Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre

Something off the cuff--

--about proper encyclopedic coverage of whatever mass executions of innocents: the things happening now-- A generation ago, in my youth, there was the Red Guard on the left or, say, Pinochet/ Argentine juntas on the right. In ethnic rampages, Muslims families were massacred in Cyprus; a childhood friend was Armenian-American so I'd hear about executions of Armenian Christians by the Turks. Or maybe we should go back a piece? I've heard in the Boer War, Brits massacred Afrikaaner civilian militia and their families without much gumption about it. So, in an encyclopedia article, how do we cover whatever the regime's justifying rhetoric? For example, in the final case I mentioned, I dunno: stuff about "King" and "Country" or something and the ill-deserving lot of stubborn farmers who'd resist the Em-pah? If so, how does our coverage avoid sounding "anti-" whatever: "anti-" Franco, "anti-" Soviet/ Red Chinese, "anti-" Turk, "Anti-" Greek Cypriot, "Anti-" British? --Justmeherenow 03:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep adding to the list: Native Tasmanians, Aboriginal Australians, thousands of Native Americans tribes (north and south), on and on. The Zulu. The Spanish Inquisition. The organized murder of Protestants in France and the Low Countries. The purge of Catholics and then Protestants and then Catholics in Tudor England. The persecution of Christian and Christian "heretics" between CE 150 and 600 or so. And then in the more modern era, we get to Ireland, Cambodia, Iraq, North Korea, and terrorists. The history of the human race is filled with atrocity, reprisal and death - and no culture/religion/political theory is exempt. But we are all still human, and the reasons that "we" kill "them" need to be examined and discussed, and if possible, understood. How else are we ever going to understand ourselves enough to break the pattern? Anti? Why not be anti-death, anti-violence, anti-atrocity, rather than being anti-(people)? Our articles here should present the atrocity, present the viewpoints, and decry the loss and pain, as far as factually possible. My two cents........... WBardwin 04:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As chroniclers, it is my hope that we present a balanced synopsis of the events, participants, and aftermath. We cite sources deemed to be reliable. Academically, Brooks and Quinn are two reputable historians who have published works on the subject. (In Quinn's case, it is only a part of his book.)

• To say Brooks was the penultimate historian who wrote the best book ever on the MMM is a value judgment by the editor. To say she is a noted historian who wrote a critically acclaimed book on the subject is more accurate and less overblown. We can back this statement up with numerous scholarly articles which verify her book as reliable - on the talk page.
• We can say Quinn's book, written after his excommunication from the LDS, contains criticism of the church. This, however, neglects his status as a noted historian.

We should carefully choose words to give a full and accurate description. Period. Brooks is not suspect because she is Mormon any more than Quinn is as an excommunicated person. Their works can stand on the merits of both as historians of good repute.

When we cite polemic (Gibbs) or apologetic (Turley) works we do so in a manner that shows possible bias. e.g. Gibbs states blah blah. He was familiar with participants from his earlier life while a member of the church. We don't say apostate or excommunicated in the recital. Save that for his article. e.g. Turley bases his assertions on previously unpublished information available to him as LDS church historian and archivist. I do not state he is biased, I give a context for the reader to make that value judgment. Hopefully, editors do it in a manner (oh no! not fair and balanced!) that is not inflammatory or derisive. One example of unbalanced reporting would be to place the info on Gibbs in a footnote and on Turley in the article. One background is more prominent than the other. Better to place equal emphasis on all background statements.

Everyone (civilized, sane, non-megalomaniac types) is anti-murder. That does not make them anti-Mormon if they read this article. We place it in context, use sources, and trust the reader to take from the article what they choose. If they choose to vilify one party or another, we cannot control that. We can be very judicious in the words we use to present the information.

--Robbie Giles 05:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I clicked on the (2nd Anglo-)Boer War and see that 24,000 Boer children-under-16 died in concentration camps, about half of all Afrikaaner children.

Then - surfed to

Take up the White Man's burden--

Send forth the best ye breed--

Go bind your sons to exile

To serve your captives' need;

- (of which Wikipedia says

Six months after "The White Man's Burden" was published, [Kipling] wrote "The Old Issue", a stinging criticism of the Second Boer War, and an attack on the unlimited, despotic power of kings. The Norton Anthology of English Literature argues it is no satire, but in line with Kipling's strong imperialism and a belief of a "Divine Burden to reign God's Empire on Earth", that other, less Christian nations would otherwise take.)

So: should Wikipedia's Boer War article say Britishers believed they shouldered a "divine burden to reign God's empire on Earth" blah blah? --Justmeherenow 15:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what to do with this thread? Is this just commentary or is there a recommendation for the article? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OK (sorry for my over-subtlety): Does the Pulpit preachings section make for inbalance in a way through its seeming to shade Mormonism so much in a pretty negative light? It can be assumed that Mormons of this Rebellion had some rationale for their cause, just as has/had any other warring nation-state, along with whatever philosophical/theological and so forth justifications to take up arms - so more of such specifics maybe belong in the articles devoted to such subjects? --Justmeherenow 17:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily negative, it's just the way things were at the time. I think Mormon teachings at the time were very understandable in light of the crazy persecutions they had suffered, the insane condition of American politics at the time, and their belief that the world was imploding around them and that they were on the cusp of the Millennium in which God's vengeance would finally be meted out against the wicked. Those teachings might seem odd to us today, but that's only because we live in a different age with different sensibilities and fears. I think the best way to avoid a negative cast is to make sure there is enough factual background so the reader can at least very roughly understand the historical context. COGDEN 19:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent)Justme is right. The the Pulpit preachings section does imbalance it. Also the Pratt murder. And the rest is too detailed and long. (There are also too many wikilinks -- it almost looks like that program that goes through and wikilinks just about every other word was at work). I do not care about the negativity issue so much as the fact that the info about the pulpit preaching is tangential and theoretical as a factor. It is presented here as though it is an undisputed fact that preachings from the pulpit led to these murders. (Incidentally, I do not think the teachings are necessarily weird in this "modern" day and age as COGDEN says -- I think that they are still widespread). I just do not think that these teachings were a major element of the cause of this massacre. If these preachings led to the massacres, there would have been many massacres over and over in years before and after. Moslems teach the same sorts of things over their pulpits and in fact there have been repeated massacres and murders in their societies over and over and the connection can be made more clearly. (But even then it might not be background or historical context). But with the Mormons there were not repeated massacres. The people who committed the crime has never done anything like this before or after. Something different happened here. MMM shows a special unique situation applies here. What were those special factors that led to this unique incident?

Presence of a War Factor is #1, including the notion of threats from California

Tensions (whether based upon real, imagined or mistaken offenses) between the Mormons and the wagon train seem to be a factor. What were the reasons that the pre-massacre meeting gave for plan? That these people were offensive enemies.

Isolation of Southern Communities is probably also involved, but a bit too complex to describe well. The Haslam ride is probably almost sufficient in itself to indicate this.

These are the main issues that other sources may AGREE upon. They are a consensus view. Other things are speculative, theoretical, tangential, less substantiated matters. The article lumps in every theory as a fact and calls it background and context. COGDEN apparently has some sort of hobby interest in this detailed stuff that he or she thinks is "historical context" but it has unbalanced the presentation and made the introduction overwhelming before getting to the meat of the article. I cannot detect that anyone else feels the same, but I will not cease to complain while I comment here. The article has been done a disservice by the horrendous background dissertation/thesis material often with rather obscure references that argue a general principle from a specific instance -- logical fallacy. I am amazed that this defect is not as obvious as a second nose on someone's face. Oh well. --Blue Tie 10:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

We're not looking for a consensus here: we're looking to represent all notable points of view. And in the background section, all we need is historical context: we'll leave the "history of analysis by historians" section for later. The background section should contain all the facts about what was happening prior to the massacre, for which there is a connection to the massacre recognized by a significant constituency.

When we get to the "history of analysis by historians" section, I would add some factors to your list, which are included in multiple scholarly works:

A culture of theological violence prior to the massacre, including Mormon teachings on retribution against the United States for martyring the prophets.

Mormon theocracy (which is also the direct cause of the War Factor), including teachings on obedience to Priesthood authorities and the mechanism by which local authorities felt legally empowered to enforce God's law upon those "worthy of death".

The Greed Factor (Sally Denton's theory, and the theory of some early commentators).

The Danite Factor (no longer taken seriously by academics, but probably still notable).

As to proper use of citations, if you think a source does not support a statement, please rephrase the statement or (preferably) add an additional source that will fill the gap. COGDEN 04:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly, we are looking for consensus. That's said to be a cardinal rule on wikipedia.

I do not agree that every possible fact about what was happening prior that might have had a connection should be included. Did you add the possible heavy metal contamination of food and water that might have led to poor judgment? I do not believe that every theory should be presented as "background". It should be presented as "theories" later in the article. We've gone over this before. No point in discussing it more. You are insistent that every possible angle be presented BEFORE the subject actually gets discussed. Its weird, but that's your view. To me its horrible editing, terribly distracting and dishonest in that it presents theories as though they were facts. To you it is wonderful construction, necessary in its place and helps tells the true story so the reader will understand better. I do not see how we could be further apart on this. What amazes me is not that there is disagreement, but rather that the defects in your approach, which are so obvious, seem to be at the heart of what you want to achieve. Like a plastic surgeon who wants to leave bad scars and a misshapen face -- and thinks its beautiful. I do not understand it. I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but no other source would discuss the various theories of cause and effect before discussing the incident.--Blue Tie 03:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Territorial militia

I would like to add back in the descriptor of Nauvoo Legion as it was the legal name according to historical sources. There are several archived comments that strongly state the Nauvoo Legion was not involved. It is not correct to leave this out, even if district militia members were acting on their own. They were

1. In the militia (according to military titles used by participants - see Brooks)
2. In on the attack and massacre (by their own admission and in diary accounts)
3. Making decisions about the actions taken after the massacre (by their own admission and in diary accounts)

This does not mean they were or were not under direct orders by a central command. It states the status of the individuals under discussion.

In ¶ 2 of the Introduction it currently states:

The massacre was carried out by a militia led by local Mormon leaders, who had mustered the militias to keep watch ...

On my Sandbox page I list two reliable sources that show the Territorial militia was named the Nauvoo Legion. I propose the following:

The massacre was carried out by local Mormon leaders of the Iron Military District. This district was a unit of the Utah Territorial Militia (or Nauvoo Legion), which had mustered to keep watch ...

