Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[hordak]

Odd - I'm happy to see nobody advocating that stupid show September Dawn from 2007. Terrible events like MMM deserve better treatment than the laughingly one-dimentional Flash Gordon vs. the Evil Emperor Ming deal this crapfest dumped on moviegoers.

Never seen september dawn. But will admit liking Flash Gordon in one of my guilty pleasures

[Dravin]

Never seen september dawn. But will admit liking Flash Gordon in one of my guilty pleasures

Flash! Ahahaha! (I've only seen the 80s movie, no clue if the other production have that little bit in it).

Edited February 27, 2011 by Dravin

[Elphaba]

Richard Turleys book is the most comprehensive and studied look on Mountain Meadows Massacre.

In most ways that's true, but not in all.

(When I refer to "Turley," I actually mean all of the men invovled in writing Massacre at Mountain Meadows.)

There’s no question Turley's book is excellent. However, and this is not a criticism, it doesn’t really give us a significant amount of new information about what happened; rather, it gives us a lot of new evidence which supports most of what had already been explained by previous historians.

For example, I remember being shocked at how surprised Turley was at the depth of Haight’s and Dame’s guilt. Brooks and Bagley had already, in great detail, written of such, and thus, Turley’s information was nothing new. What Turley did contribute, importantly, was more documentary evidence of this than either Brooks or Bagley had.

Additionally, IMO, a major reason Turley’s book is not the “most comprehensive and studied look,” is that Turley does not address Young’s actions after the massacre, other than what happened to John D. Lee. Apparently Turley is working on a book that will do so, but until then, Brooks and Bagley are the best sources we have for this critical aspect of the tragedy.

Another flaw is that Turley doesn’t acknowledge the role blood atonement played in the massacre. Rather, he gives it a few paragraphs just to let us know it existed. Given both Brooks and Bagley do address this, in great detail, they’re books are superior to Turley’s in this one aspect.

I disagree with a lot of what Bagley says about it. I think he went into his book and research with an end in mind, instead of going where the evidence took him.

I agree; however, that doesn’t automatically equate to Bagley lying. I have no doubt, whatsoever, that he believes his version of events is accurate.

Many people are suspicious of Turley’s motives as well. For example, one person has stated Turley personally told him his direct intent was to disprove Bagley’s Blood of the Prophets. Additionally, many people insist the Church instructed Turley to prove Young did not order the massacre.

I have no opinion one way or the other, but if it is true, it wouldn’t bother me, because it doesn’t automatically equate to Turley lying. I have no doubt he genuinely believes his version of events is correct.

Significantly, very few people question Brooks’ intent.

Brooks isn't bad, but is very outdated.

Isn't bad? Brooks' book is one of the most exceptional pieces of historical research I’ve ever read.

Her style is more scholarly than Bagley or Turley, and as I demonstrated above, she addressed issues that Turley did not. I can’t imagine thinking I had a good grasp of the MMM without having read it.

In fact, if I had to choose between Blood of the Prophets, and Mountain Meadows Massacre, there’s no question I’d choose the latter, particularly in combination with Massacre at Mountain Meadows.

Elphaba

Edited February 28, 2011 by Elphaba

[Elphaba]

I dunno... her green skin kinda weirds me out!

Hey, it's not easy bein' green! But it's beautiful and that's what I want to be. Or so says the frog.

Elph

[Elphaba]

Would admitting anything really make vindication for anyone?

Fancher's, et al, descendents say it would for them.

I'm not saying that means the Church should, or should not, apologize. I'm just saying I take them at their word.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

The only question it brought up in my mind is the statement at the end that the LDS have still not admitted its role and responsibility for the massecre.

The Church has clearly acknowledged its complete role in the massacre. It has not ever used the word "responsible," which angers some. But, there's no question it admits the details.

Elphaba

[rameumptom]

In additional to Massacre at Mountain Meadows, I would recommend Juanita Brooks' Mountain Meadows Massacre.

I also enjoyed Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, by Will Bagley, but most LDS find it very problematic.

IMO, reading all three books was beneficial.

Elphaba

Bagley's history is good, but his assumptions are often contrary to the evidence. He prefers to see Brigham Young as THE decision maker in killing the Arkansas immigrants. Yet Turley's indepth research shows that BY did not make that decision, however his inflammatory speech against Johnston's army, etc., helped inflame the situation. BY does not get out of this unscathed, but he is not a murderer as Bagley would portray him.

[Backroads]

Fancher's, et al, descendents say it would for them.

I'm not saying that means the Church should, or should not, apologize. I'm just saying I take them at their word.

Elphaba

Seems like a fair thing to do, then.

I figure after they something like that and their request is granted, any remnants is their problem.

[Elphaba]

Bagley's history is good, but his assumptions are often contrary to the evidence. He prefers to see Brigham Young as THE decision maker in killing the Arkansas immigrants. Yet Turley's indepth research shows that BY did not make that decision, however his inflammatory speech against Johnston's army, etc., helped inflame the situation. BY does not get out of this unscathed, but he is not a murderer as Bagley would portray him.

I agree. That's a perfect way to describe it.

Elph

[rameumptom]

I have no problem with prophets making mistakes or poor decisions on occasion. Given the environment, the USA and many others were also being rancorous, and could be considered indirectly involved in creating the environment for MMM to occur.

I find in history that when poor decisions are made, there's usually plenty of blame to go around. There's no need to stretch the truth or make such leaps of faith as Bagley tends to do.

BTW, Elphaba, I watched Jeopardy yesterday and one of the questions was concerning what musical play was about a woman Elphaba. Of course, the answer was "Wicked", but I thought about you at the same time.