that prosecution was uncertain. But, given the controversy the amnesty sparked in the Eastern press with regard to the massacre investigation, it seems that Blood of the Prophets would have discussed it. This is a significant omission.

Feds can’t get their act together due to too much infighting….

Quote

The official correspondence, however, shows that the executive and judicial branches of government distrusted each other and that neither was effective in the prosecution of the massacre. The purported investigation began, at least in Cradlebaugh's view, with grand jury proceedings from 8 to 21 March 1859 in Provo. Mormon accounts say Cradlebaugh called out the army to terrorize the local Provo population with the might of federal power. Cradlebaugh and Bagley assert that the troops were necessary to protect the court and witnesses from Mormon Danite assassins. Governor Cumming sided with the Mormons, who were outraged with Cradlebaugh's use of the troops. Cumming believed that he, as the federal executive, had the sole civilian authority to call out the troops in the Territory.

Attorney General Black in Washington, D.C., said that it was not Cradlebaugh's job to determine whom to prosecute or when to call out the troops. He instructed U.S. District Attorney Wilson to "oppose every effort which any judge may make to usurp your functions. . . . If the judges will confine themselves to the simple and plain duty imposed upon them by law of hearing and deciding the cases that are brought before them, I am sure that the business of the Territory will get along very well."

President Buchanan approved of Wilson's efforts to resist the judiciary's incursion into his prerogatives and the use of federal troops. General Albert Sidney Johnston, commanding Camp Floyd, implied that he was unhappy being called into the fray to support the judiciary.

Black attempted to rein in the Utah judges, explaining to them the judiciary's function to "hear patiently the causes brought before them." The executive branch has a "public accuser, and a marshal." As the U.S. Supreme Court said in an 1868 landmark case, public prosecutions are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. district attorney until indicted offenses are in trial before a petit jury. Judges have no role in prosecutions until then.

Addressing a defensive letter to President Buchanan, Cradlebaugh and fellow judge Charles Sinclair admitted that "the difficulty [which has] arisen between the judiciary and executive is deeply to be deplored." Nonetheless, the judges attacked Governor Cumming and U.S. District Attorney Wilson for failing to faithfully execute their duties, especially in connection with the 1859 Provo grand jury.

No indictments legally sought by non Mormon officials.

Quote

The official correspondence refutes these claims. Bagley has the facts wrong because he does not rely upon the official files. U.S. District Attorney Wilson's diary (again, it was his duty to bring indictments, not Cradlebaugh's) and his report to the U.S. attorney general indicate that no indictment was obtained from the Provo grand jury for the Mountain Meadows Massacre because none was requested by the U.S. district attorney. Yes, Judge Cradlebaugh may have asked for indictments in his initial charge, but this was an empty request because it was not his lawful request to make. It was U.S. District Attorney Wilson's job alone to control the grand jury's reception of evidence and the timing of decision. Wilson never asked the grand jury to indict for massacre offenses. The grand jury's term was occupied with other crimes, and then Cradlebaugh discharged the grand jury before Wilson could ask the grand jury to act. An army officer, familiar with the proceedings, opined that the reason Cradlebaugh dismissed the grand jury precipitously was not that Cradlebaugh was upset with its performance, but that General Johnston withdrew Cradlebaugh's army escort. In addition, when a second grand jury was empanelled in 1859, no indictments were sought for the massacre.

LDS LEOs, including one determined to make arrests, were barred from assisting Feds not by BY, but the Feds themselves.  Nor were LDS federal attorneys allowed to even function in court.

Their lawyers even offered to surrender several suspects if bail was granted.  The response was an attempt to disbar the lawyers.
 

Quote

The federal judiciary denied Mormon law enforcement officers the power to assist federal officers in the pursuit of criminal convictions. Governor Cumming complained that the federal judges refused to admit to the bar federal territorial prosecutors. Indeed, Cradlebaugh and fellow judges refused to permit the Mormon territorial attorney (even though he was technically an officer of the United States) to enter their courtrooms and present bills for indictments.