Let the arguments begin. --Robbie Giles 04:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with linking to the Nauvoo Legion as long as there is an explanation making it clear we're talking about the Utah Territory militia. COGDEN 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Added in Utah in my proposed text. Thanks for the suggestion

I previously considered that it was not the Nauvoo Legion -- saying that the term "Nauvoo Legion" more properly applied to the military units around Salt Lake City and that I never read any contemporary account calling the 10th Regiment -- the Iron County Militia as the "Nauvoo Legion". And I would still consider Robbie Giles sources as insufficient in that regard, however, I believe that Phillip Klingensmith directly called the Iron Militia the "Nauvoo Legion" in his first testimony, so I was wrong. But it does appear to be a rare term -- "Iron County Militia" being most common on an order of at least 100 to 1, whereas in SLC, the term Nauvoo Legion was somewhat more popular. --Blue Tie 06:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Though it had several divisions, I think all the local militias throughout the Utah Territory were part of the same military force, with a chain of command leading to Brigham Young as Commander in Chief. COGDEN 19:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This massacre B/Y disavowed was nonetheless done by a brigade of his Nauvoo Legion (...whose commander-in-chief-in-chief was Buchanan. Except the circumstances obviously were that Young & co. were in rebellion. As Young insisted Haight & Dame were from him. So there we are.) --Justmeherenow 19:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see what any of that (either the comment by COGODEN or Justme) has to do with whether it was called the Nauvoo Legion. Being part of the same military unit does not mean it is called by the same name. That it fell in the chain of command does not mean that it was called the Nauvoo Legion. What does demonstrate it is the testimony of Klingensmith -- which is the only contemporary instance that I know of. Until now I had thought it was a sort of "Salt Lake Chauvinism" to call all the militias by the name of their own local (SL) militia. But that Klingensmith called it by that name (and I suppose he was not intentionally trying to make some illegitimate connection) means that even if it was a sort of Salt Lake imposition it was at least in part accepted by some. I still do not think it was common. All the correspondence that I recall, calls it some version of the Iron Brigade. --Blue Tie 09:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Iron Brigade of the Nauvoo Legion/Utah Territorial Militia. A brigade is a unit of a larger army. I'm not sure exactly how it was organized in Utah, but in the US Army today, several brigades make a division, several divisions make a corps, and several corps make an army. Since the Nauvoo Legion was smaller than today's U.S. Army (though probably bigger than the US Army of 1857, so I've heard), the highest level of organization might have been brigade, or maybe there were also divisions. Someone should look into that. COGDEN 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added two additional scholarly (Mormon) resources to my sandbox. The legal name at the time of the massacre was the Nauvoo Legion. B/T has offered no documentation to the contrary. I still stand by my suggestion for the the Introduction.

The massacre was carried out by local Mormon leaders of the Iron Military District. This district was a unit of the Utah Territorial Militia (or Nauvoo Legion), which had mustered to keep watch ...

--Robbie Giles 13:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. COGDEN 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Background is still too detailed

Check out any other encyclopedia:

Britannica

Colliers

Americana

Encarta

E of Mormonism

None of them go into anywhere near the detail in the background. Very few of them mention more than the Utah War. I'm not arguing we have to mimic them, but they use professional editors with equally in depth knowledge and sources. They make editorial choices that are reasonable. I think our article has way too much density before getting to the gist of the article. It is improved over a couple of weeks ago but it is still not good.--Blue Tie 09:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed an article put forward by Richard Turley, one of the writers of the soon to be published history. He has evidently summarized their findings and put out the summary in a press release from the LDS Church. It can be found [here].

Has any of this been used in the article? It is the latest compiled research. I note that in addition to the sources I mention above Turley ALSO does not include all of the esoteric theories in his background but simply provides the actual history and even leaves things like Hauns Mill out of the background entirely -- which I generally agree with. (But ..Did any of the perpetuators of MMM mention Hauns Mill? I think maybe they did?)

There are some small interesting things in this article that I find interesting. For example Dame said: Dame denied the request. “Do not notice their threats. Words are but wind—they injure no one; but if they (the emigrants) commit acts of violence against citizens inform me by express, and such measures will be adopted as will insure tranquility.” I do not recall reading all of that before. If I did , it did not stand out.

Also: "The generally peaceful Paiutes were reluctant when first told of the plan. Although Paiutes occasionally picked off emigrants’ stock for food, they did not have a tradition of large-scale attacks. But Cedar City’s leaders promised them plunder and convinced them that the emigrants were aligned with “enemy” troops who would kill Indians along with Mormon settlers."

When asked by Haight to send the Militia to harass the wagon train, "Dame held a Parowan council, which decided that men should be sent to help the beleaguered emigrants continue on their way in peace."

And "When Haight read Young’s words, he sobbed like a child and could manage only the words, “Too late, too late.” I think I have read that before, but somehow it stood out in this recount.

One thing that Turley's synopsis seems to do is suggest the following:

Haight was the manipulative instigator of the crime. He misled his superior Dame into giving permissions and talked Lee (who perhaps did not need alot of encouragement) into his role.

Lee and Haight were co-conspirators. Lee incited the Indians.

They both worked hard to drag others into the crime.

They both worked hard to cover it up.

--Blue Tie 10:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can make any comparison with the above encyclopedia articles. All of them are very short, and are barely long enough to summarize the actual siege and massacre. The Britannica article, for example, is only 159 words. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism article is longer, but still short, and of course limited in its scope by the LDS Church position at the time. Back when the article was written, the church's position was that the massacre is baffling, and it would be hopeless to try to understand it; therefore, the article spent only one paragraph total on the siege, massacre, investigations, trials, and execution, and much of the remainder on reconciliation efforts and expressions by various people about how baffling it was and how hopeless it is to try to analyze or study it. The church's position has obviously changed since that time, and they no longer consider the subject so immune from historical scrutiny. The article also assumes a basic knowledge of Mormon and Utah history, which we can't assume here.

As to Turley's Ensign article, we can't structure this article based on that either. Although he does include some background, remember that this is an article for the church magazine—the same magazine that Mormons use for home teaching and visiting teaching lessons, and its purpose is to promote faith. You wouldn't expect a lot of background in that kind of article. Notably, though, he acknowledges that "comprehending the events of September 11, 1857, requires understanding the conditions of the time, only a brief summary of which can be shared in this article". He seems to be wishing he could provide more background than he does, but of course Ensign is not the appropriate medium for that context. The Turley audience, moreover, is expected to be fully conversant on basic Mormon and Utah history, and some of the context is well-understood. It would be more useful to compare this article with Turley's upcoming book, written for a general audience, than with his Ensign article. COGDEN 19:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Turley information I linked to was not an article but rather some sort of press release from the LDS Church. I thought it was interesting because it seemed to summarize the recent research and I suspect it did so honestly since it was written by one of the Authors. The book is not out. But this is a summary. Shouldn't the most recent research be included if we have some sort of access to it like this? --Blue Tie 03:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see discussion on this source. The manuscript of Turley's book had been accepted, but is not yet printed. My (semi-educated) guess is that it is being peer reviewed and edited prior to publication. The final will be much the same as the manuscript, but there will be some differences. Another pair of eyes looking is always a good thing before it is reviewed by critics after printing.

We may want to stick (for now) to reliable printed sources. We can and should mention that "the Archives of Jenson ..... written by Turley ..." As we all know, this article can certainly be edited when the new book is released. By using an unpublished manuscript based on papers not available to any other scholars, we are not using a verifiable source. I believe the archives will be opened after publication of the book. I could not find anything on Oxford Press' website about a publication date, but I will check some other sources.

The Ensign article is actually a better choice for inclusion than a press release. Although it is a consumer magazine (as opposed to a trade journal or scholarly journal) it has a publication history and is a recognized publication. You can expand any quotes with something Like "The Ensign gives this book three stars. This publication of the LDS reviews books, movies, video games, and websites of interest to members of the church." Of course the reviewers have a bias. We all do. That bias does not mean it is automatically a bad review or article. Using only sources from consumer magazines would weaken any article, not just this one. Using a balance of sources is the best way to go. By the way, this article is not short on sources. --Robbie Giles 04:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie said, "The Turley information I linked to was not an article but rather some sort of press release."

Nope, actually the LDS newsroom posting and the article to be published in the Ensign in September are one and the same. (A red-typefaced editor had cribbed a contribution from it about Haight's tears and then the words "too late, too late" upon his receipt of Young's letter.) --Justmeherenow 04:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh you are right. But anyway, I think that the information should be used. --Blue Tie 14:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Removals of sourced material

Today (July 11) a citation was removed that showed the official date that Buchanan appointed Cummings as Territorial governor of Utah. The citation was to a U.S. Senate journal. As it stands now, there is not a source for the information about Cummings' appointment. Until a reliable source is put in showing an earlier date, I object to the removal of this citation. What was the rationale for the removal? I will check further in the senate records to find any earlier documents, but I am very confused as to why it was removed.

I found another example where testimony of Mormons who made favorable statements about the Fanchers is no longer included in this article. (It was reduced on the 8th of July, and subsequently reduced again and moved to a footnote.) The reference to the statements of Indians has also been removed. The Mormon participants and bystanders are not the only reliable sources of information in this tragedy. By removing sourced, balanced material the article is damaged. Remember, we are not proving what happened, who is more to blame, or anything else. We are writing an article from as neutral a point of view as possible, using reliable sources.

This article is becoming less balanced with all the rapid little changes being made to it. I suggest we stop wholesale editing, choose one section and work on that. Then move to a next section. I am trying to put in a balance of sources, and feel I am wasting my time when it is removed without real comment.

