Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre

Good article nomination

I know this article has really died out after 9/11/07 passed, but I thought it might be a good opportunity to get good article status. It's not quite at the FA level yet, since it's too long and needs to be split into subsections. COGDEN 00:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit War brewing over Youtube link

I think everybody should take 5. While this is more substantive than the "friday" debate, It's still not worth the edit war. My $.02:

WP:EL has been used as a reason for removing it. WP:EL does discourage youtube links. It does not issue a blanked prohibition. The video is for the most part interviews with people who have expertise on the subject (Scott Fancher and Sandra Tanner). It is POV yes, but not incendiary or anything like that. I don't see it as any worse than 95% of the other material out their about the MMM. Bottom line, the link can go, it can stay but IMO it's not worth the edit war. Can't we just get some concensus vote or something like that? Davemeistermoab 03:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

E-Mail Sent: > A controversy is brewing at Wikipedia: Mountain meadows massacre. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre > It seems that some folks would like to use your "YouTube" video, narrated by Mrs. Tanner and Mr. Francher as a reference while others object. > The latest objection is that the video is 'copy-written' and therefore > cannot be used as a reference. > Just wondering what your thoughts are concerning the manner .

E-Mail Received: Hi xxx, There's no problem putting the video on the Wikipedia page; yes, it is copyrighted but basically we operate on a creative commons basis. As long as it's not modified or passed off as someone else's work (or included in someone else's work) we allow (actually encourage) people to either link to it or embed it in sites like Wikipedia. So there is no infringement if those conditions are met. Thanks for asking, though! I do appreciate it. Regards, Scott Johnson ministry@lhvm.org <ministry@lhvm.org> 48 North Main Street Brigham City, Utah 84302 U.S.A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinosa (talk • contribs) 17:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting situation. What is the Wikipedia policy on such "permissions?" I know on images, that even if permission is given, unless the permissions are opened (via an open license), Wikipedia will reject such contributions. The comment "As long as it's not modified or passed off as someone else's work (or included in someone else's work) we allow (actually encourage) people to either link to it or embed it in sites like Wikipedia." would be acceptable, except for the "not modified" or "included in someone else's work", as Wikipedia is collectively "someone elses work". Since this is a link to YouTube and not actually copied to Wikipedia, the rules may be less strict. I am interested in others opinions, and not about this particular link but about copyright issues in general. Bytebear 18:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the photos used on Chinese tank guy are listed as copyrighted with a note saying wikipedia has been authorized to use this photo provided the following notice is included with a copy from an email, similar to the one provided above. So there is precedent. Granted, the situation is a little different here. But still there is president. Davemeistermoab 19:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A link to an item does not violate copyright as long as it is to the original creative work and not a 'bootlegged" copy. Linking does not incorporate the product, merely points to it. I happen to believe the link is very useful and balances the numerous links to LDS sources. I am a bit hazy on why YouTube links are allowed by WP, but discouraged. As more "serious or scholarly" media becomes available on the internet via services like YouTube, will this stance change? I see a vast difference between a well-sourced video on an historical subject and a "vanity" video on my opinions on the historical subject. If it is not prohibited by WP, the owner encourages it, and it is dead on point; why not link to it? --Robbie Giles 17:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick-failed "good article" nomination

Per the Good Article quick-fail criteria, any article with cleanup banners or multiple {{fact}} tags, such as this one, must be failed forthwith and without an in-depth review. I count five fact tags in several sections, and all are correctly placed. There are also other major issues, such as direct quotations present without an inline ref. Additionally, per the above talk, it seems there may have been a recent edit war over content. This would violate the stability clause of the quick-fail criteria as well. Once the issues brought up by these templates have been addressed, the article may be renominated. If you feel this decision was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky ^Talk 00:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

