FAIR

Faithful Study Resources for Come, Follow Me

You are here: Home / Home Page / Current Events / Fact Check: American Primeval

Fact Check: American Primeval

Fact-Checking American Primeval: What’s Real and What’s Fiction?

'American Primeval' fact-check

Claim:

Brigham Young dismissed the deaths of pioneers and Mormons as the “unfortunate price of a kingdom”.

Rating: False

Clarification: No historical record supports this sentiment, and it contradicts Brigham Young’s well-documented efforts to protect his people during their westward migration.

Explanation: Brigham Young led the Latter-day Saints through a difficult migration westward after years of violent persecution in the eastern United States. His focus was on ensuring the survival and well-being of his people, not dismissing their suffering. The portrayal in American Primeval suggests a callous disregard for human life that is inconsistent with both historical records and his leadership style. According to LaJean Purcell Carruth’s research, many of Brigham Young’s speeches were misrepresented by George Watt, the stenographer for the Journal of Discourses. Carruth’s work establishes that Young’s actual words often emphasized care for the community and the importance of avoiding unnecessary conflict. This fictionalized portrayal in the series appears to draw on misconceptions rather than factual evidence.

Why It Matters: Depicting Brigham Young as indifferent to the suffering of his followers perpetuates harmful stereotypes about early Mormon leaders. This portrayal undermines the real historical context in which Young worked tirelessly to lead his people to safety and establish a peaceful settlement in the Utah Territory.

References:

  • Carruth, LaJean Purcell. “His Accuracy Was Not What It Ought.” FAIR Conference, 2023.
  • Carruth, LaJean Purcell. “Brigham Young on Brigham Young.” FAIR Conference, 2024.
  • Leonard, Glen M., Richard E. Turley Jr., and Ronald W. Walker. Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Claim:

Brigham Young used his position as governor to extort Jim Bridger.

Rating: False

Clarification: While tensions existed between Brigham Young and Jim Bridger over Fort Bridger, no evidence suggests extortion or coercion on Young’s part.

Explanation: Historical records indicate that Jim Bridger was a prominent mountain man and trader who founded Fort Bridger in present-day Wyoming. As Mormon settlers moved west, tensions arose due to accusations that Bridger was selling alcohol and firearms to Native tribes, which was illegal under federal law. In 1853, Brigham Young, acting as governor of Utah Territory, sent a militia to investigate. Bridger fled before they arrived, and the fort was later purchased from his business partner, Louis Vasquez. According to documented accounts, Bridger opposed Mormon influence in the region and later allied with the U.S. Army during the Utah War. Claims that Young extorted Bridger or burned down Fort Bridger are unsupported by historical evidence.

Why It Matters: Presenting Brigham Young as a manipulative extortionist distorts the complex political dynamics of the time. It oversimplifies a nuanced historical relationship and paints an unfairly negative picture of early Mormon leadership.

References:

  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • LaJean Purcell Carruth’s research on Brigham Young’s speeches.
  • “Fort Bridger.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Brigham Young ordered the genocide of a Shoshone village.

Rating: False

Clarification: The Bear River Massacre, often confused with conflicts involving Mormon settlers, was carried out by U.S. Army troops under Colonel Patrick Connor, not by Mormons or under orders from Brigham Young.

Explanation: The Bear River Massacre occurred on January 29, 1863, near present-day Preston, Idaho, when U.S. Army forces attacked a Shoshone encampment, killing hundreds of men, women, and children. Brigham Young and Mormon settlers were not involved in this attack. In fact, Brigham Young consistently advocated for peaceful relations with Native American tribes, emphasizing cooperation rather than conflict. Misrepresenting Young as orchestrating genocidal violence ignores his documented efforts to establish treaties and avoid unnecessary bloodshed. LaJean Carruth’s research into Young’s actual speeches highlights his repeated calls for peaceful coexistence with Native peoples.

Why It Matters: FALSEly attributing the Bear River Massacre to Brigham Young perpetuates a harmful narrative that distorts both Mormon history and the actual events involving U.S. military aggression. It shifts blame away from the true perpetrators and creates an inaccurate portrayal of early Mormon-Native American relations.

References:

  • Carruth, LaJean Purcell. “His Accuracy Was Not What It Ought.” FAIR Conference, 2023.
  • Madsen, Brigham D. The Shoshoni Frontier and the Bear River Massacre. University of Utah Press, 1985.
  • “Bear River Massacre.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.
  • “Massacre at Bear River: First, Worst, Forgotten” by Rod Miller: 
  • “Bear River Massacre and the Making of History” by Kass Fleisher: 
  • Utah State University Special Collections & Archives

Claim:

Brigham Young and Mormon settlers regularly attacked emigrant wagon trains passing through Utah.

Rating: False

Clarification:
There is no evidence that Brigham Young or Mormon settlers had a policy or practice of attacking emigrant wagon trains. The vast majority of emigrant groups passed through Utah peacefully, and violent incidents were rare.

Explanation:
Throughout the 1850s, tens of thousands of emigrants passed through Utah on their way to California and Oregon. Most interactions between Mormon settlers and emigrants were peaceful, with the settlers often providing food, supplies, and guidance. While tensions occasionally arose due to misunderstandings, scarce resources, or fears of violence, attacks on wagon trains were extremely rare. The Mountain Meadows Massacre was an isolated and tragic event, not representative of typical relations between Mormon settlers and emigrants. Furthermore, Brigham Young consistently sought to maintain peaceful relations with passing emigrants, as demonstrated by his efforts to prevent violence during the Utah War. Portraying the Mormons as regular attackers of wagon trains distorts the historical record and unfairly characterizes an entire community based on a single tragic incident.

Why It Matters:
This portrayal perpetuates a harmful stereotype of Mormon settlers as violent and hostile toward outsiders. Understanding that most emigrants passed through Utah without incident provides a more accurate and fair depiction of the interactions between pioneers and Mormon settlers during westward expansion.

References:

  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • Walker, Ronald W., Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard. Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • “Mountain Meadows Massacre.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Brigham Young declared martial law to provoke conflict with federal troops during the Utah War.

Rating: False

Clarification:
Brigham Young declared martial law as a defensive measure, fearing an invasion by federal troops, not as a means to provoke conflict.

Explanation:
In 1857, when President James Buchanan dispatched federal troops to Utah Territory under the mistaken belief that Brigham Young was leading a rebellion, Young declared martial law to prepare for a potential invasion. Martial law is a temporary imposition of military authority over a civilian population in response to emergencies or threats, allowing for greater control over local activities and restrictions on movement. By declaring martial law, Young sought to organize defenses, restrict travel, and prevent unauthorized entry by federal forces into the territory. His goal was to protect the settlers and avoid bloodshed, not to provoke conflict. Historical records show that Young continued to seek a peaceful resolution throughout the Utah War, which eventually ended without major violence, largely through diplomatic efforts.

Why It Matters:
Portraying Young’s declaration of martial law as an act of provocation misrepresents the defensive posture of the Mormon settlers during the Utah War. Recognizing the defensive intent behind this action helps clarify the nature of the conflict and dispels myths of Mormon militancy. Providing context for what martial law entails further helps readers understand the measures taken by Mormon leaders in response to the perceived threat.

References:

  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.
  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • “Utah War.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.
  • Walker, Ronald W., Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard. Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Claim:

Brigham Young ordered the destruction of U.S. military supply wagons during the Utah War.

Rating: True

Clarification: During the Utah War (1857–1858), tensions between the U.S. government and Mormon settlers escalated when President James Buchanan sent federal troops to replace Brigham Young as governor. Fearing that the army’s approach signaled an unjustified invasion, Young declared martial law and instructed the Nauvoo Legion (Utah Territorial Militia) to engage in defensive tactics. These included burning supply trains and sabotaging infrastructure to slow the army’s advance and prevent a direct military confrontation. While these actions were defensive in nature, they were intended to deter federal forces from establishing control over Utah Territory without bloodshed. In one account, the army troops woke to find themselves surrounded by armed militia members. They were terrified, thinking they were about to be slaughtered. Instead, the Mormon militia members ordered them to exit the wagons and take their personal belongings with them, and then burned the supply wagons without harming a single soldier. The conflict ultimately ended peacefully with the intervention of federal negotiators, including Thomas L. Kane, and the replacement of Brigham Young by Alfred Cumming as territorial governor.

Why It Matters:
Portraying these defensive actions without context could lead to a misunderstanding of the Utah War and Brigham Young’s leadership. While the destruction of supply wagons did occur, it was part of a broader strategy aimed at avoiding violence and ensuring the safety of Mormon settlers, rather than a declaration of outright rebellion against the U.S. government.

References:

  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.
  • Turley, Richard E., Jr. and Brown, Barbara Jones Vengeance is Mine: The Mountain Meadows Massacre and Its Aftermath. Oxford University Press, 2023.
  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • “Utah War.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Fort Bridger played a strategic role during the Utah War as a key supply and staging area for federal troops moving toward Utah Territory.

Rating: True

Clarification:

Fort Bridger, originally established by Jim Bridger and Louis Vasquez, became a critical point of interest during the Utah War due to its location along the Oregon Trail and other emigrant routes. When tensions escalated between the U.S. government and Mormon settlers, federal troops used Fort Bridger as a base to prepare for their approach toward Salt Lake City. The fort provided supplies, lodging, and a defensible position for the advancing army. Brigham Young’s defensive strategy included disrupting the supply lines to Fort Bridger and other key outposts to slow the army’s advance. After the peaceful resolution of the conflict, federal troops remained stationed in the area, solidifying Fort Bridger’s role as a U.S. military outpost in the region.

Why It Matters:
This point is crucial for understanding the logistical challenges and strategies employed during the Utah War. Recognizing Fort Bridger’s importance helps modern audiences grasp the complex military and political dynamics of the time and why both sides viewed control of such key locations as critical to their objectives.

References:

  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.
  • “Fort Bridger.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.
  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.

Claim:

Mormon settlers engaged in frequent skirmishes with federal troops throughout the Utah War.

Rating: False

Clarification:
There were no direct battles or frequent skirmishes between Mormon settlers and federal troops during the Utah War. Defensive actions, such as burning supply wagons, were carried out with explicit instructions from Brigham Young and military leaders to avoid bloodshed whenever possible.

Explanation:
The Utah War (1857–1858) is often mischaracterized as a violent military conflict involving frequent skirmishes between Mormon settlers and federal troops. In reality, Brigham Young’s strategy during the conflict was defensive and aimed at slowing the army’s progress without engaging in direct combat. He instructed Lot Smith, a key militia leader, to intercept and burn federal supply wagons but to avoid violence if at all possible. Smith and his men successfully carried out these orders, delaying the army’s advance while minimizing casualties. No major battles or direct confrontations occurred, and the conflict ultimately ended with a peaceful resolution brokered by federal mediators, including Thomas L. Kane.

The portrayal of frequent skirmishes and battles exaggerates the reality of the Utah War, which was notable for its lack of bloodshed despite high tensions.

Why It Matters:
Depicting the Utah War as a series of violent skirmishes reinforces a false narrative of Mormon militancy. Understanding Brigham Young’s explicit efforts to prevent bloodshed, along with the peaceful resolution of the conflict, provides a more accurate perspective on this period of history.

