Panel Discussion "Massacre at Mountain Meadows"

[Elphaba]

So, did anyone else make it to the panel discussion about the book "Massacre at Mountain Meadows"? I sure hope so, because I didn't get there until the question and answer period. So, if anyone made it on time, would you mind posting your thoughts.

The question and answer was fairly benign until a man who was a Paiute Indian came to the mike. The following are my observations, but my interpretations could be wrong, so if anyone else was there, let’s compare and discuss.

Apparently he had written a history of the Paiutes, including their involvement in the MMM. He and Turley, et al, had discussed the book before, and if I understood correctly, there was some effort to come to an agreement about using the information, but it was unsuccesful. I did not understand this part at all, but would like to know more about it.

The questioner was upset that M@ MM did not accurately address the Paiute’s involvement, which he said was minimal. He said as soon as about three of the Paiutes were killed, they left and had no more part in the massacre.

He also said that, because the militia had painted their faces to look like Indians, this showed more "intent" than the authors would acknowledge. He was very insistent this was a significant problem

Will Bagley was a member of the audience, and there was a little friendly banter at the end of the session between Turley and him.

But for me, the best part was when almost everyone left.

I had stayed seated because it’s difficult for me to walk. I usually wait until the room is empty so I don’t bump into anyone and knock them over .

While I was sitting there, a young couple came up to ask me about the question and answer period because they had missed it. We ended up talking about 45 minutes about the massacre. They knew very little about it, so, know-it-all that I am, I had a great time answering their questions.

I sensed it was a hard thing for them because they did not realize how horrific the massacre had been. The young man also insisted the Church had apologized, and was skeptical when I told him it hadn’t.

They had been there for the panel discussion, and he told me one of the panelists insisted the Church has a violent streak. The couple were offended about that, which is understandable. I told them I suspected he was talking about those that become fanatic to the point they break off from reality and start their own schism, such as Brian David Mitchell. They hadn’t thought of that; however, I can’t say for certain that’s what the panelist meant.

It was very fun to talk with some people who were interested in what happened at the massacre, and who seemed to enjoy our discussion.

The last thing I thought I’d mention was pretty funny. Because I missed the panel discussion, I can’t say who was who. But there was an Indian on the panel, and he explained that Indians do not like to be called “Native American.”

(So, in my efforts to remain politically correct, I will no longer use NA. My heart was in the right place.)

He said that "Indian" was initially a pejorative white men used (I assume in the 19th century); however, they took the word and made it their own; thus, making it a source of pride (I hope I have that last part right).

I suspect it is similar to the title “Mormon.” Initially it was a pejorative the people who mocked Joseph, The Book of Mormon and the members of the Church used. Soon, however, the Saints took the title "Mormon" to be their own.

Again, I can’t say for sure. That’s just my perspective.

Finally, the Indian panelist, further explaining how Indians do not like to be called Native Americans, finished his comments by explaining the word is pronounced “Indun.” That got a great laugh.

Elphaba

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

Missed it. I'm having my usual SAD attack and I'm losing (and hibernating as a consequence).

DNews article: Deseret News | Massacre book garners praise and criticism

"For those who missed the discussion, KCPW radio will have a podcast of it available starting Monday at www.kcpw.org."

(I'll be back with the link Monday.)

[Moksha]

•KCPW - On Air At Library Square.

Dr. John Mack Faragher, professor of American History at Yale University, another panelist, didn't offer much direct praise for the work. He chose instead to address some of the questions the book raises, and its shortcomings. For example, he doesn't feel the authors spent enough time addressing LDS Church authority issues or the moral sanction of legal violence by LDS leaders. But he did feel the book did a good job at portraying self-righteousness and a lust for vengeance.

Wonder what he meant by that 'moral sanction for legal violence'?

[clairvb]

Apparently the book is very popular and has already gone through several printings. And I see the church issued a news release about the presentation.

The presenters seemed to agree the problem was blind faith and blind obedience. One of them added demonizing by church leaders creating an "other" that was then denounced and demonized. These ingredients led to this horrendous massacre.

