This is a most impressive film, extracting facts from the history of religious terrorism on U.S. soil...
On September 11, 1857, a devastating and controversial real life massacre of 120 men, women, and children took place in Mountain Meadows, Utah. This film integrates a romantic drama in a Romeo and Juliet-type love story to set a backdrop for a tragedy wrought by religious fanaticism.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - PBG
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
27 - Michael D
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.
28 - Bill Williams
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
29 - Michael D
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.
30 - Michael D
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.
31 - Nathan
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.
32 - Michael D
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?
33 - Geoff
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...
34 - Spencer Macdonald
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.
35 - Michael D
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.
36 - B. Williams
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?
37 - Bill W.
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.
38 - Spencer Macdonald
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
39 - Michael D
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?
40 - Michael D
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.
41 - Chris
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?
42 - Randy Gavin
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?
43 - Chris
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?
44 - Chris
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.
45 - Randy Gavin
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.
46 - Michael D
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.
47 - Chris
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.
48 - Randy Gavin
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.
49 - Chris
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.
50 - Jedediah
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.
51 - Chris
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.
52 - rosie
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!!!!
53 - Chris
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.
54 - Michael D
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
55 - Randy Gavin
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.
56 - Chris
LOL!!!!!!!!
57 - Chris
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!!!!!!
58 - Michael D
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.
59 - Chris
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 Young was involved. In the modern day that evidence would be nearly sufficient for an indictment and prosecution of Brigham Young. To say the least Lee would have had a lot of company as he faced execution. Other evidence which could be used against Brigham Young are the personal records and testamonies of people reporting the movements and armed Mormons before and at the time of the massacre. The Mormon command structure is also a very vulnerable point for Young. Brigham Youngs established chain of command is known. The sequence of events and the coming and goings of particular people at certain times prior to the Massacre indicate that the Mormon chain of command was involved. It is known that several of the victims of the Massacre kept highly detailed journals. It is curious to know that none of these writings survived the massacre. All appear to have been destroyed or taken. These journals are very important because they could clearly describe the wagon trains interactions with Mormons in the area. I doubt their disapearance was an accident. The Mormon plan of attack was very well planned. 50 or more armed men accompanied by indians firing from concealed positions behind cover would have been more than a match for the armed men of the wagon train who were taken by suprise and encumbered by their families and wagons. In fact fewer men could also have easily accomplished their defeat. All they had to do was stop them in the open and prevent them from breaking out. Men protecting their wives and children don't make a run for it. The only thing they had to do was wait for them to run out of water, which is exactly what they did. Regardless of Mormon anger it is very unlikely that the Mormon gunmen would have carried out their task unless they were compelled by their leadership. Lee claimed that the task was very difficult for him. He also claimed that involvement and responsibility for the massacre went all the way to the top of the Mormon leadership. Lee is known to have been extremely devoted to Brigham Young. It is hard to believe that he would have turned on Young unless he knew that Young had betrayed him and was using him to avoid prosection.
60 - Michael D
Chris,
Great, we are focused.
Now we can dialog.
I don’t use “anti-Mormon” lightly. It seems that their intent is to dismantle someone’s faith. I don’t understand that. Wherever there are people of faith there are churches, choirs, people taking piano lesson, schools of higher learning, all good stuff. (I read that more pianos are sold in Utah than in any other state.) Anti-Mormons seem intent on destroying the base of the structure that produces this. I lived amongst the Seventh-Day Adventist, a group that is culturally similar to Mormons. I didn’t see the constant attacks on their faith. They have the same stuff: clean living, good education, etc. If you can get to Brigham Young, then you can destroy the Church. There is the incentive and there is the problem. Knowing when to call someone anti-Mormon is like knowing when to call nudity pornography; you know one when you see one. I think that point is clear. Where would you put Sonia Johnson? Where would you put Fawn J. Brodie? Where would you put Juanita Brooks?
