Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Untitled

Material archived from the Mountain Meadows massacre Talk page. (Jun14 - Jun 30, 2007 approximate)

Interest in getting this on the front page for September 11?

Since September 11, 2007 is the 150th anniversary of the massacre, I think there would be a good chance to get this article on the front page on that day, if we can make significant improvements. They especially like to pick timely articles for the front page, and there has been a lot of recent interest in the massacre on several fronts. Any interest? It would be very difficult, but not impossible. It would mean that we'd have to get featured article status probably by early August. COGDEN 22:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be up for that if "Friday" was removed from the lead sentence. Any chance of that? TIA --Tom 13:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the first thing to do is to get someone who hasn't been involved in editing this article to review it for quality. Val42 20:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite ready for a review yet. There are some obvious holes that probably should be filled first, such as a better and more complete background section and a section on the Lee trials and execution, and maybe some historiography. COGDEN 21:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I brought several (OK a dozen) MMM books home today from the academic library where I work. I can look up and post excerpts if necessary. If we create a section on the talk page for each of the major References, people can discuss the background for the article edits there. You can leave a message here on this page or on my talk page. Robbie Giles 00:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

THE MEMORIAL

Should not the Carleton Memorial be included in this section? The first memorial, ie the one with the Christian Cross.

Carleton Report:

The same day Captain Reuben P. Campbell, United States Second Dragoons, with a command of three companies of troops, came from his camp at Santa Clara and camped there also. Judge Cradlebaugh and Deputy Marshall Rogers had come down from Provo with Captain Campbell, and had been inquiring into the circumstances of the massacre. The judge cannot receive too much praise for the resolute and thorough manner with which he pursues him investigation. On his way down past this spot, and before my arrival, Captain Campbell had caused to be collected and buried the bones of 26 of the victims. Dr. Brewer informed me that the remains of 18 were buried in one grave, 12 in another and 6 in another.

On the 20th I took a wagon and a party of men and made a thorough search for others amongst the sage brushes for a least a mile back from the road that leads to Hamblin's house. Hamblin himself showed Sergeant Fritz of my party a spot on the right-hand side of the road where had partially covered up a great many of the bones. These were collected, and a large number of others on the left hand side of the road up the slopes of the hill, and in the ravines and among the bushes. I gathered many of the disjointed bones of 34 persons. The number could easily be told by the number of pairs of shoulder blades and by lower jaws, skulls, and parts of skulls, etc.

These, with the remains of two others gotten in a ravine to the east of the spring, where they had been interred at but little depth, 34 in all, I buried in a grave on the northern side of the ditch. Around and above this grave I caused to be built of loose granite stones, hauled from the neighboring hills, a rude monument, conical in form and fifty feet in circumference at the base, and twelve feet in height. This is surmounted by a cross hewn from red cedar wood. From the ground to top of cross is twenty four feet. On the transverse part of the cross, facing towards the north, is an inscription carved in the wood. "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." And on a rude slab of granite set in the earth and leaning against the northern base of the monument there are cut the following words:

"Here 120 men, women, and children were massacred in cold blood early in September, 1857. They were from Arkansas."

The general will hardly fail to observe the discrepancy between Hamblin's statement and that of Albert in relation to the burial of the two girls and in relation to the burial of the bodies of the others who had been murdered. Hamblin says the people from Cedar City buried them; Albert that the Indians did it, taking spades from the wagons, not a likely thing for bona fide Indians to do. My own opinion is that the remains were not buried at all until after they had been dismembered by the wolves and the flesh stripped from the bones, and then only such bones were buried as lay scattered along nearest the road.

James Lynch:

Why were no these remains interred if not in a Christian like and proper manner, at least covered from the sight? But no the hatred of their murderers extended to them after death--there they lay, a prey to the famished wolves that run howling over the desolate plains to the unlooked for feast, food for the croaking ravens that through the tainted air with swift wing wended their way to revel in their banquet of blood.

I enquired of Jacob Hamblin who is a high Church dignitary, why these remains were not buried at some time subsequent to the murder? he said that the bodies were so much decomposed that it was impossible to inter them. No longer let us boast of our citizenship freedom or civilization.

Of course, there is the tale of the fellow who exclaimed "Vengeance is mine an I have taken a little" shortly before the memorial was vandalized.Tinosa 01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

References

This section of the discussion page is to aid in tracking and evaluating the cited references. The most cited sources will be listed first, with others following as necessary. --Robbie Giles 05:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved this overly long info I originally added over to my sandbox to use for evaluating sources. Anyone interested can see it here. --Robbie Giles 13:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Utah legal structures pre-invasion

According to D. Michael Stewart:

After the arrival of the Mormons in the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, an ecclesiastical council and a marshal directed municipal affairs. In December 1847 a General Council took over the affairs of civil government. Bishop's courts for local wards provided a judicial process, with ecclesiastical high councils serving as appellate courts. Bishops, stake high councils, and the LDS First Presidency officiated as courts. Police power was placed in the Nauvoo Legion, and law enforcement officers were appointed. Church tithes and offerings served as community revenues.

Extralegal violence was rare compared to that found in other frontier communities. Litigation was discouraged and people were urged to settle their grievances in a system of arbitration before Bishop's courts where Mormon and non-Mormons generally received satisfactory justice. These ecclesiastical courts distinguished Utah from other frontier communities where vigilante committees periodically arose to help maintain law and order. Punishments also were lenient by comparison. When necessary, whipping of offenders was administered, since jails were unavailable. Prisoners were often housed with the sheriff, and posses frequently formed upon conclusion of church services.

Mormon practice of central direction, cooperation, and consensus formed a framework for government. Leading men would agree and others were expected to concur. Problems and concerns were openly discussed and basic decisions governing the community were made in religious services. Non-Mormons soon came to resent their lack of involvement in this process./ An attitude of stewardship framed the regulation of land, water use, and timber rights. Equal shares were given in return for labor. This reflected the reality of scarce supply as well as the religious idea of collective sharing.