John Mack Faragher, a historian from Yale felt there was not enough emphasis on the role of obedience in the church. There were no confirmed accounts of any Mormon refusing to go along with the massacre. He also felt the Springville blood atonements (anyone have info on these?) received too little attention and that the relationship to violence in the west should have been explored more.

Faragher points out that sociologist Max Weber notes that part of the definition of of a state is that it has a legal and moral monopoly on the use of violence. When a state is firmly in control, public violence drops. When that control is contested, or weak, public violence increases. Utah had two states contesting for power over the same people. The Mormon theocratic state of Deseret and the U.S. appointed governor of Utah territory. Because state control was not firmly in place, it opened the way for more violence.

Violence is learned. John D. Lee, who largely headed the massacre had a mother who "beat him senseless" more times then he could recall. He also participated in an Indian massacre, and was accused of domestic violence. He and other Mormons used the same phrase used at Hauns Mill, and at the Indian Massacre by those perpetrators when killing children. Also coupled with the experiences of the church in Missouri, they had learned how to do violence.

Phillip Barlow, head of the new Mormon studies program at USU felt this was a major milestone in the history of doing Mormon history. The decision to write a frank, complete, honest history about a very difficult subject was made at the highest level with the understanding that the "chips would fall where they may." They were given full material access including materials in the 1st Presidency's vault, and the church made a monumental amount of human and financial resources available to the authors.

He felt this book would be painful for members of the church to read, but in the long run good for the church by being cathartic. He compared the Cedar City Mormons to the early American Puritans (witchcraft trials), 20th century Germans (holocaust) and the 21st century guards at Guantanamo Bay & in Iraq (prisoner abuse). The were all ordinary people in a bad situation with the wrong ingredients.

He notes that this may cause some to shift to a new paradigm of understanding the relationship of God and the church where it may be inverted from it's current view of God directing the church, to instead imperfect humans striving to follow God, and notes the problem of absolute obedience ("1st law of heaven") and of blind faith (the continual emphasis that not enough faith is bad, and more faith is good), noting that terrorists have plenty of this. Proper faith requires thought. Well though out faith is much better than blind faith. The emphasis of thinking and personal conscience are also important and should be integrated into Mormonism. Few truly understanding a system of thinking or belief, be it secularism or theism; and rely on an authority figure. Few can articulate what they believe in and why. More thinking and understanding needs to take place.

Richard Turley, one of the co-authors said he and his co-authors felt that if they could tackle this difficult topic, which they subjectively considered to be Mormonism's most problematic issue, they could tackle any other. They hope this might be a standard for future topics, such as blacks and the priesthood or polygyny. They have made all their research materials open to researchers and a new website has been put in place about the book. He invited researchers to continue to explore the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

[Islander]

It is logistically impossible to write a book that can address every possible question and explore every plausible angle of a particular issue or historical event.

It is likely that no future research and work on this historical event could be more unbiased, thorough or objective. The book will not please everyone but doubtful any one writer can do any better any time soon.

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

Wonderfully concise and well-written summary, clairvb. I'm stilling looking for the podcast on KCPW. Back when I've got it.

[Elphaba]

Apparently the book is very popular and has already gone through several printings. And I see the church issued a news release about the presentation.

Thank you so much for this clairvb. I was afraid no one else knew what had happened before I arrived on the scene.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

It is likely that no future research and work on this historical event could be more unbiased, thorough or objective.

Are you saying no future research, etc., could be more unbiased, thorough and objective than Massacre at Mountain Meadows is?

Or are you saying there will likely not be an unbiased, thorough or objective treatment at all?

Elphaba

[Palerider]

Emma.....did you have a hard time trying to find the place.....is that why you were late....:D

[Elphaba]

Emma.....did you have a hard time trying to find the place.....is that why you were late....:D

If I told you why I was late I'd really have to kill you because it is the stupidest story of all lateness stories. And I will not have my reputation tarnished.

However, when Elphaba is determined, Elphaba shows up!

Emma

[Palerider]

If I told you why I was late I'd really have to kill you because it is the stupidest story of all lateness stories. And I will not have my reputation tarnished.

However, when Elphaba is determined, Elphaba shows up!

Emma

way to funny....on second thought....I don't want to know.....:D