An important part of American Western History reduced to babble! Sliced, diced, & minced with references altered, deleted, replaced, and entire sections of contributing editors deleted at the POV whim of one. I suggest a new start with the subject matter "MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitsap (talk • contribs) 17:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm the one who proposed the interchange of the present article with the version from half a year ago, I recused myself from weighing in on the matter. And it ended up being every single commenter except one wanted the old version back. So I exchanged the two. Justmeherenow 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are being a bit hasty here, Justmeherenow. I doubt you have a consensus from the editors here. As for me, despite the fact that the recent article needs tightening, it contains much good information. I would vote against "starting over." WBardwin 21:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bardwin, you were drafted to come in and do it--'cept ya bin too busily holding down another fort on another wiki-front somewhere (...or went wiki-AWAL? lol) :^) Justmeherenow 21:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I offered to help, yes. But no one "drafted" me nor did the editing group give me a "go ahead". If I were going to really edit this article, I would put up with some basic criteria for review on the discussion page, while I was working on the article in user space. This same strategy was used by Robby Giles, one of the active editors, and we saw how successful that turned out to be. As for my absence lately, I did not go Wiki -- my mother had cancer surgery and life got very hectic for some time. I still have limited time here. But I do think that simply "starting over" is a mistake. WBardwin 22:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops! After I'd typed "wiki" in the edit summary box, it went and saved all by itself. I'd meant to type wiki-AWAL, as a joke :^) Any-who, there ain't no shame in a "draft": ask Woodrow Wilson and Dwight Eisenhower. Justmeherenow 22:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

+

[...I]f we scrape off five-months of dribble-drabble from our Em-em canvass, will its underlying strokes applied by predecessors actually be more representive and suggestive of our topic's essentials? Justmeherenow

In many ways I like it better, It is short, sweet, and to the point with sources for those wanting more information. It isn't perfect, (Blue Tie had an issue with the word scathing, I think its appropriate but concede BT's point of being original research.) Also the rape allegations are presented as a central theme when in fact they are a side issue to the massacre. It was also lacking some detail even a pithy article should contain.

The present iteration of the article went the other way. full of detail (some of it POV). Not pithy at all, with users who want a brief overview left to guess which paragraphs to skip. Which is better? As no 2 sources about the massacre agree about anything, I'm inclined to vote for a shorter version.Davemeistermoab 21:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That has also been my assessment for a while. The issue of "scathing" was, to me, not nearly as big a deal as the complexity of the article as it now exists. --Blue Tie 22:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

People who want a short overview can read the introductory paragraphs. As to being "pithy", I don't think that's necessarily a virtue when there's controversy as to what the "pith" is. The article should be encyclopedic, including the whole story, such as all major versions of what happened, who was allegedly involved, what were they thinking, and why they said they did it. COGDEN 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC) +

Interactions on road toward Mountain Meadows

Sliced, diced, & minced! Why?

Map of the California trail in southern Utah at the time of the massacre.[101]The Mormons considered the emigrants of an alien status because of Young's orders forbidding travel through Utah without a required pass—which the Fancher-Baker party did not have.[79] However, Captains Baker and Fancher may not have been aware of Young's martial law order since it was not made public until September 15, 1857.[102]

The Fancher and Duke parties (respectively from Arkansas and Missouri) having assisted each other on their western journeys, it was believed by some locals that the Fancher party was joined by eleven members of a Missouri militia calling itself the "Wildcats". (Yet there is debate on whether these miners and plainsmen stayed with the slow-moving Fancher party after leaving Salt Lake City,[103] or actually existed.)[104]

Meanwhile the Mormons that the Fancher train encountered along the way were obeying Young's order to stockpile supplies in expectations of all-out war with approaching U.S. troops and declined to trade with the Fanchers. This friction was added to by the "range war" that would be expected to erupt between local populations and any emigrants' leading vast herds of cattle—and indeed, both the Fancher and Duke parties' stock would compete with locals' for grazing and sometimes would break through the Mormon colonists' fences. With the murder and the expulsion of U.S. Government surveyors, there was no demarcation of the territorial lands claimed by Native Americans, Mormons, and those that the Americans purchased from Mexico (Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo).[105] Yet in the war panic, such mundane complaints escalated into more ominous charges.