--Justmeherenow 01:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that system applies after Utah was organized as a territory with federal oversight. --Blue Tie 01:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Quinn ref

There is a reference to a book by Quinn, but it is not listed in the Ref section. Is it this book? Mormon hierarchy : extensions of power by D. Michael Quinn which was published in Salt Lake City by Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates in 1997

It was probably made by User:COGDEN or User:Justmeherenow --Robbie Giles 03:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was me, and it was Extensions of Power. I put in the reference. COGDEN 01:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Turley with regard "poisoning"

--from his current (LDS) Ensign magazine article:

Some traditional Utah histories of what occurred at Mountain Meadows have accepted the claim that poisoning also contributed to conflict—that the Arkansas emigrants deliberately poisoned a spring and an ox carcass near the central Utah town of Fillmore, causing illness and death among local Indians. According to this story, the Indians became enraged and followed the emigrants to the Mountain Meadows, where they either committed the atrocities on their own or forced fearful Latter-day Saint settlers to join them in the attack. Historical research shows that these stories are not accurate./ While it is true that some of the emigrants’ cattle were dying along the trail, including near Fillmore, the deaths appear to be the result of a disease that affected cattle herds on the 1850s overland trails. Humans contracted the disease from infected animals through cuts or sores or through eating the contaminated meat. Without this modern understanding, people suspected the problem was caused by poisoning.

A comment at millennialstar.org from Justin:

Great link, Brian. I'm glad to see the publication of this article in the Ensign. It's a nice follow-up to the article published in a recent issue of the Church News.

[Brian]:' "IMO, the Church would need to be very careful about using new sources in for the article...at least sources to which others do not have access. If the article does use previously unavailable documents, the Church would want to immediately allow other historians access and have a frank discussion as to why the sources were previously withheld. In short, using new sources could have negative implications for the Church. Anyone else? Your thoughts?"

[Justin]: I haven't seen much of a discussion from the church's end regarding why certain sources have been unavailable to researchers. For instace, I believe Will Bagley unsuccessfully requested access to the Jenson collection cited in note 5 of Turley's article./ However, Turley has noted for several years that the church plans to open up sources after the book is published. To quote from a May 2002 article in the Salt Lake Tribune: "[T]he first quasi-official Mormon account has decided advantages over its competitors -- namely, access to documents in LDS Church archives off-limits to other scholars./ The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the 'best historical resources for writing about the massacre,' Richard Turley Jr., managing director of the church's family and history departments, said Friday. After the book is published, the LDS Church plans to 'open new sources we have discovered for public use,' said Turley, one of the book's authors./ Those sources include government documents, emigrant diaries, newspaper reports, affidavits of men who participated in the massacre and the field notes of Assistant Church Historian Andrew Jenson, who 40 years after the event tried to preserve as much of the historical record as he could. Turley also said other documents and collections will be made available to researchers on computer disks later this year."

--Justmeherenow 21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Theocracy in 1857

There's been a reversion of a heading that said Frontier existence and theocracy, on the grounds that the theocracy was "less than a year", and not in 1857. I don't think it's controversial that Utah was run effectively as a theocracy before Brigham Young was deposed in 1858. Even the Utah general authorities at the time were calling it a theocracy, and that was viewed as a good thing. I think there's a pretty strong historical consensus, isn't there?, that there was relatively little separation between church and state during the time, and that it was essentially a limited theocracy. True, it wasn't an absolute theocracy in 1857, like the church thought was just around the corner, but a theocracy nonetheless. COGDEN 00:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on how you look at the pioneers. He was their governor and their prophet, and continued as both even after the territory was established. Did the US change it from a theocracy? How so, considering he was still prophet and governor? Did he rule the territory as a prophet or as a territorial leader? Given decisions of law that went against Christianity and LDS morality, like setting up bars and brothels, certainly discount his theocratic endeavors. Bytebear 00:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not a perfect theocracy as the early Mormons would have liked to have, but probably the most perfect one ever in the Western Hemisphere. Anyway, I changed the heading in a way that might side-step the issue, using "Kingdom of God" instead of theocracy, and talking more about it being their aspiration than about what they were able to actually bring into practice. That's probably a better way of looking at it, because there was a constant tension between what the church wanted (legal polygamy, perfect obedience, the institution of blood atonement, decapitation as a method of execution, law of consecration, etc.), and what they could actually do given their limitations. COGDEN 01:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this the real focus of the section? It seems to me a better title would be "Frontier settlement and expanded settlements" or similar. Bytebear 02:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We could split it up into two sections, but I think the two topics go together, because the quality and nature of the Utah Territory government is important, and it's hard to explain it without giving background for why the Mormons were forming colonies and trying to expand the kingdom throughout the West. COGDEN 17:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think they go together too, but I never considered the colonization of surrounding towns a theocratic decision, although I guess I can see it as such. I guess I don't look at the Mormon Poineers as a theocratic society, but rather, as a group of settlers under a single leader. Woudl you consider the Pilgrams theocratic? Or other US colonists? Bytebear 23:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. -Visorstuff 23:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Would the Pilgrims article call them a theocracy, or a group striving for religious freedom? Seems the term "theocracy" although technically correct is loaded with negative conotations. Bytebear 17:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think both statements are correct. The current social climate where religious fanatics attemtp to destroy civil society does put a more negative spin on the term than what once was a positive term.

