With the Mountain Meadows Massacre anniversary upon us, below are some personal reflections, in the form of lingering thoughts and images, of visiting the site of the covered-Up Mormon Cult murders of 120 innocent American immigrants, That massacre--in that non-descript meadow surrounded by low-lying, sagebrush-covered hills--occurred 156 years ago today--September 11th--1857. To this day and forever, the Mormon Cult has the blood of those victims on its savage, blood-atoning hands.
_____


The highway signs indicating one's approach to the Mountain Meadows Massacre site are innocuous and give absolutely no hint of the horrible atrocity that occurred there. The roadside signs, at both the one mile and half-mile mark on opposite sides of the highway, simply say, "Mountain Meadows."

No mention of "Massacre."

Once one leaves the highway to follow the "Mountain Meadows" sign, one enters a weathered asphalt parking lot. There are no parking lot lights in this area and a wooden, informational backboard covered with plexiglas at the parking lot site is completely empty of maps, brochures or any other informational material.

From the parking lot, a narrow, asphalted footpath snakes up a small hill, with a sign indicating by arrow the direction to a "Mountain Meadows Monument."

This sign, as well, makes no mention of a "Massacre."

Ascending the small hill, one comes upon two small, black-colored, separate signs, mounted on bases at about waist level, on the left side of the trail. The signage indicates that local Mormon settlers, along with native Indians from the area, laid siege to the Fancher party for several days at the Fancher campsite, killing 15 men in that party during that initial period, then negotiating an arrangement with the Fancher party under which the migrants surrendered to the Mormons.

The informational signage indicates that the Fancher migrants were led out by Mormon escort under a white flag and then, without warning, were shot and killed by their LDS escorts.

The posted account records that a total of 120 members of the Fancher party were killed, that several surviving children of the Massacre were eventually returned to Arkansas and that at least one child from the Fancher group remained behind in Utah.

The walkway information says that the Massacre occurred during the "so-called Utah War" and that the reasons for the Massacre's occurrence are not known to this day.

One of the pathway signs indicates that the Massacre occurred on September 11, 1857. Someone has permanently etched a scratchy line in the metal under the date "September 11."

Upon reaching the summit of the hill, one comes upon a granite plaque, several feet in length, upon which are listed in capital letters the names (in some cases, by first name only) and ages of the Massacre's murder victims. This plaque was erected by descendants of the Mountain Meadows Massacre victims in 1990.

Some of the victims identified on the plaque are children, as young as five years of age.

The plaque looks out on the Mountain Meadows Massacre site, which is located in a flat, wind-swept stretch of land that runs for what appears to be about two miles. The Meadow itself butts up against a backdrop ridge of low-lying, sage- and cedar-covered hills. The Meadow is on private property, with a few farm buildings dotting the area near the Massacre site. The Meadow features tall, bent-over grass and squatty brush, is rooted in rocky soil and shows some signs of farming.

Close to the plaque, atop the hill, are three informational signs, facing outward toward the Meadow and located at approximately knee-high level, which provide details about the settlement of the area by the Mormons, together with maps of where the Fancher Party initially camped and faced siege, where from the campsite its ill-fated members were led away to be massacred and where the actual spot of the Massacre site is situated, together with locations of early memorials and burial plots for the victims.

Also atop the hill are two fixed, simple pipes, attached to metal poles. Through the pipe on the left, one can view the Mormon Church-dedicated memorial site, established in 1999 at the site of initial siege at the Fancher campsite. Through the other pipe, one can see the actual site of the Massacre, which is out in the open Meadow, near the right sloping edge of the ridge.

From the hill, one then descends by foot back to the parking lot and follows a vehicular dirt road down to the Mormon-dedicated site, which is also the burial spot for 29 victims of the Massacre.

This site is flanked by a parking lot, with another wooden plexiglas-covered informational backboard that is completely devoid of any information.

The LDS-erected memorial site is surrounded by a wrought-iron fence and gate with a heavy latch. A sign on the fence near the gate requests that one close the gate when leaving.

An American flag snaps and flutters in the strong wind on a pole located outside the fence.

The memorial site features a large mound of stones, approximately 15 to 20 feet tall, in the center of the fenced-in area. On opposite ends from each other, separated by this rock mound, are two informational stones at the base of the rock pile, on which are etched details, among other memorial-related points, of the eventual dedication of the site by Mormon Church President Gordon B. Hinckley on September 11th, 1999.