References:

  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.
  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • “Utah War.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Jim Bridger sold Fort Bridger to Brigham Young.

Rating: False

Clarification:

Jim Bridger did not personally sell Fort Bridger to Brigham Young. The fort was sold by his business partner, Louis Vasquez, after Bridger fled the area due to rising tensions with Mormon settlers.
Explanation:
Fort Bridger, co-owned by Jim Bridger and Louis Vasquez, was a key trading post in the Utah Territory. By 1853, tensions escalated when Bridger was accused of illegally trading alcohol and firearms with Native tribes, leading him to leave the region before any formal sale occurred. The fort was later sold by Vasquez in 1855 to Mormon settlers acting on behalf of Brigham Young. Bridger himself had no direct involvement in the transaction and did not profit from the sale. This portrayal of Bridger personally selling the fort to Young misrepresents historical events, as he had already distanced himself from the area and later allied with the U.S. government during the Utah War.
Why It Matters:
This claim exaggerates Jim Bridger’s role in the events surrounding Fort Bridger and misrepresents the historical timeline. Understanding that the sale was conducted by Vasquez clarifies the complex dynamics between Bridger, Mormon settlers, and the U.S. government.
References:

  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • “Fort Bridger.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.
  • Brooks, Juanita. The Mountain Meadows Massacre. University of Oklahoma Press, 1950.

Claim:

Brigham Young purchased Fort Bridger to prevent the U.S. Army from using it.

Rating: Misleading

Clarification:

While Brigham Young did purchase Fort Bridger, he did so to secure control over key routes and protect Mormon settlements, not explicitly to prevent the U.S. Army from using it.

Explanation:
Fort Bridger was a strategically important location along emigrant trails in the mid-19th century. In 1855, Brigham Young, acting as governor of Utah Territory, arranged for the purchase of the fort from Louis Vasquez, Jim Bridger’s business partner. This acquisition was part of broader efforts to ensure that Mormon settlers controlled key infrastructure in the region and maintained peace with Native American tribes. During the Utah War, the fort played a defensive role for Mormon settlers, but its purchase was not motivated solely by preventing military use. Additionally, the portrayal of Young’s involvement as a calculated effort to deny the U.S. Army a stronghold oversimplifies the complex political and economic considerations of the time. Fort Bridger is located near present-day Evanston, Wyoming, about 120 miles east of Salt Lake City, emphasizing the logistical challenges of managing such a distant outpost.

Why It Matters:
Suggesting that Brigham Young purchased Fort Bridger purely as a defensive move against the U.S. Army ignores the broader context of territorial governance and frontier settlement. It creates a skewed narrative that portrays Young as primarily antagonistic toward the federal government, when in reality, his actions reflected a need to safeguard Mormon communities and infrastructure in an often-hostile environment.

References:

  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • “Fort Bridger.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.
  • “Utah War.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Jim Bridger rode off into the wilderness as Fort Bridger burned to the ground.

Rating: False

Clarification:

Jim Bridger did not flee into the wilderness as Fort Bridger burned. The fort was burned by its defenders during the Utah War to prevent its capture by U.S. troops, long after Bridger had left the area.
Explanation:
During the Utah War in 1857, Fort Bridger was deliberately set on fire by Mormon defenders to prevent its use by the approaching U.S. Army. By this time, Jim Bridger had been absent from the region for years, having fled earlier due to conflicts with Mormon settlers. Bridger’s departure from Fort Bridger happened in 1853, well before the fort’s destruction, and he later allied himself with federal forces against the Mormons. The dramatic depiction of Bridger riding into the wilderness as the fort burned conflates separate events and distorts the historical record.
Why It Matters:
This portrayal sensationalizes the conflict and distorts historical events by implying Bridger was present and directly involved in the burning of the fort. Clarifying Bridger’s absence and the fort’s actual destruction provides a more accurate historical account.
References:

  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • “Fort Bridger.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.
  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.

Claim:

Fort Bridger was burned down by Brigham Young to prevent the U.S. Army from using it.

Rating: False

Clarification:

Fort Bridger was burned down by its defenders during the Utah War to prevent it from being captured by the U.S. Army.

Explanation:
Fort Bridger, located in present-day southwestern Wyoming, was a key trading post along the Oregon Trail and a critical supply stop for emigrants heading west. During the Utah War of 1857-1858, tensions between the U.S. government and Mormon settlers escalated, leading to an armed standoff. As the U.S. Army approached Utah Territory, local defenders—acting under general directives to prevent strategic resources from falling into enemy hands—set fire to Fort Bridger before retreating. While Brigham Young, as territorial governor, oversaw the defense of Utah, there is no evidence that he directly ordered or orchestrated the fort’s destruction. Fort Bridger is located about 120 miles east of Salt Lake City, making it a critical outpost during the westward migration. This portrayal in American Primeval misrepresents both the chain of events and Young’s role in them.

Why It Matters:
The claim that Brigham Young burned down Fort Bridger distorts the historical reality of the Utah War. It reinforces a false narrative of Young as a militant leader actively sabotaging federal forces, rather than presenting the more nuanced context of local defensive actions during a period of heightened tensions.

References:

  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • “Fort Bridger.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.
  • “Utah War.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Mormon settlers at Fort Bridger actively participated in attacks on federal troops during the Utah War.

Rating: False

Clarification:

While Mormon settlers engaged in defensive actions during the Utah War, there is no evidence that they actively attacked federal troops. Their efforts focused on delaying the army’s progress and avoiding direct conflict.

Explanation:
During the Utah War, Brigham Young’s strategy was primarily defensive. The Nauvoo Legion (Utah Territorial Militia) worked to delay the advance of federal troops by employing scorched-earth tactics, such as burning supply trains and disrupting supply lines. Fort Bridger, which had been acquired by Mormon settlers before the conflict, was abandoned and partially destroyed to prevent its use by federal forces. However, Mormon forces avoided direct combat with U.S. troops, as Brigham Young sought to prevent bloodshed while making a political statement about local governance. No historical records support the claim that Mormon settlers at Fort Bridger actively attacked federal troops. The war ended with a peaceful resolution, emphasizing negotiation over armed conflict.

Why It Matters:
Portraying Mormon settlers as actively attacking federal troops misrepresents the defensive posture they maintained throughout the Utah War. Understanding the nonviolent resolution of the conflict helps correct exaggerated narratives of Mormon militancy and rebellion against the U.S. government.

References:

  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.
  • Turley, Richard E., Jr. and Brown, Barbara Jones Vengeance is Mine: The Mountain Meadows Massacre and Its Aftermath. Oxford University Press, 2023.
  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • “Fort Bridger.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.
  • “Utah War.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Mormon settlers destroyed Fort Bridger during the Utah War to prevent its use by federal troops.

Rating: True

Clarification:

Mormon settlers destroyed Fort Bridger in 1857 as part of a scorched-earth strategy to deny resources and shelter to the advancing U.S. Army.

Explanation:
During the Utah War, the Utah Territorial Militia adopted a defensive strategy aimed at slowing down and disrupting the progress of federal troops sent by President Buchanan. Fort Bridger, located along key emigrant and military routes, was considered a valuable strategic asset. Rather than allowing federal troops to occupy and utilize the fort, Mormon forces abandoned it and set it on fire. This scorched-earth tactic was employed not to provoke conflict, but to minimize the army’s ability to establish a foothold in the region. Although Fort Bridger was rebuilt and eventually used by the U.S. Army as a base, its initial destruction was part of a broader effort to delay the army’s advance and protect the local population from military occupation.

Why It Matters:
Understanding that the destruction of Fort Bridger was a strategic, defensive move helps contextualize the actions of Mormon settlers during the Utah War. Without this context, it could be misinterpreted as a random act of violence or rebellion, rather than a calculated effort to avoid conflict and protect their settlements.

References:

  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.
  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • “Fort Bridger.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.
  • “Utah War.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

The Utah War ended with Brigham Young’s surrender to federal troops.

Rating: False

Clarification:

The Utah War ended peacefully through negotiation, without any formal battles or a surrender by Brigham Young.

Explanation:
The Utah War, often called “Buchanan’s Blunder,” ended in 1858 after federal mediators, including Thomas L. Kane, facilitated a peaceful resolution. Brigham Young agreed to step down as governor in favor of Alfred Cumming, the newly appointed territorial governor. However, Young and the Mormon settlers did not surrender; instead, they negotiated assurances that the U.S. Army would not occupy Salt Lake City or harm the local population. As a result of these negotiations, federal troops established Camp Floyd some 40 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, far from the main settlements. The portrayal of the conflict as ending with Young’s surrender distorts the diplomatic outcome of the war and ignores the efforts on both sides to prevent bloodshed.

Why It Matters:
Depicting the Utah War as ending with a surrender paints an inaccurate picture of Mormon resistance and federal relations. In reality, both parties worked toward a peaceful compromise, which reflects Brigham Young’s commitment to protecting his people and avoiding unnecessary conflict. Recognizing the diplomatic resolution helps correct the false narrative of rebellion and defeat.

References:

  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.
  • Turley, Richard E., Jr. and Brown, Barbara Jones Vengeance is Mine: The Mountain Meadows Massacre and Its Aftermath. Oxford University Press, 2023.
  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • “Utah War.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Wild Bill Hickman was a lawman and member of the Nauvoo Legion who later engaged in violent acts, illustrating the supposed inherent violence of early Mormon culture.

Rating: Misleading

Clarification:

While Wild Bill Hickman was involved in the Nauvoo Legion and later committed violent acts, his behavior was not reflective of Mormon culture or the Nauvoo Legion as a whole. His transition from lawman to outlaw mirrors the broader pattern of frontier figures who alternated between law enforcement and criminal behavior, a common occurrence in the violent, lawless environment of the American West.

Explanation: Wild Bill Hickman was a well-known and complex figure in Utah Territory, initially involved in defending Mormon settlements through the Nauvoo Legion. Over time, he acted independently, engaging in violent and criminal activities that led to his excommunication from the Church. This dual role as both a lawman and outlaw is not unique to Mormon history but was typical of many frontier lawmen, such as Wild Bill Hickok, Henry Newton Brown, and John Selman, who similarly straddled the line between enforcing the law and engaging in criminal behavior.

Portraying Hickman’s violent actions as representative of early Mormon culture unfairly distorts history. The Nauvoo Legion was primarily composed of ordinary settlers who served as a part-time, legally sanctioned militia to protect their communities from external threats. Hickman’s later criminal acts were neither condoned nor typical; in fact, Mormon leaders condemned such behavior.

Why It Matters:
This portrayal perpetuates the misconception that early Mormon militias or culture were inherently violent. In reality, violent individuals like Wild Bill Hickman were exceptions, not the norm. Recognizing the widespread challenges of frontier life—where violence was a harsh reality across many groups—helps prevent unfair and inaccurate generalizations about Mormon settlers and their efforts to build and protect their communities.

References:

  • Hickman, William Adams. Brigham’s Destroying Angel. 1872.
  • Leonard, Glen M. Nauvoo: A Place of Peace, a People of Promise. Deseret Book, 2002.
  • “Wild Bill Hickman.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Brigham Young commanded a secret group of assassins known as the Danites, including Wild Bill Hickman.

