I am a direct descendant to 29 of the victims who were slaughtered at Mountain Meadows. The church has covered the extent of Mormon involvement for 150 years. The questions are not just about whether Brigham Young gave a direct order or not. Why did the church not expel or punish all involved? Why did the church cover the tracks of so many men who participated in Cedar City? Why did they never find it good and decent to bury the bodies but leave them to be torn apart by wild animals? Why did the church keep the surviving (younger than 8) children until they were rescued by military? Why did the church put all the gold bar money from the train into its storehouse and absorb the prize horses and cattle into the church herds? Why did they not attempt to make such a horrible wrong right? Because the wrong went all the way to the top.

There was no way to clean it up. Today is no different. The wrong still goes all the way to the top so the "church" can not clean it up. If they could, they would grant the descendants long standing request to deed the Mountain Meadows land to the federal government to make into a national monument. Instead, the dead remain in the hands of those who slayed them. If the church were innocent, they would let go of the victims and the land over which they were scattered.

Americans who believe this to be a long dead issue should consider their willingness to rest with the real estate at Ground Zero controlled by followers of Osama bin Laden.

That 20 percent of the us army was on it's way to put down the Mormons was not a rumor, it was a fact!

In the previous thirty years prior to mountanin meadow massacre, the Mormons were persecuted and driven out of five states. Two sitting US governors gave extermination orders explicitely and implicitely to kill all mormons on sight Governors Boggs and Ford of Missouri and Illinois. Their leader Joseph Smith and his Brother were murdered in their cell as they awaited trial.

Over the years there were tar and featherings, the slaughter at Haunns mill in Mo. countless murders along the way. The Mormons in 1847 were forced out of their homes and community which they had built in Nauvoo, Il., IN THE DEAD OF WINTER. There were no transfers of deeds nor sales of properties, their lands and possessions were simply stolen from them without compensation.

And as these families were driven into the cold harsh winter wilderness, at the end of guns, hundreds more of them perished along the way, men, women and children. Imagine the children with only the clothes on their back puilled from their warm beds and kicked across the river. Again, no Marriott accross the river. Was this terrorism?

The implication that the MMM was the first act of religious terrorism on US soil is insulting to all intelligent human beings. I have an ancestor, a mother of five who was burned at the the stake,as a witch, in the name of God, as were countless other souls. Native Americans were slaughtered by the thousands in the name of God, African Americans likewise. The Mormons themselves were killed by others in the name of God. But somehow, this one time incident in 1857, (nothing like it involving Mormons has ever happened before nor since), is the "first act of religious terrorism in US history"? Hollywood hype at best, profound ignorance in the least. All of these incidents preceeded the event of 1857.

Unfortunately a perfect storm of events happened which created paranoia in the lonely outpost of southeren Utah.

After the previous 30 years of the country's persecution or "terrorism", perpetrated on the Mormons, they were now established. They had settlements all over the west, they had finally found their homes in the "tops of the mountains". Guess what folks, this time, they were not leaving. Having met all requirements for statehood in 1850, they were denied over and over again.

Now, here comes one fifth of the US army to once and for all take care of the "Mormon problem". Martial law was declared by Brigham Young, people were on alert. Parley P. Pratt a Mormon Apostle, had recently been murdered in where? Arkansas.

Another group of people had joined this wagon train, from where? Misouri. Among other things the Misssouri wildcatters had bragged about the slaughter at Hauns mill in Missouri, a decade earlier. Some had bragged they were there when Joseph was killed. There were rumors of poisened wells, etc. Comments were made "well go to California and get the militia and come back to take care of you mormons once and for all".

Nobody can justify what happened on that day in 1857, but one should understand the climate which could have brought an otherwise peaceful people to such horrific acts.

Remember there were no telephones, email, telegraph, nor pony express,
the trip to Salt Lake could take 3-5 days each way. When Brigham Young got word, he sent the rider to tell them to let them go in peace. For will bagley to stae otherwise is false. His so called scholarship is lacking to say the least

To take this incident and then write sensational books and make movies with poor scholarship, lies and inuendos, stating that Brigham Young gave orders to act this way when no accredited historian has ever come to this conclusion, and to refer to this as the first US act of terrorism, etc. is in fact nothing more than "JOURNALISTIC TERRORISM.

for true scholarship

One question...If what you have believed your entire life was not true; would you want to know?

Wow!! Someone took all the right "We are the best, to hell with the rest" classes at BYU. I'm guessing they didn't take a lot of time covering things like what actions made early Mormons enemies of the state in FIVE states, at a time when states were working to acquire citizens to build the new statehoods, and the compounded conflicts that arose from Mormon beliefs that they answered only to the prophet and not the constitution or local laws. Is it possible the "religious terrorism" of an extermination order (The order was in response to what Boggs termed "open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made war upon the people of this State ... 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.") had more to do with the over weaning Mormon arrogance that disregarded any outside the faith beliefs and opinions as the empty thoughts of Gentiles going to hell, and those law abiding citizens getting fed up with having their store goods, land, cattle, and women 'repurposed for the kingdom'?

Parley Pratt was not killed because he was a Mormon leader, or because he was being persecuted. He ran off with another man's wife to add to his collection. The husband, who was not even from Arkansas, caught up with Pratt, in Arkansas and shot him.

Keep also in mind; the wagon train was not comprised of people who aligned themselves with Arkansas anymore than you would call Mormons Missourians, Arkansans or whatever state they left. The members of the wagon party left Arkansas behind and were, more correctly, future Californians.

Congress denied statehood as Brigham Young refused to submit to the laws of the constitution. He wanted to be a separate state answering only to himself. That is why Buchanan sent troops to displace him as Territorial Governor. The Army was not coming to kill anyone. If Mormons believed that, it is because their governor, Brigham Young, needed them ready to fight to the death when he declared martial law on the military.

Did members of the wagon train, composed mostly of women and children, really brag, swagger, and poison wells?? Or is that a maelstrom of Mormon rumors necessary to convince local men to participate in their massacre?

The 'peaceful' Mormons believed in blood atonement.
They killed many of their own members for trying to leave the faith by slitting their neck and spilling their blood. This was an "act of mercy to save their souls."

Does Will Bagley, or any historian or author, have to graduate from BYU to be credible? Is BYU the only source of "true scholarship" Surely Bagley isn't the only person with these views that hold the church responsible. Many others HAVE published. Of course, access to church records can be a little difficult since CJCLDS does not want certain documents to be seen or reported. However, the testimony of plenty of those who were present is recorded and difficult to sweep under the "Well, lots of crazy stuff happened back then. I'm sure the church is innocent. Lets just forget it" rug.

Child abusers who were abused as children are comprehendable, but no less culpable for their own choices. We expect them to be repentant to be restored to good faith. Saying, "Nobody can justify what happened on that day in 1857, but one should understand the climate which could have brought an otherwise peaceful people to such horrific acts," without offering apology for the massacre of women and children (as is the formal position of the church), IS justification. It is the memorized mantra of BYU students, staff, and missionaries. The church DOES feel justified and so do a majority of LDS members.

The hubris is the same stunning stuff that made for the trouble in the early states. What continues to mystify me is how so many church members can look to this institution for spiritual leadership when it is unable, in the space of 150 years, to find an open measure of humility and humanity to demonstrate repentance, as an example to its people of how to take responsibility and offer sincere apology when wrong.

You speak of scholarship and righteousness but no one seemed that the writer of the article didn't bother to spell Captain FANCHER correctly. The historical marker making the site has been vandalized three times and should be put under Federal protection as this is a hate crime. The Fancher party was only guilty of believing in Democracy and patriotism for their United States for which they died for. They were only passing through Utah on their way to California to resettle, not to come all this way to persecute the Mormons. This hatred they had for my ancestors lives today. I go to Utah regularly and deal with it every time I wear my company ID in public.

Here, here David. I have experienced similar predudice. It is as if, by continuing the hateful behavior, Mormons justify having had it in the first place. I attended a highschool where the Mormon students were told, by their bishop, they were not alowed to talk to me. Period. We could not even be put in groups in Chemistry or Math. This was explained to them, and the school principal, before I even enrolled. Just moving into town set the wheels of protective wheels of predudice in motion.

As far as federal protection of the monument goes, that is the only hope of responsible care. The church can't bother to respect the dead enough to keep from flipping a load of them up with a backhoe while digging right on top of the marked grave in 1999. Who does that????

All this is a little bizzare. If the Mormon church is wrong, let it be wrong. Why do all the hate(rs) try to prove such a point. If the Mormons are wrong then its wrong and nothing will come of it. They still only have 12 million members. This hardley scratches the surface of Christain church membership. Mormons are not to be concerned with. Those still hurt by their ancestors hardships should grow up and get over it. My ancestors have experienced far worse, but I can't waist my days blamming all the descendants of my lenial persecutors. This is crazy! Learn from the past and move on. No one is the wiser finding fault. If you think you're right move on and preach something uplifting and positive. Don't waste your time finding fault and persecuting. If you insist on pointing the finger consider modern topics like the Iraqi war, Jihad, and the poverty, charity, or the domination of the Muslim church and strict observance of belief and death as a means for religious freedom. Start there, make a differnnce today. Or spend your time in the past and while you're there lets consider all other religious wars in the name of God. There are many!

I will forever wonder if my life is best spent doing good or fixing bad. To teach children and set them free from the chains of ignorance, prejudice, secrecy, and the victimization of cruel men is my passionate privilege; to lay those to rest who suffered the same is my responsibility. There is no one else to do it and I can not feel for the living if I do not respect the dead. I may not march forward until I charge back. The tenacity of the Arkansians is that we will honor life. We can not honor our own lives if we do not value those slaughtered before us. The summary of our heritage is that we are born to a family of a nation that honors life.

