Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Untitled

Material archived from the Mountain Meadows massacre Talk page. (Jan-Feb 2007 approximate)

Starting with Gwen's draft

I propose that we start with Gwen's draft which sets the event in the historical context, is generally chronological and much easier to understand for the uninitiated than the prior version.

I also propose that we add references to Gwen's draft using <ref> type footnotes with harvard style referencing to the bibliography (the prevalent method used in the prior version). I.e. <ref>Last_Name (YEAR), p. #.</ref> --Trödel 03:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

I would support anything that would get us out of the petty editing dispute that our friendly, objective editors that have returned to the same old editing of the past that caused so much rancor. For objective editors their edits almost seem like they might have an axe to grind; I am sure it must not be that. Any other reason for the silliness that caused the article to be locked for so long? I don't have a problem just having it loced forever once it achieves a status more NPOV. Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that the only path to encyclopedic bliss or whatever here's going to mean cites on almost every sentence which is ok with me, by the bye. Gwen Gale 04:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Trodel, show me how to nominate you for a banstar and I will =-). Great work.

I added 2 paragraphs to the article. My intent was ONLY a quick attempt to bring closure to the article. The (very well IMO) re-write was obviously not complete and left the article hanging. My intentions were honorable and I tried not to show any bias in the write. You've got a beef with my words, fine. But Improve them, please, without adding inflamoratory POV. There, I said my peace =-) Davemeistermoab 07:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for quickly taking care of that. I did some minor cleanup work on it, trying to preserve your vocabulary (which mostly struck me as entirely NPoV and supported by the historical record) whilst streamlining the prose for clarity and readability. I've also inserted standard cite requests throughout the article (where already indicated). Gwen Gale 08:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I was so happy to see that Gwen's version remains - thanks for the nice words and for the quick closure. As I am not sure I can write as neutrally as Davemeister and Gwen - I hope I can copyedit and help find references. --Trödel 07:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You want to do a re-write thats fine. Do it on the draft page and get a consensus. As of right now you are posting a incomplete article absent any cites. You shouldn't alter the article until you have an improvement to make. Sqrjn 23:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User:S.B.Anthony

Please be advised that the use of a sockpuppet to evade WP policy (including 3rr) can lead to a long term block. Please also be advised that sockpuppet checks can be requested for the purpose of enforcing WP policy where necessary. Gwen Gale 05:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Note, there is every indication that User:S.B.Anthony is a sockpuppet of Sqrjn, created for the purpose of evading the three revert rule. Gwen Gale 05:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Every indication?! I hope you can back that up. I think your the one in violation of policy now. Good faith is "policy". I remember when Storm Rider accused me of being a sock puppet. I hope you'll apologize to like he eventually did. Sqrjn 05:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Naw, I think User:S.B.Anthony is your sock (friends and WP buddies fall into the definition, by the bye). No editor is so "lucky" as to have, within minutes of "need" arising, a newbie pop up out of thin air, then, as their very first article edit, do a handy fourth revert. Might I humbly suggest you revert it back? Meantime, I'd be thrilled if you'd start talking about specifics of content so we can add what's needed to the article and helpfully cite it. Oh, and please do find a source we can use to support the term kidnap, that would be such a help. Gwen Gale 06:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sqrjn was also "lucky" a couple months ago, when User:SchmoeBlow--another newbie--suddenly appeared to do a fourth revert on this article. BRMo 12:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

...whose entire Wikipedia experience consists of one edit, re-inserting Sqrjn's favourite word back into the text. This is enough for a hard block if anyone cares. I'd much rather Sqrjn helpfully participate though, I mean, I'm quite sincere when I say I'd welcome a citation from any published and halfway reasonable secondary source to support the use of the word kidnap in the article at least once cuz those kids were... by any modern linguistic or legal take... kidnapped. We can't cite my spin on it though and we can't merely slip it in because the article's topic is far too controversial. Gwen Gale 14:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of running your mouth I suggest you go back and look at my "one edits". Also if you think I'm a sock puppet or I'm using sock puppets I suggest you file a complaint. I really wish you'd and everyone else would address the content of my statements. I am continually trying to engage people in a dialog, but I keep getting the feeling that its impossible.

Why when you say that kidnapped is accurate, would you think its spin? How does controversy change the accurate use of language? Sqrjn 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you've made a contribution to the article. Many, many thanks!

Erm, my mistake, I was assuming good faith, I am such a bumpkin sometimes. Gwen Gale 04:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'd rather see you contribute to this collaborative effort than grass on you.

• If we call it kidnapping, it's original research. If we cite a secondary source which calls it kidnapping, we've created an unassailable component of an open encyclopedia article. Gwen Gale 03:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Before this line goes too far it is appropriate to register my position. I reject any claim to it being kidnapping. I think the term is inflammatory and is not accurate. If everyone is dead how can it possibly be kidnapping? What is the difference between kidnapping and providing aid to the children who were spared? That's right...no difference. Thus, to call it kidnapping only serves to satisfy a specific POV. I will have no qualms about including a quote from a valid historian that calls it kidnapping, but it would then also be necessary to include the other 100 historians that never used the term. I reject the repeated false assumption that it meets legal terms; it doesn't and I suspect that is why no one has ever termed it such. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is why I absolutely insist (so to speak, given that most of us are truly trying to work together smoothly here) that if the word kidnapping is used in the article, it must be supported by a citation from a published secondary source. Moreover, yes, spot on, if there is controversy or variation in the use of this term as it relates to MMM then it should, must be mentioned in the article, again using secondary sources to document the published dispute.

Now, that said, my strictly personal notion on this is that since the kids weren't immediately delivered safe and sound back to some responsible civil authority (for example in Salt Lake City), which could make arrangements for their care (and likely swift return to relatives in either California or Arkansas), they were kidnapped in the modern sense. The problem arises when we apply this word to the linguistic and legal environment of the 1850s (never mind the article is highly controversial). Hence, I'm ok with it in the article (cited), or not. Gwen Gale 05:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You hit it on the head - one thing to keep in mind, when they were deliberately spared, they were given to the government head of indian affairs - John Lee, who in turn placed them in the care of those in the community. He asked the head military leader (utah was under marial law), Brigham Young what to do with them. Taking the kids up to Salt Lake would have been tourtourous on the kids as they'd be reminded of recently passing through the area with their parents. Governor Young did not direct them to be transported, and left it as it was, knowing that the military would get them the follwoing year. A second alternative theory would be taht transporting the children to SLC would have shown Church endorsment. Either way, govenor young directed they stay put. -Visorstuff 14:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If they were given to John D Lee they were handed over to the convicted mass murderer who supervised the brutal destruction of their parents and who was later executed by firing squad for the crime, hardly eliminating any notion kidnapping was involved. If Young directed they stay where Lee put them, Young was an accessory to kidnapping in any modern sense, along with mass murder after the fact (twiddling with witnesses and so on). If Young was worried that bringing them up to SLC would imply LDS endorsement of the massacre, he wasn't as clever as I thought he was but never mind, I don't think the notion that getting the kids up to SLC (or over the Sierra Madres to California) would have been any more cruel than leaving them in those little towns watching people wear their parents' looted clothing and jewelry. Thankfully there's more than one way to Cedar City and all we need do is mind the citations... and be wary of LDS indian agents bearing white flags, I guess. Gwen Gale 15:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Its all speculation of course, just trying to give additional context. In any case, Lee was convicted for supervising the Indians massacre. I think all of us are in agreement that there is enough evidence that Captains Haight and Higbee and Colonel Dame (all outranking him) and other militia leaders directed Lee to do what he did. So the phrase "handed over to the convicted mass murderer who supervised the brutal destruction of their parents" is not quite accurate - he wasn't convicted yet, he didn't supervise it, rather he was one of a number of leaders (some named above) who were present and supervised it. And Young asking them to keep the children there is a government call, not a kidnapping call. A government official directing that survivors of any massacre stay near the crime scene and where their parents bodies are until the US government investigates is hardly an "accessory" to the modern term of kidnapping. That's like saying Clinton was an accessory to the massacres in Somalia and Sarajevo, or that Carter was an accssory in the hijacking that ended his presidency, or that Bush was an accessory to the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal, (which I know is controversial as it is). The decisions of a lower-ranking officials does not make the commander-in-chief and accessory to crimes, unless it is directed from that person - even in today's laws. It may end a presidency or result in a scandal, but not criminal indictment unless the leader knew and approved in advance, which there is no evidence for with Young. Besides it was William Bateman who carried the flag, not Lee :^) Good points but this is all speculation, unfortunately. -Visorstuff 16:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yay for us, that our sundry takes at original research can't be cited for this article :) Anyway yeah, it's well understood that government officials have been adept at commiting murder and getting away with it for a very long time. Gwen Gale 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting summary by Terryl Nolan Fancher and moving forward

Terryl Nolan Fancher, first cousin 4 times removed of wagon master, Captain Alexander Fancher, summarizes the events this way:

What caused the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

• Americans felt threatened by Mormon views of blood atonement and polygamy.
• Mormons felt threatened that the U.S. government would disrupt their lives, and their religion.
• The Fancher-Baker Wagon train was in the wrong place, and at the wrong time.Welcome to mtnmeadows.orgPPT

This is a pretty dispassionate summary - and I think we should strive for this type of objectivity.

Since tjere are a few people that object to the current efforts at a rewrite, I suggest the following: continue the rewrite without the interruptions of reverting, and initiating an RfC to seek comment on the rewrite from a broader audience. --Trödel 16:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the first time I ran across it, I've thought TNF's pithy take on MMM was helpful shorthand for the causes.