Rating: False

Clarification:

The Danites were a short-lived group formed in Missouri in 1838 for self-defense during violent clashes with local mobs. By the time the Latter-day Saints migrated to Utah in 1847, the group had disbanded. There is no evidence that Brigham Young commanded or sanctioned a secret group of assassins in Utah. Wild Bill Hickman’s violent actions were his own and were condemned by Church leaders, resulting in his excommunication.

Explanation:
The Danites emerged in Missouri as a self-defense group during a period of intense persecution against members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Historical records show that their activities were limited to Missouri in 1838 and that they disbanded soon afterward. There is no credible evidence that the Danites operated in Utah or acted under Brigham Young’s command.

Wild Bill Hickman, often portrayed as a notorious enforcer for Brigham Young, was known for his violent behavior and involvement in extrajudicial killings. However, Hickman’s actions were independent, and he was eventually excommunicated from the Church. The portrayal of Hickman as part of a secret group of assassins exaggerates his actual role and misrepresents the decentralized and often chaotic nature of frontier justice at the time.

Why It Matters:
This portrayal reinforces a false narrative of Mormon militancy and secret violence, which has been perpetuated by popular media and anti-Mormon literature. Clarifying the historical context of the Danites and the independent actions of individuals like Wild Bill Hickman provides a more accurate understanding of early Mormon history.

References:

  • Quinn, D. Michael. The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power. Signature Books, 1997.
  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.

Claim:

“Utah” in the late 1850s referred to the same region as the modern state of Utah.

Rating: Misleading

Clarification:

In the late 1850s, “Utah” referred to a much larger region officially designated as the Utah Territory, which extended beyond the borders of the modern state of Utah.

Explanation:
The Utah Territory was established in 1850 as part of the Compromise of 1850, and it encompassed a vast region of the western United States, including all of present-day Utah and portions of what are now Nevada, Colorado, and Wyoming. Salt Lake City served as the territorial capital, and Brigham Young was appointed as the first governor. By the time the events of American Primeval took place in the late 1850s, the territory was already well-established, but it was not yet a U.S. state. Utah would not gain statehood until 1896, nearly 40 years later. Therefore, while the geographic region known as Utah today was part of the Utah Territory at the time, the two are not identical in size or political status. Using the term “Utah” to refer to the area during this period can be misleading unless clarified as the Utah Territory.

Why It Matters:
Understanding that Utah was a territory, not a state, in the late 1850s is crucial for accurately interpreting historical events. This distinction explains why relations with the federal government were fraught, as territorial governance involved complex negotiations over autonomy and federal oversight. Clarifying the scope of the Utah Territory helps modern audiences appreciate the logistical and communication challenges faced by settlers spread across such a large and remote area.

References:

  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.
  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • “Utah War.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Brigham Young and the Latter-day Saints were inherently anti-government and disloyal to the U.S. government.

Rating: False

Clarification:

The Latter-day Saints, under Brigham Young’s leadership, consistently demonstrated loyalty to the U.S. government, despite facing severe persecution. Early celebrations of Utah’s settlement included public displays of patriotism, such as the presentation of the U.S. Constitution and readings of the Declaration of Independence.

Explanation:
While early Mormon settlers faced hostility from state and federal authorities, they maintained a deep respect for the principles of the U.S. Constitution and saw themselves as loyal citizens seeking religious freedom. On July 24, 1849, during the first celebration of the Saints’ arrival in the Salt Lake Valley, the U.S. Constitution was presented, and the Declaration of Independence was publicly read, emphasizing the community’s commitment to American ideals. Additionally, when the U.S. government requested volunteers for the Mormon Battalion during the Mexican-American War in 1846, Brigham Young encouraged participation, demonstrating loyalty even amid persecution.

Although tensions arose during the Utah War, Brigham Young and other Church leaders sought to resolve the conflict peacefully and reaffirm their commitment to the Union. Far from being anti-government, Mormon settlers believed in the founding principles of the United States and viewed their westward migration as a way to practice their faith freely while remaining loyal citizens.

Why It Matters:
This portrayal reinforces a false narrative of Mormon separatism and hostility toward the U.S. government. Understanding early Mormon patriotism, including their service in the Mormon Battalion and public displays of loyalty, provides a more balanced view of their relationship with the government and the broader American context of the time.

References:

  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.
  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • Grow, Matthew J., Esplin, Ronald K., Ashurst-McGee, Mark, Mahas, Jeffrey D., and Dirkmaat, Gerrit J., eds., Administrative Records, Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846. Church Historian’s Press, 2016.
  • “Journey of the Mormon Battalion.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.
  • “Mormon Battalion Fact Sheet.” Newsroom, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Claim:

The Journal of Discourses provides verbatim records of Brigham Young’s words, which are accurately reflected in American Primeval.

Rating: False

Clarification:

The Journal of Discourses does not provide verbatim records of Brigham Young’s words. Instead, it contains edited transcriptions of his speeches, often altered in ways that can change their original meaning. The producers of American Primeval have claimed to use Brigham Young’s actual words, with references to the Journal of Discourses as a source. However, using this collection without acknowledging its limitations misrepresents historical reality.

Explanation:
In the mid-19th century, there were no audio or video recording devices to capture speeches verbatim. Instead, stenographers like George D. Watt recorded Brigham Young’s speeches using shorthand, which was later transcribed and edited for publication in the Journal of Discourses. These transcriptions were not only prone to human error but were also revised to improve readability or emphasize particular points. As a result, many statements attributed to Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses may not reflect exactly what he said.

LaJean Purcell Carruth, a researcher specializing in 19th-century shorthand transcription, has demonstrated significant discrepancies in Watt’s transcriptions. In some cases, key phrases and concepts were omitted or rephrased, altering the tone or meaning of the original message. This undermines the reliability of the Journal of Discourses as a source for direct quotations.

Additionally, the Journal of Discourses was privately printed and distributed, not an official Church publication. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not consider it doctrinally authoritative and advises members to rely on canonized scripture for teachings.

Why It Matters:
Presenting Brigham Young’s words as “verbatim” without acknowledging the limitations of the Journal of Discourses can lead to a distorted view of his teachings and leadership. Media portrayals like American Primeval risk perpetuating inaccuracies by treating edited transcriptions as literal historical records. Understanding the historical context of transcription methods and source reliability is critical for fair and accurate representation.

References:

  • LaJean Purcell Carruth – “Brigham Young on Brigham Young: An Analysis of George D. Watt’s Transcriptions.” FAIR Conference, 2024.
  • Gerrit J. Dirkmaat and LaJean Purcell Carruth – “The Prophets Have Spoken, but What Did They Say?: Examining the Differences between George D. Watt’s Original Shorthand Notes and the Sermons Published in the Journal of Discourses,” BYU Studies Quarterly, vol. 54, no. 4 (2015): 25–118.
  • LaJean Purcell Carruth – “Preached vs. Published: Shorthand Record Discrepancies (Parts 1–3),” Church History Blog, online at history.churchofjesuschrist.org.
  • Church Statement on Historical Resources – Gospel Topics: Journal of Discourses
  • FAIR Article on Blood Atonement – Blood Atonement and the Journal of Discourses

Claim:

The Nauvoo Legion was a standing army controlled by Brigham Young to maintain power in the Utah Territory.

Rating: False

Clarification: The Nauvoo Legion was a civilian militia, not a standing army. It was composed of ordinary settlers who served part-time, primarily for local defense. While Brigham Young, as governor of the Utah Territory, had oversight of the militia, it was organized under territorial law and functioned similarly to other militias in frontier regions of the United States.

Explanation:
In 19th-century America, militias were commonly formed by communities for protection against external threats, as there were often no regular military forces stationed in remote areas. The Nauvoo Legion followed this pattern. Originally established in Illinois to defend Mormon settlers from mob violence, it was reorganized as the Utah Territorial Militia when the Latter-day Saints migrated west. Membership in the Nauvoo Legion consisted of ordinary citizens—farmers, tradesmen, and other settlers—who trained occasionally and were called upon in emergencies. Unlike a professional army, these individuals did not serve full-time, nor did they receive formal pay or equipment from a centralized authority.

Given the vast size of the Utah Territory, which stretched across present-day Utah and parts of Nevada, Colorado, and Wyoming, communication between distant settlements and Salt Lake City could take days or even weeks. As a result, Brigham Young could not exert direct, immediate control over local militia units. Leaders in outlying areas often had to act independently based on local conditions and perceived threats. This decentralized structure was typical of militias on the American frontier. The militia’s primary purpose was to safeguard settlements from hostile Native American raids, criminal elements, and potential conflict with emigrants or federal forces. Portraying the Nauvoo Legion as a dedicated, centralized army controlled by Brigham Young oversimplifies the complex realities of frontier life and defense.

Why It Matters:
This portrayal feeds into a narrative of Mormon militancy and authoritarian control that distorts the historical record. Understanding that the Nauvoo Legion was a civilian-based, decentralized militia similar to others across the American frontier provides a more balanced view of Mormon governance and their interactions with surrounding groups. It highlights that the primary goal of the Legion was local defense, not aggression or expansion.

References:

  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.
  • “Nauvoo Legion.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.
  • “Militias in Frontier America.” Historical Society of the Western Frontier, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

All military groups in the Utah Territory were extensions of the Nauvoo Legion, directly controlled by Brigham Young.

Rating: Misleading

Clarification: The formal title of the militia was the Utah Territorial Militia, which was sometimes referred to as the Nauvoo Legion (the actual Nauvoo Legion was disbanded when the saints left Nauvoo). While all volunteer militia units in Utah were nominally part of the Utah Territorial Militia, they were locally organized and operated with significant autonomy. The Utah Territorial Militia served as an overarching legal framework for militia activity, but in practice, local militias were self-reliant and acted independently due to the vast size of the territory and slow communication.

Explanation:
The Utah Territorial Militia was established as the official territorial militia when Utah became a U.S. territory in 1850. It evolved from its origins in Illinois, where it had been formed to protect Mormon settlers from mob violence. After the migration west, the Militia became a decentralized network of local defense forces across Utah Territory. Although all local militia units were technically part of the Utah Territorial Militia and were legally accountable to the territorial governor (Brigham Young, during his tenure), they operated as community-based volunteer groups, led by local leaders and composed of ordinary settlers—farmers, tradesmen, and other civilians.

Given the vast size of the Utah Territory, which encompassed present-day Utah and parts of Nevada, Colorado, and Wyoming, and the communication delays of the time, it was impossible for Brigham Young or any central authority to issue real-time commands. Local militias often acted independently, responding to immediate threats such as Native American raids or conflicts with emigrant groups. (For instance, the militia that participated in Mountain Meadows was part of the Iron Military District, the militia for Iron County.) Although the Nauvoo Legion provided the legal and organizational framework for militia activity, it did not function as a centralized or professional military force.

Why It Matters:
This clarification is crucial to understanding the decentralized nature of frontier defense in the Utah Territory. Depicting all militias as tightly controlled extensions of a single military force creates a false narrative of authoritarian control and militarism under Brigham Young. Recognizing the independent operation of local militias provides a more accurate and balanced view of how communities in Utah defended themselves in a volatile and often hostile environment.

