I just binged watched American Primeval

Bernard Gui · January 24, 2025

7 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Again, if you think the writers of the series were unfair to Brigham Young and Bill Hickman, its a good thing they left out the worst stuff. From the Bill Hickman wiki:

"According to Hickman, Jim Bridger had offered a $100 reward for Old Elk's head. Hickman chopped off Old Elk's head and brought it back to Fort Utah. There, he hung Old Elk's head by its hair from the walls of the roof. Dr. Blake saw the head, and ordered more heads to be chopped off. Around 50 heads were piled in boxes for two weeks, next to where they kept the prisoners. They were then delivered to Salt Lake City. Some ghost stories have circulated about the victims' ghosts haunting Rock Canyon"

That's what Hickman did during the massacre that Sunstoned mentions above, ordered by Brigham Young. Hickman later wrote a book confessing to 70 murders. He claimed, probably exaggerating more than the writers of American Primeval did, that Young ordered him to commit most of those.

It's kinda hard to criticize American Primeval's unfair portrayal of someone like Hickman, when Hickman's portrayal of himself and Brigham Young was far worse.

I take the MMM seriously, but not this silly series.

Bernard Gui · January 24, 2025

59 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

The Netflicks series might not have been fully accurate in time and place, but it did portray savagery that did happen. Unlike the Hobbit and Rings of Power fantasies, Mormons did murder 120 men, women, and children in 1957. And the real Brigham Young did order the 1850 massacre of the Timpanogos families on the Provo River.

I love history, but I despise biased historical fiction that has an agenda. The comparison I made to LOTR regarding artistic license is valid.

BTW, I was 10 years old in 1957. I remember that event as if it happened yesterday. 🙃

Zosimus · January 24, 2025

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I take the MMM seriously, but not this silly series.

That's fair, but if the question is whether or not the Utah Territory around Brigham Young and his personal bodyguard Bill Hickman in the 1850s was as violent as the series portrays, then let's set aside the silly series for a moment and read Hickman's own autobiography:

"We went down to see the Indians we had shot. Hirons told me I had killed the chief, Big Elk. I took off his head, for I had heard the old mountaineer, Jim Bridger, say he would give a hundred dollars for it. I tied it in his blanket and laid it on a flat rock; hid his gun and bow and arrows, forty-two number one good arrows, and awaited the arrival of the company. The reason I hid the above-named articles was because I had tried to get some arrows or some relic to take home with me, from several of those cautious fellows who were great warriors, but not one could I get; they had all been taken by them to take home to show what victories they had achieved. The companies soon came up, when we attacked and killed nearly all the Indians. We took about fifty women and children prisoners. When I came to where I had laid the chief, I had to laugh. Those rear fellows who had the habit of picking up every thing, had untied the blanket that was around the chief's head, but on seeing what it contained left it untied with the head sitting in the middle of it, entirely untouched. I took the head, gun, bow and arrows, mounted my horse, took a pretty squaw behind me and a sick papoose in front, and rode off to our quarters. This was during the Indian war of '49, so called, although it was in the Spring of '50. We took the prisoners to the city, and distributed them among the people. The warriors were all killed but seven or eight, and the next."

Just a few pages later:

"We had got about four hundred miles on our road, and were traveling down the Humboldt River. There we began to see where wagons had been burned, and also skeletons of men, women and children, their long and beautiful hair hanging on the brush; and sometimes a head with as beautiful locks of hair as I ever saw, and sometimes those of little children, with two or three inches of flaky hair, either lying by or near them, the wolves having eaten the flesh off their bones. But all the bodies of the men, women and children that were found had a portion of the skin taken off the tops of their heads. They had all been scalped, and the savages, in all probability, as we talked of it, were then in the mountains having war dances with the whoops and yells of demons, over these scalps of honesty and innocence. Some of the boys began to get terribly riled up, and wanted to stop and hunt the Indians...The Indians had made no arrangements for a retreat...We popped them right and left until all were out of sight. I flew around on my horse to see the boys, fearing I had lost some of them, but all were safe. Two were slightly wounded. All swore they would scalp the Indians, and have a war-dance over their scalps. I told them to do as they pleased. They got thirty-two scalps off of the Indians killed on the ground, and what gave my men increased anger, one of the Indians was found with the scalps of two women, cured and dried, and another had the scalp of a child, I should think not more than three or four years of age. I need not tell you—you may guess the feeling that existed. We all had a great war-dance that night...The boys seemed easy for a day or two, but on finding another quantity of bodies became anxious for another fight. We traveled quietly for probably one hundred miles, when four Indians were seen crawling through the sage brush towards our stock; we went for and got them; killed and scalped them."

Hickman's personal account of that time and place is just as violent as American Primeval: non-stop murders, scalpings, beheadings, capturing pretty squaws and taking them who knows where to do who knows what.

TBH Hickman's own autobiography makes him and Brigham Young out to be much more evil than American Primeval did.

Bernard Gui · January 24, 2025

9 hours ago, Zosimus said:

That's fair, but if the question is whether or not the Utah Territory around Brigham Young and his personal bodyguard Bill Hickman in the 1850s was as violent as the series portrays, then let's set aside the silly series for a moment and read Hickman's own autobiography:

"We went down to see the Indians we had shot. Hirons told me I had killed the chief, Big Elk. I took off his head, for I had heard the old mountaineer, Jim Bridger, say he would give a hundred dollars for it. I tied it in his blanket and laid it on a flat rock; hid his gun and bow and arrows, forty-two number one good arrows, and awaited the arrival of the company. The reason I hid the above-named articles was because I had tried to get some arrows or some relic to take home with me, from several of those cautious fellows who were great warriors, but not one could I get; they had all been taken by them to take home to show what victories they had achieved. The companies soon came up, when we attacked and killed nearly all the Indians. We took about fifty women and children prisoners. When I came to where I had laid the chief, I had to laugh. Those rear fellows who had the habit of picking up every thing, had untied the blanket that was around the chief's head, but on seeing what it contained left it untied with the head sitting in the middle of it, entirely untouched. I took the head, gun, bow and arrows, mounted my horse, took a pretty squaw behind me and a sick papoose in front, and rode off to our quarters. This was during the Indian war of '49, so called, although it was in the Spring of '50. We took the prisoners to the city, and distributed them among the people. The warriors were all killed but seven or eight, and the next."

Just a few pages later:

"We had got about four hundred miles on our road, and were traveling down the Humboldt River. There we began to see where wagons had been burned, and also skeletons of men, women and children, their long and beautiful hair hanging on the brush; and sometimes a head with as beautiful locks of hair as I ever saw, and sometimes those of little children, with two or three inches of flaky hair, either lying by or near them, the wolves having eaten the flesh off their bones. But all the bodies of the men, women and children that were found had a portion of the skin taken off the tops of their heads. They had all been scalped, and the savages, in all probability, as we talked of it, were then in the mountains having war dances with the whoops and yells of demons, over these scalps of honesty and innocence. Some of the boys began to get terribly riled up, and wanted to stop and hunt the Indians...The Indians had made no arrangements for a retreat...We popped them right and left until all were out of sight. I flew around on my horse to see the boys, fearing I had lost some of them, but all were safe. Two were slightly wounded. All swore they would scalp the Indians, and have a war-dance over their scalps. I told them to do as they pleased. They got thirty-two scalps off of the Indians killed on the ground, and what gave my men increased anger, one of the Indians was found with the scalps of two women, cured and dried, and another had the scalp of a child, I should think not more than three or four years of age. I need not tell you—you may guess the feeling that existed. We all had a great war-dance that night...The boys seemed easy for a day or two, but on finding another quantity of bodies became anxious for another fight. We traveled quietly for probably one hundred miles, when four Indians were seen crawling through the sage brush towards our stock; we went for and got them; killed and scalped them."

Hickman's personal account of that time and place is just as violent as American Primeval: non-stop murders, scalpings, beheadings, capturing pretty squaws and taking them who knows where to do who knows what.

TBH Hickman's own autobiography makes him and Brigham Young out to be much more evil than American Primeval did.

