I agree with most of what you said, But even the church's historians couldn't find any evedance of water poisoning. I grew up in Cedar and heard so many different versions of what happened. What seems to be clear is the imagrants were upset with the fact that we wouldn't sale supplies they needed. because of Brighams orders so save what we could for the upcoming confrontation with the army. They made threats but that seemed to be all. But Lee and others from past expeariances with people in the west took it seriusly. Asked for Brighams advice but acted with out wighting to get his advice. that is the tragidy, if they had only waited a couple more days.
Of course you find historians who clame that Brigham knew everything and controled everything in Utah and that it was his order, even though history showes contrary. They seem to forget that they didn't live in the age we do of instant messaging, they conviantly forget how long it took to get messages from Cedar to Salt Lake, then from there to actually be put in Brighams hands. Ya sorry there wern't any text messaging.

If this book brings comfort to people: fine. I've read about this event. Lines are drawn in the sand. I don’t see it changing any minds.

I would like to see investigators from Scotland Yard, the FBI, Interpol and the Orem police. Get experts who are impartial with no connection to the LDS Church or other parties.

I couldn’t use this book as a final account. The writers could have never said the smoking gun pointed to BY.

I'm glad the letter writer didn't actually have another book to back up his claims. Just rumour and lies.

People are now critiiquing a book before they have even read it. The problem: A review of it indicates that it disagrees with their opinions. How about reading the book first and examining the evidence before attacking its conclusions? However, I suspect that an infinite amount of evidence that disagrees with you would never be convincing. Close minded is close minded, no matter what point of view you take.

I want to read this book. I believe it is probably the most comprehensive, definitive book that has ever been written on the subject, especially since the authors had access to materials never before made available.

Will Bagley can speculate all he wants that "nothing happened in Utah that Brigham Young didn't know about." You can't just make those statements. You have to have evidence to back them up. The evidence just ISN'T THERE.

I believe these scholars are highly credible and have tried very hard to present the most accurate picture possible. I applaud their many years of work and can't wait to read it.

"Scotland Yard, the FBI, Interpol and the Orem police" Are the Orem police that good? Please don't use this post to start Utah County bashing. But really, was that a joke or are you serious?

The book uses circular logic; books use logic, in this case, circular logic. Using circular logic in books leads to more books, using more circular logic. Logic books, even those using circular logic, are like this book in that there is no logic, circular or otherwise. "Book use is logical," it says in a circular, circulated, logically, in books (logic).

I could care less what the book says. The event is way in the pass. Has been studied and poked to death with every person coming up with different ideas of what happen and why it happen. Then it was put to bed and buried until someone wants to dig it up again to under go the whole progress again. People need to get over living in the pass and move on to live in the present. Nothing anyone says is going to change what happen. They still are going to be dead and the guilty are still going to be guilty. God knows what happen and he will handle it. There were other bigger wagon trains wiped out all over the West and not all of them by Indians. The people involoved in it are dead and nothing will bring them back. Besides if you find someone else is guilty, what you going to do dig them up and put them on trial? So let begones be begone and quit living in the past. Live for the present!

The book in question and this letter contains no spin.

Riiiight, Mormons in Southern Utah murder dozens of people with provocation and somehow it's half the victims' fault? Are you kidding me?!?

Why is it so hard for members of the Church to admit that they have a muddy past with some dark moments without having to resort to justifying any possible actions that took place?

Face it, the Mormons involved were nothing short of scheming murderers. They may have felt threatened, yes, but does that excuse the outright murder of those pioneers without any provocation?

You know they knew it was wrong, too, because they attempted to make the Native Americans in the area the scapegoats to avoid accountability, and they also allowed ONE man, John D. Lee, to take the fall.

It's a black spot on Utah history. Quit trying to be an apologist about it.

Even though I have not yet read the book; If I knew about this back in 1970, when I studied about the Church in preparation to join it, I would have told the Elders: "Thanks, but no thanks."

The Fancer wagaon train did not poisen cattle or springs. That is a complete fabrication.
They wanted to purchase supplies from mormon stores and suppliers but Brigham Young wouldn't permit it.
Sure....no spin in that book.

Re: Funny. How dare you disparage the Orem police. They have snuffed out the under-watered lawn crime wave that fair city was experiencing.

What a lot of people don't know is that the S. Utah Mormons were scared to death of the Southern Californians during the War of 1857. They were deathly afraid of being attacked from the south, and did not want the Anglos in California to know how weak and undefended they were. That may have been one reason they felt (wrongly and outrageously of course) that the Fancher party needed to be silenced. They had seen too much. It was a Mormon atrocity, but there was overwhelming fear behind it.