References:

  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.
  • Walker, Ronald W., Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard. Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • “Nauvoo Legion.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.
  • “Militias in Frontier America.” Historical Society of the Western Frontier, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

The Nauvoo Legion was directly involved in the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Rating: False

Clarification: The local militia involved in the Mountain Meadows Massacre was a branch of the Utah Territorial Militia in southern Utah, not the Nauvoo Legion as a whole, and it operated independently of Brigham Young’s direct oversight.

Explanation:
The massacre at Mountain Meadows in 1857 was carried out by less than ⅕ of the Iron (County) Military District, a local militia composed of settlers from Cedar City and nearby areas, along with some Native American recruits. Although these local militias were nominally part of the broader Nauvoo Legion, they acted independently due to the decentralized nature of militia operations in the Utah Territory. Brigham Young was unaware of the attack until after it occurred, and contemporary evidence suggests he had sent orders to prevent violence, though they arrived too late. Portraying the Nauvoo Legion as directly involved in or responsible for the massacre misrepresents the complex local dynamics that led to this tragic event.

The portrayal of the Nauvoo Legion as a centralized, cohesive force directly involved in the massacre is misleading, as the event was orchestrated by local leaders acting without consultation or approval from Salt Lake City.

Why It Matters:
This portrayal feeds into a narrative of top-down coordination of violence by Mormon leaders, which is not supported by historical evidence. Recognizing the decentralized and locally driven nature of the militias involved helps clarify the events leading up to the massacre and dispels myths about Brigham Young’s role.

References:

  • Walker, Ronald W., Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard. Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • Brooks, Juanita. The Mountain Meadows Massacre. University of Oklahoma Press, 1950.
  • Haslam, James Holton. Testimony, The Journal, Logan, Utah, December 4, 1874.
  • “Mountain Meadows Massacre.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Brigham Young used the Nauvoo Legion to wage war against the U.S. government during the Utah War.

Rating: False

Clarification:

The Nauvoo Legion was a territorial militia organized for local defense, not a force used to wage war against the U.S. government. While defensive actions were taken during the Utah War, Brigham Young sought to avoid armed conflict.

Explanation:
During the Utah War (1857–1858), tensions between the federal government and Mormon settlers escalated when President James Buchanan sent federal troops to install a new territorial governor, mistakenly believing that Brigham Young was leading a rebellion. In response, Brigham Young declared martial law and instructed the Nauvoo Legion to engage in defensive tactics, such as disrupting supply lines and fortifying key locations. Despite these preparations, the conflict ended without major bloodshed due to diplomatic efforts. Portraying Young as using the Nauvoo Legion to wage war oversimplifies the situation and ignores his consistent efforts to avoid open conflict.

Why It Matters:
This portrayal fosters a false narrative of Mormon rebellion and militancy. Recognizing the defensive nature of the Nauvoo Legion’s actions during the Utah War helps provide a more accurate understanding of the conflict and Brigham Young’s leadership.

References:

  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • Walker, Ronald W., Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard. Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • Turley, Richard E., Jr. and Brown, Barbara Jones Vengeance is Mine: The Mountain Meadows Massacre and Its Aftermath. Oxford University Press, 2023.
  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.
  • “Utah War.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Brigham Young ordered the Nauvoo Legion to attack the wagon train at Mountain Meadows.

Rating: False

Clarification: The Mountain Meadows Massacre was carried out by members of a local branch of the territorial militia in southern Utah, composed of Latter-day Saints and a small number of Native American recruits. Brigham Young was unaware of the attack as it unfolded and had sent orders to avoid conflict with emigrant parties, but these orders arrived too late. The massacre was orchestrated by local leaders, acting independently amid heightened tensions during the Utah War.

Explanation:
In September 1857, as tensions in Utah Territory escalated due to the approaching U.S. Army, a wagon train of emigrants from Arkansas passed through southern Utah. Local leaders, fearing the emigrants might pose a threat or were spies for the federal government, conspired to attack the wagon train. Brigham Young, concerned about maintaining peace, sent James Haslam to deliver a message instructing the local militia to allow the emigrants to pass through safely. Unfortunately, Haslam arrived too late to prevent the massacre.

The massacre was carried out by a local militia led by Colonel William H. Dame, commander of the Iron County Military District. A small number of Native American recruits also participated. Brigham Young only learned of the massacre afterward, when John D. Lee, one of the key participants, reported it to him, falsely blaming the attack entirely on Native Americans. Upon hearing the news, Brigham Young reportedly found the massacre “heart-rending” and was so upset that he spent the afternoon in solitude. In response, Young changed his wartime policy, deciding that emigrants and Native Americans should no longer be left to fight their own battles without intercession. He also ceased efforts to enlist Native Americans as potential allies against the U.S. Army. Later, Brigham Young expressed his outrage at the massacre, saying, “Had I known anything about it, I would have gone to that camp and fought the Indians and white men who took part in the perpetration of the massacre to the death, rather than such a deed should have been committed.”

Why It Matters:
FALSEly attributing the Mountain Meadows Massacre to Brigham Young perpetuates harmful myths and overlooks the complex local pressures and fears that led to this tragic event. Recognizing that the massacre was the result of local decisions, rather than centralized orders from Salt Lake City, is crucial for an accurate portrayal of history. Additionally, understanding Brigham Young’s immediate response and policy changes afterward helps clarify his actual stance on violence and conflict during the Utah War.

References:

  • Walker, Ronald W., Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard. Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • Turley, Richard E., Jr. and Brown, Barbara Jones Vengeance is Mine: The Mountain Meadows Massacre and Its Aftermath. Oxford University Press, 2023.
  • Entry for September 29, 1857, Wilford Woodruff, “Journal (January 1, 1854–December 31, 1859), Page 251,” Wilford Woodruff Papers, online at wilfordwoodruffpapers.org.
  • “Interview with Brigham Young,” Deseret News 26, no. 16 (May 23, 1877): 2.
  • Brooks, Juanita. The Mountain Meadows Massacre. University of Oklahoma Press, 1950.
  • “Mountain Meadows Massacre.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Militia members who attacked the wagon train at Mountain Meadows disguised themselves in KKK-like hoods.

Rating: False

Clarification: There is no evidence that militia members wore hoods resembling those later used by groups like the Ku Klux Klan. While some accounts describe militia members disguising themselves as Native Americans, testimonies vary, and the portrayal of KKK-like hoods is anachronistic, as such imagery did not exist in 1857.

Explanation:
Some historical accounts from the Mountain Meadows Massacre describe militia members disguising themselves by applying war paint and wearing Native-style clothing, reportedly to shift blame to Native Americans. These descriptions primarily come from the memories of surviving children, who later testified about seeing men washing paint or other substances off their faces at the Hamblin ranch after the massacre. However, testimonies from several militia members deny that they dressed as Native Americans, and some historians believe that what the children saw may have been blood rather than war paint.

The depiction of attackers wearing KKK-like hoods in American Primeval is especially problematic, as the Ku Klux Klan was not founded until 1865, eight years after the massacre. The use of white hoods and masks became common during the post-Civil War Reconstruction period, particularly in the South. Applying such imagery to events in 1857 is anachronistic and misleading, as no evidence exists of hooded disguises being used by the militia at Mountain Meadows.

Why It Matters:
This portrayal of attackers wearing KKK-like hoods reinforces a distorted and historically inaccurate image of Mormon militias as secretive, terroristic groups. Recognizing that such disguises were not historically used helps correct sensationalized depictions of the massacre and offers a clearer understanding of frontier life and the tensions of the mid-19th century.

References:

  • Walker, Ronald W., Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard. Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • Brooks, Juanita. The Mountain Meadows Massacre. University of Oklahoma Press, 1950.
  • “Ku Klux Klan.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

The Mountain Meadows Massacre was an attack carried out by Mormon militia members dressed as Native Americans who killed all emigrants, including women and children.

Rating: Misleading

Clarification:

While it is true that Mormon militia members, along with some Native American recruits, attacked the emigrant wagon train, they did not initially kill all the emigrants. The massacre occurred in phases, and some individuals, including children under the age of seven, were spared. Furthermore, Brigham Young was unaware of the attack until after it occurred.

Explanation:
The Mountain Meadows Massacre took place in September 1857, involving a wagon train of emigrants from Arkansas. A few members of the local militia from southern Utah, along with a few Native American recruits, may ha initially attacked the emigrants disguised as Native Americans. After a prolonged standoff, the emigrants surrendered under the promise of safe passage, but most were subsequently killed, except for 17 children under the age of seven who were taken in by local families until they were returned to relatives. Brigham Young’s role in the event has been a subject of historical debate, but contemporary evidence—including the testimony of James Haslam—indicates that Young actively sought to prevent violence. Haslam, who rode 300 miles in three days to deliver a message warning of potential conflict, stated that Brigham Young instructed him to tell local leaders to protect the emigrants and avoid any harm. Haslam’s message, however, arrived too late. Young’s reaction upon hearing of the massacre was reportedly one of sorrow and anger, not complicity.

Why It Matters:
This portrayal oversimplifies the event by suggesting an indiscriminate slaughter and direct involvement by Brigham Young. A nuanced understanding requires acknowledging the complex local dynamics and the communication delays that made it impossible for Young to intervene in time. Testimonies like Haslam’s, recorded in both court proceedings and later recollections, support the conclusion that Young was neither complicit in nor responsible for the massacre. Historical accuracy is crucial, as sensationalized depictions distort the legacy of those involved and obscure efforts to understand and learn from this tragic event.

References:

  • Walker, Ronald W., Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard. Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • Turley, Richard E., Jr. and Brown, Barbara Jones Vengeance is Mine: The Mountain Meadows Massacre and Its Aftermath. Oxford University Press, 2023.
  • Brooks, Juanita. The Mountain Meadows Massacre. University of Oklahoma Press, 1950.
  • Haslam, James Holton. Testimony, The Journal, Logan, Utah, December 4, 1874.
  • Widtsoe, John A. “Was Brigham Young Responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre?” Improvement Era (August 1951).
  • “Mountain Meadows Massacre.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Brigham Young and Mormon settlers sought to dominate and drive out Native American tribes in Utah Territory.

Rating: False

Clarification: Historical evidence shows that Brigham Young’s policies emphasized peaceful coexistence with Native American tribes, advocating for diplomacy and trade rather than domination or displacement.

Explanation:
Brigham Young adopted a policy of peaceful relations with Native American tribes, guided by the belief that the tribes were children of Israel and deserving of fair treatment. He often instructed settlers to avoid conflict and to provide assistance to Native communities. Young’s approach contrasted with the more aggressive tactics employed by federal and state governments in other parts of the country. While conflicts did occur—such as the Walker War (1853–1854) and the Black Hawk War (1865–1872)—these were typically localized disputes over resources and territory. Young’s instructions to settlers generally focused on preventing violence and fostering cooperation. Claims that Mormon settlers sought to dominate or eradicate Native tribes oversimplify a complex relationship and ignore the many instances of mutual aid and peaceful interaction.

