Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Mountain Meadows Massacre. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Untitled

Material archived from the Mountain Meadows massacre Talk page. (June 2004 – Oct 2006 approximate)

Forthcoming Book

It seems highly irregular to dedicate half of this article to speculation on an unfinished book. Shouldn't we more responsibly wait for the book to be published and read it in its entirety before referring to it? Tom (hawstom) 15:10, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The block of material seems a bit excessive to me as well. For now, we could at least reduce the material to a paragraph about ongoing research by LDS scholars. I think, in the last few days of Jan 06, we have been reacting to the anon.'s deletion of the material without explanation as blanking vandalism, and so restore it without thought. Comments -- how about it 70.136.........?? WBardwin 05:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The material seems perfect to me. What makes it appear excessive is that it is relatively long compared to the rest of the article. I think that is because the article is too short, not because the info on the upcoming book is too excessive. Just my $0.02. [User:Dr U|Dr U]] 05:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Even though I know Dr. Leonard and his work, the fact that we state the church is funding the work makes it a church project and so quite POV. The info has been in the article for six months (given deletions) and I am unaware of any progress report and new information. Web articles started with a 2004 publication date, moved to 2005, and now are talking about 2006. By cutting it down, we can downplay the POV until the work is published and the church held material open to the public. I myself would love to see the original documents -- they have been tucked away a long time. WBardwin 05:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

POV is a different issue than excessive. POV or not, this material will be the first to utilize the new documents, making it important, even in the light of potential conflicts of interest, which are explained. Furthermore, info on the book provides an introduction to the existence of the new documents; the documents existence being an important fact in and of itself. Dr U 07:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

POV is not a different issue from excessive. Given that the book is not yet even in print, it seems extremely inappropriate to give it any space on this page. There are several excellent books already in print mentioned at the appropriate place at the end of the article. That book seems to be apologia effort by LDS affiliates makes it especially inappropriate to single out. Sqrjn 11:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Tom Haws 15:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Utah Basin Explorer Commentary

In "Report of explorations across the great basin of the territory of Utah for a direct wagon-route from Camp Floyd to Genoa, in Carson Valley, in 1859, by Captain J. H. Simpson ... Made by authority of the secretary of war and under instructions from Bvt. Brig. Gen. A. S. Johnson" the author made note of the Mormon's claim that "Py-eeds" (Pah-utes / Paiutes) joined in the killing was "utterly absurd and impossible." -- (Added by Desertphile)

It seems especially despicable to lay blame for any part of the massacre on Native Americans especially the Paiutes, given the repression and genocide carried out against them by the Mormon Church.

inappropiate section heading

Anyone else find the section heading of "The First 9-1-1" unworthy of a serious encyclopedia? Gentgeen 23:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The whole article has issues. Since Mark Twain was there, he is an important focus of the article. Oh wait - Mark Twain was not there, and his views are less than circumstantial and not even typical of Americans at the time. Why then is an entire section given to him? The article has many issues. Want to tackle? -Visorstuff 00:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

While we're at it, I have long been troubled that a section has been dedicated for over a year to an "upcoming book" that is supposed to be really cool. I suggest removing until such book appears. Tom Haws 08:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Young's Involvement

Perhaps some mention should be made of the widely accepted theory of BY's involvement in the massacre beyond simple inaction? 153.104.16.114 01:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

That is the problem - no one theory is "widely accepted" - especially in regard to Young's involvement. Rather all theories are hotly debated in nearly all academic and scholarly circles both within and without the church. Do you have documentation for "widely accepted" from western historians, liberal mormon historians (not left wing, but free-sharing) or other groups? Not even Sunstone authors can agree on this. -Visorstuff 17:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Evidence suggests that Young's involvement was fabricated by enemies of the church, eager to find some way to bring him down. This tidbit might be worth mentioning. Some of John D. Lee's last words were to the effect that Brigham Young was innocent -- JDL was given several opportunities to save his own life simply by pointing the finger at BY. He refused, stating that "Especially I could not betray an innocent man," and was executed. Pretty strong evidence to Young's lack of culpability, I would say. Wadsworth 21:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Judges??

This article is poorly referenced and a full of unsupported statements, but one strikes me as being particularly absurd:

"More general assesments of the reasons for the massacre propose that a recent period of religous purification that had gripped the church, combined with conflict with the Federal Government over Federal Judges' ability to perform their duties free of church oversight, encouraged LDS leadership to take a hostile stance towards "outsiders." It is interesting to note that after the massacre the LDS church gave up much of its resistence to the presence of federal judges, as if they understood they had gone too far in their rebellious actions."

Can anyone cite a scholarly source that makes a case for this? Are we really supposed to believe that the leaders of the massacre thought that if they slaughtered a bunch of imigrants that federal judges would hassel Mormons less? And what about "It is interesting to note that after the massacre the LDS church gave up much of its resistence to the presence of federal judges." Any sources to back this up?

"as if they understood they had gone too far in their rebellious actions." This is by far the most stupid of all statements. After the masacre, the FEDERAL ARMY happened to arrive...maybe that had just a teeny tiny bit to do with less resistance to the judges, if there was in fact less...

I know this is an incredibly contreversial topic, and I didn't remove the statements in question to avoid an edit war. But unless someone can back any of this up, I do intend to eventually remove the silly statements in question. Dr U 17:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am very unhappy with the treatment in this article. It's on my list of articles to re-write. Please, feel free to fix what you can, I don't know when I'll get the time I need to do this justice. Wadsworth 21:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know enough about the Masonic blood oaths taken by Mormons of the time to include that information in the article? I have heard these used as partial explanations for the brutality of the massacre, given the preception among the mormons that the settlers had been involved in the murders of church leaders.