Do we have to debate this again? It seems like we go through this every year. And usually right before Pioneer Day.

I don't mind the rememberance of what happend and the lessons we can learn from this incident, but the debate and contention it inevitably spawns is distatefull to me. I've watched these various MMM threads over the past year and I've never seen them result in any healing for anyone (that I've heard of in this forum).

Who knows... maybe the discussion will be different this time. Instead of taunting people and dredging up anything painfull or offensive you can think of about the other side... maybe we can start some healing this time.

Bottom line... We all know what happend was a tragedy and not something we want to happen again. We also know that no ammount of discussing and debating the nits in the history will bring complete satisfaction and agreement to all people who have an opinion on this topic.

I just hope we can all move on and do better today than we have in the past and not see this debate as an opportunity to "Score Points" against our opposition.

There are always going to be good people and bad people in the world.
Regardless of what group they are associated with.

Folks, let it go...... The past is gone, the future awaits. Trying living for it, instead of hating what no one on this earth is alive to recall, or remember.

To Douglas C: I'm sorry your testimony is so weak that it would rise or fall on the basis of the actions of a few scared and misguided people in Southern Utah.

This situation is not black and white. There are a lot of grey areas. Of course, the killings were completely wrong. These few individuals obviously made a terrible choice. The result is tragic. However, this did not happen in a vaccuum. I would never say that the victims were responsible, however, they did unwittingly engage in some actions that contributed to the tragedy.

I have a degree in history and one thing I know is that you can never know everything about what happened in any situation. However, I believe these authors have done everything they can to discover the truth. The fact is that this terrible tragedy was the result of the actions of a few individuals.

Although we, as LDS, should always feels very sad that this happened, there is no reason for us to have any collective guilt about it. I'm very sorry for the victims. I hope that their families will be able to get over this now and we can all move on.

"Pillars of any society" demand that French Fries be renamed Freedom Fries.

Why?

Because "ordinary people with bright futures" chose to support our efforts in Afghanistan, but not our side track into Iraq.

I feel like Rodney King here. "Why can't we all just get along?" They don't call it a "massacre" for nothing, do they??? No amount of whitewashing or review of history and the who/what/when/where/why can change that fact. "Massacre" says it all. Now, it took place over a hundred freaking years ago. Hello, people...this is stuff that reeks of being in a state of "ungrace". Let it go and move on. Everybody.

funny. This is merely my view. If you had the majority of you investigators who grew nothing about Mormonism, you would inject other problems in the product of your collaboration. A Mormon has insight in to the organization and culture. You would what a Mormon to check any bias.

I picked Orem because it was diametrically different. I had nothing against Orem. I do think I would find NYC more interesting.

Any reader must look at the motivations and the constraints of the writer. I would be skeptical reading a book about California Mission written by a Catholic bishop.

I can't say this book is incorrect. I can suspect Mormons don't want to prove BY knew anything. There would be repercussion if a writer wrote BY knew anything. I grew up Mormon. I've seen shunning in Utah.

Jeffrey,

"Riiiight, Mormons in Southern Utah murder dozens of people with provocation and somehow it's half the victims' fault? Are you kidding me?!?"

Let's not forget that those Mormons had families to protect, there was threats of an army invasion and the emigrants had also made threats against them.

"Face it, the Mormons involved were nothing short of scheming murderers. They may have felt threatened, yes, but does that excuse the outright murder of those pioneers without any provocation?"

You didn't know those people, you never met them or understand their fears. They had already received word that an army was marching on them and that they may face another Missouri.

"It's a black spot on Utah history. Quit trying to be an apologist about it."

No one is defending those who killed the emigrants but you ignore the fact they had families to protect and the moment the emigrants chose to make threats in a situation where an army was marching on your family you do have a justifiable belief that your family is in danger. How you react will be based on the situation. Do you wait until emigrants burn your towns and kill your child or act?

There appears to be two separate discussions here. The first is among Mormons with references to LDS teachings and questioning of the loyalty (i.e. faith) of LDS members. The other is between LDS members and non-LDS people.

The difference is seen in the "dredging up old history" and casting aspersionss on the LDS church and the attack of anti-LDS on the history of the religion and a continuing assault on its values and teachings as exemplified in the relationship of Brigham Young and John D. Lee.