Why It Matters:
This portrayal reinforces harmful stereotypes about early Mormon settlers and their relations with Native Americans. While conflicts occurred, they were not the result of a deliberate policy of domination. Recognizing Young’s consistent emphasis on peace helps provide a more accurate account of interactions between Mormon settlers and Native tribes during westward expansion.

References:

  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • Brooks, Juanita. Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier. Utah State University Press, 1975.
  • “Walker War.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.
  • “Black Hawk War.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Mormon settlers forcibly took Native American children to raise them as their own.

Rating: Misleading

Clarification: While there are documented cases of Mormon settlers adopting Native American children, these instances often arose from efforts to save them from the existing Indian slave trade. Some children were raised as family members, while others were treated more like indentured servants, reflecting the complex realities of frontier life.

Explanation:
When Mormon settlers arrived in Utah Territory, they encountered an established Indian slave trade. Native traders would sometimes offer captured children for sale and, if refused, threaten to kill the children. In response, Brigham Young authorized settlers to purchase the children in order to save their lives, with the intent that they be raised as members of Mormon families. While many of these children were integrated into families and treated with care, there are accounts where some were treated as indentured servants. This practice, though controversial, was driven by the settlers’ desire to prevent the children’s deaths. Portraying these adoptions as systematic, forcible abductions ignores both the context of the Indian slave trade and the varied experiences of these children.

Why It Matters:
This portrayal suggests that Mormon settlers engaged in widespread abductions of Native children, which distorts the historical reality. Understanding the context of the Indian slave trade, as well as the settlers’ efforts to protect vulnerable children, helps prevent oversimplified and inaccurate narratives about early Mormon-Native relations.

References:

  • Brooks, Juanita. Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier. Utah State University Press, 1975.
  • Leonard, Glen M. Nauvoo to Salt Lake City: The Mormon Exodus 1846–1857. University of Utah Press, 1995.
  • “Walker War.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.
  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.

Claim:

Mormon leaders recruited Native American tribes to help carry out violent attacks on emigrants and settlers in Utah Territory.

Rating: False

Clarification: While there were instances of collaboration between Mormon settlers and Native American tribes, Brigham Young’s general policy was to foster peaceful relations with Native tribes. Claims that Mormon leaders systematically recruited Native tribes for violent attacks are not supported by historical evidence.

Explanation:
Brigham Young advocated for peaceful coexistence with Native American tribes, often instructing Mormon settlers to assist and trade with local tribes rather than engage in conflict. While tensions occasionally led to violence, there is no evidence of an organized policy by Mormon leaders to recruit Native tribes for violent purposes. During the Mountain Meadows Massacre, some Native Americans participated, but historical accounts suggest they were recruited by local militia leaders in southern Utah, acting independently of Brigham Young’s directives. Moreover, Young’s documented policy was to avoid antagonizing Native tribes and to minimize conflict wherever possible. This portrayal in American Primeval overlooks the nuanced and often peaceful interactions between Mormon settlers and Native tribes throughout the region.

Why It Matters:
Suggesting that Mormon leaders systematically recruited Native tribes for violent attacks misrepresents the complex dynamics between settlers and indigenous peoples. While isolated incidents of violence did occur, the broader historical record points to a policy of diplomacy and peaceful settlement. Recognizing this helps correct the narrative of widespread collusion in violence and provides a more balanced view of frontier history.

References:

  • Brooks, Juanita. Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier. Utah State University Press, 1975.
  • Walker, Ronald W., Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard. Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • “Walker War.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.
  • “Mountain Meadows Massacre.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Mormons routinely exploited or displaced Native tribes in Utah Territory.

Rating: Misleading

Clarification: While conflicts did occur between Mormon settlers and Native tribes, Church leaders, including Brigham Young, consistently promoted peaceful coexistence and fair treatment. Efforts were made to establish cooperative relations through trade, diplomacy, and aid.

Explanation:
The arrival of Mormon settlers in Utah Territory inevitably brought them into contact with various Native tribes, including the Utes, Shoshones, and Paiutes. While tensions occasionally led to conflict, Brigham Young frequently emphasized the importance of maintaining peace and treating Native peoples fairly. He famously taught that it was better to “feed the Indians than to fight them.” Under his leadership, the Church organized efforts to provide food and supplies to tribes facing starvation due to environmental changes and encroaching settlers. Additionally, Mormon settlers engaged in trade and intermarriage with some Native groups. However, not all interactions were peaceful, and some conflicts, such as the Walker War and the Black Hawk War, arose over land and resources. These conflicts were complex and involved multiple parties, including non-Mormon settlers and federal agents, but it is misleading to characterize Mormons as routinely exploiting or displacing Native peoples without acknowledging their efforts to foster peaceful relations.

Why It Matters:
Simplifying Mormon-Native relations to one of exploitation or displacement overlooks the efforts made by Church leaders to establish peace and cooperation. Providing context around both peaceful interactions and conflicts helps offer a more balanced understanding of this period in history.

References:

  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • Brooks, Juanita. Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier. Utah State University Press, 1975.
  • “Walker War.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.
  • “Black Hawk War.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.
  • “Brigham Young’s Teachings on Peaceful Relations with Native Tribes.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

The Bear River Massacre was carried out by Brigham Young and Mormon settlers.

Rating: False

Clarification: The Bear River Massacre, often confused with conflicts involving Mormon settlers, was carried out by U.S. Army troops under Colonel Patrick Connor, not by Mormons or under orders from Brigham Young.

Explanation: The Bear River Massacre occurred on January 29, 1863, near present-day Preston, Idaho, when U.S. Army forces attacked a Shoshone encampment, killing hundreds of men, women, and children. Brigham Young and Mormon settlers were not involved in this attack. In fact, Brigham Young consistently advocated for peaceful relations with Native American tribes, emphasizing cooperation rather than conflict. Misrepresenting Young as orchestrating genocidal violence ignores his documented efforts to establish treaties and avoid unnecessary bloodshed. LaJean Carruth’s research into Young’s actual speeches highlights his repeated calls for peaceful coexistence with Native peoples.

Why It Matters: FALSEly attributing the Bear River Massacre to Brigham Young perpetuates a harmful narrative that distorts both Mormon history and the actual events involving U.S. military aggression. It shifts blame away from the true perpetrators and creates an inaccurate portrayal of early Mormon-Native American relations.

References:

  • Carruth, LaJean Purcell. “His Accuracy Was Not What It Ought.” FAIR Conference, 2023.
  • Madsen, Brigham D. The Shoshoni Frontier and the Bear River Massacre. University of Utah Press, 1985.
  • “Bear River Massacre.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Brigham Young sought to incite Native American tribes to attack federal troops during the Utah War.

Rating: Misleading

Clarification:

While Brigham Young did not incite Native tribes to attack federal troops, he did seek temporary alliances with them during the early stages of the Utah War, as part of a defensive strategy against the approaching U.S. Army.

Explanation:
During the summer of 1857, tensions between Mormon settlers and the U.S. government reached a boiling point as federal troops marched toward Utah Territory. Brigham Young, fearing an invasion, declared martial law and sent emissaries to Native tribes to encourage peaceful relations and offer aid. However, he also sought to form temporary alliances with local tribes as a defensive measure in case of an armed conflict. These efforts were brief and ended following the tragic events of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Historical records indicate that while Young was willing to involve Native tribes defensively, he did not advocate for offensive attacks against federal forces. Portraying him as an instigator of violence overlooks the complex, defensive nature of his strategy during a tense and uncertain period.

Why It Matters:
Clarifying that Brigham Young’s efforts to involve Native tribes were defensive rather than offensive helps correct misconceptions about his role during the Utah War. While the policy was controversial and short-lived, understanding its context provides a more balanced perspective on Mormon-Native relations during this conflict.

References:

  • Walker, Ronald W., Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard. Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.
  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • Brooks, Juanita. Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier. Utah State University Press, 1975.
  • “Utah War.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Mormons practiced blood atonement as a common doctrine enforced by Brigham Young.

Rating: False

Clarification:

Although early Mormon leaders, including Brigham Young, mentioned “blood atonement” in a theoretical context, it was never a common or enforced practice and was later explicitly repudiated by the Church. Brigham Young and other leaders actively counseled against practicing it, using it only as a rhetorical device to encourage repentance.

Explanation:
The concept of “blood atonement” appeared in early Mormon teachings as a theoretical idea—that in rare, extreme cases of grievous sin, a person might voluntarily offer their life as a form of personal atonement. However, this was never an official or widespread practice, nor was it implemented as Church policy. Brigham Young’s references to blood atonement were often rhetorical, intended to emphasize the gravity of serious sin. Over time, critics exaggerated these statements, leading to sensationalized claims about violent practices among early Mormons. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints later clarified its position, explicitly repudiating any such practice. Historical research, including FAIR’s detailed analysis, confirms that no documented cases of enforced blood atonement exist, and the concept was never implemented as doctrine.

Why It Matters:
Depicting blood atonement as a widespread practice reinforces a harmful, inaccurate stereotype of early Mormonism as violent and extreme. Understanding the theoretical nature of the concept, its limited historical context, and its eventual repudiation helps clarify the peaceful intentions of early Church leaders and their communities.

References:

  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • “Blood Atonement.” FAIR, accessed January 2025.
    FAIR Article on Blood Atonement
  • Encyclopedia of Mormonism, “Blood Atonement.”
  • Mormonr, “Blood Atonement and Capital Punishment.”

Claim:

Mormonism encouraged secrecy and cult-like behavior.

Rating: FALSE

Clarification: While some practices in Mormonism, particularly temple ceremonies, are conducted privately, they are meant to be treated with reverence rather than secrecy. The early Church was protective due to external persecution but did not encourage cult-like behavior. Additionally, Mormonism does not meet the standard definition of a cult.

Explanation:
Certain religious practices in Mormonism, such as temple ordinances, are private and considered sacred by members, not because they are intended to be hidden, but because they hold deep spiritual significance. Critics often misinterpret this privacy as secrecy. Historically, the early Church adopted protective behaviors in response to severe persecution, including violent expulsions from Missouri and Illinois, which further contributed to outsiders’ perceptions of secrecy. However, these behaviors arose from a need for safety rather than isolation or control. Furthermore, Mormonism does not fit the common sociological definition of a cult, which typically involves manipulative or coercive leadership, suppression of information, and isolation of members. From its founding, the Church has emphasized individual choice, open missionary work, education, and integration with broader society.

Why It Matters:
Portraying Mormonism as a cult or inherently secretive misrepresents both its teachings and historical context. Recognizing the difference between private, sacred practices and secrecy, as well as the Church’s historical need for protection, helps provide a clearer understanding of early Mormon life and current religious practices.

References:

  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • “Temple Worship in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.
  • Bushman, Richard Lyman. Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. Alfred A. Knopf, 2005.
  • “History of Persecution.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Mormon settlers saw violence as a justified means of spreading their faith.

Rating: False

Clarification: Mormon missionary work was peaceful, and violence was never sanctioned as a method for spreading the faith. Early Mormon leaders emphasized persuasion and service as the primary means of proselytizing.