Foresenic evidence from when some bodies were briefly unearthed in 1999, and from the U.S. Army's survey of the seen in 1859 both lack any evidence for throat slitting. That is how other alleged religious killings in the region were performed. Therefore a reference to such would be out of place.Dr U 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the temple covenants (not "Masonic blood oaths") at the time apparently contained the promise to pray and not cease to pray in importuning the Heavens to avenge the blood of the Prophets on the nation of the United States [1]. Tom Haws 15:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Reason for sparing children

Text of Confessions of John D. Lee This makes it extremely clear that mormons sought to spare "innocent blood." Seven year old children CAN tell what they have seen, as any parent can attest. Some of the children DID testify at John D. Lee's trial.

To clarify this, LDS doctrine is that a child who has not reached the "age of accountability" (where they are able to understand the concept of sin) is innocent in the eyes of the Lord. That age is generally 8 years old, though some adults have not reached accountability due to their mental capabilities. Critic-at-Arms 17:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Maj. Carleton's report 1859

"But there is not the shadow of a doubt that the emigrants were butchered by the Mormons themselves, assisted doubtless by the Indians."

Oath of Vengance

Not ever a requirement for full mormon membership, to the best of my knowledge Not limited to men, to the best of my knowledge Attribution to Smoot hearings is correct, but should probably be cited as such in notes/sources, rather than the extensive attribution within the text of the article itself

Who is who here and what are our sources?

My, there has been a lot of editing lately! I would like to throw my hat in the ring, but first I wonder if it would be helpful to lay out on the table who is involved here and what are our sources. If you agree, please consider participating in this roll call:

User:Hawstom old participant from 2004 and 2005, LDS member, have read at least the first 4/5 of Juanita Brooks book slowly and carefully. Have read John D. Lee testimony in full. Give heavy credence to Juanita Brooks.
User:Visorstuff also have read most everything I can on the Massacre. Find much perception issues still existing and perpectuated - even in this article that have been proven factually incorrect since. I find that the decendant of the survivors sites are very informative, and striving for accuracy [2] - and better written than this article currently is. Juanita Brooks is a must-read. My wife is a direct descendant of John D. Lee, and I am of Parley Pratt, whose death is also connected to the massacre, so it has been of great interest to our family (I will not list my entire genealogy of the timeperiod, as all of my ancestors came from the 1850 Utah period or before, except one who was a US soldier captured during the Utah War) who later converted to Mormonism).
User:Dr U physician and former military. Interested in the psychology behind events like Mountain Meadows, My Lai, the Holocaust, Sep 11 attacks, etc. Think all people have value, and that mormons, protestants, muslims, jews, etc. have the same basic inner motivatations for how they conduct themselves. Any group will commit bad acts under stressful circumstances with evil or misguided leadership. Most of my wikipedia contibutions have been to military or scientific articles. Started posting on MMM because I thought that some of the reasons given for the massacre were ridiculous. Kept posting because of the mormon bashing. Some mormons in 1857 southern Utah did a very bad thing that speaks for itself, and I think its more productive to figure out why they did it than it is to post every negative thing ever written about them. Have read Lee Confessions, Brooks, Smoot hearings, endowment text, Carelton report, plus every original document I could find online. Former mormon.
User:WBardwin: Active Mormon with a liberal bent (Democrat - gasp!). Degree in History from BYU with emphasis on the Mormon colonization of the West through 1910. Advanced work in history and art from other institutions. Fan of Juanita Brooks -- outstanding effort for her time period. Believe the Massacre is one of the last examples of the ongoing social and cultural conflicts between emerging Mormonism and the expansionist American society of the time....and that it can't be understood without some reference to that context. It also has some parallels with American Indian/colonist cultural conflicts like the Whitman Massacre in Washington. Also believe that it was totally unjustifiable from any reference point. Am looking forward to improved access to documentation from church archives/records -- as that is the only place new information is likely to be found.

User:Critic-at-Arms: Active LDS (adult convert, 1975), with a background in investigation, aerospace, military science, as a media personality and as an appointed judge. I have led an active and varied lifestyle, giving me familiarity in a great many areas. Politically Libertarian. I've investigated MM from the standpoint of trying to correlate accounts, local conditions and known facts within the greater scope of surrounding social and legal conditions. Understanding must in no way be taken as approval.

Vandalism

Certain users keep deleting material without providing a rational basis. I believe that this constitutes blanking vandalism, and correcting this is exempted from the 3 revert rule generally applied to article changes. Please educate me if I am wrong in my interpritation. Dr U 21:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

POV Check

I have endeavored to make the article neutral. I have added the POV template that others may look and correct POV I have undoubtably missed. Dr U 21:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a POV discussion is a great idea. I think good definitions should start any debate. So First of all, I would like to know what Dr. U's definition of Kidnapped is. Second his definition of hate speech. Third how he might deal with negative historical quotes without deleting them. Anybody elses opinions would also be great!, but he is the one raising the issues so I'm curious. Sqrjn 00:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Kidnapping has been discussed extensively above, user WBardin has reverted the kidnapp edits, too, so I'm obviously not the only one who thinks term is POV. The only real argument for its inclusion was that one could, using a very narrow definition, fit it to a dictionary definition, without looking at the whole picture. Trying to apply what would be proper to do with a missing child today with speedy transportation and an FBI to find kin, with what would be proper then (care for them, and hand them over when an interested party came to find them, which was done). No contempoary sources claiming kidnapping are provided. The source claiming maltreatment contradicts itself and is also a source for proper treatment.

