I would like to draw attention to the article "Inside the Mountain Meadows Massacre" by Brian Dunning (https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4768). It's generally quite informative but there are some caveats in my opinion. To give two examples: It's a little bit too simple to just say that Joseph and Hyrum Smith had been lynched. And there could be a misunderstanding of Parley Pratt's murder in Arkansas which didn't happen just because he was a Mormon.

Pratt's death (why oh why didn't he wear his Garments that fateful day!!!) was in May and the MMM was the following September, so under four months passed between the events.

Two groups left Arkansas a month before Pratt died, combining later into the Baker-Francher group.

Both the telegraph and the pony express came to the west in few years after these events.  Meaning that word of Pratt's death, and whatever details were provided surrounding it, passed the Arkansas group while it was en route.  Traveling at 8 to 20 miles per day, it could take a wagon train six months to get to California.  The Baker-Francher Party was five months into their journey when they got to Cedar City.

When did word reach Salt Lake City regarding Pratt's death?  At best, it would be two months following the event.  But who brought that word, and what tales were told as part of it?

Wikipedia says that on the mormon side of the issue, "Due to Pratt's personal popularity and his position in the Quorum of the Twelve, his murder was a significant blow to the Latter-day Saint community in the Rocky Mountains.  Pratt's violent death may also have played a part in events leading up to the Mountain Meadows massacre a few months later.  After the massacre, some Mormons circulated rumors that one or more members of the party had murdered Pratt, poisoned creek water that subsequently sickened Paiute children, and allowed their cattle to graze on private property."
  --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parley_P._Pratt

Were there any level-headed mormons who had figured out that no one in the Baker-Francher could have been involved in Pratt's death?  But of course that would have run contrary to natural human tendencies: "People who are different are people who are bad!"

Do you wonder if before the Cedar City area mormons set out that first morning, they had someone say a prayer so as to seek ghawd's blessings on their planned activity?

And did they tithe on what ghawd had so graciously bestowed upon them, in terms of the possessions they acquired after they'd spent those days preparing the Arkansas travelers for Baptism for the Dead?



As to the last point, was Parley murdered "just because he was a mormon"?  

He met Eleanor McLean in San Francisco, while presiding over the mission there. No date is mentioned.  Did sparks fly between them?  

She returned to Arkansas, and the McLean marriage began to fall apart.  McLean knew about Parley and knew that Eleanor had converted, something he refused to do.  He sent their kids to New Orleans, to be 'guarded' by HER parents!  (This makes little to no sense.)  She followed the kids to New Orleans, but then later headed to Salt Lake City, where in 1855, she was sealed to Parley in the Endowment House.  She never obtained a divorce from McLean.

Eleanor went back to New Orleans to get her kids.  In the meantime, Parley was sent to New Jersey, on another mission.  Again, this becomes an issue that in looking back, we have to wonder about.  Did he give her money?  Did he provide an escort?  Are we supposed to believe that she traveled alone from Salt Lake City to New Orleans?

McLean then had charges filed against the two of them, Parley and Eleanor, for the theft of the clothing of the kids.  Nothing is mentioned regarding how Eleanor was brought to trial, but Wiki says that Parely was apprehended in Indian Country (Oklahoma).   But if he was serving a mission in New Jersey, what the frick was he doing in Oklahoma? It's not like they were texting back and forth about doing things together!

At trial, and basically because of his interviews Eleanor, the judge ruled in their favor and they were set free.  The judge is said to have been influenced by what a turd McLean was.  The judge arranged for them to be secretly released from custody, and then "shortly thereafter" McLean found Pratt and shot and stabbed him.  

It took a couple of hours for him to exsanguinate and he allegedly told a local farmer, "(McLean) accused me of taking his wife and children.  I did not do it.  They were oppressed, and I did for them what I would do for the oppressed anywhere."  If Pratt and Eleanor been sexual, I would prefer not to be 'de-oppressed' by Pratt.


As with many articles in Wikipedia, there are pro & con positions.  There are some discrepancies in the Wiki article, and we don't know the motives of those whose words I read/copied.

