The Deseret News reported that the U.S. Government designated Mountain Meadows as a national historic landmark a few weeks ago. For those who don’t know, in September 1857, 120 immigrants were killed by Mormons at Mountain Meadows near Cedar City, Utah. Mormons tried to cover up the tragedy and blame it on the Indians. I have previously discussed the massacre here and here, if you’re interested in more detail. Families of the Fancher party along with the LDS Church worked together for the designation. The Deseret News article notes that there is a “plan [for] another event in September, during which a plaque noting the landmark designation may be unveiled.”
As I’ve reviewed comments about this designation, it seems to be dominated by partisans. Critics of the church feel this is a long-overdue designation, and feel that the church will no longer be able to “hide” this issue. Defenders of the church wonder why the church went along with the designation, and bring up the fact that there is no memorial at the site of the Haun’s Mill Massacre. It got me wondering about what it means to be a national historic landmark. I looked up the National Historic Landmark sites in Utah.
| Utah Landmark | Description |
| Alkali Ridge | A set of widely-scattered archaeological remains of the earliest forms of Puebloan architecture, representing a period of transition from scattered, pit-style dwellings to a settled agricultural lifestyle. These multi-story buildings and kivas have yielded high-quality ceramics, and form the type location for the Pueblo II period (ca. 10th century – ca. 11th century). |
| Bingham Canyon Open Pit Copper Mine | The world’s first and largest open-pit copper mine, Bingham Canyon was opened in 1904. |
| Bryce Canyon Lodge and Deluxe Cabins | The Union Pacific Railroad built this national park lodge in 1924-1927. The architectural style was used by railroads for lodges across the American west with the encouragement of the National Park Service. |
| Central Utah Relocation Center (Topaz) | One of 10 relocation centers for internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. The internees were mostly from northern California and the San Francisco Bay Area, and included many professional artists.[6] |
| Danger Cave | Archaeological site featuring artifacts of the Desert Culture from ca. 9500 BCE until ca. 500 CE. |
| Desolation Canyon | This remote canyon on the Colorado River was traversed by John Wesley Powell in 1869. Powell’s expedition was sponsored by the Smithsonian Institution. |
| Emigration Canyon | The Mormon pioneers traversed the Wasatch Range through this canyon at the western end of their trail, beginning in 1847. The canyon mouth is the location of Brigham Young’s famous quotation “This is the place.” |
| Fort Douglas | This US Army post was established in the 1860s to uphold United States authority in the Mormon territories, and to protect overland transportation and communication lines. |
| Old City Hall | Completed in 1866, the city hall also served as the capitol of the Utah Territory, and was the scene of many tensions between Mormon leaders and the United States. |
| Quarry Visitor Center | Built as part of the National Park Service’s Mission 66 program of modern architectural design in the US national parks, this visitor center exemplifies the philosophy of locating visitor facilities immediately at the resource being interpreted. The visitor center is presently closed due to structural damage from unstable soils, and its future is in doubt. |
| Reed O. Smoot House | The home of Reed Smoot from 1892 to his death in 1941. Smoot was a prominent US Senator best known for advocacy of protectionism and the Hawley-Smoot Tariff. |
| Temple Square | The earthly center of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Begun in the mid-19th century, the Square’s Mormon landmarks include the Salt Lake Temple, the Tabernacle, and the Assembly Hall. |
| Brigham Young Complex | The Beehive House and adjacent Lion House were the residence of Brigham Young from 1852 until his death in 1877. As President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the time of the Mormon settlement of the Salt Lake Valley, Young and his home were pivotal in the development of the Church, Utah, and the American west. |
Wikipedia says, “The United States National Historic Landmark program is operated under the auspices of the National Park Service, and recognizes structures, districts, objects, and similar resources according to a list of criteria of national significance.” The official website for the National Park service notes that about half of the sites are privately owned.
I decided to look up some sites that are “Mormon sites” and discovered that there are 67 sites along the Mormon Pioneer Trail. Here is a sample of the first 6 sites. You can see the rest at the official website.
| Site | Description | State |
| 1. THE “EXODUS TO GREATNESS” HISTORIC SITE: NR, 4/30/87, 87000031 | This site and monument is at the foot of Parley Street in Nauvoo and marks the approximate site where the Mormons crossed the river into Iowa. | Illinois |
| 2. OLD FORT DES MOINES HISTORIC SITE | The Mormon Trail of 1846 in Iowa proper begins in what is now River Front Park in Montrose. This was the site of the first Fort Des Moines (1834-1837). The site of the old fort, now contained in this park, is located at the eastern end of Main Street and is marked by a bronze plaque set into a boulder at the south end of the little park. | Iowa |
| 3. SUGAR CREEK HISTORIC SITE | This was the staging ground, where in February 1846, the Mormons organized themselves for their trek across Iowa. There is no marker here. | Iowa |
| 4. DES MOINES RIVER FORD HISTORIC SITE | On March 5, 1846, the pioneers forded the Des Moines River at Bonaparte, Iowa. This fact was recently commemorated by a sign on the Bonaparte side of the bridge over the river on Highway 79. | Iowa |
| 5. RICHARDSON’S POINT HISTORIC SITE | There is no marker here, but in 1985 two Mormon graves were found and marked by relatives. These graves are in the NE 1/4 of sec. 32, but one must ask locally for directions and secure permission to visit them. | Iowa |
| 6. LOCUST CREEK HISTORIC CAMPSITE | Here in April 1846, William Clayton wrote the words to the most famous of all Mormon hymns, “Come, Come, Ye Saints.” A marker commemorating this event was erected here July 1990 and is located at the entrance of Tharp Cemetery. | Iowa |
I think it is a nice gesture for the church to actively try to follow the Fancher descendants wishes, but I have to ask if this is really a big deal. What do you think of the designation?
