Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 9

message: Mar 21 (2007) - at timesandseasons.org blog, annegb comments:
The thing about this re-hashing of Mountain Meadows is that the church has made peace with the descendants of those killed. The prophet apologized, we had a big ceremony down here in Cedar City attended by the families from the south and the chief of the Paiute tribe. We had a beautiful choir that sang “There is a Balm in Gilead” and some other beautiful songs and it was lovely. Do we have to pay reparations for this to go away?
May 4 - again at "T&S" catherine baker comments:
As an \”outsider,\” I wanted to comment on what I have read here in this discussion. I teach English at the college level and I\’m impressed with the level of honesty, intelligence and patience that you give to the discussion and each other. I should also add upfront that I am a descendent of Captain Jack Baker of the Baker-Fancher train, and I attended the 3-day dedication ceremony in Cedar City in 1990 - \”forgiveness and reconciliation.\” In the auditorium/gymnasium at the university, President Hinkley spoke at length. It was very moving and almost ethereal. The descendents were seated on the floor of the gym, while members of the church were seated in the stands surrounding us. At one point, President Hinkley asked all those in attendance to stand if they had a relative, or knew someone who participated in the Mountain Meadows Massacre to stand - about 2/3 of the people stood (as a humorous aside: I was sitting next to my 86 year old uncle, Bill Baker ( a man of few words that are always dry and monotone) and he poked me in the side and whispered out of the side of his mouth to me, \”eek gad - maybe they called us all here just to finish us off.\” But I digress . . . at this ceremony, President Hinkley spoke eloquently on the subject and he said he was there \”to take responsiblity for what happened at Mountain Meadow and ask our [the descendents] forgiveness. He also exonerated all members of the Piute nation - in the presence of their current Chief. The Piute Chief sang/recited an old Piute prayer at the end of the ceremony and we all left with tears in our eyes. Needless to say, it was an emotional couple of days. I\’m curious if any of you had any knowledge of this 3-day event? We were not allowed to take cameras, recorders or cam-corders into the gym; but, we were told that the proceedings would be recorded by the church and we would all receive copies if desired. I have written the church directly and have never been able to get a copy - many of us have to no avail. Then, in 1997 some of you might be aware of the excavation at one of the grave sites when some bodies were mistakenly uncovered . . . at the re-burial, President Hinkley spoke again and he stated, \”That which we have done here must never be construed as an acknowledgment of the part of the church of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful day.\” It was so very disheartening to many of the descendents who read his words. It negated everything that we thought we had accomplished in 1990. So . . . I have two questions that I would like to ask you to open for discussion; 1. How does the success of the \”truth and reconciliation\” movement of ArchBishop Desmond Tutu compare to the attempts of \”reconciliation\” between the Church of Latter-Day Saints and the descendents of the Baker-Fancher train? . . . other than it being on a much smaller scale. My second question is . . . can anyone get me a tape of Gordon B. Hinkley\’s (then First Counselor in the LDS Church First Presidency) speech in Cedar City in 1990? Thank you all very much for allowing my post - and again, I am most appreciative of your open and honest discussions - except, of course, item 47 by John Williams\’ \”It’s just not as embarrassing to think that Brigham Young ordered to have some rednecks shot as it is to think that Joseph Smith engaged in physical relations with women married to other men.\” It does my heart good to know that is only one negative remark among 103 posts - an actuary would call it irrelevant - as do I.
catherine baker
cbaker50@verizon.net
I contacted blogger annegb for a second take on the ceremony. And she went down and scrolled up (or went up and scrolled down, I don't know) pertinent microfilmed news stories from Saint George, Utah,'s The Daily Spectrum from 1990 - and much of 
one of them I'll retype below.
Sunday, September 16, 1990 Time for healing, LDS leader says about massacre
by Loren Webb, Staff Writer
CEDAR CITY -- Calling it an honor to participate in this singular and remarkable service, Gordon B. Hinckley, first counselor in the LDS Church's First Presidency, said Saturday it was a "miracle" to see both descendants of perpetrators and victims...gather....
During the ceremony, descendants of both the victims and perpetrators joined arms on stage and in the audience, some hugging and embracing each other following a challenge by Rex E. Lee, Brigham Young University president.... ... Hinckley...said he came as a representative of a church that has suffered much over what happened. 
While people can't comprehend what occured at the massacre site where only 17 children survived, Hinckley said he was grateful for reconciliation by the descendants on both sides.
"We hope, we pray that there shall never again sprout from this soil seeds of hate, but that generations will walk together in the sunlight of good will," said the LDS leader.
"Now if there is need for forgiveness, we ask that it be granted," added Hinckley as he offered the dedicatory prayer for the monument sites.
There was a parallel in the memorial service, said Mountain Meadows Monument Steering Commitee Chairman Dixie Leavitt, with traditional funeral services.
"After the services, we will proceed to the cemetary (at the meadow) and there suspicion will be buried, and anger will be buried and ill will of yesterday will be buried." 