As an aside, I have always been surprised at the more common anti-Mormon literature that wants to spin the LDS desire for the Kingdom of God as somehow sinister when the Kingdom of God is what Christianity seeks to attain and enjoy. There would have been no need to seek religious freedom in a theocracy had they come to know it in the States. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, this is an encyclopedia article. What we (as editors) think is not as important as relating the necessary information from verifiable sources. Which if any of the references already cited refer to a theocracy? One, a few, most, all? If once, it may not be noteworthy. If consistently, then it is; we should cite it and include it. I actually think the detailed background info should be in the appropriate linking article (possibly History_of_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Utah_War) or the Utah War article. What importance to this article is the concept of whether the territory was actually a theocracy or at least a de facto theocracy? Also, I want to focus on the article and not digress to us vs. them or who was right or wrong. It's hard enough to write with a NPOV. Please don't ratchet up the rhetoric. Thanks. Robbie Giles 21:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive question

Is there a way to archive those questions or concerns of B/T which have been addressed? This page is long and confusing, as it is. I'm not up on archiving talk pages. What does the herd of editors think? --Robbie Giles 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That's probably fine. I don't see any recent edits there. COGDEN 17:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved Blue Tie's entire section of concerns to an archive - yet unaddressed issues from there of course can be reintroduced at the bottom of the current talk page. --Justmeherenow 20:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Justme's concerns

Lee's membership reinstatement

Personally I don't come to MM already supremely well read but with a lifetime of vague familiarity with hearsay associated with it. Lee family people have always thought it unfair that Lee had been singled out and finally the Church said, OK, let's forgive and forget as far as LDS temple ordinances for the dead and the like go. What is to be read into this? I don't know - but it seems something too nuancedly complicated to belong in the lead? --Justmeherenow 03:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is an element that is too detailed for the lead. I suppose it was a bit unfair that he was singled out, but also, he had at least as big a hand in things as anyone and quite possibly was the most guilty person. --Blue Tie 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A bit of redundancy is usually good--

--via introductory summaries and summations. But I believe in a wiki it's generally not, since what's being summarized is never stable? --Justmeherenow 15:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

My thought is to make certain all included info is in the WP main article for the subheading, then do a tight (not necessarily short) synopsis of the topic as it applies to this article. My example is the MMM section on Teachings of the Mormon Reformation. It tries to explain the reformation, but not only in regards to MMM. Is this what you had in mind about redundancies? --Robbie Giles 17:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Did you hear about the rape of Ruth Dunlap!"

Let's simply do some scene resplicing? Just remove the clip of Ruth's Stockholm syndrome and put it to the side (just for the time being)—while keeping the scene of Lee, alone with the Dunlap girl (readers themselves' filling in Ruth's frightened and pleading look). Yes, we still cut to her dead, naked body and then to townswomen's speculative questioning. Then in the middle of the clip of this questioning, splice back in our scene of the poor girl's pleading, over which is dubbed a continuation of the townswomen's explanation of the speculative scene in voice-over. --Justmeherenow

Except there is no good evidence that he was alone with her. There is good evidence that he was not. --Blue Tie 21:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Since marauders have "raped and pillaged" (or else "heard offers of companionship in exchange for protection"—depending on POV) from time immemorial, I believe Gibbs' dramatization etc. reasonable. However it is third hand—so, pending consensus, I've pushed it into a footnote? —Justmeherenow 03:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A footnote is better than it being in the article.. but it is still not good. The story was invented out of thin air. Why would it merit any mention at all? --Blue Tie 06:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Wikpedia's coverage of theocracy in early Utah

(Hey—so few editors hereabouts! My user name now seems prophetic. ;^)

I think it's really important to word Wikipedia articles in such a way that all comers (well, most of them) basically can live with their tone, mostly. (I know this is, um, a banal argument, but hear me out.) Question: if the phraseology theocracy in Mormonism is completely NPOV, why is it other Wikipedia articles giving extensive coverage to Mormonism refrain from using this term much, to-date, or other ones of similar tone? Well, except for the ones at Mormonism and authority, which is a section in an article specifically about criticisms of Mormonism!

Actually, I think our article about Utah theocracy is exceptionally good and illuminating! It's just that, as maybe Blue Tie suggest, there are places here and there where its premises can be more delicately phrased or even left (overtly) unsaid, allowing the reader to supply their own analysis, "pro" (Mormon faith based), con, or "non"? In other words...avoid—implied irony? Such as

Muhammad, claiming he had witnessed a monstrous being he identified as "Gabriel" but described as... [and here quote the Quranic text about Muhammad's experience with this immense, fearful entity with wings], told the people he had received these "divine" instructions to kill anyone who would resist Muhammad's plans of Mecca's military destruction.

—where quotation marks at "Gabriel" and "divine" show the writer doesn't believe in Muhammad's perceptions of reality, right? All the information may "true" (to a non-believer, anyway)—only it's needlessly heavy handed (or...subtly mocking?)

What other options are there? How about

Muhammad received God's revelation through the Angel Gabriel for Believers to defend—and if necessary through armed struggle— against the pagan Meccans' aggression.

—where the reader can decide for themselves how to take Muhammad's claims?: a deceptively simple minimalism where Muhammad's claims are laid out straightforwardly and without ostensively(?sp) objective commentary?

Still another option is to simply state facts while trying not to "code" much at all for editors' judgments one way or the other? Such as

Muhammad, believing himself to receive divine communications, directed the people whom he had convinced of this to subdue through military means the city of Mecca.

—Hmm. I like it!