Those killed offer us the chance to fight on their behalf so we can find the dignity to battle our own assailants. If we fear we may fall unnoticed and unrecovered, we can not feel the support of family that is necessary to face the individual health assaults of cancer, disability, and birth defects, or recover from abuse, rape, robbery, or battery with courage and valor. We can not approach the larger defeats like our country's most recent September 11 attack. It is not possible to feel connected to the fabric of a nation if we do not feel the threads of our families. We are Americans only after we are Fanchers.

Could Americans march on with a soul if they left the towers in a heap with the powder of bones beneath them? I was there. I know we could not. I watched both towers fall. I went to ground zero while the other buildings were still burning with a group of emergency response volunteers to start the digging. I worked to support the efforts from a boat on the pier where the crews came to eat and shed their gear for a few fleeting moments each day. I heard the stories from the places where the cameras could not go and watched the men who told them suffer the periodic indignity of mental/emotional/physical breakdown. I watched the digging ever day for the first two months. I knew it could not stop until the land was clear and all the collected fingers, toes, skull fragments, and hip sockets were identified and sent home to the families that birthed them. If we could not do this for them, we would know we were forever unrecovered from the assault. Perpetual victims. Locked in a pile that was proof of the injustice yet incapable of honoring those who died and therefore powerless to live with honor.

Many wonder why the Fanchers can not let the Mountain Meadows Massacre go and move on to the living of new generations. Is that what other countries say of the United States? Move on. Could we ever do it if Bin Laden controlled Ground Zero and obstructed the investigation for two years after the attack so that the remaining personal effects could not be recovered and sent home to the families? What if a Muslim organization designed, constructed, and controlled the memorial? What if they were turned loose on the site to dig on occasion and unearth whatever popped up? Could we resolve the horror if the very few survivors were kept two years in his care after the attacks? And how would we view the accounts of history that painted him as a great religious leader whose name was lauded and respected as a prophet worthy of naming a University after? If the students at Bin Laden University did not have access to the truth of what his followers did at his request, how hard would we fight and for how many generations would we feel the need tell them the awful truth about him?

It is not just for apologies and possesion of burial grounds that the Fancier descendants are dog-jaw clenched on the heels of the Mormon Church, we want the truth of Brigham Young told. He is a villain esteemed as a Prophet whose history is unknown to his own genealogically obsessed followers.

I know I did not sleep well again until Ground Zero was swept clean and Bin Laden's hidden palace secrets were revealed for all those who followed him. I suspect that is the same for most Americans, even the ones who were not at the towers.

The Jews can recover only through the truth being captured in film, book, and museum with the knowledge that everyone knows that Hitler did wrong. There is no Hitler University. There is no esteem for his marvelous ideas and we know better than to herald his genius for it was dark and dangerous. Brigham Young is responsible for the Massacre and many other heinous assaults against humanity including those against his own followers and their women and children. The forces of control still at work in the Mormon Church are why it can not come clean. The stench of internal fear and knowing looks hiding secretive silences still waft over the lives of members today. Those who can not name evil can not do so because they are still in the practice of it. The Mormon Church controls its members and suppresses unsightly truths much today as it did when it found the riches of a foreign wagon train more valuable than the lives on it. The Massacre is one of many bloody tales searching for a public voice.

Perhaps this means that I am finally growing up. Youth chooses to overlook responsibility. Wisdom knows the cost is too great. You can not break a thread and still rest in the assurance of its coverage. That is my heritage. I am a Fancher. I am an American. I am a citizen who believes in truth and justice. I am a teacher who can not espouse for others what I can not live for myself. I believe is setting the enslaved free, be they living or dead.

This is a modern topic. The church still owns the land on which the dead they slayed are buried. This wasn't a personal family squabble, the Fancher party was killed because Mormons were at war with America. The train was killed for being "Mercats" in the Utah War. Until Americans see the simple need to claim that land as a national monument, they are not ready to address the far more complicated issues like Iraqi war, Jihad, poverty, charity, or the domination of the Muslim church. Taking national control of national killing fields is easy. Preparing to meet the coming wars of Americans against religious extremeists takes tremendous thought and effort. It isn't about 'getting over it,' it is about taking the first steps of proving we are ready to grow up and care so we can be trusted with the adult issues of our nation and, indeed, our world.

Either the Mormons are right or wrong. THAT'S IT! Nothing else! How easy is that? Have you ever even talked to one? I have, they don't try to convince anything is right, they don't try to tell you that what some of the members have done in the past is right. We all make mistakes, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US. So if you wanna know the truth, why don't you stop thinking you can find it by reading solely history books, and kneel down, ask GOD what the truth is? If you're Christian then you believe in God right? Isn't that why the Mormons left? They knew the truth, not because Joseph Smith told them, not because B.Young told them, they knew it because they humbled themselves, and just prayed to know truth. Isn't that what everyone is searching for any way? With basically everything? Isn't that the worlds question? Where is the truth? From talking to some mormons I could see, that's what they're striving to do. Strive, not try. Everyone makes mistakes, some A LOT worse than others. Some mistakes require bigger consequences. You pick up one end of the stick, you pick up the other right? Either the Mormon people are right, or they are wrong. If you want to find out for yourself, then try what they asked me to do. Humble yourself, unharden your hearts, and just pray. Ask God what the truth is. Either it's right or wrong. One of these young men I was talking to said something that hit me that I will leave as my closer. He said "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is perfect. The people in it are not." How true of a statement can you get? We ALL make mistakes, like I've said, but does that not mean we can not take upon us Jesus Christ, and repent, and strive to do better tomorrow? If you want to argue whether the Mormons are right, or whatever, just think the famous line. What would Jesus do? I think he would ask His Father what to do, He would bring peace, not hatred. Right?

"They knew the truth, not because Joseph Smith told them, not because B.Young told them, they knew it because they humbled themselves, and just prayed to know truth."

And the "humble" massacre of 120 men, women and children was their version of the "truth"...?

The Mormons are wrong because god doesn't exist. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints isn't perfect either; partly because it's based on the misconception that there is a god and partly because it's a human creation and most human creations are flawed in one way or another.

And who would want 76 (Brigham Young) or 51 (Joseph Smith) wives!?! One is quite enough me, thankyou...

The church has never covered up the fact that it happened. It was an unfortunate event in our church's history, there was no excuse for it. As far as I know there is no proof that President Young ordered the people to be killed, nor is there any proof that he didn't. Everyone is speculating what happened that day and why it happened.

My question is why is everyone so stuck on making the LDS church out to be some evil entity?

To call the MM the "first act of religious terrorism" in America is honestly a joke. Can anyone honestly say this was the first act of religious terrorism?

Not the first act of religious terrorism IN America, first act of religious terrorism AGAINST America. The Mountain Meadows Massacre was a terrorist retaliation of a sect, the Mormons, against the state. The Fancher-Baker train was exterminated because they were "Mercats" - AMERICANS and the Mormons were at war against America. B.Y. would not submit his theocratic rule to the checks and ballances of our constitution which is why the troops were marching to dethrone him. He believed he answered to NO MAN. The hysteria of the massacre was a part of the Utah War. Mormons versus Americans. The spoils of the massacre, from one of the wealthiest trains ever to cross the plains, wagons, weapons, gold bar, cattle, horses, and personal effects were brought into the church store house to be used to fortify the members for battle. The wagons themselves were used to haul ore for munitions and for Brigham Young to get about among his men. All the flimsy "wildcat and well stories" were started by Mormon leaders who needed to fortify their henchmen to do evil. They needed to kill the train to aquire it's wealth to fight against the state. Ugly, but true.

And yes, Americans should expect an appology from the institution that mastermined, collectivly covered, and still insulates such an event from the light of truth because they feel themselves so superior to the laws by which we live.

Any American could have been on that train. Any American too old to tell would ever get the chance. The terrorists would have killed them.

With all due respect to David Fancher and the other descendent, most of us Mormons have no idea who you or your ancestors are/were. I don't know how you can feel hate when, if polled probably 99.9% of Mormons would have exactly zero recollection of the name.

I feel badly that one of your ancestors was killed by perhaps even one of my ancestors - not likely, but who knows? However, could it be possible that you are imposing your own negative feelings (even perfectly justified feelings) on those around you and that people are not hating you simply because of your name? Current LDS people are a lot less informed on the details (individual names!) than you give them credit for.

Did anyone forget the holy crusades where Christians walked around slaughtering everyone in the name of god?

Please people get over it.

For those of u who hate my religion (mormonism) i have to say that this subject is touchy for me. I do not believe that the past leader of this church ordered the massacre. i believe he tried to stop it. i believe the mormon community was edgy and just the thought of someone from arkansas were another leader of the church had recently been killed even close to them would upset them. Maybe some did boast about the death of the prophet but i do not believe anyone deserved to die. no one ever does. This is a dark chapter in the LDS church and every mormon feels sick about it still so to make a movie about it and rub it in our faces is a major insult to the 12 million members. I kno i wish i could say my religion was totally clean but i cant anymore. I believe that the idea that Brigham Young ordered the attack is a fictional thought dreamed up by MH tho and that that is the most insulting finger ever pointed at my religion. nuf said.

A. The church does cover up its history.

To Mormons out there...check your Elder's Quorum Manual Quotes....look at the number of quotes from the "Journal of Discourses".

Now try and find a copy.

If you really want to know more, start reading all the 'anti mormon' books that are out there. Not all "anti" LDS literature is "The Godmakers."

I am related to John D. Lee five generations back. Until recently I was not aware of the facts of the horrible act. The fact that John D. Lee was the only one convicted of this crime is simply remarkable. The idea that Young was not responsible for the massacare doesn't line up with the principles of the Mormon Church. Lee had a holy obligation to obey the elders and other leaders. They represented the will and voice of God. A true Mormon knows you do not question the voice of God and that to show yourself worthy you are, like Lee did, expected to do your duty.