I also used the comparison to the Kennedy conspiracy appropriately. People just can’t believe that one man could do all that by himself. The Warren commission and more recently the Manson prosecutor Vincent Bouliosi (sp?) concluded that no one helped Oswald. Professional snipers that have been to the Book Suppository know that it was only one man. I’ve read their opinions. In spite of all the evidence people will always believe there was a Kennedy conspiracy. You treaded lightly over some of your evidence. When you look at it more closely, it does not hold up to scrutiny. Even when this evidence is exposed, people still think Brigham Young ordered the killings.
Back then the federal government was intent on dismantling the Mormon Church. If they had the goods back then they would have used them for prosecution. Or, was it just like in Japan after the war that they let Japan keep the Emperor, a religious figure, even though he was a war criminal? I think they knew most of the evidence then and decided it was not enough.
Let’s digest what you wrote.
1. “There is substantial evidence that Brigham Young was involved. In the modern day that evidence would be nearly sufficient for an indictment and prosecution of Brigham Young.”
a. You did not provide any evidence
b. In fairness, it was a short entry
c. You should provide more in subsequent entries.
2. “The Mormon command structure is also a very vulnerable point for Young. Brigham Youngs established chain of command is known. The sequence of events and the coming and goings of particular people at certain times prior to the Massacre indicate that the Mormon chain of command was involved.”
a. Say what you will about Brigham Young, he was a great leader and did instill a great command structure. It was probably something like the Inca’s of Peru.
b. “the coming and goings of particular people”. May I remind you that all of the Territory was on a war footing? My mother tells me that certain towns were evacuated. She tells me that the plan was to collect as much as they could and head to the hills. They were going to burn the Territory just like Sherman burned Georgia. The Mormons of the time were serious about this thing. They thought the army was going to come and make war. I think they remembered the 5 states. You have to put the history into context. The actions at Mountain Meadows cannot be defended.
They can only be explained.
c. It is clear that the Cedar City Mormons tried to access the command structure. They did not know what to do so they wrote to Brigham Young. It’s too bad the Indians started the whole thing early.
3. “It is known that several of the victims of the Massacre kept highly detailed journals. It is curious to know that none of these writing survived the massacre. All appear to have been destroyed or taken. These journals are very important because they could clearly describe the wagon trains interactions with Mormons in the area.
a. Duh! (No disrespect intended)
b. We will agree that this was a criminal act. Lee should have had a lot of company the day he was executed. Misguided they might have been but guilty nevertheless.
4. “The Mormon plan of attack was very well planned. 50 or more armed men accompanied by indians firing from concealed positions behind cover would have been more than a match for the armed men of the wagon train who were taken by suprise and encumbered by their families and wagons. In fact fewer men could also have easily accomplished their defeat. All they had to do was stop them in the open and prevent them from breaking out. Men protecting their wives and children don't make a run for it. The only thing they had to do was wait for them to run out of water, which is exactly what they did.”
a. Actually the plan of attack was not well planned. Evidence that Brigham Young was not involved. From what I know of Brigham Young he always saw the bigger picture. He would have had more men and more fire power. He was an organizer. That is how the Mormon Church survived in those early years.
b. The “Ensign” article states the planed ambush site was not Mountain Meadows. They must have some good evidence to make that statement.
c. I don’t think 50 men would be enough. There were some tough men in that wagon train. Brigham Young would have had more men there. He was an organizer.
5. “Regardless of Mormon anger it is very unlikely that the Mormon gunmen would have carried out their task unless they were compelled by their leadership. Lee claimed that the task was very difficult for him.”
a. Juanita Brooks stood at the site and said 50 men wouldn’t just come here. “They were ordered her” (or something like that)
b. I said: They were ordered here and something motivated them to act as they did.
c. In Viet Nam at the My Lai Massacre many solders under orders refused to participate.
d. These men were ordered and motivated. What motivated them?