In his invocation, J.E. Dunlap, publisher of the Harrison Daily Times in Harrison, Ark., prayed that those gathered will learn from past mistakes so they won't be repeated.
"Help us see past misguided motives," he said.
Steering Commitee member Roger Logan, a 14th Judicial District chancery judge in Harrison, Ark., and a descendant of many of the massacre victims (...said,) "This massacre was a source of sadness, of suffering for the people of Arkansas" ... "and for those of Utah." ... ... ... Logan had the descendants or relatives of the victims stand as he read off the victims' names.
After reading from the Book of Ecclesiastes, J.K. Francher, a Harrison, Ark., pharmicist and freelance writer, said it was time for people on both sides of the tragedy to come together and heal old wounds and dedicate a memorial.
This joyous ocassion of meeting in peace, "is a watershed period," he said, an exciting time that gives him "chill bumps." ... ... Fancher also never dreamed that a memorial service would come to fruition but "the spirit kicked in" and people of differing religious beliefs have reconciled.
"The most difficult words for men to utter is 'I'm sorry and I forgive you' " he said, then added, "We can't change the past. We can change the present and we will change the future."
Easing the burden of the victims was also the goal of Paiute Indian Tribal Chairwoman Geneal Anderson of Cedar City and Paiute spiritual leader Clifford Jake, who uttered an Indian prayer ceremony in his native tongue.
While Mountain Meadows will always have a secondary meaning associated with the massacre, said Rex Lee, he expressed the hope it will now signify a memorial to the victims, human dignity and understanding as well as healing and not looking back. 
Also newsphoto's caption runs: "CEDAR CITY -- In a spirit of unity and forgiveness, representatives of the descendants of victims and alleged participants joined hands during Saturday memorial services at the Centrum. From left: J.K. Francher, Rex Lee, Roger Logan, J.E. Dunlap. [Spectrum/ Nancy Rhodes]
--Justmeherenow 23:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 2 - re quote recently added to monuments section

message: You know, I studied those two anon IP reverts, and they appear to be coming from an automated spambot.   What do you think?  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a spambot. Please try to keep the faith with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Someone who disagrees with wholesale changes to an established article is not a spammer nor a troll. thanks. 207.179.28.20 07:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am personally unaware of any automated spambot devoted to Mormon articles.  The anons edits appear to be from two different IP#'s which show different editing patterns.  I reviewed your edits before I reverted once again.  My revert is based on my review of your material, and my opinion concurs with the two previous reverts.  I particularly objected to the changes in the topic paragraph.  Much of your material is POV -- some strikingly so -- and should be vetted on the talk page before enclosure.  Please review archives and the talk page before making significant edits, as I believe --Storm Rider suggested above.  Be aware that this is a controversial topic and gets reworked by new editors on a regular basis.  Only well sourced and well discussed edits have a "long life" in this article.   
I am copying this discussion to the MMM talk page.  WBardwin 07:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well sourced is required.  well-discussed is not.   Please do not remove cited sources again.  We can certainy disagree, but you are not allowed to remove reliable sources (such as public statements by the Paiutes themselves).  Suppression of the Paiute Tribes citations is inappropriate.  I will only replace the material into the article since such removals are simple vandalism.   Additionally, I have identified questionable "Journal of Discourse" sources claimed as historical documents.  Unfortunately, many of these materials are works of fiction with no verifiable foundation and may fail WP:V.   Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please do not disrupt the discussion as you post.  I have restored my post to its original form.  Again ------ well discussed positions are more likely to stay here and sources, even well documented, can be removed until concensus on their use is reached.  Be aware that concensus is a significant Wiki concept and is observed by most editors.  WBardwin 07:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The encyclopedia anyone can edit, not just church approved edits.  Sorry.   In the mean time, I will carefully review this article and all of its sources and any failing WP:V will be scrutinized before making further changes, and I will be replacing the Paiute citation tommorrow after 24 hours elapses.  Please do not remove it again, it's vandalism and POV pushing.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Spambot? -- I am no bot and no troll.  I watch articles dealing with western history in the mid to late 19th century and edit when I have a little computer time.  Do yourself and other editors a favor -- work toward Wikipedia:Consensus.  It is an official policy.  65.54.155.43 08:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removal of verified cited sources is vandalism, and no concensus is required to replace them.  Their removal and the vicious "anti-mormon" attacks were proof that these church members editors are POV pushing.   As I said, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit - not just church approved edits.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormon spambot 

message: NPOV requires that we characterize all sides of a notable conflict. I know nothing about this topic. Perhaps both sides could explain to me some facts that I think might help guide the process:
Is the other side notable? 