Explanation:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a long history of peaceful missionary work, beginning with Joseph Smith and continuing under Brigham Young. Missionaries were sent across the United States and Europe to teach and convert through persuasion, not force. Although early Mormon communities occasionally engaged in defensive actions to protect themselves from external threats, such actions were never intended to expand or enforce religious beliefs. The idea that Mormon settlers used violence to spread their faith is a misrepresentation rooted in misunderstandings of the defensive posture the Saints adopted in response to persecution and frontier challenges. Historical records overwhelmingly show that missionary work was conducted peacefully, and Brigham Young himself taught that conversion must be voluntary, based on personal conviction.

Why It Matters:
This portrayal perpetuates the myth of religious extremism and militancy among early Mormons. Recognizing the peaceful nature of Mormon missionary efforts helps correct exaggerated or false narratives and highlights the Church’s commitment to voluntary conversion through faith and dialogue.

References:

  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • “Missionary Work in Early Mormonism.” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, accessed January 2025.
  • “The Growth of Missionary Efforts.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.
  • Thomas, Scott K. “Violence across the Land: Vigilantism and Extralegal Justice in the Utah Territory” (Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 2010).

Claim:

Mormon settlers frequently used violence to expand their territory and control over key trade routes in the American West.

Rating: FALSE

Clarification:

While conflicts did occur between Mormon settlers and other groups, Brigham Young’s policy emphasized peaceful settlement, negotiation, and coexistence rather than expansion through violence.

Explanation:
After being driven out of several states, the Latter-day Saints sought to build a new community in the isolated Utah Territory. Brigham Young’s approach was to establish settlements through peaceful means, focusing on self-sufficiency and diplomacy. While there were occasional conflicts—such as disputes over trade routes and resources—violence was not a primary tool for territorial expansion. Young often worked to mediate disputes with both Native American tribes and emigrants passing through the territory. The Walker War and Black Hawk War were examples of localized conflicts with Native American tribes, but these were generally defensive actions or responses to complex cultural and economic pressures, not deliberate attempts to expand territory through force. The portrayal in American Primeval of Mormon settlers as violent expansionists is a significant distortion of their actual methods of settlement and governance.

Why It Matters:
This portrayal promotes a false narrative that early Mormon settlers sought dominance through violence, ignoring the broader historical context of their migration and settlement. Acknowledging that most Mormon settlements were established through peaceful means helps provide a more balanced understanding of frontier life in the mid-19th century.

References:

  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • Brooks, Juanita. Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier. Utah State University Press, 1975.
  • “Walker War.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.
  • “Black Hawk War.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.
  • Thomas, Scott K. “Violence across the Land: Vigilantism and Extralegal Justice in the Utah Territory” (Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 2010).

Claim:

Brigham Young and Mormon leaders sanctioned acts of vigilantism to maintain control in Utah Territory.

Rating: False

Clarification: While instances of vigilantism did occur in Utah Territory, they were not officially sanctioned by Brigham Young or other Church leaders. In fact, Church leaders publicly condemned extrajudicial violence.

Explanation:
During the mid-19th century, vigilante justice was not uncommon in frontier regions across the United States, including Utah Territory. Isolated incidents of vigilante actions occurred as local settlers attempted to maintain order in a lawless environment. However, Brigham Young’s recorded statements indicate a consistent stance against unnecessary violence and extrajudicial actions. Although some individuals acted independently in carrying out acts of vigilante justice, such actions were not condoned by Mormon leadership. Public addresses by Young frequently emphasized peace, lawfulness, and the importance of adhering to legal processes. The portrayal of Mormon leaders as actively promoting vigilantism ignores the complexity of frontier justice during that era and distorts the leadership’s actual policies.

Why It Matters:
Depicting Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders as supporters of vigilantism promotes a harmful narrative of lawlessness and unchecked violence. Clarifying the leadership’s stance on law and order helps provide a more accurate picture of governance in Utah Territory during this tumultuous period.

References:

  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • Brooks, Juanita. The Mountain Meadows Massacre. University of Oklahoma Press, 1950.
  • Thomas, Scott K. “Violence across the Land: Vigilantism and Extralegal Justice in the Utah Territory” (Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 2010).
  • “Vigilantism.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.
  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.

Claim:

Brigham Young encouraged violence against emigrant groups passing through Utah Territory.

Rating: False

Clarification: Brigham Young consistently advocated for peaceful relations with emigrant groups and instructed settlers to offer assistance rather than hostility. However, local tensions, including fears of external threats and competition for scarce resources, sometimes led to conflicts despite his peaceful policies.

Explanation:
During the mid-19th century, tens of thousands of emigrants passed through Utah Territory on their way to California and Oregon. Brigham Young, as both territorial governor and leader of the Latter-day Saints, instructed Mormon settlers to maintain peaceful relations and provide aid whenever possible. This policy aimed to foster economic stability through trade and ensure safety for both settlers and emigrants. Historical evidence shows that the vast majority of emigrant wagon trains passed through Utah without incident.

However, tensions in frontier regions, including misunderstandings, competition over resources, and external pressures, occasionally led to localized conflicts. The Mountain Meadows Massacre stands as a tragic exception, carried out by a local militia acting independently and under considerable local pressure and fear. Brigham Young had sent a courier with instructions to prevent any violence, but his message arrived too late. The portrayal of Young as encouraging violence contradicts his documented efforts to promote peaceful coexistence and trade.

Why It Matters:
This portrayal perpetuates a harmful narrative of Mormon settlers as hostile aggressors. While acknowledging the complex tensions of the time, recognizing Brigham Young’s overarching policies of peace and trade helps correct the historical record and emphasizes the generally peaceful interactions that characterized most of the overland migration period.

References:

  • Walker, Ronald W., Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard. Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • Haslam, James Holton. Testimony, The Journal, Logan, Utah, December 4, 1874.
  • “Mountain Meadows Massacre.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

The Mountain Meadows Massacre was the inciting event of conflict between Mormons, Native Americans, emigrants, and the U.S. government in the Utah Territory.

Rating: FALSE

Clarification: The Mountain Meadows Massacre was not the initial cause of tensions in the Utah Territory. It occurred during a period of persistent and escalating tensions involving political, cultural, and economic pressures that had been building for years, culminating in tragic outcomes like the massacre.

Explanation:
The conflicts in Utah Territory were part of a long-standing continuum of tensions that began when the Latter-day Saints settled in the region in 1847. The Saints’ desire for autonomy and their distinct religious practices often clashed with federal expectations, resulting in growing suspicion and hostility. This situation was further complicated by economic competition, cultural misunderstandings with emigrant groups passing through the territory, and ongoing skirmishes with Native tribes. The Utah War, which officially began in 1857 when President James Buchanan sent federal troops to replace Brigham Young as governor, heightened fears and increased volatility in the region. Local leaders faced immense external pressure from emigrants and federal authorities, while internally they dealt with fear of violence, scarcity of resources, and the need to protect their communities.

By the time of the Mountain Meadows Massacre in September 1857, tensions were at a breaking point. Local militia members, driven by fear, misinformation, and external pressures, acted independently in carrying out the attack. Despite Brigham Young’s consistent policy of peaceful relations with emigrants, the message he sent ordering protection for the emigrant train arrived too late. While the massacre was one of the most tragic manifestations of these ongoing tensions, it was not the starting point of conflict but rather an outcome of the complex and volatile environment. Portraying it as the inciting event misrepresents the broader pattern of cultural and political pressures already in play.

Why It Matters:
Labeling the Mountain Meadows Massacre as the beginning of conflict oversimplifies a historically complex situation. The massacre was a tragic outcome of long-standing tensions involving political disputes, cultural misunderstandings, and local fears. Recognizing the persistent nature of these tensions clarifies the broader context of frontier life and the interactions between Mormon settlers, Native tribes, emigrants, and federal authorities. Understanding this continuum helps prevent the distortion of a single event as the definitive cause of broader conflict. 

In summary, acknowledging the long-standing, complex pressures—both internal and external—provides a more accurate framework for understanding the tragic events at Mountain Meadows and the volatile nature of life in Utah Territory during this period.

References:

  • Walker, Ronald W., Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard. Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.
  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • “Mountain Meadows Massacre.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

The Nauvoo Legion was Brigham Young’s personal army, created to defend Mormon interests in Utah and enforce his rule over the Utah Territory.

Rating: Misleading

Clarification: The Nauvoo Legion (the Utah Territorial Militia) was not a private army under Brigham Young’s exclusive control. It was a legally authorized territorial militia, organized under U.S. law and composed of ordinary settlers who served part-time. While Brigham Young, as governor, oversaw its operations, the militia functioned as a decentralized defensive force with significant local autonomy, typical of frontier militias at the time.

Explanation:
The Nauvoo Legion was initially formed in Illinois to defend Mormon settlers from mob violence. After the Saints migrated west, it was reorganized as the Utah Territorial Militia under territorial law. Unlike a standing army, the Nauvoo Legion was a part-time, civilian-based militia composed of settlers—farmers, tradesmen, and laborers—who trained occasionally and were called upon in times of need. They did not serve full-time, nor did they receive formal pay or centralized equipment, distinguishing them from professional military forces.

Given the vast size of the Utah Territory, which included present-day Utah and parts of Nevada, Colorado, and Wyoming, communication between outlying settlements and Salt Lake City could take days or weeks. This meant that local militia units often acted independently based on immediate local circumstances, making centralized, real-time control impractical. While Brigham Young had overall administrative authority, he did not exercise direct day-to-day command over militia actions in distant regions. The primary purpose of the Nauvoo Legion was to protect Mormon settlements from external threats, including Native American raids, criminal activity, and potential conflicts with emigrants or federal forces.

Portraying the Nauvoo Legion as a centralized, standing army dedicated to enforcing Brigham Young’s personal rule oversimplifies its role and ignores the broader context of frontier defense. The Legion operated similarly to other territorial militias in the American West, whose main function was safeguarding local communities rather than waging aggressive campaigns.

Why It Matters:
This portrayal feeds into a false narrative of Mormon militancy and authoritarian control. Recognizing that the Nauvoo Legion was a decentralized, civilian-based militia similar to other frontier militias provides a more balanced understanding of Mormon governance and frontier life. It underscores that the Nauvoo Legion’s purpose was local defense, not aggression or territorial expansion.

References:

  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.
  • “Nauvoo Legion.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Polygamous LDS women were weak and cowardly, while doubters were the only ones who showed strength and courage.

Rating: False

Clarification: Numerous historical accounts show that early LDS women, including those in plural marriages, exhibited remarkable strength and courage in the face of tremendous adversity. Faith was often the driving force behind their bravery.

Explanation:
The portrayal of polygamous women as cowardly ignores the reality of their lived experiences. Many of these women faced life-threatening conditions during the westward migration, endured social ostracism and persecution, and helped build communities in harsh frontier environments. For example, Mary Fielding Smith, a widow who crossed the plains with her children, showed extraordinary resolve and leadership, motivated by her faith. Similarly, Emmeline B. Wells, a prominent advocate for women’s suffrage, demonstrated intellectual and moral courage throughout her life. The suggestion that doubters were the only ones who exhibited strength oversimplifies a complex reality and unfairly diminishes the legacy of countless women whose faith empowered them to overcome immense challenges.

