![FairMormon Logo](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021_fair_logo_primary.png)
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
< Criticism of Mormonism | Books | Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows
m (RogerNicholson moved page Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows/Index/Chapter 13 to [[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Me...) |
m (→top: Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}) |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | {{ | + | {{Main Page}} |
{{H1 | {{H1 | ||
− | |L= | + | |L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows/Chapter 13 |
|H=Response to claims made in "Chapter 13: Vengeance Is Mine" | |H=Response to claims made in "Chapter 13: Vengeance Is Mine" | ||
|S= | |S= | ||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|>=[[../Chapter 14|Chapter 14]] | |>=[[../Chapter 14|Chapter 14]] | ||
}} | }} | ||
+ | <!-- INSERT CHART HERE --> | ||
+ | <onlyinclude> | ||
+ | {{H2 | ||
+ | |L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows/Chapter 13 | ||
+ | |H=Response to claims made in Blood of the Prophets, "Chapter 13: Vengeance Is Mine" | ||
+ | |S= | ||
+ | |L1=Response to claim: 246 - It is claimed that Brigham Young's trip south in May 1861 was to keep Utahans quiet about the Massacre | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | </onlyinclude> | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 246 - It is claimed that Brigham Young's trip south in May 1861 was to keep Utahans quiet about the Massacre== |
{{IndexClaimItemShort | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
− | |title= | + | |title=Blood of the Prophets |
|claim=Brigham's trip south in May 1861 was to keep Utahans quiet about the Massacre. | |claim=Brigham's trip south in May 1861 was to keep Utahans quiet about the Massacre. | ||
+ | |authorsources=<br> | ||
+ | #{{CrossRef:Denton:American Massacre|chap=13|pages=209}} | ||
}} | }} | ||
− | + | {{:Question: Was prosecution of those responsible for Mountain Meadows Massacre blocked by the Church?}} | |
− | + | ||
− | + | {{endnotes sources}} | |
− | }} |
Chapter 12 | A FAIR Analysis of: Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, a work by author: Will Bagley
|
Chapter 14 |
Jump to details:
Brigham's trip south in May 1861 was to keep Utahans quiet about the Massacre.Author's sources:
- Compare treatment in American Massacre: p. 209.
Overview |
Critics charge that Brigham Young blocked prosecution of those who committed the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
LaJean Purcell Carruth deciphered Brigham Young's presidential office journal (and other items) written in Deseret Alphabet. This newly discovered information makes it clear that federal prosecutors —not Brigham Young!—-are the most responsible for not bringing the perpetrators to justice.[1] Thomas Alexander writes:
On July 5, 1859, after the public knew that Cumming had received word from Washington placing the army under the governor’s control, Young met with George A. Smith, Albert Carrington, and James Ferguson. They discussed the "reaction to the Mountain Meadow Massacre." Young told them that US. attorney Alexander Wilson had called "to consult with him about making some arrests of" the accused.[95]
On the same day, Wilson had met with Young. Young told him "that if the judges would open a court at Parowan or some other convenient location in the south, .. . unprejudiced and uninfluenced by. . . the army, so that man could have a fair and impartial trial He would go there himself, and he presumed that Gov. Cumming would also go . . . " He "would use all his influence to have the parties arrested and have the whole. . . matter investigated thoroughly and impartially and justice meted out to every man." Young said he would not exert himself, however, "to arrest men to be treated like dogs and dragged about by the army, and confined and abused by them,’ presumably referring to the actions of Cradlebaugh and the army in Provo. Young said that if the judges and army treated people that way, the federal officials "must hunt them up themselves."[96]
Wilson agreed that it was unfair "to drag men and their witnesses 200 or 300 miles to trial." Young said "the people wanted a fair and impartial court of justice, like they have in other states and territories, and if he had anything to do with it, the army must keep its place." Wilson said he felt "the proposition was reasonable and he would propose it to the judges."[97]
Now confident that the army would not intrude and abuse or murder Mormons, and that the US. attorney and governor would support them, the church leaders lent their influence to bringing the accused into court. On June 15, 1859, to prepare the way for the administration of justice, Brigham Young had told George A. Smith and Jacob Hamblin that "as soon as a Court of Justice could be held, so that men could be heard without the influence of the military he should advise men accused to come forward and demand trial on the charges preferred against them for the Mountain Meadow Massacre" as he had previously done. Then he again sent George A. Smith and Amasa Lyman south, this time to urge those accused of the crime to prepare for trial and to try to suppress Mormon-authored crime[98].[2]
However, Utah's governor felt that any such crimes would be covered by the post-Utah war amnesty.
