Customer Reviews

Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows

5 star:		(28)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

On 11 September 1857, a wagon train traveling from Arkansas and headed to California, was ambushed in a valley in Southwestern Utah. The Mountain Meadows Massacre involved the slaughter of 120 men, women, and children, and although the technology of massacres has now far overtaken it, it was one of the worst mass murders in US History. No one disputes these facts, but there is a good deal of dispute about the details. _Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows_ (University of Oklahoma Press) by Will Bagley, who writes for the _Salt Lake Tribune_, gives details, but since the book demonstrates the involvement of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the massacre, it will be a controversial effort. Bagley shows, however, that the church has long campaigned to keep details of the massacre hidden, and he gives documentation that the reason for this is that leaders of the church provoked the killings and members of the church committed them. Even though stories of Mormon complicity in the massacre were present immediately afterwards, and have been demonstrated by historians in this century, the church has continued to deny culpability. The deniers will have to contend with this big, well documented book. It cannot close the issue forever; one of the lessons of Bagley's history is that history itself can never be fully written. This is to the chagrin of Mormon leaders. At a memorial ceremony in 1999, president of the church Gordon B. Hinckley declared that it was "time to leave the entire matter in the hands of God" and ordered: "Let the book of the past be closed." Fat chance.

Bagley knows what he is up against. The fate of the Fancher party's wagon train from Arkansas until its doom can only be reconstructed from problematic reports: "Almost every acknowledged 'fact' about the fate of these murdered people is open to question." However, Bagley has firmly placed the massacre within larger church history. He demonstrates why the Mormon leaders viewed the presence of Arkansans going through the state as an outrage against them. He shows how they were already expecting a showdown by the US Army because of their famous polygamy, their refusal to install a reliable court system, and Brigham Young's tendency to make pronouncements like "I live above the law and so do this people." When the Fancher party passed from Salt Lake City into the impoverished southern Utah, interpreters were available to rally the Indians, and the book gives evidence that Young himself had encouraged the Indians to seize the valuable stock of the well-supplied wagon train. Various church officials of the region organized the Indians, and painted themselves up to look like Indians; this happened without a doubt, though church officials will disagree that it happened to the extent that Bagley has well documented. All, saving some children under seven years old, were slaughtered in separate scenes of bloody chaos. The questions about Brigham Young's involvement before the massacre will always remain, and Bagley shows how the Mormons have argued that their prophet could not have committed any such evil. The evidence he gives here is plain, however.

Bagley not only gives a history of the massacre and its aftermath, but also a history of the histories about it, graciously noting how much he has depended on the work of Mormon historian Juanita Brooks. Bagley has confirmed most of Brooks's findings, and has new material to report. This is not just newly-found fading documents from dusty archives, although there is plenty of that. He can summarize new forensic evidence, from a dig to make a new memorial at the Mountain Meadows site in 1999; the bones, some of women and children, had not been damaged by the clubs or tomahawks of Indians, but by the bullets of Mormons. Bagley's smooth narrative makes fascinating reading, and his well-referenced arguments clear up much of what happened at Mountain Meadows, before, during, and after the massacre. He writes that although there is much obscure in the matter, "Its causes and effects are not an impenetrable mystery." He shows that those who think of themselves as God's anointed have chosen to rely on mystery and have failed to admit or atone for crimes that history has made plain.

Will Bagley has chosen to tackle one of the most difficult subjects in Western American History--the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Bagley is to be commended for examining new sources of information, re-examining old sources, and drawing deeper conclusions than in previously written material.

This book challenges Juanita Brook's "Mountain Meadows Massacre" as being the most authoritative book dealing with the subject. Brook's book was well-written and meticulously researched. However, Brooks was too accepting of unsupported statements and failed, perhaps, to reach certain logical conclusions.

For those who are unaware, in 1857, an unfortunate group of pioneers traveling by covered wagon from Arkansas passed through Utah Territory on their way to California. The journey happened to coincide with the murder of LDS Church Apostle, Parley P. Pratt, in Arkansas shortly before. It also occurred at the same time President Buchanan was sending the United States Army to Utah to gain control over the "disloyal" Mormons. In September of 1857, as the pioneers were camped in the Mountain Meadows west of Cedar City they were initially assaulted by a group of Indians (there may have been Mormon settlers dressed as Indians among the group as well). When several days of hard fighting failed to destroy the pioneers, a group of Mormons appeared on the scene and pretended to negotiate a ceasefire with the Indians. As soon as the Arkansas pioneers laid down their guns, they were than slaughtered by a group including both Mormons and Indians. It is estimated 120 people were butchered in this fashion.