I also strongly suggest no sourced materials be removed without discussing it on the talk page first. It is discourteous. --Robbie Giles 05:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I put it back. Sorry for the discourtesy - it was inadvertent (BTW, thanks for the excellent talk page discussion/ pointers: this is the first article I've worked on - but I'm learning!) :^) --Justmeherenow 07:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Which poll has been cited to demonstrate this statement: "historians agree Paiute involvement was proportionately small."? I see that there is a reference but it is not a reference that supports the statement. --Blue Tie 09:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my laziness not to have reference even one of the dozen references I'd read that give the lions share of blame to the militia as opposed to the Paiutes - but I'll rectify. Thx! --Justmeherenow 09:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the plan was concocted by the Mormons, but I do not think that the Paiutes were innocent babes. They participated. The article should not give them blame or credit for having conceived the plan but it should not whitewash their participation just because they don't like it mentioned. They were there ... for DAYS firing on the group and multiple accounts testify of their participation in the actual massacre. Shannon's forensic observations actually support the idea that they participated perhaps even more widely than reported. But that would be speculation. I also point out that adjectives will tend to be biased. "Proportionally small" is an adjective phrase. Better to describe the participation and let the reader decide how small or large. That is the heart of NPOV writing. --Blue Tie 10:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As to the Cummings' appointment citation, sorry I didn't mention it here. I made anote in the edit summary. I removed it because the citation was for Cummings' nomination to the Senate in December 1857. Cummings had, however, received his letter of appointment in July 1857. Like another president we all know and love, James Buchanan mismanaged the whole affair, and didn't clue Congress into what was going on until way after the fact. He thought the whole expedition would have been over with by December, but the army and Cummings got stuck in Wyoming over the winter. COGDEN 02:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Odd referencing

The contains statements like:

• According to trial testimony given later by express rider Haslam
• In Forney's interview with David Tullis who had been living with Jacob Hamblin, Tullis related that
• According to affidavits or interviews with LDS church historian Jenson
• Also, William Rogers later related a conversation between Carl (possibly Carlts) Shirts, Forney and himself where Shirts related
• According to statements made years later by locals
• According to historian of the Utah War MacKinnon
• According to an article in the Saint George, Utah, Spectrum newspaper:
• Forney and Capt. Reuben Campbell (US Army) related

Sometimes this sounds gossipy. Sometimes it sounds like a news article that did not have time to check its facts so it just attributes a statement without looking behind the facts. It mostly reads badly. And many times it just makes the whole statement look like heresay -- which it might be (and perhaps subject to scrutiny for factual basis).

Typically the article should just state a "fact" and then give a footnote. If the article is trying to express a statement of opinion then attribution is appropriate, but it should be expressed as an attribution of opinion rather than as an attribution of a factual statement. For example, we discuss the note from Brigham Young. We say "Historians debate the letter's contents. Brooks believes it shows Young "did not order the massacre, and would have prevented it if he could." Bagley argues that the letter covertly gave other instructions." These both indicate OPINIONS, and give accreditation to the opinions. (Incidentally, more than just two historians should be quoted here -- and the original text should be set off in quotes for readers to make their own evaluation).

--Blue Tie 11:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - well, sometimes its good to shade reports as possibly hearsay? (Especially those described by maybe only one witness)——for example:

Haight is described by research in church archives as the MMM's manipulative instigator who misled theocratic superiors and must be put to blame for putting into motion the reprehensible actions of its (and his) underlings. And——Haight was SAID to react emotionally to his receipt of the express from Young.

So, according to the (1) who, (2) what, (3) where, et cetera of us historical journalists this is said—

1. ((Of)) whom? ((Of the then- a fugitive from justice)) Haight
2. What? That ((Haslam's superior)) reacted with shock and remorse at recipt of Young's express
3. ((Where? In Haslam's testimony))
4. ((When? During Lee's trial))

So sometimes it's even good to say—

• (by) whom: By the once-youthful express rider Haslam; and thus imply why!: ___?___! (even thought Turley leaves any motivations for Haslam to shade truth to be inferred only by readers who go to the note and recognize the name of Haslam.)

And yet, as for—

• How? I dunno, lol: while Haslam's lower lip trembled? his cheeks and then at his temples, blushed a bright crimson? and he alternatedly mopped sweat from his forehead and dabbed moisture from his eyes/ flem from his nose with a turquois kerchief? Just kidding: we don't know "how"! ;^) --Justmeherenow 18:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If things are so sketchy, they should not be reported at all. If they are factual, then report them as facts and footnote them. If they are opinions THEN provide the context of the opinion. Otherwise it is not well written. The use of opinions of others as though they were facts, even if attributed, is inherently biased. But if they are expressed clearly as opinions (and used sparingly) then its acceptable. --Blue Tie 19:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Blue, there's a lot to what you're saying. It's just that chroniclers must balance competing considerations/ ideals to sometimes end up with a choice a bit in this direction and sometimes in that. For example, Turley said

§ Communication—Too Late. ...Young’s express...arrived in Cedar City two days after...[,] reported...that no U.S. troops would be able to reach the territory before winter. “So you see that the Lord has answered our prayers and again averted the blow designed for our heads”.... ¶ “In regard to emigration trains passing through our settlements,” ... “we must not interfere with them until they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them. There are no other trains going south that I know of[.] [I]f those who are there will leave let them go in peace. While we should be on the alert, on hand and always ready we should also possess ourselves in patience, preserving ourselves and property ever remembering that God rules.”⁶ ¶ When Haight read Young’s words,

—he sobbed like a child and could manage only the words, “Too late, too late.”⁷

Not only "sobbed" but "like a child?" "Could manage only the words..." (too late, too late)?! So, yeah—chroniclers always make choices.

What details might Gibbs have pulled out of identical Lee trial testimony to breath life into a slightly differently shaded take on the same narrative (as worded by whatever the lights of Gibbs' own, biased understandings)? :^) --Justmeherenow 20:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we must make choices, but not the choices that Chroniclers must make. For example, a Chronicler may choose to be biased. We may not so choose. On the other hand, we may choose to not include lots of extraneous detail or put in lots of theory before the actual incident. --Blue Tie 01:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that:

(A photograph of four-year-old survivor named Nancy Saphrona Huff, taken when she was a young woman back in Arkansas, is featured in the documentary Burying the Past. (Note: it can be viewed by clicking on the footnote.))[77]

Belongs in the article. It belongs in either the Notes or References section. --Blue Tie 11:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggested new Lead

• • I believe that the current lead is too long and detailed. I suggest the following:

The Mountain Meadows massacre was the massacre of the Baker-Fancher party of emigrants on September 11 1857 at Mountain Meadows.

The Mormon militia was mustered to keep watch during the time of tension with the United States government known as the Utah War and massacred the travelers on their way to California. John D. Lee, a main protagonist, also convinced Paiute tribesmen to help attack the emigrants and to participate in the massacre. An estimated 120 men, women and children were killed. Seventeen smaller children were spared.

Though investigations began immediately, cover-ups and the distraction of the Civil War delayed actions until the 1870's when nine indictments were issued. Despite the fact that others were involved, only John D. Lee was tried and convicted. In 1877, Lee was executed by firing squad on the same location as the massacre.

The involvement of Mormons, the subsequent cover-up, and the failure to convict other individuals in the massacre has been a matter of historical interest. The identity and actions of participants have been investigated and debated by historians up to the present day. In particular, the role of Brigham Young as Territory Governor and ecclesiastical leader of the Mormons has been considered likely by some historians and dismissed as improbable by others. edit made by Blue Tie at 04:12, 12 July 2007

I like it! --Justmeherenow 12:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

One comment: "deliberately" is redundant as "were spared" intimates that the action was deliberate. Mylorin 17:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope I did not do something improper, but I edited your proposal here rather than waiting for it to be entered into the article. Please feel free to revert the changes if you think they do not improve the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Another change I would make is to change protagonist to participant. Protagonist is a positive term that is not appropriate here. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. I think some of the wording can be tweaked, such as the first sentence, which should say who did the massacre, as well as who was massacred. Also, the last paragraph could include some more info about the meaning and consequences of the massacre. I don't think quite so much space needs to be devoted to Brigham Young, and I also don't think we can necessarily say that Lee is either the "main protagonist" or the "main participant". That's kind of a value judgment. He was the only one brought to justice, but Haight, Dame, Higbee, and others were involved just as deeply, if not more so, than Lee. COGDEN 19:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I again suggest the wording be added to make the article factual about the militia. On my Sandbox page I list five reliable sources that show the Territorial militia was named the Nauvoo Legion. I propose the following:

The massacre was carried out by local Mormon leaders of the Iron Military District. This district was a unit of the Utah Territorial Militia (or Nauvoo Legion), which had mustered to keep watch ...

To ignore the correct name of the militia is not giving accurate information. I have seen no proof to the contrary, only opinions. (Just remember, the horse isn't dead until I quit beating it. And I work in an academic library where I can and will find other reliable sources.) What is the temperature of the group on this? --Robbie Giles 01:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the way you suggest is great. COGDEN 03:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) My stuff was just a proposal and looking at it as it exists now, I would wordsmith it too. I have no problems with the changes that others have suggested. --Blue Tie 03:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

---

More suggestions:

Rather than put speculation in the lead, why not stick with what is actually known. Instead of "The travelers were mostly (perhaps entirely) from Arkansas and on their way to California." We should say "The wagon train was traveling from Arkansas to California".

Regarding: "Militia perpetrator John D. Lee also convinced Paiute tribesmen to help in the attack and massacre." Although I proposed this wording upon seeing it, I think that the conclusion that he convinced them to help in the attack should be reviewed. There are two sides to this story. He said that he was pushed by them. So I am not sure that my proposed wording is best there.

This phrase: "Though investigations began immediately, cover-ups by Mormons", blames Mormons generally. It should say "participants" or something like that. Perhaps, "cover-ups by participants, reluctance to cooperate by other Mormons, and ..." though this may be too much speculation. --Blue Tie 14:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

POV First-Person Edits

First of all, I would like to extend a warm welcome to Catherine Baker (Cbaker50), who has recently made some edits. That being said, I have two issues with her edits, which are by nature POV. (1) It is original research for her to edit (and add brackets to) her own quoted comments. (2) The original inclusion of commentary from a descendant is questionable as well. These descendants are too far removed from the actual event to have bearing on an encyclopedic entry. If I were a John Taylor descendent I hardly think my blog commentary would be worthy of inclusion in the Death of Joseph Smith, Jr. article. --TrustTruth 19:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that showing the edited comments is POV as well. The author has stated they are out of context. If we cannot use it as it was spoken, better to take it out than to misrepresent what she said. I actually would like to see an article on MMM monuments and reconciliation (or something like that.) Deal with everything up to the trial and execution of John D. Lee. Leave in any section related to direct participants or witnesses. Do a short paragraph in the current article and move all the rest to a new article. --Robbie Giles 00:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If the comments were originally edited to skew the meaning, that was certainly POV. I definitely don't understand the encyclopedic relevance of Fancher-Baker descendants. Maybe splitting the reconciliation part into another article will iron that issue out. --TrustTruth 01:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I restored quote's context through referencing, in its applicable "Reconciliations" sub§, Baker's disenchantment with Hinckley's comments of 1999. --Justmeherenow 16:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Are Catherine Baker's comments found in a published source, like a newspaper article or something we can reference? We need to be able to cite to a reliable source outside of Wikipedia for this. COGDEN 18:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WP says noncontroversial commentary from blogs is an acceptable means of publicly accessible "publication" - and an articlein the Trib backs up descendants' feeling pist by the...