Yes, a simple RfC could be helpful, even if the reverts dwindle. I'd like to say again that the only way this article will ever be finished in stable, open encyclopedic form is if every conceivably controversial sentence is covered by a citation from a reliable, published secondary source. This is the only way to handle a controversial article on a public wiki. Gwen Gale 16:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

One caution - as I've stated before, I'm not sure that people who include blood atonement understand how the doctrine was taught. It gets lumped in because of the oath of vengence in the temple ceremony and the penalties signs - but all three are very different items and need to be better clarified - especially in wikipedia where we have folks who know the difference. Let's try to pull accurate stuff (i know it is very objective and can lead to other issues) where we can, but leave out things that are blatantly misunderstood by writers. I think the summary is a good one, but leave out the blood atonement and/or change (with references to smoot hearings, etc.) to oath of vengence. Or we could include it and then in the footnotes or text explain what he really should have said but didn't fully understand? And could signify it with a [sic] Just my two cents. -Visorstuff 18:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that what TNF called blood atonement is actually the oath of vengence - I just thought it was a good pithy summary --Trödel 18:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's tough to quote a source in an article and then attempt to "correct" it. For starters, especially in a controversial article like this one, strictly speaking we'd have to support that with a cite to a published secondary source which specifically interprets TNF's remarks with the spin that he "meant" oath of vengence. Otherwise, it would be original research. Hence, my take on Visorstuff's input would be, TNF's comment is helpful to editors on the talk page but too much trouble for the article. Gwen Gale 00:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bummer - its a good neutral source. -Visorstuff 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That said though, I've seen the "wrong place, wrong time" notion in other MMM sources and moreover there's nothing dodgy about attributing that rather indisputable slice of TNF's remark directly into the article. Gwen Gale 03:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Utah War?

Just noticed that in the current version that all references to the Utah War have been elimiated. I think that it provides important context, and is included in every book written on the topic. Shall we add in Utah War items such as buchanan's order, pratt's death and "the reformation" as context and setting from the mormon side? We have the beginnings of it from the fancher side, which still can be filled in more as well. -Visorstuff 17:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's way important. I hadn't nearly finished the draft when someone started reverting it. The article needs much filling in, I see it as a handy skeleton (uhm, maybe that metaphor is a bit too close to home for some given the topic but you know I what I mean). Gwen Gale 00:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Cites

Why are you not including cites? How is anything you are doing an improvement without cites? Are you doing this re-write from your personal memory?!? Are you hoping others will go back and do the research for you??Sqrjn 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using sockpuppets. Please stop violating 3rr. Please start helping with specific matters of content. Please note all the standard cite requests it contains. Please note that I have repeatedly mentioned that in its finished form this article will likely require cites for almost every sentence, sometimes for specific words (a suggestion which you have at times criticized). Please note that I had the draft on another page, quite unfinished and without any citation work yet started, when you started reverting it without comment and all work here stopped. Lastly, please try to find a secondary source to support the use of your (apparently) preferred word for the treatment of the kids... kidnapped. Thanks. Gwen Gale 00:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Clue me in. When exactly did I violate a policy? If you've got a complaint make one. Repeating accusations is just pointless and rude. I see that you didn't actually answer any of my questions. I'm begging you to show me where it says you cant use accurate language. The mediator even said that if its kidnapping call it kidnapping. Why does finding a term in a secondary source suddenly make it valid or invalid? The Jungles of Arkansas: A Personal History of the Wonder State. by Bob Lancaster The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 57, No. 3 (Aug., 1991) Take a look and get back to me. Sqrjn 03:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Do either of those sources specifically characterize the handling of the kids as kidnapping? If so, let's insert the word into the article and support it with an unassailable citation. Gwen Gale 04:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

INFO:

Deposition of Malinda Cameron Scott Thurston (other references to this deposition upon request) http://www.lofthouse.com/USA/Utah/washington/deposition.html Note: "on or about the third of August in said year eighteen hundred and fifty-seven they all arrived at Salt Lake City;"

Proclamation by the Governor. http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/NCMP1847-1877&CISOPTR=2905 Note date: August 5, 1857.

"On August 5, 1857, Brigham Young issued his first proclamation declaring martial law and forbidding any US troops to enter the territory. This broadside, however, was given little, if any, circulation." http://relarchive.byu.edu/19th/descriptions/proclamationgovernor.html "was given little, if any, circulation" ??

Interesting choice for the train @ Salt Lake City: (1) Should they head North to Washington Territory(now Idaho) and follow the California & Oregon Trails under protection of the US Army @ FT Hall, FT Boise, Ft Walla Walla, and Carson City or should they have taken the old Spanish Trail through Utah Territory under the command of B. Young(prophet, seer, & revolator of the Mormons)the former Governor of Utah Territory and former Superintendent of Indian Affairs, who had rejected the Constitution of the United States of America?

Hard choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinosa (talk • contribs)

Quick question (and possibly a side note more appropriate for talk pages) - you say that Young had "rejected the Constitution of the United States of America?" Are you saying that these sourcs say this or can you provide a citation for this? In fact, aside from Young claiming that he wanted the protection of the US constitution extended to Utahans in the link you just posted [1], Mormon scripture declares that the Constitution is divinely inspired... See for example D&C D&C 98:5-6; D&C 101:77, 80, D&C 109:54, etc. This is very different than believing that the US would be punished because its people "killed the prophets." LDS scriptures say that all nations and peoples who kill prophets will be destroyed... (see for example all of 3 Nephi 9; Rev. 6:9, 18:24; Mosiah 7:26; D&C 135:3; 1 Kgs. 19:1,10,14; and 2 Chr. 28:9). Want to make sure we are clear on doctrinal issues such as this so it doesn't creep into the article making it lose credibility. -Visorstuff 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can help? Available on the web are acceptances statements(signed and dated) from three territorl govenors: Lane from Oregon. Stevens from Washington. Wallace from Idaho. Each agreed to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Did Brigham Young agree to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America? Is there a 'link'(photograph) signed and dated? The state capitol archeives perhaps?Tinosa 02:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Where are they available, I couldn't find in the links you provided? Due to the President and congress officially disavowing the LDS Church and stating that president young didn't exist in 1862, (a fact that Young used to get out of paying the church's taxes when they lost their tax-exempt status), I'm curious if he was invited to sign anything, as Congress from about 1854-1867 didn't communicate with the Mormons, even if they were government officials? Even the disavowel notice was not delivered to Utah in 1862, and they were not notified of anything from washington unless it came through the govenor's office. In addition, Young was a territorial govenor - part of the oath he took when sworn in was to uphold the constitution of the United States and laws of congress. Just curious on source, as this is a new idea to me - not saying your wrong, just doesn't quite add up with Young's writings, sermons and LDS doctrines that he would deliberately say he rejected the constitution. -Visorstuff 15:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, during the deposition of Young durint the trial, he noted that:

"In May or June, 1857, the United States mails for Utah were stopped by the Government, and all communication by mail was cut off, an army of the United States was enroute for Utah, with the ostensible design of destroying the Latter-day Saints, according to the reports that reached us from the East." [2]

Again, curious if he was invited to sign the same statement? -Visorstuff 01:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Have been attempting to create a time-line of the investigation of MMM. The following is a list of participants. Any comments?

James Buchanan, U S President 1857-1861.

His cabinet. Lewis Cass, secretary of state; Howell Cobb, secretary of the treasury; John Floyd, secretary of war; Isaac Toucey, secretary of the navy; Aaron Brown, postmaster general;Jacob Thompson, secretary of the interior; Jeremiah Black, attorney general.

Secretary of the Interior. Jacob Thompson.

Superintendent of Indian Affairs. James W. Denver.

Superintendent of Indian Affairs Utah Territory. J. Forney

Secretary of War. John Floyd.

Utah Campaign. Colonel Albert Sidney Johnston.

Captain Stewart Van Vliet.

Captain K. P. Campbell.

CHARLES BREWER, Assistant Surgeon United States Army.

Department of the Pacific: General Clarke.

Major J.H. Carleton.

Major Henery Prince.

Lieutenant Ogle

Attorney General. Jeremiah Black

US Marshall. William Rogers.

Appointees.

Governor of the Utah Territory. Alfred Cummings.

Chief Justice of Utah Territory. D. R. Eckles.

Associate Justice. C. E. Sinclair.

Associate Justice. John Cradlebaugh.

Civilians Involved:

Frontiersman. JAMES LYNCH.

Frontiersman. Thomas Dunn

Frontiersman. John Lofink

Tinosa 23:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to include this in the article? It's a good list, but not sure how it would fit. Davemeistermoab 02:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Add District Attorney Alexander Wilson as a participant in the investigation. Of the members of Buchanan's cabinet, I think only Black played a significant role in the investigation, though Thompson had responsibility for the territory and Floyd for the army stationed there. The other Cabinet members are probably not relevant. It appears you are only looking at the 1859 investigation; a different cast of characters was involved with the Lee trials in 1875-76. BRMo 04:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

140

I went back to when we started using this number - it was after a reference was provided by Tinosa about how many were killed in Archive 4. I went back and looked at the reference, and it is a Wikipedia mirror article about Mountain Meadows (citing an earlier version of the page [3]. I can't find any other source for 140. Can someone provide one? If not, I've gone with citable claims in the introduction, with notes about who claimed what. I plan to pull page numbers later. -Visorstuff 22:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple of problems with showing 57 as the lower bound on the number killed in the massacre. (a) Brooks never says that 57 is her best estimate of the number killed. (As far as I can tell, that number doesn’t even appear in the introduction and represents a calculation made by the editor based some of the numbers that Brooks cited.) Brooks cites a lot of different numbers (from Mitchell, Armstrong, Gibbs; Lee even provided three different estimates at various times), but my reading is that the only conclusion she draws is that the number 123 is greatly exaggerated. (b) We now know (thanks to research by descendants of the survivors) the names of 82 victims [4]. (The memorial listing the 82 names was dedicated in 1990, shortly before Brooks's paperback version containing the new introduction went to press, but Brooks seems to have been unaware of this research.) Consequently, IMO any estimate smaller than 82 is simply not reasonable. BRMo 14:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

External links

Generally good references are preferred over external links, and references that are linked generally should not be included in the list of external links therefore I am reviewing the EL on meeting the standards at WP:EL - see below and please review and correct me. --Trödel 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