I've read Lee's last words and his confessions accounting of that day and the events leading to it. According to public record Lee apparently was extremely upset over the task he was asked to carry out. Lee himself stated" I am a true believer in the gospel of Jesus Christ. I do not believe everything that is now being taught and practiced by Brigham Young." His words not mine. Lee was raised catholic and left for an orphan. He longed for a family and Young provided this for him.
It his highly unlikely that one man acted alone. Especially in a faith that practices obedience to religious authority (in this case his father and president of the church), over personal conviction. Lee had a family that he cared for and a "duty" to uphold if he was going to be obedient to his faith and in his heart he believed, his God. Lee was not the leader of the church and if anyone is familiar at all with LDS practices there is a chain of command that is demanded to be followed--your salvation requires it.
What has happend is unfortunate. It was an unfortunate time in America's history like many other events that we can all recall. These horrible events happen all over the world. To blame one group of people or another for the acts of another is just as unfortunate. History is meant to be a teacher. I don't believe any Mormon today would ever think about doing what the early leaders of the church did. However, it is very ignorant of anyone not to look at this event and others like it and not try and reason for themselves why they occured. The early Christian Church has some very similar sads events. It is well documented the christians that were killed for what they believed and even in the church itself we know that Paul killed Christians in the name of God because he couldn't cope with his own sinful nature. The question I think which needs to be addressed is why today or in the early LDS church did the leaders only allow the voice of God to heard through them? Why is the voice of God only allowed to come through a select few? The fact is, this is what was being taught to the early LDS church. From what I've read for myself I think Lee was in conflict over the fact that he himself never believed that God wanted the pioneers blood to be shed for their sins. I think God was talking to Lee but his faithfulness to Young, his adopted father no less, was very strong. I was not raised Mormon but my father was and he very much instilled in us this chain of command authority. I was taught not to question. Although my father left the Mormon church he very much taught us that our obedience to him would provide me the voice and will of God. I remember being told many times that if I obeyed my parents and they were wrong that God would take of it and that I would not be held accountable. And although I believe there is some truth to this, I also believe my father's Mormon upbringing contributed to this idea that obidence is more important than grace. It just seems to me that anyone who believes they are the only ones who can hear from God are on a power trip and are very insecure about themselves. If God only spoke to a select few I don't see how so many amazing and incredible things in this life could ever occur. I believe that God doesn't discriminate against his creation. He loves and desire to speak to us all.

Regarding post 19 about the Journal of Discourses being supressed, or whatever he is trying to insinuate there: you can find the entire thing at just about every LDS bookstore on the massive collection on disk called "GospelLink." It is also available in entire online for free.

As is reflected in the reviews of the film, September Dawn falls short in practically every area: historical, and artistically, it is a poor film.

Post #15...Haley

It was not that BY wouldn't submit to any man. It was that no one gave him notice of change in governorship of UT. They had no idea of the government change, nor the reason 2,500 soldiers were dispersed to their territory. I can't think of an analogy to get the situation across...but I'll try. Imagine a people who highly distrust another in the same nation. The recent past has brought only trouble for them and now, without warning, a large army is coming. There's no reason for this. But that is the only fact you have, that a large army from a system that left you in a barren desert the last time you had an encounter and that after years of work, drought, etc is beginning to come about is now moving towards you. This is why there was a standoff...not any desire for a throne but a fear for the kingdom surrounding.
Buchannan was an idiot to do this...it's one reason why the 'mormon war' is also called Buchannan's Blunder. No I'm not blathering on mormon propoganda...it's on wikipedia. The fancher party was truly at the wrong place at the wrong time. No, this does not justify the massacre...nothing ever will. Mormons do not feel justified by this. Then again, neither does this massacre justify demonizing a church/religion/people.

With luv,
BD

I saw the movie, SEPTEMBER DAWN and thought it was a great film.

Maybe you want to believe in the so called "Letter" that Brigham Young sent via messenger to stop the attack, but there has never been concrete proof that it ever existed. Even BY in his deposition said he never heard of the attack until some time AFTER it occured.

Now how could he dispatch a letter to stop a slaughter that he never heard about until some time AFTER the event? Hmmmmmmm...

I agree it was a good movie treating a difficult subject. How do you make a peice of history like that an enjoyable expeirience? They did a good job in presenting it and should be commended. Instead the film has been the victim of a hatchet job both befdore and after its release.

Dear Bill Williams:

You state: "Maybe you want to believe in the so called "Letter" that Brigham Young sent via messenger to stop the attack, but there has never been concrete proof that it ever existed."

This is simply not true. There is no reasonable dispute at all that Brigham Young's letter existed. A copy of it, made at the time he wrote it, still exists to this day.

See this link for more information.

I'm not sure where you got your information, but it is patently incorrect.

Thanks,

Spencer

I am a Mormon, I am a researcher, and I saw September Dawn. My opinion of the movie is that it was well done. I have read several accounts of the MMM each written by different authors, both Mormon and non. My heart goes out to the Fancher family and the Bakers, that they have had to endure the agony of their losses all these years, with little recognition or sympathy from the Mormon Church. I admire you for your loyalty to your ancestors, your determination to bring attention to to this horrific act against humanity. For some to say "that's all in the past, we should just forget about it." is bigotry at it best, and arrogance at it's worst. At the same time I do not feel that we should be made to feel guilty for some thing we didn't do.

Born and raised in Utah, I was never taught in school about the massacre at Mountain Meadows. For that matter I was not taught about the Black Hawk War, the Circleville massacre, the Bear River massacre, the be-headings at Fort Utah,or the Grass Valley Massacre, and all of these vents were committed by Mormons, and during the same time frame as the massacre at Mountain Meadows. The truth is, and I have surveyed a cross section of Utahans over the past six years, and historians agree, that less than 1% of the population in Utah has little or no knowledge of the events I have mentioned. It is this way because the Church has long practiced what they term "Accommodation History." Church Historian D. Michael Quinn in 1981 spoke to an assembly of Church members and had this to say. "The Accommodation History advocated by Elders Benson and Packer and actually practiced by some LDS writers is intended to protect the Saints, but actually disillusions them and makes them vulnerable... The tragic reality is that there have been occasions when Church leaders, teachers, and writers have not told the truth they knew about difficulties of the Mormon past, but have offered to the Saints instead a mixture of platitudes, half-truths, omissions, and plausible denials..."

Several times comments were made about Johnston's Army that was sent to Utah to unseat Brigham Young. Here's an interesting tid bit taken from church archives: Johnston and his army of 2500 U.S. troops were sent to Utah in 1857 - 1858 while Young's good fortune was that funds and resources were diverted to the Civil War, Johnston had his hands tied once they arrived. Brigham seized the moment and gave the order that Johnston's wagons and food be burned, and a faithful follower Lot Smith carried out the order causing 2500 men to suffer extreme hardship during the bitter cold of winter. "Gen. (Daniel) Wells (commander of the Mormon militia), looking at me as straight as possible, asked if I could take a few men and turn back the trains that were on the road or burn them. I replied that I thought I could do just what he told me to." -- Lot Smith, Mormon militia (Nauvoo Legion).
Mormons in the process stole 800 of the 1,400 head of cattle with the Army there. While Mormons severely punish the famished Indians for stealing their cattle, the Mormons stole from the United States Government not only cattle as Lot Smith led a raiding party under orders from Brigham Young and destroyed the armies "2720 pounds of ham, 92,700 of bacon, 167,900 of flour, 8910 of coffee, 1400 of sugar, 1333 of soap, 800 of sperm candles, 765 of tea, 7781 of hard bread, and 68,832 rations of desiccated vegetables. Another train was destroyed by the same party the next day on the Big Sandy, besides a few sutlers' wagons that were straggling behind."

And regarding the cover up of Mountain Meadows, here is the account of the Circleville Massacre, which has chilling similarities addressed in September Dawn: Although Mormon and Indian confrontations were raging in all directions, it was ordered by church officials to have the Paiutes disarmed. Black Hawk and his band had killed many during the year before. A determined camp of Paiutes remained in Circle Valley (Box Creek) trying to be friendly with the whites. However the whites felt that they were in danger every moment, as some of the Natives were so aggressive the saints felt that real trouble could break out at anytime. On April 21, 1866, an express from Fort Sanford reached Circleville telling of a Paiute that pretended to be friendly had shot and killed a white man who belonged to the militia stationed at the nearby fort. The people of Circleville were told to protect themselves against the Indians who were camped in their valley. Upon receipt of this information the people of Circleville called a town meeting and after much discussion as to what they should do it was decided that they should arrest the Paiutes that were camped nearby and bring them to Circleville for confinement. Every able bodied man in the town set out to take custody of the Indian camp, and they surround the camp at night. They had no reason to use force as James T. S. and Bishop William Jackson Allred went to the Indian camp and persuaded the Indians to come to a meeting at Circleville. They told the Indians that they had received a letter and they wanted to have it read to them. All of the Indians agreed willingly to go to Circleville with the men, except one young Indian warrior who refused to go and began to shoot at the posse. The posse returned fire killing the young man. The rest of the Indians were then taken at gun point to Circleville and the letter was read to them. The Indians were told that they are to be retained as prisoners, and were taken into custody and placed in the meeting house that night under guard.
The captured Indians, 26 in all, showed a lot of unrest, then on the evening of the following day some of the Indians were able to cut themselves loose from their bindings and make a break. There was all kinds of excitement and two Indians making the break were shot and killed by the guards. The remainder of the Indians were then taken to a potato cellar and imprisoned there. The captured Indians knew they were going to be killed, they could feel it. The settlers had another meeting and it was decided among them it would be in their best interest to kill the remaining captured Indians. One by one they were led out of the cellar, 26 in all, women, men, and children, and one by one their throats were cut and their bodies shoved to the ground. Two young boys feeling the horror decided to try and make another break, and when the door was opened for the next victim to be killed the two boys made a break and forced their way past the guards and ran. The guards fired several shots at the boys but were unable to hit them. One was shot in the side but the bullet barely grazed his rib, not enough to stop him. All of the Paiute males, five women, and two older children were killed. Two orphaned children remaining were taken by the saints to care for them.