Agree This article is about murder and cover-up. The kidnapping sideline is an insertion that probably violates WP:NOR, though if it is a significant POV that can be referenced and attributed, I suppose we will have to say "P thus adds kidnapping to the list of crimes." Tom Haws 14:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Hate speech is well defined. The quote additionally serves no real purpose, other than to be inflammatory. After, reading the quote, the reader is not left with any greater knowledge of significance about the topic of the article. Other quotes containing hate speech were modified to remove hate speech, while conveying the idea. Since the idea of the quote in question was that the government should have wiped-out a religious group, there is no reason to keep it in modified form either. Go to 9/11 attacks and post a quote saying we should nuke the whole arab world (people have made equivalent statements, such quotes are available) and see how long it lasts. People wouldn't tolerate it in that article, and it doesn't belong here either.

Agree Tom Haws 14:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Saying Hate speech is well defined and then not defining it? not helpful. We need to know your definition. Also I'm not really sure how 9/11 and quotes on nuking arabs is at issue here. Maj.Carleton was a contemporary of the event and an official investigator for the USA. His info, conclusions, and opinions are entirely relevant. I dont see anywhere in his report where he calls for wiping out the Mormons. Modifying quotes is intellectually and morally dishonest. People are smart enough to judge bias for themselves, especially when it is a patent as Carleton's was. Your conclusion is really irrational because it is based on a false analogy and bad assumptions. What people will tolerate, ie you, has little to do with what should be accurate history. I tolerate it pretty well. Ask yourself seriously would you be raising these issues if the massacre HAD been by American Indians instead of Mormons?

Kidnapping is a old common law term, arguments based on the FBI and transportation are really out of place. Sqrjn 06:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC) PS I think the article is really getting better, wikipedia really works which is kinda amazing to me.

One of the elements of the crime of kidnapping is ". . .and held for ransom or reward or otherwise," when "otherwise" means satisfying any stated condition as a requirement for release of the victim, or a total refusal to release the victim under any circumstances. This element is not satisfied in the case of all but one of the children taken after MM (who were handed over upon the arrival of competent and superior legal authority), thus they were not kidnapped. In addition, the homes which took the children in did so "in loco parentis," with the children being wards of local authority. Your continued use of the word "kidnapped" is not only incorrect, it violates NPOV and displays your prejudice.

It would be more accurate to descrive the taking of the children as "rescue," but that too is not the most appropriate term, because in this case that word violates NPOV. The alternative to not taking the children was to abandon them to death by exposure or at the hands of others, each of which IS a crime. Critic-at-Arms 18:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Mark Twain Section

I deleted the following paragraph, but would like to hear comments from the group:

Mark Twain wrote about his understanding of the massacre, based on common public perceptions of Americans during the late 1880s, in Appendix B of Roughing It, published in 1891:

A party of Mormons, painted and tricked out as Indians, overtook the train of emigrant wagons some three hundred miles south of Salt Lake City, and made an attack. But the emigrants threw up earthworks, made fortresses of their wagons and defended themselves gallantly and successfully for five days! Your Missouri or Arkansas gentleman is not much afraid of the sort of scurvy apologies for "Indians" which the southern part of Utah affords. He would stand up and fight five hundred of them.

At the end of the five days the Mormons tried military strategy. They retired to the upper end of the "Meadows," resumed civilized apparel, washed off their paint, and then, heavily armed, drove down in wagons to the beleaguered emigrants, bearing a flag of truce! When the emigrants saw white men coming they threw down their guns and welcomed them with cheer after cheer! And, all unconscious of the poetry of it, no doubt, they lifted a little child aloft, dressed in white, in answer to the flag of truce!

The leaders of the timely white "deliverers" were President Haight and Bishop John D. Lee, of the Mormon Church. Mr. Cradlebaugh, who served a term as a Federal Judge in Utah and afterward was sent to Congress from Nevada, tells in a speech delivered in Congress how these leaders next proceeded:

"They professed to be on good terms with the Indians, and represented them as being very mad. They also proposed to intercede and settle the matter with the Indians. After several hours parley they, having (apparently) visited the Indians, gave the ultimatum of the savages; which was, that the emigrants should march out of their camp, leaving everything behind them, even their guns. It was promised by the Mormon bishops that they would bring a force and guard the emigrants back to the settlements. The terms were agreed to, the emigrants being desirous of saving the lives of their families. The Mormons retired, and subsequently appeared with thirty or forty armed men. The emigrants were marched out, the women and children in front and the men behind, the Mormon guard being in the rear. When they had marched in this way about a mile, at a given signal the slaughter commenced. The men were almost all shot down at the first fire from the guard. Two only escaped, who fled to the desert, and were followed one hundred and fifty miles before they were overtaken and slaughtered. The women and children ran on, two or three hundred yards further, when they were overtaken and with the aid of the Indians they were slaughtered. Seventeen individuals only, of all the emigrant party, were spared, and they were little children, the eldest of them being only seven years old. Thus, on the 10th day of September, 1857, was consummated one of the most cruel, cowardly and bloody murders known in our history."

As I read the article, these comments seem to be redundant; the gist of them is already mentioned in the body of the article. To keep repeating the same history over again seems to be POV or an attempt "really" make it worse. It is entitled a massacre for a reason; it was. Repetition does not make it worse, but does destroy balance in the article.