[...] legal disclaimer. "That which we have done here must never be construed as an acknowledgment of the part of the church of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful day," [...] inserted into his [Hinckley's] speech on the advice of attorneys/ [... ¶...and] seemingly out of sync with Hinckley's desire to bring healing to nearly 150 years of bitterness, caused some in attendance to wonder if any progress had really been made at all. If the Mormon Church leadership of 1857 was not at least partially to blame for an estimated 120 people slain at Mountain Meadows, then whom should history hold responsible?/ [¶]: "Well, I would place blame on the local people," Hinckley told The Salt Lake Tribune in a subsequent interview Feb. 23. "I've never thought for one minute -- and I've read the history of that tragic episode -- that Brigham Young had anything to do with it. It was a local decision and it was tragic.. We can't understand it in this time."/ [... ¶]: Now, those who had hoped to hear some sort of apology on behalf of the modern Mormon Church from the man who had done more than any of his predecessors to salve the wounds, were left feeling they had come up short./ [¶]: "What we've felt would put this resentment to rest would be an official apology from the church," says Scott Fancher of the Mountain Meadows Monument Foundation in Arkansas, a group of direct descendants of the victims. "Not an admission of guilt, but an acknowledgement of neglect and of intentional obscuring of the truth."/ [¶]: Others closely involved in Hinckley's participation in the new monument project believe the LDS Church went as far as it's ever going to go in addressing the uncomfortable details of the massacre./ [¶]: "You're not going to get an apology for several reasons, one of which is that as soon as you say you're sorry, here come the wrongful-death lawsuits," says Gene Sessions, president of the Mountain Meadows Association, the organization that partnered with Hinckley on the project./ [... ¶]: "The problem is that Mormons then were not simply old-fashioned versions of Mormons today," says historian David Bigler, author of Forgotten Kingdom.. "Then, they were very zealous believers; it was a faith that put great emphasis on the Old Testament and the Blood of Israel."/ [¶]: Brigham Young's theocratic rule of the Utah Territory -- he wore the hats of governor, federal Indian agent and LDS prophet -- was at its zenith [...]. Reformation of the LDS Church was in full swing, with members' loyalty challenged by church leaders. Young taught that in a complete theocracy, God required the spilling of a sinner's blood on the ground to properly atone for grievous sins. It was the Mormon doctrine of "blood atonement."/ [¶]: The modern church contends blood atonement was mainly a "rhetorical device" used by Young and other leaders to teach Saints the wages of sin. Yet some scholars see its influence even today, pointing to such signs as Utah being the only state left in the nation that allows execution by firing squad. There is widespread disagreement, but some historians have concluded that blood atonement is central to understanding why faithful Mormons would conspire to commit mass murder./ [¶]: Alternate explanations have included [... ¶]: epithets, poisoned watering holes [...,] boastful claims of one contingent called the "Missouri Wildcats" that they were with the Illinois mob that killed LDS founder Joseph Smith./ [... ¶: T]he veracity of those stories has been called into question since the earliest investigations of the massacre./ [¶]: Historian Juanita Brooks, in her seminal book, The Mountain Meadows Massacre, believed the emigrants met their doom in part through their own provocative behavior and because they came from the Arkansas county adjacent to the county where beloved LDS Apostle Parley P. Pratt had recently been murdered./ [¶]: In his forthcoming Blood of the Prophets, Bagley points to new evidence that seems to blunt this one point of Brooks' landmark research./ [¶]: "[Noted historian] Dale Morgan alerted Brooks in 1941 to the likelihood that the emigrant atrocity stories had been 'set afloat by Mormons to further their alibi of the massacre's having been perpetrated by Indians,' " Bagley writes, quoting from Morgan's letter to Brooks. "Even then it was well-established that the Fancher party came from Arkansas, and Morgan had never been satisfied with tales that the company included a large contingent of maniacal Missourians."/ [¶]: That a wagon train mainly of women and children would be slaughtered for belligerence and taunting seems too farfetched to many historians today./ [¶]: "When you have 50 to perhaps more than 70 men participate in an event like this, you can't just say they got upset," says Bigler, a Utah native. "We have to believe they did not want to do what they did any more than you or I would. We have to recognize they thought what they were doing is what authority required of them. The only question to be resolved is did that authority reach all the way to Salt Lake City?"/ [¶]: Fifty years ago, when Brooks broached the question of Young's role and blood atonement in her book, she was labeled an apostate by some and "one of the Lord's lie detectors" by others, such as the late philanthropist O.C. Tanner. Brooks noted her own LDS temple endowment blessing was to "avenge the blood of the prophet," a reference to Smith's 1844 murder. References to vengeance on behalf of slain church leaders eventually were removed from endowment ceremonies./ [¶]: The journals kept by Mormon pioneers, who considered maintaining diaries a religious duty, continue to shed more light on the questions Brooks raised. Among key developments in the historical record:/ [¶]: -- The Sept. 1, 1857, journal of Young's Indian interpreter, Dimick Huntington, recounts Young's negotiations with the Paiute Indians, who were offered a gift of the emigrant wagon train's cattle. When Paiute leaders noted Young had told them not to steal, Huntington translated Young's reply: "So I have, but now they have come to fight us and you, for when they kill us they will kill you."/ [¶]: -- Young, as superintendent of Indian Affairs in the Utah Territory, ordered the distribution of more than $3,500 in goods to the natives "near Mountain Meadows" less than three weeks after the massacre. [¶]: -- The patriarchal blessing given to the commander of the Mormon militia in Beaver, Iron and Washington counties called on Col. William Dame to "act at the head of a portion of thy brethren and of the Lamanites [Indians] in the redemption of Zion and the avenging of the blood of the prophets upon them that dwell on the earth."/ [¶]: There is also additional support for Brooks' original premise: That Young wanted to stage a violent incident to demonstrate to the U.S. government -- which was taking up arms against his theocracy -- that he could persuade the Indians to interrupt travel over the important overland trails, thwarting all emigration. She was the first to note a frequently censored phrase from Young's Aug. 4, 1857, letter to Mormon "Indian missionary" Jacob Hamblin to obtain the tribe's trust, "for they must learn that they have either got to help us or the United States will kill us both."/ [¶]: Hinckley has declared, "Let the book of the past be closed" at Mountain Meadows and believes it is pointless to continually speculate on why it happened./ [¶]: "None of us can place ourselves in the moccasins of those who lived there at the time," he said in an interview. "The feelings that were aroused, somehow, that I cannot understand. But it occurred. Now, we're trying to do something that we can to honorably and reverently and respectfully remember those who lost their lives there."/ [¶]: Sessions, the Weber State University historian who serves as president of the Mountain Meadows Association, says Hinckley's efforts at reconciliation this past summer "may be the most significant event to happen in Mountain Meadows since John D. Lee was executed."/ [¶]: Attitudes are changing, he says, pointing to the church's acceptance of interpretive signs at the meadows that better explain who did the killing. As to who ultimately is to blame, perhaps that's not for anyone to judge./ [¶]: "Somebody made a terrible decision that this has got to be done," says Sessions. "I don't justify it in any way. But I do believe it would have taken more guts to stay home in Cedar City on those days in 1857 than it would to go out there to the meadows and take part./ [¶]: "You couldn't stay away. You would have been out there killing people."

--Justmeherenow 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is getting very large, and in the interest of clarity, I propose it be split into at least two articles: one on the actual massacre and one on the non-contemporary reconciliations & reminiscences -- maybe titled "Retrospective on the Mountain Meadows Massacre". I've placed a marker in the article where I think it out to be split (after the contemporary and first-person remiscences section). --TrustTruth 20:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should make a split just yet. The article is in a bit of flux right now, and it's hard to see which chunk of the article would be the best sub-article. I also don't think it's too long yet. It's on the longer side, but well within reasonable limits. It seems a lot longer than it is because the kB count includes footnotes and references, which are very large in this article and which don't count in considering article length. I did a count a while ago and we were about 50k, and I think it has shrunk a little since then. COGDEN 22:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with a split or not. I think that there might be too much material in the article both before and after the core material in the center. Generally I prefer deletion, but I could see a split also. --Blue Tie 14:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think enough has gone on in the reconciliation phase to warrant its own article. That way, this article can focus solely on the event and its immediate (up to John D. Lee execution) aftermath. --TrustTruth 19:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Background - role of absconding federal officials

Article is improving, people! Congratulations. In the background section of this article, and Utah War as well, there is no mention of the publicity and pressure placed upon the President and the federal government by the federal officials who "served" in Utah and then "fled" east with stories of tyranny and oppression. Accounts of the official's experience and opinions of Utah ran in many eastern papers and led to the call for federal action against the Mormons. Most of these men, as was common at the time, had looked upon a federal appointment as an opportunity to get rich and gain political influence. They were, according to accounts, sadly surprised when conditions in Utah reduced their financial opportunities and limited their power. In addition, some of the men's personal conduct appalled the conservative Mormons, who quickly saw them as representatives of a corrupt and oppressive government. This led to a generalized view that "Gentiles" entering the territory were also dangerous and corrupt and may have had an impact on the reception of immigrants through the territories, including the Francher party. As everyone is trying to keep the background short (why, oh why! says the historian in me), could we boil this concept down to a couple of sentences? Best wishes. WBardwin 00:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't go down this name-calling path. If we stay away from value judgments, we will present a more balanced article. Where you may feel they absconded, someone else may say they were persecuted, threatened and run out of the territory by religious fanatics. Neither comment adds positively to this article. Let's stick to the facts and back them up with reliable sources. --Robbie Giles 00:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

why are you assuming I'm calling anyone names? There are two POV's on the matter, yes, but this is part of the "why" for the Utah War, and perhaps for the MMM. I believe exploring "why", within our factual ability, is just as important as exploring "how" the event occurred. Both "sides" quickly abhorred the other -- and both of them reacted, creating a volatile emotional condition that helped lead to the war. The officials stirred up the eastern press (believe me, well sourced), and public reaction forced the President to act. The Utah leaders and population saw the men as corrupt outsiders (again, sources), and suspected the federal government would send more of the same who would threaten their hard won independence. These are "facts" and there are additional sources on some of the officials and their activities, and historical opinions on the impact on the conflict. I still think this should go into the background as an element of the Utah War. Please don't accuse me of trying to cause trouble here! Assume good faith! WBardwin 01:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Name calling in the sense of a pejorative adjective for the officials. Not in your conversations with other editors. Sorry for the confusion.