For example, according to John D. Lee, "They swore and boasted openly... that Buchanan's whole army was coming right behind them, and would kill every God Damn Mormon in Utah.... They had two bulls which they called one "Heber" and the other "Brigham", and whipped 'em through every town, yelling and singing... and blaspheming oaths that would have made your hair stand on end."[106]

While Jacob Hamblin was in Salt Lake City he heard that the Fanchers had "behaved badly [...and had] robbed hen-roosts, and been guilty of other irregularities, and had used abusive language to those who had remonstrated with them. It was also reported that they threatened, when the army came into the north end of the Territory, to get a good outfit from the weaker settlements in the south."[107]

In his report of his investigation of the massacre, Superintendent for Indian Affairs in Utah Territory, Jacob Forney[108] said: "I [...made] strict inquiry relative to the general behavior and conduct of the company towards the people of this territory ..., and am justified in saying that they conducted themselves with propriety."

In Forney's interview with David Tullis who had been living with Jacob Hamblin, Tullis related that "[t]he company passed by the house...towards evening.... One of the men rode up to where I was working, and asked if there was water ahead. I said, yes. The person who rode up behaved civilly."[109]

In addition, William Rogers later related where Shirts related he "saw the emigrants when they entered the valley, and talked with several of the men belonging to it. They appeared perfectly civil and gentlemanly."[110]

Kitsap 00:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Paranoid-ly marshalling colonists, aching for early military victories, took behavior on the emigrants' part as provocative that otherwise would not have been. As for this "Interactions" section cobbled together now a couple of months ago now, I'm willing to wait for Turley-Walker-Leonard to flesh out for us what exactly were the complaints Haight trumped up against the Arkansan Fancher and Missourian Duke parties. Justmeherenow 01:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Scrapped article

Since I haven't edited this article for a while, I didn't notice the recent drastic change in the article. I see now that there was some discussion under the heading "Quick-failed 'good article' nomination", but it should have been discussed under a new heading, to clue in editors like me that a radical change was brewing.

I sympathize with those who want an Eazy Reading Version of this article, but I don't think that's in the cards. Certainly we can work on style and improve readability, but let's face it: this is a very controversial topic, and a difficult issue historically. Lets not scrap all the work that has been done on this article just because of its complexity. The standard way of decreasing the complexity of an article is by budding-off subarticles and using "summary style". I started that process, but we can do more. COGDEN 22:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I admit I'm a surprised to see an old version of the article re-instated. But would put it in a different perspective. I think it is a futile effort to try to nominate such a controversial article as a good article. I recognize everybody's intentions are honorable, but IMO it just won't happen. I think the article is doomed to a life of gradual expansion, until some gutsy editor goes on a pruning spree. The reason is that a lot of people cannot accept that its time to move on. Some people will not rest until they convince others the fix was in and Young was sitting in his office saying "Muhahaha, everything is going to plan". Meanwhile others are so naive to accept the possibility that Young bears part of the blame. In an ideal world a concesus of editors would revert content from either of those POV's before it takes the article down the spiral.

In the above mentioned paragraph in the "Interactions on road toward Mountain Meadows" commentary above is a great example. Why did someone add that the Fancher party had two oxen named "Brigham" and "Heber" and they whipped and taunted mormon leaders in effegy????? That is gossip, rumor, and completely unencyclopedic that, Even if true, justifies nothing. But it did probably incite someone to add another rumor/quote/whatever to rebut or diffuse this allegation. And so goes the article, right down the toilet. Kitsap is right. The vast majority of that section should have been purged 30 seconds after someone added that content. I'm as guilty as anybody for letting that stand in the article. To say that there were rumors that the Fanchers were antagonizing the locals and threatening to return with an army is enough. That was a pro-mormon example but some of the "anti-mormon" editors are just as guilty with the kidnap, rape and other dubious allegations.Davemeistermoab

Bullocks "Brig" and "Hebe" might have been added to the aricle completely halfhazardly--but it's still a damned good story! What makes details evocative? McCain's recent TV commercial is this bit where McCain tells about how (1) Hillary wants to spend a million on a museum (2) honoring Woodstock (3) which, although McCain is sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event, he was unable to attend; he was tied up at the time. This has especially evocative details advertising Conservatism since Hillary's-million-for-a-museum strokes fiscal conservatism; Woodstock, social conservatism; and McCain's-inability-to-have-attended, jingoism. (Um, I mean, defense conservatism.)