Not much. I’m certain that the Fancher descendants will be putting together a solution to the fact that “there is no memorial at the site of the Haun’s Mill Massacre” or an extermination order site.
But seriously, I think it shows a sensibility on the part of the Church that should be respected rather than treated the way it has been.
as long as the church tries to whitewash events that go against The Narrative, it will continue to lose members who will eventually find out from other sources what happened in events like this. There’s no need to hide anything.
What Stephen said – word-for-word.
It is nice recognition of the fact that even those who might strive to be righteous can lose control of themselves and the situation and do something horrendous which is out of character.
Still happens I’m afraid
Nice post. I just wanted to say that I really like these types of landmarks. I like visiting them. I like the physical reminder in addition to what is written down. It’s a great way to start a conversation with one’s own children or family – by visiting sites like this.
dan, your comment is unclear to me. by advocating for national landmark status, is the church whitewashing this event, or do you think this is a step in the right direction?
What is “The Narrative”?
I like these types of things. One of the things I love about traveling in Europe is the sense of history in the different places. Different walls or buildings or streets or names are snapshots in time of historical events. Some represent nice things. Others represent less savory events that cause you to ponder.
Since even a “young” building over there is older than almost anything over here, remembering our history is important. Tying physical locations to things that happened to real people is also important.
So, in this case, I don’t know that the monument necessarily says anything good or bad about the event. It brings it to our remembrance. And hopefully, we can ponder it and think about what we would have done in the same situation, and how it might also apply to our lives and situations today.
Re. #1 and 3 Were the Fancher party or their descendants involved at Haun’s Mill or the extermination site? Why do you think they should have any obligation to memoralize those sites?
#9 – By making MM a **national** historic landmark, it has been elevated above Haun’s Mill or any other **LDS Church** historic landmark. Imo, the issue is creating a national landmark about Mormons killing others and not doing the same thing at a site where others killed Mormons. It’s like the people who makes these decisions said, in essence, “We want to make sure people know that the Mormons killed people – but we don’t care if they know that people killed Mormons.” Sounds like classic white-washing to me, and we all know how that is viewed (rightly so) when the LDS Church does it.
It’s the reason for the designation that bothers me a bit, even as I don’t really care that it was made a national landmark. I don’t want it forgotten internally by LDS members, and if this designation helps avoid that, I’m fine with it.
Ray,
One thing to remember is the difference in scale.
Mountain Meadows involved 120 men, women and children. It was conducted by local church leaders/militia leaders plotting to murder the Fancher party.
Haun’s Mill had 17 victims, men and children. It involved the Missouri militia led by the local sheriff. Clearly, they had a bloodlust.
The difference in scale doesn’t justify what happened at either but it explains the additional scrutiny of Mountain Meadows. It was more than six times bigger.
To me, the most important message of Mountain Meadows is local individuals were willing to murder men, women and children because their local leaders told them to do so. Why didn’t more refuse? That is still disturbing today.
The most important message of Haun’s Mill is that mobs will do cruel things in groups — witness lynchings. Again, why didn’t more individuals allow their conscience temper their evil actions?
Both are lessons to be absorbed today.
I think this monument is an indication of the corruption growing in the national psyche in the sense expressed in #1 and #9.
The word “corrupt” is used often in scripture. I think the following verse from the Book of Mormon sums up where we are as a nation.
For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted.
(Book of Mormon | Helaman 5:2)
Jared —
I would hope you are not meaning to imply that designating this site is some sort of corruption??
Steve, I get difference in scale – and I agree that both events are important to understand today. Again, that’s why I don’t mind MM being a landmark. I still think there is an element of highlighting a Mormon atrocity and not others, however. 120 is way too many (as is 1), but it’s not exactly unique in US history to have somewhere near that many (or more) and not make a landmark out of the sites.
That’s all I am saying.
Ray —
I can’t think of another large scale massacre that isn’t a national landmark . . perhaps you know a couple?
I’ve visiting quite a few of the sites of Indian massacres and those seem to be designated.
I could easily be wrong . . .
#13 Steve–
My take on this is that there is an anti-Christian religion sentiment growing in the national psyche. The more hedonistic our society becomes the more this will become evident.