I did try to go back to the article and delete other portions so that I could insert these quotes in its place, but I felt the article was already well written. Questions: Does the above information add new information to the article? Can some of the body be deleted and these be inserted? I would like to hear your thoughts. Storm Rider 08:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Bravo Storm Rider, and thanks. I feel that your latest version is well balanced. My only qualm is the continued inclusion of the quote: "The expenses of the army in Utah, past and to come (figure that), the massacre at the Mountain Meadows, the unnumbered other crimes, which have been and will yet be committed by this community, are but preliminary gusts of the whirlwind our Government has reaped and is yet to reap for the wind it had sowed in permitting the Mormons ever to gain foothold within our borders." I feel that it is hate speech, and does nothing to further understanding of the massacre. It blames the government for letting a religious group exist, and implies that they shouldn't have the right to exist. It makes speculation on future bad acts without providing a basis for this. Yes it makes reference to MMM and "other crimes" without providing any new details to the reader.

In short, even if this text were edited to remove hate speech, nothing of substance would remain, so why should it be in the article at all? If I went to the 9/11 attacks page and quoted a policeman who visited Ground Zero 2 years after the attack as saying that the entire muslim world should be made into a post-nuclear glass parking lot, that muslims have commited murders, and that they are going to keep commiting crimes, would that add to people's understanding of 9/11? Would that hate speech be allowed to remain? I know it wouldn't. If Bush or some other top policy maker made such a quote, well then that might be a different story, but that isn't the case in MMM or my hypothetical. Dr U 10:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It is without doubt hate speech. I have read it and reread it multiple times and my position remains the same, but I thought it prudent to let the dust settle before seeking its deletion. This article has been very busy of late and I strongly resist edit wars. I would hope that the individual who initally inserted it would realize that its mere presence in the article casts a dark shadow on the entire article. This was a sad incident for Mormons and heavy guilt is laid at those members' feet. However, to paint an entire people by the actions of a few goes to far. Storm Rider 20:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think its pretty clear that some people will not be happy until all info that is negative or offensive to mormons is removed. Its impossible to sanitize a massacre. More info not less is the right path. Mark Twain is a well known american and his opinions are highly relexive of americans at the time. If that opinion is a biased on, that bias is a historical fact not to be washed from history. Sqrjn 07:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The question is not that the information contained the deleted section, but what is added by it. Did you happen to read any of the above explanation for the deletion. What new point is brought into the article that is not said above. If you think Twain said it better, but it in the section above. Our objective is to make a balanced, well written article. With you incessant, constant reverts what we have is an article that repeats itself. It is easy to see that you have an axe to grind. Continue to grind it, but do it well. By stating the same thing over and over again you weaken your position. Storm Rider 07:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The info from Twain, adds what was common opinion at the time. Mark Twain is a well known contemporary commentator. His noting of the incident gives evidence that knowledge of the massacres was wide spread. It goes to explain and give context to the publics response to the incident. I've clearly said what my position is, more info not less. I intend to keep reverting edits that remove information. Sqrjn 09:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Please tell how Twain's personal perspective was common opinion? This is where references are needed to back up your opinion. Simply stating more info not less is not an explanation; particularly when the "more" information is a repeat of what has already been said. Repetition is seldom viewed as "good" editing. This is not the way to grind your axe. 17:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. U and SR on both matters. I have long felt that the Twain quote was fluff. I feel that MMM should be studied in depth by every Latter-day Saint and its lessons about fanaticism and vengeance seared on the collective soul of Mormonism. I am not soft on MMM, and I don't think anybody else here is either. I have no stomach to sanitize this horror. And yes, I still agree with Dr. U and SR. Tom Haws 14:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Article organization

With the recent heavy editing and differing opinions, what would you all think of establishing a new outline, perhaps containing the following.

1) Introduction/summary
2) Massacre - background and events
3) Contemporary Response -- Mormons, military and Mark Twain
4) Modern viewpoints -- LDS Church, Monument and the Family Associations
5) Research and References over time -- discussion of Brooks, Bagley and Denton's works and perspectives as well as (briefly) the anticipated release of the LDS related book and access to primary documents.

Other schemes?? Hope we can find a place for all relevant information. WBardwin 09:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the outline, but suggest that the bulk of the article stay on points 3 and 4 (which I'd combine with 5). As a historian, i realize that we'll never know 2 fully, so lets keep the facts simple and focus on contemporary accounts and modern views - espeially by the family and published research. I'd also add a section about how anti-mormons and church critics have used the events in an attempt to disinfranchise the church, utah war, damage the reputation, etc. I'm not sure you'll find much from the LDS church for modern viewpoints, but what little we have we should include. As with all, we need to give references (especially from books, rather than solely online sources) for all points. -Visorstuff 12:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, 80%.

Mark Twain is a fabulous writer and I haven't objected to the Roughing It excerpt previously, but seeing the article without it showed that it is more sleek, and well, encyclopedic to leave it out. As well written as it is, it is, after all, Twain's opinion, adds no new substance, and contrary to assertions above, that Twain felt the need to include it shows that many contemporaries were perhaps NOT familiar with the event.

I feel the aftermath deserves a bit more attention. Possible explinations on why it took 20 years to convict Lee are in order. There was a definite cover-up, and obstruction of justice on the part of some individuals (involving more people than took part in the massacre itself). Anyone with an axe to grind would probably succeed in getting the most bang for there buck here. Assuming they filled the void with SCHOLARLY details.

The gore of the whole thing is missing, has a place, and needn't be sanitized. Accounts of such are probably useful in showing how horrible the event was. Then people can make up their own minds about what they think of the perpetrators, without relying on someone else's hate speech.