I'm just riffing here—but still I do think we should use ALL THREE styles (and probably more). Where everybody agrees something is bogus (Haight's decisions to anihilate the Fanchers), then Wikipedia can go ahead and rip! (and not worry about its "objective" language subtly mocking Haight's decision). Fine. But where criticism is bound to be controversial (fairly easy to do with regard a faith community's history!), put Wikipedia's words of criticism in some actual critic's mouth: "So-'n'-so says Muhammad's attack on Mecca involved too much whatever." --Justmeherenow 22:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if it is neutral or not, but a bigger problem is that it is too long and detailed. It is as though someone wanted to write a different article and then decided to to merge it with this one -- randomly. It is an overblown distraction in this article. I do not see any value in it and think it should be deleted but if the idea needs to stay it should be a single sentence that somehow ties to the Mountain Meadows Massacre. For example, maybe the fact that there had been a theocratic reformation movement in the months and years just prior to this time had put the people in a frame of mind to do whatever they felt their leaders asked of them. (The problem with this is that it is not exactly true, and there are examples to the contrary -- so I do not know how to do this, but whatever... it needs to be deleted or shortened). --Blue Tie 01:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

New Article Regarding Subject Published by LDS Church

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be publishing in the September 2007 Ensign an article regarding the Mountain Meadows Massacre. You can find the article online now, though, right here.

Background

I would like to see a reversion to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mountain_Meadows_massacre&diff=next&oldid=140630222 for the beginning of the background section. I originally crafted it as an overview, with the detail in the subsections. Some of what has been added should more properly be in the succeeding subsection. The opening sentence:

Historians attribute the Mountain Meadows massacre to a number of factors relating to the conditions in the Utah Territory in 1857.

was meant to be a springboard for a discussion of the five topics listed below. The reference to historians was to indicate the references cited in the next few paragraphs. I wanted the first paragraph to be very tight. Also, the first paragraph now has a great deal of passive voice, which lends itself to confusion for readers. The heading was originally Background because it dealt with history prior to the move to Utah.

Can we move some of the additions to the appropriate sections and revert back to the original of this section, along with the name? What does the herd of editors think? Thanks in advance for your consideration. --Robbie Giles 04:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. I think it was a better introduction, the way it was, and maintained better flow. COGDEN 07:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of God (Mormons)

Is it time to start a separate article dealing with the settling of Utah by Mormons after leaving Illinois? As I was editing (again) I got a message about this article being too long and am looking for ways to pare down without losing all of the wonderful information. There is already and article on Kingdom of God, so I suggest the name with a qualifier, Then we can create a disambiguation page. Or if the main history article is not too long, it could be incorporated there.

The concept and history of the settlement in Utah prior to US annexation could be a decent sized articles which contains refs to B. Young's letters, speeches, and sermons from the discourses. We can pull info from a variety of sources to flesh it out. Then we are free to create a tight recap in the main MMM article.

We all might start looking at sections or topics to spin off, so we can focus this article more tightly. One thought I have is about the articles, books, and media treatment the MMM received and is still receiving. We could use the sources in this article and discuss the 19th century polemical works, scholarly books by authors like Juanita Brooks, Mormon apologetics, change in attitudes by Mormon scholars, and the works now available in scanned format on sites like the LDS and Library of Congress.

I can go on (and on and on ...), but I have to go cut up a chicken. If this was 1857, I'd have to catch it and kill it first. Sometimes 2007 isn't so bad. --Robbie Giles 00:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it being a long article. That's fine for now, because the article is still in the building-up phase. Once we get to the polishing phase, if we eventually need to branch off things, we'll have a better idea how to divide the subject, but doing so now, I think, would that would be fine, but I think its hard at this point to see what parts to put in sub-articles, if any. (Maybe none, since there are a lot of featured articles that are long, and we shouldn't be counting the footnotes and references). COGDEN 02:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The section on the Theocratic Kingdom of God is silly and overdone. It looks like one of those cases where someone says "this is true, therefore it deserves to be in there". But it has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the article. Perhaps we should also mention that there is Salt in the Great Salt Lake if we want to add things that are true but irrelevant to the article. Oh, and also that the Pacific Ocean borders on California. And that apples fall under the influence of gravity.

Reasonable editorial judgment should really be applied.

If you are really excited about this obscure topic, make it a separate article.--Blue Tie 10:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The Utah Territory theocracy is cited in nearly every work on the MMM as a major factor. I don't think you can really understand the massacre without understanding Utah's then-existing political structure and theocracy. Many Mormon leaders like John D. Lee (we know from his journals) believed that it was their responsibility, as officers in the Kingdom of God, to enforce theocratic law, including executing God's vengeance. Lee, after all, was an important member of the Council of Fifty. Why did Mormon leaders feel they had to take the law into their own hands? Because they were the law. Also, its important to understand the context of the Utah War, and why it was considered so important for Mormons to protect their theocracy and civilization: they were expecting that after an impending Tribulation, Jesus would soon arrive to sit upon the throne of the theocratic Kingdom of God, which they had to protect at all costs. John D. Lee makes this point himself in his Mormonism Unveiled as one of the contributing factors of the massacre (p. 251). COGDEN 21:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You do not HAVE to disagree. But...you prefer to. That is fine, but you are degrading the article If it is cited by nearly every work as a major factor then that should be more clear. Right now it is not. I have read several works on this topic. They do not all or mostly mention the "Then existing political structure and theocracy" in the way that you have laid it out in the article. In fact, I think of the ones I have read, only Bagley, (whose style of "history" reminds me of "holy blood holy grail" types of hystoria) gets into this. (I have not read Denton, but the reviews that I saw of her book led me to not want to waste my time). I do not have my books with me so I cannot reconfirm my memory that they do not all mention this. What John D. Lee may have personally believed that led him to his actions, is certainly relevant. But you have not mentioned these things. Cite these personal believes in the context of his actions! Otherwise its just cruft. Yes, Mormon leaders "were the law". But in this case, it is not so clear that it was ecclesiastical. They were also legal and military authorities as well. Which responsibilities were being applied? Ecclesiastical, Military or Political? I do not know of one source that clearly analyzes this and choosing one over the others is simply a way of being POV. Bottom line is this: You have developed an uncited paragraph of cruft, that has no clear relationship to the article, but which is rooted in a particular POV. It's trash. --Blue Tie 11:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Uncited? I don't think you mean that, because take a look at the footnotes. Nearly every point is cited, many to multiple sources. Anything that isn't cited is citable. We don't have to find everything in a single source, so I don't think you'll be successful in finding one, whether it's Denton or Bagley, or whoever. We just have to have a source for every statement, and primary sources like Young, Lee, Klingensmith, etc. are better than secondary sources like Denton, Bagley, Stenhouse, Gibbs, Brooks, Quinn, etc. As to "which responsibilities are being applied", you are assuming there was a difference between ecclesiastical, military, and political. There wasn't: they viewed their society as fundamentally a theocracy. Every responsibility was related to "building the Kingdom of God", a phrase that was used repeatedly during the 1850s. COGDEN 18:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant uncited. If you want, I will fill the article with {{Fact}} requests. As far as primary sources, I tend to agree with you that those are better for articles. I am not sure that wikipedia policy agrees though. I think that they tend to prefer secondary sources. Not sure why.