In this context, nothing will be resolved because the questions posed are often used as a test of theological purity: To question is to foresake one's religious legacy. It is much like the desire for many white Americans to say that slavery is past and should best be forgotten.

Ernest T. Bass | 8:54 a.m. July 22, 2008

"The Fancer wagaon train did not poisen cattle or springs. That is a complete fabrication."

Do you have proof that it is a fabrication? There are reports that it did, reports of Johnson's army marching on Utah, of Apostle Parley P. Pratt being killed in Arkansas where the emigrants were from and reports that there were a group of Missourians in the Fancher party. Haun's Mill took place a mere 19 years before and Joseph Smith had been killed a mere 13 years before.

When you add everything together and assume that the emigrants did make the threats reports claim the reaction of the Mormons are justifiable under the circumstances. It doesn't make it right but it does explain the fear people may have felt for their families and why they chose to massacre the Fancher party instead of risking the possibility that they and their families may be killed. After all, it is a preemptive strike just like Iraq (note the sarcasm and my condemnation of both).

They wanted to purchase supplies from mormon stores and suppliers but Brigham Young wouldn't permit it.
Sure....no spin in that book.

When a group takes "pre-emptive" action in the name of defense when no real aggression has occurred is specious. Just because the settlers "feared" the arrival of the emigrants does not provide for any understanding that they needed to dress up like Native Americans to launch their attack unless they thought there actions were illegal and wrong.

You can't just shoot somebody because you are afraid of them. You can be prepared, but the whole genocide of Native Americans throughout the settling of American was based on a combination of greed and fear.

Finally, this was a small number of emigrants, not an army marching on Southwestern Utah. If anything, this action appears to be the result of the general process to separate the Mormon pioneers from the United States and a rebellion against the authority of the government.

The paranoia that engulfed the Utah pioneers, maintained by Brigham Young and his position as prophet of the LDS church is definitely a major factor in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Those men under the command of John D. Lee, as with all Mormons at the time, feared everybody and everything outside of their private world.

I need proof that an event did NOT happen?
Why don't you prove that it did happen?
It's too bad the people accused of poisening the watering holes didn't survive to defend themselves of this accusation isn't it?
It's too bad their weapons were taken away under the promise of a truce making it impossible to defend themselves.
I wonder which group loses credibility. Hum.

You may be confused. No one said the emigrant group was a "big group", or "an army". The "Army" people are refering to in earlier postings is an actual US Army contingent that was approaching Utah (not the Arkansas emigrant group involved in MMM). I think they are just saying the rumor/knowledge that the US Army was comming to put the Mormon settlers in their place (who had just fled the United States) had the Mormon settlers a little on-edge and up in arms.

Just thought I would clarify that in case you thought anybody was describing the group from Arkansas as "An Army".

Those were not Mormons who massacred those immigrants down there in Southern Utah, those were Norwegians! It was also Norwegians who were practicing polygamy back in the old days. Stop picking on the Mormons, darn it!

Western history is replete with documented stories about Mormons and significant events that have shaped their lives find repercussions to this day. Not only the Mountain Meadows Massacre which places a spotlight on a violent Mormon past, there is the incident of the Mormon cow incident in Nebraska that sparked the great Sioux wars that dominated the land until 1890 and the massacre at Wounded Knee.

Violence has been a documented part of Mormon history from the beginning. This is seen with the formation of the Danites in 1838 and the role played by Porter Rockwell. With this historical backdrop, books that undertake a re-examination of events like the Mountain Meadows Massacre become controversial because they draw attention and may reflect negatively on a past that many would prefer to forget.

Trying to understand exactly what went on in the planning and execution of the Mountain Meadows Massacre is relevant today. Maintaining an unbiased, historical perspective on events helps us understand the complexities of people and how certain decisions were made. Whether it is about this sordid affair, the tragedy of the Donner Party, or the assassination of Joseph Smith, it is important to clearly see what really happened.

Rather than letting the Fancher party pass through harmlessly, the Mormons shot and killed defenseless men, women AND children point blank. Imagine what that must have looked like. What could possibly justify that? They all should have been executed, not just John D. Lee.

The U.S. Army was sending a contingent toward Salt Lake City while the Fancher-Baker party consisted of between 120-160 men, women, and children. Although it was not an army, the paranoia of the Mormons in the region, had been increased by the reports of the U.S. Army advancing far to the north.