External Link	Criteria from Wikipedia:External Links						Comment
	Should meet all			Need meet one
	Accessible	Context	Works	Official	Detail	Review
Mountain Meadows Massacre - The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	remove - already a reference with link
Mountain Meadows Massacre - Utah History Encyclopedia	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	remove - not relevant or about Mountain Meadows Massacre - search to see if another entry exists in Encyclopedia
CourtTV website detailed history for the massacre and surrounding events.	Busy / Ads	Good	Yes	No	No - no new info	No	Remove - doesn't add anything
Mountain Meadows Association, a group described by a columnist for The Salt Lake Tribune as "an unusual mix of historians and descendants of massacre victims and perpetrators"	Yes	Yes	Yes	Close	Yes	No	Keep - put on top
November 1999 and September 2003 articles from Archaeology magazine's website	Yes	2003 - yes	Yes	No	No	No	Remove - use as references if needed
An account of the incident by the Government of Utah	Yes	Yes	Yes	Semi - Utah Govt	No	No	Remove
Reopening a Mormon Murder Mystery, October 2002 article from The New York Times	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Sortof	Remove - focus's on debate stirred by Bagley's book release
Mountain Meadows movie being filmed: "September Dawn" – August 26 2005 article at Deseret News	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Remove - include see also to September Dawn - add link there
May 2002 article about Walker-Turley-Leonard book at Deseret News	Yes	Yes	No				Remove doesn't work
May 2004 article about Walker-Turley-Leonard book at Deseret News	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Remove - add to footnote about book or article on book
Turley comments about researching the forthcoming book, in text and MP3 format at the LDS Newsroom	Yes	Yes	Yes	Maybe	No	No	Official LDS info but not official about article subject - Remove - add to footnote about book or article on book
History Channel producing documentary to air December 15 2004 (The program, Investigating History: Mountain Meadows Massacre, Who’s to Blame, did not actually air on the History Channel until February 8, 2005, and was repeated June 14, 2005.)	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Remove - add to footnote about book or article on show
Center for Studies on New Religions: Unearthing Mountain Meadows Secrets	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Remove - add to footnote about excavation disturbing bones if included
Background articles from a website copyrighted by The Truth About Anti-Mormonism	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Keep - reproduces in one place secondary sources on topic
Pictures of the current Mountain Meadows monument	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Keep - many photos that can't be integrated into the article
Letter detailing grave site excavation	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Remove - if primary source on excavation needed - use as reference
Mountain Meadow's Mysteries or the Evening Redness in the West Lane Twitchell's rendering of the event	Yes	Yes	No				Works today - but some links redirect to casinos - two images of the artwork are available on the site - no copyright notice but since he was born in 1967, would most likely be covered by copyright without notice. (unless he finished it really early in his life :)
Mountain Meadows Massacre Descendants – An Arkansas organization consisting of the direct descendants of the people murdered at Mountain Meadows.	Yes	Yes	Yes	Semi	No	Yes	Ugly but some unique content and images
Mountain Meadows Massacre, by Josiah F. Gibbs	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	remove - already a reference with link
List of internet resources	Yes	Yes	Yes	Semi	No	Yes	Keep - best alternative to a DMOZ entry for additional links

I generally agree with your findings. I also was thinking this section needs some pruning. I say go for it, and good work. Davemeistermoab 06:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed section to end the article

IMO the article still needs one more section to be complete. However, I'm afraid to add it because of the potential to incite certain editors, well I think you all know what I'm referring to. Anyways thoughts please?

Header: The Massacre Today

The Mountain Meadows Massacre remains a hotly contested issue to the present day. With few 1st hand accounts and 2nd and 3rd hand accounts that contradict each other many questions remain unanswered. These include:

• Knowledge/culpability of senior church officials for the acts,
• Involvement in local/senior church leaders in a cover-up
• Degree of involvement of the Paiute indians. While all accounts agree Paiutes were present, account differ to the level of their involvement.

In the early 1990's decendents of both the Fancher Party and the mormon participants reconciled to design and dedicate a monument to replace the then delapataded monument. There are currently 3 monuments to the massacre. Two at the massacre site, one mantained by the mormon church, the other by the Mountain Meadows Massacre Association. One in Arkansas, that is a replica of Carlton's monument by the Mountain Meadows Descendents Association.

This is a quick edit, not spell checked or anything. I'm just after if this is appropriate, not a thorough check. Davemeistermoab 05:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(Accordingly, I added a version of this to the aftermath section) Gwen Gale 06:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The last paragraph sounds good, but I would not recommend the providing unanswered questoins without a citation from an expert asking the questions and then you have to make sure all unanswered questions would be posed. Limiting the questions to just those regarding church invovlement (atttempting to say Paiute's may have been there, but weren't really participants again justs points again at church members). I suspect there are more questions to be answered than just these. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do what you can to handle your concerns by modifying the text accordingly. Mind, we're still building on the framework, with the expectation that citations will be added over time as needed (and if supporting cites can't be found, text will be removed if disputed by editors). Gwen Gale 06:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen. Also, Now that the paragraphs are included I'm starting to see Storm Rider's point. I like them. I think they bring closure to the article. But I also see them as an open invitation to the POV edits that have plagued the article in the past. Storm Rider, I'll leave this to you. If you still think this could pose problems, I say yank the paragraphs from the article.

On another point I think congratulations are in order to all. I think this article has made a LOT of progress in the past week and with one notable exception I think everybody has worked together well to improve it (even a new contributor joined in =-) ). Let us hope this continues

Davemeistermoab 06:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree! Moreover Storm Rider's concern, as you say, bears heeding. Gwen Gale 06:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Article: Mountain Meadows (section)

The article says. "The many dozens of bodies were hastily dragged into gullies and other low lying spots, then lightly covered with surrounding material which was soon blown away by the weather, leaving the remains to be scavenged and scattered by wildlife".[citation needed]

Jame Lynch said the following. "I enquired of Jacob Hamblin who is a high Church dignitary, why these remains were not buried at some time subsequent to the murder? he said that the bodies were so much decomposed that it was impossible to inter them. No longer let us boast of our citizenship freedom or civilization".Tinosa 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Tinosa, again you are forgetting to provide the source of the quote. see here for the quotation. Nevertheless, the source is interesting, but all third-hand details and many points are very inaccurate, from women involvement in the massacre, to no indian involvment, to titles that Lee and Hamblin had, to the children being dirty, when the official mil. report says they were better cared for than other kids, to seeing their "bones lie bleaching in the noon day sun" when the military said it couldn't find many remains at all, to saying that hamblin was present to many other items. But it is a good one to include for perception. And he does call for revenge against mormons: "vengeance must be had--civilization humanity and christianity call for it, and the American people must have it"

in any case, good addition for the 140 citation. I've not considered his report that reliable and didn't include it in my own notes for the number of those killed, but it helps give the range of those named.

As a side note, one of my early archeaological digs was at camp floyd - it is fun to re-read many of these letters and having found so much left behind by these men. -Visorstuff 23:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Article: Fancher Party (section)

The article says the following: "This group was initially referred to as both the Baker train and the Perkins train but after being joined by other Arkansas trains and making its way west, was soon called the Fancher train (or party) after "Colonel" Alexander Fancher who, having already made the journey to California twice before, had become its main leader".[2] The referense cited is [2]^ Bagley (2002), pp. 55-68; Finck (2005). Unforunatel Bagley offers no reference and Finck is a mystery.

The following website claims that Alexander Fancher may have made three trips to CA. but can find proof of only one. "Alexander Fancher was a farmer, and a cattleman who is said to have made at least three trips to California in the 1850's. Only his 1850 trip can be documented. During the height of the Gold Rush in 1850, he, and his brother John Fancher, drove cattle from Carroll County, Arkansas, through Salt Lake City Utah, to San Diego, California. His wife, and seven children born at that time, appear on 17 March 1851* in San Diego. (1850 Census of San Diego, California. The year it was actually enumerated was 1851. ). Before he left Arkansas, he gave his Power Of Attorney, to his Uncle James Fancher, so that James would be able to collect the monies due Alexander for his service in Capt. Mitchell's Militia. By 1852 Alexander Fancher was back in Carroll County, Arkansas where he purchased 40 acres of land in Township 18, Range 24, Section 15. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wallner/mmmfanch1.htm#Open

A page from the the 1850 San Diego CA. census. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wallner/af18501.htm

Wondering what others think.

I found this an interesting site. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wallner/mmm11.htm Tinosa 01:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into this - not quite sure what I think about it, or if it makes a difference to the article overall. How would you use the info? -Visorstuff 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

(1)The article says Fancher traveled to CA twice. The site above seems to prove that he was there at least once. Is there proof that he was there twice? (2) General Interest. Info about the Fanchers, why there are MMM memorials in Boone County, Ark. when it didn't exist in 1857, The probable route of the train (Cherokee Trail) to the South Pass, miles traveled per day with large cattle herds, a little info about trains joining and seperating, etc.Tinosa 18:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I got the "twice to California" info from the online Encyclopedia of Arkansas... http://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=129

Gwen Gale 18:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If the following unreferenced statement is acceptable per Wiki standards whom am I to argue. "Fancher, commonly known as Colonel Fancher, from Carroll County, had made the trek to California twice before".

Wasn't the "Encyclopedia of Arkansas" removed from this Wiki article recently?Tinosa 19:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Trodel removed the redundant link to it. The decision was made as it is already used as a source and listed in the references section that a duplicate link in the external links section was not required. Davemeistermoab 19:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Now, instead of looking for an article from the Encyclopedia of Arkansas, I will look for Finck. A convenient and informative short-cut.Tinosa 21:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry bout that - my intent was to give the author credit not detract from its usability. I'll use an alternative citation method in the references - would you prefer it be cited in the footnotes as Ency of Arkansas? --Trödel 22:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Francher Train Arrival in SLC:

Denton. Chapter 7. page 103. "On August 3, 1857, Alexander Francher led the the wagons...on the Jordon River...

Brooks. Chapter 3. page 44. "Since Jacob Hamblin...it would seem that the group was the one one listed on August 3 or 4.

On pages 43 and 44 Brooks offers her rendition of the LDS "Journal History of the Church".

Bagley. Chapter 6. pages 97 & 98. "One emigrat dated the Francher train's arrival in Salt lake August 3,1857...

Bagley Reference: Chapter 6. page 404. Depositions of 15 October and 18 December 1877 and and 2 May 1922, in Thurston Claim,4 11.

The Deposition of Malinda Thurston. http://www.lofthouse.com/USA/Utah/washington/deposition.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tinosa (talk • contribs) 00:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Historical accuracy.

Arrival in SLC. August 3, 1857. See above.

The first and unpublicized version of Martial Law. August 5, 1857.

http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/NCMP1847-1877&CISOPTR=2905

The second version, with date change, made available to the public August 15, 1857. http://relarchive.byu.edu/19th/descriptions/proclamationgovernor.html

"The Mormons they encountered along the way were suspicious and most declined to trade with them for several reasons, including Young's declaration of martial law, his orders discouraging the trading of food with immigrants and his orders forbidding people from traveling through the territory without a pass, which the Fancher party did not have."

