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

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

198 comments | Read story

mrhackman | 9:55 a.m. Sept. 3, 2007

Rick - I agree that bias is defacto but I believe we should never stop fighting for dejure.

radioprof | 10:01 a.m. Sept. 3, 2007

To the Antis-dissenters and other hate spreaders..let's look at 19th century technology...

No Phones, no lights, no motor cars.... It took 3 days to get to SLC from Cedar City and 3 days to get back. There was no telegraph system. Brigham Young could not teleport himself to Mountain Meadows to give orders....It took longer to get to SLC from Cedar City then, as opposed to fly from NYC to Tokyo now. It never ceases to amaze me that people try to put a 21st century model on a 19th century reality concerning technologies.

That said, MMM is a dark spot in LDS history, as are the New York, Ohio, Missouri and Illinois Persecutions and the confiscation of LDS property by state and the federal governments.

Interesting to read the accounts about the Fancer Party, how they bragged that they knoew the murderers of Parley P. Pratt, how they threatened to poison wells, and how they said that they were going to get the Army from California to invade Utah. I can not justify the actions of the people who particpated in the massacre, however I can understand that they did not want to subject themselves to the terrors they faced they moved to Utah by people who have recently killed an apostle and now threaten to start the killing process over again.

jj | 10:14 a.m. Sept. 3, 2007

Why do we think an apology by people who weren't there and will never know the full truth might make everything okay? Having the governor of MI apologize for something that happened over a hundred years ago, doesn't change a thing. When we dig up history for the purpose of profiting from it monetarily (deeding land over, paying Indians for hurts committed against ancestors in the 1700s, making things right with money for slavery, etc.), I think we make a grave mistake. Our country needs to be cohesive. We need to be Americans and work toward commonality rather than division. It does no good to bring up half truths and outright lies in order to "win" an argument that can't be won. Digging up skeletons will prove that they were killed. Why not put our efforts to more productive ideas than grousing about something that happened over a hundred years ago? Living with hatred only brings additional hurt that we will have to answer to someone for.

Comments continue below

game, set, match - you loose | 10:18 a.m. Sept. 3, 2007

It appears that Mr. Game, Set, Match is a writer for FARMS. And, it appears that he is loosing the battle, so he lashes out.

It's hard for outsiders to sit here and listen to Mormons justify their actions, and protect their leaders.

Grow up, admit mistakes, be truthful and move on. One way of not being truthful is to stand and say that you know your church is true. We hear the same rhetoric from Jews, Christians, Muslims and almost all other religious groups. It is going to be very difficult on Mormons when one day, they find out that what they "knew" was what they had been taught. I believe that they are good people that are being misled. Feelings of spiritual confirmations are evident in every person. Most have had deeply spiritual moments: letï¿½s not turn these into confirmations that our religions is right and others are all wrong.

This is where offensive posturing all began - and continues.

Anonymous | 10:19 a.m. Sept. 3, 2007

This is a question, not a justification, or taking sides etc. In many articles I have read on the subject the statement is made that the attack was made on an "unarmed" group of men, women and children. I don't understand that. This was a wagontrain of pioneers, in that time they grew, or caught thier own food and they were travelling through a long journey. Now I might be mistaken, but would these people not have carried rifles or whatever for thier own protection as well as to catch food to eat. They must have had weapons.
That being said, it is a question, I am not insinuating justification. It was a terrible occurance, spawned by fear, that should not have happened. I just wonder why articles often state that they were unarmed.

SFC RET DENNIS | 11:15 a.m. Sept. 3, 2007

Were is the proof that B.Y. ordered MMM?

Iv fond that most of the comments made my non mormons is hate related or just anti-mormons and have not be nutural comments, comments made with out pure facts, comments baised on a point of view or what one wishes to belive.

Remember GOD is perfict, people make mistkes so don't blame any church for the actions of its leaders or members for they are the one's who failed GOD.