Why It Matters:
This portrayal reinforces a harmful stereotype that faith makes people weak, while doubt makes them strong. Highlighting the real stories of courage among early LDS women provides a more accurate, balanced view and honors the resilience of these pioneers.

References:

  • Derr, Jill Mulvay, Janath Russell Cannon, and Maureen Ursenbach Beecher. Women of Covenant: The Story of the Relief Society. Deseret Book, 1992.
  • “Mary Fielding Smith: Pioneer and Widow.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.
  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.

Claim:

Women in early Mormon society had no power or influence.

Rating: FALSE

Clarification: Women in early Mormon society were influential leaders in religious, social, and political spheres. Utah women were among the first in the United States to gain the right to vote, receiving suffrage in 1870—half a century before women nationwide.

Explanation:
Early Mormon women played a significant role in shaping their communities, often ahead of their time compared to women in other parts of the United States. The Relief Society, organized in 1842, provided women with opportunities for leadership, service, and education. Prominent leaders such as Eliza R. Snow, Emmeline B. Wells, and Zina D. H. Young were key figures in not only the Church but also the broader women’s rights movement. Utah women were granted the right to vote in 1870, becoming some of the first women in the nation to exercise this right. Though suffrage was briefly revoked by the federal government in 1887 during anti-polygamy efforts, it was restored when Utah gained statehood in 1896. These accomplishments demonstrate that far from being powerless, Mormon women were active participants in both religious and civic life, advocating for their communities and for greater equality.

Why It Matters:
Portraying early Mormon women as powerless overlooks their significant influence and leadership, particularly in advancing women’s rights. Recognizing their pioneering roles helps provide a more accurate and balanced view of women’s contributions within early Mormonism and American history.

References:

  • Derr, Jill Mulvay, Janath Russell Cannon, and Maureen Ursenbach Beecher. Women of Covenant: The Story of the Relief Society. Deseret Book, 1992.
  • “Eliza R. Snow: Latter-day Saint Poetess and Leader.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.
  • “The Utah Woman Suffrage Timeline.” Utah State Historical Society, accessed January 2025.
  • Bushman, Richard Lyman. Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. Alfred A. Knopf, 2005.

Claim:

Mormon men are controlling toward their wives, using religion to enforce patriarchal dominance.

Rating: False

Clarification: Though early Mormon society mirrored 19th-century America’s patriarchal norms, LDS teachings champion partnership and equality in marriage. Generalizing all Mormon men as controlling is inaccurate.

Explanation:
From its inception, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has taught that marriage is a partnership founded on love and respect. Leaders like Brigham Young emphasized that men should treat their wives with kindness and fairness. Though historical contexts were patriarchal, Church teachings have always encouraged honoring and supporting wives. Today, the Church explicitly teaches spousal equality, promoting unity and mutual decision-making. This stereotype doesn’t reflect Church doctrine or culture, past or present, and overlooks the significant roles women have played in Mormon communities.

Why It Matters:
These stereotypes harm perceptions of Mormon family life. Understanding the Church’s emphasis on love and equality in marriage fosters an accurate portrayal of both historical and contemporary Mormon families.

References:

  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • “Family: A Proclamation to the World.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1995.
  • Bushman, Richard Lyman. Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. Alfred A. Knopf, 2005.
  • “Teachings on Marriage and Family.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Mormon polygamy was forced on women and led to widespread abuse.

Rating: FALSE

Clarification: In early Mormon communities, polygamy was a religious practice entered into voluntarily. While some experienced personal challenges, it’s misleading to label it as uniformly forced or abusive.

Explanation:
Polygamy, practiced by some 19th-century Latter-day Saints, was rooted in religious belief. Participation was not compulsory, with many women entering plural marriages for spiritual conviction, social cohesion, or economic support. Like all marriages, these varied in happiness and fulfillment. Church leaders, including Brigham Young, emphasized that plural marriage should be consensual and based on faith. In 1890, under the U.S. government’s legal pressures, the Church issued a manifesto ending polygamy. This evolution highlights the changing dynamics within the community.

Why It Matters:
Portraying polygamy as uniformly forced oversimplifies early Mormon life, ignoring diverse motivations and experiences. Understanding the voluntariness and eventual cessation of polygamy helps counter distorted narratives about early LDS communities.

References:

  • Hardy, B. Carmon. Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy, Its Origin, Practice, and Demise. University of Oklahoma Press, 2007.
  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • “Polygamy.” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, accessed January 2025.
  • “The End of Polygamy.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Claim:

Brigham Young viewed non-Mormons in Utah Territory as enemies and treated them with hostility.

Rating: False

Clarification: Brigham Young advocated for peaceful coexistence with non-Mormons, despite occasional tensions. His leadership aimed at harmony and mutual benefit rather than hostility.

Explanation:
As the leader of the Latter-day Saint community, Brigham Young prioritized safety and stability. While he faced strained relations with certain non-Mormon groups, particularly federal officials critical of the Saints, Young encouraged peaceful engagement. He recognized the economic and social benefits of cooperation, often instructing settlers to welcome and trade with non-Mormon merchants and travelers. Historical records show Young’s willingness to collaborate with non-Mormon figures like Thomas L. Kane during the Utah War. While vigilant against threats, he did not universally label non-Mormons as enemies. This narrative of Young’s hostility oversimplifies the period’s complexities and ignores his capacity for diplomacy and collaboration.

Why It Matters:
Misrepresenting Young as overly hostile enforces stereotypes of Mormons as isolationist and antagonistic. Understanding his true diplomatic efforts provides a nuanced view of interactions between Mormons and non-Mormon settlers, officials, and travelers in the Utah Territory.

References:

  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.
  • Walker, Ronald W., Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard. Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • Turley, Richard E., Jr. and Brown, Barbara Jones Vengeance is Mine: The Mountain Meadows Massacre and Its Aftermath. Oxford University Press, 2023.
  • “Utah War.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 2025.

Fact-Check:
While Brigham Young was a real historical figure, the portrayal of him in American Primeval is misleading. Young served as the second president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the first governor of the Utah Territory, leading the Latter-day Saints westward after years of persecution.

The series, however, exaggerates his role as a militant leader and incorrectly depicts him as orchestrating violent actions, such as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. In reality, Young’s directive to protect emigrants arrived too late to prevent the tragedy, and he was reportedly heartbroken upon learning of the massacre. Additionally, the portrayal of Young as someone eager for conflict with the U.S. government misrepresents his consistent efforts to seek peaceful resolutions, including his instructions to militia leaders to avoid bloodshed during the Utah War.

Why It Matters:
This portrayal perpetuates a long-standing but debunked myth about Brigham Young’s leadership and involvement in violence. Understanding the real Brigham Young as a pragmatic leader who sought to safeguard his people and avoid unnecessary conflict provides a more accurate and nuanced perspective on early Mormon history.

Fact-Check:
Jim Bridger was a real historical figure—a well-known frontiersman, explorer, and trader who established Fort Bridger in what is now southwestern Wyoming. While his presence in the series is historically accurate, the portrayal of his interactions with Brigham Young is misleading. Bridger had a contentious relationship with Mormon settlers, largely due to economic competition and accusations of illegal trading. However, there is no evidence that Bridger personally sold the fort to Brigham Young or disappeared into the wilderness after it was burned down, as depicted in the series.

Explanation:
Jim Bridger’s conflicts with the Mormons began when they established Fort Supply near his trading post, which cut into his business. Accusations from Mormon leaders that Bridger was selling firearms and alcohol to Native Americans—both illegal under federal law—led to a confrontation in 1853, prompting Bridger to flee before he could be arrested. During the Utah War, Bridger aligned himself with the U.S. government, offering his fort as a supply point for federal troops advancing toward Salt Lake City.

While Bridger’s role in the region was significant, the portrayal in American Primeval exaggerates his interactions with Mormon leaders and simplifies his complex motivations. Historical evidence suggests that Bridger’s opposition to the Mormons was pragmatic, rooted in economic and political concerns rather than deep personal animosity.

Why It Matters:
Portraying Jim Bridger as a victim who was driven out by Brigham Young distorts the historical record. While tensions between Bridger and the Mormons were real, they were part of broader frontier dynamics involving trade, law enforcement, and territorial disputes. Recognizing Bridger’s actual role helps provide a more nuanced understanding of the interactions between Mormon settlers and non-Mormon frontiersmen.

References:

  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.
  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • “Fort Bridger.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.

Fact-Check:
Wild Bill Hickman was a real historical figure, known for his involvement in the Nauvoo Legion and his later reputation as a notorious outlaw. While Hickman initially played a role in defending Mormon settlements, he acted independently and engaged in criminal activities. The portrayal in American Primeval exaggerates Hickman’s significance and falsely implies that his violent behavior was representative of Mormon militias as a whole.

Explanation:
Wild Bill Hickman served as a scout and law enforcer for the Nauvoo Legion and was involved in protecting Mormon settlements during their early years in Utah Territory. Over time, he became infamous for engaging in extrajudicial killings and other criminal acts, leading to his eventual excommunication from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Hickman’s story reflects a broader trend in the American West, where individuals frequently alternated between roles as lawmen and outlaws. Notable parallels include figures like Wild Bill Hickok, Henry Newton Brown, and John Selman, who similarly worked both sides of the law. While Hickman’s violent actions are well-documented, portraying them as indicative of the entire Nauvoo Legion or Mormon militias misrepresents the group’s primary function, which was local defense, not aggression.

Why It Matters:
This portrayal reinforces a harmful narrative of Mormon militias as inherently violent and lawless. Understanding that figures like Wild Bill Hickman were exceptions rather than the rule helps correct misconceptions about early Mormon settlers and their militias. The broader context of frontier law enforcement, where many individuals straddled the line between law and criminality, offers a more accurate historical perspective.

References:

  • Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.
  • Richard Selcer, “These Western Lawmen Worked Both Sides of the Badge,” HistoryNet.com.

Fact-Check:
Jacob Pratt is a fictional character created for narrative purposes in American Primeval. While no prominent historical figure named Pratt led a Mormon family westward during the 1850s, the use of the name “Pratt” is significant, as Parley P. Pratt was a key figure in the early Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Parley P. Pratt, one of the original apostles and a major missionary figure, played a critical role in the founding and expansion of the Church. The choice of this surname for an invented character likely carries symbolic weight, given its historical prominence.

Explanation:
The name Pratt holds significant meaning in Mormon history due to Parley P. Pratt’s contributions to the early Church, including his missionary work and writings that helped shape Latter-day Saint theology. While the fictional character Jacob Pratt is portrayed as a devout Mormon settler leading his family across the frontier, there is no record of a historical figure by that name in connection with the events depicted in the series. The use of the name may be an attempt to evoke historical associations with early Mormon pioneers. However, the character’s story and role in the series are entirely fictional, and any connection to real historical events is speculative at best.

Why It Matters:
Using the name Pratt for a fictional character risks misleading audiences into thinking there is a direct historical basis for the character. Additionally, the symbolic choice may suggest associations with Parley P. Pratt, a key figure in Mormon history, further complicating the narrative by blending fiction with historical references. Clarifying the fictional nature of this character helps prevent confusion about the historical record.

References:

  • Walker, Ronald W., Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard. Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • Hardy, B. Carmon. Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy, Its Origin, Practice, and Demise. University of Oklahoma Press, 2007.