Did the Francher Train know they should have a pass and of the unpublicized martial law?

Did "The Mormons they encountered.." know of the unpublicized martial law and the need for Americans to have a pass?

Tinosa 17:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Tinosa wrote "Bagley offers no reference" (that Fancher had made the trip twice before). Bagley provides a number of footnotes for his first (1850) trip, when he took the southern route from Salt Lake City. For the second trip in 1854, Fancher apparently went the northern route. Bagley cites Burr Fancher, Westward with the Sun, pp. 245-247, and Brooks, John Doyle Lee, p. 372. I'm not familiar with Westward with the Sun. BRMo 15:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Kidnapped, revisited again

I've dug through a few sources. It seems that after the massacre, the decision was made to take the children to the nearby Hamblin home, as he was in charge of local indian affairs, and Lee's superior as indian agent. Hamblin was gone at the time of the killing. Hamblin re-distributed the children under the direction of (Non LDS) Superintendent Fornay (Indian Affairs for Utah), that was Lee and Hamblin's superior. I've found a multiple sources for this, however, as Hamblin's testimony is online in this regard and easily available, I'll provide it below: (Q=attorney in Lee's trial; A=Hamblin)

"Q: What became of the children of those emigrants? How many children were brought there?

A: Two to my house, and several in Cedar City. I was acting subagent for Forney. I gathered the children up for him; seventeen in number, all I could learn of.

Q: Whom did you deliver them to?

A: Forney, Superintendent of Indian Affairs for Utah." [5]

Dr. Jacob Forney had the children stay with families in the area until a military escort (Carleton and Hamblin) could pick them up and took them to SLC. This is supported by Forney, Carelton, Klingen-Smith, Hamblin and Lee. I think the use of the word "kidnap" or "Kidnapping" should no longer be an issue now, as distribution of children was done under the direction of US federal government officials, not territorial officials.

As a side note, Carleton and the Tanner's both believed that Hamblin's estimate of 123 deaths was exaggerated [6] [7]. Jerald and Sandra Tanner wrote:

"From Major Carleton's statement of the number of skulls and other human bones which lie gathered up and buried, it is evident that Jacob Hamblin's statement of the number of skeletons which he collected and buried was exaggerated, or that there were many more people in the company than has been heretofore estimated. And some of the bones were found a mile or so from the old camp ground, at points to which the coyotes had dragged them."

However, Carleton apparently believed that the number was close between 107 and 120. He wrote:

"I have since learned from the people who assisted in burying the bodies that there were 107 men, women and children found dead upon the ground. I am satisfied that all were not found."

Hamblin was trusted by Carleton and by Forney, and escorted the children to SLC, helped bury what he could, and kept track of the children as an official part of his duties for the US government while they were placed with families in the area, until he escorted them to Forney. -Visorstuff 01:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Either way, scholarly support for characterizing the kids' treatment during the days and weeks immediately following the massacre as kidnapping, as far as I'm aware, has yet to appear on this talk page. Gwen Gale 06:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify your statement above? Are you saying that there is no support that they were kidnapped, or that there is support they were kidnapped? The kids were immediately brought to the government authority. Sorry maybe its too early my time to read, I'm just unclear when reading it? -Visorstuff 15:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Mind, I'm indifferent to the word kidnapping being included in the article. However, IMO, but only by my OR (so to speak) there is support for it. Since the massacre was ordered by LDS leadership (at a minimum in Cedar City), any Mormons associated with the CC leadership who took custody of the kids weren't acting independently of the murderers, whatever federal titles they may have bureaucratically held. The children weren't transferred out of Mormon custody (in effect, away from the murderers' control) for two years (1859). Now so far as the article content and WP policy are concerned, the modern sense of the word kidnapping as applied to the linguistic and legal (not to mention isolated) environment of 1857 Utah is not 1:1. Moreover, the article is highly controversial and has a history of being locked because of fierce PoV warring. Hence, I'm not keen on seeing a word in the article which we don't normally see in published accounts of MMM unless someone can come up with a reasonable, published secondary source which uses the word in a description of what happened to the children after their innocent parents were slaughtered whilst under the impression their safety had been guaranteed by federal Indian agent John D Lee. Gwen Gale 19:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The children were ordered to stay with the local mormons by a non-mormon government bueracrat (Forney). So to say that custody wasn't transferred is a misnormer - the US government had custody, but left them in the care of local families but didn't transfer custody to the military or out of the area and then their families for at least another year. Using the same logic, the children were abandoned by both the US governement (forney), territorial government (cummings was officially sent to replace young, but the time anyone heard of the matter) and their extended families (who were told within weeks of the massacre) and had to wait for cummings to investigate the matter. In today's world they'd be charged with child endangerment, rather than kidnapping. its a totally different world. Incidentally, The newly appointed governor Cummings is the reason why the investigation took so long - comes into utah to put down mormon polygamy with two mistresses and immediately opens a brothel and saloon. Didn't do much official stuff for nearly six months. Nice guy I'm sure, but his role is often forgotten in the cover up of this mess. -Visorstuff 21:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like he was complicit and having a time for himself. You're spot on when you say it's a different world, especially in the communication and legal senses which themselves fold back and sway what people chose to do. I've read hundreds of pages on this by now, maybe two thirds of it so biased either as anti-Mormon screed or evasive, circular, mind numbing apologetics and I've yet to see the word kidnapping come up. Gwen Gale 23:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Court TV link

I removed this link and it has been reintroduced. My main objection to it is that is not an accurate portrayal of some events - it confuses oath of vengeance with blood atonement. It introduces no unique or other text that is not sufficiently covered by this article or other better secondary sources - it is at best a tertiary source that provides little explanation of its analysis int eh form of footnotes, etc. Finally, it is an ugly site with too many ads and too narrow of writing. If this ad laden site wasn't from CourtTV I would remove it as spam, based on the prevalence of screen space taken up by ads. --Trödel 04:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Court TV is sometimes tabloidish and unreliable (this varies and seems to depend on the correspondent and/or sourcing they use for each story). When an article topic is thinly mentioned online (some crime topics, for example) I guess it's sometimes ok to offer a link to a Court TV treatment but there is so much online material available about MMM that, given the stark inaccuracies offered by that link, I think it's encyclopedic to refrain from listing it. Anyway I've removed it.Gwen Gale 06:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, so the site is ugly, Gunnison was bush-wacked before the correct interpertation of 'oath of vengeance' and 'blood attoement' could be explained to him & it is somtimes tabloidish. Is there more?Tinosa 14:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO this is not a big thing, an external link. with so many references listed in the article, I'll put it back then. :) Gwen Gale 16:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by, "is there more." The standard is: "Neutral and accurate material [tabloid material-fails] that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article [no unique material-fails] due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. or Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. [no new interviews or other reviews that would be meaningful or relevant]." So it doesn't meet the criteria at all. Is there some content you think that is on the Court TV link that justifies it being included, if so I am open to be persuaded that it does meet the criteria. --Trödel 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

On a semi-related content. After realizing I had made a couple of errors in my monument paragraph I went searching for sources to make sure I have it correct now. I added a link to this site: http://1857massacre.com/ which was used as a source in the previous incarnation of this wikipedia article. It has a lot of good information but is full of absolute vitrol to the point it cannot be trusted in general. I linked to one of the pages that is for the most part indisputable, but elsewhere the site makes such absurd claims as "Brigham Young, is undeniably the most evil criminal in the history of the United States of America...". In the authors' defence I doubt they intend for the site to be that bad, more like a group of decendents that for whatever reason cannot make peace with what happened. Anyways, Is such a site appropriate? or had I better remove this before it causes problems? Davemeistermoab 21:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My experience has been (with sites like that) that they are good for tracking down the "indisputable" stuff - because they will give who said it etc. Then I reference the primary or secondary source directly. That way I avoid the difficult question :), but if it has unique information that should be added - it should be included, but maybe in the footnotes only rather than in the list of reference. --Trödel 21:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Utah.gov link as a possible source for several unsouced claims

I found this link on utah.gov:

http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/pioneers_and_cowboys/mountainmeadowsmassacre.html

Nothing earthshatteringly new here. But this link may provide some use as a reference for certain places in the wikipedia article which I'll list below. Please advise if you have a better source, if not I'll add links to this article for the following unsourced statements:

Wikipedia: As the Fancher party approached Mountain Meadows, several meetings were held in Cedar City and nearby Parowan by local LDS leaders pondering how to implement Young's declaration of martial law Utah.gov: Several meetings were held in Cedar City and Parowan to determine how the "War Orders" should be implemented.

Wikipedia article: "leadership in Ceder City reporedly broke down" Utah.gov article: "In the meantime, things got completely out of hand. Orders and counterorders were misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise."

W:On September 7 the party was attacked by a group of Native American Paiutes and Mormon militiamen dressed as Native Americans. Utah.gov: At dawn the following Monday, 7 September, the Fancher train was brought under siege by Indians and militiamen disguised as Indians.

w: The attack continued for five days, during which the besieged families had little or no access to fresh water or game food and their ammunition was depleted. Utah.gov: By Friday, 11 September, low on water and ammunition, they were in a helpless condition.

w: whereby they could be escorted safely to Cedar City under Mormon protection in exchange for leaving all their livestock and supplies to the Native Americans. Utah.gov: the emigrants were made an offer to leave all of their possessions to the Indians and be conducted safely back to Cedar City.

w: leaving the remains to be scavenged and scattered by wildlife Utah.gov: The remains of the victims were hurriedly thrown into shallow depressions and ravines and covered with whatever was available. These remains were subsequently scattered over the immediate area by storms and wild animals.

w: All of the Mormon participants in the massacre were then sworn to secrecy. w:the involvement of various church officials in both the murders and concealing evidence in their aftermath is still questioned Utah.gov: Appalled by what had been done, and in fear of possible repercussions, an effective cover-up plan was put into force. It blamed the entire episode on the Indians, and continued to be maintained for the next few years in the face of outside outrage and investigation.