I am not just assuming that there was a difference between ecclesiastical, military and political. I know that there was a difference, particularly after it became a territory. It just happens that these three entities were often joined in the same person -- it happens in American History where small settlements occurred. (For example, early Baptists Preachers were often also judges in their communities and sometimes also held military rank as well). But when that person was operating in one capacity, he tended to specifically operate in that capacity and not the other. There are plenty of examples of this in primary sources, although under military command, the legal and military systems were often combined. It could be confusing to us looking back in on it, but that does not mean that there were no differences.

The Mormons tended to operate far more under consensus types of efforts than most frontier organizations did -- and brought all the entities together frequently to get full input from all aspects and to get buy-in from all relevant elements of society on the decisions taken. So that would give a greater sense of the union of these groups. But that would not be theocracy.

There are some things that suggest a theocracy might have been in play, but they are not that strong. Anyway, the article is way overboard on this matter. I think if you want to write an article about this, separately from MM, then go ahead. But it just does not belong in here, certainly not to the degree it has been included. The article is egregiously unbalanced. --Blue Tie 02:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Twain as a source

Twain is cited as a source but he is not very reliable. He gets a great many facts wrong. --Blue Tie 10:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This work of Twain's was a travelogue and not intended as scholarly writings from an expedition. Remember, he is a humorist. Twain could be replaced with information on the newspapers and magazines covering the topic at the time. I will look in Brooks, Quinn, and several of the other major sources for references to how widely touted the massacre was in relation to building anti-Mormon feelings. It is difficult to really determine, because the news of the massacre and the unrest during the Utah War get blurred. There was also a lot of anti-Mormon feeling generated because the "Mormons were so bad, the US had to go save the territory." I will work on this. --Robbie Giles 11:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is that the Mountain Meadows massacre was not all that well covered at the time. A few newspapers, particularly in California had longer articles on the matter, but even these were not clear on what happened. And it was OBE exactly as you say above. Yet the article states very plainly that things are a certain way -- even though as you clearly know... it was blurred. Even the trials of Lee, a few decades LATER were not big national news. It was not a big deal overall, for whatever reason. Outside the region, it was just not an issue. Of course this is all uncited and is original research. But Twain is not a good source. He gets his facts wrong.

as a National phenomenon, Anti Mormon feelings were rooted in one thing and one thing only: Polygamy. All this other stuff is baloney.--Blue Tie 11:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite right. Polygamy was certainly the most significant news item by far, but the MMM was probably the second most notorious thing that Americans knew about Mormons (tied-in with the whole overblown blood atonement thing). Nearly all of this notoriety, however, came during the 1870s. Twain, of course, was not a journalist (although it didn't take much in those days to be one), but I think he got it right as to the notoriety. In fact, the massacre was the inspiration for a whole fiction genre for a while. If we can find a better source, then we should use it, but I think he was correct. Here's a quote, probably not the best citation for this article, but nevertheless illustrative of media coverage at the time, about the 1877 Broadway play "The Fabulous Danites":

"Lee's execution took place a few months before the play opened, and the newspapers in the country were full of stories about the Danites, or the Avenging Angels. The New York Herald published Lee's papers, including a list of the fifty-four Mormons who perpetrated the massacre and an account of those who had since died. There was also a list of seventeen children among the victims who survived the massacre, and information on their families. Linking the public interest in the massacre to his play, [McKee] Rankin issued a pamphlet detailing several of the deadly ambushes of settlers by the Danites and setting the background to the play." David R. Beasley (2002), McKee Rankin and the Heyday of the American Theater, p. 150.

COGDEN 17:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was even a big deal in 1870's but it was certainly bigger than in the earlier years. The trial and conviction brought forth some notoriety and prior stories were more vague. However, the article reads as though the massacre itself was a widely discussed topic at the time it occurred. I would be more inclined to say that in a climate of intense focus due to Polygamy, the Mormons came under even further scrutiny when the trials of the 1870's more clearly revealed the role that Mormons such as Lee played in the massacre. This is different than how the article reads, which seems to suggest that there was a widespread immediate uproar. --Blue Tie 02:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Article is going downhill

Although it needed substantial work a month or so ago, it has gone backward and is now more disjointed, less narrative in style and harder to read. It has the appearance of being the work of a hundred blind painters, each of whom has a different idea of what is important. Some details are repeated several times and there are details that are not very helpful that are added here and there. As long as people here have an agenda other than to write a good general article, it will not be fixable. --Blue Tie 10:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide specifics, and any edits you migh have are certainly welcome. Also keep in mind that the article is far from polished at the moment, and we are mostly in the process of filling-in the holes where content is missing. Once we fill all the potholes, we can go over it with a steamroller to smooth out the rough patches. COGDEN 21:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie...be patient—and at least tell us before you go and jump off your side of Wikipedia's see-saw...(translation: help us winnow—and add viewpoints for better balance). And, ahem, if our spelunker crew's discerning lights are dim—light us a match! One more—lol...Our frind COgden, bless him, is right: if this massacre acts as fly paper to hard-sounding truths—-maybe it's a bee that's stuck to the sticky strand and you can help us look to where it came from and get us some honey? ;^) —--Justmeherenow 04:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been patient. It does not work. I do not have time to go back and forth ad nauseum with ideologues who have a whole separate agenda apart from producing a well written, non-crufty, NPOV, article in which reasonable editorial choices are made based upon the best and most reliable published sources. When the attitude of editors is "Hey, I can find someone who said it, so it should go in here, cause I like that opinion", and most editors way "Ok .. I guess thats fine", there is no way to fix it.