Only one man, John D. Lee, was ever tried in a court of law for this crime and that occurred twenty years later after a massive cover-up took place involving church leaders and the whole community in southern Utah. Lee alone paid the penalty for this event. He was executed by firing squad in 1877 for his role in the massacre.

Many haunting questions remain unanswered: 1. How many Mormons were involved in the massacre? 2. Was the massacre the result of action by local church leaders, or a directive from the President of the Church? 3. Why did the church allow the property of the emigrants to be looted by settlers and Indians? 4. Why was there a need to cover-up the details of this incident for so many years afterwards? 5. Why was John D. Lee the only man punished for the crime?

Bagley's answers are more disturbing than anything that has ever been written about the massacre so far. He concludes that the killing of the settlers had to be ordered in some fashion by high church leaders. And, it is difficult to explain away the actions of Apostle George A Smith who left Salt Lake City and rode south at the time to condemn the pioneers in the wagon train, at the same time they arrived in Salt Lake City. It is also difficult to explain away the journal entries of Dimick Huntington which provide support for the theory that church leaders encouraged Indians to attack the pioneers.

Bagley is subject to criticism because much of any account of the massacre is simply "interpretation". Bagley chooses to interpret evidence to blame church leaders. In fact, the evidence may be capable of different interpretations. Perhaps, Bagley doesn't give Brigham Young enough credit for the letter he sent to the Southern Utah communities instructing them to leave the pioneers alone. (which somehow arrived just a day or two too late to prevent he massacre). Also, its difficult to rely on much of anything John D. Lee said. Lee wrote and said many contradictory things about the massacre. Additionally, his statements may have been motivated by a desire to escape criminal responsibility for his acts. Much of the other evidence in the book is both dated and circumstantial.

However, if there is a conclusion that can be drawn from the book it is this. The true and complete story of the massacre has never been told. Obviously, there is much more to it than has ever been explained. That the church participated in a coverup of the events cannot be denied. And, one has to ask why, if no one "higher up" had any culpability for what occurred.

Will Bagley is to be applauded for tackling a difficult subject and having the courage to reach the conclusions that he has. Perhaps, his book will result in more thoughtful research and inquiry into this subject.

For years the slaughter of the Fancher wagon train at Mountain Meadows in southern Utah has been a point of contention for the Mormon Church. Who is to blame? According to the official version of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon John D. Lee was the primary villain who, as the lone scapegoat, paid for his crime when he was executed in 1877. Although the massacre had been discussed in "anti-Mormon" books, it was a loyal Mormon by the name of Juanita Brooks who bravely penned "The Mountain Meadows Massacre" in 1950. Her book created a firestorm by giving credible reasons to believe that several Mormons in high positions were, in fact, responsible for the tragic event of September 11, 1857.

Now a new book by historian Will Bagley is going to cause the Mormon Church even more consternation as he attempts to lay blame for the massacre directly at the feet of second LDS President Brigham Young. This was a theory privately held by Brooks, but she could not prove this at the time of her book. On page 363 Bagley writes, "A historian's professional and personal conclusions often differ, as was the case with Brooks' final assignment of responsibility for the massacre at Mountain Meadows. In the last revision of her book, she stressed the importance of Young's manipulation of the Indian leaders and the military orders placing `each man where he was to do his duty.' She retained her original conclusion that the existing evidence did not prove that Brigham Young and George A. Smith specifically order the massacre, but it showed they `set up social conditions that made it possible.' In a private letter to Roger B. Mathison of the University of Utah Library, she went much further: she had `come to feel that Brigham Young was directly responsible for the tragedy.' John D. Lee, she believed, would make it to heaven before Brigham Young."