Critical sources |
|
It is claimed that actions of Brigham Young and the institutional Church and/or local Mormons prevented federal officials from prosecuting those guilty of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
There is no evidence the Church blocked prosecution of the Massacre perpetrators. There is substantial evidence that poor federal organization, infighting, and refusal to deputize LDS lawmen played a role in slowing the process. When presented with evidence by lawful authorities, LDS juries returned indictments.
One reviewer described the difficulties with this theory: [3]
Critical sources |
|
Critics charge that only a corrupt "deal" with Brigham Young allowed prosecutors to charge and convict anyone with the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
One reviewer described the difficulties with this theory:
Critical sources |
|
Critics charge that the institutional Church interfered with the first trial of John D. Lee and others to prevent convictions in 1875-1876. [5]
Prosecutorial misconduct was likely responsible for the failure of the first trial. Lee was not tied to any criminal conduct, and prosecutors' desire to blame Brigham Young—without evidence—for the massacre led to the trial's failure.
One reviewer described the difficulties with this theory:
Blood of the Prophets argues that the church was guilty of obstructing the prosecution of the 1875 and 1876 trials of John D. Lee. Yet Bagley errs in his analysis of the events of the trials. He fails, with a few exceptions for the first trial only, to rely upon the actual transcripts. Instead, he relies upon exposés. These secondhand accounts are not accurate and have serious errors of omission and editorial addition. In particular, I object to Bagley's reliance upon William Bishop's Mormonism Unveiled for the second trial. Bishop's stenographer dropped and changed testimony in places. Abraham Lincoln's biographers have recognized the difficulty of using press accounts as they reconstructed the accessory-after-the-fact trial of Dr. Samuel Mudd, the physician who set John Wilkes Booth's leg. In contrast to Bagley, neither Brooks nor Leonard Arrington relied on press accounts for their analyses of the Lee trial. [6]
Blood of the Prophets also relies on the memoirs of Judge Jacob Boreman for his impressions of the trial. Except for perhaps the demeanor of witnesses, a judge's observations of witnesses could not add anything to the official transcript. Boreman's reminiscences demonstrate some real problems. With not a shred of evidence other than the speculation circulated by others, Boreman said he believed that high Mormon officials communicated death threats to witnesses of the massacre and that ordinary members of the church believed they were authorized to commit perjury by reason of the vows they took in the church's Endowment House. None of that is reflected in the trial transcript. Arrington opined that Boreman was prepared to believe the worst about the Mormons and that his naïveté made him clay in the hands of other federal anti-Mormon fanatics.
Turning to the events of the first trial in 1875, there is no evidence that the church obstructed justice. This trial mistried with a hung jury, to the universal denunciation of the church in the non-Mormon press. All Mormon jurors and one "backslider" voted to acquit. Three non-Mormons voted to convict (p. 296). Not a single witness tied Lee to any criminal activity, including former Mormon Bishop Philip Klingensmith, who turned state's evidence. The prosecutors, William C. Carey and Robert Baskin, used the trial to grandstand against Brigham Young. Even the [generally anti-Mormon] Salt Lake Daily Tribune admitted that the trial failure resulted from the prosecutors' "utter neglect of the business" and "disgraceful lethargy." [end of cited material]
Overview |
There is substantial evidence that Brigham Young did not order the massacre. Will Bagley (and, following him, the author of One Nation Under Gods) have distorted the contents of the Huntington diary and ignored other evidence.
ONUG makes two related claims:
Both of these claims are false.
The book's argument is essentially identical (if less detailed) to Will Bagley's Blood of the Prophets. Bagley's analysis has been savaged by multiple reviewers. (See "Further Reading" in main article on Mountain Meadows Massacre.)
Wrote attorney Robert Crockett of Bagley's argument:[7]
Thomas Kane, a close non-member friend of the Mormons who had often defended their interests, asked Brigham Young about the Massacre.
Critical sources |
|
President Young’s express message of reply to Haight, dated September 10, arrived in Cedar City two days after the massacre. His letter reported recent news that no U.S. troops would be able to reach the territory before winter. "So you see that the Lord has answered our prayers and again averted the blow designed for our heads," he wrote."In regard to emigration trains passing through our settlements," Young continued, "we must not interfere with them untill they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them. There are no other trains going south that I know of[.] [I]f those who are there will leave let them go in peace. While we should be on the alert, on hand and always ready we should also possess ourselves in patience, preserving ourselves and property ever remembering that God rules."
Related articles: | September Dawn film (2007) Summary: Does the film about the Mountain Meadows Massacre accurately portray the historical events? |
Brigham and the Mormon Reformation Summary: Similar charges against Brigham Young stem from the Mormon Reformation period. |
Critical sources |
|
Notes
Notes
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.
Donate Now