Fact-Check:
Abish is a fictional character in American Primeval. While she may be intended to represent a Mormon woman struggling with faith and societal pressures, the use of the name Abish is symbolically significant. In the Book of Mormon, Abish is a notable Lamanite woman who plays a key role in a miraculous conversion story. 

Explanation:
In the Book of Mormon, Abish is a servant of King Lamoni’s household who witnesses a miraculous event and plays a pivotal role in spreading the news of a mass spiritual conversion. Her name is unique in the scriptural narrative, and it holds deep religious significance for Latter-day Saints. The choice to name the character Abish may be intended to evoke religious symbolism.

Additionally, the portrayal of Abish as a woman questioning her faith and resisting societal expectations contrasts with the historical accounts of Mormon women at the time, who, while facing significant challenges, were often characterized by their faith-driven resilience and commitment to their community.

Why It Matters:
The symbolic use of the name Abish risks confusing audiences by blending religious references with fictionalized narratives.  This distinction is important for preventing the misrepresentation of early Mormon society and its religious practices.

References:

  • Bushman, Richard Lyman. Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. Alfred A. Knopf, 2005.
  • Hardy, B. Carmon. Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy, Its Origin, Practice, and Demise. University of Oklahoma Press, 2007.

Fact-Check:
James Wolsey appears to be a fictional character loosely based on individuals involved in the aftermath of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. According to the series creators, Wolsey is inspired by a real person who was executed for his role in the massacre. While several participants in the massacre were tried and one, John D. Lee, was executed, there is no historical record of a prominent figure named James Wolsey involved in these events.

Explanation:
The Mountain Meadows Massacre was one of the most tragic events in Utah’s early history, resulting in the deaths of over 120 emigrants. Following the massacre, investigations led to the eventual trial and execution of John D. Lee in 1877, two decades after the event. The character James Wolsey may be a composite inspired by lesser-known militia members or by Lee himself. However, no historical figure named James Wolsey played a prominent role in the massacre or its aftermath. The portrayal of Wolsey as a key militia leader in American Primeval is therefore fictionalized and misleading, blending elements of real history with invented characters.

Why It Matters:
Portraying fictional characters as major players in real historical events risks confusing audiences about what actually happened. Recognizing James Wolsey as a fictional or loosely inspired character helps distinguish between fact and narrative fiction, preventing the distortion of the historical record surrounding the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

References:

  • Walker, Ronald W., Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard. Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • Brooks, Juanita. The Mountain Meadows Massacre. University of Oklahoma Press, 1950.

Fact-Check:
Sara Rowell and her son, Devin Rowell, are fictional characters created for the narrative of American Primeval. While Fort Bridger was historically a critical waypoint for emigrants heading west, there is no historical evidence of a family named Rowell being involved in any significant events in the area during the time depicted.

Explanation:
The Rowells appear to be entirely fictional characters placed in a historically significant setting—Fort Bridger—to add depth to the series’ storyline. In the mid-19th century, Fort Bridger served as a vital trading post and stopover for emigrants traveling along the Oregon, California, and Mormon Trails. Many emigrant families passed through the area, but there are no known records of a family named Rowell playing a notable role during the Utah War or related conflicts. The inclusion of fictional characters like Sara and Devin Rowell helps drive the series’ narrative but should not be confused with real historical figures or events.

Why It Matters:
While fictional characters can enhance storytelling, placing them in real historical events risks misleading audiences about the actual people and dynamics of the time. Clarifying that the Rowells are invented helps distinguish between historical fact and narrative fiction, ensuring a clearer understanding of the historical context.

References:

  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.
  • “Fort Bridger.” Utah History Encyclopedia, accessed January 2025.

Fact-Check:
Red Feather is a fictional character in American Primeval, but he may be loosely inspired by real Native American leaders of the time. While there are no historical records of a Crow warrior named Red Feather leading a renegade band during the events depicted in the series, conflicts involving Native tribes and settlers were a real part of westward expansion.

Explanation:
During the mid-19th century, various Native American tribes, including the Shoshone, Utes, and Paiutes, interacted with Mormon settlers and emigrants traveling west. While the Crow tribe historically lived farther north (primarily in present-day Montana and Wyoming), the series appears to use Red Feather as a symbolic representation of Native resistance during this period. There were documented tensions and occasional violent encounters between Native tribes and settlers, but Red Feather’s specific actions in the series are fictionalized.

Additionally, Native leaders of the time, such as Chief Washakie (Shoshone) and Chief Walkara (Ute), played significant roles in regional conflicts and diplomacy. The character Red Feather may draw loose inspiration from such figures, but his story and role in the series are entirely invented.

Why It Matters:
While Red Feather’s character adds dramatic tension to the series, his portrayal as a key figure in conflicts around Fort Bridger and with Mormon settlers risks blurring the lines between historical fact and fiction. Acknowledging that he is a fictional creation helps clarify that the series takes significant creative liberties in its depiction of Native American interactions during this time.

References:

  • Brooks, Juanita. Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier. Utah State University Press, 1975.
  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.

Fact-Check:
Two Moons is a fictional character in American Primeval, but she may be loosely inspired by real Native women who survived violence and displacement during westward expansion. While there are no historical records of a Native woman named Two Moons with the role depicted in the series, her character reflects the harsh realities faced by many Native people during this period.

Explanation:
Two Moons’ character appears to be an amalgamation of experiences faced by Native women in the mid-19th century. The westward migration of settlers often resulted in displacement, conflict, and hardship for Native tribes, with many Native women finding themselves caught between cultural survival and external pressures. The name Two Moons may evoke symbolic imagery associated with Native spirituality or heritage, but it does not correspond to a specific historical figure from the tribes in the region depicted in the series. While some aspects of her story reflect historical realities, the character herself is fictional.

Additionally, portraying Native characters in frontier stories requires sensitivity, as such depictions can shape modern perceptions of Indigenous history. Recognizing that Two Moons is a fictional character helps ensure that audiences understand the series’ creative liberties in its portrayal of Native experiences.

Why It Matters:
While Two Moons adds emotional depth to the series’ narrative, her fictionalized story risks being conflated with real historical experiences. Clarifying that she is a symbolic character allows for a more accurate interpretation of the historical context and highlights the importance of distinguishing between fictional narratives and real Indigenous history.

References:

  • Brooks, Juanita. Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier. Utah State University Press, 1975.
  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.

Fact-Check:
Winter Bird is a fictional character in American Primeval, but she may be loosely inspired by real Native leaders. According to the series’ creators, Winter Bird is based on an unnamed Shoshone chief who was described as having multiple wives and being a respected leader. However, there are no specific historical records identifying a chief matching Winter Bird’s portrayal during the events depicted in the series.

Explanation:
The Shoshone people, like many other Native tribes in the region, faced significant challenges during the mid-19th century due to westward migration and increasing tensions with settlers and federal authorities. While leaders like Chief Washakie are well-documented, the series appears to create Winter Bird as a symbolic representation of Native leadership and resilience. The character’s personal story and circumstances are fictionalized, blending elements from different historical figures without a clear real-life counterpart.

Winter Bird’s depiction as a powerful yet isolated figure reflects common tropes in historical fiction about Native leaders, but such portrayals often oversimplify the complex socio-political realities faced by Indigenous communities at the time. Recognizing Winter Bird as a fictional creation prevents audiences from conflating her story with actual historical events or figures.

Why It Matters:
Portraying fictional characters as central to real historical events risks distorting audience perceptions of Indigenous history. Acknowledging that Winter Bird is a symbolic and fictionalized character helps maintain a clearer distinction between creative storytelling and historical fact, ensuring a more accurate understanding of Native leadership during this period.

References:

  • Brooks, Juanita. Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier. Utah State University Press, 1975.
  • MacKinnon, William P. At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War. Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008.

Claim:

It is ethical for filmmakers to consult individuals who do not represent or accurately reflect the group being portrayed.

Rating: False

Clarification:Consulting individuals who do not represent the group being portrayed, especially when they have a known agenda or lack expertise, raises ethical concerns about fairness, accuracy, and bias in storytelling. Responsible filmmaking involves engaging with credible sources who accurately reflect the perspectives and lived experiences of the people being depicted.

Explanation:

When portraying real historical groups or events, filmmakers have an ethical responsibility to consult credible experts and representatives of the group being portrayed. Choosing consultants who lack expertise or who are known to have personal biases can lead to distorted narratives that misrepresent the group. This is particularly problematic when the portrayal involves a minority or religious group that has historically faced misunderstanding or prejudice.

Additionally, ethical consulting requires that individuals provide accurate and balanced information, rather than using their position to promote a personal agenda. Misrepresenting a group—whether intentionally or through neglect of key facts—can perpetuate harmful stereotypes, fuel misunderstandings, and damage the public’s ability to engage with history responsibly.

Why It Matters:
Misrepresentation in media has significant real-world consequences, influencing how audiences perceive minority groups and shaping public discourse. Ensuring that consultants are both qualified and representative helps promote fair and accurate storytelling. Encouraging filmmakers to adopt ethical consulting practices ensures that diverse communities are portrayed with respect and authenticity.

References:

  • “The Ethics of Historical Fiction,” DarwinCatholic Blog.
  • “Is Historical Fiction Ethical? Part I & II,” Ethics of Writing.

Claim:

It is ethical for consultants to misrepresent a group in order to satisfy personal or ideological agendas.

Rating: False

Clarification:Ethical consulting requires honesty, accuracy, and fairness when representing a group of people, especially when that group is being portrayed in a public medium. Misrepresenting a group to serve a personal or ideological agenda—or to make a story more entertaining in the name of storytelling—is unethical and leads to distorted narratives that perpetuate bias.

Explanation:

Consultants play a vital role in shaping how communities and historical events are portrayed in media. With this responsibility comes an obligation to ensure that their contributions are factually accurate and free from personal agendas. Misrepresenting a group—whether by exaggerating negative traits, omitting key context, or selectively presenting information—violates the ethical principles of honesty and fairness. While storytelling may involve creative license, distorting the experiences or identity of real groups solely to enhance dramatic effect is not ethically justified. Such practices contribute to long-standing stereotypes and reinforce harmful narratives, particularly when the group being portrayed has a history of being misunderstood or marginalized.

Ethically sound consulting requires presenting a balanced and truthful perspective, even when personal beliefs or experiences differ from those of the group being represented. The goal should be to foster understanding and promote respectful dialogue, not to advance personal agendas at the expense of accuracy.

Why It Matters:
Misrepresentation in media contributes to public misconceptions, often resulting in real-world harm for the group being portrayed. While storytelling requires creative license, it does not justify distorting the identities or experiences of real groups to make a narrative more entertaining. Ethical storytelling requires that consultants act with integrity, prioritizing accuracy over personal or ideological goals. Encouraging consultants to adhere to these principles helps build trust in media portrayals and promotes a more informed, respectful society.

References:

  • “The Ethics of Historical Fiction,” DarwinCatholic Blog.
  • “Is Historical Fiction Ethical? Part I & II,” Ethics of Writing.

Helpful Resources in Fact-Checking American Primeval

Timeline of Key Historical Events (1846–1863)

Faith REconstruction