Bagley states, "Claiming that Brigham Young had nothing to do with Mountain Meadows is akin to arguing that Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with the Civil War" (p. 379). He discounts the vilification of the Arkansas immigrants/victims as nothing but lies perpetrated by the murderers themselves. Bagley recognizes the complicated events leading up to the tragic event, but he makes it clear that one cannot overlook the fact that this was an act to avenge the blood of Mormon apostle Parley P. Pratt who was killed in May of 1857 by the legal husband of his 12th wife, Eleanor McLean, in Arkansas. Bagley's "smoking gun" (?) is the journal of Dimick Huntington, a source never seen by Brooks. Huntington recorded a meeting that Young had with local Indians on September 1, 1857 where he agreed to give the emigrants' cattle to the Indians. Says Bagley, "He [Young] encouraged his Indian allies to attack the Fancher party to make clear to the nation the cost of war with the Mormons" (p. 379).

Bagley's book is a must read for anyone who wants to get beyond the LDS Church spin on this very thorny issue. Mormon Church historian Richard Turley and his loyal band of researchers will be coming out next year with what will certainly look like a rebuttal to Bagley's conclusions. Regardless, "Blood of the Prophets" is sure to shake up many Mormons who for the first time will realize that it is quite possible their second president was responsible for the murders of 120 innocent men, women, and children.

I really take exception to some of the mindless reviews of this book posted here. There's no denying that Bagley has personal biases. Yet he has portrayed the event in a fair manner.

Bagley's work does a number of things to build upon and hone the work begun by Juanita Brooks, namely:
1) Brings further attention to the unjustified defamation of the Fancher and Baker parties by Utah Mormons.
2) Implicates Brigham Young to a greater extent.
3) Casts John D. Lee in a more balanced light as both a willing participant and a scapegoat.
4) In the spirit of Juanita Brooks, makes the point that the LDS church needs to accept ultimate responsibility and reap the consequences, both positive and negative. The LDS church has not yet found its moment of honesty as to the MMM, although some church leaders are making limited progress in that area.
5) Puts the Paiute's involved in their likely mercenary role as determined by the evidence.
6) Catches the reader up on the most recent developments in mountain meadows preservation.

I'm a Mormon, but I can't deny that Brigham Young most likely wanted to rattle some cages by encouraging an indian attack on the Fancher wagon train. Brigham, as somewhat of a religious fanatic (for good and for bad, let the chips fall where they may) is as culpable as sin in setting up the perfect storm for 120 men, women, and children to be slaughtered in cold blood by obedience-driven Mormons already spooked by the horrors of being driven out of their homes and into the Rocky Mountains.

In the midst of the impending apocalypse, with the fresh death of Parley P. Pratt, with federal troops bearing down on Deseret, Brigham had no qualms with showing the gentiles that Deseret was unsafe by unloading on an emmigrant wagon train, as long as the natives could take the blame. He had nothing against the natives that wasn't couched in faith; they were just filling their place in LDS theology as the "battle-axe of the Lord" (please read the Book of Mormon for details) and he was simply helping them fulfill their manifest destiny.

I find one fact particularly telling. If Brigham and co. felt so bad about the massacre, why didn't he order the immigrants to be given a proper, respectful burial? Instead, the Mormons placed a light coating of dirt over the victims, knowing it wouldn't protect them from scavengers, and basically let 100 dead emmigrants rot out in the open for a few years before the U.S. army arrived on the scene and gave the victims a proper burial. In between that time Mormons visited the site on multiple occasions and were aghast at the corpses with locks of hair rotting away on the meadow. Sickening. That is one hell of a smoking gun right there.

Not to mention the well-documented deliberate cover-up. If Brigham was not involved, then he certainly had nothing to hide. Again, all the evidence says he's guilty as hell, prophet and all.

As much as the LDS church is a positive force in the world, it also has some big skeletons in its closet, and MMM is among its biggest. The church does not transcend its people. If the church requires honesty from its people, it should require honesty from its leaders. Lying for the Lord only impedes forgiveness, understanding, and moral accountability.

Bagley's book is not only fair with the evidence, but it significantly contributes to mountain meadows history by charging all interested parties to come to grips with the reasonable evidence and to take responsibility as the steps to true healing and understanding.

This book is a must read for anyone that wants to be more informed on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. There are a few books out there on the Massacre, but in my opinion this is the best.

