Mormon Coffee

Tomorrow (September 11, 2008) is another anniversary of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the traitorous murders of 120 men, woman and children led by Mormons in southern Utah in 1857. This year a couple of new books about the Massacre have been published. One is House of Mourning: A Biocultural History of the Mountain Meadows Massacre by forensic anthropologist Shannon Novak.

Ms. Novak’s book is quite different from the others I’ve seen. Rather than spend a great deal of time on the Massacre itself, Ms. Novak looks more intently at the greater American context in which the ill-fated wagon train of emigrants left Arkansas for a new life in the west. Having been privileged to study the bones of twenty-eight Massacre victims, bones that were accidentally unearthed in August of 1999, Ms. Novak approaches her understanding of the Mountain Meadows Massacre from an entirely different perspective than that of a literary (non-scientific) historian. Many details from House of Mourning are worthy of mention, and perhaps they will appear here at Mormon Coffee sometime in the future. But for today, I’ll present just one aspect of Ms. Novak’s research.

In the chapter titled “Constitution,” Ms. Novak wrote:

“Many traditional accounts of Mountain Meadows have claimed that the Arkansas emigrants were, in some sense, diseased. Some two weeks after he participated in the massacre, John D. Lee described the victims as syphilitic: ‘Many of the men & women was ro[tten?] with the pox before they were hurt by the Indians’… Soon it was reported in the Los Angeles Star… that William H. Dame, colonel of the [LDS] Iron County militia, had examined the bodies of the Arkansans and determined that all the women were prostitutes. As Bagley… points out, such stories seem to have been transmitted to reporters by William Matthews, a leading Mormon official in California, as part of a ’systematic defamation of the murdered emigrants.’

“This conclusion is no doubt correct. To understand such defamation, however, we must consider what it meant to be ‘diseased.’” (page 88, source citations in the original replaced here with ellipses)

After explaining multiple types of diseases common in Antebellum America and the health of the Arkansas victims as evidenced by their remains, Ms. Novak turned to a discussion of syphilis and it’s “endemic” status “within any nineteenth-century population center” (107). She wrote:

“The remains at Mountain Meadows, however, tell a different story. In the study sample of at least 28 massacre victims, there was no evidence of lesions that would be consistent with a diagnosis of venereal or congenital syphilis. Once again we are struck by the apparent vigor of this population.

“These findings are in sharp contrast to claims that were made in the immediate aftermath of the massacre… Though the skeletal evidence from the mass grave at Mountain Meadows cannot decisively refute the claims of Lee, Dame, and others, it casts doubt on the image of an emigrant party that was ‘rotten with pox,’ as Lee put it…

“For the sake of argument, however, let us grant the possibility that the victims bodies might have been examined for evidence of the disease and other abnormalities. How would anyone have been able to tell that they were infected with syphilis? Unless the victims were in the advanced stages of the disease, only a close examination of their genitalia would have revealed any symptoms. Needless to say, none of the newspaper accounts or journal entries provides details about how such a procedure was conducted. It is known that the bodies were stripped of their clothing soon after the massacre. So the possibility remains that the perpetrators, under the guise of medical examination, committed a final outrage on the killing field.” (107-108)

To place the charge of “defamation” into a proper context, Ms. Novak continued:

“Perpetrators of the massacre seem to have been justifying an especially ‘bad outcome’ for the Arkansas emigrants. In their version of events the emigrants themselves bore responsibility for their deaths. Such reasoning allowed even children to be viewed as morally corrupt…

“Thus, in the case of Mountain Meadows, to insinuate that parents were afflicted with disease—especially one such as syphilis—was to comment on the character, or future character, of their offspring. It was especially offensive to claim, as Dame was purported to do, that ‘all the women were prostitutes.’ Because an infant was ‘dependent upon the state of the mother’s blood from the moment of conception till weaned from the breast,’ emotional states such as anger, sexual desire, or envy ‘could potentially injure the nursling by contaminating its milk’… Such logic allowed the perpetrators of the massacre to deny the innocence even of the surviving children [aged 9 months to 6 years). Thus, on September 29, 1857, Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal… 'Brother [John D.] Lee said that He did not think there was a drop of innocent Blood in their Camp for he had too of their Children in his house & he Could not get but one to kneel down in prayer time & the other would laugh at her for doing it & they would sware like pirat[e]s.’” (108-109)

So it went, in the aftermath of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, that the Mormon leadership, who ordered and carried out this horrendous crime, justified the brutal murders of 40 men, 30 women, and 53 children passing through Mormon country on their hopeful way to a new life.