As to the motivation of the perpetrators of the MMM, Parley's religion had EVERYTHING to do with what they did.  So from that very pertinent POV, mormonism was the canvas on which the acts were painted.  Without mormonism, there is no MMM.

If I remember correctly, word of Pratt's death reached SLT and B Young just before the 24th of July.

In another thread I detailed how Will Bagley unearthed evidence of Eleanor Mclean being brought to Great Salt Lake City by Orrin Porter Rockwell; they arrived in time for the "Silver Lake Picnic," on July 24, 1847, a celebration of the 10th anniversary of the Saints' arrival in Utah.

At that time Young revealed the news of the U.S. Army being sent to the territory, and its goal was to replace Young as territorial governor.

The author of this piece, who's a "science writer" and not a historian, ignores the historical reality of Young ordering the destruction of the rock cairn erected as a memorial to the victims. That action speaks volumes. Young was overheard saying about the "Vengeance is Mine" placard, that it should read "Vengeance is mine, and I have taken a little."

Instead we see:

>>Taken together with the other evidence, this letter informs the prevailing opinion among historians that neither Brigham Young nor any of the most senior church officials either knew about or condoned the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It's also generally accepted that Brigham would have stopped it if he could have.

That conclusion is as nonsensical as the syntax in the first sentence.

I understand that the MMM was more related to the impending arrival of Johnston's army soldiers. fear of federal / outside intervention...

Remember, rational thought has never been a strong point of Mormon leaders, it has migrated down to the rank-and-file members too.

Will Bagley: "Blood of the Prophets"
Bagley and Bigler: "Innocent Blood"

And this searchable website:
http://mountainmeadows.unl.edu/index.html.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2021 10:42AM by auntsukey.

We will likely never know the truth about Pratt and the MMM. The church keeps coming up with new stories meant to exonerate the church, Pratt, and Young. They've muddied the waters considerably, never taking responsibility, and always finding new people to blame.

I believe they Ex'd Dame; whether or not he was 'restored' to membership, IDK

Everyone got their membership restored, even JDL.

Family lore is that JDL had it restored as payment for some inconvenient diaries/letters that the family gave to the church. Saying BY didn't know is just stupid. No one did anything unless he gave the OK. That they would take it upon themselves to commit mass murder is just silly.

Also: WHY did they (as ChurchCo claims) send a message to him asking what should they do?

Ummmm What were the standing instructions????


Bizarre, that's what their story is.

>Ummmm What were the standing instructions????

Consider the Santa Clara Ambush described here which took place 7 months before MMM for a picture of what BY was OK with.

https://issuu.com/utah10/docs/uhq_volume73_2005_number1/s/10142619

It involves a couple of petty larcenists, and the son in law of apostle Charles Rich.

"Ambrose and Betts made efforts to leave the territory as soon as weather and their means permitted. By early February they had traveled as far as Garland Hurt’s Indian farm at Spanish Fork, sixty miles south of Salt Lake City. Brigham Young, despite heavy responsibilities to church and territory and his own recent illness, was well aware of their location and plans. On February 3, he wrote to Bishops Aaron Johnson at Springville, John L. Butler at Spanish Fork, and George W. Bradley at Nephi:

We learn of some noted persons congregating at the Indian farm on Spanish Fork with a view of going out with the mail south or some other time not far distant for California. In this crowd are two persons who have lately served out a short period in the Penitentiary in this Territory.We consider it wisdom to be on our guard in relation to our Stock and the Stock of our settlements generally, especially our horses now on the range near the south end of Utah Lake, lest they attempt to make a break upon them. ...What we wish of you is to have a few men on the look out and ready to act in case of emergency. It would be well to have them go out and make a short trip around to see that all things are right.

Presumably, if no theft occurred Ambrose and Betts were to pass on their way unhindered. But,“if any such thing as we have suggested should occur we shall regret to hear a favorable report; we do not expect there would be any prosecutions for false imprisonment or tale bearers left for witnesses.” Unambiguous if not explicit, these instructions left so little room for misinterpretation that Brigham Young closed his letter with the caution to “have a few men that can be trusted on hand, and make no noise about it and keep this letter safe. We write for your eye alone and to men that can be trusted.”