6. “It is hard to believe that he would have turned on Young unless he knew that Young had betrayed him and was using him to avoid prosection.”
a. If you want to hang Brigham Young here is where you can do it.
b. Then start tearing apart the Church.
c. I think he knew Lee was at the ferry crossing.
d. Did Brigham Young obstruct justice?
i. I think he might have delayed it.
ii. This was all part of a huge negotiation. I can’t recall the US Government going after a church like this. Lincoln even mentioned it in his inaugural address. The government let the Church be a church and amongst other things they turned over Lee.
iii. Did he feel betrayed when they turned him over? Probably. Bitter? Most assuredly.
Oh, that DNA thing and “The Book of Mormon”. Weren’t you the one discussing that? That used to trouble me too until I read only two scriptures. The first is the one that talks about how the Laminites were “changed”. Then in the story of the three Nephites, a “change” took place so that they could live forever. People always think God is magical. He has to follow the laws of physics as well. With what we know about gene therapy it would not surprise me if someone’s DNA could be completely changed in the next 200 years. I wonder what Moses thought about the writing on the rock. I saw that at Best Buy today. Proving or disproving religion is always a game of chess. I hope this helps you.
61 - Chris
My dear Michael, as far as the Kennedy conspiracy is concerned only morons and schizophrenics believe that crap. The only conspiracy during the whole affair was the federal conspiracy to conceal how poorly managed the investigation was. It was an incompetent investigation which allowed the so called "Assasination Conspiracy" idea to even get off the ground.
You say that I have no proof for my claims. In fact, I have made no claims. I can only assess probabilities. That is all that I have attempted to do. It is in fact "probable" that Brigham Young did have advance knowledge of the attack before it happened. It is actually true that Brigham Youngs guilt cannot be established unless a so called "smoking gun" is found pointing to his guilt. It is possible that such documents or evidence could be found but unlikely. What can be stated with almost certainty is that Brigham Young was later made fully aware of the event and that he actively and deliberately lied to investigators and used his authority to subvert justice and protect the guilty. Also, Brigham Young made no attempt to return the property that was looted from the wagon train until he was compelled to do so and out of fear for his own neck.
You made reference to my various statements. Among them, you question the plausibility of a planned attack. As a former Officer and combat veteran in the United States Marine Corps Infantry (Platoon Commander at Fallujah), I can tell you reliably and with authority that no more than 25 well positioned and well armed men could have held that wagon train in the open field. Riflemen, even if armed with only muzzleloading rifles had only to prevent them from escaping. It is easy to confuse an enemy of your numbers, especially if you are laying in ambush. All they had to do was to force them into a defensive posture, (circle up the wagons, which they did). Even if they had had with them Joshua, Samson, Saul, and David they would have perished without water no matter how tough and mighty they may be. Mormon accounts of the battle as well as those of the surviving children who could give a limited account affirm this. That was what happened. When their water ran out and their attempts at getting water failed they were forced to surrender and place their lives in the hands of their attackers which proved to be a disaster.
As far as Brigham Young and the "Utah War" is concerned, Young gave every indication that he was in fact rebelling against the soveriegn authority of the United States Federal Government. The Federal list of charges against him was very long. You pointed out that never before or since has the government gone after a church or religion as they did with the Mormons. You are wrong. You wouldn't happen to Remember a tiny little incident in Waco Texas a few years back would you? Does the name David Koresh ring a bell? The Branch Davidians were an offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventist church which you used as an example.
The federal government had every reason to believe that Brigham Young was in open defiance of the Constitution, Presidential Edict, and Congressional Law. Young and his administration were constantly hamstringing Federal officials and were dispaying open defiance of US Law. As "Prophet" of the Mormon Church Brigham Young was violating the First Amendment of the United States Constitution by holding the office of Governor. This would be the equivalent of an American Pope also being the President. He and his administration were also accussed of violating the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments.