In one corner of the enclosed memorial is a small, metal plaque, embedded at ground level, indicating in small print that the remains of 29 victims are actually buried at this site. (The remains of these murder victims are, in fact, entombed--along with some Arkansas soil--in a vault at this location after having been accidentally unearthed by a backhoe in the late 1990s during efforts to shore up a retaining wall that undergirds the memorial. Information on the hill up behind the memorial indicates that these victims were originally buried by Federal troops after the Massacre, before being inadvertently uncovered by the earthmover).

Returning to the highway and heading north, the road skirts the area where the members of the Fancher party were actually massacred. After the Mormon attackers duped the Fancher migrants into surrendering, they were escorted by their Mormon murderers several hundred yards away to an area out of sight of the Fancher encampment and, there, brutally massacred.

Although the highway runs very close to, and within clear line of sight of, the spot of the Massacre, there is no signage or other indicators provided to identify this spot from the roadway.

As a personal afterthought, down from the Mormon Church memorial area, off-site, is a small stream, from which I collected three small stones by which to remember my visit. These stones had been washed clean through the years by the waters of that tiny tributary.

The Mormon Church, in contrast, will never be able to wash the blood off its hands for what occurred on September 11th, 1857, at Mountain Meadows.
_____


Some additional observations, this time on perverse Mormon PR in covering up (literally) the corpses of Mountain Meadows Massacre victims with the American flag:

At the site of the Mountains Meadow Massacre where, on September 11th, 1857, 120 men, women and children in an immigrant wagon train were slaughtered by murderous Mormon marauders, is an American flag--part of an LDS-erected memorial site/public relations ploy to downplay the Mormon role in, and cover-up of, the atrocity.

The flagpole boasting the Stars and Stripes is positioned near the fenced-in memorial area, where the skeletal remains of 29 victims of the Massacre are buried--bodies that were accidentally unearthed in the 1990s by a backhoe making badly-needed repairs to the neglected site.

The remains were quickly reburied, under intense pressure from then-Utah governor Mike Leavitt, who is a descendant of one of the Massacre participants.

Leavitt "encouraged state officials to quickly rebury the remains, even though the basic scientific analysis required by state law was unfinished. . . . The end result may be another sad chapter in the Massacre's legacy of bitterness, denial and suspicion. ('Salt Lake Tribune,' March 12, 2000, p. A1)"

Leavitt's Mormon-protecting haste to literally cover up the crime is further detailed as follows:

"Utah state law required that the bones be studied, a job that went to forensic anthropologist Shannon Novak from the University of Utah. Novak and her colleagues found entrance and exit holes in the skulls of men that could only have come from gunshots fired at close range, while most women and children found died of blunt force.

"In her analysis of more than 2,600 bone fragments, Novak found no evidence of knives used to scalp, behead, or cut the throats, as well as no evidence of trauma from arrows. Although the study cannot determine what weapons Paiutes might have used in the Massacre (if they were involved), it brings up the possibility that white men murdered all of the victims, contradicting John D. Lee's testimony accusing Native Americans of slaughtering the women and children.

"To Shannon Novak, the bones could provide information that incomplete or biased histories could not. 'Prior to this analysis, what was known about the massacre was often based on second-hand information, polemical newspaper accounts, and the testimony of known killers,' said Novak. 'Furthermore, what had come to be merely an abstract historical event, the "tragedy at Mountain Meadows," now became a mass murder of specific men, women, and children with proper names and histories.'

"The analysis of the remains questioned the accuracy of the historical accounts and stirred up many emotions. After five weeks, Novak's analysis was cut short by an order from the governor of Utah, Mike Leavitt, that the bones be re-interred in time for the September [1999] anniversary. . . .

"Leavitt, whose grandfather participated in the Massacre, circumvented the law and ordered that the bones be re-interred before the minimum required study was finished because he 'did not feel that it was appropriate for the bones to be dissected and studied in a manner that would prolong the discomfort' (Salt Lake Tribune, March 2000)."

(for accounts used for reference regarding Mormon complicity in covering up the Mountain Meadows Massacre, see "The Mountain Meadows Massacre" in "Archaeology: A Publication of the Archaeological Instituyte of America," at: http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/massacre/meadows.html; and Sandra Tanner, "One of My Family's Best-Kept Secrets," at: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/mmm_familysecrets.htm)



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2013 03:12PM by steve benson.

As far as I can make out, as the fall and winter of 1857
approached, Brigham had serious expectations of being able
to secede from U.S. control -- perhaps as an independent
nation, or (more likely) as an autonomous region free from
American laws and settlement.