U.S. District Attorney Wilson attempted to persuade non-Mormon Deputy U.S. Marshal William Rodgers to effect service of process upon massacre participants. Rodgers rebuffed the request, claiming a lack of resources. Then, on 6 August 1858, Wilson told the federal marshal that the Mormon territorial marshal, John Kay, would accomplish the investigations and the arrests. According to Wilson, "Kay was a Mormon, had a knowledge of the country and of the people, and expressed a determination, if legally deputized, to make arrests if possible." But, Rodgers refused to deputize Kay on the ground that Kay "was a Mormon." For the federal government, a crook on the lam was better than a crook collared by a Mormon.

The federal marshal was also less than diligent, frequently complaining about a lack of pay. However, federal surveyors had no difficulty locating and using the services of the fugitives. The surveyors' accounts mock the progress of the investigation, recounting jokes with and pranks upon the fugitives. Additionally, in 1872, the U.S. attorney general denied a request by the U.S. district attorney to reopen the investigation of the massacre.

As another example of silly officiousness, immediately prior to Lee's first trial in 1875, lawyers Jabez Sutherland and George C. Bates offered to surrender indictees William Stewart, Isaac Haight, George Adair, and John Higbee in return for accommodating their request for bail. U.S. District Judge Jacob Boreman was incensed with this proposal, refused it, and instead commenced disbarment proceedings against these lawyers.

 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Brigham_Young_and_the_Mountain_Meadows_Massacre
 

my bold

Edited January 12, 2025 by Calm

[california boy]

The Mountain Meadows Massacre occurred on September 7th 1857. Brigham Young was governor from 1850-1858.  He was replaced as governor by Alfred Cummings on April 12, 1858.  Here is the link. Are you sure Brigham Young was not governor when the actual massacre occurred?

Brigham Young
First Governor of the Territory of Utah from 1850–1858

Alfred Cumming (September 4, 1802 – October 9, 1873) was an American politician who served as the governor of the Utah Territory from April 12, 1858, to May 17, 1861. Cumming succeeded Brigham Young as governor following the Utah War.

 

[webbles]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

The Mountain Meadows Massacre occurred on September 7th 1857. Brigham Young was governor from 1850-1858.  He was replaced as governor by Alfred Cummings on April 12, 1858.  Here is the link. Are you sure Brigham Young was not governor when the actual massacre occurred?

Brigham Young
First Governor of the Territory of Utah from 1850–1858

Alfred Cumming (September 4, 1802 – October 9, 1873) was an American politician who served as the governor of the Utah Territory from April 12, 1858, to May 17, 1861. Cumming succeeded Brigham Young as governor following the Utah War.

 

 

He was governor when it actually happened, yes.  But the army had been sent to replace him with Cummings so his position as governor was in a weird state at this time.

[webbles]

Also, Brigham didn't learn about what happened till at least October 1857.  That's when Lee showed up and told him the account.  But Lee lied.  We have a journal entry from Wilford and Lee said it was only the Indians did it.  Additionally, another Indian agent in Provo sent a letter to Brigham that said he learned of a massacre that was caused by Indians (possibly the Indian agent lied or his source didn't know what actually happened).  So, Brigham doesn't know that Mormons had caused it.

In late November 1857, Governor Cummings sent a letter to Salt Lake City declaring that he was the correct governor (since July 1857) and that he was setting up temporary government at Camp Scott (where the army was wintering).  So, now who is governor?  Brigham or Cummings?

It is likely Brigham learned about Mormons being involved only in June 1858, when Hamblin showed up.  Hamblin was not an eyewitness of the event, but he lived in Southern Utah, knew of the surviving children, and would have been able to talk to Native Americans and other Mormons.

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, webbles said:

He was governor when it actually happened, yes.  But the army had been sent to replace him with Cummings so his position as governor was in a weird state at this time.

Quote

Acting on rumors that the Mormons were rebelling against federal authority, James Buchanan replaced Young as governor in 1857.

https://historytogo.utah.gov/territorial-governors/

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, webbles said:

lso, Brigham didn't learn about what happened till at least October 1857

Plus he has the massive worry of the US Army heading towards Utah.  He had his hands full and my guess is there weren’t that many church leaders or law officers or others free enough to pursue fugitives or even to escort wiling prisoners from the South to SLC at that time.  (Would be interesting to see how the judicial operates during this time period.)