Brigham Young was the head of a theocratic government which employed its own system of justice independent of US Law. People were punished for religious crimes as well as criminal. Men were castrated for having premarital sex or extramarital affairs. Women were publically beaten for disobeying their husbands. People who rejected the church or were excommunicated had their homes and land seized and they were expelled from the territory and no Mormon was allowed to give them aid or interact with them in any way. Utah's democratic system was a fraud. No one was elected without Youngs concent and nobody who was indorsed by Young or the Church leadership failed to be elected. Federal officials who acted contrary to Brigham Youngs wishes were harassed and even threatened. Nearly all federally appointed officials were literally "run out" of Utah and many left in fear of their lives. They testafied that Brigham Young was a theocratic dictator who was planning armed rebellion against the federal government.
There is substantial evidence to back up their claims. Young had in fact already organized an extremely large state militia that was half the size of the US Army at that time. These officials noted that the people of Utah were buying and manufacturing many more arms and munitions than was needed for security. Brigham Young was having fortifications built as well. The design of these fortifications implied that they were built to defend against rifle and cannon armed attackers and not to defend against indians. Brigham Young took provacative action well before President Buchanan was even elected. If Brigham Young and the Mormons were expecting to be attacked by the goverment they were doing a pretty good job of making it happen.
You have provided any evidence to support the idea that Lee was lying about his admissions pertaining to the massacre. Lee was well known to be very loyal and devoted to Brigham Young. You could even characterize his devotion as "fanatical". Lee is quoted as saying:
I have always believed, since that day, that General George A. Smith was then visiting Southern Utah to prepare the people for the work of exterminating Captain Fancher's train of emigrants, and I now believe that he was sent for that purpose by the direct command of Brigham Young.
"The knowledge of how George A. Smith felt towards the emigrants, and his telling me that he had a long talk with Haight on the subject, made me certain that it was the wish of the Church authorities, that Fancher and his train should be wiped out, and knowing all this, I did not doubt then, and I do not doubt it now, either, that Haight was acting by full authority from the Church leaders, and that the orders he gave to me were just the orders that he had been directed to give, when he ordered me to raise the Indians and have them attack the emigrants."
He also said:
“Pres. Young said that the company that was used up at the Mountain Meadows were the Fathers, Mothers, Brothers, Sisters & connections of those that Murdered the Prophets. They Merited their fate, & the only thing that ever troubled him was the lives of the Women & children, but that under the circumstances [this] could not be avoided.”
I for one am not privy to the idea that a condemned man about to meet his doom would lie. This is the primary reason that I believe Brigham Young to be guilty. This with likely remain a mystery.
As to your genetics comment, I was not inviting any kind of debate on the subject. You can feel secure in your religious beliefs and I can feel secure in my scientific facts. My father as you may have read is a biochemical engineer and geneticist. Regardless of what you have read or what anybody else has tried to teach you, it is impossible to evade genetic analysis. With but a few samples tissue or blood your entire genetic lineage can be traced with 100% certainty. For instance, if you had a Jewish ancestor genetic analysis can even determine how far back and on what side of your family that person was. God you say, has to follow the Laws of Physics. If that is the case, in order for him to accomplish some kind of mass "change" in the genetic code of an entire people he would have to violate those laws, which you say he cannot do. I don't think you understand that the science of genetics is not some snake oil fraud. It is a quantifiable science backed up by the "Laws of Physics".
Your understanding of gene therapy is likewise uninspiring. Gene therapy does not in fact change a persons genetic code. It has no effect upon the genes you pass to your offspring at all. Gene therapy is where desired genes or "traits" are inserted into the cells of a specific location of the body, a kidney for example, to correct a condition or genetic problem such as diabetes. In gene therapy, only that particular organ or tissue would be affected. Your genetic "seed" would not be altered in the slightest. You would still pass on your intact genetic code to your offspring.
As to the Book of Mormon please refrain from quoting your scripture. This is not a theological debate nor are we in a church. It is not at all appropriate to include theology in this discussion. This discussion can best be served by abstaining from such a bothersome debate that invariably leads to nowhere. Suffice it to say, you are a Mormon and I am not. The End.
62 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I was reading through these comments with interest, given that they deal with a massacre that is not exactly talked about by its perpetrators, if not exactly covered up.