The last wagon trains of the 1857 travel season were selected
for special treatment -- for harassment by Brigham's Indian
allies and at least limited plunder by the Mormons themselves.
The end of 1857 was to be a new beginning for the Chosen
People of Deseret.

But Brigham had trouble in coordinating the announcement of
his imposition of martial law with the travel speed of the
straggling emigrant trains. He also had trouble in trying
to coordinate military efforts with his various Indian
ally tribes (some of which would have rather fought each
other than to go up against well armed emigrants and the
approaching army, led by commander Johnston).

Brigham was sloppy. He entrusted too many details to his
Counselor, George A. Smith, who in turn delegated too much
authority to his own henchmen in southern Utah. I think
that it was Smith (and not Young) who selected Mountain
Meadows as the site for an assault upon the Fancher party.
Brigham probably was willing to allow a substantial portion
of that wagon train's members to pass on to California,
to scare folks there, and back in the States, about how
angry, powerful and cruel the Utah Indians were.

The Fancher party were not the only group of traveling pioneers
who were harassed by Indians and Mormons dressed as Indians,
but they seem to have been singled out for the most brutal
attack -- to end the 1857 emigration season with "a bang."

But the Iron County Militia was equally sloppy. There was
no clear chain of command, with its leader actually outranking
the highest Church official in the Cedar City area, and
George A. Smith maintaining some "plausible deniability" by
remaining a safe distance from the planned attack. Things
quickly went wrong at the Meadows, with at least one of the
Fancher party getting out of the Indian encirclement and
warning the pioneers of Mormon treachery. A few other members
escaped and tried to make it to California.

Lacking the immediate direction of high Church officials in
Iron County, the Mormons there had provisional plans to
massacre the entire Fancher party and to blame the tragedy
upon the Indians. With the escape of a few of the pioneers,
this option was put into action. Had George A. Smith or
some other high ranking Mormon leader been present in Cedar
City, perhaps an alternative outcome would have been possible.
But the local leaders were left to make the final decisions,
and what could have otherwise been merely a thieving attack
turned into a murder plot.

The Iron County Mormon officials must have been fairly sure
that "Salt Lake" would back them up in their decision to go
all out with a massacre. After all, the Mormon leadership
had been frantically preaching that the Americans were
coming to kill all the Mormons and destroy God's Church.
Those leaders evidently warned the southern Mormons that
disguised elements of Johnston's Army might sneak through
the mountains and into southern Utah before winter set in.

Even after the massacre, Brigham probably felt fairly secure
in his position -- still looking for a political settlement
with Buchanan, by which he would retain his governorship
and all but a token detachment of the army would turn back
to Fort Laramie.

But things didn't turn out that way. Whatever leverage
Brigham thought he had with Buchanan and Congress turned
out to be insufficient. He was forced to call in the
crypto-Mormon, Col. Kane, to broker a compromise. At
last, in 1858, Brigham realized that he had overplayed
his tactical hand. The Indians were not suitable military
allies and stories of Indian atrocities, published in the
eastern newspapers, included plenty of blame for the LDS
in Utah. Attacking wagon trains was neither a sufficient
enticement for Indian "irregulars," nor a stufficent means
for taking plunder, nor a deterrent against American force.

Suddenly it became clear that Brigham would lose his
status as governor and Indian agent and that Deseret would
be occupied by federal troops. At that point the recent
Mountain Meadows massacre began to be a real problem for
the Mormon leaders -- much more of a problem than they
had anticipated, back in September of 1857.

UD

The facts don't support your interpretations.

In the last few years, scholars have uncovered a letter written from Young's compound and dated to when Johnston's advanced man, Stewart Van Vliet, met with BY, and there is a reference to a wagon train in Southern Utah in deadly peril. This was the same day that Haslam arrived from Southern Utah on his "heroic ride" that, unfortunately "came too late."

(I'll provide the on-line link to that one as soon as I can sift through the hard drive on this computer)

Young was hardly "sloppy"; he simply made use of "plausible deniability," a tactic he was well noted for.

George A. Smith left Great Salt Lake City at the same time the Fancher/Baker party arrived and met with all of the principal massacre participants within a few weeks before the slaughter.

Young also faced the reality of a very articulate yet shrill and hysterical Eleanor Mclean Pratt crying out for vengeance for Parley P.'s death. Apostle Pratt was much loved among the Saints, and news of his death fueled the LDS persecution complex.

At a presentation here, Will and Dave provided evidence that Young had contingency plans to relocate the entire Mormon colony northward in Oregon Territory. That's not the mindset of someone who was "secure" in his position; indeed the massacre was strong evidence of his insecurity (see Syria, 2013).