James | 11:25 a.m. Sept. 3, 2007

From over twenty years of prayerful study, I have concluded; Brigham Young being the Governor of the State of Utah, Leader of the Utah militia and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he was totally and completely responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

James | 11:28 a.m. Sept. 3, 2007

This opinion was formulated after listening to Paiute Elders, the descendents of John D Lee and Jacob Hamblin; reading most of the books published and non published papers that were written after Juanita Brooks published her book and reading court documents from John D. Lees trials.

James | 11:30 a.m. Sept. 3, 2007

It is my opinion; the way the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can totally and completely put this incident behind them is to first unquestionably apologize for this atrocity in a formal public statement.

move on | 11:38 a.m. Sept. 3, 2007

James. Give me a break. You have got to be kidding me. Find something more meaningful to pray about.

James | 12:22 p.m. Sept. 3, 2007

move on, have you studied the existing documention and story's of this incident with prayer?

If you have, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on how the church can put this incident behind them.

Craig | 1:44 p.m. Sept. 3, 2007

To address the topic of the article, it would be a mistake for the LDS to turn over the land to anyone else. In a matter of weeks there would be a 60 FT granite obelisk placed there with an inscription charging Brigham Young with crimes against humanity and alludeing to the need for a large monitary restitution for the victims descendants. Anyone that accuses Brigham Young of being involved in the planning or desire 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? Were they the only non-LDS people to travel through that area? Why is there not a litany of similar accounts of LDS attacks on passing migrants? Why was this particular wagon train singled out? In my opinon and with historical context in place, it seems that the MMM was a senseless and 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, nor do I see anyone here attempting to explain it in any detail. What we do know is that in the end, tragically, cooler heads did not prevail and due to poor judgment, miscommunication and very cruel and unwise violent actions by the local LDS people the MMM took place.

Ed in Las Vegas | 2:36 p.m. Sept. 3, 2007

James studied for 20 years and then prayed to know that BY ordered the massacre. That's the craziest statement I've ever heard. It's a history based fact, not a faith based fact. The MMM was a terrible act, that in those days of no telephone or telegraph, there's no way BY could have gotten word to the people in the area in time for them to organize an attack out of nothing to make this attack in the timeline that existed. But prayer is the exuse you use. Give me a break.

descendant | 3:22 p.m. Sept. 3, 2007

I am a descendant of a man who was killed at Hauns' Mill. He was a good man. I am also related to his daughter who was three at the time. She and all of her siblings were orphans 8 years later. Isaac Haight who was a leader at MM was in the same pioneer company as my surviving abovementioned ancestor that entered SLC in 1847. Its probably difficult to imagine the sentiments in those days, but they were not good times for a lot of people. We live in an incredibly affluent society now where we have no idea what was going on in those days. Let's please move on.

An Eternal Latter-day Saint | 3:29 p.m. Sept. 3, 2007

We have lost sight of the question: Should our Church give up control of the MMM site? Absolutely not!
And to all you anti-mormons: God's chosen people art the ones that live his commandments, live righteously, and accept Jesus as the Christ and believe in Him.
So don't hate those of us who do these things!

Erica | 3:45 p.m. Sept. 3, 2007

To Clark:

Note taken. I meant it merely to illustrate that if you teach hate to children they learn it. I the HJ were less inflamatory then mentioning more recent groups due to it's age.

I did not realize that there are folks that feel that "you oppose my views, you are like ____".

So my apologies.

Reader | 4:01 p.m. Sept. 3, 2007

This has been an interesting read (I've read all of the articles). Even if all of the facts aren't present, I have still learned some things that I did not know before regarding the MMM (I'm sure there is some truth in all the rhetoric). Thank you to everybody for that.

I'm sorry for those who were involved - both the guilty and the innocent. Both have suffered, and both are long dead - nothing decided or discussed now be us will change anything about what happened, what didn't happen, who was involved or not, or determine what they did or didn't know.

