Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Exactly.  Tom Haws 15:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Forthcoming Book

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Young's Involvement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 . Tom Haws 15:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Judges??

message: 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)
thread_title: Reason for sparing children

message: 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)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: POV Check

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Mark Twain Section

message: *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)
thread_title:  Proposed Outline 

message: ===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)
thread_title: Tom's comments 

message: 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)
thread_title: More references and attribution, please

message: 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)
thread_title: Siege initiators

message: 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)
thread_title: Story first, debate second

message: 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)
thread_title: Legal Proceedings

message: 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)
thread_title:  Remove NPOV dispute? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Custer's last stand 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Oath of Vengence

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Juanita Brooks

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Lasting Effects

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reverting edits by Wlbagley 

message: * 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)
thread_title: Old books exist