When Brigham Young heard of the details of the massacre he was very upset, but did nothing more than verbally chastise the slayers. Later the settlers were praised by other members for having done their dirty deed well. The saints at Circleville did all they could to cover up the tragic event, saying that they acted in self defense when the Indians attacked the guards. But in time the incident leaked to the news, but curiously none of the aggressors were prosecuted.

There is much more to the history of Utah than one could imagine. I was 57 years old before I had learned of these events. At first I felt very hurt and betrayed by my church for ignoring these events in our history, and sickened that they deny they happened. I am also appalled at the hate and hurtful things fellow members are saying to the Fancher family, and the makers of this film, but understanding how difficult learning of the truth can be, I can attest to the fact it is not easy to come to grips with. But what anger and pain we may feel, it is nothing when compared to the victims experience.

Blaming filmmakers of September Dawn is simply wrong. I applaud their courage to bring the truth to light. I have read hundreds of reviews, they have been slandered, viciously attacked, called every name in the book, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that these attacks are coming from Mormons. Therefore I am more disturbed by, and even frightened by the mindset of extremism of my fellow members of the Mormon Church, than by September Dawn.

Only the vitims of these terrible events can forgive. For I feel it is my duty to learn the truth, study the past, and to do what I can as a citizen, as a human being to see that this never happens again.

I will close my comments with this quote from Predisident Jimmy Carter: "I define fundamentalism as a group of invariably male leaders who consider themselves superior to other believers. The fundamentalists believe they have a special relationship with God. Therefore their beliefs are inherently correct, being those of God, and anyone who disagrees with them are first of all wrong, and second inferior, and in extreme cases even subhuman. Also, fundamentalists don't relish any challenge to their positions ... It makes a great exhibition of rigidity and superiority and exclusion." Jimmy Carter

I am a descendant of Charles C. Rich. According to some authors, he is the apostle that told the wagon train to leave Salt Lake and go to Mountain Meadows. (Hint: The massacre was planned well ahead of time). Every year we hold a huge family reunion. He is revered in my family. I take this thing seriously.

I have not seen the movie "September Dawn". I will not see it. Allow me to explain.

I rarely see a movie unless there is an accompanying book. If it is an historical movie, I read every thing I can get my hands on. Thus, those of you who know will understand, I almost walked out of "The Titanic". Remember as they fought over the boats, a crewman shot a pistol? The historical evidence of the gun shot is very weak. It did not happen. I later read that the man who supposedly shot the gun is also revered in Ireland. The makers of the movie, I read, were obliged to build a school in his name somewhere in Ireland. I have read enough to know there are numerous intentional and plain ignorant inaccuracies in the movie "September Dawn". I tolerated "The Titanic" but would be tortured by "September Dawn".

Roman Polanski said that he had to "spice up" his movie "The Pianist". He added an inappropriate and distracting love affair. It did not happen. Hey, but everyone learned from "The Titanic" that if you add the love affair, that will bring in the teenage girls. Some of them saw "The Titanic" twenty times. You cannot argue with that. Is that what they were thinking? Did they think that they had to "spice up" the movie? That love affair is historically silly and denigrated the memory of those who lost their lives at Mountain Meadows. It is very inappropriate.

I heard the director and lead actor interviewed on the Hugh Hewitt show. They were proud of the fact that they did not interview any Mormon leaders or historians. They said they got most of the history from the internet and the book The Blood of the Prophets. WHAT? What were they thinking? The author of that book has issues that he needs to deal with issues about his Mormon past. If they had asked, they probably would have been told something similar to the brief summary in the "Ensign". In a balanced movie a lot of that stuff would have gone in.

Also during the Hewitt interview, the movie makers expressed frustration with the 2 hour limit to tell the story. This justifies some necessary inaccuracies that we have to tolerate. Some movies like the WWII movie "A Bridge Too Far", used composite characters (one actor who portrays two or more historical people) to shorten the movie yet tell the story. But this does not excuse them from failing to put the Mountain Meadows Massacre into its historical context. They arrogantly said: "That's another movie".

People do not understand the hysteria that was taking place at the time. My mother tells me that Grantsville, near Tooele (sp?) was evacuated because the army was coming. They were going to burn every thing in the Territory and head to the mountains. They would not trade with the wagon train because they needed the supplies for the upcoming war with Johnson's army. They even sent out commandos to delay the army and they were very successful. Why were they hysterical? Do you think they remembered those 5 states they fled? In the dead of winter! I think the Mormons just wanted to be left alone. And, General Johnson, give him credit, figured it out. He parked the army in a remote corner of the Territory.

This is where Brigham Young can be criticized. He showed very poor leadership. It could be argued that a prophet would not have behaved in this fashion. It was not unlike how Mayor Bradley fomented the Los Angeles, California riots. When the police officers were found not guilty in the Rodney King thing, he could have calmed the black community down. While others were shouting "No justice, no peace" and revving everybody up, he chose not to use his leadership. Neither did Brigham Young.

However, Brigham Young was no fool. History has not credited him for all the good he did. Nevertheless he failed here. I doubt he was stupid enough to order those murders. I don't believe my ancestor Charles C. Rich was part of a conspiracy that sent them to their deaths. To argue otherwise distracts from a needed serious discussion about what happened there at Mountain Meadows.

The movie got it wrong. It was not about religious terrorism. It was about:
1. Hysteria of a people that lacked, at that time, proper leadership
2. Religious oversensitivity. People in Cedar City were offended when men from the wagon train insulted Joseph Smith. They didn't say "Stick and Stones ....." Rather they plotted to kill everyone in the wagon train.

This is the comparison the film makers should have made to modern times on the Hugh Hewitt show.
1. The Muslims are easily revved into hysteria and seem to lack leadership. (Do they need a prophet?)
2. The Muslims are oversensitive. I think the next movie this director should make is about the life of the prophet Muhammad. Whoever would portray the prophet Muhammad and the director would be dead in short order. Are they afraid to make this comparison?

I want to know why the director gave the Mormons that Charles Manson look. My ancestor was a real person and good looking. The funny thing is he had 6 wives. I am from the 6th. He did not walk around constantly doing a Valsalva maneuver.

The survivors of the "Bridge over the River Quay (sp)" said in an interview that it is their quest, while they live, to correct their inaccurate portrayal in the WWII movie about how the British solders built that bridge. We as descendants of the wagon train and involved Mormons have to correct the inaccuracies in this movie. We cannot let this movie stand. Another movie should be made. But it will never be made. They blew it, dam it. So we have to tell the story as it happened and why it happened.

A descendent of Lee said to the effect "If the wagon train came a month earlier or a month later, the Mountain Meadows Massacre would not have happened". He is correct.

Dear Spencer,

Just because you have a reference on a website does not make it so. The fact remains that the copy of the letter you are referring to was not identified until conveniently long after the fact.

I find it extremely odd that Brigham Young of all people, (As noted in his deposition), could not find a copy of the letter and had searched diligently for it.

I would be willing to bet that if President Hinckley asked to locate a document, every stone would be overturned to find it. And it would be available in short order.

I would be real interested if you could produce an "actual" copy of this letter and not some second or third party note of what it supposedly contained.

Also, I would love to see any documentation that this copy "letter" (if it could be produced), has been tested by a neutral third party forensics lab to determine whether it is valid.

I'm not sure where you got your information, but it is patently incorrect.

On another note: Michael D:
How do you make such strong conclusions about a movie you have never seen and refuse to see? It is just my observation, but that seems very narrow minded.

Respectfully,

B. Williams

B. Williams
I will never again see the "The Bridge over the River Kwai" again, ever. I will not do it. I will never ever again see "The Titanic". Help me B. Williams what are some of the other movies that take too much poetic license. I think "The Zodiac" could have been better. I probably will see "The Pianist" again. It was a good movie. OK, Polanski felt he had "sex it up". But, he did not change the history. If the historical character had red hair, he better have red hair in the movie. The exception would be if the character is a composite character. One person might be blonde and the other a red head. Then the director has his choice. When the Viet Nam war movie "We Were Soldiers Once and Young" was being filmed, one of the veterans told the director: "If you don't tell it straight, I will chase you to the ends of the earth." I often wonder if he is still running. If you know anything about LZ X-ray you know that it is a two part story. The director only told half of it. The 2 hour limit I guess. Then he took too much poetic license; he added stuff that did not happen. He sexed it up. I will never see the movie again. Had I known more at the time, I probably would not have seen the movie.

I am looking for two things:
1. An accurate book on the event. 2. An honest and well filmed movie.

The best book is still the one by Juanita Brooks. The author of "Blood of the Prophets" has personal issues to work out. It is obvious as you read the book. The premise of the other "American Tragedy" is so ridiculous; it does not merit my time. I still think Brooks missed the point. She stood at Mountain Meadows and said "Somebody ordered these men here". I think her book took off from there. I stood at two sites, Mountain Meadows and Florence and Normandy (LA riots) and said "Something inspired and motivated these people to do what they did". When we have the answer to that we can make the movie and write the book.

For those of us connected to this tragic event, we take it personally. The closet thing in modern history that I can think of is the collective shame the Koreans felt after the Virginia Tech murders. We want it to be accurate and demand it. Anything else desecrates the loss of life there that took place there. The directors have probably impossible task to get it right.