As far as autopsying the remains of the murdered: doing so won't tell anyone more than how they died; certainly not why they were killed or who ordered it (if anyone did), so there is no real value in doing that. Yes, the land could be excavated for artifacts that could (theoretically) shed some light on evidence - but there is no guarantee of finding anything pertinent to establish guilt, innocence or complicity.

More likely, it would simply be a waste of time and money and disrupt the site to those who would visit it (certainly people would not be allowed near open/active excavation).

As for the LDS church maintaining the site... what real difference to the victims does it make or to anyone else? Legally it is the Church's property, and from all people who have reported being there, they are doing a nice job of maintaining it. The federal government would not do any better.

The decendants of the victims have no claim on the property anymore than victims of crime elsewhere have on places they may have been killed at.

Thanks for the history lesson, but please move onto what can be changed.

kb | 4:25 p.m. Sept. 3, 2007

Well said Craig

Robert | 4:34 p.m. Sept. 3, 2007

I've read the several comments by posters who ridicule the idea that the LDS people beleive their church to be the only true church...Why wouldn't you want to beleive your beleif system was sanctioned by God if you beleive in God? Most of these posters are probably Christians...Don't you beleive God set-up a church through Christ and that Christ set down doctrines, and set-up leadership for his organizations, etc. If not you read your Bibles thgrough rose colored glasses, with a historocity taught by your own cult leaders that teach you to blindly follow them. Leaders that teach you to hate and distrust the LDS church because we don't happen to beleive exactly as you. As that hate builds and festers we'll see who commits murders and atrocities in the name of their God and religion...It won't be the LDS people...It will be the anti-mormons that kill LDS people, because they veiw us as a dangerous non-christian cult. That's why the persecutions happened before, and that's why they'll happen again. The innocent LDS blood will be on the hands of the liars and hate mongers that perpetuate lies about the LDS church. The LDS people as a whole are law abiding and peace loving.
MMM was aberation not indicative of the church or it's leaders as a whole. If the decendants want the land from the LDS chruch...Make them a cash offer. Why should the church give them a handout. Hey I think the US government should give me a trillion dollars. Just because I think that doesn't mean it should happen.

James | 4:47 p.m. Sept. 3, 2007

Ed in Las Vegas,

This study of over 20 was not to formulate an opinion one way or another to who was at fault. It was motivated to get an understanding of why and how such a thing could happen. The motivation had nothing to do with placing blame. My opinion that Brigham Young was responsible for MMM is merely the outcome of my research.

The reason for posting my opinion was motivated to give one thing the church could do that would put this issue behind them, and that is to simple publicly admit what I believe to be the truth.

Church Response! | 5:54 p.m. Sept. 3, 2007

I tried to post the Turley response authorized by the church, but this format did not agree to post that link. The church has acknowledged the role of the saints in this unfortunate chapter of history. Offer a slant or opinion that counters the LDS church demonstrates the lack of research or outside reading. Its published in Ensign the September issue. It was written in June I believe and was available on line.

The answer still to put this to rest, is to do autopsy's! The land is church owned and they control egress and degress. The Shannon Novak forensic study that was cut short after 2 days, was urged by Dixie Leavitt of Cedar City. Founder of the Dixie Leavitt Insurance Group and father to former governor Michael Leavitt. The order to reburry quickly came from the former Governor, whose Great Grandfather was in this malitia. It seems logical, that no matter who was at fault, a proper autopsy would bring closure to ALL the speculation here.

Why not support the same standards of a homicide today? The issue would be blunt trauma and the skelital remains would still offer forensic evidence. We wouldn't beg to coverup a murder of unknown causes in 2007, so why not appease the nay sayers and support one to close this chapter?

If owning the land is an issue, allow those with family to relocate the bodies and graves. A dna stady and autopsy may be personal between families, but access to do this today, resides in the control of those owning the land. Because Dixie Leavitt was a decendent of the militia and had a role in stopping the Univ. of Utah forensic study, the idea of bringing Shannon Novak back now would be both noble and the right thing to do.

