Deseret News | Mountain Meadows: Church asked to turn over site, take names off records

Anonymous | 8:11 a.m. Sept. 1, 2007

A cheap shot after a nasty movie. The church should carry on exactly as it is.

mrhackman | 8:36 a.m. Sept. 1, 2007

"Other historical accounts ...have erroneously portrayed Young as the one who ordered the massacre."

How can someone reporting the news make a statement like that? You could say that there is disagreement, but a comment like that belongs in op-ed. What kind of NEWS reporting is this?

Patricia A. Leader-Ryals | 9:07 a.m. Sept. 1, 2007

Please leave the care of this sacred holy ground under the LDS church stewardship.
Just to see the pictures of this site I can feel the sacredness of this area. And I shed a tear.
When you come to the area, offer a prayer, and thank your Father in Heaven for those who died here and those who remain. Let love and forgiveness heal the heart. Thankyou.

Fredd | 9:32 a.m. Sept. 1, 2007

Orson Pratt was "assinated" while running off with another man's wife to make her his polygamous wife. She had already spirited her children off. Sounds justified to me. Anyone dispute thos facts? Its what I've heard it may or may not be true/

cjarizona | 9:57 a.m. Sept. 1, 2007

1-GIVE US YOUR LANDS, which don't belong to us.

2-GIVE US YOUR DIARIES, JOURNALS, PAPERS etc. which don't belong to us.

3-GIVE US YOUR RELIGION, (baptisms for the dead 1 Cor. 15:29), which
does not belong to us.

The LDS Church has been great stewards of this property for many
years and treated it with respect and dignity, as hallowed ground.

Now here comes the demands of rabble rousers, with their false
accusations and pathetic anti Mormon film september dawn. Universally
panned by critics worlwide.

If this keeps up, then maybe it's time to put out
"NO TRESPASSING" signs.

The Mormons have not been paid one cent for the
properties stolen from them. Let alone the hundreds upon hundreds who
lost their lives because of the persecutions they endured.

The case can just as well be made that compensation should be
given to the Mormons for the properties stolen from them in Ohio,
Missouri, and Illinois.

In fact, some of the relatives of these groups, now making irrational
demands, may have even been involved in the wrongs done to the Mormons
in the mid-west.

The atrocities committed on the Fancher wagon train were no greater
nor less than those committed upon the Native Americans, African
Americans, the Mormons, or the Witches of Salem.

It's a long line. Q up.

What these groups are trying to establish is complicity of Brigham
Young and the Church itself. History does not support this and yet,
they don't care. Beware of those who seek not truth and attempt to
re-write history to satisfy their own objectives. In actuality they
are trolling for dollars, a big payday.

Stop the Grandstanding!

There is a "Spitit of Contention" in the air, and it's not the Mormon's
who are perpetrating it.

Alex | 10:02 a.m. Sept. 1, 2007

Mr. Hackman, I am surprised that you are so incredulous by the statement: "Other historical accounts ...have erroneously portrayed Young as the one who ordered the massacre."

Clearly, this author has presented evidence from unbiased experts PROVING Young was not involved. In the previous paragraph the author states: "A book by three LDS Church historians detailing their research into the events is scheduled for publication by Oxford University Press in the near future."

What more evidence could you want? It's in a book, by no less than THREE historians. Maybe it was just one historian I would be suspicious, but we are talking about THREEE historians. That's good enough for me.

Rebirtha | 10:07 a.m. Sept. 1, 2007

cjarizona writes:

"Beware of those who seek not truth and attempt to
re-write history to satisfy their own objectives."

I can't help wondering who cjarizona voted for in the last presidential election.

Bot | 10:51 a.m. Sept. 1, 2007

If if the hit-piece "September Dawn" isn't enough, the rabid Mormon-haters want another P.R. feather to put in their hat.

Doen't the Federal Government have enough to care for? This memorial might draw a couple dozen visitors a year. Should the Govenment be spending its funds to assauge a few individuals?

QJayce | 10:51 a.m. Sept. 1, 2007

cjarizona has a good point!
This story needs to be told in its complete historical context. We have a long institutional memory, something that seems to be lacking among the American Mainstream. I am all for seeking reparations, but that would mean that WE would have to get in line. Be gratefull that the winds of hell are still raging for there must be opposition in all things; right?

Beliver | 10:59 a.m. Sept. 1, 2007

It sounds as if cjarizona is trying to justify the MMM. You can't justify it by saying it was payback. These were innocent people AND CHILDREN. It was a terrible tragedy. The real truth about it will probably never be known. Let the dead rest. BUT the federal government has never been able to run anything efficiently. Yes, they will change money, a lot. They will let it run down if there is not enough money and close it. You will have to pick your way through the weeds. The other group that wants control has no idea where they are going to get the money. It is being handled carefully and respectfully at this time and the LDS church has plenty of money to maintain it. It is time for peace and healing. I don't think I would want to take on the LDS church on this issue either in the courts or out of it.

hombre.de.steele | 11:07 a.m. Sept. 1, 2007

To Fred -

Please get your facts correct. It was Parely P. Pratt who was murdered....and no, it was not justified.

mrhackman | 11:26 a.m. Sept. 1, 2007

The trouble with posts is you can't hear inflections or see facial expression, so I cannot tell if Alex's comment is sarcastic or not.

But let me clarify. The author made a statement of opinion. She sides with three LDS historians. It would be natural for any LDS historian to have a bias. When I read a book by Al Franken or Rush Limbaugh, I am aware that they will have a bias. It doesn't make it wrong, I just need to take that into account.

There are historians who would argue that Brigham Young was involved. His 19th wife, Ann Eliza Young, in her autobiography claims he planned it from start to finish. One may choose not to believe these points, but that is my argument... it is about who you CHOOSE to believe. If you are going to be making choices, rather than reporting news, your article belongs in the opinion section. I am not so concerned about an LDS leader or this argument of history, but on HOW the NEWS is reported.

ashley a. | 11:32 a.m. Sept. 1, 2007

Religious hysteria is a phenomena that we should all be familiar with - Sept.11 for example. Try reading Krakaur's book,"Under the Banner of Heaven" for a reporters view. MMM was an horrific example of paranoia and hysteria, but no religion or culture is completely immune. I would like to see the LDS Church apologize. Whether or not the order came from B.Young....who knows for certain. Does it matter at this point?

boo | 11:33 a.m. Sept. 1, 2007

As anyone can see the LDS church beautifully maintains anything that they own. Why not let this ground that they do own, be beautifully maintained. People need to spend more time improving themselves instead of going after the LDS church every chance they get.

Fredd | 11:36 a.m. Sept. 1, 2007

Hombre,
My bad! I'm no expert, I was just wondering if it was true that Parley Pratt was killed while running off with another man's wife. There are two sides to every story and even the persecution put upon early Mormons had a causation. Remember when the Hare Krishna type cult tried to take over the town in Oregon? I'm sure to the people of Missouri a mass immigration of people with strange (to them anyway) religious beliefs was threatening. Especially when the early Mormons tried to take over politically. And aggressively tried to convert family members to the new religion. Much like many LDS folks in Utah tell gentiles to leave if they don't like the LDS influence, the Missouri pioneers reacted to new influences. Unfortunately they reacted terribly. I am not justifying or defending Missourians. Just trying to use the logic used by posters here to mitigate the actions at Mountain Meadows.

Bob | 11:41 a.m. Sept. 1, 2007

Have "ERRONEOUSLY" portrayed Brigham Young as the one who ordered the massacre.

Thought you'd slip that one by eh Carrie. Sorry, that's bad and biased journalism. There's argument on that point and you claimed it as an error. Your Mutual teacher might give you brownie points for that, but intelligent readers won't. C'mon Deseret News--you are at your best when you deliver the news fairly, (which, I have to admit, you usually do).

San Juan county for sure! | 11:44 a.m. Sept. 1, 2007

wow when you know your history. let's see.. Utah last to give Native Americans the right to vote, 1957, The JUSTICE DEPT had to force San Juan County Courts to allow Native Americans in the Jury Pool(this with in the last 5 years) as the excuse given by said STEWARDS was "oh they don't have phones"//JUST MAKE SURE YOU , WATCH WHERE YOU DRINK YOUR DOWN THIS WAY!too many tailing sites to remember..the good ol' boy system is alive and well down here for sure...and it comes from the all is well in Zion so you had better be a Lion...how ironic that Native Americans actually saved the mormons on their trek out here as they were given permission to stay on Native Land when being hunted down by the mobs..yet they give more recognition to a bird than these human beings for their saving them during one the most roughest winters ever! Then to use Indians again to cover up this event just gives credence or questions to a system they continue in education when dealing with the Natives so there are no more masscres in this area again as much is being questioned right now by other people in this area!!

CB | 12:12 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

If you have not actually been to the Mountain Meadows Monument site, I would strongly encourage you to go there. It's a beautiful, quiet spot, well maintained and cared for by the LDS Church. Anyone can see that the Church has done an excellent job of caring for and preserving the site. The Church has also placed additional information regarding the massacre and the other graves in the area, a beautiful walking trail and view area, complete with details about where and how the massacre took place. I cannot understand why this excellent and respectful maintenance of this site is not good enough for those groups that want the Church to relinquish stewardship of the property.
As for those who continue to erroneously believe that the LDS Church attempts to deny the fact of the massacre or sweep it under the rug, you clearly have not looked beyond the anti-Mormon propaganda. Hate the Church if you must, but at least do your homework first. Start by actually GOING TO the site. Yes, take your physical body to the actual location. Explore the site. Read the information provided there. Next, get a copy of the September 2007 edition of the LDS Church's OFFICIAL publication, The Ensign, and read the article regarding Mountain Meadows. THEN try to tell me the Church is attempting to hide or deny the massacre.

Rozie | 12:17 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

After reading through all the commentaries from everyone, I find it very sad that most of them still want to be contentious. We should all have more charity which is what Jesus Christ wanted. As He says 'I will forgive whom I will, but of you it is required to forgive all others'. When the Lord comes to reign on the earth again He will decide who has done wrong. It's not down to us. When reporting facts you really should have them all, or report none. In this case all the facts don't seem to be available. Yes it was a horrendous crime that happened. I'm, abhorred by it, but I also know that many horrendous crimes have been committed through out history and that many more will be. It's a very sad commentary on all the human race. Please let us work together in peace to prevent any other "crimes' happening again. After all we are all brothers and sisters.

Brad Anderson | 1:12 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

I love to hear the Church cry Foul. It is quite obvious that most of you have only read "Church Approved" history. Sure history is biased, but to act like Brigham Young, who had his hand in EVERYTHING that went on in Utah, was ignorant to this, you are in denial. Did he order it? Who knows? I think so, but I don't know for sure. Have you read any books by Juanita Brooks? It may be frowned upon by your Bishop since it isn't "Faith Promoting". But I am very skeptical about any organization that tells you to ONLY read "Pro" books, because others might hurt your testimony. Red flag?
Think about this: If the families of the people who shot Joseph Smith owned the land where is grave was, wouldn't you be saying that the Church should maintain that site? I assume you would. I know you believe it is a perfect Church, but for being perfect it sure has a lot of skeletons in the closet.
Any not agreeing with the church doesn't make me ANTI-Mormon. You know people can disagree without being an ANTI-Mormon. I'm no more Anti-Mormon than I am Anti-Religion is general. It's all the same to me anyway; I just deal with Mormons more often.
Anyway, go pray about it or something. God may or may not answer.

Read a book (Mid-Atlantic) | 1:16 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

One of my college professors used to say there's no greater expert than the person who has read _one_ book on a subject.

I would disagree with him based on this debate. There is no greater expert than the one who has read a few articles, and seen a little on television about a subject. It sure seems to qualify a lot of people for a lot of "expert" opinion and heated debate.

My suggestion is read a few books on the subject and while you're doing that, read a number of highly enjoyable books such as "Mayflower" (Philbrick) and "The French and Indian War" (Borneman) to help get an idea of violence in American history.

It may be useful to look at the Mountain Meadows Massacre as an American aberration rather than a Mormon aberration. This massacre follows a centuries-old pattern of massacres and political/military violence throughout the history of the United States.

Next, let's look at the massacre as part of the tensions leading up to the Civil War. Many of the Mormon settlers in Utah were from the northern states while the emigrant train was from the South. A college student or historian could write a paper comparing and contrasting John D. Lee and John Brown.

If we need to debate this topic, perhaps it can happen after people have taken the opportunity to read more than _one_ book on the subject!

Jim | 2:45 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

Brad Anderson ï¿½ sorry, your naivete (and sarcasm) is showing. First, I doubt that most Mormons
only read church approved literature. I am a Bishop, I have studied all materials on MMM, from
Juanita Brooksï¿½ work to current. In over 35 years of study I have found no compelling evidence
that Brigham Young ordered or condoned the attack. When a charge of murder is made, the
burden of proof is on the accuser ï¿½ that burden has not been met. Second, if BY had no hand in
the attack then it was not church sponsored. Distinguish the killers, misguided settlers who
happened to be church members, from the church. There is a difference. Rale against the church,
itï¿½s a free country, but why precluded it from managing a beautiful memorial, which it brought
into being and which it has maintained so well over the years. It doesnï¿½t much matter to me who
maintains the site. However, with all the charges and allegations against the church as an
organization, why should it tacitly acknowledge wrongdoing by turning the property over and
relinquishing its interest in seeing that the site is remembered as a lesson to all of what can happen
when bitterness, hatred, bigotry and lack of understanding of others takes over a community.
The lesson has still not fully taken hold today.

Scott Lambson | 3:15 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

MMMD president Patty Norris said, "I can't image they would object to that, given the circumstance."
I can't imagine she could say that given the circumstance that the church has been asked more than once to give up the property. Are you blind to this fact? Given that is a fact, how can you honestly say you can't imagine the church not objecting to giving up the property. Since Patty Norris doesn't seem to get it, lets look at why the church might want the property.
The church does not want anyone else to communicate falsehoods or rumors...unsubstanciated facts about this horrible incident. It's bad enough without adding untrue claims to it. The church doesn't want this area to become a site of anti-mormon propaganda. And you can hand it to the church for wanting to keep the site free from any additional hostilities to any party, including the church.
I commend the church for stepping up and taking care of this site that honors the dead and innocent pioneers. I have been there. I did so to honor those who were slain. I think the church has done an excellent job of honoring the dead. And keeping the santitity of this site free from harmful, hurtful, vicious attacks against any people, including those who make up the membership of the church. It is clear that this atrocity was carried out by men who had errored in their judgement. John D Lee paid for his errors and probably more men should have also paid a similar price. Let us all learn to forgive and not harbor ill feelings from the past.

Matt | 3:22 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

to Brad:

AMEN!!!!

Well written. I never write as well. I have a very low view of religious zealots and it comes out.

My views exactly and we're not alone.

Squeaky | 3:31 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

the MMM is in the past - it is okay to take something out from the past - look at it, ponder it and ask questions about it but it is still in the past and since none of us were there it is not up to us to decide who was right and who was wrong. We are however able to learn from past mistakes and hopefully be better people from it.

craig | 3:55 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

Anyone that thinks Brigham Young was involved in the planning or gave the order to attack the Fancher party needs to explain why. After all, from the late 1840's till the mid 1880's or so, thousands of migrants traveled through the Utah territory and yet I am not aware of any other wagon train being attacked or plotted against. Why not? What was it about the Fancher party that allegedly made Brigham Young so hostile? Were they the only passing migrants that came from Arkansas in all those years? In my opinon and with historical context in place, it seems that the MMM was an atrocious act commited by some local LDS leaders and settlers that came about from a clouded misguided suspicion of this particular wagon train. What caused that suspicion and hostility, I do not quite understand. In the end, tragically cooler heads did not prevail and due to poor judgment, miscommunication and very cruel and unwise violent actions the MMM took place.

Clark | 4:05 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

Brad Anderson - I see the old ï¿½Do as I say, not as I doï¿½ playbook is still in use. That's when you make blanket attacks against a specific group of people. Then, you ridicule that same group for allegedly doing the same thing you just did yourself. Clearly, it is okay for you to make general attacks of the LDS Church and its members, but it is wrong for anyone to utter a single peep back.

The whole issue of the MMM is clearly sad and very, very tragic. It does make me wonder though, why LDS critics continue to bring it up, again and again and again and again. I mean, if the early LDS Church was as violent and evil as critics portray them, why isnï¿½t their dozens and dozens of similar massacres? Not only that, if Brigham Young was as controlling as critics point out, why would he want early Mormons to settle in towns and lands spreading from Canada to Mexico? How possible would it have been for Young to have such a tight grip on all these settlements, especially during a time when there was no e-mail, fax machines, telephones or automobiles? Please explain this without being insulting.

Clark | 4:12 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

Unless things have changed, the Kirtland Temple and the cemetary where Joseph and Hyrum Smith are buried, are owned by the Community of Christ Church. (formerly the RLDS Church)

If this is the case, then it is quite clear the LDS Church has no problem with the Community of Christ Church owning these properties.

Patrick | 6:02 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

I've always wondered why anyone would would feel the need to wrap oneself in the despair of a 150 year old horror; does it give your life more meaning, does it make you a better person? Would you introduce yourself as the Great-Great-Great grandson of someone murdered at the MMM? If you need a defining event/moment for your life there are much better ones to be had.

A lot of water has gone under the bridge in the last 150 years isn't time to let this thing drop.

BK | 6:04 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

I have only read a little about MMM however, I am offended by people like CB who expect everyone to purchase and read books and magazines by the Church to get the "expert" and "official" word on what happened. They cannot be objective, since they are accused of this crime. The site should be maintained by a group that is neutral in this. Books and articles shoudl be written by neutral parties also. I will not read any that are by the Church on this. I want neutrality, not a group trying to make themselves look good or justify themselves. Unfortunately most people don't want to believe that their early Church leaders could have done anything immoral or illegal, but it happens. I do not know if Brigham Young had anything to do with this, however, I have a hunch he did, especially being the leader of the Church at the time. But I will not take the word of the Church or any anti-Mormons on this. I prefer to read accounts from neutral parties. No emotional ties to it.

KLB | 6:16 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

Clark Joseph and Hyrum are not and never have been buried in Kirtland. They rest in Nauvoo

Erica | 6:40 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

To Brad:
There is wisdom though in reading only faith promotiting or good books.
Same as with television.

If you expose yourself and children to hate propoganda, they learn to hate. Think of the Hilter Youth. And history is known to repeast itself.

Researching topics and making your own sound judgements is one thing. Reading deleberate written hate propoganda is another.

Far from Perfect | 7:10 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

..."he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil...this is not my doctrine to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away."

Anonymous | 7:20 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

If you family member was murder by Jeffrey Dahmer would you want his family controlling access to his grave?

Clark | 7:28 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

KLB - I didn't say Joseph and Hyrum were buried in Kirtland. Only that the cemetary where they are buried is owned by the Community of Christ Church, along with the Kirtland Temple. At least that's what I understand. My apologies for any misunderstanding with that.

Erica - PLEASE be careful whenever bringing up Hitler. I know there are many people, both inside and outside the LDS church, who often compare those who oppose them to Hitler and the Nazis. In my opinion, that's simply a weak and inflammatory argument.

You do however make a good point about "faith promoting" literature. I can't help but wonder how many Evangelicals out there would say that the writings of people Madeline Murray O'Hair, Carl Sagan and other athiests, represent a true, unsanitized and authentic account of Christianity?

K | 7:39 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1c234dc029133110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&locale=0

Any one who wants to know what really went down read this article it states the facts, it shows the LDS church is remorseful but also say how it really happend and who was involved and why. it states we see it as embarrassing and disgusting but no we are not covering it up. Ensign article sept. 2007

bert | 8:16 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

BK,
There is no such thing as neutrality. Everyone is biased.

LaughingWithYou? | 8:24 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

Scott Lambson, you said "The church does not want anyone else to communicate falsehoods or rumors...unsubstanciated facts about this horrible incident" and you are completely correct. They want to be the ones communicating falsehoods, and they are doing a great job of that.

I have been to the sight and the plaques there made me sick. The church's official explanation of the massacre leave out any church complicity and make it seem like those men came up with the idea on their own, with no higher up input. Of the three books I have read about the massacre not one finds this stance even plausable.

It was not a random act of gang violence and only a very careful editing of the available statements of the day would let the church off the hook. But I expect it is just such a case of careful editing that your bishop has given you.

Claiming the victims as postmortum members is just another slap in the face for their families. You can't force someone into a religion just by putting their name on a piece of paper or performing a ceremony. Its a personal choice.

Justifying the massacre by the atrocities that were inflicted on Mormons is nonsense unless you plan to let all perpetrators of violence claim past injustices for their actions, in which case the whole legal system is worthless.

TTK | 8:24 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

Clark - You are correct. Joseph and Hyrum are buried in Nauvoo, IL. That property and the Kirtland temple are owned and operated by the Community of Christ Church. Frankly guys, does it really matter who owns this property as long as it is maintained with respect and dignity?

Also, I am no expert in history, but hasn't the LDS church already apologized for this occurance? Then again, why does anyone expect an apology for an occurance that happened 150 years ago, an occurance that no one today had any control over?

TTK | 8:25 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

Clark - You are correct. Joseph and Hyrum are buried in Nauvoo, IL. That property and the Kirtland temple are owned and operated by the Community of Christ Church. Frankly guys, does it really matter who owns this property as long as it is maintained with respect and dignity?

Also, I am no expert in history, but hasn't the LDS church already apologized for this occurance? Then again, why does anyone expect an apology for an occurance that happened 150 years ago, an occurance that no one today had any control over?

Clark | 9:12 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

My point in discussing the Kirtland Temple, along with the cemetary where the Smiths are buried, is this. People want to convey the idea of the LDS Church as this bully, trying to throw its weight around in obtaining property and historical sites. If that is true, why hasn't the LDS Church attempted to force the Community of Christ Church to give up the Kirtland Temple or the Nauvoo Cemetary?

arc | 9:28 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

Someone tried to post the September MMM article above.
The short link is:
http://lds.org/mountain-meadows-massacre

I for one hope the church keeps the land.
They will take care of it. I don't see why tax payers should.

That being said, the church has stated that members of the church were guilty, see the link above.

It has been tried to be proven that Brigham Young ordered it for 150 years without success. Some Anti-Mormomons haven't let that one go.

What is true, is that some went against orders, during a war, and innocent people were killed on purpose. Several were excomunicated from the church, and one was executed for the crime. Should more have been, yes. Read the above article or the September Ensign. See what you think.

The contention isn't making anything any better. Can we learn from MMM? Yes. Should the current leadership take responsibility. No.

mhlund | 10:31 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

I think the LDS Church, and those who earmark their donations for such memorials, are far and away the best stewards of this memorial because the "church" would never allow such a site to fall into disrepair. I believe the vast majority of the funds provided for its establishment and perpetual upkeep have come from the church and its membership.
The LDS Church owns the land and will be the best steward- funds will always be available. It is a sacred site.

I don't know of any organized church to apologize for the crimes committed by individual congregates. I don't know any church to apologize for any group that purportedly acted on their own plan. Regrets and sympathy and empathy- of course! I can offer my regrets as a individaul, yet unless I am the one responsible, my apology is faux. I guess those that requesting an apology "from the church" do not believe that Brigham Young sent instructions to let the Califonia bound immigrants to safely pass through. I do. I regret the actions of those who held others in slavery, the policies that stripped Native Americans of their rights and lands and lives, as well of Japanese interment during WWII. Nevertheless I cannot be expected to apologize for something that happened by predecessors, tragic though these are.

PGNative | 10:32 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

What is with all the shaming? As far as I know, no members of the LDS church are pleased that this horrible event took place. I think what happened is unfortunate, sad, and even disturbing, but the church does not need to apologize for what its members did. The church has and will continue to express remorse for what happened. No person currently living is responsible for what happened at Mountain Meadows. The church is not responsible either. The church will likely never turn the site over to a private party. The risk is simply too great that people will use the site to cause harm to the church and its members. The church takes care of its sites. There is no way to sugar-coat the massacre of so many men, women, and children. Noone should ever have suffered the fate that befell them. The tragedy should remind us of the meat of Christianity: love one another. This message gets lost in the fray of heated feelings.

mhlund | 10:34 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

I think the LDS Church, and those who earmark their donations for such memorials, are far and away the best stewards of this memorial because the "church" would never allow such a site to fall into disrepair. I believe the vast majority of the funds provided for its establishment and perpetual upkeep have come from the church and its membership.
The LDS Church owns the land and will be the best steward- funds will always be available. It is a sacred site.

I don't know of any organized church to apologize for the crimes committed by individual congregates. I don't know any church to apologize for any group that purportedly acted on their own plan. Regrets and sympathy and empathy- of course! I can offer my regrets as a individaul, yet unless I am the one responsible, my apology is faux. I guess those requesting an apology "from the church" do not believe that Brigham Young sent instructions to let the Califonia bound immigrants safely pass through. I do. I regret the actions of those who held others in slavery, the policies that stripped Native Americans of their rights and lands and lives, as well of Japanese interment during WWII. Nevertheless I cannot be expected to apologize for something that happened by predecessors, tragic though these are.

O.A.Round | 10:45 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

While living in St. George, Utah - my wife and I visited the Mountain Meadows Historical Site several times. It is well maintained, and only once did we see another person there. But an incident in St. George hit home -- I was getting gas at Costco, the car in front was from California, mine was also. The man came and asked where in California I was from - I told him and he asked what are you doing here? I told him my wife and I were missionaries - his face got very ridgid and he asked Mormon Missionaries? I replied yes we are - he then shouted you people think you own this town - you can't even find a swimming pool open on Sunday.!! He continued spewing insults against the Mormon Church and I asked him - why do you live in St. George? Is it because of the good schools for your kids, the clean crime free city, the friendly honest people? If you don't like it go back to California. he got in his car and drove off and I am sure the finger he showed me was to tell me I was number one.

MMM was terrible, no question, but its over and lets get on with our lives and become friends to all we come in contact with.

J | 11:12 p.m. Sept. 1, 2007

Wow. Move on already

Scratching my head | 12:53 a.m. Sept. 2, 2007

If the church wasn't complicit or seeking to cover things up, how come only John D. Lee was the only participant to be brought to justice in a court of law? And many years after the fact, at that? The church stone-walled and covered up the facts for many years, until they finally served up John Lee on a platter.

BillandTedinCA | 1:10 a.m. Sept. 2, 2007

Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousnessï¿½ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Dudes, be excellent to each other. I'm sure the Arkansas dudes are with God and would prefer that their ancestors get on with their lives. Forgive the dudes who did this cuz' punishment is Gods. If a bunch of Amish people can embrace and comfort the family of a guy who killed their kids the day after, can't you guys get over this 150 year old thing? Love rules!!!

Clark | 1:16 a.m. Sept. 2, 2007

Scratching my head - I honestly don't believe it's as simple as you make it out to be.

Think about a similar tragedy of the modern time. Have all issues been solved and resloved regarding the Oklahoma City bombing, or 9/11? Have all questions regarding motive, as well as who was or wasn't involved been answered? Is there a definitive conclusion to either of these?

Now, go back a century-and-a-half, when there was no FBI, no sophisticated police equipment, no crime scene photos, no lie detector tests, no forensics, no television news, and few if any investigative journalists like we have today.

If there are still strong disagreements regarding modern tragedies like the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11, then how can anyone possibly say anything definitive about the MMM? Even the most skilled, most researched historians see things differently.

Follow us on facebook

Reader comments
Mountain Meadows: Church asked to turn over site, take names off records

Add your comment

Letters: Parallels between wars

BYU would like friendlier rivalry

Salvation Army now credit ready

Letters: Climate debate over

Women pro sports continue struggle

Economy showing signs of life

Holiday television program listings

Letters: Turn volume down

Lampropoulos in Senate race

Lampropoulos in Senate race

Reader comments Mountain Meadows: Church asked to turn over site, take names off records

Add your comment

Reader comments
Mountain Meadows: Church asked to turn over site, take names off records