I don't think it was as simple as, "There's some Injuns over yonder. Go kiill 'em!" There were so many forces at play. Of course there was depravity on all sides during this time of conflict and during all times of such conflict. Misinformation, long distances without proper communication, propaganda, violent personal and community revenge, government incompetence, outrageous actions and reactions and all that garbage that goes with warfare. It's convenient for us to pass judgement from a later perspective, but I leave judgement to God. BY and all others will account to Him if they need to, and the whole truth of the matter will be made known. I personally believe BY and many others suffered extreme PTSD, and this may have tainted some of their actions. I don't agree that BY was a bloodthirsty warlord. His calling was to shepherd the Church through extremely perilous times.

It's still a silly series pretending to be serious, but whose purposes are the same as all the pop culture anti-Mormon stuff... The Godmakers, One Nation Under Gods, Book of Mormon: The Musical, the polygamy and Mormon wives reality shows, etc. I love the distorted facial close-up of BY. That's the tell...among other inanities. So, make an accurate movie about the Black Hawk War, tell the story without an agenda, and let the chips fall as they may.

Edited January 24, 2025 by Bernard Gui

Calm · January 24, 2025

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/depictions-that-deceive-when-historical-fiction-does-harm

Quote

A recently released streaming series presents a fictionalized interpretation of events in mid-19th century Utah. While historical fiction can be illuminating, this drama is dangerously misleading.

Brigham Young, a revered prophet and courageous pioneer, is, by any historical standard, egregiously mischaracterized as a villainous, violent fanatic. Other individuals and groups are also depicted in ways that reinforce stereotypes that are both inaccurate and harmful.

As to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which the series inaccurately portrays as reflective of a whole faith group, the Church has long acknowledged and condemned this horrific tragedy. It has also taken significant steps to uncover and share the full truth of what happened and promote healing.

The problem with such deceptive, graphic and sensationalized storytelling is that it not only obscures reality and hinders genuine understanding but can foster animosity, hate and even violence. This is particularly troubling today when peacemakers are needed more than ever. At a time when so many responsible leaders are condemning the division and hostility that dominate so much of our public discourse, we echo the plea of President Russell M. Nelson: “The Savior’s message is clear: His truedisciples build, lift, encourage, persuade, and inspire—no matter how difficult the situation. True disciples of Jesus Christ are peacemakers. … Peacemaking is a choice. … I urge you to choose to be a peacemaker, now and always.”

This sentiment, shared across many traditions, is resonating around the world today. It is the prophetic message of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—a message of peace that all the modern prophets have shared, including Brigham Young.

Kevin Christensen · January 24, 2025

Regarding Brigham Young, I have a very favorable view of the man. I have read Arrington's biography, among many other things, but what really sticks for me are Nibley's essays in Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints, Eugene England's essay on Brigham as an orator, a performance of Here's Brother Brigham by James Arrington, and the Priesthood Manual, which I found to be the most interesting and challenging. And the report of Brigham's vision at Winter Quarters.

Several notable quotes come from this discourse.

Quote

Is it wisdom for each Elder to strive to mold and fashion all others precisely according to himself in all the views and notions he possesses? Is this the way? No, it is not. It is wisdom for the Elders of Israel to know how to treat others according to the ability they possess, and to treat their families according to the ability they possess. In visiting neighborhoods, you will find persons intelligent upon some points, and upon other points they may be ignorant. They may be very well informed upon certain principles pertaining to divinity, and upon others be ignorant. Their dispositions are also different from yours and others you associate with. What will you make of them? Good people—Saints, so far as in your power.

Also,

Quote

All of these classes act according to their faith and traditions, and each one of them says, “If you are not as I am, you are not right.” This is just as natural as it is to breathe vital air. I wish this trait in the Saints to be done away. I want the Elders of Israel to learn to take people as they are.

And this:

Quote

Never try to destroy a man. It is our mission to save the people, not to destroy them. The least, the most inferior spirit now upon the earth, in our capacity, is worth worlds.

And this:

Quote

Then let us take a course to understand men as they are, and not endeavor to make them precisely as we are, for this you cannot do. I am myself; you are yourselves. Let us learn how to approach each other, and how to get an influence over that intelligent portion that is within.

I am not going to drive a man or a woman to heaven. A great many think that they will be able to flog people into heaven, but this can never be done, for the intelligence in us is as independent as the Gods. People are not to be driven, and you can put into a gnat's eye all the souls of the children of men that are driven into heaven by preaching hellfire.

And this:

Quote

If you are ever called upon to chasten a person, never chasten beyond the balm you have within you to bind up. I might call some of you to witness that I chasten you, but there is not a soul that I chasten but what I feel as though I could take them and put them in my bosom and carry them with me day by day. They deserve chastisement, but God forbid that I should chasten beyond the healing balm I have to save them and make better men of them.

https://jod.mrm.org/9/121

Not exactly a wild-eyed, blood thirsty fanatic. He was something quite different, which, as a matter of fact, explains his successes.

Now since I am quoting Brigham from the Journal of Discourses, I have a responsibility to mention this presentation on the limits of those transcriptions.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2023/02carruth

I would also love to provide some quotes from Nibley's Thinking Symbols and Sounding Brass, which gets into the origins of Hickman's confessions as filtered though his editor Beadle. But in their desire to keep our thoughts free from such influences, the new Maxwell Regime took it offline in the 2016, but we do have some pertinent material from Jeff Lindsay.

https://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/wildbill.shtml

And I just saw that BYU Scholars archive does have the pertinent chapter of Sounding Brass. "Is there a Danite in the House?"

https://web.archive.org/web/20121127040524/http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=77&chapid=975

Still timely and educational.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited January 24, 2025 by Kevin Christensen

manol · January 24, 2025

25 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding Brigham Young, I have a very favorable view of the man. I have read Arrington's biography, among many other things, but what really sticks for me are Nibley's essays in Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints, Eugene England's essay on Brigham as an orator, a performance of Here's Brother Brigham by James Arrington, and the Priesthood Manual, which I found to be the most interesting and challenging. And the report of Brigham's vision at Winter Quarters.

Several notable quotes come from this discourse.

Also,

And this:

And this:

And this:

https://jod.mrm.org/9/121

Not exactly a wild-eyed, blood thirsty fanatic. He was something quite different, which, as a matter of fact, explains his successes.

Now since I am quoting Brigham from the Journal of Discourses, I have a responsibility to mention this presentation on the limits of those transcriptions.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2023/02carruth

I would also love to provide some quotes from Nibley's Thinking Symbols and Sounding Brass, which gets into the origins of Hickman's confessions as filtered though his editor Beadle. But in their desire to keep our thoughts free from such influences, the new Maxwell Regime took it offline in the 2016, but we do have some pertinent material from Jeff Lindsay.

https://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/wildbill.shtml

And I just saw that BYU Scholars archive does have the pertinent chapter of Sounding Brass. "Is there a Danite in the House?"

https://web.archive.org/web/20121127040524/http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=77&chapid=975

Still timely and educational.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thank you for that post. In many ways I'm not a fan of Brigham but he had some great insights and great qualities, and I appreciate you bringing them up.

His in-a-vision (or in-an-NDE?) conversation with Joseph Smith a few years after Joseph's death, which of course you have written about, has remained part of my personal "canon". I would like to know the pattern he was shown, but that will probably have to wait.

Kevin Christensen · January 24, 2025

16 hours ago, Zosimus said:

That's fair, but if the question is whether or not the Utah Territory around Brigham Young and his personal bodyguard Bill Hickman in the 1850s was as violent as the series portrays, then let's set aside the silly series for a moment and read Hickman's own autobiography:

"We went down to see the Indians we had shot. Hirons told me I had killed the chief, Big Elk. I took off his head, for I had heard the old mountaineer, Jim Bridger, say he would give a hundred dollars for it. I tied it in his blanket and laid it on a flat rock; hid his gun and bow and arrows, forty-two number one good arrows, and awaited the arrival of the company. The reason I hid the above-named articles was because I had tried to get some arrows or some relic to take home with me, from several of those cautious fellows who were great warriors, but not one could I get; they had all been taken by them to take home to show what victories they had achieved. The companies soon came up, when we attacked and killed nearly all the Indians. We took about fifty women and children prisoners. When I came to where I had laid the chief, I had to laugh. Those rear fellows who had the habit of picking up every thing, had untied the blanket that was around the chief's head, but on seeing what it contained left it untied with the head sitting in the middle of it, entirely untouched. I took the head, gun, bow and arrows, mounted my horse, took a pretty squaw behind me and a sick papoose in front, and rode off to our quarters. This was during the Indian war of '49, so called, although it was in the Spring of '50. We took the prisoners to the city, and distributed them among the people. The warriors were all killed but seven or eight, and the next."