The Book of Mormon provides evidence of this. Read 3 Nephi 6 to see a possible future for our country.
Jared —
I’m interpreting your comments as meaning that recognizing the murder of 120 men, women and children is evidence of “anti-Christian religion sentiment.”
My assumption is that you think that pointing out the tie to religious leaders (here, stake leadership) in this incident is somehow anti-religious.
I’m, frankly, shocked by your stance. What they did was horrific — and utterly indefensible. I assume you think this incident should be hidden, diminished — and forgotten. That is a terrifying thought.
Bringing attention to this event, hopefully, will preclude a future occurrence.
Some claim that we should follow leaders, regardless of their direction. The claim is that, if they are wrong, we will be blessed for being obedient anyway. That thought process is exactly what led to the murder at Mountain Meadows.
I give the Church considerable credit for this step.
I searched all events termed massacres in US history, in chronolgical order, and am listing the ones with at least as many deaths as Haun’s Mill:
1) Gnadenhutton Massacre (OH) – 96 killed – National Register of Historic Places (a much larger list than National Historic Landmarks)
2) Haun’s Mill Massacre (MO) – 19 killed – No national designation
3) Mountain Meadows Massacre (UT) – about 120 killed – National Historic Landmark
5) Bear River Massacre (ID) – about 250 killed – National Historic Landmark
6) Lawrence Massacre (KS) – about 200 killed – No national designation
7) Sand Creek Massacre (CO) – about 200 killed – National Register of Historic Places
8) Washita Massacre (OK) – disputed death total (30-150) – National Historic Landmark
9) Rock Springs Massacre (WY) – 28 killed – No national designation
10) Wounded Knee Massacre (SD) – 200-300 killed – National Historic Landmark
11) Lattimer Massacre (PA) – 19 killed – No national designation
12) Ludlow Massacre (CO) – 20 killed – No national designation
13) San Ysidro McDonald’s Massacre – 21 killed – No national designation
14) Luby’s Massacre (TX) – 22 killed – No national designation
15) Columbine High School Massacre – 15 killed – No national designation
16) Virginia Tech Massacre – 32 killed – No national designation
17) Interestingly, the World Trade Center bombing (2,753 killed, plus the 19 terrorists) isn’t on any of the lists I searched using “massacre” – and it has no National Landmark designation. I can’t think of a good reason why that is so; I only can imagine political reasons.
I can’t find an authoritative number of Mormon pioneers who died while crossing the plains, but the number who died at Winter Quarters alone is significantly larger than any of the official massacres listed above (except the World Trade Center). Winter Quarters should be a National Landmark, imo.
Given how many people were killed in the MMM, it should be a National Landmark – as well as the most eggregious massacres listed above that aren’t designated as such.
When I read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee in the 6th grade, I felt tremendous guilt for being white. As I studied history, I found that tribes often committed the same attrocities against each other. Anglo-Americans were more efficient conquerors due to technology and sheer numbers. I feel somewhat the same way towards MMM. Mob psychology, limited information, and inflamed passions have created the same, murderous tendencies in adherents of all religions. I no longer feel guilt for being white or Mormon.
I think the Church is doing the best it can, but to our enemies, this will be fodder for decades of predjudice and a stumbling block for those seeking the fullness of the Gospel.
The idea that the church is currently trying to cover up the Mountain Meadows Massacre is ridiculous. We constructed a major monument there and supported the construction of a previous one. The church has issued public statements of regret on the subject and the church has recently funded the publication of a comprehensive work on the subject.
Not only that, the Church sought National Historic Landmark status for this very site, and recently purchased 600 acres surrounding it so that they would not be developed into a residential subdivision.
http://newsroom.lds.org/article/church-seeks-national-historic-landmark-designation
#17 Steve
You’re missing my point. I don’t think the MMM should be hidden. I think the church has done a good job dealing with it in recent years. Prior to that they did what they could to keep it hidden.
However, the government making it a national landmark doesn’t make any sense to me.
The early Mormon’s were subjected to state and federal government terrorism. Where is the governments recognition of those events?
I was living in Missouri when they lifted the extermination order. It stayed on the books until 1976.
Here is one sentence from what governor Boggs wrote:
“The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace–their outrages are beyond all description.”
It’s outrages for the government to essentially ignore what happen to the early Mormons and then establish a national landmark to the Mormons trying to defend themselves from what they thought was more of the same treatment.
Jared, that’s why I would like to see Winter Quarters made a National Landmark, as well. If MM is (and, given how many people were killed, I am OK with that), then WQ also should be (for the same reason). The designated landmarks should reflect the complexity of the situation that caused both of them.
Jared —
You’re making my jaw drop. Step back and realize what you are saying.
Pray tell, how was killing 120 men, women and children on their way to California related to “Mormons trying to defend themselves?”
There was no tie between this group and the events in Missouri.
This was murder. Plain and simple. I don’t think anyone in the Church Leadership today believes otherwise.