As Lincoln's Gettysburg Address showed, when it come to expressing ideas, less is absolutely more, if the words are chosen well. The orator before him gave a rambling 3 hour address. Lincoln spoke for a few minutes. Encyclopedia articles should contain a finite amount of material. For those who want more, there are books. Dr U 04:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree the entire excerpt by twain is not necessary, a breif reference to it and its outlook as a contemporary source and evidence of public opinion would be suff. He is at best a secondary source, quotes from primary sources are a better use of space if people can find good info. Sqrjn 05:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Outline

1) Introduction
2) Background

LDS interaction with people in the midwest
pending Utah War

3) Massacre - events

Arrival of migrants in Salt Lake City and their stay
Travel of the migrants through central Utah and the rumors that flew about their words and actions
First indications of a siege developing, the start of the siege on Monday, and the crisis communications that developed, including role of Jacob Hamblin
Summons of men on from surrounding towns to help "bury" the "slain" migrants prior to the massacre
The Mormon military encampment at MM Thursday with Haight, Lee, and others including prayer, etc.
The massacre on Friday morning
Fate of escapees
Fate of children

4) Investigation and Trial -- including detail on Lee's trial.
5) Contemporary Response -- Military, Mormons and Mark Twain (summary only)
6) Modern viewpoints -- LDS Church, Monument and the Family Associations
7) Research and References over time -- discussion of Brooks, Bagley and Denton's works and perspectives as well as (briefly) the anticipated release of the LDS related book and access to primary documents.

Revision, including the detail from Tom below. WBardwin 23:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom's comments

More references and attribution, please

In general the article needs an upgrade in footnotes and references to reduce the amount of "some believe". Tom Haws 15:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Siege initiators

I dispute the following assertion in the article. "Others believe that Indians were never involved, and that, from the beginning, the attackers were Mormons disguised as Indians." Who are these "others"? Brooks is quite clear that the Indians were inflamed believing the migrants had done them wrong, and they beseiged the party. This shouldn't be so hard to attribute properly. If the Paiutes themselves deny initiating the siege, then attribution is still the fix. Tom Haws 15:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Story first, debate second

This article is about an incredible, horrific, and compelling story, and I fear the power of the story is diluted by frequent digressions into debates. I would like to see the article developed into a lengthy, footnoted narrative that tells satisfyingly the story of the Mountain Meadows massacre. I would like to see the following elements included:

Arrival of migrants in Salt Lake City and their stay
Travel of the migrants through central Utah and the rumors that flew about their words and actions
First indications of a siege developing, the start of the siege on Monday, and the crisis communications that developed, including role of Jacob Hamblin
Summons of men on from surrounding towns to help "bury" the "slain" migrants prior to the massacre
The Mormon military encampment at MM Thursday with Haight, Lee, and others including prayer, etc.
The massacre on Friday morning
Fate of escapees
Fate of children

In short, let's use footnotes to do our best to tell the story without getting at any time too bogged down in debate. Tom Haws 15:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes are the way to go. The problem being people get upset unless all POV are given express comment in the article. Not to mention that so many sources disagree as to the narrative details.

I'd like to see the POV warning taken off the article some day. Sqrjn 23:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Story first, debate second

Thanks to the internet, there's of a lot of info out there. I find it interesting to find documentation confirming Brooks, Bagley, & Denton and others.

The the Indian Agents of the Utah Territory have an interesting point of view.(Letters of Nevada Indian Agents 1849-1861) http://www.nevadaobserver.com/ReadingRoom.htm

Also, found a newspaper article, letter from Hamblin(a man hired to find the children) to Forney(the Indian Agent). The letter claimed that Hamblin found a white child with the Navajoes but was too sick to retreive and invited Forney to claim the child at a later date. The Valley Tan. 2/15/1859. http://www.lib.utah.edu/digital/unews/

It is my hope that only facts be presented to the reader so that person could draw his own conclusions. "let the chips fall where they may", meaning no matter what the outcome, or no matter which side prevails. Though of course I could be entirely wrong, and it's probably an allusion to the casting of runestones or something...

Tinosa

Legal Proceedings

I think the legal proceedings...all the false starts, plus Lee's 2 trials...deserve their own number in the outline, because its not easily explained in a few sentences, and will require 2-3 paragraphs, in my opinion. Dr U 05:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The massacre as a media tool

I added this paragraph: "Enemies of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have historically used this event as a counter to the public image that the LDS Church would like to portray (that the church tries to help people be "saintlike"). Killing a group of innocent people certainly is not saintlike behavior. To add fuel, evidence indicates that Brigham Young did indeed support cover-up efforts both immediately after the event, and in subsequent years. However, when taken in context, the massacre appears to be the result of desperate men in a desperate situation, doing what they thought best at the time. There is no evidence that this behavior is typical of the nature of these people in this time and place."

I hope this makes my point, that the massacre has been used by enemies of the LDS Church to weaken it. Do you guys think this violates neutral point of view? It's kind of taking a step above, and discussing the event from a higher perspective. Sort of a meta-comment, if you will. :) Wadsworth 19:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with the statment unless it is made by a third party source that can be referenced. I don't disagree that it is often used by Anti-Mormons, but to attribute it to a specific movtivation seems like walking on thin ice. For example, I have always thought that they were motivated to counter Mormon claims of violent persecution by our friendly Christian brothers and sisters and their ministers. Bottom line, can it be sourced? Storm Rider 20:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I can source it: I wrote the text myself. I certainly see your point. It's difficult to point at some situation, and say with authority, "They did this for this reason." You can't get into someone's mind, at least not without painful surgery. ;) However, I think that this information is useful, as it shows NPOV in describing possible motivation behind various claims. I'll see if I can't touch it up a bit.Wadsworth 23:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As is, it kind of violates WP:NOR (no original research). I also am not so sure about the thesis in the first sentence. But do feel free to write "According to Wadsworth" or some such more legitimate reference if it truly improves the article. Remember to always build the reputation of the encyclopedia. I would love to understand better your motivation for making the addition. Tom Haws 15:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know there was a "no original research" clause! Interesting! As to my motivation for making this addition, I'd be happy to enlighten you. I've been studying this subject for about a year now, read several books, etc. It's easy to see bias in the varying sources of information. This paragraph is my attempt at documenting what is the most likely reason for the bias. Why am I interested in this subject at all? John D. Lee is my great-great-great grandfather. Long ago, I sat with his granddaughter, and she explained to me how JDL was a good man who had been wronged, as tears fell from her eyes. So this history is somewhat personal. What JDL completely innocent? Nope. What did he do wrong, then? Was he too obedient? He did what he was told, by those who had the military and ecclesiastical authority to give him orders, though it was under vehement protest. Was he a scapegoat? Of course. Whose fault was the massacre? Not Brigham Young's, though enemies of the church have tried for years to pin it on him. If you ask me, I'll tell you that it was President Buchanan's fault. He sent the bloody US army into Utah to kill the rest of the Mormons that hadn't been killed in Missouri, Illinois, or Carthage. And everyone is shocked that there was a situation in an outer settlement. Even without half a thousand furious indians in the mix, it was a bad pot of stew. Sheesh. Okay, I'd better stop typing before I get too worked up here. :)