 If they got peace with the new governor, the governor would want to oversee the investigation most likely.  If they went to war with the US, had to abandon their homes and resettle somewhere….I doubt many would have the mental space and physical ability to pursue justice for the murdered ones.  Makes the most sense to delay investigating until the new governor got there.

“it was a relocation that dwarfed the earlier flights from Missouri and Illinois; approximately 30,000 people moved fifty miles or more to Provo and the other towns in central and southern Utah. There they remained in shared and improvised housing while the outcome of the Utah War was being determined.”

https://historytogo.utah.gov/utah-war/

Quote

[Cumming was appointed] as governor in July 1857 by James Buchanan. Accompanied by his wife, Elizabeth W. Randall, he was escorted to Utah by a large force under Col. Albert Sidney Johnston. En route, in January 1858, he was reappointed to a full term as governor. On orders of Brigham Young, Salt Lake City was almost abandoned when he arrived. Cumming was determined to avoid violence, and the so-called Utah War was quickly settled.

Same link as above post

Edited January 13, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

I pulled out Vengeance is Mine by Turley and Brown see what it says about Brigham.  Way too much to get into tonight and I have no time this week for it, but the authors state that shortly before Lee showed up to tell the tale to Brigham*** , Brigham had received word from Mormon scouts that the army was still advancing even with winter arriving and his demands they stop (they may have just been moving towards a winter camp).  BY had declared martial law.  Lee even lied about the date of the massacre so it wouldn’t appear there was a delay in telling Brigham about it.  Apparently even with the buildup of the evils of the wagon train, Young expressed sympathy for them when Lee told him of the massacre rather than saying they deserved it as another had….which threw Lee.

A clerk reported BY’s health was feeble, he left the office as soon as Lee was done with the story.  At that point, he stopped involving the natives in trying to discourage Washington by encouraging them to raid emigrant cattle and fighting US troops. (Page 67).

That evening BY got additional info the army was advancing from the east.  A Legion commander was calling militia men to join him at Echo Canyon, 50 miles NE of SLC to make a stand.  Some marched in the street the next morning to show their readiness.

Given Lee’s story it was the Indians coupled with the apparent soon to be immediate confrontation with the Army, is it surprising nothing was done until the new governor arrived?

***Lee had changed it to the Paiutes having done the deed as soon as he received a message, likely telling him of the letter from BY carried by Haslem telling them to let the train pass safely even though he had started out gloating about it and threatening anyone who challenged the morality of the massacre, the threat was changed to be silent once the leaders found out they would not be backed by BY.  I have no sympathy for Lee after reading the reports of how he reacted after the massacre.  Sounds like he was on a high from the power trip it gave him.  It’s disgusting.  Labeling him a scapegoat is inappropriate, imo, as it diminishes his responsibility….though it does appear that Dame and Haight were hiding behind him, leaving Lee to report to BY even though they were also in SLC for conference.

Edited January 15, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

Helping Berg portray the most accurate and exquisitely researched version of this story on the screen is Indigenous Consultant Julie O’Keefe…

“Most accurate” isn’t “accurate”, but somehow I don’t think they were pushing “mostly fiction for entertainment” here.  And if not, where do you think the author got that idea?

https://collider.com/american-primeval-pete-berg-netflix/

[california boy]

Since the movie does not claim to be historically accurate in all of it's details, rather, drawing on historical events to make a film about the lawlessness and violence in the west during this period of time, can you think of another historical reference it could draw upon that depicted that lawlessness and violence better than Mountain Meadow Massacre?  Are there other wagon trains traveling west where white settlers massacred men, women and children?  

I can't help but think that if a wagon train had rolled into a town of Mormons and the wagon train murdered the men, women and children of the town, Brigham Young would not have told the wagon train responsible for the murders to go hide in the hills to escape justice.

I also would say that if a similar thing happened today where a group of people murdered 120 men women and children, I would probably not be ok with just one guy taking all the blame and being executed and everyone else getting a free pass.  