Ladyblueyes | 7:13 p.m. Sept. 3, 2007

I think that the LDS church is definitely atoning for the error by financing and caring for the site where such an atrocity occurred so many years ago. And that they wish to continue caring for it exhibits class and a concern that their memory is honored.

Where are those in the other states that wish to atone for the behavior of their citizens towards the Mormons that caused them to come West? Not one state, other than Illinois, has apologized for their behavior nor have they made any cemetery a 'federal' or otherwise monument.

Descendants should be glad that the LDS church is caring for the site and not giving it up nor asking anyone for donations to continue caring for it.

MMM Site | 8:29 p.m. Sept. 3, 2007

Its an interesting point, but as a VOP for Los Angeles County Sheriff and as a law enforcement consultant the absence of a autopsy after forensic research was already started, is an issue! If the church would not object to the completion of the study and or allow the relocation of remains, that would be both honorable and a correct legaL measure. Once the remains were uncovered by the contractor working on the site, the state medical examiner should have required more than the 2 day examination. The findings of that 2 day analysis can be found in an article in "Historical Archaeology," (2003) 37(2):85-108

As a legal issue the autopsy and option to relocate remains and to identify love ones through DNA testing should supercede the churchs desire to simply act as care takers to the memory of Baker/Fancher victims. Should the ownership of land be an issue or regardless of site ownership, methods available today, can offer options unavailable to the U.S. Government in the Major Carleton investigation of 1859. If the church has no objection to owning the land while a forensic team, along with law enforcement examining the remains, I can hardly see any further issue in who is the authority over the burial location.

If on the other hand the remains are being held hostage by the ownership of the land, then that would be an issue that speaks for itself. In case any one is wondering, yes I have been in dialog with those involved in the earlier dig in the last 24 hours. Debate here, only what you know is fact!

At the begining of this dialog, few had acknowledged that Turley had already responded to the role of the Saints, for the church publication. So are we defending truth or rumors?

Sedolia | 8:33 p.m. Sept. 3, 2007

Well, I have read all of the comments made so far and I find I am in the same exact place I was before I read them. I do not know all the truth but I find great relief in the fact that our Father in Heaven does know all the truth and due time everyone of us will answer for the deeds we do and thoughts and attitudes we develop towards each other.

Rich | 8:37 p.m. Sept. 3, 2007

it is amazing that people will think Brigham Young knew "everything" taking place, and "ordered" the killings. Don't people realize that Young didn't have a telephone, didn't have a fax or even a telegraph???? Do they have any idea how LONG it took to get a message from MM up to SLC and back again? You are talking DAYS as a minimum!

C'mon people, don't let blind hate of the LDS Church cloud your ability to think!

melo-wa | 9:07 p.m. Sept. 3, 2007

History must be fair to both sides. Think what the Mormon pioneers had suffered at Palmyra, Kirtland, Far West, Nauvoo and especially at Haun's Mill. Let all the victims rest in peace by creating a memorial, a place of peace, and stop trying to make present people pay for mistakes and misinformation of the past. Let the Lord be the final judge of what happened at each of these places as well as at Mountain Meadows.

Brigham Young | 9:29 p.m. Sept. 3, 2007

I am only interested in the forensic research. The climate that created the potential for violence may well land on the shoulders of any leader, when hind sight is 20/20. After any slaughter, we can all play the "what if" game. MMM is of peticular interest to me, because we have a similiar issue in Colorado City/Hildale with a children's graveyard og 62 unmarked graves. Disinterest in the cause of death by unreliable FLDS doctors, played out a similiar synerio as here. Seeking answers or the truth, knows no religion!