I believe this thread could and should be put into the Utah War (or Expedition to those mobocrats) article. Yes, there are ample sources on the behavior of both sides in the interactions leading to both the War and the MMM. I do assume good faith. I simply don't want this to degenerate into a right-wrong wrangle. We're writing an article from sources, not arguing the interpretations out afresh. --Robbie Giles 01:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an important point, and I agree with Robbie Giles it is best put in the Utah War section. It's also significant because it ties into the later story of Garland Hurt, who was the last federal official to leave the territory before the War, and the first to make an investigation of the massacre, and he said he fled for his life. We don't have to make any judgments. We just tell both sides of the story. COGDEN 01:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Utah War section in the article starts, imo, rather abruptly. So, while I would not be adverse to putting it there, I thought two or so sentences in the background section would set the stage, as most of the officials' actions predated the War itself. But, thank you both for agreeing that it has a place in the article. Best............WBardwin 01:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a book on the Utah National Guard from the Nauvoo Legion period forward that I got on interlibrary loan (ILL) from a Utah University. The citation is here. It has about about 8 pages on the beginning in the Territory through the Utah War. I can scan pages and send them as a pdf next week if you would like. Or you can see about getting it sent to you by your library. If you look at the OCLC record, it shows the libraries that have it. Boise State has a copy depending on where you are. Working in a library is so sweet, cause I get to use ILL and online journals. And they pay me too. Wow, it doesn't get any better. Leave a message here and we can figure a way to exchange email addresses. --Robbie Giles 03:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the positive or negative role of federal officials is reasonably part of the Utah War article. It should not be part of this article. It is a cause of the Utah War which is a precipitating factor for the MMM. So it is removed from this article by a step. --Blue Tie 14:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Leaner, meaner background section

I've worked hard to streamline the background section. I've condensed it into three subheadings instead of four (stepping slightly out of chronological order to do so, which I hate to do). I also made things a bit simpler and more directly-relevant. I'm not sure if it's possible to condense much further, because there's not much left that can be cut. Pretty much everything left, I think, is necessary factual background that will be implicated later in the article. COGDEN 22:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic. I corrected a few typos. All remaining typos are in direct statement and probably represent the creative spelling prevalent at that time. I unlinked a few dup wikilinks and added a few new.

This sentence in the first ¶:

Because of a history of persecution, theocratic rule, and a recent period of intense Millennialist teachings, conditions were ripe in the Utah Territory for violence and paranoia, particularly in isolated Southern Utah colonies.

I would like to change in this manner for clarity:

Because of a history of persecution, a desire for theocratic rule, and a recent period of intense Millennialist teachings, conditions were ripe in the Utah Territory for violence and paranoia, particularly in isolated Southern Utah colonies.

The people of Utah who moved to the back of beyond to escape persecution wanted a theocracy and that desire was in conflict with what the U.S. President wanted. The idea of losing the theocracy was frightening to them and heightened the tension. It is a picky change, and I won't press it. --Robbie Giles 03:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think its too long, involved and crufty --Blue Tie 14:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

High road

I believe that the editors currently working on this article are moving in the right direction. I pledge to continue working on this article in a spirit of cooperation and civility. This is a contentious subject. To have this level of cooperation is a blessing. I refuse to let one or even two or three discourteous editors derail this effort. So, I offer a challenge to all participants to assume that others are as capable as yourself, as interested as yourself, and as worthy of civility of yourself. Remember: On the internet we may not know you are a dog, but by discussion page comments we know when someone is being rude, condescending, and arrogant. So, will you take the pledge? --Robbie Giles 04:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone here has been civil, except perhaps me. And in my case, I did not mean to be uncivil but frank. However, it could be the same thing. Its a lack of patience. But I will try harder. --Blue Tie 14:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal or splitting leftovers

This article has a wealth of information about related topics. Before deleting any information, please make sure it is in the parent article first. For example, the information on the Utah War background deleted from this article may not be in the Utah War article in a sourced format. One suggestion might be to place it on your User or Talk page to include in the other article later. Just a suggestion for a way to use all this hard work. --Robbie Giles 14:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I do not think the good research should be lost. --Blue Tie 14:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

¶ 2 of the current introduction reads:

Investigations—which began immediately, although impeded by perpetrators' having been sworn to secrecy and the distraction of the U.S. Civil War—resulted eventually in nine indictments being issued in 1874. Despite others' involvement, only John D. Lee was tried and convicted. Lee was executed by firing squad at the location of the massacre in 1877.

I suggest the first sentence be trimmed to read:

Investigations, interrupted by which began immediately, although impeded by perpetrators' having been sworn to secrecy and the distraction of the U.S. Civil War, resulted eventually in nine indictments being issued in 1874.

It is debatable that the investigations began immediately. Hurt left the territory soon after learning the first details and no further investigations were done until the U.S. was forced to investigate by relatives of the victims and "outraged" newspaper editors. --Robbie Giles 14:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not find the edit terrible, but I should explain my thinking in the original wording. I was thinking about investigations commissioned early on by BY. These were almost immediate. Then too, the investigations a couple of years later in 1859 also followed. This was "pretty fast" for those days and given the travel difficulties. So, I do not think that immediate is such a bad word, but perhaps it could be modified. --Blue Tie 16:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Major reordering

This morning I moved all Fancher and massacre information (except rumors section) up below the introduction. The article had a great deal of information explaining the situation which led to the massacre first. This was distracting from the actual events. I left the Rumors section with other justification text. For now, all info is still there and I plan to edit for passive voice removal. I believe (never humble remember) that the flow will be better if we order as follows:

1. Intro to Fancher party in Arkansas
2. Travels to SLC
3. Travels to Meadows
4. Massacre
5. Immediate activities after massacre

--Robbie Giles 14:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is sort of better and sort of worse:

• It sort of gets to the point faster, but not in a more interesting way.
• I think that "The Massacre and its Aftermath", need to be restructured into more high level sections.
• While I did not like the length of the previous background, I do not think that no historical background is appropriate either. Almost every other source mentions a few historical context items -- chiefly the Utah War.
• The restructuring highlights a need for some better writing.

I have to catch a plane soon, so I will not be able to help with that for a while --Blue Tie 16:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I still like this general outline:

1. Background

(Themes)

Mormons settled Utah Valley to be isolated from the US

Mormons then felt threatened by the US Government

War and siege mentality occurred.

War Strategy -- including the use of indians and cattle rustling

2. Events leading to the Massacre

a. Baker Fanchier Party emigrating through the territory.

b. Conflicts between the Wagon Train and the Mormons

c. The Decision to attack the Wagon Train

3. Sequence and geography of attack events

4. Investigations and Cover-up

5. John D Lee Trial and Execution

6. Memorials and Recent events

7. Theories and Opinions

a. greed

b. Mormon ethic to unquestionably follow leaders

c. millennial expectations (??)

d. frontier violence

e. harsh Mormon rhetoric to retributionally punish sin

f. mob/vigilante dynamics

g. a persecution complex / us-versus-them alienation

h. agitation (threats, poisonings, etc) from emmigrants.

i. war hysteria over the approaching US army

j. desires to steal property in anticipation of scarcity

k. desires to ally with Natives

8. Annotated Bibliography of MM Histories. [--Blue Tie]

I can see where the Banker Fancier Party details (2a) might deserve their own section. I could see switching 6 and 7 or putting 7 between 3 and 4. I think its best in position #7. though. --Blue Tie 17:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

An alternative order for 7 could be:

a. war hysteria over the approaching US army

b. desires to steal property in anticipation of scarcity

c. desires to ally with Natives

d. a persecution complex / us-versus-them alienation

e. agitation (threats, poisonings, etc) from emmigrants.

f. mob/vigilante dynamics

g. frontier violence

h. harsh Mormon rhetoric to retributionally punish sin

i. Mormon ethic to unquestionably follow leaders

j. millennial expectations (??)

k. greed

An example of another Massacre Article that has achieved Feature Status is Lochry's Defeat. It is well ordered, well structured and it has nearly every sentence referenced. --Blue Tie 17:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I just reordered §§ in the article and ended up with this

• 1 Baker-Fancher party
• (1.1 Salt Lake City arrival) (1.2 The Road south to Mountain Meadows)
• 2 Conditions in Utah
• (2.1 Teachings from...pulpit) (2.2 ...invasion panic) (2.3 ...Smith's circuit) (2.4 Unbridling Indians...)
• 3 Siege and massacre
• (3.1 Surviving children) (3.2 Distribution of spoils) ([3.3.1 ...guilty sworn to secrecy] [3.3.2 ...Fanchers "poisoned cattle"]) ([3.4.1 ...Fanchers "threatened"] [3.4.2 Conspiracy at Cedar City: yet belated message from Young] [3.4.3 besiegement of following party...])
• 4 Investigations and trials
• (4.1 ...1857, 1859) (4.2 Prosecutions of Lee)
• 5 Background: Mormons' uneasy position in Utah territory
• (5.1 Memory of...persecutions) (5.2 Expansion of...dominion into so.Utah) (5.3 ...contemporary reminiscences)
• 6 Effects of the massacre within present-day American culture
• (6.1 reconciliations [6.1.1 Expression of regret] [<6.1.2.1 Early markers> <6.1.2.2 1990 monument> <6.1.2.3 1999 monument...> <6.1.2.4 Descendants' remembrances>]) (6.2 Media and academic coverage [6.2.1 Early works] [6.2.2 ...Brooks] [<6.2.3.1 Documentaries> <6.2.3.2 Plays, a novel and a film>])

People shouldn't have to wade with the Saints through Missouri and Illinois, trek with them down to southern Utah, then experience the Mormon Reformation with them etc just to get into the thick of what happened to the Fancher train at the massacre. Still, immediate background is important

I. Justmehere's stab.

So

1. we have the Baker-Fancher company's arrival in Utah
2. then we show conditions of panic in the territory
3. then we have the train's massacre (with our immediately thereafter getting into the thick of it as far as who did what to whom first)
4. then we have John D. Lee's being shot
5. and it's only then we get into Mormons' lengthy background narrative (and sequeing into earliest American take on the MMM, and then Mormons' collecting diaries and reports)
6. then finally "MMM news" stuff: reconciliations, media portrayals (?) :^) --Justmeherenow 19:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - but I'm not entirely satisfied with it.