The attack on Fort Lemhi put the kibosh on those plans, and Young was forced to deal with Johnston's Army and accept the offer of a Presidential Pardon, essentially at gunpoint (Bigler's interpretation).

Finally, the Mormon settlers in Iron County weren't "certain" that Young would support their decision. They were certain that it was his orders, however. This was an early example of the pathological "Mormon Obedience" that is ingrained in the culture today. And George A. Smith did not select the massacre site; John D. Lee did, after a "dream." The original plan was to attack them as they were negotiating the steep grade near the Santa Clara.

According to Bagley, the Arkansas emigrants wouldn't have stood a chance if that had been a case.

Here are the three works from Will and Dave (I've got signed first editions of all of them) that give the essential facts. The last, "Innocent Blood" is a compilation of original documents (Uncle Dale should approve of that one) that accurately portrays the delusional Mormon mindset at the time. As I've noted before, the difficulty in interpreting these complexities is that "sane people don't deal well with insanity."

http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Prophets-Brigham-Massacre-Mountain/dp/0806136391

http://www.amazon.com/The-Mormon-Rebellion-Americas-1857-1858/dp/0806141352

http://www.amazon.com/The-Mormon-Rebellion-Americas-1857-1858/dp/0806141352

Finally, Steve mentioned the work of Shannon Novak. This one is next on my Christmas wish list...

http://www.amazon.com/House-Mourning-Biocultural-Mountain-Massacre/dp/1607811693



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2013 06:04PM by SL Cabbie.

I am not disputing the fact that Young set in motion the
plans and activities that would become the attack -- not
just upon the Fancher train, but upon other late season
stragglers as well.

What I am not convinced of, is that Young supervised the
mass murder of the men, women and children who were
ostensibly under protective Mormon escort, out of the
wagon circle. I do not believe that it has been conclusively
demonstrated that he demanded every member of the party be
butchered by the Iron County Militia at the massacre site.

If Young did indeed decide that he wanted no survivors,
then I'd guess that he would have carried out the attack
in a different manner. It was right on the wagon route,
where livestock were typically grazed, by the next train
coming down the pike. A lengthy siege at that site, right
in the middle of the trail, would have been a sign of gross
incompetence on Young's part -- unless he had also decided
to carry out genocide on the entire remnant of the westward
migration on the southern route that year.

But, suppose he did make that decision -- to slaughter all
Americans passing through Deseret after the imposition of
martial law. If that was his plan, why did he change it and
allow other travelers to continue on through to California
for days thereafter (so long as they had safe conduct passes)
???

I think it was always Young's plan to let a few of the
Fancher party escape -- but only so long as they were set
up to tell of an attack exclusively by the Indians. I
know that Lee later testified that the Salt Lake City
headquarters had ordered a total genocide, days before
the massacre, but I do not trust his testimony.

Perhaps Mrs. McClean/Pratt did demand the annihilation of
the wagon train party, because Parley had been killed
near the Arkansas border -- but I doubt she had that much
influence upon Brigham and I doubt that she was looking
for Mormon blood vengeance upon the State of Arkansas.
I have a report of an interview conducted with her and
published in an eastern paper. She seems like a nut case
to me. However, if somebody can produce some compelling
evidence, of her raving having set the massacre plans in
motion, I'd be glad to see the documents.

Finally, it seems odd, in my view, that the Mormons didn't
simply take credit for the attack, if it was planned and
executed from the topmost leaders, and all the Mormons
in the territory, from Mrs. McClean down to the baptized
Corn Creek Indians, believed it to be an honorable and
justified execution of terribly guilty Gentiles. I see
no evidence that the territory's inhabitants were looking
forward to that outcome -- and, if they were, they managed
to make a 180 degree change in their attitude, and blame
it upon their tribal converts. That seems strange to me.

UD

LDS Inc made a big deal about 2001 9/11, had the MO Tab sing at the ten commemorative. SOmebody should have pointed out that LDS iNC was the original 9/11 mass murder perpetrators.

How come no one has made a video pointing this out, against the background of LDS Inc and Mo Tab making their tribute ?????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2SY9LZ4wh4



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2013 04:41PM by lucky.

Thank you for a poignant telling of a trip to the site of one of the dirtiest episodes in Utah History. I question the use of an American Flag at the site. It should be a Utah State Flag. While America has plenty of blood on her hands, this particular massacre was strictly a Utah affair. To be more precise, a Mormon affair.

Who owns that land?