Well, in all candor, WP:NOR was kind of intended (to paraphrase Jimbo Wales) as a back door technique for dealing with crackpots who want to use Wikipedia as a publishing house. I think in general it is excessively invoked in ways that tend to stifle creative discussion and presentation. So don't take it too seriously. All the same, following WP:NOR is a good idea. I appreciate your understanding and accommodating manner. I am very impressed by the level of MMM expertise we have gathered here. Because of that I am all the more surprised me that we can't do a better job of telling the story in the article, and instead seem to digress so promptly into analysis. Tom Haws 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't think of way to rephrase it to be acceptable to me. As it is its just worthless commentary, if you wanted to cite some sources, Or point out specific times that 'enemies' or 'critics' of LDS have used the event and how they did so maybe it would work. Including this kind of garbage spin, is not helpful its just a null set. Sqrjn 08:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I can point to a specific instance. You, right now, by removing the paragraph. The unstated point being made by enemies of the church is that Mormonism is a scary cult of fanatics who will happily kill innocent people if they think their leader condones the act. Identifying this tactic directly is a threat to their agenda, as when stated so baldly it fails to fit the current observable evidence (e.g. the Mormon family that lives down the street). Enemies of the church would much rather point to the massacre, state some carefully crafted assumptions, mix in some falsehoods, and let people come to that specific conclusion themselves. In any case, finding "evidence" for a motivation that is subtle, and for which there is value in leaving unstated, would be very difficult. The simple act of stating this potential motivation is educational, for it encourages the learner to detatch the leash and consider the sources of the material they are studying. Hmmm... this discussion suggests the potential of a new page, something like "motivations and tactics used by critics of the LDS Church". Anyway, I did cite one source that discusses various tactics used by "Anti-Mormons". Wadsworth 17:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'unstated point'? Sounds like your the one making that point. You actually are frightening me alittle bit cause you sound kinda paranoid. I'm sure there are plenty of contemporary (to the event) anti-mormon documents if you wanted to do some research. I really feel like going off on a tangent about fanaticism and holocaust apologists but it wouldn't be relevant. Lets just stick to facts and historical or scholarly commentary. Sqrjn 00:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wadsworth, all people, families, and organizations have dirty laundry and skeletons in their closets. Reasonable people understand that. The U.S. has Hiroshima and slavery. The Catholic Church has the Inquisition and the Crusades. The LDS church has the Reformation years including Mountain Meadows Massacre. I have to confess I think we would be reaching a bit if we conjectured a motivation for people to report or study MMM. There are probably a thousand reasons, some good and some bad, for documenting, studying, reporting, and researching MMM. Trying to spotlight one is probably out of harmony with the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia unless a perusal of the literature yields a consensus on the point. Don't forget to assume good faith of Sqrjn. Tom Haws 15:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Remove NPOV dispute?

I've recently read a couple of modern-day accounts of the MMM (e.g. "Oh What a Slaughter"), and I looked over this article, and it doesn't seem POV to me. Can the NPOV tag be removed? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree Remove it. Article has room for improvement, but POV isn't its problem, from what I can see. Tom Haws 18:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree Remove it. Dr. U put the tag in on Jan 12, 2006. I look forward to his current opinion.

It's gone. Tom Haws 18:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Custer's last stand

I would like to draw the attention of the group to Battle of the Little Bighorn or Custer's Last Stand. I think it is a pretty good example of where we may want to go with this article. Anybody agree or disagree? Tom Haws 18:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the concept. I also reread the Haun's Mill massacre article and it bears keeping in mind. I particularly appreciate that the second article is straight forward without embellishment to the cruelty of the action. Storm Rider 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But it's a little short. No need to digress into embellishments, apologies, and controversies. But we need to tell a satisfying amount of the story, or at least enough to let people draw their own conclusions. There is a lot of disinformation in the article currently that a good referenced narrative could fix. Tom Haws 22:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oath of Vengence

These paragraphs do not make sense and can not be correct; does anyone have knowledge that would make these correct?

Following the murder of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young introduced an Oath of Vengeance that all male Mormons took before becoming full members with the right to enter LDS temples.

"You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation." The oath reportedly remained part of the temple rituals until February 15, 1927.

Some question the seriousness of this oath, arguing for its symbolic nature and the fact that the Mormons did not rise up against any of the other politicians responsible for the murder of Joseph Smith. Others have argued that it is a small step from praying for divine vengeance, to deciding to be an agent of that divine wrath.