Although the Utah.gov article does not explicitly say the Fancher party did not have a pass, it does imply it and MAY be usable for the cite request for the same statement in the wikipedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davemeistermoab (talk • contribs) 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Add it in for now, we can update later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Visorstuff (talk • contribs) 21:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Any information you have, from either the North or South side of the fense, is welcomed. In fact, as a Wicki MMM contributor you may feel obligated to contribute info. as I do.Tinosa 21:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

All Source Requested statements now have a source

Yeah!!!!. Although I had to cheat to do it =-). I removed the numbers from Gale's paragraph as the source I found did not have numbers. Sorry Gayle, When a source is found with the numbers I fully support re-adding them Davemeistermoab 21:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:) Gwen Gale 08:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, my apologies for bungling your name. I was in a hurry to finish when I wrote the above. But I guess its moot. We're back to unsouced statements 24 hours later =-) Davemeistermoab 06:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. All statements again have a source. I hope this time it lasts for more than 24 hours =-) Davemeistermoab 04:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wildcats

Gwen Gale - just curious on your thinking about moving the missouri wildcats to the utah section, when they were already with the train before coming to utah. The article flows chronologically except for the wildcat part.

If the point of the traveling through utah paragraph is to show reasons for the suspicious nature of mormons against these folks, then we should relabel the heading. as it is now, it seems to break up the flow, however. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 07:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the article flows more chronologically with the main reference to them in the traveling through Utah section. The apparently self-named "Missouri Wildcats'" significant influence and behaviour (the alleged taunting and other serious pranking by a small group associated with an otherwise orderly and domestically oriented wagon train) reportedly didn't reach notable levels until after the Fancher party was south of SLC and into southern Utah. Gwen Gale 08:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me do some additional digging around on this, now I understand the reasoning. My understanding is that they became obnoxious when some of the train desided to stay in Manti and possibly convert to Mormonism, but that they were with the train

since at least wyoming. I'll see what I can dig up. -Visorstuff 14:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Little doubt they were with the train when it entered Utah, but from what I've seen of the sources most of rumours were about behaviour south of SLC (I may have seen one or two references to Mormon baiting in SLC but I'd have to look again). This is not to say this stuff happened. It may have. Or it could have come from post-massacre LDS-friendly spin or... bits of both. By the way, the earlier section does say the train picked up people from Missouri (but no more). Gwen Gale 15:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You might follow the word trail of Isaac C. Haight. According to Lee thats where he got his info.

"About the 7th of September, 1857, I went to Cedar City from my home at Harmony, by order of President Haight. I did not know what he wanted of me, but he had ordered me to visit him and I obeyed. If I remember correctly, it was on Sunday evening that I went there. When I got to Cedar City, I met Isaac C. Haight on the public square of the town. Haight was then President of that Stake of Zion, and the highest man in the Mormon priesthood in that country, and next to Wm. H. Dame in all of Southern Utah, and as Lieutenant Colonel he was second to Dame in the command of the Iron Military District. The word and command of Isaac C. Haight were the law in Cedar City, at that time, and to disobey his orders was certain death; be they right or wrong, no Saint was permitted to question them, their duty was obedience or death.

When I met Haight, I asked him what he wanted with me. He said he wanted to have a long talk with me on private and particular business. We took some blankets and went over to the old Iron Works, and lay there that night, so that we could talk in private and in safety. After we got to the Iron Works, Haight told me all about the train of emigrants. He said (and I then believed every word that be spoke, for I believed it was an impossible thing for one so high in the Priesthood as he was, to be guilty of falsehood) that the emigrants were a rough and abusive set of men. That they had, while traveling through Utah, been very abusive to all the Mormons they met. That they had insulted, outraged, and ravished many of the Mormon women. That the abuses heaped upon the people by the emigrants during their trip from Provo to Cedar City, had been constant and shameful; that they had burned fences and destroyed growing crops; that at many points on the road they had poisoned the water, so that all people and stock that drank of the water became sick, and many had died from the effects of poison. That these vile Gentiles publicly proclaimed that they had the very pistol with which the Prophet, Joseph Smith, was murdered, and had threatened to kill Brigham Young and all of the Apostles. That when in Cedar City they said they would have friends in Utah who would hang Brigham Young by the neck until he was dead, before snow fell again in the Territory.. They also said that Johnston was coming, with his army, from the East, and they were going to return from California with soldiers, as soon as possible, and would then desolate the land, and kill every d--d Mormon man, woman and child that they could find in Utah. That they violated the ordinances of the town of Cedar, and had, by armed force, resisted the officers who tried to arrest them for violating the law. That after leaving Cedar City the emigrants camped by the company, or cooperative field, just below Cedar City, and burned a large portion of the fencing, leaving the crops open to the large herds of stock in the surrounding country. Also that they had given poisoned meat to the Corn Creek tribe of Indians, which had killed several of them, and their Chief, Konosh, was on the trail of the emigrants, and would soon attack them. All of these things, and much more of a like kind, Haight told me as we lay in the dark at the old Iron Works. I believed all that he said, and, thinking that he had full right to do all that he wanted to do, I was easily induced to follow his instructions.

Haight said that unless something was done to prevent it, the emigrants would carry out their threats and rob every one of the outlying settlements in the South, and that the whole Mormon people were liable to be butchered by the troops that the emigrants would bring back with them from California. I was then told that the Council had held a meeting that day, to consider the matter, and that it was decided by the authorities to arm the Indians, give them provisions and ammunition, and send them after the emigrants, and have the Indians give them a brush, and if they killed part or all of them, so much the better". http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/leeconfession.html

The chain of command of the Mormon insurgents. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/commandchain.html Tinosa 19:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I've read that before. All south of SLC I think, though one should ever be wary of anything Lee said after MMM. Gwen Gale 21:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually looking for contemporary accounts in the deseret news and tribune on the matter - not hearsay journal accounts. It may be some time before I can get to a location that has them in archives, but I'm pretty sure that there was some sort of bragging that made it into both the DN and the (at the time openly) anti-Mormon Tribune. -Visorstuff 22:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Brooks points to the "reckless boasts" of this group as being published somewhere in her book. Lemme see what I can dig up. -Visorstuff 22:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Surviving Children.

Survivors Sold.

(1) "Lee went through the form of selling or bartering off the all the children by two". Federal Marshall WM.H.Rogers account of his interview with Mrs.Hamblin. See Brooks Appendix XI or Valley Tan newspaper article 29, Feb. 1860.

(2) "The children were sold out to different persons in Cedar City, Harmony, and painter Creek". Superintendent of Indian Affairs Utah Territory J Forney, August 1859. See Brooks Appendix X or MASSACRE AT MOUNTAIN MEADOWS. 75. Message of the President. http://ia331318.us.archive.org/1/items/messageofpreside00unitrich/messageofpreside00unitrich_djvu.txt

(3) "The infants were taken to Cedar City, where they were either sold or given away to such of the Mormons as desired them". See. Captain R. P. CAMPBELL, Second Dragoons, Com'g Santa Clara Expedition. FORT BRLDGER, July 6, 1859. Message of the President. http://ia331319.us.archive.org/1/items/messageofpreside00unitrich/messageofpreside00unitrich_djvu.txt

(4) "They sold us from one family to another". Survivor Sarah Francis Baker. See Bagley. Chapter 13. page 237. Also, note (58), page 426. Sarah Baker Memoir. Tinosa 22:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Moreover many of the kids saw Mormons in Cedar City and elsewhere wearing their slaughtered parents' looted clothing and jewelry. Gwen Gale 22:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added all this, cites themselves (above) are not yet attached though. Gwen Gale 23:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Some sources have Sarah Francis Baker as 3 when the attack happened - that would maker her at most 5 when she was taken back to her relatives. Is that accurate? --Trödel 23:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be accurate.The passage in the article only quotes her and makes no assertion as to what actually happened to her. Even so, I'll add her age. Speaking only for myself as a talking point, I can't remember much about being three but remember something about being four and tonnes about being five and would certainly remember having been sold at that latter age. I'd guess her memories were likely reinforced by some of the older kids, too. Gwen Gale 23:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You surmised my intent, if that is true we should include her age. I remember distinctly breaking my arm when I was about 3 - but I found out from my mom when I was about 22 that my memory of the event was not that great - and had been influenced by many factors. --Trödel 02:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarah F. Baker is an unusual case and may not lend to being the most reliable source. Carleton reported that she said her name was "Francis Harris, or Horne, and remembered nothing of her family". [8] It makes me think that she may have been more influenced by what other people said than her actual memories of what took place. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So she could remember being sold later on but since nobody had told Sarah her family name since she was a toddler, she couldn't remember that and instead remembered a couple of names of families she'd been with, Harris and Horne... in truth, if anything it would tend to support the notion she'd been passed around/sold among families as she claimed (adding a sense of reliability to her words and not detracting). Gwen Gale 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Note the use of "may". I think it is impossible to do anything but report her claim; however, I have always thought a name as something relatively more important than the vast nubmer of other things in life. If not my own, then certainly the names of my parents. So I forget my own name, but I can remember some old codgers dickering over my sales price? For some reason I remain a bit jaundiced about the claim. I can imagine what an entertaining story that was for the rest of her life, "Yup, when I was three old man Lee took me by the hand and sold me to this old widow who beat me every day I was with her. Then she would not feed me, but expected me to week the garden even in the middle of winter. When I was not working some old, dirty Mormon would try to get me to become his 102nd wife." My daughter is more than just a little theatrical and would have a field day with that story floatng around. May she never be told she was sold as a child for two years among the Southern Baptists of the deep south. :) --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Either way, three-year olds aren't noted for being keen at remembering their family name (or much of anything else in the long term). As I implied earlier, the verbal and associative memory of a five year old is much more developed than a three year old's and Sarah was with Mormons until she was five. Meanwhile the quote in the article is attributed without interpretation and is supported by reliable secondary sources. Gwen Gale 11:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to dispute your take on the theatrics of preschoolers, mind :) Are you implying that there are extant quotes of Sarah saying later in life that, when she wasn't busy pulling weeds on Christmas day, she was passed around among middle aged Mormons holding pseudo-Masonic sealing cermonies and arguing about the bills of sale for Fancher kids or what. (Posted with tongue firmly in cheek though!) Gwen Gale 18:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, my two year old knows her full name quite well, as could her sister by the time she was three. Granted, they may have not had as much reasons for teaching it then based on the rise of child abductions or education needs, but for someone so affluent not to have taught the child what her full name was by the age of three, when she'd start school at the age of five or six seems strange to me. Even my one year old will say his name when you ask what his first name is... -Visorstuff 22:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as that unreasonable. It wasn't that long ago where a child was abandoned in the toy aisle of a ShopKo (I believe, if not ShopKo some big box retailer) in Salt Lake City area that similarly could not give his own name or even his parents names. He was eventually identified when he gave the names of the friends he played with on National TV. He turned out to be from the Reno, Nevada area. His mother had been murdered and the killer took the child to Utah and left him at the store. I agree, I can't imagine not knowing my name by at least 3 years old. However, like you, my parents pushed education and knowledge on me early. That's not so with other families, especially in this age where most kids spend more time with father Nintendo than their real father. To be fair, when someone is that young they might only know mom as "mom", dad as "dad" and themselves as junior, son, princess, etc. Davemeistermoab 03:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, I was not alluding to any historical fact about what she may have said, but I can just see how a story of this nature could take on a life of its own. Me, personally, this is simply one story that I look upon with a jaundiced eye. However, I am a simple individual that loves history and not a historian of merit. My ramblings of what I would imagine could have been said. My impression is that children of an age of 3-5 or even older do not have memories that are completely reliable. It was only in half gest that I spoke of my daughter. I do not think it would be hard to tell a child several times how she was sold into slavery as a child and, whether it was true or not, the child would begin to honestly believe they were sold into slavery. This was a period of some awfully strong language, Carleton being only one of many. What were the families to think of a situation where their family members were murdered in cold blood? It would not be difficult to believe the very worst. I think we have turned this over enough and come to a conclusion that it is a worthy thing to include and that no one is contesting that. Some of us believe it more readily and others not so readily. This is not a big deal. Let's move on. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. For me, this discussion was kinda fun more than anything else but thanks for the reassurance. Here's my OR take anyway... it's a "long term" memory thing. A three year old may know her family name (I guess I must have known mine) but if she stops using it and isn't reminded of it thereafter, I'd be surprised if she had a clue about it two years later at age 5. Gwen Gale 07:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

