- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Since today is September 11, I wanted to point out Ugo Perego’s work on using DNA to answer questions about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. See https://gospeltangents.com/2017/09/10/dna-mountain-meadows-massacre/ Apparently 17 or 18 children survived the massacre. There was a question as to who the 18th child was? Bishop Klingonsmith participated in the massacre, and had a daughter that was 2 years old in 1857. Some wondered if she was an unreturned child from the MMM. Perego did a DNA test to determine is she was a Fancher or Klingonsmith.
There was also a question about what started the massacre. Apparently the Fanchers gave some dead cows to the Indians and a Mormon family. (Some Mormon cows also died.) Several Indians and a Mormon boy died, and claimed that the Fanchers poisoned a spring. LDS Church Asst. Historian wondered if the boy died from anthrax, which was unknown in 1857. Perego got permission to dig up the bones, verified they were the dead Mormon boy, and tried to determine if anthrax killed him.
It was a fun conversation. Have you ever heard these stories before?
I haven’t, but I really enjoy reading these pieces you do. Thanks for sharing. I do know that some victims bones were uncovered while digging a new monument probably 10-20 years ago. They were later reinterred after some study and documentation. There is still resentment that 1) the church owns the site and therefore controls the narrative and 2) that church officials have never given an unqualified apology (there have been statements of personal regret that some have trumpeted as an apology while others have been careful to explain that regret does not mean apology [probably for legal reasons]).
Roy wrote:
There is still resentment that 1) the church owns the site and therefore controls the narrative and 2) that church officials have never given an unqualified apology (there have been statements of personal regret that some have trumpeted as an apology while others have been careful to explain that regret does not mean apology [probably for legal reasons]).
Most corperations wouldn’t give an unqualified apology for the actions of individual members, even if the leadership had something to do with it. It maintains a much cleaner image shift the blame and disown (fire, excommunicate). Regret means empathy; “We’re on the same side”. Giving an apology would be taking responsibility. Heck, the Church doesn’t even take responsibility for half of what Brigham Young did or said.
I love the Anthrax narrative. It’s a prime example of how superstition can lead to terrible consequences.
“the church owns the site and therefore controls the narrative” I think the Church would like to control the narrative, and owning the site does play a part in that, and while they can certainly influence the narrative, it is impossible to control. Will Bagley’s book, “Blood of the Prophets” plays a big role, and while I know Will Bagley has his prejudices, he certainly influenced the narrative enough for Rick Turley to put out his first book, “Massacre at Mountain Meadows”, and the subsequent “Collected Legal Papers.” (Rick is coming out with his sequel to the first book next year I think.)
Certainly Will Bagley has influenced (but not controlled) the narrative, and he wants to squarely put the blame not only of cover-up on Brigham Young (which seems legit), but wants to say Brigham ordered it. I’m waiting to see what Turley says before I make that judgment. I will say I was talking to George Throckmorton (off camera), and he mentioned the “Dead Lee Scroll” which I had never heard of. Apparently it is a forgery made of lead where John D. Lee blames the atrocity on Brigham Young. Bagley thinks the scroll is legit, but Throckmorton said it’s a fake.
Suffice it to say, while the church certainly has influence, a well-written argument by someone like Bagley is going to have influence as well, and the “control” will be made by the public, not the church.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.