Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 11

message: Since September 11, 2007 is the 150th anniversary of the massacre, I think there would be a good chance to get this article on the front page on that day, if we can make significant improvements. They especially like to pick timely articles for the front page, and there has been a lot of recent interest in the massacre on several fronts. Any interest? It would be very difficult, but not impossible. It would mean that we'd have to get featured article status probably by early August. COGDEN 22:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be up for that if "Friday" was removed from the lead sentence. Any chance of that? TIA --Tom 13:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the first thing to do is to get someone who hasn't been involved in editing this article to review it for quality. Val42 20:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's quite ready for a review yet. There are some obvious holes that probably should be filled first, such as a better and more complete background section and a section on the Lee trials and execution, and maybe some historiography. COGDEN 21:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I brought several (OK a dozen) MMM books home today from the academic library where I work. I can look up and post excerpts if necessary. If we create a section on the talk page for each of the major References, people can discuss the background for the article edits there. You can leave a message here on this page or on my talk page. Robbie Giles 00:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interest in getting this on the front page for September 11? 

message: Should not the Carleton Memorial be included in this section? The first memorial, ie the one with the Christian Cross.
Carleton Report:
The same day Captain Reuben P. Campbell, United States Second Dragoons, with a command of three companies of troops, came from his camp at Santa Clara and camped there also. Judge Cradlebaugh and Deputy Marshall Rogers had come down from Provo with Captain Campbell, and had been inquiring into the circumstances of the massacre. The judge cannot receive too much praise for the resolute and thorough manner with which he pursues him investigation. On his way down past this spot, and before my arrival, Captain Campbell had caused to be collected and buried the bones of 26 of the victims. Dr. Brewer informed me that the remains of 18 were buried in one grave, 12 in another and 6 in another. 
On the 20th I took a wagon and a party of men and made a thorough search for others amongst the sage brushes for a least a mile back from the road that leads to Hamblin's house. Hamblin himself showed Sergeant Fritz of my party a spot on the right-hand side of the road where had partially covered up a great many of the bones. These were collected, and a large number of others on the left hand side of the road up the slopes of the hill, and in the ravines and among the bushes. I gathered many of the disjointed bones of 34 persons. The number could easily be told by the number of pairs of shoulder blades and by lower jaws, skulls, and parts of skulls, etc. 
These, with the remains of two others gotten in a ravine to the east of the spring, where they had been interred at but little depth, 34 in all, I buried in a grave on the northern side of the ditch. Around and above this grave I caused to be built of loose granite stones, hauled from the neighboring hills, a rude monument, conical in form and fifty feet in circumference at the base, and twelve feet in height. This is surmounted by a cross hewn from red cedar wood. From the ground to top of cross is twenty four feet. On the transverse part of the cross, facing towards the north, is an inscription carved in the wood. "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." And on a rude slab of granite set in the earth and leaning against the northern base of the monument there are cut the following words: 
"Here 120 men, women, and children were massacred in cold blood early in September, 1857. They were from Arkansas."
The general will hardly fail to observe the discrepancy between Hamblin's statement and that of Albert in relation to the burial of the two girls and in relation to the burial of the bodies of the others who had been murdered. Hamblin says the people from Cedar City buried them; Albert that the Indians did it, taking spades from the wagons, not a likely thing for bona fide Indians to do. My own opinion is that the remains were not buried at all until after they had been dismembered by the wolves and the flesh stripped from the bones, and then only such bones were buried as lay scattered along nearest the road.
James Lynch:
Why were no these remains interred if not in a Christian like and proper manner, at least covered from the sight?  But no the hatred of their murderers extended to them after death--there they lay, a prey to the famished wolves that run howling over the desolate plains to the unlooked for feast, food for the croaking ravens that through the tainted air with swift wing wended their way to revel in their banquet of blood.
I enquired of Jacob Hamblin who is a high Church dignitary, why these remains were not buried at some time subsequent to the murder?  he said that the bodies were so much decomposed that it was impossible to inter them.  No longer let us boast of our citizenship freedom or civilization.
Of course, there is the tale of the fellow who exclaimed "Vengeance is mine an I have taken a little" shortly before the memorial was vandalized.Tinosa 01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE MEMORIAL 