There was no confusion as to the historical record, but an earlier post (12:58 p.m.) suggested the fear of the U.S. Army as one of the factors leading up to the massacre. Although it has not been shown that Brigham Young was a co-conspirator in the attack, five days elapsed between the start of the attack and the final massacre during which time Young had knowledge provided by an express rider from the Mountain Meadows area.

It is well-documented, however, that Young had been urging the Paiutes in the region to fight the "Americans" in anticipation of the advancing army forces. Hence, the atmosphere was filled with fear and forboding for all.

Mary Beth Sorensen,

"When a group takes "pre-emptive" action in the name of defense when no real aggression has occurred is specious."

There are reports the emigrants were responsible for several deaths including at least one child and had killed cattle and poisoned the water supply. It's true that if there is "no real aggression" than any preemptive action in the name of defense is specious but there is evidence of aggression on the part of the emigrants and of threats.

"You can't just shoot somebody because you are afraid of them. You can be prepared..."

So your argument is: wait until they kill your son or daughter and be prepared to kill them afterwards and bury your child.

"The paranoia that engulfed the Utah pioneers, maintained by Brigham Young and his position as prophet of the LDS church is definitely a major factor in the Mountain Meadows Massacre."

The major factors in this massacre was the recent murder of Apostle Parley P. Pratt, threats made by the emigrants, and the acts (real or perceived) of aggression on their part. Also, exacerbating the situation was the recent murder of Joseph Smith and the massacre at Haun's Mill.

Ernest T. Bass,

"I need proof that an event did NOT happen?"

Yes, when something has been stated in a report by the people of that time than you must prove that they are lying or prove that your side isn't and wasn't lying. If you want a real discussion than let's have it or shut up and shove your opinion where your ancestors should have.

"It's too bad the people accused of poisening the watering holes didn't survive to defend themselves of this accusation isn't it?"

It's really convenient that the Mormons who had been the victims of the emigrants aren't alive to defend themselves against your accusations isn't it?

"I wonder which group loses credibility. Hum."

You lose credibility and it's time you defend your willingness to attack those who acted under a real fear for the safety of their families. You have no real evidence to support your version of events except that put forward by those who agree with you. There is historical evidence of cattle dying and of several people dying after the emigrants left. Are you going to claim that the Mormons poisoned their own water in a conspiracy to blame on the emigrants?

kbm | 3:07 p.m. July 22, 2008

"Rather than letting the Fancher party pass through harmlessly, the Mormons shot and killed defenseless men, women AND children point blank."

They had just poisoned the water supply of a Mormon settlement and killed several including a young boy so they weren't innocent. They also made threats and the Mormons feared that they would come back and act upon those threats. The Fancher party was also able to hold off the Paiute Indians and Mormon militia for 5 days so they were a heavily armed group and it would have been reasonable for the Mormons of the area to assume Mormon settlements could fall under heavy attack.

It's easy for people to condemn those who are no longer alive to defend themselves. The Mormons may not have conducted themselves appropriately when confronting the criminals in the Fancher party but they dealt with them in a time of war with the U.S. who had just sent an army to attack the Mormons in Utah. Martial law was in place and these criminals were punished harshly just like they would be today if there was a foreign invasion or insurrection.

Mary Beth Sorensen,

"The U.S. Army was sending a contingent toward Salt Lake City while the Fancher-Baker party consisted of between 120-160 men, women, and children. Although it was not an army, the paranoia of the Mormons in the region, had been increased by the reports of the U.S. Army advancing far to the north."

Their fear was well grounded and not just based on the threat posed by the army but also the emigrants who had made threats against their families.

"Although it has not been shown that Brigham Young was a co-conspirator in the attack, five days elapsed between the start of the attack and the final massacre during which time Young had knowledge provided by an express rider from the Mountain Meadows area."

Which is proof enough that this party was well armed and could have posed a serious threat to the safety of any settlement and they had already made threats. The Mormons were reacting based on what they knew and understood. The fear wasn't unwarranted but was well grounded and also based on the recent deaths. For all we know a woman who if alive today would be named Mary Beth Sorenson poisoned them.

I'm speechless.
I don't think I've ever seen a person defend a group of cold-blooded murders as victims.
Who ever you are who posted at 4:40pm, you are a horrible person, if you honestly believe the murders were the victims.
The FACT is, no springs were poisened.
The Fancher party was NEVER a threat to any of the Utahns who lied to the, took their weapons under a flag of truce then murdered them as the were defenseless and to top it off placed blame on the indians.
"Vengence is mine, sayeth the Lord" Who said that a year after the attack?