You quest to blame Brigham Young is distracting you. To paraphrase a non-Mormon historian: Even Brigham Young was not that dumb.

Do you really think that Charles C. Rich sent them down to Mountain Meadows for a prearranged slaughter?

You have to stand back and ask why and how this happened. Try to look at non-religious reasons. Get off the religion kick.

B. Williams #2

This is why I initially decided not to see the movie:

1. I saw the trailer and noticed all the Mormons had that Charles Manson look and they were constantly doing the Vlasalva maneuver.
2. I was waiting for someone to either pass wind or pass out.
3. For the next movie, please, no Valsalva maneuvers.
4. The Mormons back then were real people.
5. Think about it. Do you see Mormons today looking like Charles Manson and doing the Valsalva?

That is why I initially did not see the movie. Then I read the reviews. These were respected reviewers. What struck me is that the reviewers seemed to know the history. They knew that the movie got it wrong. Amazing!

You said I was "narrow minded". To which I would say: Rid yourself of religion regarding this matter. It will liberate you and open your mind.

I thought this was an outstanding movie. It highlights what was wrong with the Mormon Church 150 years ago and also today. I have had to deal with many Mormons in my 26 years. In school Mormons would approach me when they found out my last name was Packer (there is a prominent Mormon apostle named Packer) One kid (17) who tried repeatedly to get me to go to church with him became angry when I finally told him I was NEVER going to a Mormon church and called me an "apostate" and told me he would be there as a witness when God sent me to hell. As a young child a Mormon father down the street decided that his kids couldn't play with "Gentile" children and would scream at neighborhood children who knocked on his door looking for a playmate. I think the worst I ever got was during college (in another state) when a Mormon professor (I didn't know he was Mormon at the time) interpreted my paper (which coincidentally was about Mountain Meadows) as offensive. The paper was merely an objective reporting of the events without any attempt to cast blame on the church or anybody else. Just a "what, when, and where". He charged me with a "Hate Crime" and even with plagiarism. His "Hate Crime" charge had it succeeded would have resulted in my expulsion from the university with the possibility of readmittance after 3 years. The plagiarism charge would have resulted in a 1 semester suspension and the loss of all my academic credits for the semester. Upon the success of either charge I would have lost my scholarship and with it any hope of getting a college education (my family couldn't pay for school). I don't hate Mormons but I am extremely wary of them. I don't trust them. In my hometown there were many incidents and strange happensings involving Mormons. I learned through experience to be extremely distrustful of their words and actions. I certainly don't know if many Mormons are this way, but where I come from they certainly are. There were so many scandalous instances. For example: The brother of a local LDS Bishop bought a shopping center and cancelled the lease of a Christian Book Store allegedly because the leaser was harassing other shop keepers. The harasser was a 91 year old woman who couln't walk without a cain. All those accusing her of harassment were Mormons. And can you guess what they replaced her store with? Thats right. A Mormon book store. The list goes on.... Everything from getting my high school principle fired because he stated he didn't believe in the Book of Mormon when asked, my senior prom being canceled because the local Mormon church organized a petition and a demonstration to "stop the sexual and alcoholic debauchery (the year before I decided not to go and save my money for my senior prom, I guess I don't get a prom) to Mormon real estate agents black-balling property values and then selling them at a "fair" price to memebers of their church. I believe that in most things peoples acts speak for themselves. I wouldn't expect any Mormon to say anything good about a movie that challenges their church approved view of history and the world around them. Such is often the fate of those who dare to tell the truth.

Nathan

Wow! What can I or anybody say?

I'm trying to figure out something to say to you, but I can't.

I am not an active Mormon but I am not antagonistic ex-Mormon either.

You should be able to seek relief in the courts for some of the things that happened to you. You just got to move on.

Maybe you should address more specifically the content of the movie.

Do you think it was appropriate to put a Romeo and Juliet love story along with mass murder?

Wow...I have read several stories of the MMM..I find that the movie has taken a part of the truth, and gone way out of the way of what REALLY happened...I don't think "Harry Potter" movies are true either...Come on people...Its a movie..they have poetitc license...get over it...

Dear Bill Williams:

You said: "Just because you have a reference on a website does not make it so. The fact remains that the copy of the letter you are referring to was not identified until conveniently long after the fact."

The document exists. There is no reasonable dispute about that point. You are simply in error to assert otherwise.

You are likewise in error when you suggest that it was only "conveniently" discovered "long after the fact." It was used by the prosecution in the trial that led to John D. Lee's conviction and subsequent execution in the 1870s.

You said: "I find it extremely odd that Brigham Young of all people, (As noted in his deposition), could not find a copy of the letter and had searched diligently for it."

You are in error. The letter that BY could not find (the one mentioned in his deposition) was the one written *to* him from Isaac Haight. Here's the text of his deposition:
________

Thirteenth -- Did you, about the 10th of September, 1857, receive a communication from Isaac C. Haight, or any other person of Cedar City, concerning a company of emigrants called the Arkansas company?

Answer -- I did receive a communication from Isaac C. Haight or John D. Lee, who was a farmer for the Indians.

Fourteenth -- Have you that communication?

Answer -- I have not. I have made diligent search for it, but cannot find it.
________

I think you should study this subject more. You clearly don't know much about it.

You said: "I would be real interested if you could produce an "actual" copy of this letter and not some second or third party note of what it supposedly contained."

Read the link again. AN ACTUAL CONTEMPORANEOUS COPY OF BRIGHAM YOUNG'S LETTER WAS MADE AND EXISTS TODAY. I apologize for the "shouting," but you really need to look at the link I provided earlier. I'm not relying on a "third party note."

You said: "Also, I would love to see any documentation that this copy "letter" (if it could be produced), has been tested by a neutral third party forensics lab to determine whether it is valid."

Again, there is *no* reasonable dispute that the letter exists. There is no dispute about its authenticity. Anyone who says otherwise is speaking out of ignorance or dishonesty.

Geoff,

Yes it does matter. It matters more if one of your ancestors is involved. One of mine was involved if you believe what you read in "The Blood of the Prophets".

If he is tall in history, he better be tall in the movie. Then again, Tom Cruise is small and the Nazi he portrays in the upcoming movie was tall. But you know they look alike. So there is some give and take. I bet they make Tom Cruise tall in the movie. They will.

If you read some of my previous postings, I mention a few of the other historical movies where they just, wow, totally blew it. You can't do that with history because that is where young people learn their history.

You do have to "sex it up" a little or no one will go see it. It would be a documentary. But a Romeo and Juliet fling mixed with mass murder? Most professional reviewers I have read question the wisdom of that. If you know the history such an affair is improbable and makes the whole story line unbelievable.

Spencer,

Once again, you are stating that the letter is not in dispute...and actually, it is. I am disputing it. I do not believe it is real and I do not believe that you have provided proof. Once again, you say I am in error, yet I have not seen an actual "copy" of this letter. A photo, anything would suffice. You state that it is there because someone has told you so and you are wearing blinders.

I hate to point out the obvious, but John D. Lee's trial was after the fact. At that point, steps were made to cover up this act against humanity.

You wrote: "AN ACTUAL CONTEMPORANEOUS COPY OF BRIGHAM YOUNG'S LETTER WAS MADE AND EXISTS TODAY." Okay, so if this is true, where is the link to the copy? Is this another document that is protected by the church?

On another note, I am curious as to your affiliation to the LDS church. Are you a member?

Michael D.,

I think you are being unrealistic and should stick with documentaries. How many movies are actually as good as the book?

There are way too many variables contained within movie productions that will cause a shift in the final product. You call it "sexing it up", but at the end of the day... I am sure it is also a business with alot of demands. Cast, budget, release schedule, advertising, etc..

There are plenty of books that would not make good movies and vice versa.

Also, you tell me to rid myself of religion regarding this matter and really it does not play an important part for me. I like good movies and I am interested in the History of the American West.

Movies are entertainment that require an open mind. None of you were there at the time, yet you all act like experts and state facts. I am not saying the movie had to have happened the way it is portrayed in the film, but you are insistent that it did not.

You can't know and the reality is that the movie does propose a viable option.

Try watching it first.

Dear Bill Williams:

You said: "Once again, you are stating that the letter is not in dispute...and actually, it is. I am disputing it."

No, I said there is no REASONABLE dispute about the letter. None. Zilch.

There can be uninformed and unreasonable dispute about virtually anything.

You said: "I hate to point out the obvious, but John D. Lee's trial was after the fact. At that point, steps were made to cover up this act against humanity."

There is no evidence that the letter was an after-the-fact fabrication. None at all.

You said: "You wrote: "AN ACTUAL CONTEMPORANEOUS COPY OF BRIGHAM YOUNG'S LETTER WAS MADE AND EXISTS TODAY." Okay, so if this is true, where is the link to the copy?"

I don't have a link. But it's a strange, strange thing to suggest that if there is not a hyperlink to X then X does not exist.

You said: "Is this another document that is protected by the church?"

It does not need protection. There is no reasonable dispute about its existence or provenance. None at all.

You said: "On another note, I am curious as to your affiliation to the LDS church. Are you a member?"

Does that matter? Should I discount what you say simply because you are *not* LDS?

-Spencer

Bill W.

Thank you for you comments.