COgden says he is filling in holes where content is missing. Bogus. The adds are crufty, full of opinions that are hidden and expressed as facts, and unsourced. I have argued against such silly edits before and it is impossible to generate support for cool, rational editorial sources -- not matter what approach is used.

For example, I demolished Gibbs as a reliable source. He is the ONLY source for the story on Ruth Dunlap. Despite the fact that he is utterly unreliable and the only source, here that story is, in this article. Despite spending several weeks working on just that one thing... I find that it impossible to get anyone to make the reasonable editorial choice to REMOVE STUPID, BADLY SOURCED STUFF ROM THE ARTICLE. As I write that I am amazed to think about it. An encyclopedia full of crap because people just want to say it. There is not enough editorial integrity here as a committee to quickly and reasonably remove silliness. I spent weeks of time, producing an airtight case on the unreliability of Gibbs. Does it matter? No. People want to include his bogus stories even though they are obviously unreliable and unattested to by any other source. Why? I have no idea but it does not produce a better encyclopedia.

Here is another example. One word: "highly" is used to describe how controversial things are. Just one word. But who says it is "highly" controversial? If we want to write an NPOV article we avoid making such judgments and make sure that we can clearly cite that it is even controversial at all, and if there is an opinion (and if it is important to add that opinion) we source that opinion and make it clear whose opinion it is so that wikipedia is not expressing an opinion. That is just ONE WORD. I have argued against it, and I think it was removed once, yet it is back.

And now, the whole background section that has been added RUINS the article with too much detail, much of it crufty and unsupported opinion. Almost every sentence can be challenged. Take for example the first sentence: "Historians attribute the Mountain Meadows massacre to a number of factors relating to the conditions in the Utah Territory in 1857". Historians do this? Who says? Do they all attribute it this way? Its not that I entirely object to this first sentence, but the huge mass that follows is full of crufty opinion expressed as fact, and so I use that sentence as an example of analysis. More pointedly here is a sentence that I have a small problem with: "Mormons retained a profound sense that they had been wronged by the United States, and that God would soon exact vengeance of their tormentors.". Was it really "profound"? Who says? Did they ALL feel this way? Did they believe God WOULD or that God SHOULD exact revenge (the cite suggests SHOULD rather than WOULD).

But it is not just individual words and phrases. There are so many things that are wrong with the background its hard to know where to start, but a look at undue weight would be a good way to trim. Good grief... the "theory" of theocratic government issues goes on and on and on, and is mentioned multiple in several other places. Can we say beating a dead horse? This factor may be someone's opinion. That can be said in ONE SENTENCE, not in a boring discussion that takes up 10% of the article and is presented before the main key facts of the topic are discussed. If you want me to offer a match to shine a light in darkness, I would use that match to burn the whole "background" section. And note -- I originally argued that more background was needed... there was nearly none. But this is way way way overboard now and it reads POV to me. I think that it could be a small paragraph with perhaps a short list of KEY factors that are commonly agreed upon. Then, if we want to get into editorials about possible motivations behind the massacre, that could go near the end of the article... not in the front ... getting in the way of the more interesting stuff.

Anyway, given that weeks of time can go by, with very hard work to change a small thing -- and yet nothing gets changed... I do not think that I have enough of a lifetime left to fix the HUGE problems here. A million years and a pile of facts would not do it. And I do not want to play games with ideologues.. mormon or antimormon. I came here because I thought this article would soon get a great deal of attention and I thought it would be good to have the very best article possible available when that happens. I do not believe there is a snowball's chance in hell this article will be any good at all in that time and I have no confidence that in an article where people have axes to grind, that someone who just wants to write a good article with no other agenda can prevail. At least history has not shown that to be the case so far. I would like to have a different view of things... but seriously -- can you show any reason that I should believe it? The article has gotten absolutely worse and NO ONE OBJECTS TO THAT! Holy Cow! It looks like trying to improve it is tilting at windmills to me.

Perhaps I do not exactly understand the reference to flypaper and hard sounding truths, but it SOUNDS as though you are making a defense for inclusion of POV -- in particular the POV that we need to teach the "Truth". Wikipedia is not supposed to be a source of truth. It is supposed to be NPOV, VER, RS and to use reasonable editorial choices in presenting information. As long as there are pushy editors here who have a need to disseminate the "Truth" instead of writing good articles, while other editors simply stand around and watch this happening without a whimper -- or worse, support it, there is no hope. I do not want to waste my time. Actually I do not have the time to spend arguing over such things ... when I know the outcome will not be different anyway. I do not want to buy silver bullets, I do not want to fall on my sword, I do not want to dream the impossible dream. I have other work to do. I would have more hope if I saw enough other editors getting serious about writing a really good article and not so concerned about including every crufty opinion.--Blue Tie 12:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice essay, B/T.

Explaining summaries, whether pro or anti, are cruft simply because there can never be consensus between the two.

I vote we delete all instances of such leading of the reader and instead respect the reader to make up his own mind.