II. Robbie's most recent stab.

Before I'd started the article went:

1. Arkansas company's SLC arrival & heading south toward MM
2. the massacre, with some children's surviving and a distribution of spoils
3. the background of Mormons' uneasy position in Utah due their memories of MO/IL persecutions, their having expanded into Utah's "dixie" in so. Utah, and then listened to whacky pulpit teachings
4. an invasion panic, with the Geo. Smith circuit's putting Legionaires on alert, the Natives' being unbridled, and the populace claiming antagonization by Fancher threats, leading to Cedar City conspiracy (before the belated message from Young), then on to the Duke raid, all MM paricipants' sworn to secrecy, with then Lee's passing on the poisoning claim to Young
5. but with the feds' not buying that and instead investigating, trying Lee, then there being collection of reminiscences

(Then on to 6) & 7)'s current media portrayals & efforts towards reconciliation)... --Justmeherenow 00:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

III. Blue Tie's suggested outline.

Then what Blue Tie suggests is (something akin to? - )

1. enough background to explain Utah LDS desire for isolation & its need to buck against overbearing federal colonialism
2. war & siege mentality (/hysterics) which brings sealing of borders, taking of folks' cattle, harrassment of U.S. troops en route eastward
3. emigrants' arrival and whatever seeds of conflict and their escalation - into Cedar City's decision to have them Reap the Whirlwind
4. the massacre
5. investigation, with cover-up, resulting in the Lee trials
6. (A) recent events

(B) various theories of

• extreme passions authorized by beliefs
• the young religious society's highly hierarchical regimentation
• its sensing its (our) alienation/feelings of agitated by outsiders (them)
• frontier violence/mob dynamics and/or wartime Patriot Act type "defensive" hysteria or whatever, and
• the need to ally with Natives and
• their both's greed and/or concerns about scarcity in anticipation of apocalyptic defense against the U.S.

(C) an annoted bibliography of Meadows histories --Justmeherenow 01:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

IV. Something akin to the "more-better" chronology Ogden has championed.

Meanwhile, Ogden's last-edited version ran as

1. background of Mormons' uneasy position in Utah with their memory of persecutions and new news of Pratt murder, expansions into Utah's "dixie", motivations through fiery pulpit preachings
2. Baker-Fancher party's path through so. Utah & difficulties trading
3. panicked invasion rumors, Smith's circuit, "unbridled" Indians, Fancher threats, conspiracy at Cedar City, besiegement of following party
4. massacre at Mountain Meadows, surviving children, distribution of spoils, guilty sworn to secrecy and make claim of Fanchers' having poisoned Indians
5. Investigations and Lee trials, contemporary reminiscences
6. current media/ memorials et cetera . . . --Justmeherenow 02:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying out edits on a sandbox page and just made almost no headway on this article. In doing so, I finally realized that some of the same types of materials appeared in different places. I am not bothered by the outline or order right now, so much as I am with pulling similar things together. I definitely think the article is moving forward nicely. I will try to identify some examples to see if we can move them together in the article. At this point, we could call the sections who, what, where, when, and why and figure out the order later. I've been thinking of this as storytelling and seeing if the elements are here to tell the whole story. I think we have most of it. I still have about 3 paragraphs of information on the Paiute perspective I am hammering out. It's not ready yet, as I checked out six more books on Friday for background. --Robbie Giles 20:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the current arrangement is confusing. It jumps around in time, which is good in time-travel fiction, but not in historical non-fiction. We have the situation now where the Baker-Fancher party is meeting resistance from Mormons in Utah, before anything is explained about conditions in Utah. That's baffling to people who aren't familiar with the facts. Second, we discuss the massacre, and then later go back and explain "loose threads". That's not a good idea. It's much better not to have "loose threads" to begin with. Then, finally, at the end, we explain the conditions in Utah leading up to the massacre. I appreciate the effort to do this, but this is not going to work. We'll never get FA status with an article that's not roughly chronological. It's not what the audience expects, and it's way too confusing. COGDEN 01:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that Justme grasped my perspective well. I would give some immediate and general conditions in Utah that preceded the massacre but not all the detailed theories that people have put forward. Just the most basic things and in a fairly brief manner. Then into this mess steps the Fanchier party (and sometimes either that party or others get into tense situations with the Mormons). Then the party runs into the folks in Cedar, particularly Haight and plans are developed. The plans both go awry and escalate until there is a massacre. The massacre is described. Then the cover-ups and the investigations, followed by the trial. I am not quite clear on what should follow next. I am torn as to whether it should be all the various historical reconstructions and theories or if it should be the stuff about the monument and memorial services. I tend to like the monument and memorial services first because then a statement of the various theories and thoughts could precede a brief annotated bibliography (which I think is important in this case). The connection between the theories and the various proponents and arguments could be enhanced by putting it near the bibliography of the various books that make these cases.

I agree with Justme that we should not have to wade through too many side journeys before getting to the gist of the article. I also agree with Robbie that there is some redundancy. I think the redundancy should be eliminated through most of the article but it would re-appear in the theories section because different theories interpret the same information in different ways. I also agree with COGDEN that it is currently somewhat confusing. I think the new order highlights a need for better writing of the sections.

I've wanted to Sandbox a version but I just do not have time. sorry. --Blue Tie 02:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There have been so many edits recently that it's hard to follow who is doing what, but thanks to whoever put the article back into rough chronological order. I'm personally satisfied with the amount of pre-1857 background material, though I'm sure it can still be massaged. I'm going to try and focus now on the events immediately preceding the massacre, and the massacre itself. I would like to avoid a "theory" or "analysis" section if possible, by incorporating such material right into the narrative, or perhaps in footnotes to the narrative. This avoids lots of problems, by putting primary focus on the facts (primary sources), and secondary focus on the analysis (secondary sources). It also avoids a level of redundancy. COGDEN 17:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Facts vs Theories

Clearly we are nearly at polar opposites. I think the background information is currently too dense and crufty. I think that the best place to put the various ideas (which are actually sorts of debates) is in a separate section. I say present the facts of the massacre. Then the various theories about the "reason why". I think that makes for an NPOV article. I think presenting all the various theories as background "fact" is pov, crufty and puts too much density before you get to the heart of the article. While I do think that chronological order is best, the theories should be segregated into their own section where they can be separately evaluated by the reader. We already know that COGDEN and I disagree. But I just want to register it again. --13:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between "fact" and "theory" is that a fact is something that somebody said happened, while a theory is somebody's second-level interpretation of a fact or group of facts. Just because a fact is alleged doesn't make it a theory, because all facts are alleged by somebody, and not all factual information is necessarily "true". Any fact relating to the massacre should, if possible, be told in chronological order, like any good narrative. Theories go later, but you can't discuss a theory without first telling the facts upon which the theory is based. Whether or not you personally think a particular fact is important, you'll still have to tell that fact at some point in the article before stating the theory. So what better place to tell the fact than in chronological order as part of a narrative, in the context of the other facts that you do personally consider important? COGDEN 17:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your definition of "fact". But I will get to that momentarily. I also disagree with your notion of how things have to be presented. I will also deal with that. But first, I want to make something clear, because even though I have tried to be very clear, based upon what you wrote above, I would have to say I have not communicated in a way that you comprehended my intent.

I have complained about TWO things:

1. There is too much CRUFT. By cruft I do NOT mean Theory, though theories might also be cruft. But I mean too many trivial, insignificant FACTS. Facts that are minutia and interesting only to people with a hobby interest. Or facts that are only presented in order to BOLSTER A THEORY, particularly obscure or revisionist theories.

2. There is too much ASSUMPTION that THEORIES of motives, are FACTS -- or that they are presented as though they are facts. Sure, there may be facts that support these theories (or perhaps interpretations of facts that support these theories), but the theories are not facts. I have been complaining about this all along.

Both of these issues are at play in the background material that you bring. And they create a density, early in the article that is simply not appropriate for summary style writing as should be done in an encyclopedia.

Now, as for your concept of "fact", I also disagree. And this may lie even more closely at the heart of the problem. To me, you have a liberal view of what a fact is. You say that even if it is alleged -- or if someone just says it -- it is a fact. I have a very hard time with that idea. For example, liars may say things, but they are not facts just because someone said them. To me, a fact exists independent of what someone says about it or how it is perceived. But enough philosophy. This is wikipedia and there are actually guidelines about this sort of thing. Let me quote:

"By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." -- Wikipedia's Policy on Neutral Point of View.

Finally (but consistent with the notion of too much cruft), what sorts of "facts" need to get presented in the background is also apparently an area where we do not see things the same. You say that "Any fact relating to the massacre should, if possible, be told". I disagree with the concept of "any" which I think you take to an undeserved extreme. Only reasonably important facts should be included. These should be things about which there is no serious dispute or disagreement. (I would say these are things about which there is a consensus that this is "background" -- but weirdly you have rejected the notion of consensus -- despite that being a fundamental principle of wikipedia.) They should also clearly advance the narrative of the events chronologically -- following in a non-convoluted, fairly direct line to the massacre. On the other hand, anything that is uniquely required to support some theory of motives should be suspect as "background" material and reviewed against the standards of not being in dispute and being important to moving the narrative along. If it fails those tests it should not be presented as background, but instead considered for the theories section.

All of the various theories AND THE FACTS THAT SUPPORT THEM, particularly the special facts that are required to uniquely support these theories, should be included in a separate section. In some cases that might require a restatement of more common facts because different people will see those facts as saying different things. For example, the same note from Brigham Young is seen as proof he did not support the massacre and as proof that he ordered it. I think that it should be presented in the article without comment either way, and then the theories of Brooks and Bagley should be presented in a separate section.--Blue Tie 01:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing Ogden presents that's not addressed in spades in loads of secondary sources. Sure, Wikipedia benefits every once in a while through its publishing pertinent researches firmly grounded in primary sources--but a good adverb here is modestly? - since Wikipedia's not for specialists to come to and get background nitty gritty. Rather its job is to summarize whatever the story--as explained by the experts. Which,*

____

|[*(obviously--if ya'all will excuse yet another one of my self-indulgent fables)]|

====

in the case of the annotated Jack and the beanstalk, would be through references to such established experts in its field as Mother Goose, the Grimm brothers and Hans Christian Andersen. Otherwise folks will turn to Wikipedia to learn about magical beanstalk and needlessly get bogged down in facts.