As a writer, I can testify that writers and moviemakers take considerable liberties with both the facts and reality for the sake of a story. This is normal.
Leon Uris, in writing the novel Exodus, took many liberties with the historical events that surrounded the trip of the Exodus 1947 to Mandate Palestine in that year. Indeed, he too, many liberties with the history of the Jewish resettlement of this country over the last 120 years.
His novel presented the Jewish point of view of events leading up to the creation of the modern State and between it and the movie, helped generate a strong undercurrent of American sympathy for this country.
September Dawn appears to explore a chapter of American history that Mormons, for understandable reasons, would rather not discuss. It appears that the Mormon Church is forever stuck between defending the actions it has taken to defend itself against perceived enemies (like this massacre) and its deep desire to propagate its beliefs and a positive image of itself in the public eye.
When people clash over what historical events mean, there is always acrimony and controversy. That is no different here. The clarity of this is brought home to me as I live here, where merely moving into a building can create an international incident. Here, where I live, the events clashed over are current events as well as those which have occurred in the past.
In this article, the event (and others like it) are well in the past. The question is "will they be repeated in future?"
This is an open question. Nations whose fates are mangled in the jaws of History often find bloody events repeating themselves with a tragic regularity. This may yet happen to America. Indeed it appears to be occurring as I write....
63 - Randy Gavin
Besides the massacre and the coverup, the effort to stifle the discussion is the other tradgedy and itself reveals the guilt that is so desparately trying to be avoided. That it is now the living Mormons and their leadership who wish this to not be spoken of even on its anniversary is telling.
Just as I believed 20 some years ago that to be right with the world all we had to do as a church was admit that Brigham Young taught that Adam was God, so I beleive today that all that needs to be done is accept responsiblitiy for the massacre responsibly and it will be good with the world. Are there consequences when we admit guilt? Yes! But that is part of being righteous, accepting the consequences.
64 - Michael D
Ruvy in Jerusalem,
I appreciated your comments. In particular, I liked the tone of your writing.
I am connected to the Mountain Meadows tragedy by my ancestry and my love reading and viewing history depicted accurately.
History is so interesting. It is perplexing why an author of the “Exodus” or the director of the film “The Pianist” needs to take liberties. The historical record stands alone as very interesting. Roman Polanski in an interview felt he had to make it more interesting so people would watch it. Polanski’s liberties were a distraction but it was still a good movie that paralleled the book well. Some of the liberties they take in film like combining characters and events are necessary to save time. It is o.k. as long as the facts and events are the same. They had to do that in the movie “A Bridge too Far” or it would be a “Movie too Long”. They easily could have this with the “September Dawn”. From what I read the actual killing except the language is depicted accurately. Placing the event in its historical context is lacking.
You brought up the creation of Israel. I read the history on that in preparation for the movie “Munich”. A movie about Israel’s creation would be a long movie but well worth the time. The director would encounter problems similar to Cain in “September Dawn”. As I recall the history there was a lot of hysteria and killings on both sides of women and children. (Can we use the word “Massacre”). The Palestinians and Israelis disagree on the history. The director will no doubt take liberties and spice it up. It will be a mess. It might be better if they do it like in Tora! Tora! Tora! As I recall they had two sets of writers and directors. One set in the U.S. and another in Japan. I think Clint Eastwood did the same in “Letters from Iwo Jima”.
It is disappointing that Cain did not attempt something like this in “September Dawn”. In a radio interview he said he avoided any Mormon historians. I still cannot believe that omission.
A lot of books have been written on the Mountain Meadows tragedy. Most of them are limited because the authors have issues related to previously being Mormon or want to defend the Church. By its nature Mormonism is a polarizer. I imagine there is the same problem with any book written about the creation of Israel.
One interesting tidbit in history is the fact (unless it has changed or I am mistaken) the Mormon Church is the only Christian church up on the Mount of Olives. That is interesting.
65 - Chris
What exactly to you mean by "up on the Mt. of Olives?