It's a big deal for me. I have this hobby of reading the book and then seeing the movie. Some changes that the directors make are interesting. In the first Lord of the Rings movie, they made a female elf a heroine while in the book it was a male. Do you remember when the elf came down and saved the dwarfs and hobbit from the black riders? I think he made the change because that book has few female characters and if you are going to get teenage girls to see the movie more than once (remember the Titanic) you need to make some changes. But that is also one reason why that director has not gotten J.R.R. Tolkien's son Christopher to give him the contract for "The Hobbit" movie. I can't even remember the director's name but Tolkien's will be remembered forever. Who is he to change a literary classic? The "Firm" with Tom Cruise was interesting. The book had either a BMW or a Mercedes. In the movie, they switched it. And the ending, wow, it was completely different. I don't agree that Roman Polanski had to in his words "sex up" "The Pianist". I thought the historical story line was excellent. In the "Flags of our Fathers", why did the have the men swimming in the ocean while they were still fighting on the island. That did not happen. I don't know what Clint Eastwood was thinking. And, that "Battle of the Bulge" movie, I used to watch that for years and thought that the Battle of the Bulge ended just like in the movie with the gasoline drums rolling into the German tanks. What were they thinking?

In history you already have the screen play written. However, you only have 1 ½ to 2 hours. So, you have to use composite characters and other stuff.

The problem with Mountain Meadows Massacre is that it is controversial. So you have to get the history right. This is because, people who know the history are watching for errors or omissions. I still cannot believe what the director said on the Hugh Hewitt show. They avoided taking to any Mormon historians. Wow! That is unbelievable and unforgivable. He did ask a few Mormon friends what they thought. How nice!

Then I saw the trailer where they revealed for "The first time..." Brigham Young will be revealed. Next, all the Mormons looked like Charles Manson doing the Valsalva.

Why should I see that movie? Why did you see such a flawed movie?

Bill W. #2

Boy, you've got me thinking.

Some changes in the script by directors make sense. For instance, in Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" the book and the movie end differently. The book has a starving man sucking the breast of a pregnant woman in a non sexual way. I can't see Peter Fonda doing that in the 1950's. I always wondered why Jodi Foster declined to portray Clarice in the sequel "The Silence of the Lambs". I read the book and saw the movie and now I know why. In the book Harris has Hannibal and Clarice running off together killing and eating people in South America. I guess the director told Harris that the ending is not appropriate for film. Too bad, I liked Jodi Foster better.

History is different. Some history is so weird that if you presented it as a fictional screen play nobody would believe it. Mountain Meadows is like that. The need to leave it alone and tell it like it happened. This director did not do that. It is a real shame. What lost opportunity. Maybe in fifty years when another Mormon is running for president, they will redo it.

I think that it is quite obvious that the back drop of the film is quite true. Given the level of centralized power wielded by the early Mormon church authorities it is unlikely that the Mormon leadership was unaware of the actions and intensions of its people if not directly involved themselves. During the crisis between the Church and the federal government or "Utah War" as it is called Brigham Young actually seized an even greater level of control than the considerable power he already wielded. As the "prophet" he literally had the power of life and death over everyone. People set fire to their own homes and fields and faced the danger of their families starving to death merely at his bidding. They also practiced a Mormon version of civil "justice" much like that of Salem Massachusetts during the Witch Trials.
Mormons have built their church around a tradition of perceived persecution. Mormon history is filled with stories of their unjust suffering at the hands of "Gentiles". Church history makes no mention of the Mormon behavior which almost always precipitated such so called persecution. The Mormon pattern of block voting created situations where politicians and officials gave Mormons unfair advantages and favors to gain their votes. Husbands and fathers returning home from their fields and finding their wifes or sixteen year old daughters had run off with Mormon men to be their plural wives did little to improve neighborly relations. Mormons held that marriages outside the LDS church were not valid in the eyes of God and thus did not have to be respected. This "Mormon pathology", served to justify the actions of Mormons in doing things which the outside world found offensive and even criminal. People who believe that "God is on their side" can do almost anything feeling justified as is seen with modern Islamic terrorism today and feel no remorse.
Suffice it to say, Joseph Smith and his Mormon Church managed to make enemies everywhere they went. Somehow they managed to turn their neighbors into raging and pillaging mobs. They were so peaceful, charming, and neighborly that they were run out of every state they attempted to settle in. In Missouri church threats against decenting Mormons and outrageous threats to wage a war of "extermination" was the last straw.

Parley Pratt, who was a very prominent member of the church was killed a short time before the Mountain Meadows Massacre. He was killed by the vengeful husband whose wife he had seduced and whose children they had abducted. Also coincidentally the Mountain Meadows Massacre occurred one year to the day from when Pratt set out from Salt Lake on his last mission which ended in his "martyrdom". Coincidence? I think not. The massacre occured just months after his death. Several memebers of the Fancher Party had been falsly identified as among Pratts killers and their was a general feeling of great anger towards the people of Arkansas (even though his killer wasn't from Arkansas). Brigham Young remarked that Pratt's death hurt him as badly as did Joseph Smith's. So here we have a motive.
The church leadership was perfectly aware of what happened at Mountain Meadows if not dirctly involved itself. Lee, the man who actually commanded the Mormons during the massacre is recorded as saying something to Brigham Young to the effect that if he so much as "bent his finger" he would move. The fact is and has always been that Mormons killed 120 men, women, and children and carried off all of their property and youngest children as plunder. Their horses, cattle, goods, clothes, and jewelry were taken and their corpses left to rot in the sun and be eaten by birds, beast, and maggots. Two years later when soldiers went to investigate the massacre sight they found the victims bones bleeching in the sun and womens hair scattered all over the place. The bones of children were found still in the arms of their mothers. Surely in two years Brigham Young would have heard of the killings? Surely the righteous and upright Brigham Young would have had compassion for the dead and given them a decent burial as evidence of remorse for his peoples crimes? Surely the wise and noble "Prophet of God" would have returned the stolen herds, property, and children of the murdered to their families? The children who survived had to witness the clothes and jewelry of their murdered families being worn by their new Mormon guardians. The first thing the church did when confronted with the massacre was to blaim it on the Indians (as was their original cover during the attack) with the story that vengeful indians had killed them for poisoning a spring and dead cattle (some Mormon apologist still argue this). If I was a Paiute indian I'd be pretty pissed off about this. When it finally became clear that jigg was up the church provided for the return of property and provided a sacrificial lamb "to die for their sins" after the manner of Jesus. Lee was the only one of the murderers of men, women, and children to be brought to justice. Lee himself, after being abondoned by his church and sentenced to death claimed that he was a scape goat for others involved. He claimed that involvement went all the way up to the top.
The LDS Churchs attitude towards the massacre is simply that they do not feel themselves accountable to the rest of us. The will say only that they are ashamed that Mormons did this. They will accept no part in the blame.
They feel that they are justified by a higher power. This is the pattern for much LDS behavior. They don't have to justify themselves to the rest of the human race. The memorial marker of the grave sight has been vandalized numerous times as the LDS church has not provided for its security. They will not even allow the site to be administered Federally as a monument. This whole state of affairs leaves me feeling disgusted.

In psychology, mythomania (also known as pseudologia fantastica or pathological lying) is a condition involving compulsive lying by a person with no obvious motivation. The affected person might believe their lies to be truth, and may have to create elaborate myths to reconcile them with other facts.
Does this definition remind anybody of a certain 19th century religious charlatan?

If the end justifies the means and if gaining the gold and the biggest voice define right then we should all let the Mormons and those parts of thier history they are uncomfortable with alone.
Many do not feel that way, but rather beleive that if discussion is allowed truth will rise to the surface like cream.
It is sad that so many years have passed with discussion regarding Mountain Meadows Massacre under solemn oath not to happen.

While there are flaws in September Dawn, it is not far fetched. As our party of five watched it in a theatre with two other indivivuals in it, we found it entertaining and very disturbing. Two in our party reported that they were not able to sleep later that night. Knowing it to be based in history was part of the terror of the film.
In my first three decades of life I knew individuals who could have been any one of the personalities portrayed in the movie. As a teen, I and several friends would fantasize what it would be like to have our guns and swords drawn at the steps of the Temple defending it from the dogs (gentiles).

I like Chris's comments because they reflect in large part the history and reality that rises to the surface when discussion is allowed regarding Mormon History.
He is right about the power of the Mormon Church over the lives of its individual members. Are there stories of great faith and good being done in Mormon History? Absolutely! Can any of us imagine what it would be like to have an individual in position above us, come to us and tell us that the Lord had spoken to him and we were to give him our wife? Joseph Smith did that to a Mr Kimball and his wife. The man said he wept but knew he could not hold back anything from the Lord's prophet. This was told again and again to me while growing up Mormon as a faith promoting story. It would seem nothing like this could happen today among us. Let me drop a couple of names David Koresh and Jim Jones.
That power over the lives of the members is magnified when the "bread is buttered" there.
In 1974 Reed Durham presented a paper to the Mormon History Association. He was very excited to present his research together with artifacts regarding Joseph Smith's involvement in the occult. He was excited just as President Kimball and President Hinkley were excited about the Salamander letter a few years later because it "proved there was supernatural activity at the Hill Cumorah coinciding with Joseph Smith's story.
Dr. Durham was begged by at least one collegue "not to present the paper, that it would end his career". But his confidence in his research told him to go ahead. He presented it and for his trouble his career was relegated to insignificance after a "contrite" apology.
It begs the question, Does scholarship exist in a group that disallows discussion? When refering to Mormon History, can we use terms like 'Mormon Scholar' without risking violence to our language? Many degreed Mormons do research. But to put that research to logic and reason and present it to it's intended audience is certainly at risk when the discussion is constrained by the Church leaders.
When the Equal Rights Amendment was in hot topic the discussions in our gospel doctrine classes had to be stopped on a few occasions. The heated arguments would range from..."if the prophet says to paint the temple pink, I will march down now with paint brush in hand"...to...."we should pray about it and get our own witness"....to..." when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done"....and other catch phrases or "talking points if you will".
I am convinced that the mainline Mormons survived as a group because of Brigham Young's leadership. Fate provided such a man. What to make of it in the panorama of history is up for grabs. That part of History can not leave out Brigham Young or the Mormon migration as it figures largely in the settling of the west.
My two cents is that history has added one more group to the mix that does not like discussion unless they can define it exclusively.
The sad part here is that the discussion then takes place outside of the group. This is undesirable because the group has the bulk of the information, they just can't talk about it candidly. Some in the group would like to join in the discussion going on outside the group but find themselves isolated by the group when it is found that they are doing so.
During the time of the controversy of the Blacks and the Mormon Priesthood many discussions were shut down because it just could not come out good for the Brethren, current or former. This only served to delay the inevitable now historic policy change/revelation.
If Jesus was right about the truth setting us free, then it would seem that the limits placed on discussion by the group are anti freedom. A good argument can be made that those limits are anti truth. Are they anti the Jesus who said truth sets you free?