Edited January 13, 2025 by california boy

[MustardSeed]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Since the movie does not claim to be historically accurate in all of it's details, rather, drawing on historical events to make a film about the lawlessness and violence in the west during this period of time, can you think of another historical reference it could draw upon that depicted that lawlessness and violence better than Mountain Meadow Massacre?  Are there other wagon trains traveling west where white settlers massacred men, women and children?  

Honestly, I think a lot of what this thread is about is tribalism.  Playing down the slaughter of men women and children and not holding the men responsible for what they did at the time it happened.  Perhaps members are so used to hearing about the slaughter that took. place, they are numb to the actual violence that took place, acting as if maybe it wasn't all that bad.  After all, a few children escaped murder.  People tend to be quibbling over the historical accuracy rather than the actual violence and lawlessness of it.  The film focuses on the violence and lawlessness and not the actual events.  So to some extent, it is more about what the reader wants to focus on.  I can understand both sides of this coin.  I am not defending the film as being fair or historically accurate. Nor am I defending the violence that was going on.  I guess I would like a more middle ground approach from members.  Yes the film is not historically accurate, but what happened is so horrific we have to also own that.

I can't help but think that if a wagon train had rolled into a town of Mormons and the wagon train murdered the men, women and children of the town, Brigham Young would not have told the wagon train responsible for the murders to go hide in the hills to escape justice.

I also would say that if a similar thing happened today where a group of people murdered 120 men women and children, I would probably not be ok with just one guy taking all the blame and being executed and everyone else getting a free pass.  

I myself I’m always hungry for something to watch with my husband at night was actually good acting and directing. I didn’t know anything about the show and when the first scene with Brigham Young popped on, I said out loud, well this probably isn’t gonna do much for my relationship with the early leaders at the church. 
i’m happy to be entertained. I don’t care one bit if it’s true or not. 
I have a few thoughts: 

1.  I can’t think of a show about my religion or produced by my religion that hasn’t been corny, cheesy, embarrassing, certainly poorly acted and directed. Finally a quality product that incorporates any of my religion, even though it shines a poor light on my people.

2. I understand why some members of the church would be upset about this. You take any marginalized group, make a movie that erroneously identifies them as criminals and influences the public to further marginalize that group and you’re going to find people needing to protect. That’s fair.
 

3. There is some truth to the sentiment of the program. The horrors of early settlers is depicted pretty graphically in this particular show. I’m sure that that is much more accurate than the imagery I have of pioneer children singing as they walked and walked and walked.
It’s probably good to understand more accurately what people sacrificed so that they could have better lives. It makes me grateful for what I have and influences my world for you on things like immigration, etc.

 

[Kevin Christensen]

This is a very good interview with Turley and Brown based on their researching the books on the Massacre and the Aftermath.  Published in the Church News.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/podcast/2023/6/6/23750953/episode-139-podcast-richard-turley-jr-barbara-jones-brown-historians-mountain-meadows-massacre/

One relevant general principle:

Quote

Richard E. Turley Jr.: There are some lessons that can be learned from this. The first and probably most important one is that the massacre occurred during a time of social upheaval, and people began to pull into sort of polarized positions on various things. And then they began to listen to rumors that came down, which proved not to be true. And all of that created a kind of tinderbox situation in which only a small event kind of exploded. And in today’s world, we sometimes find ourselves in situations that are not that much different. Perhaps we’re not looking to massacre someone, but we may be on social media, and then we may polarize, and we may begin to believe rumors about the other side, we begin to look at people who are not the same as us and consider them to be “the other.” So, I think one of the most important things we can learn is that it’s important to listen to others who are different from ourselves, to be patient with them, not to vilify them, but to listen and try to respect them; to be civil.

 

And this section includes some new and very telling information.