Haun's Mill since it was mentioned, was owned a a location by the RLDS and if decendents wanted to relocate remains or request an autopsy now, would the Reorganized church of Latter Day Saints deny such a request? I love history and Haun's Mill did have the same climate as MMM. It occured on 10-30-1838 and in what is refered to as the Mormon War of 1838 in Caldwell and Davies County, that conflict unfairly judged those at Haun's Mill. Joseph Smith surrendered on November 1st 2 days later, per the state document of the record court proceedings, in Senate Document 189. A conflict in which raids were occuring in near by townships led to this misdirected rage. The RLDS history was xlint reading and fair. The extermination order by Governor Lilburn W. Boggs's was on October 27th 1838, but was in response to Sydney Rigdon who used it first in his "Salt Sermon. Raids and looting by saints from Caldwell County, into Davies county led to the conflict at Haun's Mill.

I would support forensic research there as well,including an investigation to the events that led up to that massacre. The truth there or at MMM deserves equal scrutny!

Why is wanting the truth something to avoid?

Economist | 9:51 p.m. Sept. 3, 2007

Mormon-Haters vs. Hateful-Mormons, take 10,254. The vocal minority tries yet again but still fails to create animosity between the majority of Mormons & majority of Non-Mormons. Isn't this game getting old yet? Let's worry about what we can do to improve the future rather than arguing about past mistakes. Give it up kids!!!

Church Records | 9:56 p.m. Sept. 3, 2007

Those inside or outside the church are living in seperate realities. Some readers might say seperate vacums! Why it is important on one side, is of little concern to the other and vice-versa, it seems. Why can't we let God judge? I am not a decendent, so I can not answer that question as such. Being agnostic, I can only repeat that the truth is what serves by belief and having discussed this issue with both decendents and Shannon Novak, the interuption of the study by Dixie Leavitts interest to burry it, is a personal issue. Dixie had dealings in common with mine, in addressing the polygamy issue within the FLDS. I was the state rep. of FOR KIDS SAKE and with abused children clients, the truth is the only issue that matters and God can be to slow when there is INCEST or other abuses.

To the LDS it was important to exercise "Baptism of the Dead" for the victims of the Baker/Fancher party. The Decendents or some have requested that the church clear these roles from church records. As important as it is for your god to judge the MMM massacre, its that important for some decendents to preserve their faith in the baptism of those who died at this place. To me, you have to believe in the ritual, to give it meaning, however it is an intrusion of disrespect to some decendents.

This becomes the two uncommon realities. This on a broader scale is conflicting belief and irregardless of will and request, the church is reluctant to remove what in belief was already dedicated. Asking others to let God judge or refusing those that desire to add dignity to a final resting place of family killed at this place, is the backside to the same coin.

Robert | 10:29 p.m. Sept. 3, 2007

What would an autopsy prove? A possible age, sex,etc. to possibly provide some clue as to who the corpse is. What type of weapons were used. Direction the shots came from. So what more would be proven...They were shot and killed. What are they trying to prove? What would an autopsy do. Just disturb the graves...It won't prove anything that isn't already known! Most of the evidence will be so old as to be inconclusive beyond that. It's a 150 years old!!!!! There isn't anything that an autopsy or forensics would prove as to the events leading up to the tragedy. Eyewitness accounts have already been thouroghly been researched. Let the dead rest in peace! For the victims families forgive and go on with your lives...It's time.

ALRP | 12:33 a.m. Sept. 4, 2007

It appears as though to many have to much time on there hands and nothing better to do than complain about things that are not only counter productive but that is relevant to there personal salvation. Get a life and move on, allowing the Lord to punish those responsible for what ever happened in that time period. It's 150 years old and all or most of what has been handed down through stories and journals there is know telling what has been lost or misconstrued as stories are passed on.

In My Opinion | 1:12 a.m. Sept. 4, 2007

There is not doubt that Mr. Young knew about the massacre for two reasons:

A)How the Massacre could have happened without the knowledge and blessing of Mr. Young?
(Mr. Young was an authoritarian figure that nothing could go without his blessing)

B) Reading the Confession of John D. Lee basically he is telling that he is upset with Young, because he has been sacrificed in a cowardly, dastardly manner.