Randy makes some really great points. I very much appreciate hearing a Mormon give his own perspective and speak so candidly, since as he says it is uncommon. So many Mormons I have spoken to or had the opportunity to corrospond with act as though there is a "muzzle" over their mouths. If the subject seems to fall on uncomfortable territory they often become angry or simply ignore the question entirely. This usually destroys the possibility for meaningful discussion. I don't believe that Mormons as a whole have a problem with the truth. In fact, from my personal experience with many Mormons, I believe that most of them are honest people who trully try to do what is right. I think rather that church leadership does have a problem with the truth. Truth, any truth, is not to be feared. Then why does the church leadership guard its secrets so tightly. Are they afraid that there would be some terrible consequence if the truth became known. In the late 20th century, the American people had to come to terms with and accept the truth of their own evil actions. Our treatment of the Native Americans was abominable and evil. Likewise, the way we treated honest, hardworking, and patriotic Japanese Americans during WWII was also unbelievably aweful. The most highly decorated regiments and battlions of the US Army during WWII were in fact composed of Japanese Americans. How do we reconcile ourselves to these facts? First we have to accept responsibility for what we did and acknowledge that it was wrong. That is exactly what has happened. Most Americans feel a deep sense of shame for our misdeeds. Over the years we have attempted to make some restitution to our victims though their pain and suffering at our hands can never be fully healed this side of the grave.
Sadly, Mormon leadership hasn't yet done this. What are they afraid of? Hinckley and his predecessors claim to be God's prophets. Even the wise and great men of the Old Testament had their failings at times. Moses was prideful, David adulterous, and Jonah was disobedient. There are many more examples of human failings in the Bible. I suppose you could say that the Bible is a sort of record of human failings. Why does the church remain so tight lipped about the past? The great thing about the truth is that a person who always speaks the truth and does what is right never has to account for their lies. What lies and misdeeds is the church leadership concealing?

Oh I almost forgot, just in case "cp" is still reading, yes 20 percent of the US Army was on the way to Utah. That makes it sound as though 50,000 armed troops were bearing down on Utah. Thats just foolishness. The US Army before the civil war only numbered a few thousand. As you know 20 percent of 10 is 2. Saying that 20 percent of US Army was going after the Mormons is like saying I gave 20 percent of half a cubcake to my son. It doesn't amount to much does it? Only 5,000 men were actually sent to Utah. That only amounts to 6.7 percent of the Army of the Potomacs numbers 6 years later during the Civil War. Doesn't sound so intimidating now does it.

The insight I gave was as a Mormon in that I was born Mormon and faithful to the Church for more than 3 decades. I served missions and callings the entire time. I love "my People". Culturally in many ways I am still a Mormon but, Sorry Chris I actually left the LDS Church when I realized not only had I been lied to but, there was not the slightest intention on the part of the brethren to correct the lies. I loved being a Mormon, but I love being free more. And I am glad I led the way for my prescious children to live thier lives as free men and women.

I find in this world there are people who want to make a conspiracy out of everything bad that happens. There are people who badly desire a broad church conspiracy at Mountain Meadows. Mostly they want to hang it on Brigham Young. Because if they can prove he knew, then he is a false Prophet. He then is the weak link of the chain supporting the church. It breaks and the church comes crashing down. That is the desire and that is why Mormons usually fight it tooth and nail.

I have not read one serious historian Mormon or not who thinks Brigham Young ordered that killing. They say "even he was not that stupid". The orders he gave were very clear and every one from Provo on down obeyed it. They were not to help or hinder any wagon trains. One man who did help was excommunicated. I see no reason not to believe the summary in the "Ensign".

The people in Cedar City acted just like the Muslims recently when the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed were published. Let's face it the people in the wagon train were upset. They needed help and no one was giving it to them. I think we can characterize their situation as desperate. My experience is that when people are angry they consciously or subconsciously try to find out what bothers people and then they play on it. My sister does that real well. Today we use the phrase "push buttons". I think some in the wagon train were understandably un-happy campers. What buttons do you push if you are upset at Mormons in the 1850's who knew Joseph Smith? Naturally you say something disrespecting Joseph Smith. Then just like a Muslim would strike out at someone defaming the Prophet Mohamed, the Mormons concocted that plan. It is like when the neo-Nazis have marched recently in black neighborhoods. I thing everyone has seen those news reports.

But apparently it was not to be carried out at Mountain Meadows. That brings up several questions. Some military person must be reading these blogs. Where is the best ambush site between Provo and St. George? If the Salt Lake Mormons were involved, why did they not send someone of more importance to see the deed through? I think it is established that there were some 50 Mormons. Why not more? How many men were there in the wagon train? With those numbers, the Mormons easily could have lost. I think if the Salt Lake Mormons were involved, it would have been much better organized and probably over in less than a day. This plot came out of Cedar City.

The controversial note Brigham Young wrote was clearly written before the attack. The content of letter given the surrounding facts and its tone clearly indicate this. A post-event letter would be more plotting. This letter was written before Mountain Meadows.

Let's make a comparison to the biggest controversial conspiracy, Kennedy's assassination. People say Oswald could not have gotten off all those shots. Yet most qualified snipers go to the book store depository and say it would be very easy to do all those shots. I think the Manson prosecutor's (I forget his name Vincent something) book puts that conspiracy to rest. Hopefully, the upcoming book will put the Brigham Young conspiracy to rest. But just as people will always say there is a Kennedy conspiracy they will say there is a Brigham Young conspiracy. Some people want to make a conspiracy out of everything. Sometimes the answers are simple: 1. Oswald acted alone and 2. Brigham Young did not order the Mountain Meadow Massacre. I believe are correct.

If you want to get Brigham Young, go after the cover up. Just like President Nixon by all accounts did not order the Watergate break in. He clearly did try to protect everyone and probably obstructed justice. I would argue that Brigham Young did not obstruct justice. I think he delayed it. I think the jurors at Lee's trial new what was going on. They delayed justice until a settlement could be negotiated. More people probably should have been executed for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I just think everyone at the time figured out what happened and why. They let it go.

One thing I've noticed when dealing with many Mormons (please tell me if anybody else feels the same way) is that in any conversation whether it is political, social, or theological when the conversation turns to a point contrary to LDS beliefs or can in any conceivable way appear to critize the LDS church, Mormons like to assume an attitude of superiority and usually end up talking down to others. My first experience with Mormons was at the door step of my parents house when I was 16 or 17. My dad who was talking to them is a pretty easy going guy and is always friendly to strangers. He's also a retired Professor of Biochemical Engineering and Genetic Science who taught at John Hopkins University for 14 years. Getting into any kind of debate with my father is at all times a very perilous thing and something that his less intelligent son (me) has learned to avoid (he has a photographic memory). He's one of those freaky guys who will see one of his former students 10 years after they graduated and still remember their student ID number. Anyway, the two Mormon missionaries sat down with my father on our front porch and shared the message of brother Jo with him. My dad loves to debate on almost any subject just for the sake of debate and will talk to anybody about anything. They went through their testimonies and "proofs". Everything went well for them until they got to the subject of the Lamanites (one of the classes my dad taught at John Hopkins was "Human Genetic Variation"). After my dad politely explained in "grueling" detail how it is genetically impossible that the native inhabitants of the Americas were the decendants of semitic Israelites, the missionaries using lots of big words, preceded to "educate" my father on the faulty nature and poor reliability of genetic science. I couldn't believe my ears!!!! There had been introductions made and they had even asked my dad what his profession had been before he retired. They knew he was a biochemical scientist/geneticist and they still had the gall and audacity to lecture him on the subject. By this point they had been talking to my dad for over an hour. When they were finished they put on this look of self-assured triumph as though they had led my dad's poor soul out of ignorance. Feeding their sense of accomplishment was my dad's utter stupefication. When he finally started laughing their expressions changed to one of acute annoyance. Then the older missionary (looked like he was in his late twenties) made a fatal error. He told my dad that if he didn't understand some aspect of what he said he would be happy to explain it to him again. My dad, still laughing got up out of the rocking chair still chuckling and said: "Good day gentlemen, Don't knock on Mr. Welch's door across the street. He's a member of Opus Dei and might set his dog on you." They were so arrogant! That experience has never left me. Church officials seem to propagate this attitude among the churches members sadly. The problem with Mormon thinking as I see it, is that there is no distinction made between theological and social issues. Anything that cast a bad light on anything related to Mormons is perceived as an attack on the Church and their beliefs. You can't criticize Brigham Young or anyone or anything else and get away with it. If you suggest that Brigham Young was involved in the Mountain Meadows Massacre you are simply a servant of the Devil out to attack the Church. You are instantly branded as "anti-mormon". The subject doesn't matter. You could be an expert is any assorted field and attempt only to make a rational point completely independent of any religious or theological intent and be called an "anti-mormon" because you made your disagreement public. I think this is the attitude that so many Mormons if not most Mormons take when the subject of Mountain Meadows comes up. If you think that Brigham Young or any high level Mormon leadership was involved you are just out to hurt the church.