Quote

Richard E. Turley Jr.: One of the questions that we’ve been asked repeatedly is “What did Brigham Young know?” and “When did he know it?” And as we wrote the sequel, we make that clear that Brigham Young did not know about the massacre in advance, he did not order it. He knew there was some type of difficulty with immigrants in southern Utah, and he sent a letter asking them to go in peace. Then he had a report given to him on Sept. 29, 1857, by John D. Lee, who was a participant, a major participant, in the massacre. He lied to Brigham Young, and then Brigham Young, over the next couple of decades, learned more and more about what happened. And his most revealing interview occurred with Nephi Johnson, a participant in the massacre. And the result of that was that between general conference sessions in October of 1870, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve excommunicated John D. Lee and Isaac Haight, the man who invited Lee to participate in the massacre and might be considered in many ways the the person who formulated it.

And so, Brigham Young’s understanding was gradual. That being said, by 1859 he was troubled enough by things he had heard that he went to the federal district attorney. We have a transcription of a conversation between them that has never been seen before because it was written in the Deseret alphabet, and we had our colleague, LaJean Purcell Carruth, transcribe it. And in this conversation, Brigham Young talks to the district attorney, and they go back and forth. And Brigham Young says, “Please prosecute it in the federal courts.” It’s often been said that Brigham Young wanted to prosecute it in the local courts because he wanted to control it. And here, Brigham Young is telling the federal people to take care of it because he doesn’t want it to just be left unexamined. He wants to have the case investigated.

And he also says to them, “Just be sure that you do it in a location that you’ll be able to get witnesses. If you put it in a very inconvenient location, then people won’t want to come if it takes several days to get there, if they have to ignore their farms,” and so forth. So, Brigham Young’s knowledge is gradual, but he’s disturbed enough by 1859 to want it investigated. He offers to help out at that time to bring the suspects into court. But for reasons we’ll explain in the book, political reasons, no one on the federal government accepts that offer from him until 1876.

This podcast/transcript is, I think, a particularly good resource to link when you see people claiming that the LDS leaders in general are all about suppressing truth, and also when they claim that things like American Primeval are exposing the truth about the LDS.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[webbles]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Since the movie does not claim to be historically accurate in all of it's details, rather, drawing on historical events to make a film about the lawlessness and violence in the west during this period of time, can you think of another historical reference it could draw upon that depicted that lawlessness and violence better than Mountain Meadow Massacre?  Are there other wagon trains traveling west where white settlers massacred men, women and children?  

I can't help but think that if a wagon train had rolled into a town of Mormons and the wagon train murdered the men, women and children of the town, Brigham Young would not have told the wagon train responsible for the murders to go hide in the hills to escape justice.

You are right that the TV show doesn't claim historical accuracy.  But now there's a ton of people out there that watched it and the only knowledge they have of the Mountain Meadow Massacre is from the show.  And if you search online for whether or not American Primeval was accurate on the Mountain Meadow Massacre, you'll find lots of sites that say it was.  So now there is a bunch of people who have the complete wrong idea of what actually happened.  That's frustrating to me.  The Massacre has been full of misinformation from the very beginning.  It feels like a loosing battle trying to educate people what actually happened.  That's my issue with it.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I also would say that if a similar thing happened today where a group of people murdered 120 men women and children, I would probably not be ok with just one guy taking all the blame and being executed and everyone else getting a free pass.  

And that fits my point.  People only know that Lee was killed and so assume that he was the scapegoat.  That isn't true.  In the final trial (which was finally working with the Church to track down the participants), it indicted 9 men.  They arrested 5 of them (Lee, William Dane, Philip Klingensmith, Ellot Willden, and George Adair).  Klingensmith turned states evidence so he was given leniency.  He lived a solitary life afterwards and died in an Indian camp in AZ.  Dane died shortly after being arrested of natural causes.  Willden and Adair's cases were dropped because of lack of evidence (they were there but denied killing anyone).  Isaac Haight never was caught but he moved around in AZ, NM, UT, and Mexico.  He would live with various children and grandchildren.  He did in Thatcher and his body was stored in a box in the basement of a hotel for decades.

You might be wondering why didn't the others ever get caught.  That's because Brigham died.  After his death, the political value of the case died down.  Judges and marshals would plead for money to find the others but would constantly be turned down.

Another thing to know is that for several decades after the Massacre, the federal marshals (the ones with the authority to arrest people and these are not Mormons) did not try to arrest anyone.  The marshals actually met and dined with several of the participants and they knew they were participants.  The hiding was during the first trial but after that failed (and it failed because Governor Cummings didn't agree with it), there was a period of time when nothing happened in regards to the Massacre.