It is important to realize that Bagley certainly does have a bias and presents much of his own personal opinion in this work. That said, he has done an immense amount of research on the subject and I believe that he knows more about the Massacre than any other single historian out there. He also gives Juanita Brooks her due because she was the first to do a published work on the Massacre under immense scrutiny from the church.

While I don't necessarily agree with some of Bagley's opinions concerning who was ultimately responsible of the Massacre, his opinion should be carefully considered. Overall this book was a very readable book and Bagley's sources and footnotes are incredible. I highly recommend it.

This book should be read by anyone interested in Western Americana and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Bagley has performed yeoman service with his treatment of the tragedy at Mountain Meadows. His research has opened important opportunities for objective evaluation. Important new material includes, among other sources, both Brigham Young's encouragement to the Paiutes to attack immigrant wagon trains and John Hawley's memoirs of Mormon attitudes immediately after the attack in the southern counties of Utah Territory. Although Hawley denies that he participated in the massacre, the evidence seems credible that two of his brothers were at the scene as was Hawley, no later than the afternoon of the slaughter of the prisoners.

Recent forensic evidence on immigrant remains brings into doubt the charge that the Paiutes killed the majority of women and children, as been stated by various Mormon sources. Point-blank gunshot wounds to bodies of women, children, and infants point to the Mormon militia being far more active in the killings and contradicts their statements they killed only the men and older boys.

Whether Brigham Young actively ordered the wagon train's destruction remains circumstantial. However, his behavior at the time provides a basis for his indictment at the very least on grounds of conspiracy and failure of leadership.

The real question remains: "Would priesthood holders in Southern Utah destroy a wagon train of non-believers without Young's explicit approval?" Any serious student of LDS history knows the answer.

I was told to go and read Bagley, so that I would know what in heck I am talking about when discussing the MMM. Well, taking no offense, that is what I did: even bought it from Amazon too. Took me less than three weeks, in between other activities and reading, to plow through Blood of the Prophets.

After I was done, I knew a lot of things that I had not heard before; little details that are intriguing, such as discovering just how well known John D. Lee was as a legendary character even in his own lifetime. And that his trial was a media event not equalled until the Lindbergh trial, and not exceeded until the trial of O. J. Simpson. That kind of comparative context resonates with me: the Lee trial at the time was BIG news.

I have come away with a lot of these kinds of details, but my views on the MMM have not changed much. The main change has to be that I do accept that Brigham Young had directly a lot more to do with the attack at Mountain Meadows than I appreciated before. The emotional climate in Utah territory was entirely his fault: a religious reformation (recommitment to fully live fundamentalist Mormonism) was afoot, which the emigrants walked all unknowing squarely into the middle of. Had they had any real concept of just how high the Mormons' feelings were running, they would have bent over backwards to be polite, instead of being openly angry, and even verbally abusive (which seems evident on the basis of the scanty, contradictory evidence).

The MMM could not have happened, had the Missouri and Illinois persecutions (pogroms) against the Mormons not occurred. And those atrocities would not have occurred if the Mormon leaders had not been such fire eaters in their Millennial and apocalyptic preaching: Rigdon's "Salt Sermon" set the Mob off again in 1838, after several years of relatively peaceful coexistence. Joseph Smith's arrival in Missouri combined with his public efforts to implement the law of consecration (and his own religious reformation) produced a violent reaction against his people. That episode, combined with the death of their prophets, and their expulsion from the Union, drove the Mormons into a desperate battle of survival in the wilderness: then within ten years, the Union was hounding them again, and their enemies of the "Mob" were making threats.

Bagley makes it obvious that the later legendary (rumor mill) material that painted the Fancher-Baker party in the blackest dye, was not founded on truth. But he downplays the fact that the Mormons around Cedar city believed the emigrants were indeed their enemies, and included some of the very persons who had slain Joseph, Hyrum his brother, and very recently, P. P. Pratt, their most beloved apostle. Without that conviction, and a feeling of vengeance for past wrongs, all of Brigham Young's preaching and "warmongering" would have fallen on deaf ears.