Just a few pages later:

"We had got about four hundred miles on our road, and were traveling down the Humboldt River. There we began to see where wagons had been burned, and also skeletons of men, women and children, their long and beautiful hair hanging on the brush; and sometimes a head with as beautiful locks of hair as I ever saw, and sometimes those of little children, with two or three inches of flaky hair, either lying by or near them, the wolves having eaten the flesh off their bones. But all the bodies of the men, women and children that were found had a portion of the skin taken off the tops of their heads. They had all been scalped, and the savages, in all probability, as we talked of it, were then in the mountains having war dances with the whoops and yells of demons, over these scalps of honesty and innocence. Some of the boys began to get terribly riled up, and wanted to stop and hunt the Indians...The Indians had made no arrangements for a retreat...We popped them right and left until all were out of sight. I flew around on my horse to see the boys, fearing I had lost some of them, but all were safe. Two were slightly wounded. All swore they would scalp the Indians, and have a war-dance over their scalps. I told them to do as they pleased. They got thirty-two scalps off of the Indians killed on the ground, and what gave my men increased anger, one of the Indians was found with the scalps of two women, cured and dried, and another had the scalp of a child, I should think not more than three or four years of age. I need not tell you—you may guess the feeling that existed. We all had a great war-dance that night...The boys seemed easy for a day or two, but on finding another quantity of bodies became anxious for another fight. We traveled quietly for probably one hundred miles, when four Indians were seen crawling through the sage brush towards our stock; we went for and got them; killed and scalped them."

Hickman's personal account of that time and place is just as violent as American Primeval: non-stop murders, scalpings, beheadings, capturing pretty squaws and taking them who knows where to do who knows what.

TBH Hickman's own autobiography makes him and Brigham Young out to be much more evil than American Primeval did.

Hickman's "autobiography" was ghostwritten by J. H. Beadle, also Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning's ghostwriter (Wife #19) a fact worth exploring carefully before trying to use Hickman (with Beadle's handling and creativity) to show how terrible Brigham and the Mormons were.

Quote

This is the situation: Here is Governor Harding, who has been in office less than a year and is already on his way out "on account of continuous struggles between himself and the Mormon church,"148 whose career has been wrecked by Brigham Young. To his door in the middle of the night of March 3, 1863, comes one Bill Hickman, "a born killer," as Kelly and Birney put it, who "enjoyed his profession. He was cold-blooded, crafty, and heartless, . . . a huge man, as strong as a bull. . . . His eyes were a steel-grey, the whites always bloodshot, and no man who looked into them ever craved a repetition of the experience."149 If any man hated Brigham Young more than Harding did, it was Hickman. On that momentous night he "stood up (I often think now of the man and his manner), and said, 'Governor, . . . I know Brigham Young and his rabbit-tracks! Rabbit-tracks! . . . Brigham Young has more reason to be afraid o' Bill Hickman than Bill Hickman has to be afraid o' Brigham Young.' I never looked on a face with more of a scowl of defiance."150 Well, you get the pitch: Hickman is not the man to hold anything back from timidity or modesty, and Harding is not the man to let such information go to waste. The two met often after that; they were "confederates," as Kelly and Birney put it, the one Brigham Young's arch-Danite and chief assassin, now turned against Brigham with insane fury, and the other the frustrated Governor who would give anything to pin something on Young. "All the army," said Brigham Young in 1860, "with its teamsters, hangers-on, and followers, with the judges, and nearly all the rest of the civil officers, amounting to some seventeen thousand men, have been searching diligently for three years to bring one act to light that would criminate me; but they have not been able to trace out one thread or one particle of evidence that would criminate me."151

What a feather in Harding's cap to be able to pin something on Brigham Young! He badly needed such a feather—the one thing that would save his career. And here was Hickman right in his own office in secret session—the one man who knew all the crimes of Brigham Young inside out! Why didn't Harding bring charges against Brigham Young the very next morning, as duty, pleasure, and desperate self-interest prescribed? There were other sessions with Hickman after this one: why didn't Harding ever bring charges? Why was Hickman, though he lived until 1883, never prosecuted? Plainly he was safe enough. As chief Danite he would know about plenty of crimes that would not directly incriminate himself, or by the learned judge's advice he could at least turn state's witness and save his skin. Yet never a peep out of Harding! He went off to Colorado demoted, and hence to retirement in Indiana with not a word of Brigham's Danite operations. In 1890 he contributed two lengthy chapters on the Mormons to Thomas Gregg's anti-Mormon classic with not so much as a hint of his own dealings with those terrible people in Utah. Of course he asked Hickman about the Danites on their very first interview, but, would you believe it, Hickman had nothing to report!

Here they are, Young's two deadliest enemies, cheek by jowl—"thoughts black, hands apt, drugs fit, and time agreeing"—in a top-secret session that had just one object in the world. Hickman is reporting to the Governor: "He gave me a short sketch of his life," the latter reports, "and did not seem very proud of his title as 'Danite Captain.' On this subject, however, he was reticent."152 That man ashamed? Under those circumstances? He didn't have to incriminate himself, as we have said—what a time to be "reticent" on that theme!

One thing emerges clearly from this. Neither in that or in any of their subsequent sessions did Harding learn anything he could use against Brigham Young. It was only when Hickman came to Beadle six years later that Hickman suddenly remembered and revealed for the first time all the now familiar tales of the Danites. Beadle was a professional purveyor of scandal, "a frequently impoverished hack," says Mr. Wallace, a sometime editor, court clerk (only in later years when he is safely back East, does he become clerk of the Supreme Court for Utah), Utah correspondent for a Cincinnati paper, professional anti-Mormon, and ghostwriter for our own Ann Eliza. Hickman handed this man his story with a free hand to "fix it up."

That is why we believe that those tales are Beadle's invention, for the celebrated "Confessions" that suddenly sprang to life in 1870 can in no wise have resembled Hickman's long and intimate communications to Harding—if they had, Harding would have had Brigham trapped in no time. Harding's attempts to attribute his own lack of information on the Danites to Hickman's tender conscience and maidenly reserve is worthy of Gilbert and Sullivan.

It was not until Beadle got to work that every solved and unsolved crime of the century was traced directly and simply to Brigham Young through the helpful Hickman, who receives his orders, liquidates his Aikens, Yates, et al., and reports to Brigham with the regularity of clockwork. If he and Beadle were singularly weak in inventive skill, must we attribute the same total lack of resource to the crafty Brigham Young? No wonder Hickman was never prosecuted. The patent absurdity of the "Confessions" becomes apparent on the most superficial investigation and grows with every monotonous episode.

https://web.archive.org/web/20121127040524/http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=77&chapid=975

Hickman could give Harding nothing of use in a court of law. However, Hickman and Beadle were more interested in sensationalizing for a fast buck and undue influence in the court of public opinion, which happens to be the same genre as American Primeval.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited January 24, 2025 by Kevin Christensen

Zosimus · January 25, 2025

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Hickman's "autobiography" was ghostwritten by J. H. Beadle, also Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning's ghostwriter (Wife #19) a fact worth exploring carefully before trying to use Hickman (with Beadle's handling and creativity) to show how terrible Brigham and the Mormons were.

It said as much in the wiki I linked to. So I did explore. afaict Beadle didn't ghostwrite Hickman's autobiography published in 1872. He later edited a new version titled "Brigham's Destroying Angel" published in 1904. Let me know if I got that wrong, but it hardly matters because my point isn't that Hickman gives us an accurate history of the time period, but rather that Hickman, who was one of the main characters in American Primeval, sensationalizes and exaggerates the story of Brigham Young and his role as his bodyguard in the 1850s.