The timeline of the Massacre and its aftermath is weird.  It wasn't: do the massacre, go into hiding, scapegoat Lee.  It was: do the massacre, lie to the church leaders, fight for the life of Utah, help track down the kids, offer to help track down the participants, attempt a trial that nobody except the judge/army wanted, sit down for dinner with the participants and treat as if nothing happened, finally do a trial with everyone's help.  It's actually a really good case study on how federal judges and state authorities and army authorities (all non-Mormons) bickered over how to run a trial.  The army just wanted to go and string them all up.  The federal judges wanted to have a sensational case to help them move on politically.  And the state authorities wanted to have peace and no rebellions. 

Edited January 13, 2025 by webbles

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, webbles said:

You are right that the TV show doesn't claim historical accuracy.  But now there's a ton of people out there that watched it and the only knowledge they have of the Mountain Meadow Massacre is from the show.  And if you search online for whether or not American Primeval was accurate on the Mountain Meadow Massacre, you'll find lots of sites that say it was.  So now there is a bunch of people who have the complete wrong idea of what actually happened.  That's frustrating to me.  The Massacre has been full of misinformation from the very beginning.  It feels like a loosing battle trying to educate people what actually happened.  That's my issue with it.

And that fits my point.  People only know that Lee was killed and so assume that he was the scapegoat.  That isn't true.  In the final trial (which was finally working with the Church to track down the participants), it indicted 9 men.  They arrested 5 of them (Lee, William Dane, Philip Klingensmith, Ellot Willden, and George Adair).  Klingensmith turned states evidence so he was given leniency.  He lived a solitary life afterwards and died in an Indian camp in AZ.  Dane died shortly after being arrested of natural causes.  Willden and Adair's cases were dropped because of lack of evidence (they were there but denied killing anyone).  Isaac Haight never was caught but he moved around in AZ, NM, UT, and Mexico.  He would live with various children and grandchildren.  He did in Thatcher and his body was stored in a box in the basement of a hotel for decades.

You might be wondering why didn't the others ever get caught.  That's because Brigham died.  After his death, the political value of the case died down.  Judges and marshals would plead for money to find the others but would constantly be turned down.

Another thing to know is that for several decades after the Massacre, the federal marshals (the ones with the authority to arrest people and these are not Mormons) did not try to arrest anyone.  The marshals actually met and dined with several of the participants and they knew they were participants.  The hiding was during the first trial but after that failed (and it failed because Governor Cummings didn't agree with it), there was a period of time when nothing happened in regards to the Massacre.

The timeline of the Massacre and its aftermath is weird.  It wasn't: do the massacre, go into hiding, scapegoat Lee.  It was: do the massacre, lie to the church leaders, fight for the life of Utah, help track down the kids, offer to help track down the participants, attempt a trial that nobody except the judge/army wanted, sit down for dinner with the participants and treat as if nothing happened, finally do a trial with everyone's help.  It's actually a really good case study on how federal judges and state authorities and army authorities (all non-Mormons) bickered over how to run a trial.  The army just wanted to go and string them all up.  The federal judges wanted to have a sensational case to help them move on politically.  And the state authorities wanted to have peace and no rebellions. 

That wouldn't be a good movie though. Where's the entertainment and righteous indignation??  

As someone who loves history, this kind of storytelling kills me.  It just does so much harm when filmmakers purposefully set things up so that viewers believe they are watching a dramatized documentary rather than a fictionalized story based on real events.  People become very attached to the perceptions that these kinds of movies create, to the point that they flat out refuse to believe the actual history, even when it's given to them.  This is especially true if the movie perception strengthens biases that they already had.

In my experience, if people feel like a movie is evidence to support what they want to be be true, they will die on that hill rather than admit it's not an accurate portrayal.

[Tony uk]

I seem to be in the same part of the ball park so to speak, has some of the previous posts. Dramatisations, that become fiction based on fact, can only have a negative affect on those who do not know the full story, or in most cases, the correct story of the truth.