So it is the combination of the persecutions, the religious reformation of the late 1850's, the coming threat of Federal supression and dispossession, the passing through Utah territory of perceived "gentile" enemies, and Young's standing order to not let such enemies pass through their lands with impunity, which drove the military action against the Fancher-Baker train. It was initially exactly that: a military action against an enemy. But it quickly become something else entirely: a siege against innocent women and children. The Indians played little or no significant part in the final solution: the treacherous disarmament and killing of the adults and older children. Later, the participants to a man swore that they had been following orders (when they admitted to being involved at all that is).

Bagley's main points are well drawn, and I agree that the entire book brought them out very well:

It was P. P. Pratt's widow "fingering" the Fancher party as the murderers of her late husband (and containing some of the murderers of Joseph and Hyrum Smith) which sealed the doom of that particular wagon train (a number of other trains were on the road through central Utah to California and all made it there without loss of life - although their property was largely plundered by Indians and Mormon "interpreters").

Brigham Young was an accessory after the fact of the massacre, but, for lack of evidence, cannot be accused of ordering the massacre. (If there was any evidence to the contrary, Bagley would be more than happy to have provided it; "[he doesn't] like Brigham Young."

The massacre was not a crime of "renegade" or "rogue" Mormons, but an act of true believers, who were obeying their most solemn, temple endowment covenant to "avenge the blood of the prophets."

Brigham Young stands personally responsible for creating the climate in Utah territory in which the massacre could take place: therefore he as prophet of the church shares the blame for instigating the massacre.

All of this violence was looked upon by the Mormons as justifed acts of war and self defense and vengeance.

Yet after all the evidence is examined we must conclude that the killing of even a single person in the Fancher-Baker party was unjustified.

This is what can be expected to occur, when a religious people are so devoted to the principle of following a prophet, that they turn off their own thoughts and feelings of what is right and wrong in order to carry out their commands in full obedience.

Those are the main points that Bagley makes.

But just because the MMM is viewed as a crime now does not mean that the Mormons thought of it in those terms back then. The great majority of members of the church then were horrified by it, and even disbelieved it without the atrocity stories attributed to the emigrants: but even today, far more Mormons are unwilling to look upon the MMM as anything less than an act justified by the conditions of the times.

Bagley calls the massacre one of those "great crimes of power, [that] the criminals expected to get away with..." But this choice of words only reveals his personal perspective, his animosity toward Brigham Young.

It is a distoration, to assume that Young, et al looked upon their position as criminal, and something they needed to "get away with." Bagley makes clear enough the fact that Mormons from Young on down believed the "winding up scene" was coming: that they were fighting to preserve and build up the kingdom of God; that the United States was doomed. Therefore "getting away with" the massacre is hardly any sort of thought that would have entered Brigham Young's mind at all.

It was only after the fact, and after the end of the Civil War, that Young slowly realized just how mistaken his hope in a sudden Millennium was: the perpetrators of the MMM were being sought by the Federal courts. Only at the end, did Brigham Young sacrifice John D. Lee, when it became obvious that the Nation would have justice for the atrocity. In the second trial (after a hung jury), new witnesses for the prosecution were found; they had been coached in what to say; and the new all-Mormon jury unanimously cast a guilty verdict. Any reader who doesn't see the hand of Brigham Young at work behind such a manipulation of the courts to condemn Lee is in the grip of severe cognitive dissonance indeed.

Juanita Brooks said it first: "Nothing but the truth can be good enough for the Church to which I belong." Will Bagley says it better: "Church leaders might wish until the end of time that the [Mountain Meadows Massacre] matter could be forgotten, but history bears witness that only the truth will lay to rest the ghosts of Mountain Meadows." Bagley, following the tradition of Brooks, has done a yeoman's job in compiling the most complete story of the tragedy of September 11, 1857 to date. And yet, without the Mormon Church accepting responsibility for the role of Brigham Young ... and George A. Smith, the doctrines of blood and vengence begun with Joseph Smith, Jr., and the obedience required under the threat of blood atonement by local church leaders, the story will continue to haunt the lives of Mormons living in southern Utah, and will continue to come up again and again in the work and thinking of thoughtful historians, both in and out of the Church. The only way to give rest to the ghosts of Mountain Meadows is to face the truth. And that the Church has not done.