But that is just what the problem is for me. She forgot her name, but somehow not only remembered, but understood that she was being "sold". For me it just stretches credulity. She would have had to understood the concept of value and money, which I find nearly impossible. To me it sounds too muc like a story she was told so often as a child that the story became her "memory". I am not saying it did not happen; however, I am saying that it is a story that is doubtful as to being an honest recollection.

What also leads me down this path is the activity of our ever objective Mr. Carleton, a true paragon of balance if there ever was one. The children are returned with his florid descriptions being drummed into everyone's mind. I find it difficult that each of those children, specifically the youngest, were not affected by what others were saying. Me thinks Gwen you have a wicked sense of humor! --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Anyway so think about this for a tick, 'k? She's three the last time she hears her last name's Baker so two years and a few "foster" families later, she's forgotten it. I mean, we know they weren't tellin' her cozy fireside tales about her slaughtered parents. Meanwhile she's 5 and gets sold (or bartered or whatever) to another family as a skilled weedpicker and wow, this she remembers. As for Carleton, yeah, sounds like he got emotionally involved in his job. I may have done too, had I found the bones of an infant still clutched in the skeleton arms of its mum after baking out in the sagebrush for a couple of years. So who do we believe (only talkin' here)? The non-Mormon Formy, who nonetheless was partying in SLC with a couple of mistresses and no doubt getting along ok through helpful, pragmatic, one on one "diplomacy" with BY (who one way or another was doing some keen, erm, "spin control" in the dodgy aftermath of this botch from hell), our friend John D., who we can trust about as much as the Fancher-Bakers did, not, end of, or Carleton, a career military officer from a federal government with rapidly growing, uhm, "centralist" tendancies about to plunge into bloody civil war anyway, trudging about in the middle of nowhere picking the bleached bones and bullet-riddled skulls of women and kids from the red dirt of MM? F**k. For the sake of talk, I say cite the lot of 'em then, if need be. Gwen Gale 11:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Just want to clarify a few items in the above - Forney was a respected individual, not in SLC partying with mistresses - that would be the newly appointed Governor Cummings. Forney was already in the area, and is generally considered a good man without too many skeletons - trusted by Mormons and non-Mormons alike. Forney was waiting for Cummings to be seated and the Humbolt uprising to be put down (Native Americans stealing post mail and killing whites) before coming down to investigate. It was Cummings, and General Johnston's men (not Johnston himself that I've seen), including Howard and Carleton who were accused of kidnapping, raping and "seducing" Mormon women from Provo, Battlecreek/Pleasant Grove and even American Fork/Lehi. Carelton's men were accused of stealing or running off cattle and stealing property and making up stories about Mormons (some I'm sure were justified). This is just one reason that Johnston's men were confined to Camp Floyd in Cedar Valley (west side of Utah Lake, not to be confused with Cedar City, 300+ miles away) and led to the term "Buchanan's Blunder." His blunder was sending immoral men to stop Mormon polygamy, not notifying Young that he was being replaced as Governor, starting the Utah War, and "losing" the Utah War - I believe Tiffany's even wrote about this.

In any case, Brooks and Bagley both point to Lee's testimony as being extremely accurate, and the timeline of/and events has been proven and verified in other ways. It is his assumptions, opinions and conclusions as to involvement that they can't verify - as can no-one else. To discount Lee just because he was convicted doesn't give the man any credit for following Higbee's orders (incidentally, Higbee couldn't be tried due to newly-formed laws (that were the preliminaries of today's double jeoapardy laws), and testimony in Lee's trial couldn't be used against Higbee and Dame, or we'd have likely at least two convicted for the matter. Plus Lee was out of town when the investigation took place and Haight, Higbee and Dame and others quickly pointed the finger at him. Even court records place Lee as following orders, the issue was he was no only a militia leader, but also an indian agent - they (Higbee and Dame, at least) used both his positions to coordinate the massacre. -Visorstuff 16:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Visorstuff for pointing out my botch in muddling Cummings with Forney. Higbee... it's true, his name is all over the decision making in Cedar City, let's get him into the article then. Gwen Gale 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember Sarah Francis Baker had an older sister Mary Elizabeth (Betsy), age 5 at the time of the MMM, age 7 when she was returned to her family in Arkansas. Her older sister is probably the one who filled in some of the blanks for her little sister Sarah Francis regarding the two years they spent in Utah. ParkerMMM 04:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Demise of the Paiute Tribe

Gwen, Do you have a source for this (claim that the Mountain Meadows caused the demise of the Paiutes). This is a rather bold claim to leave unsourced for as long as it has. I've never read this before. I've searched for several documents that porport to be the history of the Paiute tribe, few even mention Mountain Meadows. I've found artcles that blamed area settlers in general for the demise of the Paiute's (by displacement from their homes etc.) but not MMM specificiallyDavemeistermoab 03:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I read it somewhere a week or two ago and dropped it into the article yesterday, I think. Lazy me for not making a note of where. If it's not supported soon, yeah, it should go. Gwen Gale 07:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Young having original monument torn down

Just back from vacation and I'm not surprised to see this 'sanitized' version of events posted. Why is there no mention of brigham Young having the first cairn destroyed ('vengeance was his') ? Duke53 | ^Talk 06:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

He's Baaaaaaaaack =-)

On a more serious note. I have no problem with the article mentioning that people claimed to see Young order the distruction of the monument. Provided it is stated as a claim, not a provable fact. There are also sources of people claiming to have seen the monument in tact after young supposedly gave these orders. This is similar to how the current version mentions the Missouri Wildcat's tauntings and the raping of the 2 girls, sourced allegations, not facts.

Also for the record, I don't think this version is sanatized at all. To the contrary, I feel this version is more critical of the event. Furthermore, lead by Gwen's efforts this version was a COLLABERATION of a lot of people's efforts. Where the previous version was nothing less than a war zone. Let's face it the last verision was a string of inflamatory, single source, dubious quotes that could be summerized like this" "MORM4NZ 5UCK", "No, they don't", "Mormons are cannibals", "No they're not", "Mormons are evil diabolical hell's angels" "No, They're not". The previous version is insulting to anybody who is intelligent enough to read facts and form their own opinions. I hope you can join the collaberation and the spirit of co-operation stays. Davemeistermoab 06:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There were sources cited about young's involvement in destroying the original cairn, including his quote about vengeance being 'his'. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. Agree, I think it should be included, but the historicity issues and reliability should be mentioned. Duke53, why don't you draft something, place here on the talk page and let us see what you are thinking on how it should be included? I don't think it will take many revisions before its placed on the talke page. Again, welcome back - we've worked hard on the current version - and while it may be simplified (not sanitized), the information contained it the current revision is more historically verifiable and moderate in its approach than the rumor-laden, complex, and detailed version prior to christmas. We've spent a lot of time and effort on the current version, and I think as you review, you'll be pleased with how far its come. We still have a lot of work to do, but we've also started basically from scratch to fix most of the issues that were had. -Visorstuff 17:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

How about,

By some accounts when Brigham Young first visited the site of the massacre he noted the cross and stated "No, Vengence is mine and I have taken a little." He then ordered the distruction of the monument. However others claim to have seen the marker in tact after this time.