The Utah War was something different but the Fancher Party was not part of the invading troops. The folks in Iron County harassed them and then decided to kill the group because they were afraid they knew too much,
Linking the events of Missouri to this was part of the lies that were told at the time. I thought we were passed that. Apparently, in the eyes of some, the answer is “no”.
Your statements are why the Church needs to continue to highlight this incident. This cannot be whitewashed nor forgotten.
The bad behavior by state and local officials in Missouri didn’t not justify this. Nor, did the fact that the federal government perceived Utah in rebellion justify attacks on civilians (I’ve never heard the sending of federal troops — who never attacked Utah civilians — described as an act of terrorism.).
#22 Ray–
I agree.
#23 Steve
I’ve never taken the time to study the details of the mind-set of the Mormon’s who took part in the MMM.
I assume they were like most Mormons; God fearing. Your under laying assumption seems to be that they were blood thirsty killers.
I don’t agree with what they did, not one bit, but I don’t believe the driving force behind their actions was pure evil.
I’ve been in military combat. When your mind set is that of a soldier your duty is to win the battle confronting you. That doesn’t mean you don’t value your enemies life, but at the same time you have a duty to perform.
I not relating this to defend the MMM, but I am trying to point out that the church members who took part in this tragedy may have had the mind set of a soldier. The Lord looks on the thoughts, intents, and desires of our heart and will judge us accordingly.
There is a difference in those who take pleasure in subjecting and killing in the name of some cause as compared to those who are doing it to protect and defend something.
Jared —
I’m realizing that part of the problem is a lack of familiarity with the history.
Here’s the key parts.
A decision was made to harass the Fancher party, using local Indians. Cattle were stolen, etc. The concern. Was that the Fancher party knew that local Mormons were behind it.
So, the local leadership decided to resolve the situation.
They offered to escort the settlers past the Indians having first surrendered their arms. Each male was escorted by a militiamen. On signal, they turned and shot the men.
Then, the militia (perhaps with Indians) then proceeded to kill the women and children that were old enough to understand. The younger children were farmed out to local families.
This was not a momentary act of passion. It was coldly calculated.
Now, it was in an environment of fear of the impending arrival of federal troops. That was relevant but does not excuse any of it.
Mark,
The church isn’t “actively” trying to cover up the MMM. But they don’t talk about it either, as if it was the crazy uncle no one in the family likes to bring up. It’s a shame that members of the church only learn of such incidents from anti-Mormons, don’t you think, Mark? I gotta tell you, I think my sister would still be active today if the church were less sterilized about its church history than it currently is.
MH,
Sorry if my comment was confusing. I’m advocating for the national landmark status because the church has whitewashed this event, and I think this is a step in the right direction. As I mentioned in comment #27, members of the church should not be learning of such terrible incidents from anti-Mormon sources. It tends to lead to a loss of faith.
Steve:
Is there a good/better/best resource to read that isn’t a “whitewashed” version on the MMM? I would even like to read a chronological history of what the church has/hasn’t said on the issue over the years.
I remember reading of one of the members who took the fall for the MMM (John D. Lee) prophesying that if he wasn’t lying in what he was saying, Brigham would be dead in less than 6 months… who know’s whether that’s hearsay or not, but I do remember reading it.
Dan,
“The church isn’t “actively” trying to cover up the MMM. But they don’t talk about it either,…’
No, but church historians wrote a book about it…
#26 Steve
I am aware of those things you mentioned about the MMM.
What I would like to know is if anyone stood in opposition to the local leaders? If so, how many and what was their reasoning? What happened to them?
What about those who participated. What were their lives like afterwards? What did the church leaders say to them? Were they excommunicated?
What about the children they took into their homes? What was their attitude as adults when they learned what happened to their families?
I have many questions.
The more I think about the MMM the more I’m amazed that “good men/women” could participate. But the longer I live the more I realize the depth of the weakness of the flesh we inherit because of the fall.
John,
I actually thought the Ensign article a year or two ago was pretty good.
Juanita Brooks’ book is considered the classic.
Most struggle with Brigham Young’s role. He clearly was revving up the Saints before. But there is no clear evidence he ordered the death of the Fancher party (his letter indicates otherwise).
The real issue was coverup. John D. Lee was blamed but responsibility was broader. Some have claimed that the militiamen all should have been shot in Cedar City and the stake leaders hanged in Salt Lake City. My own take is that more deserved execution but I don’t know where the line should have been drawn.
The Turley book answers all those questions
Jared —
Good points.
A few refused to particapate and left.
There was definetely a coverup. Most were never punished by either civil or Church authorities. The Church and members created all kinds of false stories. These were the killers Joseph Smith or Parley Pratt. They poisoned the Indians. The Piautes actually killed them. None true. That is why the recent apology to the tribe. Unfortunately, members still circulate the fabrications.
The children were much later turned over to relatives. Their descandents are the voices heard today.