66 - Angel
I believe that this is a movie of conspiracy to create more hatered towards the Mormon church and that of it's people. The movie September Dawn is quite fictional with very few truth's. It looks to me as though there is a modern day MORMON MOBBERS group on the rise once again. The propaganda scheme within this film is what wars are started from. It looks to me as well that these descendants of the Mountain Meadow Massacre group are out for some Mormon blood of decendants who were involved in the MMM. It's quite scary when a person thinks about how our world is nowadays with so much hadred and violence in it. And now the descendants of the MMM would continue on their march for hated aimed towards the Mormons with there anti Mormon web-sites. None of the people in the Mormon church of today were involved the MMM. Why are the MMM desendants out for so much revenge on innocent Mormon people of today? Why should they spend so much time to try to prove the church wrong? Who cares???? Someone needs to get a life. Are these anti Mormon people Christian or what?.. as the movie partrays them to be? This kind of reminds me of HITLER'S propaganda. I think we need to research the history of the Anti Mormon descendants of the MMM group thoroughly. No doubt, they as well have some real skeleton's deeply hidden within their closets and away from the public. We need to reseach these self rightious people out. If however, you can get past their PIZZA adds.
67 - Angel
By the way, Why don't you try making a TRUE story of the Mormon church and it's people, with active church members and with the help of the LDS church. I bet you will make more money :))
68 - Michael D
Chris,
It is o.k. to disagree as long one can support their views.
Am I Mormon? That is not “The End”. I am Mormon like many people are Catholic or Jew. I can’t remember the last time I went to church. I do attend baptisms, blessings, etc. I am not antagonistic or bitter about my Mormon past. I have a life. That life is more comfortable out of the Church than inside it.
I want the story told in its proper context and depicted appropriately. Now if I may borrow your phrase: “The End”
I apologize. I should not have included that comment on DNA. I thought it was you that was mentioning your research on DNA and “The Book of Mormon”. I am mistaken. The point I was trying to make is that you can never argue faith. When someone says the DNA does not math up with the “The Book of Mormon”, a statement either way is base upon faith. One can always fall back on a scripture to make you feel good one way or the other. I am sorry for mentioning that.
Let’s look at your comments and go back to 1857. It is said “perception is reality”. I think you bring out in your comments the “perceptions” of the Mormons of that time. However, the Cedar City Mormons had a different “perception”. That was their “reality”. They acted upon that. They weren’t sure what to do. They accessed the command structure. Yet the Indians acted prematurely. That changed their “reality”. Then we got Mountain Meadows. This is my understanding of it. I think we agree that there is no indictable evidence against Brigham Young up to now. I agree with your statement:
“It is actually true that Brigham Youngs guilt cannot be established unless a so called "smoking gun" is found pointing to his guilt. It is possible that such documents or evidence could be found but unlikely.”
Let’s bury that part of the argument.
We may even agree on what happened after. I think he knew where Lee was. I would plead that there are mitigating factors. Once again, “perception is reality”.
Thank you for the Dravidian reference. I quickly looked in Wikipedia. That was different. The ATF was after machine guns. It became bigger later. They tried to dismantle the building not the church.
I think the “perception” of Mormons at the time was that the government was trying to dismantle the church. That was their “reality”. That was the reason for the hung juries in Lee’s trial. They “perceived” that the government was after Brigham Young. They were not going to let that become a “reality”. Now, I’m fuzzy on the history here but my understanding is that when everyone was told Brigham Young would not be prosecuted, Lee was found guilty. I think everyone at the time knew what and why Mountain Meadows happened. Some things are spoke and not written. In the end their “perception” and “reality” changed.
The actual status of Utah at the time may have affected their “perceptions”, “reality” and actions. I’m fuzzy on the history again. Utah was part of Mexico initially. Then there was the war with Mexico. I am not sure of the history. How did they “perceive” themselves? There you go. Figure that out and you have your answer.
Your insights on military tactics at Mountain Meadows are interesting. In the military what are you taught do when you are in an ambush? Fifty was not enough but it worked. I think that they “perceived’ that there were more people ambushing them.