Do you both agree that the other side of this disagreement is notable - that it has a not-insignificant number of supporters? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not to this point yet.  The hurdle has been passed.  It's downhill from this point.  All are welcome to help. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we have a contemporary report of an admission by Paiutes that they were involved in violence against the emigrants. This also shows how the accounts as to the extent and timing of their involvement do vary rather widely. For example, the article text is drawn from at least one source which says the Paiutes were involved in the initial attacks, too. Gwen Gale 02:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This reference appears to substanciate the paiutes claims they did not partcipate in the killings.   It appears their partcipation was to take the cattle and other food items -- possibly in an agreement to hide the evidence the mormons killed these people.  I can also see where the mormons would have wanted it this way -- so they could point to the indians possession of cattle and livestock and blame it on the paiutes.  Great reference.  It validates the paiute position. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are three references that User:Tinosa quoted above.  The first suggests that the Paiutes were involved in the actual violence.  The second suggests some involvement but is a bit ambiguous; did they join in the violence after it commenced, or was their involvement in the overall situation non-violent?  The third is even more ambiguous; "committing outrages" could mean anything from stealing up to murdering.  None of these substantiate any claims that they did not participate in the killings; the most solid one (the first) seems rather to suggest otherwise.  The second and third, being vague, do not support your hypothesis any better than they support the hypothesis that the Paiutes were among the murderers.  No position has been validated, nor is the purpose of this article to validate any position.  See WP:NOR. alanyst /talk/ 04:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The forensic investigation conducted by the Utah Bureau of Indian Affairs indicates that all the victims died from gunshots to the head.  Sounds like the actual killing was done by the mormon militia, with the starving paiutes taking the cattle afterwards.   For the claims the Paiutes partcipated in the "massacre" to be valid, there needs to be evidence they performed some of the killing.  It appears they did not.  Therefore, their assertions they did not participate in the massacre are apparently accurate. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds kind of reasonable to me, but if you say it in the article, it's original research. To make that assertion in the article, to make it last, requires a supporting citation which shows the same assertion in an independent, verifiable and published source. Also keep in mind, other sources have Paiutes jumping out of the bushes and hacking emigrants to death along with the shooting Mormons. Though I'm not saying the latter to argue with you, at all, Cheers. Gwen Gale 05:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Merkey admits the possibility of no more than minor, auxiliary involvement. Still, the article shouldn't state unproven claims about the tribe's full participation as uncontroverted fact. Instead, shouldn't what ought to be stated outright is that the Mormon colonists' militia attempted to lure the Pauites into involvement in the promised, easy plunder of the emigrants, all to be blamed solely on the tribe? (with the earliest version of the militia's cover story being that the Paiutes had gone on the warpath over a poisoned beef or whatever this particular tale kept changing to! (Shakes head.)... ) --Justmeherenow 05:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only bringing this up for context, I think there are no worries in saying more about the varying accounts of Paiute involvement. Whether or not they were involved in the actual massacre, it's clear they were involved in the attacks and siege, then hovered about during the killings, waiting to loot the dead. The Paiute's ethical lapses at MM were then exploited by the Mormon leadership for generations, who tried to throw much of the blame on them. Lots of sources say the Fancher train (as it existed at MM) was one of the richest to ever pass through the area. Greed does seem to have stirred things up too. The value of the cattle alone, in 1857 terms (never mind in 1857 Mormon Utah terms), seems to have been a bit staggering. Gwen Gale 13:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I am wrong, please, but the analysis of the bones presented by Merkey was not complete. It was not an analysis of every person killed at the massacre, but just a limited number of them. If that is correct, how do we say that there is conclusive evidence that all people were killed by professional militia?  Also, I know of no historian that purports that the Paiutes had only rudimentary instruments of killing. To the contrary, historians state they had guns. That being the fact, I am unaware of any form of current analysis that enables us to determine that only Momons slaughtered these people. For some reason these assumptions seem not to be based upon reality, but rather POV. --Storm Rider (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, thanks for bringing this up, which is one practical reason why I mentioned to Jeffrey Vernon Merkey that, first, citations supporting that interpretation would have to be included with any change in the article, otherwise it would be OR and second, why I used the wording, "saying more about the varying accounts of Paiute involvement" rather than "they didn't take part in the actual massacre." As I re-read my post above though, my wording wasn't quite clear, my botch, I should have written "at the very least waiting to loot the dead..." Gwen Gale 14:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the vandalism and removal of cited sources. Please do not remove the citations from the article again. It's vandalism. I do not consider this a content dispute becuase the Paiutes have made public statements which have been verified. Do not try to rewrite history based upon your beliefs in the abscence of cited sources. Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No citations that I can see were rm'd. Meanwhile please stop calling good faith edits vandalism, thanks. Gwen Gale 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you removed cited sources once again.  As a previously banned sockpuppet of User:Wyss who willfully disobeyed an ARBCOM ruling, I would think you would try to observe and follow the rules.  Based upon these past issues, I would have to wonder how many of these other accounts may be socks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand by my assertion. As for your attack, every statement of fact that you have made above is wholly mistaken. Thanks for making yourself understood though. Gwen Gale 17:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeff, you live in a glass house.  Put those stones down. alanyst /talk/ 17:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediating the conflict