I like what Briggs (page 32-to-33) says The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows Massacre: Toward a Consensus Account and Time Line March 13, 2002:

(somewhere in the article) that by sticking to verifiable facts, we respect how it is that different folks can reasonably hold to whatever their points of view. (Well, here's his end summary anyway. :^)

One theme of this paper is that to improve our understanding of the Mountain Meadows Massacre it is imperative that we introduce some much-needed rigor into the process of evaluating the statements of witnesses. If we are to improve our understanding of this tragedy, rather than perpetuate 19th century partisan myths, considerably more care than has ever been taken in the past needs to be used in the future. This paper has outlined methods for the detection of distortion (the commonest form of lying) and outright deception. Practitioners in this field must develop awareness between an admission of one's own wrongdoing - which is usually reliable - and an accusation of someone else's wrongdoing - which is usually suspect./ Although Juanita Brooks does a creditable job in this regard, even her work could be improved upon. Many others, including recent studies, are deficient in this basic understanding./ Why? Many reasons, I suppose. Principal among which is that a latent partisanship still influences the debate./ The second imperative, then, is to go to even greater lengths than we have thus far to reduce the partisanship surrounding the tragedy. It is what it is. In the war atmosphere in which the tragedy occurred, the people involved - the emigrants, the militiamen, and the Indians - were what they were: flawed, fragile, and fearful. By using a rigorous method such as the one outlined here, we will arrive at the much- improved position where even our partisan views are ground- ed in solid evidence. Partisan positions will remain - forever, I suspect. But then we will look at one another across a much- narrowed gulf. For we will see that those with interpretations contrary to ours have grounded their interpretations, using reason and good faith, in substantial evidence. /It will not reduce the awful terror or folly we see in the Mountain Meadows tragedy. Strangely, that is its attraction to us.[...]

Yeah, holding back from summarizing how our reader should think (and sticking to just such a rigor Blue Tie proposes for stating mere facts, would be good! --Justmeherenow 14:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We have to be careful about making "editorial choices" based on some editors' view of which sources are most "reliable" (reliable not in the limited sense of WP:RS but in the more general sense of the word, as used above). This topic has a lot of different POVs, and they all have to be included, and they all don't follow the legal witness reliability theory of Briggs. As a lawyer myself, I really like Briggs' analysis and think it's one of the best, but his is just one view, a secondary analysis of the raw data, and we can't ignore the primary sources like Ruth Dunlap, even though they may be totally bogus. We can, however, mention that notable sources say that the Rugh Dunlap story is BS. COGDEN 18:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no primary source on Ruth Dunlap. None. Unless you consider an imagined story to be a primary source. Briggs analysis is excellent. It is fact oriented to the point of being bland and completely devoid of imagined events which is exactly how such controversial things should be treated. I do not see why we should exercise caution as you suggest in focusing on fact based approaches and yet exercise liberality and a carefree attitude when dealing with baseless or trivial cruft. Our approach should be entirely the reverse. The baseless cruft and the tangential material should be held up to deep scrutiny and high standards. It should be easily rejected upon even modest grounds. To my eye, it is hard to see how any other position could be supported. It makes no sense to me. Why on earth would anyone want to write an article that takes pains to cover every minor speculation and trivia but which is more conservative and cautious about fact based approaches? Is it because we live in a society and time that thrives on the speculative and innuendo laden headlines of celebrity and political news? That in the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination and the X Files, we actually believe that the "Truth is Out There" and exploring bizarre imaginings and trivia will lead to it and make us better people? Or perhaps, if not better, maybe smarter? What on earth is wrong with us that the utterly baseless Ruth Dunlap story would deserve even one line in this article? It barely gets even that much treatment in most full length books -- and then it gets discredited. If we really are searching for "truth" such stuff would be tossed out instantly with the morning trash. And if we were not concerned with the truth but only wanted to provide reliable information, it would have never made it in, in the first place. But there it is. A fiction given space in this article where we want to be careful about a neat, fact-based approach. How that makes sense ... I do not understand. --Blue Tie 03:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I had to fix the link above to Briggs 2002 "Consensus Account and Time Line". (I wonder what first-person analysis the Jenson archive will adds.....(whenever it sees the light of day)?) --Justmeherenow 04:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I just changed job titles and that has me with a lot less free time to work on Wikipedia. But I would like to add to the critique here. This article now reeks of POV from start to finish now, and is IMO in dire need of pruning. A few examples I see of POV creeping in to the article....

• Mormons learned in late July 1857 that they were being invaded by a large federal army (The US army was invading its own territory???? Invasion to me states a foreign army not a domestic army trying to "maintain order" from a perceived rebellion. I don't see how invading could be appropriate. Then there is the problem with "large"?
• In a larger scale the entire background section could be construed as justifying the Mormon's actions. At a minimum it is spending a significant portion of the article dwelling on possible justification, not the massacre itself.
• "a charge, since there is no direct evidence of a Danite organization in the Utah territory, that appears to be nominally false" (any charge that has to be clarified with such a disclaimer should be removed or more carefully worded IMO
• "Area tribes engaged in small-scale thievery to avoid starvation but never in larger-scale pitched battles against pioneers." (This should be sourced or removed)
• "sparred with vitriolic rhetoric," ( When I was working on this article Blue Tie ripped me a new one for using the word scathing... now vitriolic is ok????)
• "interaction with Mormons at war" (inappropriate title IMO, Mormons were not a war, but preparing for one)
• "all-out war with approaching U.S. troops" (does the article HAVE to say all-out. again POV)
• "The Mormons considered the emigrants of an alien status because" SOURCE PLEASE. Sounds like POV to me.......
• When I last worked on this article the allegation of poisoning was 3 sentences. Not it has its own section full of hearsay but the actual text from Carleton's report saying this poisoning allegation was nonsense has been removed.
• "was rumored to have" (with rumored in italics) is this appropriate?