One step I’ve thought might be helpful would be to do a video and present on a Fifth Sunday Church-wide. I think the more directly we confront this the better. But give the Church credit for what they’ve done so far.
Agree on the Turkey book.
“One step I’ve thought might be helpful would be to do a video and present on a Fifth Sunday Church-wide.”
Sure, we can call it “Dirty Laundry Sunday” 🙂 And after we run out of Church history, we can discuss the private lives of Church Leaders and the stupid things they did while growing up.
Jeff,
There’s a difference between airing out the private lives of Church leaders and the stupid things they did while growing up, and talking about a coverup from the top on the massacre of 120 people and the theft of their children. That’s pretty heinous.
I’m glad to hear church historians covering this event. They have little choice in the matter. But speaking strictly from the experience of my family, baptized in California in the 1980s, in a well developed ward and Mormon area, we never heard a peep about this. In fact, in general, when church history is presented within a church setting, like Sunday School, or something, it is amazing how little of modern history is covered or talked about. We stick mostly with creating and building the mythology (not that it isn’t true, but mythology as in what we believe) of the creation of the church in modern times. I’m fine with that. Each religion has to have control over its identity and how it establishes that identity. However, this incident is quite a horrible black mark that cannot be airbrushed away by not talking about it. It raises quite profound questions as to the moral standing of someone like Brigham Young—particularly one who preached the idea of blood atonement. I’m thankful that the church has, over the past 100 years, shifted away from that extremism, but we can’t extol the virtues of Brigham Young or that era without discussing the horror of MMM.
“If MM is (and, given how many people were killed, I am OK with that), then WQ also should be (for the same reason).”
Sorry Ray but there’s a difference between “killed” and “died”. None of the Fancher party needed or should have died. They were murdered and in numbers was only rivaled by Oklahoma City. This discussion is sounding a lot like “they did it to us first” which in my mind is a poor excuse for the slaughter or innocent men women and children. They weren’t killed in battle or otherwise trying to defend themselves. They gave up their weapons and walked out in the open thinking they would be taken to safety and then they were killed. There’s no way you can spin that or justify it. And if part of the church’s atonement is going along with National Monument status then so be it.
Dan,
“There’s a difference between airing out the private lives of Church leaders and the stupid things they did while growing up, and talking about a coverup from the top on the massacre of 120 people and the theft of their children. That’s pretty heinous.”
The crime was heinous, the coverup 100 years ago was heinous. The downplaying was a mistake, not heinous. It’s been corrected.
BTW, I have more than a dozen LDS history books written by a variety of authors including Arrington, Davis, Bitton, Brooks and other. Every single one discusses the MMM. This includes the Church Institute manual.
Not very hidden or covered up. The first meetings with the Fancher family took place 30 years ago.
Jeff,
Just to be clear, I’m not saying the downplaying is heinous. The massacre was heinous. I agree with you the downplaying is a mistake.
Jeff:
It’s pretty easy to use contemporary information to say something is “not very hidden or covered up.” The problem I see is that if you take the dates you give us (i.e. first Fancher meeting happening approx. 30 years ago), then the Church went 120+ years trying to cover the event up.
It’s easy to say how fantastic that is, but it still ignores 120+ years of cover-ups, denials, etc. If we’re to be completely honest with our selves, then we need to take the entire time frame into perspective. Just because the Church, begrudgingly by everything I’ve read, started meeting with the Fancher’s 30 years ago, doesn’t mean that they should be lauded for how wonderful this is turning out.
I would argue the cover-up was (and still is) heinous. Maybe not as heinous as the crime, but the cover-up has arguably done more damage to the modern LDS community because, among average members, I’d guess that 90% or more still think the MMM is an anti-spin on some event the Church had little-to-nothing to do with. Most LDS know very little about the event, let alone the details of the event and that is in large part (if not entirely) due to the Church and their cover-up.
I just don’t get why we continue to whitewash the cover-up by saying, “Look what the Church has done in the past 30 years!!” Has the Church done better? Absolutely, but that will never reconcile the cover-up or events that happened, nor should it.
It is not so much whether the LDS church talks about the MMM or not any more. But it is still important exactly what is being said or not said. We are not to the end of this discussion yet.
In my opinion Turley’s book is a bit of a whitewash. It ends with the massacre and leaves the history of cover ups and lying for a subsequent second volume that will never be published. Bagley’s book is also over the top in the other direction. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. Bagley does make a convincing case (to me) that Brigham Young was mixed up in it from the beginning. Read both and draw your own conclusions.
Even among this group of bloggers, MMM myths persist. For example, the children were farmed out but only for a few months. All known survivors were rounded up and returned to relatives.
For a century the LDS church contended with the details of the MMM in almost every way. Juanita Brooks honest book in the 1940’s made her a pariah in the church and is now one of our best defenses. In Sept 2007 a movie called September Dawn was released. If the movie had been well-produced, it might have done serious damage. A compelling rendition of the MMM on film remains to be made. September Dawn turned out to be crappy and fizzled.