Chris's expeirience with his dad reminds me of the time that I and my missionary companion left copies of church magazines at a fellows house. He was real nice, seemed very interested in the church and invited us back. When we went back he met us at the door asked us to take our magazines and gave us a verbal lashing. He could not understand if we thought he was stupid or what It was an article in the Era about the Garden of Eden being in Missouri that got him going. We left and comforted ourselves with "Whats his problem?" It did not occur to us that we should actually do any real thinking for ourselves.

Randy is exactly right. What is annoying about Mormons is not that they have different beliefs. Over a billion Hindus have different beliefs too, but all the Hindus I've known (mostly my dad's doctor friends and their children) have been very curious about mine and others beliefs and have always been open to friendly discussions and will even tell you what they don't like about Hinduism and they never attempt to convert you. You can't have this kind of discussion with TBM's. Mormon scientist and scholars have very little credibility with secular scholars because of the often extreme bias that flavors all of their work and research. Mormon scholars don't find things that condradict their beliefs. It's almost as if they see only what they want to see and disregard or attempt to discredit everything and everyone else who comes to a different conclusion. This is extremely destructive. Its sad when all the scholars and scientist from a certain group of people always come up with all the same answers. Those who do not are taking an extreme social and religious risk. The only thing I know to compare this to is the Medieval Catholic Church. They may not burn a dissenter at the stage but that person would be taking the extreme of risk being excommunicated from the church, being estranged from their families, and being socially stigmatized. At BYU it could even cost you your job, and it has for professors and scientist who danced to a different tune than the one being sung by the church choir.

Dude why can't you just leave Mormons alone. Why is it so important to you to find fault in the LDSC. We don't criticize your baptist or methodist churches. I've never heard my bishop say anything bad about Martin Luther or the pope. Please find something more worth while to do with your time Chris. Your beliefs must not be vary strong if you need to criticize mine.

WHAT? I never said anything about Mormon beliefs. We're talking about social issues not theology. Nobody's making you read this blog! I didn't come knock on your door and start screaming at you about what was wrong with your church. If you don't like it then go find something else to read instead of just telling me to shut up. But thank you!!! Thank you for making my point better than I could have made it myself.

Social issues? You make no sense! You need to research things before you put up a blog about whatever you think you are doing..LOL! This is very personal! You need to give-up the hate!!!!

Rosie, please. I have made no personal attacks. Hate? Thats exactly what I'm talking about. If anybody says anything which might portray the church or any of its apostles, prophets, heroes, etc in a bad light then suddenly they are hateful bigots. I mean come on, get a better grip on reality. First of all, this is NOT MY BLOG. Second of all we're not talking about theology. We are in fact talking about social issues. Specifically, we're talking about a lack of accountability within the Mormon Leadership. I'm not trying to disprove the Book of Mormon or anything. We are referencing a specific event in history, and discussing Mormon attitudes concerning that event. This is in fact a SOCIAL issue. One of my main points is that Mormons are often unable to distinguish theological issues from social issues. I don't know if you are Mormon or not but if you are Mormon you are doing a pretty good job of proving my point. So if anybody else feels like they need to attribute the word "Hate" to my comments on this blog then please continue. It only makes me laugh harder even though it's more sad than funny.

Hey guys,
I joined this blog because it gave me an opportunity to verbalize my opinions about 1. a terrible day in Mormon history 2. A very poorly done and historically inaccurate movie, "September Dawn".

It has disintegrated into a pro-Mormon and anti-Mormon sparing board.

I see now the ultimate role of "September Dawn".

Disaffected Mormons or people with axes to grind will find solace in the movie. When the DVD is out, ministers of religions threatened with declining market share will use it to discourage potential converts to the Mormon faith. There is will live for many years to come. It will probably make more money in the DVD market.

Faithful Mormons will anguish and have their faith tested. They will be tormented by it, perhaps even more when it hits the DVD market. I foresee (not prophecy) well intentioned people gifting it to Mormons and even the missionaries. Perhaps that is how it should be. It has never been hidden but we won't forget it.

We need to remember the who, what, when, where, and why. It is the ultimate story of what happens when leadership breaks down in a moment of mass hysteria.

It doesn't seem to have affected the church. Strangely, it might be a booster in church interest as long as they spell M-O-R-M-O-N correctly. Interestingly, most writers seem to know the history or at least know that it is controversial. Maybe they are afraid of offending loyal Mormon readership. One reviewer wrote something to the effect: "People do not like it when a movie attacks the faith of a well established religion". He maybe got that right.

By this last comment you will know where I stand and where you stand in the world.
1. Dr. Mudd fixed John Wilkes Booth's leg but was not in the Lincoln conspiracy.
2. Harvey Oswald acted alone
3. Nixon did not know about the Watergate break in beforehand.
4. Brigham Young had nothing to do with the Mountain Meadow Massacre
5. (Can you add to the list?)

Good bye this was a fun experience

Could Michael D. please elaborate about the bad history part of the movie, of course keeping in mind that the movie is an historical fiction work. This would truly enlighten the discussion rather than add vitriol as Michael D. has done. talk about hit and run. And as long as Michael D. is into making excuses for break downs in those with leadership responsibilities, poor Mormon leaders, perhaps he can likewise explain to us how those nasty kids make priests into pedophiles. Poor priests.

LOL!!!!!!!!

There Michael goes demonstrating that remarkable Mormon talent. Calling us stupid without calling us stupid. I'd love to write a longer comment today but I'm afraid I have to go help my spiritually bankrupt preacher hold back the unstopable tide of Mormon converts. If I survive I'll write again. LOL!!!!!!

I was not going to write any more. But, what the heck.

I am not active in the Mormon Church. I dislike the doctrine spewing Mormon as much as the diatribe rambling anti-Mormon. To paraphrase Bob Dylan: "What a drag it is to see you."

My connection goes like this. I have hobby reading the book and seeing the movie. On historical movies, I spend months reading and then go see the movie. I last did that on the Zodiac. I was disappointed. Even though they went to a great effort to make the clothes, cars all correct. I was excited about the movie 3000. Then I read the reviews about how they changed the history and decided not to go. When I read it and then see it, it brings me great joy. The fact that I have an ancestor who was involved made me more interested in the movie "September Dawn".

Mountain Meadows has never been hidden. Similar to the Germans in Nazi Germany who say they say they did not know; they knew. The Mormon's have always known. For both Mormons and Germans it is difficult to discuss these things. Some people seem to frolic and want to take advantage of the collective shame we feel. You cannot defend the Holocaust and you cannot defend Mountain Meadows. All you can do is put it into the context of the time and explain what happened.

There was a recent movie that portrayed Hitler like he was a real person. Everybody protested. The fact is that Hitler ran a country and was well liked probably up until Dresden. Director who naturally do not like Hitler have always portrayed him in a funny way with funny facial expressions and body movements, etc. He was a person.

I heard the director Cain (?) interviewed on the Hugh Hewitt show. He said he was neutral towards Mormons and Brigham Young. But the tone of his voice as he said it revealed his true thoughts. He did say that he was one of the best leaders of his time. You cannot argue with that. A lot of the western states have high population of Mormons. That is because of Brigham Young. He was a great colonizer. That is one advantage the Mormon Church has always had--good leaders. I think it was under David O. McKay that the world got this surrealistic impression of Mormons that survives today. What religion is Larry Craig? I thought, oh no, Mormon. He is Methodist. If he were Mormon the whole world would know his religion. The surrealism survives today.

So the director Cain (?) has concluded that Brigham Young ordered the killings. I think he dislikes him. How else can you justify making him look like Charles Manson doing a Valsalva maneuver. That is insulting to many people who admire him. I think that is why so few Mormons went to the movie.

I've read these books like the "Blood of the Prophets". The major argument for implicating Brigham Young is: "He had to know" and "He controlled everything". Well that is not enough.

So if you want to take a serious look at the conspiracy involving Mountain Meadows, let's do it. The trailer of the movie September Dawn proclaimed that Brigham Young for the first time was being revealed as the one responsible for Mountain Meadows. So let's do it. I do not want to hear about how some bishop said something and now you are scared for life. To quote Bob Dylan "Can't you see that's not my problem".

Here is the conspiracy:
1. The wagon train was outside of Salt Lake City.
2. My great, great, great, great Grandfather Charles C. Rich under orders of Brigham Young told them to leave immediately and go to Mountain Meadows.
3. This is where they would be killed by 50 Mormons
4. They travel unassisted but unhindered through Provo, Nephi, etc.
5. One book claimed it was all done for the gold and the fine wagons.
6. Are you all with me? If you are a conspiracy type person, this is it.

I agree with one of Lee's descendants. If the wagon train came before everyone knew the army was underway, they would have passed through without problems. If they came after the Mormon commandos sabotaged the army and prevented their entry until after winter, they would have passed without problems.

I think if the Indians would not have attacked early at the unintended ambush site, Mountain Meadows, the killing probably would not have happened. It would have given the Cedar City people time to cool down. Maybe by then more communication with Salt Lake and Brigham Young would have taken place.

But I like my mothers comment the best. She has a serious and cringed face when she says this: "If only one person in Cedar City would have stood up and protested "saying this is not right", nobody would have been killed."

Mothers have a way of saying things.

First of all, you don't know me or probably anyone else who comments on this blog. You may not be Mormon but you use the same dogma as Mormons in calling anyone who has an opinion contrary to that of the church an "anti-mormon". Where I an anthropologist or geneticist who made a finding that contradicted the Mormon view I would be classified as an "anti-mormon" regardless of my motivations. Any sane and rational human being can see how wrong that is. As far as Mountain Meadows is concerned I would hardly classify the supposition that Brigham Young or other very high ranking Mormons were directly involved in the same mold as Kennedy conspiracy theories. There is substantial evidence that Brigham