What I'd said above is that Hickman's own exaggerated, sensationalized and inaccurate account (whether ghostwritten/edited by Beadle or not) portrays Hickman and Young as more violent and fanatical than did the writers of American Primeval.

If Hickman were around today and saw American Primeval on Netflix, he'd probably be offended that the writers didn't make his character more violent, cold and fanatical. That seems to be what he was going for in his own yarns.

smac97 · January 27, 2025

An article: Um, there’s a huge feud between the American Primeval creator and the actual Mormon church

Quote

Who would have thought there would be beef between Netflix and the Mormon church? Thanks to American Primeval, that wild sentence is a reality. American Primeval creator Peter Berg is involved in a huge feud with the Latter-day Saints Mormon Church. The argument hasn’t been pretty, but luckily, it’s not as chaotic as the fights in the show.

American Primeval follows the Mountain Meadows Massacre, where LDS militiamen and American Indian allies massacred around 120 emigrants travelling to California. The show is based on the Utah War of 1857 and focuses on a mother, her son and a young American Indian girl as they attempt to cross dangerous frontiers.

The Mormon Church slammed American Primeval

In a statement to ABC4, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints called a recently released Netflix series “dangerously misleading,” claiming it portrays LDS prophet Brigham Young in a factually incorrect way.

The LDS Church claimed American Primeval was “deceptive, graphic and sensationalized” with storytelling that hid reality and would “foster animosity, hate, and even violence.”

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is calling a recently released Netflix series “dangerously misleading,” claiming it mischaracterizes LDS prophet Brigham Young.

The Church continued to say they have long acknowledged and condemned the tragedy while encouraging healing and unveiling the truth of the event. They added that “deceptive, graphic and sensationalized” storytelling hides reality and hinders genuine understanding, but can “foster animosity, hate, and even violence.”

Peter Berg had a savage response

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3aJBknd-Mw

In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, show creator Peter Berg responded to their criticism. He claimed the show was not an actual depiction of the Mountain Meadows Massacre because those massacres took place over three days and the one in the show happens a lot faster.

“I’ve heard some of the pushback, but I haven’t heard anyone from the Mormon side deny that the Meadows Massacre happened and that Mormons did it. I have had them express concerns that we do take other liberties,” he explained.

Another: LDS Church decries streaming series it says depicts Brigham Young in ‘dangerously misleading’ way

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has released a statement saying a recently released streaming series presents a fictionalized interpretation of events in mid-19th century Utah in harmful and misleading way.

The statement does not name the series, but the description matches “American Primeval,” a Netflix series that debuted this month, and depicts Church leader Brigham Young and the Mountain Meadow Massacre, an 1857 incident that left 120 members of the California-bound Baker–Fancher wagon train dead after multiple attacks.

Details of the massacre have been documented in historical accounts, books, and documentaries including “Burying the Past: Legacy of the Mountain Meadows Massacre” (2004).

Seventeen children, ages 6 and younger, from the Arkansas wagon train were spared and taken in by area residents, according to the accounts. One girl went on to give interviews about what had happened.

Nine people would be indicted in connection with the massacre, and one Mormon militia leader, John D. Lee, was convicted and sentenced to death by firing squad.

The LDS Church objects to the fictional depiction of Young.

“Brigham Young, a revered prophet and courageous pioneer, is, by any historical standard, egregiously mischaracterized as a villainous, violent fanatic,” the LDS Church statement says. “Other individuals and groups are also depicted in ways that reinforce stereotypes that are both inaccurate and harmful.

“As to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which the series inaccurately portrays as reflective of a whole faith group, the Church has long acknowledged and condemned this horrific tragedy. It has also taken significant steps to uncover and share the full truth of what happened and promote healing.”

The news release adds, “the problem with such deceptive, graphic and sensationalized storytelling is that it not only obscures reality and hinders genuine understanding but can foster animosity, hate and even violence. This is particularly troubling today when peacemakers are needed more than ever.

“At a time when so many responsible leaders are condemning the division and hostility that dominate so much of our public discourse, we echo the plea of President Russell M. Nelson: “The Savior’s message is clear: His true disciples build, lift, encourage, persuade, and inspire — no matter how difficult the situation. True disciples of Jesus Christ are peacemakers. … Peacemaking is a choice. … I urge you to choose to be a peacemaker, now and always.”

Thanks,

-Smac

webbles · January 27, 2025

In that Hollywood Reporter interview, the directory says:

Quote

The more we researched the Meadows Massacre, that took us down a Brigham Young rabbit hole and it was interesting because I had never thought of the Mormons as having an armed militia and being aggressive, and they really were. Something we tried to hint at in the show was that they weren’t insane and irrational about it. They were trying to survive, and there were a lot of people trying to wipe them off the planet. I’m empathetic to Brigham Young and the LDS church, but the Meadows Massacre did happen, and they were involved. And from the research I’ve done, it’s my belief that Brigham Young knew about that before it happened.

I'd like to know what research he did to reach that conclusion. Because it would seem that he didn't read some of the best research on the massacre (Brooks' and Turley's). He does mention reading Under the Banner of Heaven which is a great book to understand the Lafferty murders, but not a great book to understand the massacre.

halconero · January 27, 2025

On 1/21/2025 at 12:42 PM, Nevo said:

I think your criticism here is way off. I encourage you to read the rest of the book, or at least Chapter 3. It's not long. Mason certainly considers Indigenous persons and Chinese immigrants people. He also doesn't claim that Mormons were uniquely violent.

I think your blood libel analogy also misses the mark. Jews never ritually murdered Christian children (hence the title of Ronnie Po-Chia Hsia's book, The Myth of Ritual Murder). Mormons, however, did murder apostates, Indians, and non-Mormon emigrants. I fail to see how acknowledging this fact "underplays and de-emphasizes" so-called "more egregious" examples of violence perpetrated by others.

Rather than playing the victim card, I think we would do well to honestly reckon with the Church's history of violence and take lessons from it. Not sweep it under the rug or point to others' supposedly worse atrocities to make ourselves feel better.

Your criticism is fair. I take the point and apologize.

I do have particular areas where I still disagree, and will return to them later, but have to remind myself continually that I am, in fact, employed.

Kevin Christensen · January 27, 2025

8 hours ago, webbles said:

In that Hollywood Reporter interview, the directory says:

I'd like to know what research he did to reach that conclusion. Because it would seem that he didn't read some of the best research on the massacre (Brooks' and Turley's). He does mention reading Under the Banner of Heaven which is a great book to understand the Lafferty murders, but not a great book to understand the massacre.

It seems clear that once they read Under the Banner of Heaven, little else made an impression even though they had been pointed to far better sources for understanding the Massacre, and indeed the director had copies of the two most important, comprehensive, and accurate accounts and significant personal contact with one of the most informed people possible. Whether he actually read them is an entirely different question. Barbara Jones Brown, co-author of Vengeance is Mine reports this:

Quote

After researching, writing and educating about the 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre and its historical context for the past 19 years, I was looking forward to watching the new Netflix series, “American Primeval.”

The director toured the Mountain Meadows, located in southwest Utah, with my co-author a couple of years ago, and the series’ creators had copies of our non-fiction book on the subject, “Vengeance Is Mine: The Mountain Meadows Massacre and Its Aftermath” and the book’s prequel, “Massacre at Mountain Meadows” (both published by Oxford University Press).

Because of this, and because the actual story is so suspenseful and dramatic that it needs no sensationalizing, I hoped that the series —billed as historical fiction — would be fairly well rooted in history.

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2025/01/21/american-primeval-left-this-historian-confused-and-frustrated-heres-why/

The comment from the director that "And from the research I’ve done, it’s my belief that Brigham Young knew about that before it happened" would be far more respectable if he actually addressed the significant, actual evidence and testimony that Brigham Young did not know about the Massacre beforehand, and if he mentioned the sources and evidence that persuaded him against that evidence, rather than an evidence-free assertion of personal belief as sufficient justification, and if the series actually addressed such evidence, and finally if he did not freely fabricate for the series completely fictional bloody conflicts between the US Army and the Mormon Militia (who in the real Utah war were under direct orders to "shed no blood"), and if the series did not depict Brigham Young as instigating a massacre of Shoshone akin to the 1863 Bear River Massacre done by Federal Army independent of Young, who in the real world had not been Governor for six years.