Likewise, the bullocks story covers rationales of the military, the social, and the economic sort. (I'm only half serious, but still: listen up! Military: The War of the Mormons' Rebellion) The team driver modeled how Buchanan was going to domesticate and drive stubbornly rebellious LDS leadership? (Social: Millennialistic theocracy with its Mormon Reformation doctrine of Blood atonement) Which uncouth commentary Lee took as blasphemy? (Fiscal: Greed--or else that fearful colonists' felt it imperative to supplement their supplies in face of scarcity) So Mormons and Indian's plundered the emigrants' possessions and livestock? Justmeherenow 06:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that people think they have a right to censor controversial or disputed content on this article. That's simply not true. If something is relevant, nobody has a right to delete the content. You can argue about how to include it and make it NPOV, but you can't delete it. If the article get's too big, you branch off a sub-article. That's the Wikipedia way. COGDEN 21:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources see also: Sources in languages other than English Tinosa 16:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Forking off was not a good idea

I am not sure which is worse -- making the audience go through piles of detailed, perhaps barely related tripe, or forking off huge sections into articles which are unable to stand on their own and which carry with them important bits from this article.

To me these are both signs of bad editing. But I do notice that the text that is here, is getting better.--Blue Tie 07:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. It certainly is more difficult to mantain 5 articles than 1. However, forking does allow the main article to be concise. But, does allow those interseted in a particular aspect (i.e. causes or the modern effects or who was punished) to go read more detail. Davemeistermoab 20:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

articles are supposed to stand on their own. The Forked Articles cannot do that. They are bastard offspring without visible means of support. --Blue Tie 02:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The creation of sub-articles is not forking. Creating sub-articles is standard Wikipedia practice, and it's the way we keep adding content while keeping articles of manageable size. See Wikipedia:Summary style. COGDEN 21:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Should the buck have stopped with Haight?

I did not expect to be hailed as a hero in the hall of mirrors that is Mormon history for writing “Blood of the Prophets,” but the passion and even hatred a simple history book evoked did take me by surprise. Given the smear campaigns associated with the massacre—see what the Brethren tried to do to and continue to do to the Fancher party, the Paiute Nation, Judge Cradlebaugh, Robert Baskin, John D. Lee, and now Isaac Haight–I should have seen it coming.--WILL BAGLEY

(A quote I found blog evesdropping on some back-and-forth between chronicler Bagley with Mrs. Brooks' biographer Levi Peterson.) Justmeherenow 02:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Initial image

The initial image was recently changed to the Harper's Weekly engraving of a spooky boneyard with wolves and, I can't tell for sure, but maybe witches and goblins in the background. This is a great image, which I love, but would suggest we consider changing it back and moving the image down in the article. The initial image of an article should generally be one that cuts to the heart of the topic. The previous one was a depiction of the massacre itself, which is the heart of what the article is about. The spooky boneyard is a good media portrayal of the aftermath, but I think it's better that the first image focus on the massacre itself. COGDEN 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

United Methodist Church

While this event was very significant in the lives of those in the wagon train and those people were Methodists, I don't think that this article rises to the level of being very important in the history of the United Methodist Church. Therefore, this newly-added United Methodist Church navigation box shouldn't really be here. — Val42 (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(Don't know if it has got any bearing but... ) it's an infobox not a navigation box :^) Justmeherenow (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. But as an infobox, it has even less reason for being here. I'm going to remove it, except that I see that it has already been removed. — Val42 (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Paiutes and firearms

The following edit to the article by Healtheland (14:36, 6 December 2007) was moved to discussion page for comment. WBardwin (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: The Paiute Indians deny their alleged role in the attack, claiming that they were not allowed to own firearms. Please see http://oreaddaily.blogspot.com/2007/09/paiutes-tired-of-getting-blame.html

LDS Template

What information or/and value does this template add to the article? Tinosa (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I see none; I will delete it. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy and Seige questions

I have some questions regarding accuracy. The article states the attack started on Sept 7. However, the History Channel show, The Mormon Rebellion states that the attack started at dawn on Sept 8. Which one is correct? The show also states that a rider was sent to ask Brigham Young what to do before the attack commenced. Was a 2nd rider dispatched 12 hours after the attack, or is there a discrepancy as to when this rider was sent? I'm wondering if 2 riders were sent, or if there is a dispute as to whether only one rider was sent, and some are saying it was before the attack, while others say it was after the attack?