I still think that if Brigham Young was involved he would have brought in selected trusted people from other counties. The plan was too hodgepodge. That by itself is evidence he was not involved. It just didn’t have his signature of organization written on it. Then again history is weird.
Sorry once again. I will never debate faith with you in the future.
The bottom line of the point is that Mormon “perception” during those 2 months ago was different from “reality”. That is what caused the whole thing. If the Fancher party had come through before or after they would have been treated well. The Mormon’s would have welcomed their business.
69 - Michael D
Chris,
I need to remind myself to stay focused. I just thought Ruvy in Jerusalem would find that interesting. I am familiar with The Mt. of Olives but don't know enough to say anything relialble about it. Again, I find myself apologizing to you.
70 - Falsley accused by Franchers of today
Some of the descendents of the Francher people killed in MMM have a web-site with a list of people who were Mormon participants in the Mountain Meadow Massacre. They also list people who did not kill their ancestors as shooters and clubbers.(FALSLY ACCUSED BY FRANCHER FAMILY OF TODAY) They have no proof but still remain to keep these men listed on their web-site as shooters and clubbers. ( May I ask, what Clubbers?) They only collect history from anti and apostate Mormons for their web-site. They have nothing written on their site about what their ancestors did while passing through Utah, with their name calling, threats, and taunting of the Mormons, that took place while passing through Utah. THEY DON'T EVER MENTION THIS. They are completely one sided and only try to cause more hatered towards the Mormon Church and the people of today. They are not a religious group of people as they try to make everyone think they are. They only want complete vengeances on the Mormon church and it's people of today. They want innocent Mormon people and the LDS church of today to pay for the crime of the massacre of a 150 years ago. Isn't that kind of sickning? It's quite peculiar and strange when the church of today had nothing to do with the massacre. I agree with others, that they are clearly out for vengeance and blood atonement! Even though they claim no belief in such. Learning to forgive is not their quest. Even though there have been Mormon members of the LDS church tell them that they are truly sorry the MMM ever happened. What good does it do? They just turn around and spit at our backs. I hope they don't come to Utah prancing around like NAZI'S next year. They just want attention anyway you look at it. They don't care about forgiveness. Truly sad.
71 - Chris
Oh my gosh, you went to BYU right? Angel, I don't know what to say. If you think that there is somekind of grand conspiracy to destroy the LDS Church then I don't think that there is anything I can say that will make you see reality. Mormon idealogy is founded upon a deep seated belief that the outside world is out to get them. If you grew up in the Mormon Church you doubtlessly believe all that crap as Gods truth. You were taught that peaceful and meek Mormons were persecuted everywhere they went and were driven from there homes by evil mobs. They probably never taught you the other side of the story (oh yes, there is another side of the story!!!). Mormon words and actions did much to alienate and antogonize their non-mormon neighbors. I don't know if you've read my other comments on this site but the Mormons and their leaders were often anything but good neighbors. Mormons men had no respect for non-mormon marriages and attempted or succeeded in seducing the wives and daughters of non-mormons.
Parley Pratt for example, who is revered in the LDS Church as a martyr and hero, was killed by the man whose wife he seduced. Pratt came to her home and persued her despite being lawfully ordered by her husband to stay out of his home and away from his wife. I find that incredible. What kind of man who claims to be a missionary for Christ's true church would willfully and deliberately persue another mans wife and violate that mans sovereignty over his own home. So at the risk of engaging in theological issues I'll ask you one question: What would Jesus have done? Certainly he would not have persued another man's wife and he would never have violated the sanctity of another man's home.