1. The person who told Jack about the magical beans was Wilbur.
2. Wilbur said on May 1st: "Jack, spreckled ones grow fastest."
3. Still, Jack planted both plain and speckled. But the quicker growing plants - which instantaneously stretched up into the clouds - were too slender to support human weight. Come morning, however, stoutly gigantic, plain-beans produced beanstalks were standing there alongside Jacks front fence; and Jack climbed one. --Justmeherenow 03:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that things may be attested to by 2ndary sources. Many of them perhaps. Like the Kennedy Assassination. I would not want all of the history (well attested in 2ndary sources) about Kennedy's political problems with Texans, efforts to eliminate Castro, Bobby's fights with organized crime, Big Business Fears about his "socialism", CIA feelings of betrayal by him or other "facts" to be presented in a background section prior to the gist of the story on the assassination. I would, instead, see them presented in their own section on Theories about the Assassination. Among other reasons, it would prevent the story from getting bogged down early. All that stuff is cruft ... of interest (in detail) to assassination conspiracy theorists and hobbyists. But if one of them comes along and is really interested in the details of those theories they could look into them in the "Theory" section later in the article - AFTER the gist of the article was covered -- as appropriate for the general reader. This is a sort of summary style appropriate to encyclopedias. I am unable to detect that anyone else feels quite as I do about this. Not sure if your fable above is simply a comment going neither way or if you are supporting or rejecting my ideas. I often find it difficult to follow your posts and I have come to believe I am not quite as smart as you because your nuances are more subtle than I am. I think subtlety like that requires a certain intellectual level that I have not achieved. --Blue Tie 04:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

People so often take what I say with an overarching tone of sarcasm for some reason. But what appears to be mocking is really just my trying to peel back layers of onion and reveals seeming contradictions--that really aren't. (In other words, Blue Tie, I rarely understand what I'm saying myself, actually. People rarely say I'm intellegent. Crazy - quite often.) Be that as it may, my fable is supportive of a summary style of encyclopedic coverage. --Justmeherenow 04:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Paiute participation

I started a new subsection at the end of Section 3. The first paragraph is there and I have at least two others to add. I will add the refs as I add the text. This may not be the most appropriate place, but leave it here until we see where it best fits. --Robbie Giles 04:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Applause

I've been observing the interaction among editors of this article on the talk page here, and think all of you who have lately been participating here deserve high praise for your conduct. For such a touchy subject and range of opinions and perspectives, you have done an outstanding job of keeping discussion level-headed and finding ways to work together. The article isn't perfect, to be sure, but with this kind of collaboration it's going in a very promising direction. I think Robbiegiles, COGDEN, Justmeherenow, Blue Tie, Trust Truth, WBardwin, and Storm Rider particularly deserve applause. Kudos to all! alanyst ^/talk/ 04:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Alanyst, thanks for including me in the list, but I have mostly been watching the action. They are doing a good job, aren't they? The article's improving all the time. WBardwin 06:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegations sections

I would like these paragraphs moved down with the coverup section. The allegations were made after the fact, and were an attempt to justify the massacre. I have not found any sources that show the allegations were recorded (reported, noted) before the massacre. (no diary entries prior to the event, no minutes from stake meetings, etc.) George A Smith wrote it down two years later. The allegations were reported to Carleton two years after the massacre. To stay in chronological order, we should move the section below the actual massacre. What say? --Robbie Giles 00:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not so sure this belongs in a cover-up section. That they were not recorded before the massacre does not mean that they did not happen before the massacre. I am sure many things do not go recorded until after some event makes them important. Having said that, I guess that you raise a question for me: When we say "Chronological Order", do we mean, Chronological Order of the Events as nearly as can be reconstructed? Or do we mean Chronological Order of when things became known? The latter is what you seem to be arguing for, and that looks like a hard/impossible standard for writing an article that would be clear and concise.

I would also say that if the TONS of other background material stays in the front of the article, certainly this stuff can too. But I have said all along that the Background should be more pointed and shorter and a longer theories section should follow the bulk of the article. That is not to say that I think that there should be no Background... I think historical context is important. But I would want it limited to things that are pretty much never disputed -- or only disputed by folk with very narrow interests. --Blue Tie 03:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Duke train

I am unclear why information about the Duke (or Turner - Duke) train is included in this article. I see no direct link between that part and Mountain Meadows. Unless there is some direct bearing on the article, I suggest it be trimmed, or placed in another article more appropriate to that train. --Robbie Giles 00:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Duke train does seem to bear some significance as it was a non-Mormon wagon train travelling through Utah at the exact same time as the Fancher party. However, the article claims that Jacob Hamblin incited the Piautes to attack the train in order to steal their cattle. Is there a source on this somewhere? My understanding is that Jacob Hamblin was traveling south from Salt Lake City at the time that the Dukes were first attacked. He then had to ride night and day without sleep to get close to the train and was still far enough away that he never actually came into contact with them. This hardly seems conducive to planning an attack with the Paiutes. 71.246.225.219 03:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)panbobor

Was it the Duke train that may have caused some of the tensions with Mormons and the anxieties were transferred to the Fanchier train? --Blue Tie 03:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A policy of cattle rustling gone awry equals the MMM.

In September of 1857 there came to be a policy effective immediately to raid emigrants' cattle. In early September, (A) the Arkansans' cattle, (B) a Missourian man's cattle up in Ogden, and (C) the Missourians by the name of the Turner-Duke party's cattle were raided. Yet (according to notes from recent lectures by LDS historians), any Brooksian shenanigans involving some "wildcat militia in southern Utah hailing from Missouri" really refer to this following train that was raided.

• A twirling headline. It stops and we're able to read: Extra! Dozens massacred in bank robbery."
• Cut to FBI profiler Johnson, who asks his co-workers: "When revolutionaries robbing a bank get worried that some patrons saw their leader's face when his mask fell off, what might they do?
• Next scene. A flashback to some guy in a different context - who has the cajones to make some disrespectful remark right in the lead revolutionary's face.
• Then cut to a scene where the robbers are explaining to supporters why they needed to kill the people in the bank. Sure enough, as they retell the tale, they mix together both true events to create a fictional one ... that's only "true" from the perspective: "Those guys brought it on themselves!"

--Justmeherenow 05:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I would still appreciate a source confirming that Jacob Hamblin organized the Piautes to attack the Duke party. Is the contention that he helped organize the Indians to steal cattle before he went to Salt Lake City? The current article intimates that he was directly involved in the attacks, and this seems highly inaccurate.134.11.64.137 15:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Panbobor

The section on the Dukes and Jacob Hamblin is getting better, but is still not quite there yet. #1 I have still not seen a source that Jacob Hamblin organized the Piautes to attack the Dukes, either before or after the Mountain Meadows Massacre #2 at least according to Hamblin's autobiography, he never personally dealt with the Dukes. He recounts the he became aware that the Indians were going to attack another wagon train as he returned from Salt lake city. He then raced south to intercede, but as he had gone without sleep, sent Dudley Leavitt and company ahead. It was this group which negotiated with the Paiutes, and Leavitt who accompanied them to California. Hamblin later wrote to the Dukes in California informing them that he had regained a portion of their cattle and thereafter returned it to them. If there are other sources which dispute this, I would be glad to see them. This section also appears to be in a strange place now.71.246.225.219 21:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Panbobor

Sorry to be a pain...but wasn't it Paiutes who attacked the Duke train, with or without militia support? And again, Jacob Hamblin did not take the Duke train through to California. Dudley Leavitt did. Hamblin gathered their cattle back from the Paiutes and sent Leavitt ahead to intercede between the Piautes and the Dukes believing that the Dukes would be slaughtered as well.71.246.225.219 03:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Panbobor

No, Panbobor, you're not a pain. Far from it!

Sorry for my incoherance (incoherance?) tonight, but--

In my sloppy edit this afternoon (where I'd left stuff I thought I'd deleted - sorry), I left the impression I just wasn't going to give Hamblin a pass with regard territorial officials' conspiracy to run a protection racquet(?racket) re "unauthorized" emigrants' cattle. However, I like Hamblin, and there's nothing I know of about his behavior with regard any of the emigrants to compare, say, with that of his underling, the Indian missionary Lee's, re the Arkasas company. So I'm cool with leaving unimpeached the story Hamblin stuck to (and that Brooks only had to go by) about the guys having been out and about dutifully (coughs) protecting emigrants from angry Natives. If you'd like to make some easy money, though, name your odds if you predict the upcoming Oxford treatment won't admit what Bagley discovered from Huntington's diary---saved from the page-ripping hands of whoever redacted everybody else's minutes and diaries to cover up some of the tracks of Utah's otherwise benignly successful cold-war tactics during the Rebellion?...... :^) --Justmeherenow 04:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm baaack. OK, here's a source re the Mormons' militia's raid of "more than five hundred head" from the "Dukes company" (of which, says Lee, "[These men and Indians obeyed orders then the same as my brethren and I did with the first company." (And, from quotation's first line: Think Lee was bitter?! lol)]

Jacob Hamblin, commonly called "Dirty Fingered Jake," when called as a witness, gave as a reason for his long silence, concerning what he says I told him, that he was waiting for the right time to come, and he thought it had come now./ ¶ This reminds me of a circumstance that was related by Joseph Knight and John Lay, who were missionaries to the Indians under President Jacob Hamblin, at his headquarters at Santa Clara Fort, in 1859. In the Fall of 1859 two young men, on their way to California, stopped at the fort to recruit their jaded animals, and expecting that while doing so they might be so fortunate as to meet with some train of people going to the same place, so they would have company to San Bernardino, the young men staid at the fort some two months, daily expecting a company to pass that way, but still no one came. Hamblin assured them that they could go through the country with perfect safety. At the same time he had his plans laid to take their lives as soon as they started. The Indians around the fort wanted to kill the men at once, but Hamblin objected, and told the Indians to wait until the men got out on the desert--that if they would wait until the right time came they might then kill the men./ ¶ At last these young men started from the fort. Hamblin had told the Indians that the right time had come, and that he wanted the Indians to ambush themselves at a point agreed on near the desert, where the men could be safely killed. The Indians obeyed Hamblin's orders, and as the men came to the place of ambush the Indians fired upon them, and succeeded in killing one of the men. The other returned the fire, and shot one of Hamblin's right-hand men or pet Indians through the hand; this Indian's name was Queets, which means left-handed. By wounding this Indian he managed to escape, and returned to the fort, but doing so with the loss of the pack animals, provisions and the riding animal of his partner that lay dead upon the desert. The survivor stayed with Mr. Judd for a few days, when a com-

--Page 270-- pany of emigrants passed that way, and with them he succeeded in making his escape from the death that Hamblin had planned for him. / ¶ Hamblin was at Salt Lake City when the Mountain Meadows Massacre took place, and he pretends to have great sympathy with and sorrow for their fate. I can only judge what he would have done towards the massacre if he had been at home by what he did to help the next train that passed that way. When this train was passing through the settlements, Hamblin made arrangements with Nephi Johnson and his other interpreters (all of them were tools for Hamblin) how and where to relieve this company of the large herd of stock that belonged to the train. They had a large number of horses and cattle, more than five hundred head in all. Several interpreters were sent on ahead of the train. One of these was Ira Hatch. They were ordered by Hamblin to prepare the Indians to make a raid upon the stock, and these men and Indians obeyed orders then the same as my brethren and I did with the first company. About 10 o'clock, A. M., just after the train had crossed the Muddy, or a few miles beyond it on the desert, at the time and place as agreed on by Hamblin, and just as he had ordered it to be done, over one hundred Indians made a dash on the train and drove all the stock off to the Muddy./ ¶ The emigrants fired at the Indians, but the treacherous Nephi Johnson was acting as a guide, interpreter and friend to the whites; in fact that was how he came to be along with them was to pretend to aid them and protect them from Indians, but in fact he was there by order of Hamblin, to make the Indian raid on the stock a success./ ¶ Nephi Johnson rushed out and told the emigrants that if they valued their own lives they must not fire again, for if they did so he could not protect them from the cruelty of the savages--that the Indians would return and massacre them the same as they did the emigrants at Mountain Meadows./ ¶ The acting of Johnson and the other interpreters and spies that were with him, was so good that after a consultation the emigrants decided to follow his advice. The final conclusion was, that as Johnson was friendly with the Indians, and could talk their language, he should go and see the Indians, and try and get the stock back. The emigrants waited on the desert, and Johnson went to the

--Page 271-- Indians, or pretended to do so. After a few hours he returned, and reported that the Indians were very hostile, and threatened to attack the train at once; that he was afraid he could not prevent it, and the only chance for the emigrants was in their instant departure; that as the emigrants would be gaining a place of safety, he would, at the risk of his life, make an effort to keep the Indians back, and pacify them. Also that he would report to Hamblin as soon as possible, and raise a force of men at the fort, and get back the stock, if it could be done, and would write to the company, giving an account of his success, so they would get his letter at San Bernardino, and if he recovered the stock, the emigrants could send back a party to receive it, and drive it to California./ ¶ Under the circumstances, the company adopted his plan, and he left them on the desert, with all their loose stock gone; but the danger was over, for the stock was what Hamblin and Johnson had been working for./ ¶ Johnson returned and ordered the Indians to drive the stock to the Clara. The Indians acted like good Mormons, and obeyed orders. Hamblin gave them a few head of cattle for their services in aiding him to steal the drove. The remainder of the cattle and horses the secret keeper, Hamblin, took charge of for the benefit of the Mission. As the cattle became fat enough for beef, they were sold or butchered for the use of the settlers. Some were traded to other settlements for sheep and other articles. In this way Hamblin used all of the stock stolen from the Dukes Company, except some forty head./ ¶ In order to keep up an appearance of honesty and fairness, Hamblin wrote a letter to Capt. Dukes, in the fall of 1860, saying that he had recovered a small portion of the company's stock from the Indians, by giving them presents, and that some of the stock had been traded to the settlers by the Indians. This letter was to be confirmed by all the missionaries and settlers, when the stock was to be called for by the former owners. No one was to give information that would lead to the discovery of the stock./ ¶ This was always the way when the Mormons committed a crime against the Gentiles. All the brethren were to help keep the secret. Some of the Dukes Company came back to Hamblin's for their cattle and horses, and after three weeks' diligent search among the secret keepers, they succeeded in getting about

--Page 272-- forty head of cattle, and returned with them to California. Several of the settlers were severely censured for giving the little information that was given, which led to the recovery of that small portion of the large herd of cattle and horses that the Saints, Hamblin and Johnson, had stolen by the help of the Indians, and the efforts of the brethren.

--Justmeherenow 05:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is too much detail for the article. The Duke train deserves at best, a few sentences, perhaps as footnotes. --Blue Tie 10:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. I'm assuming that this was from John D. Lee's autobiography, correct? Well, yet again with MMM we have a case of conflicting original sources as Hamblin's autobiography tells a much different story. Speaking personally, I give far more veracity to Hamblin's account, though I admit that his story is probably incomplete and did not speak of probable plans to relieve immigrant trains of cattle. I have included Hamblin's story in the Wikipedia article on Jacob Hamblin. In any case, this section now in the article overly relies on John D. Lee's account. It seems that to be fair and objective, both accounts should be included and attributed to each source: e.g. Hamblin claims that...Lee claims...Again, I find it highly dubious that Hamblin had the time to concoct this sophisticated raid while traveling south from Salt Lake. I may try to clean it up later, but if someone else has time, that would be great.134.11.64.137 13:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Panbobor

Panbobar said (that JH's story)

did not speak of probable plans to relieve immigrant trains of cattle.... I find it highly dubious...Hamblin had the time to concoct...raid...traveling...from Salt Lake. I may try to clean it up later....

What info needs to be referenced from JH's autobiography for balance? (What the article, at present, says is identical to what you yourself admit is "probable": namely, that the militia - even if not Hamblin, per se - had plans to rustle the Dukes' cattle. What's left to reference from Hamblin's autobiography if the article's only mention of him is about his later having written the Dukes to send men to retrieve cattle?) --Justmeherenow 14:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, certainly Hamblin doesn't mention any militia attmepts to rustle the cattle...this accusation seems to come from John D. Lee. However, it does seem to fit in with the general policy of rustling cattle. But more importantly, Hamblin claims that he met Lee near Fillmore after hearing about the massacre from the Indians. In his autobiography and Lee's second trial he states that Lee told him about his own involvement with the MMM and the involvement of other Mormons, but who put all of the blame on the Paiutes. Hamblin continues that after he left Lee, he recieved word that the Paiutes were going to attack another wagon train (the Dukes). Believing from Lee that it was the Paiutes who had been the main perpetrators of MMM, he apparently feared another slaughter and hurried south as quickly as he could to interecede. He writes that he sent Dudley Leavitt ahead because he had been traveling very quickly and without sleep, and Leavitt negotiated with the Paiutes and then took the group to California. Hamblin claims he then negotiated with the Paiutes to restore what cattle he could. While all of this may be rather nuanced, I think the important thing from Hamblin's point of view is that he thought he was stopping another masssacre from occuring under the impression that MMM had largely been a Paiute affair. Great conversation by the way.134.11.64.137 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Panbobor

Young's reponse

The following:

Young himself did not conduct any investigation of the massacre. When John D. Lee visited Salt Lake City some time later to report on the massacre, Young was already aware of it, and he cut Lee off, and stopped him from reciting further details.

Looks to me like a poor retelling of things. Young did not personally investigate, but he did conduct an investigation. I am not sure that Young cut Lee off because he was already aware of it. I think he said that he did not like to hear the story because it harrowed up his soul or something to that effect. Anyway, this paragraph is suspect. --Blue Tie 03:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you give details of the investigation BY had done? I can't find a reference to one. There were letters and reports written beginning in 1858, most notably by George A. Young. If you can give specifics, we can add it in. --Robbie Giles 03:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Young had to submit a report to the US Government within a few months of the massacre. To write that report, he investigated it and relied most heavily upon Lee's written report of events. Then Young sent G.A. Smith to investigate, and Smith sent a report in August of 1858. These are the first investigations of the event. They are not particularly good investigations in that the guilty were completely trusted to report honestly, but they were investigations and they were the first ones. I am not sure that they are particularly important (except that Lee's report shows his cover-up), but the article currently says that BY never investigated, which is false. --Blue Tie 04:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me a suggestion for finding information to include on this. I really have not seen where BY was asked for and did a report. I still have all the books here and this is a great time to get the info and citation for the article. Actually, the first investigation was Hurt's, made before he left at the end of September 1857. --Robbie Giles 11:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought Hurt just sent an unlettered indian boy to ask questions of some of the Indians -- and I am not sure that the boy talked to indians who were actually present at the massacre. If my memory is correct about what Hurt's "investigation" consisted of, then I would suggest it is a strain to call it an investigation. But I suppose its in the eye of the beholder.

As for the report from BY, I would have to research it a bit. I wrote from memory. I think his report was sent in December or January. --Blue Tie 10:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Young's report was an official communication to James Denver and dated January 8th, 1858. It might be found in Dale Morgan's compilation of letters regarding Indian Administration in the West from 1851 to 1858. --Blue Tie 11:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

George Smith's travelogue

That section is WAY overblown. It deserves one sentence at most.

There is so much cruft in this article... its boggling. --Blue Tie 04:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No way! The alleged role of George A. Smith in the massacre is a very big deal. I personally think he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, but for anyone who says Brigham Young ordered the massacre, they always say it was via George A. Smith. Plus, Smith's circuit shows what the Iron brigade were doing in the month of August, how they were preparing, and what their intentions were. COGDEN 17:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I note that you describe the role as "alleged". Fine. Then it is a theory. You have it in great, long boring detail in the background as though it were an important fact. But actually, its boring and tangential. Cruft.

George Smith's trip does not really show what the Iron County Military District were doing in August or how they were preparing. It shows how George Smith was interacting with them and what he saw. That's all. It is almost -- -perhaps "not quite" (because of "allegations") -- but almost, irrelevant.

I look and stare. I shake my head. I have no idea why you must put so much cruft in the front of the article. Why must the reader indulge every theory and every miniscule and nearly pointless (except to support a theory) detail in advance of the event? It is not fascinating, interesting or even necessary detail to advance the narrative of the article. It is like stripping up the pavement and plowing furrows into what should be an easy to travel road.

All these theories (and associated evidence and discussion) belong in their own section after the main elements of the article. --Blue Tie 10:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Six problems with that: (1) George A. Smith's actions are facts or alleged facts, not theories (which are interpretations of facts and alleged facts by secondary sources); (2) your suggested approach would be putting factual and alleged factual information out of chronology, (3) George A. Smith met the fanchers and was directly involved in telling Mormons not to share grain with emigrant parties, (4) his alleged role comes up in relation to the investigations and trials, (5) even if facts relating to Smith are segregated into a "theories" section at the end of the article, you'll still have to include all the facts and alleged facts anyway, leading to redundancies, and (6) George A. Smith's alleged role is one of the central issues of any discussion on the MMM. COGDEN 17:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem 1: That his actions are fact, does not change whether they are cruft. And they are cruft... OR they are necessary to support a THEORY of motivation.

Problem 2: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson. We should NOT sacrifice readability on the altar of consistent timelines. If a fact is necessary to support a theory but not to advance the narrative it should NOT be presented as background but reserved for a section on theories.

Problem 3:I have no problem with presenting his instructions about not sharing grain with the train, IF that is an important fact that helps move the narrative along. But that does not require a travelogue. His having met the Fanchier party is cruft -- many people met them. It does not matter that he met them.

Problem 4: "Alleged role" is again theory. It belongs in the theory section if it is important.

Problem 5: You may not have to include all of the facts, but a recitation to include redundancy does not bother me. It happens in all sorts of documentation, dissertation, argumentation, etc.

Problem 6: Note "alleged". Its a theory. Smith's alleged role is central to a discussion of the THEORIES about motives. It is NOT central to the massacre itself. He was not there. He was not in the decision making group. Its cruft or theory. It does not belong in background.

None of your "problems" amounts to anything but a weak justification for making the article really badly constructed. --Blue Tie 01:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)