That same month the Ensign published probably the best short summary of the events at MMM to prepare us for the avalanche of criticism that never came. In the Ensign article every previously disputed point was conceded except one. Brigham Young was not involved.
I don’t understand why it is not much of a problem today when Stake President Isaac Haight is inexcuseably blamed while Prophet Brigham Young can not have any prior involvement. At that time there were only a handful of Stakes and some Stakes were led by apostles. Are we supposed to only follow the Prophet but ignore our local leaders?
The designation of the location as a National Historic Landmark has one additional ramification. Until now the LDS church owned the site and could prevent archeological study. As federal property, this can no longer be thwarted. Years ago an incredible reconstruction of the Battle of the Little Bighorn or Custer’s last stand was published in the National Geographic magazine. We can anticipate something along these lines at the location of the MMM if the funds can be raised.
Bones do not lie. A dig might reveal nothing. On the other hand it might show any number of unexpected results. If it can be demonstrated that most of the bodies were undressed first it raises questions of mass rape before the slaughter. The number of victims might go up to include back-sliding members who tried to escape Utah with this large well armed expedition and add another blood-atonement motive for the massacre. The Indians could be exonerated or implicated further. Any number of other complications might be suggested by a thorough archeological evaluation. Or perhaps nothing.
Remember all of the information on the MMM we have is derived from the perpetrators who lied repeatedly. No victims survived who were “old enough to tell tales.” We really don’t know all of what happened and it might have been worse than we can imagine.
Josiah Rogerson was preparing to freeze his teenage fanny off crossing Wyoming in a handcart at the time of the massacre. He settled in Southern Utah and married into the Haight and Higbee family. He gathered eye witness accounts of the MMM and wrote several reports for only the eyes of the next generation of church leaders. Some of them have been published in recent times. He probably knew as much about what happened as anyone who wasn’t a perpetrator. His descendants believe that his definitive and most accurate and detailed writings remains hidden somewhere in the bowels of the church archives.
How can we know that the LDS church is being entirely transparent today even after all of the recent disclosures and appologies? The final legacy of a century of lying is that nothing we do or say in relation to the MMM can be believed.
I think these two links might be helpful.
The first shows some of the previous Church accounts of the massacre. Notice the blame heaped on the Fancher party. These are fabrications.
http://www.angelfire.com/sk2/ldsdefense/mmm.html
This is a presentation by George Sessions and the FAIR Conference in 2003. Notice the shift in tone.
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Shining_New_Light_on_the_Mountain_Meadows_Massacre.html
Meldrum,
I agree with most of your sentiments, but I want to comment on a few things.
The designation of the location as a National Historic Landmark has one additional ramification. Until now the LDS church owned the site and could prevent archeological study. As federal property, this can no longer be thwarted.
It is NOT federal property. As I said in the original post, “The official website for the National Park service notes that about half of the sites are privately owned.” This designation does not give the property to the federal government. That’s why I asked what is the big deal. The Federal government doesn’t own the Bingham Copper Mine either–Rio Tinto owns it. The church still owns Mountain Meadows, so this status is nothing but a symbolic gesture.
If it can be demonstrated that most of the bodies were undressed first it raises questions of mass rape before the slaughter.
This it he first time I’ve ever heard any allegations of rape. Are you serious??? What evidence or eyewitness testimony do you have to assert something so salacious??? I can’t imagine why you’d even try to assert this. Juanita Brooks didn’t have any reason to suspect rape–why do you?
MH —
I agree with you on both points.
Attempts to tie Haun’s Mill to MMM are off the mark and sound defensive. I think it is best to avoid bringing up Haun’s Mill. When it is brought up, it sounds childish–a little bit like saying, “Well, yeah. But they started it.”
MMM was wrong. Haun’s Mill was wrong. These two atrocities should stand on their on infamy, not be tied together, because they really have little to do with each other. (That’s not to say that the persecutions Mormons suffered previously didn’t affect mormon attitudes, but tying Haun’s Mill directly to MMM is tenuous.)
I think the church is trying to do the right thing. Yes it is overdue, but it is a welcome change.
also tying Parley P Pratt’s murder to MMM or Haun’s Mill.
Serious about rape?
Experience with modern massacres indicates that rape happens more often than not. When mass graves are opened and the victims are not wearing clothing or do not have any durable clothing artifacts like buttons hairpins or lockets, then mass rape is highly suggested and often verified by surviving victims. Other forms of humiliation might be performed on both male and female victims such as amputating certain anatomic parts. The Mormons were docking their sheep and certain graphic penalties were mentioned in old pioneer temple ceremonies.
In the late 1990’s a mass grave of about 28 of the MMM victims were accidently disinterned and studied for a few hours by archeologists, before they were ordered back into the ground by Utah governor Leavitt a descendent of MMM participants. Very few if any clothing artifacts were with those bodies.
Undressing bodies after they have been shot or beaten to death is pointless because the clothing will be torn, soaked in gallons of blood and liquid feces, and smeared with handfuls of greasy toothpaste like brain material. A few hours later rigor sets in making it impossible to undress the victims without tearing the clothing. Victims might have some of their clothing stored in trunks to be stolen and recognized later.