message: This section of the discussion page is to aid in tracking and evaluating the cited references. The most cited sources will be listed first, with others following as necessary. --Robbie Giles 05:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this overly long info I originally added over to my sandbox to use for evaluating sources. Anyone interested can see it here. --Robbie Giles 13:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: According to D. Michael Stewart:
After the arrival of the Mormons in the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, an ecclesiastical council and a marshal directed municipal affairs. In December 1847 a General Council took over the affairs of civil government. Bishop's courts for local wards provided a judicial process, with ecclesiastical high councils serving as appellate courts. Bishops, stake high councils, and the LDS First Presidency officiated as courts. Police power was placed in the Nauvoo Legion, and law enforcement officers were appointed. Church tithes and offerings served as community revenues.
Extralegal violence was rare compared to that found in other frontier communities. Litigation was discouraged and people were urged to settle their grievances in a system of arbitration before Bishop's courts where Mormon and non-Mormons generally received satisfactory justice. These ecclesiastical courts distinguished Utah from other frontier communities where vigilante committees periodically arose to help maintain law and order. Punishments also were lenient by comparison. When necessary, whipping of offenders was administered, since jails were unavailable. Prisoners were often housed with the sheriff, and posses frequently formed upon conclusion of church services.
Mormon practice of central direction, cooperation, and consensus formed a framework for government. Leading men would agree and others were expected to concur. Problems and concerns were openly discussed and basic decisions governing the community were made in religious services. Non-Mormons soon came to resent their lack of involvement in this process./
An attitude of stewardship framed the regulation of land, water use, and timber rights. Equal shares were given in return for labor. This reflected the reality of scarce supply as well as the religious idea of collective sharing. --Justmeherenow 01:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that system applies after Utah was organized as a territory with federal oversight. --Blue Tie 01:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Utah legal structures pre-invasion

message: There is a reference to a book by Quinn, but it is not listed in the Ref section. Is it this book?
Mormon hierarchy : extensions of power by D. Michael Quinn which was published in Salt Lake City by Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates in 1997
It was probably made by User:COGDEN or User:Justmeherenow  --Robbie Giles 03:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was me, and it was Extensions of Power. I put in the reference. COGDEN 01:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quinn ref

message: --from his current (LDS) Ensign magazine article: Some traditional Utah histories of what occurred at Mountain Meadows have accepted the claim that poisoning also contributed to conflict—that the Arkansas emigrants deliberately poisoned a spring and an ox carcass near the central Utah town of Fillmore, causing illness and death among local Indians. According to this story, the Indians became enraged and followed the emigrants to the Mountain Meadows, where they either committed the atrocities on their own or forced fearful Latter-day Saint settlers to join them in the attack. Historical research shows that these stories are not accurate./ While it is true that some of the emigrants’ cattle were dying along the trail, including near Fillmore, the deaths appear to be the result of a disease that affected cattle herds on the 1850s overland trails. Humans contracted the disease from infected animals through cuts or sores or through eating the contaminated meat. Without this modern understanding, people suspected the problem was caused by poisoning.
:A comment at millennialstar.org from Justin:
 
:Great link, Brian. I'm glad to see the publication of this article in the Ensign. It's a nice follow-up to the article published in a recent issue of the Church News.
 