This version of the oath came from the senate trial of Reed Smoot who was a Mormon Apostle who had been elected a Senator from Utah. In 1903, a protest was filed in the United States Senate to have Hon. Smoot removed from office, on the grounds that he had taken this treasonous oath in the endowment ritual. The content of the oath was revealed by ex-members of the LDS church. U.S. Senate Document 486 (59th Congress, 1st Session) Proceedings Before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate in the Matter of the Protests Against the Right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a Senator from the State of Utah, to hold his Seat. 4 vols.[+1 vol. index] (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1906)

I suspect the oath identified was part of the temple endowment, but the statement is that it was taken prior to male members becoming full members and entering the temple. Does anyone have information on how the oath could have been treasonous given that the oath is to pray to God that he would take vengence? I will edit some parts of the section, but other's more knowledgable are needed to make it completely accurate. Storm Rider 21:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I will tried a little fix. Tom Haws 22:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Treasonous or not, doesn't this whole section seem typical of anti-Mormon attempts to bring temple ordinances and their alleged un-Christian aspects into the foreground of any debate? I didn't read this section as neutral at all, and I'd personally like to see it removed altogether, although I know that will be an unpopular suggestion. Brg36 12:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Brg36, it may be used in the writings of some Anti-Mormon literature, but that shouldn't necessarily disqualify it. This is documented, historically significant and does add to the article. The sacredness of the temple ordinances is only important and valuable to those who enter into the temple covenants; however, sacredness is very often interpreted as secret which only leads others to make the worst assumptions possible. In this instance, take the oath at face value. Essentially there was a people so thoroughly persecuted by the citizens of the US and its leaders that they plead to God that he would take vengence upon their persecutors. It is almost laughable that the victim would then be accused of plotting against the US government. I believe that readers will see the oath for what it is. There is nothing anti-Christian or ungodly about the oath; even Christ sought to be spared the persecution by having the cup passed from Him. Storm Rider 20:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, good points. It does sound to me like a call to action -- namely, murder and treason -- but I am realizing that I have been guilty of cultural chauvinism. I assume that we can agree that, if this oath existed today, in an era of relative peace and prosperity for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members, we would view it quite differently. It does seem like there is a bit of a paradox in your statement that "The sacredness of the temple ordinances is only important and valuable to those who enter into the temple covenants; however, sacredness is very often interpreted as secret which only leads others to make the worst assumptions possible." True, but if sacred things are shared openly to prevent people from making bad assumptions then they lose much of their sacredness. Thus we need to decide either to share whatever is sacred to us in order to prevent incorrect judgments or to preserve sacredness and risk being misunderstood. Something to think about, eh? Brg36 13:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a difficult topic for the LDS people and all people in general. No one likes to openly share with others/strangers those things that are sacred. In addition, we are talking about temple ordinances. The LDS people hold them sacred and do not share them. However, they are hardly secret...just google mormon temple ordinances and it will become obvious that there is nothing secret about them. Would it be better to freely talk about the temple covenants? Maybe, but I tend to think not. When things become common they lose their sacredness. A daily example, take the word love. Having grown up in the south it is a word used daily and for almost everthing. The value of the word is diminished. Do you love me like you love butter beans? In the current circumstance, the temple is freely shared by a multitude of others and yet these same people want to accuse Mormons for being secret. Not logical, but true. Cheers! Storm Rider 21:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Another reason not to put the covenants out for everybody to look at is because they would be made fun of and used for wrong by those aginst the LDS church.

Yes, it is historically significant. I have a question about the wording of this sentence: "It was argued by Senate Republicans that the oath was designed [Is this a literal historical quote? Was designed?] to incite treasonous acts and hatred of the United States." Tom Haws 22:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a historical quote, I thought it better to summarize given that Wadsworth might explode if we put in actual quotes from what was actually said on the floor. Lets just say, they were negative. Sqrjn 23:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Come on Sqrjn, let's not get personal after we have made progress. I don't think it would be necessary to quote everything, but maybe some of the main points could be quoted. Do you mind taking a shot at it first? Storm Rider 23:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Would it help, SQ, if you gave me the references and I took a shot at citing them in the article to everybody's satisfaction? In my personal POV (as an armchair quarterback not having lived through Far West, Haun's Mill, etc.), the "vengeance" covenant was anomalous for a Christian religion, and worthy of scrutiny as a contributing factor to the social climate of the 1850's Utah Reformation. But unless there was a significant POV saying it was believed to be "designed" as such, I believe that is a bit of a reach. It would be more responsible to quote somebody saying that the covenant could be "implicated" in inciting treasonous acts etc. Can we do that? Tom Haws 20:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't cite you to an online source, westlaw and lexis dont go back that far. I'll look at the law library. I fixed my typo, i dont know why i wrote republican. Also Haws is right designed is wrong, I tried to be more specific about what were the charges.

Juanita Brooks

I changed the edit today that labeled Brooks an anti-Mormon. My understanding of Brooks is not that of an anti-Mormon, but rather of an independent intellectual. Yes, she disagreed with some church authoraties, but not with the objective to destroy the church. HOWEVER, I am not an expert on this author and I seek comments from others who might know her history better. Thoughts anyone? Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Brooks was an "active" Mormon throughout her life. She was discouraged with the Church's reticence and secrecy surrounding the Massacre, was denied an interview with the President of the Church (by J. Reuban Clark, I think) to discuss using church resources, and was (on one occasion, at least) attacked from her local pulpit, but she never denounced the church or held herself apart from it. In a well known quote (I have it somewhere), she stated that it was best for her to move quietly on the edges of the church so that she could continue to have some influence. From her writing, I suspect both her church participation and her interest in presenting an accurate historical account was sincere. A recent edition of Brooks' book contains an introduction by non-Mormon historian Jan Shipps which has some interesting insights. Thanks for changing the edit. WBardwin 23:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Oliver Stone

Who is the historian that is quoted in the text as a source of a letter for Brigham Young ordering the train left alone? What have they written? What is their source on the letter? You're not talking about the director are you? I thought we were doing well with footnotes. I'm taking the paragraph out. If you want to put it back, cite a text so we no wtf your talking about.