This does not strike me as particularly sympathetic to the Saints. Just another iteration of an old stereotyped fictional trope. For that, no evidence is required. Just belief, including belief in what sells in the current marketplace. We will of course, survive this. It may not be pleasant, and there may be spiritual casualties. And I am glad we have the Oxford Press books, and FAIR, and access to Brigham Young's life and character in far more telling contexts than provided by American Primeval.

Truth is knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come. Rhetoric, and drama have the power to assert alternate visions, but trying to make decisions that do not correlate with reality, always leads to increasing chaos and consequence. Nibley's "Victoriosa Loquacitas: The Rise of Rhetoric and the Decline of Everything Else" remains prophetic and more relevant in today's Tantrumocracy, where popularity and "a lot of people are saying" is enough to justify ICE raids on the Navaho reservation. Discernment is listed as a spiritual gift, which means criticism can be a spiritual gift. Seek out of the best books words of wisdom. Not "Seek out of pop culture and conform to whatever."

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited January 28, 2025 by Kevin Christensen
typo

Nevo · January 28, 2025

Regarding the Church's PR statement on American Primeval, I think they would have done better to follow Brigham Young's own advice, which he offered to Bishop Warren Snow when Snow was taking heat for castrating and leaving for dead a member of his ward. Publicly addressing the criticism, Young counseled, "would be like pi--ing upon a hot iron—[it will] only make the more smoke. Just let the matter drop, and say no more about it, and it will soon die away amongst the people."

Brigham Young was a revered prophet and courageous pioneer, yes, but he also incited violence and authorized summary executions on multiple occasions. In one 1857 letter, he instructed local leaders in southern Utah to watch for two ex-convicts passing through: "Be on the look out now, & have a few trusty men ready in case of need to pursue, retake & punish. We do not suppose there would be any prosecutions for false imprisonments, or tale bearers for witnesses. ... Make no noise of this matter, & keep this letter safe. We write for your eye alone, & to men that can be trusted." This led directly to the 1857 Santa Clara ambush in February 1857 and to the Parrish-Potter murders in Springville the following month (see footnote 20 on page 73 of Parshall's article). In March 1858, Young "authorized the 'destruction' without trial of a party of army deserters, apostates, and emigrants leaving Utah if they stole from Mormon settlements en route. These instructions targeted U.S. troops, accompanying civilians, and other noncombatants without legal proceedings" (William P. MacKinnon, "'Lonely Bones': Leadership and Utah War Violence", 168).

When Isaac C. Haight wrote to Young telling him that he'd had a member of his congregation murdered, Young let it pass without comment. In Young's reply, he addressed Haight as "dear brother," chatted a bit about the weather ("the weather has been rather warm for a few days, but we had a fine rain not long ago"), and ended with: "The Lord grant that [the Iron Mission] may succeed in their operations. . . . Praying that God may continually bless you, I remain your brother in Christ, Brigham Young." Richard Turley and Barbara Jones Brown discuss this episode on page 16 of Vengeance Is Mine: The Mountain Meadows Massacre and Its Aftermath.

We don't have Haight's letter to Young regarding the Arkansas emigrants, but Young's reply offers some hints about what it contained. Haight evidently thought Young might give his blessing to "interfere" or "meddle" with the emigrants and to not allow them to "go in peace." After all, as Haight well knew, he'd sanctioned killing before. There is also a question about what Young meant by adding: "The Indians we expect will do as they please." Utah War historian William MacKinnon notes that "this phrase appeared mantra-like twice in Young's August 16 discourse, his September 12 letter to Jeter Clinton, and in his September 13 parting conversation with Captain Van Vliet. Juanita Brooks commented that the letter to Haight 'is so typical' and enigmatic in phrasing that it 'sounds as though he [Young] might not condemn an Indian massacre'" (MacKinnon, "Lonely Bones," 170).

Brigham Young had many great and important qualities, to be sure. The Church likely wouldn't exist today without him. But we shouldn't whitewash him either. "Depictions that deceive" go both ways.

Edited January 28, 2025 by Nevo

webbles · January 28, 2025

5 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Brigham Young had many great and important qualities, to be sure. The Church likely wouldn't exist today without him. But we shouldn't whitewash him either. "Depictions that deceive" go both ways.

I don't see the PR statement trying to whitewash him. It does sound like the TV show has "egregiously mischaracterized [him] as a villainous, violent fanatic". Did he condone violence? Yes, but in really limited situations. You have pointed to several times when he has but he practically ran Utah for his entire adult life and there really aren't that many times that we can point to and say "Brigham was a bad man". It is like taking all of the bad things he did, showing it in a few hours of TV show, and then ignoring everything else in his life.

9 minutes ago, Nevo said:

We don't have Haight's letter to Young regarding the Arkansas emigrants, but Young's reply offers some hints about what it contained. Haight evidently thought Young might give his blessing to "interfere" or "meddle" with the emigrants and to not allow them to "go in peace." After all, as Haight well knew, he'd sanctioned killing before. There is also a question about what Young meant by adding: "The Indians we expect will do as they please." Utah War historian William MacKinnon notes that "this phrase appeared mantra-like twice in Young's August 16 discourse, his September 12 letter to Jeter Clinton, and in his September 13 parting conversation with Captain Van Vliet. Juanita Brooks commented that the letter to Haight 'is so typical' and enigmatic in phrasing that it 'sounds as though he [Young] might not condemn an Indian massacre'" (MacKinnon, "Lonely Bones," 170).

I think there is a big difference between condoning Native Americans doing what they please and actively encouraging or directing them to do what Haight pleases. We know of multiple Native American raids on wagon trains at the same time as the Mountain Meadow Massacre. We know that Brigham proposed to the tribes to attack wagon trains. The only one that actually turned into a massacre is one that was lead by settlers, not Native Americans. If the southern Mormons had let the Native Americans do as they please, the massacre would not have happened. An attack might have happened (like it did in other places on the trail), but not a massacre.

Nevo · January 28, 2025

9 hours ago, webbles said:

I don't see the PR statement trying to whitewash him. It does sound like the TV show has "egregiously mischaracterized [him] as a villainous, violent fanatic".

I don't really agree that the show portrays Young as a "villainous, violent fanatic." I mean, sure, he's portrayed by Kim Coates and dresses all in black, so he comes across as menacing without even saying anything, but if you actually watch the handful of scenes that he's in, there's nothing really objectionable. His fictitious storyline is mostly about him trying to buy Fort Bridger from a reluctant Jim Bridger to prevent the advancing US Army from occupying it. He says things like: "I do what's required to protect my people, Mr. Bridger. A line must be drawn or else we cease to exist." I don't think it's an "egregious" mischaracterization.

On the other hand, the Church's statement links to an article by Matt Grow in the Deseret News, where he claims that "Brigham Young was fundamentally a man of peace who sought to follow the words of Jesus Christ: 'Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.' Like other leaders of his day and our own day, Brigham Young sometimes used violent rhetoric. But his actions tell a different story." That strikes me as more misleading than the portrayal of Young in American Primeval.

Edited January 28, 2025 by Nevo

bluebell · January 28, 2025

10 hours ago, Nevo said:

Regarding the Church's PR statement on American Primeval, I think they would have done better to follow Brigham Young's own advice, which he offered to Bishop Warren Snow when Snow was taking heat for castrating and leaving for dead a member of his ward. Publicly addressing the criticism, Young counseled, "would be like pi--ing upon a hot iron—[it will] only make the more smoke. Just let the matter drop, and say no more about it, and it will soon die away amongst the people."

I didn't like their PR statement either, but not because I thought they weren't honest about BY.

I didn't like it because it's a defense, and anytime you start defending anything it just makes it seem like you did something you need a defense for. The person who gets their narrative out first (even if it is completely made up) is always going to have the upper hand when dealing with the emotional reaction of people who are hearing about it. That's how people work. We may intellectually know that every story has two sides, but emotionally we tend to land with the side that we hear first and the more the other side tries to defend themselves against accusations, the more the first side seems right.