There can be no doubt as to the letter’s authenticity. The retained copy of this letter, although unsigned, appears in correct date order in the bound letter books of Brigham Young’s office now preserved in LDS archives. Letters acknowledging its receipt were addressed to Brigham Young and are filed in his incoming correspondence.“[I]t is done as you requested,” wrote Aaron Johnson, a Nauvoo Legion brigadier as well as Springville’s bishop, immediately after assembling his town’s leadership to hear the letter read and satisfy themselves as to its authenticity. “Your letter dated Feb. 3rd. came to hand on the evening of the eleventh inst. And I have governed myself according to the instructions therein contained,” replied Bishop George W. Bradley from Nephi. Bradley’s letter had been delivered by the regular southbound mail, which left Salt Lake City on February 8, but Johnson’s letter was hand-delivered by Brigham Young, Jr."

"Following the same route five days later, the California-bound mail carried letters from Brigham Young dated February 6, 1857, and addressed to Lewis Brunson at Fillmore, William H. Dame at Parowan, and Isaac C. Haight at Cedar City.These letters, the retained copy of which appears over Brigham Young’s name, echoed the ominous language of the earlier instructions:

Be on the look out now, & have a few trusty men ready in case of need to pursue, retake & punish.We do not suppose there would be any prosecutions for false imprisonments, or tale bearers for witnesses. ... Make no noise of this matter, & keep this letter safe.We write for your eye alone, & to men that can be trusted.”

While more explicit in one respect (“pursue, retake & punish”), these letters were silent in another critical detail: Unlike the earlier letters, they did not state that a penalty was to be imposed only after the theft of stock."

"The Santa Clara ambush was not what Brigham Young intended, in that it eas not two backsliding felons who were attacked in the dark. But the ambush was the result of events he set in motion. He directed subordinates to take extra-legal action under specified conditions, knowing that innocents might suffer with the guilty because no “tale bearers” were to be spared. If he did not intend Dame and Haight to read his instructions as they have been interpreted here, that reading is justified by the indirect phrasing of his letters. If residents of southern Utah went beyond the mark in implementing his instructions, no effective chastisement occurred. All of the men to whom letters were sent retained their church, civil, and military positions as though nothing untoward had happened.

But something untoward had happened, with repercussions beyond the injuries and losses to Tobin and his companions. News of the attack spread quickly through the nation, heightening tensions on the eve of the Utah War. When the wounded victims were carried to San Bernardino, rumors flared that endangered the lives of Mormons living there. Lack of accountability following the Santa Clara ambush did nothing to allay a local impression that violence was a suitable response to perceived threat, an impression, which seemingly played a role at Mountain Meadows later that year. Most chilling to contemplate, survival of the Santa Clara victims and their public exposure of the attack may have strengthened a determination at Mountain Meadows to spare no competent witnesses."


*** "He directed subordinates to take extra-legal action under specified conditions, knowing that innocents might suffer with the guilty because no “tale bearers” were to be spared"

*** "Lack of accountability following the Santa Clara ambush did nothing to allay a local impression that violence was a suitable response to perceived threat, an impression, which seemingly played a role at Mountain Meadows later that year. Most chilling to contemplate, survival of the Santa Clara victims and their public exposure of the attack may have strengthened a determination at Mountain Meadows to spare no competent witnesses."

And yet Lee was the only one punished. Go figure.

The federal government wanted to send a message but lacked the ability to arrest and interrogate Young and his allies. So Young had to decide on a scapegoat that was senior enough to appease Washington but not too close to him: Lee fit the bill. And the federal government took what it could get.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2021 03:24AM by Lot's Wife.

On even a casual examination, ChurchCo 'reasons' & excuses & 'plausible deniability' for being involved with the MMM are ultra weak / lame, However they demonstrate how effective their obfuscation is.

Once they 'sold' this, leaders knew they had the membership by the short hairs; I haven't seen ANYTHING that (they know) they can't get away with.