Juanita Brooks was an active member of the LDS church and reports that some aspects of the atrocity were too horrible to record. She published in an era when proper women did not discuss sex. She was already going to be vilified for what she could clearly prove that was far worse. I think what she did write was accurate but limited by her sources. Agruments that, she-didn’t-mention- it-therefore-it-didn’t-happen, are weak.
Have y’all not heard the folk tale about the Dunlap twin sisters (about 12 years old) who almost escaped, but were captured by the Indians and brought back to John D. Lee. They begged for their lives and offered to be his plural wives or slaves or anything. He reportedly took them behind a sagebrush and raped both of them and then slit their throats.
FAIR defenders claim it was Albert Hamblin, son of famous Jacob Hamblin who raped the 2 young girls then later blamed Lee. Except it really didn’t happen, it was all made up by the Tribune. Shame on you Bro. Bagley for mentioning it in your book.
What is it about modern Mormons that they can swallow the organized treacherous butchery of over 100 pople as long as the Stake President planned it, not the Prophet. Yet, they doubt and balk at mere rape? I guess you can slink home and tell the wives and kids you chopped up a few gentiles over supper, doing the Lord’s dirty work. But you really can’t mention that you raped the gentile women first. Or even that you just made then undress first so you could give each of your wives a new dress. Something like that?
Meldrum, I don’t know if you saw my 2 links listed in the post, but John D. Lee claims that they prayed before deciding to participate in the massacre, and felt that it was sanctioned by God. Mormons took care to save the children under 8 because of the religious implications. I can see them claiming a God-sanctioned “holy war”, but I can’t see them claiming that God commanded rape. Rape seems a huge stretch, IMO. I need a bit more scholarship before I’m going to take this seriously. Perhaps you are right, but at this time, your allegations sound like an unfounded accusation without merit.
Meldrum, thank you for making a point of discussing a folk tale that never happened and raising an issue about rape that can’t be substantiated or even investigated. Words fail me.
MH:
Your position is generally well taken. I believe they did pray and probably while wearing their temple robes in a pioneer prayer circle similar to the one in the temple where they were reminded of consequences of not living up to the covenants by certain graphic penalties now deleted from the ceremony. Sounds like a really good way to get prepared to me.
If you went through the temple after 1990 you might not know what I am talking about and remember none of us have witnessed the even more graphic version cleaned up in the 1920’s.
They did make some effort to not shed “innocent blood.” This was defined as children before the age of accountability. Only those older and baptized by Mormon Elder’s were potentially “innocent.” The mass grave opened in the late 1990’s included an infant and a 2-3 year old if I remember correctly. Their mothers probably wouldn’t let them remove these children from their sight before the massacre. Pretty weak to conclude if they didn’t kill all of the babies, they didn’t do any raping.
Rape is far less of an atrocity than murder. Rape would be an expected outcome when they searched the women for weapons, took their jewelry and had them disrobe to facilitate keeping their clothing in good enough condition to be worth stealing. You are correct that we have little evidence of rape. That is the nature of rape; it always boils down to he said-she said.
We have little evidence of anything. Only accounts from known lying perpetrators who made countless excuses. That is exactly my point. Unfounded endless accusations of both innocence and guilt. It cuts equally both ways. Instead of conducting a thorough investigation at the time, the governor of the state (BY) launched a remarkably effective century long campaign of lying and cover-up. If you were born in 1880 and wanted to wait for more scholarship, you would have waited for a long time. The result of this century of lying is unanswerable questions and presumptions of blame for anything conceivable.
GBSmith: How can you assume it didn’t happen if the perpetrators were the only witnesses and they were allowed to lie for a century? Presumption of innocence applies to putting living people in jail. But I don’t think it applies in historical or archeological cases.
I sound too hostile and defensive above, for which I appologize. I mean no harm and allow myself to go up many blind canyons in my search for the truth.
I have a close friend who served in the Serbian army as a teenage boy and he has told me about “watching” some of the massacres in the former Yugoslavia. He won’t admit to doing anything else. He has since obtained a college degree, married and pursued a profession. He has also studied many other massacres. I had this same discussion with him, only with me on the other side. Here is how he told me it generally goes down, after drinking a few beers.
First is the viseral group hatred. It goes beyond anything we experience in modern America, even the worst racial hatred in the South pales in comparison since mass killings were rare (with a few exceptions).
The first time you try to kill a large group of people the job almost inevitably gets botched. It is harder than you think. They fight back. Causalties are inflicted on both sides. Then you get treacherous and cunning. You negotiate and have your victims trade what little remaining defense they have for false hopes of salvation. You don’t make the same goofs twice and are more successful.
You bury the bodies to hide your crime, to stop the horrible stench, to prevent health problems from contaminated water, etc. This is hard work digging big holes. Your watch is broken and your sargent is screaming at you for always being late. You see a nice watch on the wrist of a corpse you are burying and you cross the line to robbing the dead.