Let say if Mr. Young was the intellectual murder of The Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857, I wonder if he is a God anywhere.

If not, why Mr. Young did try to cover up the Massacre blaming for the massacre either to Indians or the emigrants themselves?

All the evidence shows that Young was a co-conspirator of those murders.

Blaine | 5:39 a.m. Sept. 4, 2007

CD said, "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...."

This tragedy is hardly something anyone or any group can deny, justify, or "sweep under the rug." Are we ashamed of this part of our history. Yes. Do we try to hide it? Impossible!

The best caretaker for that land is clearly an organization with the money to do so, but who also will keep the site open to those who still grieve, for those who want to learn from that episode, and yes, open to those who simply choose only to be bitter about an even that cannot be undone. The LDS church has done a commendable job and should be permitted to continue to do so.

Steve W | 7:10 a.m. Sept. 4, 2007

Sounds more like speculation than evidence.

Bottom line here is that the LDS Church takes great care of that site. They are striving to properly memorialize those who died there. What purpose would it serve to give away the land? Do these groups have the funds and manpower to maintain the lands? Do they really think the federal government cares about a little site in Southwest Utah with limited interest to anyone outside of Utah? They should be grateful that the Church has invested so much in caring for a site and addressing a matter that I am sure they wish had never happened.

jkidd | 7:57 a.m. Sept. 4, 2007

In Response to In My Opinion:

The most common assumption of those who believe that Brigham Young ordered the attack is that nothing could occur in the Utah Territory without the express approval of Brigham Young. That assumption, however, doesn't seem to hold up to much scrutiny. It seems to track well with the idea that Mormonism is a cult, and the view of cult leaders like David Koresh and James Jones. However, if the 'cult' spans millions of square miles, rather than a walled compound, how is it possible that one person can have such absolute power. It would be difficult with today's technology, and considering the technology available to Brigham Young, it would take nearly god-like powers. Even Mormons don't believe that Brigham Young was a god, but those who insist that Brigham Young ordered the attack seem to give him that much credit.

Interesting | 8:42 a.m. Sept. 4, 2007

I find it interesting how many people judge Brigham Young and the Church for things, yet those same people, as of yet, have no understanding about the basic beliefs of the LDS faith. And I mean the very basic.
If you feel qualified to make a complaint of a certain group of people, please first endeavor to know the belief's of said group. Until you do so, you only show your ignorance and rapid belief of anything YOUR minister, or YOUR great author tells you.

Anonymous | 8:50 a.m. Sept. 4, 2007

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Get OVER it!

Steve R | 8:56 a.m. Sept. 4, 2007

To In My Opinion: "If Mr. young.... I wonder if he is a God anywhere."

The statement starts with an IF; so the answer is probably, NO. If a person murders, then he has a price to pay to God regardless of his earthly status as a leader. IF IF IF IFï¿½

It would sure be nice to live a perfect life like the Savior did, but we can't and even He has His critics and hate mongerers.

I am a member of the church and am grateful for the wonderful changes in my life because of it. I believe in the leaders of the church and them being worthy to hold their calling, but I do not believe that they are perfect or infallible. Only the Lord Jesus Christ was. We do not worship our church leaders, but we honor them as men chosen by God to lead this dispensation (that's all the song, "Praise to the Man" is about). We WORSHIP our Father in Heaven and do it in the name of Jesus Christ.

I am not very knowledgeable about MMM, but believe that it is a very unfortunate tragedy never the less. The Lord will judge those involved as only he knows the true story. I for one will continue to do the best I can do and worry about what positive contributions I can make to better this world and the people in it, one by one. This is whatï¿½s important to me.

anonymous | 9:20 a.m. Sept. 4, 2007

my question is why should these people expect this land which the church owns to be given to them if they want the land they can talk to the church about a price and raise money and buy it!