Reds0xfan (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

According to one historian "You've either got to rely on the testimony of the murderers or of the surviving children". I seriously doubt that small children would carry a pocket calendar & it seems each murderer told a story that advantageous to him self.Kitsap (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

16:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Tinosa (talk)

"Nearly 12 hours after the attack was initiated, an express rider was sent to Salt Lake City to inform Brigham Young." Reading that my interpretation of that was the wagon convoy sent out the rider. It seems apparent to me now that interpretation was mistaken. But it was an understandable one. It was a standard practice in siege warfare for the besieged to send out a rider to plead for aid from the nearest available military center. For the settlers, believing they were under attack by Indians, that relief would have come from Salt Lake City. Which strikes me that would be like the people of Darfur asking the President of Sudan for help. 76.111.80.228 (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfounded accusation

It is completely beyond belief that anybody could possibly consider it acceptable to levy such an unfounded accusation that the G.A.S. party started the rumors of the poisoned spring. Let's see a citation - ANY citation in any credible report whatsoever that justifies this claim. Carleton's report includes sworn testimony that the son of Mr. Robinson was kill after "'trying out' the tallow of the dead cattle" - it should be fairly easy to verify that Mr Robinson lost a son at this time which would provide evidence of the veracity of the account, but there is absolutely -no- evidence to substantiate a claim that anybody knows who started a rumor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.11.64 (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Poisoned Ox Myth (as referred to by LDS historian Turley) & the Marmon Apostle Smith. I agree, we may never know the originator of the myth, but we know who perpetuated the tale.

(1) Bagley. "Blood and the Prophets". Chapter 6.

(2) Brooks. "the Mountain Meadows Massacre". appendixes VI & VII.

(2) Denton. "American Massacre". Chapter 11.

Edits were required

I'm not taking sides in edit warring but have made a couple of changes. In the Background section I removed "claimed to" from the sentence about the rumour. We can't determine from the reference whether it was claimed there was a rumour, or if the rumour claimed that the widow recognised someone, or whether they are saying the rumour was that the widow claimed to have recognised someone. Three different things entirely, and to insert "claimed to" in that sentence is POV.

Also, in the Escalating tensions section I replaced the word "legal" in the passage about Pratt being murdered. It is very confusing to say Pratt was murdered by the husband of one of Pratt's wives. Adding the word legal clears it up, I think. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

While "legal" is technically accurate, it doesn't really tell the whole story. She willing left her husband to go with the Saints and become Pratt's husband. And in the western frontier, marriage and divorce weren't as concrete as they are today. Remember, Utah was barely a territory annexed from Mexico. Bytebear (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear you. But something needs to disambiguate the message that the husband of Pratt's wife murdered Pratt. Most readers would naturally believe Pratt is the husband of Pratt's wife. In which case, he must have murdered himself according to what the article stated. Without adding the explanatory "legal" (or similar) it is not clear that we are talking about two husbands. Is all. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How about, "Either way, just a few months earlier, popular Mormon leader Parley P. Pratt was murdered in Arkansas by a man whose wife had left him to join the saints as one of Pratt's "plural wives". It's more clear that she left willingly, but wording should show that it was a spiritual choice, and not simply an affair. Bytebear (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC

Fire ahead. The ambiguity bugged me, not the reason for choice. Cheers Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, although I took out the quotes around "plural marriage" as it seemed a bit weasly. Bytebear (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Too late to join the party?

It seems Judge Drummond's girl friend was villanized as a whore, while Pratt's girl friend was cannonized as a Saint. Why is that? mmmm?

Please sign your posts with four tildas, and "saint" is simply a term for a member of the church. It has no relationship to morality. Bytebear (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bytebear is for the most part right. As I learned it from the Catholic Catechism a Saint is someone who has gotten into heaven either after death, or, in some very rare cases, after ascension. The official Saints of the Catholic Church are simply formally acknowledged on the assumption that if anyone can get into heaven these people certainly have. It's like a religious Medal of Honor (which definitely can only be awarded posthumously). The official Saints are intended to serve as an example, and inspire hope, especially a hope in an eternal reward. Many Protestant denominations reject this practice as it seems too closely tied in with many of the corrupt practices that inspired Martin Luther to begin the Reformation.

Where Bytebear is wrong, of course, is sainthood's relationship with morality. The Church of Latter Day Saints feels very strongly that faith and good works are essential to having a satisfactory final judgment. This is distinct from many other Christian denominations who, for the most part, hold that only faith is enough. It should be noted that according to these same churches defying the Ten Commandments will still get you damned, because the Commandments are considered be to orders from God, and disobedience of the Almighty is definitely a Hell-worthy offense. On the other hand though, I'm not sure I agree that lack of faith by an otherwise good person should be held against them. But hey, who's to argue with God?

Also -and I know I'm not the first person to point this out- but given what the strict definition of "saint" means calling your church "The Church of Latter Day Saints" is essentially saying that only members of your church can be saved. This falls in line with Mormon doctrine regarding the Apostasy, the end of the Apostolic Church, so on and so forth. 76.111.80.228 (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No quite correct. The term saint used in the LDS Church is the same usage of the term it the New Testament...one who has faith in Jesus Christ and follows him. There is no inference to being saved or anything else. Jesus Christ is the author and judge of one's salvation. LDS strive to be disciples of Christ. The LDS Church teaches that exaltation will be enjoyed by both members of non-members of the Church of Jesus Christ during their mortal life. This doctrine was taught in the New Testament where Jesus went to teach those in spirit prison (See 1 Peter 3:18-22).

Also you understanding of LDS doctrine on Grace is insufficient. After all that we can do, it is only Grace that saves us. That is the total of our teaching and understanding. This statement in no way undermines the value of faith or works. Faith does not exist where good works are not present. Simply saying that one knows Jesus lives is wholly lacking in any ability to save. Nothing demonstrates that principle better than Jesus' own words in Matthew 7:20-24, which said we must both hear and obey.

In closing, the Apostasy indicates a lack of the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus, not an absence of truth. Though the LDS Church does teach it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ, it does not teach it is the fount of salvation your portrayed above. These is way off topic for the article, but clarification was needed. Cheers.--^StormRider 20:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Having just check the link to Saint I myself provided I see that I have made a misunderstanding. The definition of saint does indeed vary according to denomination. And thanks for pointing out my error on the "faith and good works" bit, I misread my own notes. Faith and good works according to LDS are supposed "impact on the glory and reward that individual receives in heaven". Folks'll still get into heaven. They just might not be let into the VIP section (the Celestial Kingdom).

Still I have a problem here that Mormons consider baptism to be an essential ordinance of salvation, while at the same time not recognizing the baptisms of other churches. That is not to say that Mormons are opposed to baptizing non-Mormons. (They're rather eager to as I understand it. Which led understandably to the posthumous baptismal of holocaust victims scandal.) It's just that this means that if the Church of LDS is not necessarily considered to be the fount of salvation, it would be in practice.

In addition I'm thinking that this all has a lot to do with how well-behaved Mormons are. I mean if you seriously believed your conduct in life directly affected the quality of your after-life wouldn't you? As I understand it one of the interesting things about this is that although early Mormon relations with the Federal government were rocky to say the least, what with Mountain Meadows Massacre this article is about and the Mormon War that it preceded, Mormon dedication to their citizenship, in particular in Mormon soldiers duty to Flag and Constitution, is unsurpassed. For example their have been two Mormon Medal of Honor recipients (George Edward Wahlen, and Bernard Francis Fisher although I'm sure there are regs against recklessly landing on a contested airstrip to save your friend).