Everyone agrees it is a waste to not retrieve all of the valuable jewelry and divide it up fairly. It is easier to collect it and clean it before the killing than after. It becomes part of your treachery, offering the victims the false hope of buying their freedom. You discover that women will hide their best jewelry in the most unmentionable places and the bodies must be entirely unclothed to be searched there. The men also.
It becomes part of the final humiliation to strip them and search them and watch them squirm while you shove your fingers up places you would never admit to. Nobody cares because they are dead in a few minutes. Finally, as the former governor of Mississippi famously said: “Who wouldn’t grap some free Black ass if it was just there for the taking?”
I think this common pattern describes what happened at MMM. Lee botched it up. Haight thought up the treachery….. Perhaps my Serbian friend has intoxicated me with his tales.
meldrum, you’re digging yourself a credibility hole. your first comment was pretty good, except for the obviously uninformed comment about mmm becoming federal property and your allegations of rape. I think it would have been wise to stop there. further allegations of rape make you sound like an anti-mormon, rather than a student of this topic. i’d advise you to leave these rape allegations alone unless you’ve got firm evidence. you aren’t winning any points, and are burying your credibility. just friendly advice.
What MH said.
Wow. There’s so much I am tempted to say, but I will limit it to, “What MH said.”
Fair enough.
I have no firm evidence of rape.
Firm evidence of rape seldom exists. Eyewitnesses to couplings with screams of distress? Oh, it was just a game. Injuries to unmentionables? Rough play. Maybe a S&M fetish. I wasn’t even there but somehow my DNA got deposited? Whoops, I forgot; it was consensual and (like Kobe) it is so hard to keep track of these things.
Hints suggesting (to me) that rape might have happened at MMM:
1. Remains with no clothing artifacts.
2. Separation of men and women before the killing. (kill the men first)
3. Often happens in other massacres.
4. Perpetrators maybe accused each other.(folk tales)
Admittedly not firm evidence.
The point I got lost trying to make wasn’t to prove rape at MMM. The point I was trying to make is that digging there might (MIGHT) shed new light on this tragedy. We might find evidence of something not widely suspected before, like rape. On the other hand finding the remains of 30 women mixed in with those of men and children, associated with numerous buttons and lockets, with the only injury being one close range gunshot to the back of each head and expensive jewelry within their pelvic bones; all of this would argue against rape.
I find myself in a mile-deep-mine-shaft credibility hole giving any evidence to my Serbian friend that not one of those victims at MMM was raped. I don’t worry so much about my credibility with y’all as what I can learn. Already, I have found out that the LDS church still controls the site and can still hinder any digging. And I am finding the other comments or lack thereof quietly interesting.
Perhaps this is what bothers me the most. Even if untrue, no one can prove rape didn’t happen. If we accept a reasonable more-likely-than-not standard of proof, the century of lying makes either side of the argument too weak to prevail over the other.That lying was not a little thing.
I want firm evidence of rape at MMM? Maybe I will sooner be on a jury in Florida next time “Tot Mom” loses control. To be accused of sounding like an anti-Mormon in a discussion started by a dude known as Mormon Heretic? I will take that as a complement. Thank you.
Remember: no firm evidence of rape. (Chanting to myself, 120 times, once for each victim.)
Are we now orbiting the weird?
indeed
See my comments on another active thread about what happens when irrelevant or imaginary elephants are brought into the room. Sometimes, it really is best to ignore those elephants.
Ray: I don’t mind these elephants. Its an interesting point to consider. Maybe y’all are above that conversation, but listening to these other takes gives some food for thought.
Maybe its the lawyer in me running through the various scenarios, but not everyone has to be black/white. I quite enjoy the gray.
if this was wild conspiracy blog, i’d ask him about the apollo moon landings, kennedy assassination, and if elvis is still alive. I am sure he and his serbian friend have some unusual answers.
Same answer: they were raped.
Ha. Ha. Very funny.
For the record, my wife worked at NASA and sometimes I wish they had taken her with them to the moon…. (slap).
JFK’s tragedy actually supports my basic premise. If his murder had been properly investgated by the authorities in Dallas there would have been fewer questions raised and no room for any wild theories.
I don’t know much about Elvis, but one of my missionary companions could do a heck of an impersonation of him. Rumors circulating around the mission placed Elvis there at the time. No known rapes but some consensual sex (gasp!) between missionaries and investigators.
I have this seer stone with a wierdness meter built right into it. Comparing my suggestion of massacre, and maybe yet-to-be-proven rape (and a personal account of somone who has witnessed a similar event) with y’alls sarcastic leaps to raping JFK, Elvis and moon astronauts… Wow, it’s off the scale.
I just luv us peculiar people and all of our pecksnifferies.
Will Bagley, a Mormon historian, states that Brigham Young order the MMM. If that hasn’t been covered up, I don’t know what has! Read Blood of the Prophets.