It would have been better if the church had simply provided the factual information that the series ignored or changed, and then provided some links to historical sources for those who wanted to learn about what actually happened. That's not defense, that's offense.

Offense--in a war of words--is always the better side to be on.

(and using scripture was not the way to go either in my opinion. A religious defense is harder to make work than a secular defense, and they were already on the losing end going into it as it was)

Bernard Gui · January 29, 2025

On 1/28/2025 at 12:35 AM, Nevo said:

In one 1857 letter, he instructed local leaders in southern Utah to watch for two ex-convicts passing through: "Be on the look out now, & have a few trusty men ready in case of need to pursue, retake & punish. We do not suppose there would be any prosecutions for false imprisonments, or tale bearers for witnesses. ... Make no noise of this matter, & keep this letter safe. We write for your eye alone, & to men that can be trusted." This led directly to the 1857 Santa Clara ambush in February 1857…

What do you believe was Brigham Young’s motivation to “take out” Ambrose and Betts? I don’t buy Parshall’s conjecture that it was a by-product of the Reformation (page 87) and an unexplained omission of a conditional phrase in the second letter from him to southern Utah leaders regarding the miscreants (page 76)…

Quote

Unlike the earlier letters, they did not state that a penalty was to be imposed only after a theft of stock.

I can’t come up with a plausible explanation for his supposed animus, after all there were plenty more scoundrels around that did worse things than these two petty swindlers.

Edited January 29, 2025 by Bernard Gui

Bernard Gui · January 29, 2025

On 1/28/2025 at 12:35 AM, Nevo said:

When Isaac C. Haight wrote to Young telling him that he'd had a member of his congregation murdered, Young let it pass without comment. In Young's reply, he addressed Haight as "dear brother," chatted a bit about the weather ("the weather has been rather warm for a few days, but we had a fine rain not long ago"), and ended with: "The Lord grant that [the Iron Mission] may succeed in their operations. . . . Praying that God may continually bless you, I remain your brother in Christ, Brigham Young." Richard Turley and Barbara Jones Brown discuss this episode on page 16 of Vengeance Is Mine: The Mountain Meadows Massacre and Its Aftermath.

Is this what you are referring to? I don’t understand how you got a murder out of this.

Quote

“In his letter, Haight told Young that a man in nearby Fort Harmony confessed to having “connexion” with a woman before he married her. “He had had his [temple] Endowments,” Haight said, and “wishes to know what he shall do. I think he has deeply repented of the sin and Says that if the Law of God requires his Blood to be spilled he will most willingly comply with Any thing required that he may be saved.” Despite Young’s preachings on blood atonement, he counseled Haight to tell the man to “goe and sin noe more repent of all his sins and be Baptized for the same.” He counseled Haight again later, “in the name of the Lord, remission and pardon, even of adultery, are promised to all that truly repent.” Young’s letter reflected a sympathetic side that surfaced more in his private interactions than his public speaking. This softer trait developed through his own sufferings and caring for others in theirs.”

— Vengeance Is Mine: The Mountain Meadows Massacre and Its Aftermath by Richard E. Turley Jr., pp.16-17.

Seems to me that the letter with the weather comments that you quoted from BY to Haight was totally appropriate…”a perfect letter” to paraphrase a famous person…not a nefarious effort to cover up a heinous crime by ignoring it.

Edited January 29, 2025 by Bernard Gui

Bernard Gui · January 29, 2025

On 1/28/2025 at 12:35 AM, Nevo said:

This led directly…to the Parrish-Potter murders in Springville the following month (see footnote 20 on page 73 of Parshall's article).

So you discount this response?

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Utah/Crime_and_violence/Parrish-Potter_murders

Bernard Gui · January 29, 2025

On 1/28/2025 at 12:35 AM, Nevo said:

In March 1858, Young "authorized the 'destruction' without trial of a party of army deserters, apostates, and emigrants leaving Utah if they stole from Mormon settlements en route. These instructions targeted U.S. troops, accompanying civilians, and other noncombatants without legal proceedings" (William P. MacKinnon, "'Lonely Bones': Leadership and Utah War Violence", 168).

….in a time of anticipated all-out potentially genocidal war, of course…

Also from the same source, pp. 170-71

Quote

The Utah Expedition’s senior commanders showed a similar lack of military judgment in their comments. Even before the Utah Expedition marched out of Fort Leavenworth in July 1857, General William S. Harney—the brigade's initial commander and Johnston's predecessor—resolved, according to his biographer, L. U. Reavis, "to capture Brigham Young and the twelve apostles, and execute them in a summary manner, and winter in the Temple." Reavis added his appraisal that such acts "would not have been . . . improbable" for the volatile Harney. This talk cascaded down into the ranks along with barracks discussion about the anticipated availability of Mormon women.

Reports of such braggadocio quickly reached emigrants and the agents of the Mormon Y.X. Carrying Company. Brigham Young and other senior leaders took these seriously. George A. Smith also commented on the troops’ plans about "booty and beauty." Eastbound Samuel W. Richards passed an army bivouac on the Nebraska plains and reported the soldiers’ "high glee at the idea of wintering sumptuously in Utah, where as the [Irish] Paddy said, 'the women are as thick as blackberries, and gloated over Brigham Young's discomfiture as the soldiers with his wives wives paraded the streets of Great Salt Lake City. Every dirty foul-mouthed Dutchman [German] and Irishman ... fully expected some 'Mormon' woman would jump into his arms upon his arrival in Utah, and hail him as a heavenly messenger sent to bring deliverance.

I am inclined to cut Brother Brigham and the Mormons a little slack here.

Quote

Against the background of anti-Mormon violence in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois, such reports stiffened Brigham Young's resolve during August and September 1857 to keep the army out of the Salt Lake Valley.

Do ya think?

General Harney was a piece of work. P.172.

Quote

Buchanan's appointment of Harney—dubbed “Mad Bear” by Sioux and "Squaw Killer" by whites—to lead the Utah Expedition was a serious misjudgment. Instead of appointing an officer of demonstrated tact, maturity, and sound judgment, Buchanan selected an officer whom the army had court-martialed four times—with a civil court acquitting him of culpability on a fifth occasion when he bludgeoned a female slave to death. Buchanan's May 1858 promotion of Harney to supersede Johnston as the campaign's overall commander horrified the Utah Expedition's other officers. Their lack of confidence was fully justified by Harney's catastrophic misjudgments in the Pacific Northwest's "Pig War" (1859) and the Missouri unrest of 1861. These imbroglios forced first Buchanan, then Lincoln to relieve him of command.

Not a pretty picture. Kinda puts BY’s militant responses in context.

I don’t believe any of this justifies calling BY a worse blood-thirsty maniac than that which he was portrayed in the TV series. Just the contrary, I think.

Edited January 29, 2025 by Bernard Gui

Bernard Gui · January 29, 2025

On 1/28/2025 at 12:35 AM, Nevo said:

We don't have Haight's letter to Young regarding the Arkansas emigrants, but Young's reply offers some hints about what it contained. Haight evidently thought Young might give his blessing to "interfere" or "meddle" with the emigrants and to not allow them to "go in peace."

Could you please point out the hints? If Haight asked for permission to do evil, BY’s reply certainly set him straight. Are you saying that BY hid winking messages - “you know what I’ve said before, so go and do as you please, and I’ll not take notice” - in his reply, knowing that Haight would get the secret code?

Quote

In regard to emigration trains passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them. There are no other trains going south that I know of[.] [I]f those who are there will leave let them go in peace.

Edited January 29, 2025 by Bernard Gui

Nevo · January 29, 2025

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What do you believe was Brigham Young’s motivation to “take out” Ambrose and Betts?… I can’t come up with a plausible explanation for his supposed animus, after all there were plenty more scoundrels around that did worse things than these two petty swindlers.

Your guess is as good as mine. The fear that they might try to steal Church-owned horses that had been sent south for the winter seems to have been a good enough reason for BY to put a target on their backs. The problem is that his "pursue, retake & punish" instruction ended up leading to a bunch of other people being shot. As Parshall notes, "the citizens of Springville clearly interpreted the February 3 letter as a general instruction applicable to all 'suspicious characters,' not merely to Ambrose and Betts, who were unknown to them and whom the letter did not name" (Parshall, "Santa Clara Ambush," 73n20). They apparently took BY's counsel that it's better to lock the stable door before the horse is stolen as an invitation to take preemptive action against undesirable elements in their community.