And as for whether or not Brigham young ordered the mmm does it really matter? No matter how many historians say one way or the other he was the church leader at a time when something terrible took place that shouldn't have happened I'm not saying that any of it was justified and if they text messaging I bet it wouldn't have happened. but at the same time if I had lived in that day I would probably have been on my guard and not trusted anyone because of the persecusions the LDS people as a whole had endured.

JoeMor | 9:29 a.m. Sept. 4, 2007

DH run by mormons...guess that is why comments critical to mormon influence are censored. Nice.

meri | 10:05 a.m. Sept. 4, 2007

It is interesting how many people point to the lapse of 20 years as proof that the church was trying to cover things up. Keep in mind that this was in the days before mass communications.

Now stop and think how long it takes to solve some crimes today--in a time replete with mass communication systems and advanced forensic methods. Police are now solving crimes that are 20 or even 50 years old. The fact that they were not solved earlier seldom indicates a coverup.

And all these advanced scientific methods and communication techniques still fail to remove the controversy surrounding many crimes. Look at the accusations still floating around pertaining to the Kennedy assassination, among others.

People in the area did cover ther MMM up, hoping to protect friends and relatives of those who were involved. That doesn't mean the CHURCH covered up and protected people.

Today, when there is a neighborhood shooting, people often cover up, either to protect someone or out of fear. That doesn't mean that there is an organized cover up. It doesn't mean that there is an organization behind it. It means that people are human, with all their foibles and weaknesses.

JayeG | 10:19 a.m. Sept. 4, 2007

On July 1, 1857, Abraham Smoot, Porter Rockwell, and Judson Stoddard, who were officials of Brigham Young's mail delivery and express company, 'the Y.X.', had witnessed several supply trains heading west on the overland trail.

When these men reached Independence, they learned that the federal government had canceled the mail contract with the Y.X., and was sending a large consignment of federal troops to Utah.

These three men returned to Salt Lake and informed Governor Brigham Young of what they had discovered.

In early August, Governor Young mustered the territorial militia and ordered that no grain or other staple be sold to passing immigrants or speculators.

In September, the Governor implemented martial law.
The Fancher train, which had camped for a little more than a week without incident outside city limits in SLC, while awaiting stragglers in their party, had already left the Salt Lake Valley before martial law was implemented.

The Governor had announced, too late for the Fanchers, that travelers must apply for, and be granted a pass from Salt Lake permitting them to pass through, as well as to purchase any needed supplies.

So naturally, when they arrived in the vicinity of Cedar City, they did not have the necessary permits to travel through Utah, and to buy, sell or trade for staples.

The Fancher train was NOT unarmed. In fact, they were very well armed, and managed to repel several attacks by the Indians, who had been promised cattle and goods.

The leaders of the militia convinced the men in the Fancher train to lay down their arms, with the assurance that they would be granted safe passage out of the valley.

The emigrants complied, and they were promptly murdered, along with their wives, and most of their children.

All Mormons? | 10:32 a.m. Sept. 4, 2007

Why is it that when we look at the tragic events that occurred on another September 11, we carefully make the distinction that 'radical' islamic groups are responsible, but when something like the MMM is discussed, all Mormons share responsibility?

JayeG | 11:14 a.m. Sept. 4, 2007

I will attempt my comment one more time.
Brigham Young was informed by Abraham Smoot, Porter Rockwell, and Judson Stoddard, officials of B.Y.'s mail delivery and express company, that the federal government had canceled the mail contract, and had consigned federal troops and supply trains to go to Utah to investigate rumors of a state if rebellion in Utah.

Governor Young mustered all Utah militiamen, ordered preparations for a hostile invasion, and implemented martial law, instructing Mormons not to buy, sell or trade with gentile emigrants who did not posess a pass for traveling through the territory.

The Fanchers had camped outside of SLC for over a week while stragglers caught up. They left the valley before martial law had been declared, ergo they did not have the necessary pass for purchasing staples.

The Mormons in Cedar City would not sell or trade with them. The emigrants were reduced to pilfering.