Over this past week the Salt Lake Tribune ran several articles related to the LDS Church, blacks, and the now-defunct priesthood ban. One special report covered the story of Vanna Cox and her sisters. They grew up in the LDS Church very aware of their minority status. The Tribune reports,

“When [Vanna] and her sisters discovered the history of blacks in the LDS Church, they felt pride in black pioneers such as Jane Manning James and Elijah Abel and horror that Green Flake, a slave, was given as tithing to Brigham Young. They didn’t understand the ban on blacks in the priesthood or the racist beliefs of LDS leaders they admired.

“‘We had to learn that the church is not all butterflies and cupcakes,’ she says.”

Coming face to face with lesser-known aspects of Mormon history and doctrine can be a real shock to Latter-day Saints who have lived in a protected LDS bubble all their lives. The Church is definitely not all butterflies and cupcakes; there are skeletons in the closet and sometimes those bones set to rattling.

Beyond the issue of racism in the Church, a short list of additional things Latter-day Saints might find troubling could include:

• The extent of Joseph Smith’s practice of plural marriage, including his marriages for time and eternity to women who were–and remained–married to other men.
• That Joseph Smith did not go “as a lamb to the slaughter” when he died, but, according to an LDS source, he shot three and killed two men during the violent struggle at Carthage Jail.
• That Brigham Young clearly taught Adam is our Father and our God, and intended it to be understood as true doctrine.
• The Mountain Meadows Massacre and the unquestioning obedience to Mormon leaders coupled with spiritual confirmation that precipitated the slaughter.
• That the Lorenzo Snow couplet is Church doctrine and means what it says (God the Father was once a human being who progressed to Godhood; man is the same: a human being that can and may progress to Godhood)
• The teaching by LDS leaders that “there is nothing figurative” about Christ’s paternity; God the Father impregnated Mary via “normal and natural” physical contact to provide a human body for Jesus Christ.

An ex-LDS friend of mine felt the ground give way as a Mormon when she came across a statement made by Joseph Smith. She read,

“If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of the mountain and crow like a rooster. I shall always beat them…. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet” (History of the Church 6:408-9).

When my friend read that quote she thought enemies of the Church had made it up. “Surely Joseph Smith never said such a thing,” she thought. “A true prophet of God would never say something like that.” When she found Joseph’s bold claim in History of the Church, and found other equally troubling statements he had made, she realized Joseph Smith indeed was not a true prophet of God. She and her family left the Prophet and the church he founded; now they live for Christ.

Friends, the LDS Church is not all butterflies and cupcakes. Be encouraged to take a careful tour of the kitchen before indulging in the proffered sweets.

It is a snare to say rashly, “It is holy,”
and to reflect only after making vows.
-Proverbs 20:25-

Last Tuesday I attended the memorial service commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The day before, I had the pleasure of meeting several of the descendants of the Fancher family in Cedar City. Suffice it to say that the memorial service was a somber occasion. Short speeches were given by both descendants of the victims and the perpetrators. Several times the word forgiveness was invoked.

The service began when relatives and friends carrying large pennants walked behind a lone covered wagon down the gravel road from Dan Sill Hill to the rock cairn memorial built in 1999. Each pennant contained the last name of a family whose lives ended on this very spot. A few days prior, another service was held at the site. Here, participants had hung white crosses on the metal fence surrounding the memorial. Larger crosses represented the adults that were killed, while smaller crosses represented the many children who died that day.

I had just returned to Salt Lake City from the memorial service, when I read the headline of an article by Carrie A. Moore in the online edition of the Deseret News. It read, “Church issues apology for massacre.” Another article written in the Salt Lake Tribune by Jessica Ravitz, was headlined, “LDS Church apologizes for Mountain Meadows Massacre.” Moore wrote that Mormon Apostle Henry B. Eyring issued “a long-awaited apology today for the massacre of an immigrant wagon train by local church members 150 years ago in southwestern Utah.” Ravitz echoed s similar conclusion when she wrote, that a Mormon Apostle, “apologized for the church’s role.” He did? I was sitting barely ten rows away from Mr. Eyring when he spoke – how did I miss that? Several speakers received standing ovations for the comments they made, but not a single person stood to applaud Eyring’s comments. Given the fact that descendants have been longing for such an announcement, I can’t imagine Mr. Eyring receiving anything less if he did, in fact, express such a message.

Instead, we heard Mr. Eyring “express profound regret” for the “undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims and their relatives.” We heard Mr. Eyring offer a “separate expression of regret” to the Paiute people “who have unjustly borne for too long the principal blame for what occurred during the massacre.”

He also made it clear that the “responsibility for the massacre lies with local leaders” of the LDS Church. In his short speech he also put in a plug for the new book being written by three LDS historians that is due to be published by Oxford Press. No doubt this book, like Mr. Eyring’s speech, will offer nothing really new about this tragic event. Why should the Church assume that this will be the definitive work on this subject? Why should the public readily accept the statements of these three Church employees, when for the past 150 years the LDS Church has shown itself to be anything but honest and cooperative when it comes to the MMM? Why not at least let qualified historians have access to all of the documents the LDS Church now keeps in its archives?

Reader responses to both the Deseret News, and Salt Lake Tribune articles were incredibly mixed. Some Mormons expressed their contempt at the descendants for making this an annual issue purposely designed to embarrass their Church. Others expressed profound joy that their Church had finally apologized to the families. A few admitted they were indeed shocked, given the fact that the LDS Church never apologizes for anything.

Having been there and hearing Eyring myself, my shock was limited primarily to the conclusion drawn by the two journalists. Regret is not always synonymous with apology, and while Eyring did appear to be emotionally moved by the circumstances, he never spoke those simple words that the descendants have wanted to hear.

No doubt many of those Latter-day Saints who rejoiced when they read the headlines were utterly disappointed to later hear that the two journalists had drawn an incorrect conclusion. In an Associated Press article that has been circulating in several major media outlets, it stated quite clearly that “Church leaders were adamant that the statement should not be construed as an apology.” Said LDS Church spokesman, Mark Tuttle, “We don’t use the word ‘apology.’ We used ‘profound regret.’”

Such a comment speaks volumes. It not only confirms in the minds of many that the leadership continues to display a type of infallible arrogance, but it will also be understood by many that the LDS Church is not sorry for what happened under Brigham Young’s watch. For me that is the big issue. I fully understand that there is no one currently living who was personally responsible for the MMM. However, there is a corporate responsibility that the LDS leadership wants to continue to deny. Brigham Young was the “prophet, seer, and revelator” of the LDS Church and he was also the ultimate head of every LDS militia in the Utah territory. True leaders understand that when things go wrong, the “buck” has to stop somewhere, and in a real world it usually stops with those who are in charge. The LDS Church must certainly understand this concept given the huge monetary settlements paid by the LDS Church regarding child abuse cases perpetrated by Church personnel.

Furthermore, are we really expected to believe that Young’s fiery reformation speeches on blood atonement and absolute loyalty to the leadership had no affect on those same leaders? It is difficult for me to believe that his sermons were given with the intent that they should be understood only as “revival rhetoric.” Respected historian Juanita Brooks noted on page 219 of her book, The Mountain Meadows Massacre,

“while Young and George A. Smith, the church authorities chiefly responsible, did not specifically order the massacre, they did preach sermons and set up social conditions which made it possible.”

Young may not have pulled a trigger or bludgeoned a small child with a gun butt, but I find it very difficult to side with Mormons who insist that he did not play any role in this awful event.

One last thought. Mr. Eyring, towards the end of his speech, stated, that “divine justice will impose appropriate punishment” for those who carried out the massacre. Does appropriate punishment await John D. Lee, the only man who paid for this crime with his life on March 23, 1877? Lee was ex-communicated in 1870, but in 1961 the LDS Church First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve reinstated Lee’s membership and temple blessings. I could be wrong, but I tend to think that most Mormons would see this as a reward, not a punishment.

A significant date in the history of our nation. A date marking tragedy in the history of many families. A day of mourning 150 years ago. A day of sorrowful remembrance in 2007. The Mountain Meadows Massacre is not pleasant to recall, but it should not be forgotten. There are lessons for all of us buried in the horror.

In an August 11th LDS Church News article about the ninth annual conference of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR), LDS historian Richard Turley’s presentation on the Mountain Meadows Massacre was discussed. Church News said,

“While critics sometimes place broad-brush blame upon Mormonism for the 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre, the causes are more complex — and more characteristic of the human condition — than merely being attributable to one’s religious faith.

“Richard E. Turley Jr., managing director of the [LDS] Family and Church History Department, reflected in his FAIR Conference presentation on the setting and causes of the tragedy in which Mormon settlers in southern Utah killed some 120 California-bound emigrants, including women and children…

“‘What we have discovered,’ he said, ‘is that the … massacre is a classic case of mass killing as described by experts who have studied group violence in modern world history.’”

It comes as no surprise that sociologists are able to recognize “conditions and characteristics that contribute to genocide and mass killing.” Of course there was a reason (or reasons) otherwise normal, family-oriented Mormon men murdered seventy adult emigrants and fifty innocent children.

I agree that the “causes are … complex.” Yet I don’t know if it’s really possible to completely separate “the human condition” from “one’s religious faith.” For the point of one’s religious faith, at least in Christianity and Mormonism, is to address the human condition. In Christianity, it is to bring about reconciliation between sinful man and a holy God. In Mormonism, it is to eradicate sin and the desire to sin, to make oneself worthy of Godhood.

Both belief systems agree that humans are sinful. The massacre at Mountain Meadows illustrates the depth of depravity in “the human condition.”

Christian pastor and author John Stott wrote:

“Sin is an unpopular subject, and Christians are often criticized for harping on it too much. But it is only because Christians are realists that they do so. Sin is not a convenient invention of parsons to keep them in their job; it is a fact of human experience.

“The history of the last hundred years or so has convinced many people that the problem of evil is located in man himself, not merely in his society. In the nineteenth century a liberal optimism flourished. It was then widely believed that human nature was fundamentally good, that evil was largely caused by ignorance and bad housing, and that education and social reform would enable men to live together in happiness and goodwill. But this illusion has been shattered by the hard facts of history.” (Basic Christianity, 61-62)

In the southern Utah militia of 1857 were found Latter-day Saints who today would be heralded as Mormon champions. These men had sacrificed much for their faith. They gave their all to follow their prophet into the wilderness, and, through obedience, they served their God faithfully. They lived their religion, they did their best to keep their covenants. Nevertheless, their deceitful and desperately wicked hearts (Jeremiah 17:9) got the best of them. This is not finger-pointing, for I know that there but for the grace of God go I. Therein lies the true unity of humankind: our universal sinfulness.

The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.

They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one. (Psalm 14:2-3)

John Stott wrote:

“This exposure of our sin has only one purpose. It is to convince us of our need of Jesus Christ, and to prepare us for an understanding and acceptance of what he offers. Faith is born of need. We shall never put our trust in Christ until we have first despaired of ourselves. He said himself, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.’…

“Christianity is a rescue religion. It declares that God has taken the initiative in Jesus Christ to deliver us from our sins. This is the main theme of the Bible…

“Through Jesus Christ the Saviour we can be brought out of exile and reconciled to God; we can be born again, receive a new nature and be set free from our moral bondage; we can have the old discords replaced by a fellowship of love.” (80-81)

The Mountain Meadows Massacre was a demonstration of unchecked evil in the hearts of men. Try as they might, those stalwart Latter-day Saints could not rescue themselves. They could not create within themselves a new nature that would set them free from moral bondage. They couldn’t do it, even as they counted on Christ to make up the difference “after all they could do.” The only hope — for them and for us — is to throw ourselves at the feet of the Savior and plead for His mercy.

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to Himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them…” (2 Corinthians 5:17-19)

The “human condition” is an ugly thing that unfailingly leads to death. Therefore,

“We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:20-21)

September Dawn opened in theaters last Friday. Opinions on the movie vary widely. It seems that, much like reactions to Helen Whitney’s PBS documentary The Mormons, viewers either love or hate September Dawn.

If you have watched the movie, we’d like to know what you thought of it. Please comment here only if you have seen September Dawn.

For those of you unfamiliar with the topic, we recommend a video clip by Living Hope Ministries and an article by Bill McKeever.

Today the Hollywood movie September Dawn opens in 1000 theaters nationwide. The dramatized portrayal of the Mountain Meadows Massacre–wherein Mormon men massacred 120 emigrants as they peacefully passed through southern Utah in 1857–is unwelcome among Latter-day Saints. The film has been called “controversial” by the news media, but has received stronger condemnation from Latter-day Saints.

For example, the Los Angeles Times reported,

“According to Tom Kimball, a sixth-generation Mormon who is book review editor for the Mormon History Assn., the film has been put on a ‘do not watch’ list by LDS Church officials.

“‘It’s blacklisted already,’ he said.”

The Boston Globe reported,

“‘This is a bit of salacious trash, designed to sensationalize a terribly tragic event and horrible atrocity as well as to exploit current anti-Mormon and anti-religious sentiment that seems to be sweeping through popular culture,’ said Gene A. Sessions, chairman of the history department at Weber State University in Ogden, Utah.”

As of this writing the LDS Church hasn’t released an official statement about the film, but back in February LDS Church-owned KSL-TV reported,

“A movie that hasn’t even been released yet is drawing strong reaction from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints… The church calls it a distortion…”

Nevertheless, September Dawn will likely have its run in American movie theaters. If the film had been made in the 1920s, though, this may not have been the case.

On August 24th 1921 LDS Church President Heber J. Grant wrote a letter to U.S. Senator and fellow Latter-day Saint Reed Smoot. President Grant expressed his deep concern–and that of the LDS First Presidency–over the nationwide distribution and showing of the motion picture “Riders of the Purple Sage,” based on a novel by Zane Grey.

The Church considered the movie’s portrayal of LDS history to be “scandalous.” President Grant praised Senator Smoot,

“I am also very glad to note that you have taken up the matter of preventing the motion picture houses from showing Zane Grey’s novel ‘Riders of the Purple Sage.’ Thru the efforts of the Commercial Club here and also others who have endeavored to have this stopped, I am informed that the picture is no longer passing censorship in the State of Michigan. I sincerely hope that it will not be necessary to bring suit in this matter.

“Don’t you think that if it could get to the National Board of Motion Picture Review that litigation is likely to follow if exhibition of this scandalous picture is not prohibited that good results might obtain? It would seem to me that large damages could be collected and I don’t know but that the advertising we would get might be beneficial. Sometimes I think we are too passive and do not defend ourselves as we should against such onslaught.” (Messages of the First Presidency 5:203)

A few weeks later President Grant again wrote Senator Smoot:

“I have read with very much interest the manner in which you succeeded in having the objectionable picture entitled ‘Riders of the Purple Sage’ by Zane Grey and which was produced by the Fox Film Corporation eliminated from the screen and I assure you that I am very grateful for your efforts in this direction and much gratified at the result.” (Messages of the First Presidency, 14 September 1921, 5:204)