I didn't write the paragraph and I'm not aware of any research by Oliver Stone. However, the letter that Brigham Young wrote to Isaac Haight telling them to leave the train alone is very well documented. Brooks (p. 63 of the 1991 paperback edition) quotes the entire letter, which was dated September 10 and says that it's in response to Haight's letter of the 7th. Young wrote, "In regard to the emigrant 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." Haight's letter was carried to Salt Lake City by James Haslam, an express rider, who also carried Young's response back to Cedar City and arrived on September 13, two days after the massacre. (Brooks says that at the time of the Lee trials, Young was asked about the letter from Haight and he said that he was not able to find it.) Brooks also cites an account recorded in Senate Document 42 from December 6, 1857 about a merchant in Payson, Utah who recalls conversing with the express rider on September 10 about the initial confrontation. The book has numerous other references to this exchange of letters; it seems to be one of the best documented aspects of the massacre.

This paragraph is very weak as it is written now—it would be much stronger if it named the researchers associated with each position and gave a general description of the evidence on which they relied, rather than saying "Some believe that..." and "Others believe that..." If no one objects, I can attempt to add those type of citations.—BRMo 00:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations would be good. Sqrjn 15:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'll probably add them tomorrow, since some of my materials are at my office.—BRMo 16:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Section on disputed facts

I’ve added quite a bit of material on the controversy regarding who ordered the massacre, trying to fairly represent points of view of the major researchers on the massacre and to provide citations and a summary of the evidence they relied on in reaching their conclusions.

I haven’t cut any material, but I’ve moved some things around. I tried to find citations for everything, but was unable to find a source for one of the claims, that the order “Brethren, do your duty” was considered to be a direct quote from a written letter or order from Young. Searching on the Web, I found two references, both associated with Bagley—a speech covered by the Salt Lake Tribune and a Web page from Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance that cites Bagley (2002) as its source. I haven’t been able to find the original reference in Bagley (2002)—it’s a 500-page book, however, so I easily could have missed it. Because both of these Web sites introduce the quote saying “According to tradition,” that’s how I’ve worded it in the article. However, if we aren’t able to find a more reliable citation, I have to question whether an encyclopedia article ought to contain statements that are attributed only to “tradition.”

As you’ll see, I’ve started a new section on “Disputed facts.” If there is no disagreement with this approach, I propose adding similar subsections on the alleged role of the Paiutes in the massacre and on the allegations that members of the Fancher company (the so-called “Missouri Wildcats”) may have said or done things to incite the Mormons or the Paiutes to violence.

Finally, you’ll see that I’ve used the Harvard style for citations. If you’d prefer that I convert them to the more traditional footnote style, I’d be happy to do so. However, I’d recommend we first switch to the new WP:FN footnote style.—BRMo 21:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Any cites are better than no cites, I like the footnootes because they dont interrupt the narrative, but its just a preference. Good Job. Sqrjn 00:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the sentence saying that Lee never blamed Young for ordering the massacre because I believe that it is correct. (Please note that this statement was in the article before I edited it; I changed its location, moving it up a paragraph.) Bagley, p. 319, says "For all its tales of murderous blood atonements and shameless financial frauds, Lee's book ultimately—and carefully—exonerated Brigham Young from ordering the massacre. It clearly made Young an accessory after the fact, but it shifted immediate responsibility for the crime to lesser LDS church leaders..."

I have no problem with using footnotes rather than Harvard references. I'll start switching them to footnotes.—BRMo 04:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Lasting Effects

I took it out, because its unnecessary. Especially with the new quotes from historians asserting that the issue is uncertain and controversial. We should editorialize some where else. The article is for facts and scholarly commentary. Sqrjn 00:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for massacre

Is the following sentance misleading?

"Rumors circulated in the region regarding the Fancher party. They were based on statements reportedly made by Fancher party members to non-Mormon traders along the Mormon Trail claiming the party included members of the "Missouri Wildcats", the mob that killed Mormon founder Joseph Smith, Jr."

A reader may be inclinded to believe that the Missouri Wildcats murdered Joseph Smith.

Other than the time it took for the wagon train to travel from Salt Lake City to Mountain meadows(Aug.1857 to Sept.1857), has there been a reference or validation that the missouri Wildcats ever existed?

Reverting edits by Wlbagley

I removed the following edits:

."but no contemporary evidence supports this charge" (appended to the sentence about the "Missouri Wildcats" .recent DNA evidence discounts claims that one of the survivors was raised in Utah and became a Mormon." ."including infants"

I did this for 2 reasons 1. The second addition makes the article contradict itsself. 3 places the article mentions one survivor being left in Utah and raised by a mormon family. After WlBagleys' edits 2 places says this survivor exists one place does not. 2. These are rather bold claims. They should either have sources or moved to the section on disputed facts.

I have no problem with these claims being made in the article provided they are sourced. I also took the liberty of moving any content out of the introduction that belongs in the "disputed facts" IMO.

Davemeistermoab 04:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Old books exist

Confessions of John D. Lee (St. Louis, 1891)
Linn, Story of the Mormons (New York, 1902)
Hubert Howe Bancroft, History of Utah

A major inconsistency in the article is the statement that "unarmed" people were slain. Afterwards, another statement claims that the settlers were asked to surrender their arms. GhostofSuperslum 13:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)