There were rumors, unproven, that a number of Missouri Wildcats were riding with the Fancher train, and that they had threatened to return to finish off the Mormons.

The Mormon militia leaders involved the Indians, thinking to place all blame upon them, they convinced the Fancher train to lay down their weapons in exchange for safe passage out of the valley, and then they murdered them in cold blood.

Even if Brigham Young did not actually ORDER the atrocity, he set the stage for exactly such an event with his histrionics about a percieved hostile invasion.

JayeG | 11:19 a.m. Sept. 4, 2007

JoeMor...I would have disagreed with your premise based upon the simple fact that YOUR comment was posted...had I not already attempted two comments explaining how I believe that Brigham Young was at least partly responsible for the MMM... which have not as yet been posted.

We shall see if THIS comment is posted.

Rick | 11:27 a.m. Sept. 4, 2007

I have learned much, reading this comment section and appreciate the sensible nature of the majority of the posts.

From my earlier comments, you should know that I no longer consider myself a Mormon - but I have friends and family who are deeply involved with the LDS faith.

I would really suggest one book, "End of Faith" written by Sam Harris in '2004, for anyone who is interested in learning something about religion's role in conflict. Sine the beginning of time, through the Crusades, the Inquisition and continuing on through today, the world has experienced dramatic and catastrophic events due to man's individual belief that they hold God's good will - that their organization is correct - that they are God's chosen - that it is sometimes OK to kill in the name of God - that we know God's will.

It may be a difficult pill to swallow for some, but it nearly always starts with one man, claiming that he is God's mouthpiece for the truth.

It is truly enlightening when we can finally admit that we are in the same boat together. Nobody has God's ear more than anyone else. If there is a God (and I believe that there is: this belief and hope stems from my love for my children and wife. I can't fathom this love ending with death.) But, admitting that nobody truly knows is exhilarating. Guilt and fear no longer rule our lives when we can admit this. We become better people as we act out of love instead of fear.

OL | 11:39 a.m. Sept. 4, 2007

Explain to me how people can be so accusing without proof! I keep reading these comments saying they won't read any articles/books etc. about the MMM because it would be bias, well doesn't the church have a right to defend itself? And why would anyone say, nobody knows whether Brigham Young ordered the masacre of these people, and then follow it up with.. "but I have a hunch he did". Stop with the accusations. Nobody knows exactly what happened.

Paul | 11:40 a.m. Sept. 4, 2007

The anti crowd will never accept the truth. Trying to communicate with them on a logical or honest level is a waste of time. They will never give up their prejudices or creative reality. Go mow your lawns . . . or something else productive!

Anonymous | 11:54 a.m. Sept. 4, 2007

I would like to thank Church Records for finally bringing up one very vital part of this article...the fact that the Mormons had performed baptisms for the men, women and children who were murdered at Mountain Meadows.

I wondered how long it would take before someone did.

Above and beyond the atrocity that was committed when the Fancher train was persuaded to lay down it's arms, in exchange for a promise of safe conduct out of the valley...what irked me even more was the fact that their bodies were left laying exposed to the elements and the animals...UNTIL the federal troops arrived to give them decent Christian burial.

How is it...no matter how the Mormon individuals who committed this mass murder might have justified their reasons for doing so...that they did not even have the basic decency to bury their fellow children of the Lord, God? Men, women AND children?

jw from Florida | 12:12 p.m. Sept. 4, 2007

This started out as an article on whether the LDS church should give up control of the area of the MMM. It has turned into a Mormon bashing. Lets get back to the article.My wife has a relative who was shot during Hauns Mill. We do not blame anybody for this and we have gotten over it. We tried to go to Hauns Mills last year but were told that it was not owned by the LDS Church and there was only very bad roads leading to this area. Lets see...Huans Mill not owned by the church and can not get to...MMM owned by the church and anybody is welcomed...For those who want the land turned over to the government...think twice...just look at Social Security. There will be a fee and limited access also.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.