Let's get the timeline correct on these events. The Haun's Mill massacre occurred in 1838 and Joseph Smith was assassinated in 1844 while the Mountain Meadows Massacre occurred thirteen years later in 1857.

Using these events to justify the fear from a small contingent of people moving West in southern Utah really stretches the paranoia that led to the slaughter of the Fancher-Baker party.

Holding off the attacking Mormons and Paiutes for five days may not be an indication that they were heavily armed, and the only threat they posed was in the Mormon settler's paranoia which had been whipped up by their leadership in Salt Lake City.

The myth of poisoned water has been exposed by Ernest T. Bass. There is nothing to justify the attack on this innocent group of pioneers as they traveled to California. Also, defending one's family does not require waiting until someone is dead before any action can be taken. Being prepared and alert is being ready to fight if the situation escalates, but deterence is the guiding principle.

Look at the historical record and understand the atrocity that it was. Making excuses and apologist for the perpetrators does not change the record.

Mary Beth -- Re: "genocide" and American Indians, you make it seem as if the European settlers just suddenly decided to kill off all the Indians out of irrational fear and greed.

The actual historical record doesn't bear that out. On multiple occasions during the early settlement period, various Indian tribes attempted genocide of the small European population, and at least twice (the 1622 Powhatan uprising and Metacom's War in 1675) came close to pulling it off (managing to whack my own several-times great grandfather in the latter conflict). Unfortunately for them, the settlers didn't take kindly to being massacred, and did some massacring of their own right back.

In short, frontier Americans had no shortage of good reasons to fear American Indians. That entirely rational fear did often lead to unjustified conflicts with the Indians, and you can't escape the fact that it was the settlers, after all, who were encroaching on the Indians' country, but the liberal myth of peaceful Indians being slaughtered unprovokedly by bloodthirsty Europeans is just that -- a myth. Scalp for scalp, the Indians generally gave at least good as they got in the massacring department.

Thomas, most Native Americans died as a result of not having resistance to the diseases bough from the old world. Diseases changed the population distribution of tribes.

Why didn't the Millerites, Christian Science, Adventist and Shakers have a propblem like Mormons had?

Thomas,

"The actual historical record doesn't bear that out. On multiple occasions during the early settlement period, various Indian tribes attempted genocide of the small European population, and at least twice ...came close to pulling it off (managing to whack my own several-times great grandfather in the latter conflict)."

Mary Beth doesn't have a problem with your great grandfather being killed.

"Unfortunately for them, the settlers didn't take kindly to being massacred, and did some massacring of their own right back."

You are talking to a egotistical individual so I doubt she cares and probably thinks the settlers should have just waited for more attacks and than died.

"In short, frontier Americans had no shortage of good reasons to fear American Indians."

Women being raped, men being murdered and young girls being taken prisoner isn't good enough a reason for her.

Those of us who had ancestors who went through that should feel insulted by Mary Beth's comments and should tell her exactly what we think of her for her offensive comments about our ancestors who were raped, murdered and scalped by Indians. She thinks her freedom of speech gives her the right to say horrible things about our ancestors?

"She thinks her freedom of speech gives her the right to say horrible things about our ancestors?"

Um, well, yeah, interestingly enough, it does!

By the way, stating the truth about the cold-blooded murderers - which is what they would have to be to manipulate, then turn and shoot men and women - can hardly be described as saying "horrible things". The truth may be horrible, but that fault lies on those who committed those atrocities, not on those who tell it like it is.

Of course, there will always be apologists who seek to justify what those Mormons did as "self-defense" - it wasn't - or "out of fear" - which is hardly an excuse for murder.

Look, few would argue that the Church is like that now, or even that most of the Church was like that then. So quit trying to justify such horrible actions with fabricated history.

It's a black mark, we should accept it as such, and quit trying to either sweep it under the rug or, shockingly, go so far as to blame the victims!

Anon -- True enough. Although in fairness, the Indians gave the Europeans tobacco and (probably) syphilis (which doesn't seem to have appeared in Europe prior to 1492), so that evened the score out a bit.

Someone ought to do a comparison of the death toll among American Indians from European diseases vs. the death toll from smoking. I have a hunch tobacco comes out the winner.

Mary Beth Sorenson & Greg Martin could find a way to blame the murder of the Jews by the Nazis on the Jewish population. Give me a break. A group of Mormon settlers killed a group immigrating through what they considered their land. Make no excuses for them. What they did was wrong.