Bagley is convinced that Brigham Young was more than an accessory after the fact (Brook's official, published opinion), and was in fact partly or wholly responsible for initiating the crime. Unfortunately for Bagley and the rest of history, the so-called "smoking gun" has yet to turn up. To date, no letter signed by Brigham ordering the destruction of the Fancher train has been discovered ... He draws this conclusion from a scanty array of circumstantial evidence, including a vague reference in Dimick Huntington's diary in which he alleges Brigham authorized the southern Paiutes to help themselves to the emigrant's livestock. This "proves" nothing, but it adds to the perception that Young MAY have known, and MAY have ordered or approved of the attack on the train.

If you are looking for verification that the Church's highest leaders can be implicated in this tragic affair, it ain't here. But SO MUCH else is here that the reader feels reasonably confident filling in the gaps on their own, or, in the words of John D. Lee, "putting the saddle on the right horse."

Bagley does a wonderful job in creating the context, both for the Fancher train and the Mormons at the time of the massacre. The reader gains great insight into the power of the prophecy that the Lamanites (Native Americans) would cast off their "curse" and unite with the saints in ushering in the millenium. Thus the Indians were seen as "the battle axe of the Lord," held firmly in the hand of...Brigham Young, Indian Agent for the Territory of Utah. Bagley also paints the picture of the unquestioned obedience required of the saints to...Brigham Young, and his strict belief in the need for "blood atonement" for certain sins, including apostacy, adultery, and no doubt spilling the blood the prophets and apostles, such as Parley Pratt. Pratt, beloved apsostle of the early church was killed by the jealous husband of one of Pratt's wives (yes, you read that right...she was married to two men at the same time, and not the only woman in the church to be polyandrous...) in Arkansas, the home state of the Fancher party. And you are also treated to witness the manipulation of the legal system in Utah to impede, distort, and generally disrupt the prosecution of the men on the field at Mountain Meadows by none other than...Brigham Young. ... But as Bagley points out, for the Church to concede that Brigham or George A. Smith, or other high-ranking "Prophets or Apostles" had any involvement what-so-ever, it must risk shaking the faith of many of it's members who believe these men walk and talk with God daily, and take their orders from him. ...history is seldom written so well!

I liked Bagley's work as the product of years of effort and the assembly of some new material. However, the book is very weak in the assessment of official documents, probably its greatest defect.

When Blood of the Prophets concludes that the LDS Church reached a "deal" in September 1876 with the Justice Department which would require the government to cease any further investigation of the massacre in exchange for the scapegoating of John D. Lee, Bagley misses two important things. First, he ignores federal case law which would have made any such deal a nullity and unenforceable. A federal prosecutor cannot offer a deal like the one Bagley describes without the approval of a judge or a president.

Second, he ignores official correspondence from 1876 to 1884. In that correspondence, government lawyers express the feeling that it would be wise not to make their investigation public, as it would alert possible suspects. The investigation, in the end, proved ineffectual. Nonetheless, the government pursued it for years. A president, a secretary of war, three attorneys general, several marshals, and a federal judge all weighed in on the prosecutorial effort from 1876 to 1884. A presidential pardon was secretly offered Lee to turn against Brigham Young in 1877 -- months after the date Bagley tells us a deal was made to ignore the prosecution of Brigham Young and others. A reward was offered by the Department of Justice in 1884 for the apprehension of massacre perpetrators who were fugitives.

Bagley's theory of a "deal," however, is the central theme of the book.

There really is, not yet, any definitive treatise on the massacre which adequately handles the official documents.

i found a reference to this in re-reading Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven. Juanita Brooks' Mountain Meadows Massacre had been, for me, the bible about these doings. Bagley has gained access to additional information (eg, letters, meeting notes, etc) and fleshes out the context of the ongoing disputes (from the midwest to the west) in a thorough way, giving me a better understanding of both perspectives. It is a more "academic" book than Brooks'; I wouldn't dispense with either.

Just FYI, my interest in this is based on the decade-plus later murder of the Howland brothers and Bill Dunn* in the "wardhouse" in Toquerville, Utah, on the supposition that they were investigating the MM Massacre. I was disappointed that Bagley didn't get into this.

*the Howlands and Dunn had left the Powell expedition through the Grand Canyon.