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is this what you are referring to? I don’t understand how you got a murder out of this.

No, that's not what I'm referring to. Read the last paragraph on page 16. Haight told Young in a second letter that Anderson had not repented and stated: "I felt that he was not worthy to live upon the Ea[r]th any longer So I Sent some of the police they Start him for Calafornia." As Turley and Brown note, "Nineteenth-century southern Utahns used expressions like 'starting someone for California' or 'getting to California' as euphemisms for killing." And Anderson was, in fact, killed, as Turley and Brown make clear, quoting former bishop Philip Klingensmith's testimony that Anderson was taken from his house in the middle of the night and executed by having his throat slit over an open grave. Turley and Brown also make it clear that Brigham Young greeted this news with silence: "Young wrote advice about the girl but nothing of Anderson." Isaac Haight remained in good standing after the murders, as did Springville bishop Aaron Johnson after the Parrish murders (which Johnson authorized).

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

So you discount this response?

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Utah/Crime_and_violence/Parrish-Potter_murders

No, I don't discount that response. I didn't claim that Young ordered the Parrish murders, but rather that his letter led to their murders. This was Parshall's conclusion too: "As Stewart's letter to the Valley Tan makes clear, the Parrish-Potter murders were a direct, though unintended, result of Brigham Young's letter of February 3." Polly Aird thinks Young's February 8 sermon on blood atonement also played a role, and she may be correct (see Aird, Mormon Convert, Mormon Defector: A Scottish Immigrant in the American West, 1848-1861, 175).

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

General Harney was a piece of work. P.172.

Not a pretty picture. Kinda puts BY’s responses in context.

Harney was a piece of work, but was out of the picture by the end of August 1857. And Young's March 1858 instruction concerned people leaving Utah, not entering it. But, yes, context is important.

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don’t believe any of this justifies calling BY a worse blood-thirsty maniac than that which he was portrayed in the TV series. Just the contrary, I think.

You'll get no disagreement from me on that point. I'm certainly not calling Brigham Young a bloodthirsty maniac. But he did incite and sanction murders and other violence (in the context of an impending invasion, religious fervor, theocracy, illness, etc.), which complicates the Church's portrayal of him as "fundamentally a man of peace," as though he were some sort of frontier Jimmy Carter. He was complex.

Edited January 29, 2025 by Nevo

gmormon · January 29, 2025

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Could you please point out the hints? If Haight asked for permission to do evil, BY’s reply certainly set him straight. Are you saying that BY hid winking messages - “you know what I’ve said before, so go and do as you please, and I’ll not take notice” - in his reply, knowing that Haight would get the secret code?

😉😜😉😜😉😜😉😜😉😜😉😜😉😜😉😜

Found your missing winking icons. Please insert wherever appropriate...

🙈🙉🙊

Bernard Gui · January 29, 2025

7 hours ago, Nevo said:

Your guess is as good as mine. The fear that they might try to steal Church-owned horses that had been sent south for the winter seems to have been a good enough reason for BY to put a target on their backs. The problem is that his "pursue, retake & punish" instruction ended up leading to a bunch of other people being shot. As Parshall notes, "the citizens of Springville clearly interpreted the February 3 letter as a general instruction applicable to all 'suspicious characters,' not merely to Ambrose and Betts, who were unknown to them and whom the letter did not name" (Parshall, "Santa Clara Ambush," 73n20). They apparently took BY's counsel that it's better to lock the stable door before the horse is stolen as an invitation to take preemptive action against undesirable elements in their community.

No, that's not what I'm referring to. Read the last paragraph on page 16. Haight told Young in a second letter that Anderson had not repented and stated: "I felt that he was not worthy to live upon the Ea[r]th any longer So I Sent some of the police they Start him for Calafornia." As Turley and Brown note, "Nineteenth-century southern Utahns used expressions like 'starting someone for California' or 'getting to California' as euphemisms for killing." And Anderson was, in fact, killed, as Turley and Brown make clear, quoting former bishop Philip Kingensmith's testimony that Anderson was taken from his house in the middle of the night and executed by having his throat slit over an open grave. Turley and Brown also make it clear that Brigham Young greeted this news with silence: "Young wrote advice about the girl but nothing of Anderson." Isaac Haight remained in good standing after the murders, as did Springville bishop Aaron Johnson after the Parrish murders (which Johnson authorized).

Thanks for the clarification.

Stealing horses or livestock was a capital offense in some areas of the country because it could mean extreme hardship or even death for the owner and/or his family.

For example,

Quote

From the beginning of the Republic, executions for a variety of capital offenses were established by local, state and federal laws, and individuals have been executed for a variety of crimes including witchcraft, horse stealing, sodomy, theft, forgery, aiding a runaway slave, arson, piracy, robbery, kidnaping, rape, espionage, murder and treason...

In 1865, the Tennessee legislature passed a number of capital statutes. Reflecting the dangerous and unsettled post-War conditions, the General Assembly passed "An Act to Punish all Armed Prowlers, Guerrillas, Brigands, and Highway Robbers." This Act ordered that a number of offenses relating to plunder, robbery, prowling, and theft be punished by hanging. In the next chapter of legislation, the Assembly rewrote many of the old mandatory capital slave code provisions, allowing the jury to choose a term of years rather than death and omitting reference to color of offender or victim.Thus, the following crimes could be punished by death or could be punished by not less than ten and not more than twenty-one years in prison: Theft of livestock, housebreaking (burglary), robbery, and house or bridge burning (arson). Oddly enough, immediately after the Civil War, rape was not a capital crime. This meant that a person convicted of stealing a horse or burning a bridge risked hanging, while a person convicted of rape did not. The legislature restored the death penalty for rape in 1871, giving the jury discretion to impose death or imprisonment for not less than ten years.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3843/is_200107/ai_n8971 "Sentenced to the punishment of death": Pre-Furman capital crimes and executions in Shelby County, Tennessee University of Memphis Law Review, The, Summer 2001 by Vandiver, Margaret, Coconis, Michel.

Reflecting on the damage stealing horses could inflict on folks living on the frontier, in April, 1853, Orson Hyde said this about horse thieves in Utah.

Quote

Suppose the shepherd should discover a wolf approaching the flock, what would he be likely to do? Why, we should suppose, if the wolf was within proper distance, that he would kill him at once with the weapons of defence which he carries; in short, that he would shoot him down, kill him on the spot. If the wolf was not within shot, we would naturally suppose he would set the dogs on him; and you are aware, I have no doubt, that these shepherd dogs have very pointed teeth, and they are very active, very sensitive to know when the flock is in danger. It is sometimes the case, perhaps, that the shepherd has not with him the necessary arms to destroy the wolf, but in such a case he would set his faithful dogs on him, and by that means accomplish his destruction.

Is this true in relation to the shepherd, and the flock, and the dogs? You can all testify to its truth. Now was Jesus Christ the good shepherd? Yes. What the faithful shepherd is to his sheep, so is the Saviour to his followers. He has gone and left on earth other shepherds who stand in the place of Jesus Christ to take care of the flock. When that flock is out on the prairie, and the pasture range extending broad and green before them, and completely cleared of wolves, is not that sanctified and cleansed, when there is nothing to hurt or destroy them? I ask if one wolf is permitted to mingle with the flock, and unmolested proceed in a work of destruction, will he not go off and tell the other wolves, and they bring in a thousand others, more wicked and ravenous than themselves? Whereas, if the first one should meet with his just deserts, he could not go back and tell the rest of his hungry tribe to come and feast themselves upon the flock.

Now don't say that brother Hyde has taught strong things, for I have only told you what takes place between the shepherd and the flock, when the sheep have to be protected.

If you say that the Priesthood or authorities of the Church here are the shepherd, and the Church is the flock, you can make your own application of this figure. It is not at all necessary for me to do it.