::[Brian]:' "IMO, the Church would need to be very careful about using new sources in for the article...at least sources to which others do not have access. If the article does use previously unavailable documents, the Church would want to immediately allow other historians access and have a frank discussion as to why the sources were previously withheld. In short, using new sources could have negative implications for the Church. Anyone else? Your thoughts?"
:[Justin]: I haven't seen much of a discussion from the church's end regarding why certain sources have been unavailable to researchers. For instace, I believe Will Bagley unsuccessfully requested access to the Jenson collection cited in note 5 of Turley's article./ However, Turley has noted for several years that the church plans to open up sources after the book is published. To quote from a May 2002 article in the Salt Lake Tribune: "[T]he first quasi-official Mormon account has decided advantages over its competitors -- namely, access to documents in LDS Church archives off-limits to other scholars./ The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the 'best historical resources for writing about the massacre,' Richard Turley Jr., managing director of the church's family and history departments, said Friday. After the book is published, the LDS Church plans to 'open new sources we have discovered for public use,' said Turley, one of the book's authors./ Those sources include government documents, emigrant diaries, newspaper reports, affidavits of men who participated in the massacre and the field notes of Assistant Church Historian Andrew Jenson, who 40 years after the event tried to preserve as much of the historical record as he could. Turley also said other documents and collections will be made available to researchers on computer disks later this year."
 --Justmeherenow 21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Turley with regard "poisoning"

message: There's been a reversion of a heading that said Frontier existence and theocracy, on the grounds that the theocracy was "less than a year", and not in 1857. I don't think it's controversial that Utah was run effectively as a theocracy before Brigham Young was deposed in 1858. Even the Utah general authorities at the time were calling it a theocracy, and that was viewed as a good thing. I think there's a pretty strong historical consensus, isn't there?, that there was relatively little separation between church and state during the time, and that it was essentially a limited theocracy. True, it wasn't an absolute theocracy in 1857, like the church thought was just around the corner, but a theocracy nonetheless. COGDEN 00:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it depends on how you look at the pioneers. He was their governor and their prophet, and continued as both even after the territory was established. Did the US change it from a theocracy? How so, considering he was still prophet and governor? Did he rule the territory as a prophet or as a territorial leader? Given decisions of law that went against Christianity and LDS morality, like setting up bars and brothels, certainly discount his theocratic endeavors. Bytebear 00:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not a perfect theocracy as the early Mormons would have liked to have, but probably the most perfect one ever in the Western Hemisphere. Anyway, I changed the heading in a way that might side-step the issue, using "Kingdom of God" instead of theocracy, and talking more about it being their aspiration than about what they were able to actually bring into practice. That's probably a better way of looking at it, because there was a constant tension between what the church wanted (legal polygamy, perfect obedience, the institution of blood atonement, decapitation as a method of execution, law of consecration, etc.), and what they could actually do given their limitations. COGDEN 01:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this the real focus of the section?  It seems to me a better title would be "Frontier settlement and expanded settlements" or similar. Bytebear 02:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could split it up into two sections, but I think the two topics go together, because the quality and nature of the Utah Territory government is important, and it's hard to explain it without giving background for why the Mormons were forming colonies and trying to expand the kingdom throughout the West. COGDEN 17:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they go together too, but I never considered the colonization of surrounding towns a theocratic decision, although I guess I can see it as such.  I guess I don't look at the Mormon Poineers as a theocratic society, but rather, as a group of settlers under a single leader.  Woudl you consider the Pilgrams theocratic?  Or other US colonists? Bytebear 23:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. -Visorstuff 23:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the Pilgrims article call them a theocracy, or a group striving for religious freedom?  Seems the term "theocracy" although technically correct is loaded with negative conotations. Bytebear 17:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: First and foremost, this is an encyclopedia article. What we (as editors) think is not as important as relating the necessary information from verifiable sources. Which if any of the references already cited refer to a theocracy? One, a few, most, all? If once, it may not be noteworthy. If consistently, then it is; we should cite it and include it. I actually think the detailed  background info should be in the appropriate linking article (possibly History_of_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Utah_War) or the Utah War article. What importance to this article is the concept of whether the territory was actually a theocracy or at least a de facto theocracy? Also, I want to focus on the article and not digress to us vs. them or who was right or wrong. It's hard enough to write with a NPOV. Please don't ratchet up the rhetoric. Thanks. Robbie Giles 21:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theocracy in 1857 

message: Is there a way to archive those questions or concerns of B/T which have been addressed? This page is long and confusing, as it is. I'm not up on archiving talk pages. What does the herd of editors think? --Robbie Giles 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably fine. I don't see any recent edits there. COGDEN 17:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved Blue Tie's entire section of concerns to an archive - yet unaddressed issues from there of course can be reintroduced at the bottom of the current talk page. --Justmeherenow 20:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive question

message: ===Lee's membership reinstatement===
Personally I don't come to MM already supremely well read but with a lifetime of vague familiarity with hearsay associated with it. Lee family people have always thought it unfair that Lee had been singled out and finally the Church said, OK, let's forgive and forget as far as LDS temple ordinances for the dead and the like go. What is to be read into this? I don't know - but it seems something too nuancedly complicated to belong in the lead? --Justmeherenow 03:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought is to make certain all included info is in the WP main article for the subheading, then do a tight (not necessarily short) synopsis of the topic as it applies to this article. My example is the MMM section on Teachings of the Mormon Reformation. It tries to explain the reformation, but not only in regards to MMM. Is this what you had in mind about redundancies? --Robbie Giles 17:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except there is no good evidence that he was alone with her.  There is good evidence that he was not. --Blue Tie 21:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A footnote is better than it being in the article.. but it is still not good.  The story was invented out of thin air.  Why would it merit any mention at all?  --Blue Tie 06:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not know if it is neutral or not, but a bigger problem is that it is too long and detailed.  It is as though someone wanted to write a different article and then decided to to merge it with this one -- randomly.  It is an overblown distraction in this article. I do not see any value in it and think it should be deleted but if the idea needs to stay it should be a single sentence that somehow ties to the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  For example, maybe the fact that there had been a theocratic reformation movement in the months and years just prior to this time had put the people in a frame of mind to do whatever they felt their leaders asked of them.  (The problem with this is that it is not exactly true, and there are examples to the contrary -- so I do not know how to do this, but whatever... it needs to be deleted or shortened).  --Blue Tie 01:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Justme's concerns

message: Personally I don't come to MM already supremely well read but with a lifetime of vague familiarity with hearsay associated with it. Lee family people have always thought it unfair that Lee had been singled out and finally the Church said, OK, let's forgive and forget as far as LDS temple ordinances for the dead and the like go. What is to be read into this? I don't know - but it seems something too nuancedly complicated to belong in the lead? --Justmeherenow 03:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lee's membership reinstatement

message: --via introductory summaries and summations. But I believe in a wiki it's generally not, since what's being summarized is never stable? --Justmeherenow 15:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought is to make certain all included info is in the WP main article for the subheading, then do a tight (not necessarily short) synopsis of the topic as it applies to this article. My example is the MMM section on Teachings of the Mormon Reformation. It tries to explain the reformation, but not only in regards to MMM. Is this what you had in mind about redundancies? --Robbie Giles 17:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A bit of redundancy is usually good--

message: Let's simply do some scene resplicing? Just remove the clip of Ruth's Stockholm syndrome and put it to the side (just for the time being)—while keeping the scene of Lee, alone with the Dunlap girl (readers themselves' filling in Ruth's frightened and pleading look). Yes, we still cut to her dead, naked body and then to townswomen's speculative questioning. Then in the middle of the clip of this questioning, splice back in our scene of the poor girl's pleading, over which is dubbed a continuation of the townswomen's explanation of the speculative scene in voice-over. --Justmeherenow
::Except there is no good evidence that he was alone with her.  There is good evidence that he was not. --Blue Tie 21:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A footnote is better than it being in the article.. but it is still not good.  The story was invented out of thin air.  Why would it merit any mention at all?  --Blue Tie 06:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''"Did you hear about the rape of Ruth Dunlap!"''

message: (Hey—so few editors hereabouts! My user name now seems prophetic. ;^)
I think it's really important to word Wikipedia articles in such a way that all comers (well, most of them) basically can live with their tone, mostly. (I know this is, um, a banal argument, but hear me out.) Question: if the phraseology theocracy in Mormonism is completely NPOV, why is it other Wikipedia articles giving extensive coverage to Mormonism refrain from using this term much, to-date, or other ones of similar tone? Well, except for the ones at Mormonism and authority, which is a section in an article specifically about criticisms of Mormonism!
Actually, I think our article about Utah theocracy is exceptionally good and illuminating! It's just that, as maybe Blue Tie suggest, there are places here and there where its premises can be more delicately phrased or even left (overtly) unsaid, allowing the reader to supply their own analysis, "pro" (Mormon faith based), con, or "non"? In other words...avoid—implied irony? Such as 
Muhammad, claiming he had witnessed a monstrous being he identified as "Gabriel" but described as... [and here quote the Quranic text about Muhammad's experience with this immense, fearful entity with wings], told the people he had received these "divine" instructions to kill anyone who would resist Muhammad's plans of Mecca's military destruction. 
—where quotation marks at "Gabriel" and "divine" show the writer doesn't believe in Muhammad's perceptions of reality, right? All the information may "true" (to a non-believer, anyway)—only it's needlessly heavy handed (or...subtly mocking?) 
What other options are there? How about  
Muhammad received God's revelation through the Angel Gabriel for Believers to defend—and if necessary through armed struggle— against the pagan Meccans' aggression. 
—where the reader can decide for themselves how to take Muhammad's claims?: a deceptively simple minimalism where Muhammad's claims are laid out straightforwardly and without ostensively(?sp) objective commentary?  
Still another option is to simply state facts while trying not to "code" much at all for editors' judgments one way or the other? Such as  
Muhammad, believing himself to receive divine communications, directed the people whom he had convinced of this to subdue through military means the city of Mecca.
—Hmm. I like it! 
I'm just riffing here—but still I do think we should use ALL THREE styles (and probably more). Where everybody agrees something is bogus (Haight's decisions to anihilate the Fanchers), then Wikipedia can go ahead and rip! (and not worry about its "objective" language subtly mocking Haight's decision). Fine.   
But where criticism is bound to be controversial (fairly easy to do with regard a faith community's history!), put Wikipedia's words of criticism in some actual critic's mouth: "So-'n'-so says Muhammad's attack on Mecca involved too much whatever." --Justmeherenow 22:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know if it is neutral or not, but a bigger problem is that it is too long and detailed.  It is as though someone wanted to write a different article and then decided to to merge it with this one -- randomly.  It is an overblown distraction in this article. I do not see any value in it and think it should be deleted but if the idea needs to stay it should be a single sentence that somehow ties to the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  For example, maybe the fact that there had been a theocratic reformation movement in the months and years just prior to this time had put the people in a frame of mind to do whatever they felt their leaders asked of them.  (The problem with this is that it is not exactly true, and there are examples to the contrary -- so I do not know how to do this, but whatever... it needs to be deleted or shortened).  --Blue Tie 01:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Wikpedia's coverage of theocracy in early Utah

message: I would like to see a reversion to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mountain_Meadows_massacre&diff=next&oldid=140630222 for the beginning of the background section. I originally crafted it as an overview, with the detail in the subsections. Some of what has been added should more properly be in the succeeding subsection. The opening sentence:
Historians attribute the Mountain Meadows massacre to a number of factors relating to the conditions in the Utah Territory in 1857.
was meant to be a springboard for a discussion of the five topics listed below. The reference to historians was to indicate the references cited in the next few paragraphs. I wanted the first paragraph to be very tight. Also, the first paragraph now has a great deal of passive voice, which lends itself to confusion for readers. The heading was originally Background because it dealt with history prior to the move to Utah.
Can we move some of the additions to the appropriate sections and revert back to the original of this section, along with the name? What does the herd of editors think? Thanks in advance for your consideration. --Robbie Giles 04:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with that. I think it was a better introduction, the way it was, and maintained better flow. COGDEN 07:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Background