I'm running late for an appointment, but this is neutral enough it shouldn't be hard to source and is rather pithy. Or is this too pithy?Davemeistermoab 00:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Question for everybody that is concerned about this topic. With just a quick search of the internet I found 2 photographs of the Cairn (both minus the cross) dated 1900 and 1910. If Brigham Young had the monument distroyed, did somebody come after and rebuild it? How do the proponents of this theory reconcile this? (Swear, I'm asking an honest question, not accusing anybody of anything)? Considering the first camera simple enough for the general public to use (the Kodak "Brownie Box" camera) was first sold in 1900 implies that almost as soon as cameras became available to general public people were taking pictures of a monument the was supposedly distroyed just a few years before. (The cross is missing, but unless the troops were able to get their hands on some schelack(sp) to coat the wood, I wouldn't expect there would be much left after 40 show covered winters and 40 hot summers)

Davemeistermoab

Bagley. Chapter 13. VENGEANCE IS MINE. p. 247. (note 106). See page page 427 (note 106) "George F. Price's company of California Volunteers restored the monument in May 1864". ...Lorenzo Brown saw the monument on 1 July 1864... written below the bible verse. "Remember Hauns Mill and Carthage Jail". Tinosa 02:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh Thank You Davemeistermoab 02:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Pass

Great addition to the citations, Tinosa (although I'm missing where they demonstrate that the first proclamation was kept private?). Wondering if you can add in more detail on the "pass" based on your recent research? I was under the impression that the first proclamation was printed in the DNews, and later re-printed, but that doesn't neccessitate a change in the article, as those who travel through wouldn't have read the DNews anyway. What I'd like to see is where the party stayed and who they interacted with in SLC and what they found out from those people. More than likely they met with other non-Mormons in the city and were probably aware of what was going on from their interactions with others. The folks at teh tribune had a habit of meeting with all non-Mormon trains coming into the valley, and no doubt would have discussed the Mormon situation with them. Salt Lake was still a smaller city at this stage, and word travels fast. That said, the context of having a pass from the territorial governor is a unique thought and we should explore. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 18:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to obtain a dicussion about this subject a few days ago. Historical accuracy?? or somesting, but it didn't occurr. Any statement I enter that is not accurate should be corrected or removed from this article.

On another subject, if you have time, go to the digital Utah newspaper, select Valley Tan, & 2/15 '59. There's an interesting from Hamblin about a missing white child in Navajo Country. (If this works??) http://udn.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/valleytan&CISOPTR=315Tinosa 02:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Try again for the Valley Tan.Tinosa 02:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Section on disputed facts?

Having had very little time for Wikipedia over the last couple of weeks, I'm impressed by the progress that has been made on the article rewrite.

I'm concerned, however, that there are several issues on which the major secondary sources disagree, but this version cites only one POV. Examples: (a) "there is no evidence that Brigham Young ordered or condoned the massacre" -- Brooks would have agreed, but Bagley and Denton would disagree; (b) "the party was attacked by a group of Native American Paiutes and Mormon militiamen" -- Denton argues that the Paiutes did not take part in the attack; (c) "the wagon train had been joined by a group of eleven miners and plainsmen who called themselves 'Missouri Wildcats' -- Brooks accepts the stories of the Missouri Wildcats, but Bagley is skeptical, describing it as "Utah mythology." (The first reference to the Missouri Wildcats didn't appear until 1873, 16 years after the massacre; Bagley suggests that Utah residents may have confused the Fancher company, almost entirely from Arkansas, with the Dukes company, which did include several men from Missouri.)

In the previous version, I started a section on disputed facts to deal with these types of debates [9]. Such a section would have to appear near the end of the article. Other options would be to present both POVs each time a controversial point arises (which would tend to impede the smooth narrative we now have), or to move the debates to footnotes (which could lead to some rather long footnotes). I'd prefer to have a separate section, but I'll wait for other editors to register their opinions.

Another comment -- I'm glad to see that references have been added. I note, however, the heavy reliance on the article from Utah History Encyclopedia by Shirts, which is a tertiary source (like Wikipedia itself). Wikipedia policy says, "most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources." Furthermore, the Shirts reference appears to be somewhat dated and doesn't cite recent research. I will try to add some references from books like Brooks, Bagley, and Denton, so the references won't rely quite so heavily on Shirts. BRMo 15:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record the article only relies on Shirts because I went back and souced several previously unsouced claims. It was convient as his article co-incidently stated a lot of the same points. Shirts's article was not used as a base for this re-write. Agreed, 2nd sources should be found as to avoid the appearance of just cloning Shirt's work, Glad you are volunteering for the job =-)

Also, in the "Aftermath" section is a disputed facts paragraph of sorts. It was originally written much like you propose. The decision was made to tone it down significantly (see the discusison above). The thinking was such a section could be seen by some as a open invitation to insert the type of POV edits that plagued the article in the past.

Davemeistermoab 00:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If some editors think it would be helpful to drill down into these disputed points, I'd offer these few thoughts:

• A disputed facts section on a controversial and wildly sensitive topic like this one would be ok, but a citation for each specific PoV would be needed, both to put things in context (some stuff is more disputed than other stuff, often with little relation to what can be gleaned from the surviving historical record) and to skirt any original research.

• This was not only an historically serious crime, as dreadful to most Mormons as to anyone else, but from an administrative outlook, a big docking botch for the church (whether the decision to attack the Fancher party was made in CC or SLC by whomever). If there was significant spin in SLC, either to hide involvement by Young or only to protect his and the church's reputation in this horror's aftermath, papers may have been burned, secrets successfully kept and so on. I mean, I've heard stories about descendants of massacre participants burning stray books and papers laying about the house to "protect the family name." Hence, some of the primary source stuff is dodgy and unbalanced, opening up loads of opportunity for the section to give undue weight and inadvertant PoV by skewed citation choices.

• Every American I've ever talked to about this has told me they weren't taught about MMM in school (and most but not all Mormons I've brought this up with have said they never heard of it either). Is it true that MMM isn't mentioned in American schools? If so, that's a highly significant echo of whatever spin there was in itself. Is anyone aware of a clean citation or two which could support including it in the article? Gwen Gale 01:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

When I was in the public School System (Grand County, Utah) MMM was part of the 7th grade Utah History Class. According to our teacher this was the "official state approved textbook" so I imagine most anybody else in the Utah public school system also would have had the same material. With that said, however, the coverage of the event was very sanitary. Basically, it happened, Lee was executed, not much else is known.

I also think some people do not put MMM in the proper perspective. I have heard some claims such as "worst act of religious violence in U.S. history until 9/11" or "Brigham Young is the worst criminal in America's history." Don't get me wrong, MMM is a horrible black stain on the mormon church. But it's one event of "divinly justified" violence in a long list that covers virtually every religion on earth. To make these claims does a disservice to victims of the "Salem Witch Hunt" or victoms of KKK lynch mobs. From Holocaust involvement, Holocaust complicity, official sanctioning of slavery and slave importation, manifest destiny and the displacing (and extermination of some) indian tribes, advocacy of terrorism/invasion, the Inquisition, pedofile priests etc. etc.. MMM is one event in a terribly long list of acts of violence by people claiming to be "God's chosen people".

Davemeistermoab 03:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (revised Davemeistermoab 04:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

Are you trying to stir things up? It is hard to minimize this massacre; it was not a few people. More importantly, it was not done by just anybody, but by a people who claimed to possess the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. There is absolutely no parallel found in the US. It is true that some LDS, truth be told, feel a degree of justification that they finally struck back at their persecutors. They had been pushed, and pushed, and pushed and finally they said enough is enough. You, the good Christian citizens of the US and your State and Federal governments that sanctioned so much persecution of our people, will not longer be tolerated. However, this only hold sway if these people really did taunt the saints about helping to kill Joseph Smith among other things.

I do find it curious that this event is used almost exclusively by anti-Mormons to portray the LDS people as evil. Conversely, they seldom, if ever, mention the degree of persecution the saints received at the hands of so many people, all of which claimed to be good Christain people.

The bottom line is that people of God murdered innocent people. How do we excuse their actions? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, No, not trying to stir things up at all. My apologies if I did not convey my point well. I'll re-write my statement so it sounds less crass. If you want to continue this discussion perhaps we should chat off-line where one badly worded statement won't haunt me for the rest of my life. Davemeistermoab 03:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a heinous crime. That said, most of the Mormons I know and have known have tended to be... utterly wonderful people, so the whole thing s**ks, although my personal experiences aren't a scientifically valid sample or whatever.

A word about Brigham. I wouldn't be surprised if one day some yellowed scrap of paper turned up which forensically proved he got (or went) mad and personally ordered the massacre. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if it proved he heard the news and cried out (so to speak), WTF were those morons in CC thinking?! This will ruin our image! Worse, if I punish those murderous wankers it'll be an admission LDS people got themselves together under the colour of church authority and did it, never mind I'd be leaving dozens of innocent LDS families out in the middle of nowhere without their husbands and fathers. Woe! Burn everything and keep saying those heathen injuns did it until things cool off! Gwen Gale 05:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, you have such a colorful way of bringing things into focus. Dave, be more than happy to talk, but I acutally enjoy tossing guilt. I think you are going to have to pay for this for years to come; in fact, you could not begin to say enough Hail Mary's to expunge this offense. Cheers! --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A million Hail Marys ,140 pairs of magic underwear, and we wouldn't have an article. A question for you editors. In the letters from the President (September 10, 1958) REF. Forney has ten children in his posession. In other references,(Bagley & others)he & Lynch pick-up 14 kids in Sana Clara, 2 more in Cedar City, the marshall finds another that is delivered to Camp Floyd by Hamblin. How many kids were there? Does it add-up to 17?Tinosa 00:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe 16 were returned to relatives and there were unverified rumours that a 17th remained in Utah and married a Mormon. Gwen Gale 01:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

17 children were returned to Arkansas - their names are here. And the earliest documents say that there were 17 surviving children, so, despite the rumors, I don't think it's probable that an 18th kid was raised in Utah. BRMo 04:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how a reference stating "At least one other surviving child is believed to have remained in Utah" could make it improbable "that an 18th kid was raised in Utah." Gwen Gale 04:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. My source that it was improbable that any additional children remained in Utah is Bagley (2002), pp. 237-238, and the sources he cites. For example, Lee, on his way to Salt Lake City to report to Young, was invited to speak at a church service in Provo on September 27 1857. The minutes of the meeting, just two weeks after the massacre, say that 17 children survived (Bagley, p. 175). (The minutes also report Lee saying that the party was massacred by the Indians). IOW, if one of the Utah families intended to keep a surviving child, they would have had to have made the decision immediately after the massacre and asked Lee to disguise the number of survivors when he reported back to headquarters. Perhaps not impossible, but IMO improbable. BRMo 16:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I must first say I don't see any meaningful "disagreement" between us, I'm only chatting here for my own further understanding or whatever :) Aye, there's little hard support for an 18th kid remaining behind, but it's an open possibility based on 150 year old rumours which someone took seriously enough to carve onto a monument. If these people were capable of murdering dozens of families I'd say someone among them was certainly capable, in principle and in all the ensuing confusion amid the isolation of southern Utah, of hanging on to a half-forgotten little girl as future "marriage" fodder but... we don't know. Most families don't like oral traditions along the lines of yep, grandpa helped slaughter that bunch of Gentile families back in '57 'n scooped up a little girl whose family was all killed, brought her home 'n when no Federals ever came by to fetch her, he raised her 'n married her 'n that's yer mum! Or whatever. I mean, that's the sort of thing grandmas may get way agitated and snippy about if someone brings it up during family holiday gatherings in St George. And so on. Now so far as anything Lee said about the massacre, he was an intelligent participant in mass murder and his statements are not credible unless verified elsewhere. We know Paiutes were there and took part but because of all the post massacre spin, primary source documentation as to their number and actual level of involvement is dodgy at best (as the article notes). Gwen Gale 16:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert anonymous edit

Here is the content I reverted: It is intersting but has several problems

1. Direct copy from a FARMS journal
2. FARMS can hardly be considred a NPOV source (apologetics)
3. No sources for the FARMS article were included.
4. As pasted text has a redundant mention of a marker for Lee, but no such photo is included

I do think that some of this material is useable; but as a whole it is not appropriate.

The aftermath: investigations and trial

After the massacre, local leaders attempted to portray the killings as solely the act of Indians. This effort began almost immediately, with John D. Lee's report to Brigham Young. It wasn't long, however, before charges started to surface that Indians were not the only participants, but that there were whites involved. Responding to the charges that whites were involved, Brigham Young urged Governor Cumming to investigate the matter fully. However, the governor maintained that if whites were involved, they would be pardoned under the general amnesty granted by the governor to the Mormons in June 1858. This amnesty was issued at the behest of U.S. President James Buchanan, and covered all hostile acts against the United States by any persons in the course of the Utah War.

Most scholars recognize that there was a local cover-up of the massacre. What there is disagreement on is how involved higher Church leaders were in any cover-up. Some have concluded that Brigham Young, himself, was involved in a cover-up, but others argue that the evidence does not support such a conclusion. The best available evidence supports two levels of cover-up: (1) concerted denials of guilt by massacre participants, including attempts to shift the blame to their erstwhile Indian allies, and (2) attempts by Mormons not involved in the massacre to shield accused persons from capture or prosecution. The latter actions did not normally arise out of any approval for the massacre, and indeed were usually undertaken without knowledge of the guilt of the persons being shielded; rather they reflected a feeling of community solidarity versus the coercive power of an often-hostile government, and a pervasive mistrust of U.S. authorities and their willingness or ability to ensure that Mormon defendants would receive a fair trial. Accusations of any more substantial cover-up, either by the Mormon Church as an institution, or by its highest leaders, are not supported by the available evidence.

Marker at grave site of John D. Lee, in Panguitch, Utah

Marker at grave site of John D. Lee, in Panguitch, Utah

Eventually, as more information came to light, some of the principal participants were excommunicated from the Church. One participant, John D. Lee, was found guilty of murder in federal court after twenty years and two trials. The first trial occurred in 1875, before the anti-Mormon judge Jacob Boreman. The prosecutor was an even more notorious anti-Mormon named R. N. Baskin. This official failed to properly try the case against Lee, leading very little evidence against him, and instead focused upon an attempt to prove Brigham Young's complicity in the massacre. This trial ended with a hung jury.

Lee's second trial occurred the following year; the prosecutor was U.S. District Attorney Sumner Howard, and Boreman was again the presiding judge. This time around, the case was properly tried; the jury heard overwhelming evidence against Lee, who was duly convicted and sentenced to be executed for his crime. On March 23, 1877, Lee was executed at Mountain Meadows and buried in Panguitch, Utah. Though other Mormons were certainly as culpable as Lee (he did not act alone), he was the only one executed.

The long hiatus between the massacre and Lee's trial is one of the factors which some feel supports the accusations of an institutional cover-up. However, the true reasons for this delay are quite different. As mentioned earlier, Governor Alfred Cumming believed that the massacre was covered by the Utah Amnesty, thus making any investigation pointless. This belief was shared by a number of eminent legal authorities, including some charged with law enforcement in Utah. The attempts by some politically minded judges, such as John Cradlebaugh, to direct the investigation and prosecution of crime in Utah and conduct "crusades" against the Mormon Church actually hindered rather than helped prosecutorial and investigative efforts.

An additional claim sometimes put forward is that Lee was a "scapegoat" and that some kind of corrupt agreement existed between Church leaders and territorial authorities to not pursue anyone else. However, the record does not back this up. After Lee's execution, territorial authorities wanted to continue the investigations with a view to bringing more of the guilty parties to justice. The official correspondence shows that a reward was offered for the capture of Isaac C. Haight, William Stewart and John Higbee, all suspects in the planning and/or execution of the massacre, and that this reward remained on offer for at least seven years. Lee was not tried as a "scapegoat" but as an actual participant--evidently the leading participant--in the massacre, who had done more than any other person to bring it about, and who had actually killed five people.

(For additional information, see Robert D. Crockett, "A Trial Lawyer Reviews Will Bagley's Blood Of The Prophets," The FARMS Review 15/2, 2003, 199-254.)

Davemeistermoab 07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much more discussion of LDS post-massacre spin would be helpful. Some, yeah, but again, it may need to be cited line by line. Gwen Gale 15:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gwen, a little of this may be useful, but without sources on the statements it would be difficult to incorporate into the article in a way other than Crockett says, "blah bla blha." --Trödel 19:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

New mediator required?

Does this discussion need a new mediator? --Ideogram 20:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of a major conflict at the moment. A Anon added information without explanation. It has been appropriately reverted and the dicussion above asks that if anything is to be added that it be sourced. Am i missing something that you feel is a serious conflict? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I just noticed the mediator who took the case you requested has not edited since Jan 2. I will go ahead and close the case. --Ideogram 21:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me. Gwen Gale 00:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath

I've placed this here pending clarification and discussion:

According to some accounts LDS Church officials offered prosecutors $1,500 to capture the accused and wanted the Utah Territorial Marshal, John Kay, deputized to help in their capture but federal officials refused any help from the Mormons and would not allow Church President Brigham Young "to go south to help with the investigation." In 1859, two years after the massacre, the Church released the Cedar City Stake Presidency and Bishopric and replaced them with men who were not involved in the Massacre. In the same year...

• Who were the accused? What were they accused of?
• The term "released" is legalistic. Saying they were replaced would be more clear. Gwen Gale 00:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Likewise...

Both John D. Lee and Isaac Haight, who was the Ceder City Stake President in 1857, were both excommunited from the Church on October 8, 1870 after Church President Brigham Young presented evidence to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of their part in the massacre.

• Internal LDS proceedings 23 years after the massacre don't have much to do with the massacre or its aftermath in the context of this article. I'm not even sure Lee's excommunication is notable for the article, especially since he was re-instated as a member a century later. Gwen Gale 00:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Lastly...

Some Historians have asserted that anti-Mormon federal officials impeded the investigation into the massacre by refusing any help from the Mormons and local territorial officials and that Brigham Young and other Church officials were not aware of the full details of the massacre until 1870.

• There were lots of citable assertions made long after the event. Undue weight, provenance and context are all valid considerations. How many historians think BY didn't have all the details of the massacre available to him until 1870? How can this be described in the article? How many historians would accept the term "impeded" to characterize the behaviour of these un-named "Federal" officials? Gwen Gale 00:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As I understand, there was a Mormon investigation. B.Young sent a letter dated Jan. 6,1857 to his superior J Denver, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, informing him of the poisoned ox & water, and the annihilation of the Fanchers & Co. by the Indians who were mistreated, as well as info about the death of Gunnison.(see Brooks. Chapter 8, pp 158 & 159). Also, editors may examine the Aug. 17,1858 letter from G.A. Smith to B.Young in which he gathered info about the MMM. (see Brooks. Appendix VI). Appendices V(Aug. 6,1858) & VII(Apr. 13, 1859)written by Smith also provide info concerning the MMM and are recorded in the Journal of Church History.

Some issues with the Aftermath section of the article.

• (1)"In 1859, two years after the massacre, Brevet Major James Henry Carleton arrived in the area to investigate. He and Hamblin went to Mountain Meadows where they found women's hair tangled in sage brush and the bones of children still in their mothers' arms.[34]" Capt. Campbell & Surgeon Brewer, both under the command of General Johnston, arrived at the Mountain Meadows before Major Carleton. Their vivid accounts of the killing field are recorded in the ref. "Message of the President", both dated May 6, 1859. It appears the article is morphing the Cambell, Brewer & Carleton (ref "Carleton Report") all into one.
• (2)"Meanwhile Forney and Governor Cummings directed Hamblin and Carleton to gather up the surviving children from local families and transport them to Salt Lake City, after which they were united with extended family members in Arkansas and other states. [35]" Forney, Super. of Indian Affairs Utah, worked for the Secretary of Indian Affairs D.C.. The Secretary of Indian Affairs worked for Secretary of the Interior. Governor Cummings was appointed to his position by President Buchanan. Major Carleton was under the command of General Clarke, commanding the Army Department of California. General Clarke's supervisor was the Secretary of War. I have seen no documentation that supports the notion that Forney & Cummings directed Major Carleton to gather up the surviving children.
• (3)It seems to me that a chronological order of the events will be less confusing to readers of this article and would provide some accuracy. For example, the recovery of the survivors. It seems the some people from Arkansas, with a newspaper clipping, expressed their concerns & hopes to the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary of Interior contacted the Secretary of War and the recovery ball began to slowly roll.( ref. Message of the President)

• Also in the Travel Through Utah section of the article.

I'm surprised that the diary of Dimick Huntington has not been introduced. According to Huntington, B. Young, met with the four southern Utah chiefs telling them that if they help kill the Americans the Indians could have all the cattle on the California Trail South.(SEE Bagley. Chapter 6. PP 113-114).

Indian agent Garland Hurts's annual report excerpt. "Dirnie B.. Huntington, (interpreter for Brigham Young.) and Bishop West, of Ogden, came to the Snake village, and told the Indians that Brigham wanted them to run off the emigrants' cattle, and if they would do so they might have them as their own". See: Message of the President pages 96-98.Tinosa 16:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ref:(Carleton report) http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/carletonreport.html

Ref: (Message of the President) http://www.archive.org/details/messageofpreside00unitrich Tinosa 04:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)