Sorry, Please take the critique in the spirit intended. I suspect when the movie "september Dawn" releases this page is going to be popular and I think it should have all hearsay, pov etc. purged before then. Davemeistermoab 00:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Dave brings up some good points. Note that he is concerned about adjectives. So am I. Also statements that look judgmental without sourcing. I do not know if the word invasion is pov or not. There can indeed be an invasion on your own territory -- in time of war. This episode is called the Utah War. So maybe it fits but I think that it should be looked at and in particular if there are sources on both sides that use language to describe the operation of the Army in going into Utah, that sort of language should be used. I do not know if the background justifies the Mormons or not, but its too long. There are quotes by Mormon authorities that, I think, would be gracious to be heard by descendants of the victims. But for an encyclopedia, I would expect these to be in a footnote with a summary statement in the article. Alternatively in a subpage. In short, though, I pretty much agree with Davemeistermoab's comments.--Blue Tie 01:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Time to start final editing

This article now has a wealth of information, more than enough to cover the subject. I suggest we begin to go through a section at a time and tighten up.

• Is all sourced with recognized reliable sources? A scholarly article in a peer reviewed article may be a more appropriate source than a book review in a church magazine. (For instance, maybe the Lutheran Church parish magazine is not the best place to find scholarly information on Martin Luther? I'm Lutheran, so I can poke at myself for fun.)
• Is the grammar OK?
• How is POV?
• Is it covered in other articles and can be removed or moved to the appropriate article?
• Evaluate the number and usefulness of some of the citations.

I share some (not all) of Blue Tie's frustrations about the article. Perhaps some fresh editors can read through it for continuity and point out where the article is unclear and where it is too detailed or muddled.

• Are our sources balanced? Have we used too many or too few apologetic works?
• Have we strayed into Original Research by using so much from the Journal of Discourses? Do any of the established reliable sources cover this same material? Can we quote from them instead? I don't know, but think it should be discussed.

Blue Tie's comments about the background section intro have made me evaluate some of what I wrote. I still need to tighten up and give attributions. I might say

"Historians Brooks and Quinn, as well as others, attribute the Mountain Meadows massacre to a number of factors relating to the conditions in the Utah Territory in 1857."

Both are mentioned in the ref sections for curious readers to check out. The succeeding subsections should point to the exact citations in those sources.

We need to be evaluating and clarifying, not expanding. (Yes, this is my opinion and it is never humble.) The article is not coming together, it is becoming unwieldy. I came in to help with citations, so I have little ownership for the earlier content. Perhaps my edits have only added to the confusion. I am trying to remain neutral, but it is easy to get sucked in. Are there tools to use for editing? I have been using a sandbox to do major re-writes, then moving it over. Do we want to take a section at a time somewhere else and cuss and discuss it? I have never worked to create a featured article, so I look for guidance in the best way to proceed.

There are basically three of us now editing, and it may be time to step back and let others with a fresh eye work for a while. I know I have miles of articles to go before I sleep. So, I am looking for direction. (and going to work.) --Robbie Giles 13:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Giles: need to be evaluating and clarifying, not expanding. (Yes, this is my opinion and it is never humble.)

OK——but there are still holes in the article, however, too? As——e/g

• the Fanchers are said to have "purposely" [!——??????]) led their stock into the Mormons' (who were stockpiling wartime supplies) fields
• [according to Haight's confidential defense in the Mormon probe eventually ending in his excommunication?...] the dastardly Fancher——um——threatening of president Haight in C.C.[——!] (Note-My tone here was ironic)
• anti-Missouri sentiments "rightfully" placed against the Duke train somehow became transferred to the Fanchers——
• et cetera --Justmeherenow 18:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the above, there are still major holes. For example, relatively little has been written about the actual siege and massacre, which is this article's main point. Also, little has been said about the Lee trials and execution, the evolution of LDS Church position on the massacre, George A. Smith's circuit through the area in August '57, Brigham Young's 1877 interview on the subject, and theories of Young's involvement (bogus in my view, but have to be in the article before we can say it's complete). COGDEN 18:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to actively edit for a while and will unwatch. Contact me on my talk page if you want sources verified, proofing, or other help. Good luck in achieving FA status for this. It has been fun and educational. --Robbie Giles 16:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Robbie--your amazing expertise has been extremely helpful (especially since maybe you're better situated than some of us to act as a bridge between the perhaps more openly apologetic or dissidently critical camps?)

Even though I don't really know that much about fashioning proposed feature articles, it'd be my pleasure to try to help.....if you'll assist me and I guess Ogden to produce one? (Of course, you'd said you wanted to find some fresh blood look things over. Is there a template for that or do we just informally network?) In any case, when I'm in a productive mood I'll at least try to make a clumbsy stab at trying to reassemble stuff and to basically respond to your excellent recommendations check list for polishing the article up. Whatever you decide, though, I very much appreciate the phenomenal help you've been able to provide to-date! --Justmeherenow 17:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Not going away forever. Just let me know when the finish editing starts. Also, if you need info out of books, just check the Washington State University library catalog to see if we own it. Even if it says checked out, I probably have it at home. I can also get other books WSU does not own through a consortium we belong to name SUMMIT. It takes about a week, but is very easy and no charge to me.

One other thing I have been looking at is period (or late 19th century) illustration of the American west that are in the public domain. I copied a map of the meadows site out of Gibbs. I am working with the folks at Wikimedia Commons to assure that they comply with the policy on free images. I pulled books on Friday to look for other illustrations. I will upload as I find suitable ones to add to MMM. I created a category to place them in at Category:MMM. You can check there to see if anything interesting is available. So, I am gone from active editing at this time, but will come back to help finish. --Robbie Giles 23:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)