It is all the same to me whether they want to destroy the flock, or destroy, steal, and carry off the property of the flock. If you steal my team, which is my means of living, you might just as well kill me at once. It is like this--:Brother Hyde, I will not disturb, molest, or harm you, or any of the rest of your brethren; but we will take you out on the bleak and comfortless prairie, and leave you there to starve or freeze to death, and take possession of your property." You might as well destroy us at once as take us where we should starve. It would be much better to take our heads off at once than to subject us to a lingering death.

The "testimony" link you provided goes to "John D. Lee, First Trial Philip Klingensmith Testimony." I read the entire testimony, but I found nothing about Klingensmith being involved in the murder of an Anderson.

Is the Anderson you are talking about Rasmus Anderson who seduced an 11-year-old girl in Cedar City, who after repenting, being rebaptized, and promising not to repeat the offense was later found with her again after she had married someone else, and confessed that he had been in a continuous relationship with her? Sounds like frontier justice for a serial child molester. I don't understand how BY's letter could be responsible for the kind of reaction folks had to this criminality.

What did BY's silence mean? What advice did BY write about the girl?

7 hours ago, Nevo said:

No, I don't discount that response. I didn't claim that Young ordered the Parrish murders, but rather that his letter led to their murders. This was Parshall's conclusion too: "As Stewart's letter to the Valley Tan makes clear, the Parrish-Potter murders were a direct, though unintended, result of Brigham Young's letter of February 3." Polly Aird thinks Young's February 8 sermon on blood atonement also played a role, and she may be correct (see Aird, Mormon Convert, Mormon Defector: A Scottish Immigrant in the American West, 1848-1861, 175).

I don't buy that argument. So, while BY's letter referred specifically to keeping an eye on two shady characters (the unnamed Ambrose and Betts), and he did not state it to be a general instruction regarding all ne'er-do-wells, the folks in Springville overstepped his instructions and did some of their own justice. Seems to me that the onus is on them, not Brigham. If I understand correctly, blood atonement did not apply to gentile swindlers, but I may be wrong.

Quote

Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved in the kingdom of our God and our Father, and being exalted, one who knows and understands the principles of eternal life, and sees the beauty and excellency of the eternities before him compared with the vain and foolish things of the world, and suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, "shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?"...

…This is loving our neighbour as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind.

7 hours ago, Nevo said:

Harney was a piece of work, but was out of the picture by the end of August 1857. And Young's March 1858 instruction concerned people leaving Utah, not entering it. But, yes, context is important.

No, not out of the picture, and certainly not out of mind. He still remained in command of the Utah operation. His vile threats were known and believed by the Mormons. Not only in Zion, but even in Europe and Hawaii!

Quote

A Crisis Averted: General Harney and the Change in Command of the Utah Expecition Utah Historical Quarterly, Volume 51, Number 1, 1983

https://issuu.com/utah10/docs/uhq_volume51_1983_number1/s/137794

...On August 29, 1857, his [Harney's] Utah command was given to Col. Albert Sidney Johnston and the expedition became known as Johnston's Army. Then for a few weeks the next spring Harney held the command of the newly formed Department of Utah and was over Johnston. He was two weeks en route to Utah when the government learned peace had been established with the Mormons and reassigned Harney to Oregon...

...Harney seemed to have had no strong feelings against the Mormons. Reavis, his biographer, claims that had Harney executed church leaders, "he would not have done so because of any personal concern about the Mormon religion, for that was a matter of indifference to him." Knowledge of this would not have placated the Mormons during the summer of 1857 as they prepared for a confrontation with Harney. They undoubtedly conjectured about their future under the man whose reputation they perceived largely through his brutal victory at [the Indian massacre at ]Ash Hollow...

...Mormons in England knew of Harney and the Utah Expedition well before those in Utah, according to Asa Calkin, a missionary at the church's headquarters in Liverpool. On June 17, five weeks before Smoot and Stoddard reached Utah, his journal reads, "It seems a settled thing that an army is to be sent against the Citizens of Utah, commanded by the blood thirsty coward Gen'l Harney who immortalized his name by the Indian massacre at Ash Hollow in September, 1855." Two weeks later, July 3, Calkin noted, "The civil war in Kansas is assuming a serious impact. Slavery and anti-slavery is making quite a stir sufficient for the moment to turn attention from the 'Mormons.' Harney is ordered to employ the whole of the Utah Army to preserve the peace in Kansas." The Millennial Star, a Mormon weekly published in England, does not mention the expedition until August 15...

...Brigham Young's several letters in early August reveal his knowledge of the government's plans for Utah and of Harney's threat to execute Mormon leaders. One such letter stated, "The government has at last hit upon the long sought for plan to extinguish 'Mormonism.'" Young listed the president's appointees to territorial offices and identified them as coming from the ranks of the Mormons' "most bitter enemies." He continued: "Then there are 2500 regulars coming with them as a bodyguard to execute their commands, to sustain them in their exalted positions. . . . The mission of these War Dogs is, of course, peaceful as the saintly squaw killer, General Harney, is supposed commandant of the expedition; and the current report is that he has committed himself on the peace side by openly avowing that he felt no hostility to the settlers of Utah further than myself and about 39 others and all those who believe as we do. A Jubilee is to be declared, means and protection are to be afforded to all who wish to return to the states. In fact, the Mormons are going (?) to be christianized, civilized and victimized by the highminded (?) officers of Uncle Sam's regulars. To offset this there is a strong probability that the troops will not reach further than Laramie this fall, and still stronger probability that they will not get here."

To church leaders in the Sandwich (Hawaiian) Islands Young wrote: "'Tis reported that amongst the officers it is a query whether they will hang me with or without a trial. The idea prevails generally amongst the editors that the object of the expedition is to kill Mormonism partly by hanging the authorities, here, and partly by working upon the fears of the masses."

In another letter he said, "We have been tried and condemned without a voice in the matter, but there is a 'catching before the hanging' as they may find, to their cost."

The Mormon people were as much aware of Harney's reputation as was Brigham Young. They added to one of their favorite songs this verse: "Old squaw killer Harney is on his way The Mormons for to slay Now, if he comes, the truth I'll tell Our boys will drive him down to hell..."

...Each phase of the Utah Expedition required the leadership of a patient man — the winter quarters at Camp Scott and the long wait there through the spring, the isolation at Camp Floyd, and the firm control of soldiers to prevent conflict with wary Mormons expecting government persecution. Johnston succeeded at this assignment remarkably well. It seems that Harney would have acted differently. The risk of impulsive and combative leadership, had Harney retained the command, would have threatened the expedition with the possibility of turbulent confrontations between Harney and the Mormons and ensuing casualties and scars. By almost any measure it would seem that the Mormons, Utah, the army, and the country were fortunate that the colorful and controversial William S. Harney was relieved of his command of the Utah Expedition and replaced by Albert Sidney Johnston.

If BY's letters were responsible for some deaths in Utah, wouldn't Harney's mortal threats also have contributed?

7 hours ago, Nevo said:

You'll get no disagreement from me on that point. I'm certainly not calling Brigham Young a bloodthirsty maniac. But he did incite and sanction murders and other violence (in the context of an impending invasion, religious fervor, theocracy, illness, etc.), which complicates the Church's portrayal of him as "fundamentally a man of peace," as though he were some sort of frontier Jimmy Carter. He was complex.

I can understand this assessment, not that I agree with all of it; moreover, I believe he and others suffered from extreme PTSD from their horrific experiences in the East, on the Plains, and in their new abodes. Having had some experiences with PTSD, I know how it can mess up a person.

I also believe we see all of this through "the fog of war."

Best wishes,

Bernard

Edited January 29, 2025 by Bernard Gui

Sign In

I just binged watched American Primeval

Recommended Posts

Bernard Gui

Bernard Gui

Zosimus

Bernard Gui

Calm

Kevin Christensen

manol

Kevin Christensen

Zosimus

smac97

The Mormon Church slammed American Primeval

Peter Berg had a savage response

webbles

halconero

Kevin Christensen

Nevo

webbles

Nevo

bluebell

Bernard Gui

Bernard Gui

Bernard Gui

Bernard Gui

Bernard Gui

Nevo

gmormon

Bernard Gui

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse