- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In the process of re-reading this book. I am awed by Juanita Brooks’ courage in writing this book, considering the times and her familial relationship to David O. McKay.
The book itself is a fairly easy read, though I did skip some of the footnotes etc. The book does a good job of explaining the circumstances and mindset of the times.
While not excusing what happened, I am able to come to some level of understanding of how it occurred. War fever, group think, arrogance and intolerance are things that are with us still.
My sole remaining issue that bothers me is the church’s response in erecting the new monument in 1999. As I recall, a lot of nice words were said and some level of reconciliation took place. However, I stopped by a couple of years ago on my way home from St. George and I was dumbfounded at how little is said on the monument itself. While I would not expect an apology, or even a detailed historical write-up on something so controversial, I still was gravely disappointed to see that the wording on the monument (the exact verbiage eludes me at this point) was so vague as to be meaningless. As casual visitor who did not have any historical context would be hard pressed from the information at the monument to determine what actually took place. To me it is inexplicable that the church is still more concerned about its image than about historical truth, but then, on second thought, this is a recurrent theme.
Quote:A casual visitor who did not have any historical context would be hard pressed from the information at the monument to determine what actually took place.
But it really isn’t for a casual visitor, right? It’s so out of the way, why would a casual visitor even be there?
I don’t mean at all to sound flippant with that response, and I’m grateful that research like Brooks’ has been done, but there still isn’t consensus on exactly why it happened in the way that it happened. I think (hope desperately) that everyone now admits it was a horrible thing and can’t be justified in any way – even if it can be explained in the context of the time without labeling those who perpetuated it as evil and lunatics. People still are arguing vehemently about whether or not Brigham Young knew about or even condoned or ordered it. (Personally, I am fairly sure he didn’t, but the argument rages on.) The Church can express regret, which was offered, but that really is about all it can say without implying more involvement from the top than they (and I) believe was involved.
This just is one thing that I believe has been addressed in about the only way possible to be fair to everyone involved and now needs to fade into the past.
I know there are lots of details that will never be known, and even if all the details were known, there would be a hundred different viewpoints. Maybe wiser heads than mine were responsible for the memorial. In my mind, it would have had a few more specifics, such as ‘At this site, 118 members of the Fancher Party were killed . . . maybe a little background of the times and the ‘Mormon War’, a note that there are various views on who was responsible, and and expression of regret for the tragedy. That would be reasonable.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.