Pratt and Eleanor McLean eloped to Salt Lake and were married despite the fact that she was still married to her legal husband Hector McLean. Despite his anger and bitterness over having his home subverted, McLean carried on with his life. It was not until Pratt and his new plural wife abducted his children, of whom McLean had full legal custody, that he resolved to find and kill Pratt. Eleanor, traveled to New Orleans where Hector McLean had sent their children to live temporarily with Eleanor's parents (who had disowned her and sided with her husband) and pretended that she had abandoned Mormonism and had left Pratt to return to her rightful husband. When she had the opportunity she abducted them and left to rendezvous with Pratt who would escort them back to Utah. McLean intercepted Pratt who was actively fleeing and evading him and killed him near the border of Arkansas. Pratt would not even stand and face the man whose home he had flagrantly violated. Yet the LDS Church calls him a martyr who died for his beliefs at the hands of evil men out to destroy or thwart the church. Pratt was no hero, nor was he a martyr. He was an adulterer and a home wrecker who was killed by one of his enraged victims.
The LDS Church loves to perpetuate the myth that Mormons faced cruel and unjust persectution at the hands of people to whom they had done no wrong. That is complete and utter crap. Pratt's actions and subsequent demise was but a replay of similiar events which had played out many times before. But this is just one example of Mormon actions. There were so many other things that the Mormons did which pissed off their neighbors.
American communities at the time were extremely diverse. In the towns of the undeveloped Midwest it was common to have half a dozen different languages heard in the streets. There were Poles, Norwegians, Swedes, Germans, Irish, Scots, and many, many others. Often people of a particular ethnic nationality would settle together in their own communities. Having neighbors who were "different" was an extremely common thing. The LDS position that these same people set out to brutalize and otherwise victimize Mormon's because they were "different" is a complete and utter lie.
The LDS Church has created this myth which has permeated Mormon culture. It's almost a Mormon tag-line. Anybody who criticizes the Church or its heroes or prophets is depicted as one of the "mobbers". I know of no other faith that deters frank and open discussion as does the LDS Church. I have known Muslims who were more open to discussion than the Mormons I have encountered.
Calling people who do not agree with LDS beliefs or opinions "anti-mormon" is irresponsible. Comparing those people with Nazis is outrageous. When you speak of Hitler and Evil, you speak of things you clearly do not understand. In Kosovo and Fallujah I saw true Evil with my own eyes. You are just someone repeating the dogma that you have probably heard all your life. You live in a closed pocket of reality and have very little concept of the outside world of which you and your faith is but a very miniscule part. Try to start thinking for yourself instead of reciting what others have told you. I don't think anyone has ever before compared me to Hilter. You need help.
72 - Chris
Falsley accused by Franchers of today-
You have a severly distorted view of these people and their motives. To insinuate that they wish to actually hurt people is ridiculous. These people whether right or wrong in their opinions only want some kind of accountability. I can't imagine what teachings or attitudes you have been exposed to that would make you interpret this debate in that light. Nobody wants to hurt Mormon's. That is all a bunch of nonsense. Again, I feel I must caution someone in their use of the word "Nazi" as a discriptive term. You clearly do not know of what you speak when you so casually use that word.
73 - rosie
Chris,
Why is the LDS church today responsible for what happened a 150 years ago? Do the people of the Mormon church today live a 150 years ago? What is the church hiding, could you please tell me? I have searched records and looked through many diaries. I have found nothing of any great significance. Does anyone else out there know everything about their past church history. Are there cover-ups? Hummmmm? That's a lot of brain power if you ask me. Are you responsible for what your ancestors may have done? Please let me know? I'm very curious? Even if the LDS church was covering-up something, would it really have any great impact on anyone living today?
However, It's a bit more fun picking on the Mormons. Their beliefs are quite different and very interesting.
74 - Oops!
I can see this is a ANTI Mormon web-site...I'm out of here...Not worth my time of day!!...Have fun with all your Anti Mormon Slashers!!!
75 - Falsly Accused by Fanchers
Chris, Have you read my personal family diaries about the MMM. I don't think so! they are not public. You don't know what you are talking about. It's quite obvious that you are intent on picking a fight. There is no distortion in what I have wrote to you, as you know nothing of what i'm talking about! Actually, I went to Catholic school and liked it quite a lot. I even thought of becoming a nun at one time. Can you even imagin something like that!