Massacre at Mountain Meadows

by Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley Jr., Glen M. Leonard

On September 11, 1857, a band of Mormon militia, under a flag of truce, lured unarmed members of a party of emigrants from their fortified encampment and, with their Paiute allies, killed them. More than 120 men, women, and children perished in the slaughter.

Massacre at Mountain Meadows offers the most thoroughly researched account of the massacre ever written. Drawn from documents previously not available to scholars and a careful re-reading of traditional sources, this gripping narrative offers fascinating new insight into why Mormons settlers in isolated southern Utah deceived the emigrant party with a promise of safety and then killed the adults and all but seventeen of the youngest children. The book sheds light on factors contributing to the tragic event, including the war hysteria that overcame the Mormons after President James Buchanan dispatched federal troops to Utah Territory to put down a supposed rebellion, the suspicion and conflicts that polarized the perpetrators and victims, and the reminders of attacks on Mormons in earlier settlements in Missouri and Illinois. It also analyzes the influence of Brigham Young's rhetoric and military strategy during the infamous "Utah War" and the role of local Mormon militia leaders in enticing Paiute Indians to join in the attack. Throughout the book, the authors paint finely drawn portraits of the key players in the drama, their backgrounds, personalities, and roles in the unfolding story of misunderstanding, misinformation, indecision, and personal vendettas.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre stands as one of the darkest events in Mormon history. Neither a whitewash nor an exposé, Massacre at Mountain Meadows provides the clearest and most accurate account of a key event in American religious history.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Religion, Lds, Mormonism, True Crime, American History

430 pages, Hardcover

First published August 19, 2008

Reviews

[Darwin8u · Rating 4 out of 5]

"But crime has its own momenum. Once begun, its perpetrators find it hard to draw back, if only to hide what has already taken place."
- Walker, Turley, Leonard; Massacre at Mountain Meadows



This is the second book about Moutain Meadows Massacre I've read. The first was the seminal work by Juanita Brooks The Mountain Meadows Massacre in 2016. Brooks' book was published in 1950. This one was published in 2008 (so, 58 years later) by Ronald Walker (a Mormon historian in SLC), Richard E. Turley (at the time Assistant Church Historian, but now Managing Director of LDS Public Affairs), and Glen M. Leonard (former director of the LDS Museum of Church History and Art).

The amount of access to church archives and history has changed considerably between the 1950s and the 2008. The Church recognizes that it can't spin, hide, or dissemble (too much). So, the authors of this book were given access to a lot of information that might have been useful to Juanita Brooks. It is interesting to note that while Juanita Brooks was never formally disciplined, she WAS blackballed from Church publications when writing her work. Turley, on the otherhand, got a promotion. So, somethings have changed.

The book's narrative is clean and it introduced several facts that showed exactly how actively and passively members of the LDS community bore huge responsiblity for this action. Brigham Young, George Albert Smith, Isaac Haight, William Dame, and obviously John D. Lee, all shoulder huge aspects of responsibilty. This is something that could have easily NOT happened if more people were willing to stand up, refuse, or question leadership OR if leaders hadn't used such paranoid, angry, and inciteful rhetoric. There is plenty of blame to go around with this.

Overall, this was a balanced and responsible work. I'm excited (excited is the wrong word) to read Will Bagley's history. I know that Bagley's account places even more responsibilty on Brigham Young's shoulders.

Full disclosure: John D. Lee was married to my foruth great-grandmother, my fifth great-grandmother, and my foruth great-aunt. I talk a bit more about it in my review of Juanita Brooks' book.

[Mike · Rating 2 out of 5]

First and foremost, let me make clear my personal opinion on the key issue that separates spectators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre: Brigham Young did not explicitly give the order to attack and kill the Fancher Party. However, I am sympathetic to Will Bagely’s argument that BY was largely responsible for the tragedy because Young underestimated the affect of his venomous rhetoric toward non-Mormons on the Saints.

Having gotten that formality out of the way my general opinion of this book is that it is essentially a response to Bagely’s “Blood of the Prophets” well disguised as an academic historical work. Not that “Massacre at Mountain Meadows” isn’t well researched – it is, but it is unsatisfactory in the sense that it adds so little to the existing historical record for supposedly so much dedicated research and the authors’ claim to previously unavailable source material. The authors fail to grasp that to regain credibility lost over 150 years of official Church silence on the tragedy that they (in producing a Church supported historical publication) must be more forthcoming and open in their reporting of privileged sources.

An opportunity for such disclosure would have been more thorough discussion of the following:
Massacre at Mountain Meadows wrote:
Among the most significant discoveries in the Church’s collections were the field notes of assistance church historian Andrew Jenson, who collected several reminiscent accounts of the massacre in 1892. This discovery, in turn, led to the full collection of Jenson materials in the First Presidency’s archives.

When Jenson went to southern Utah to gather this material the First Presidency gave him a letter asking Church members to cooperate. "There is an opinion prevailing that all the light that can be obtained [on the massacre:] has not be thrown upon it," the letter read. "We are anxious to learn all that we can upon this subject, not necessarily for publication, but that the Church may have the details in its possession for the vindication of innocent parties, and that the world may know, when the time comes, the true facts connected with it.” [p.xi:]


The aforementioned paragraphs occur in the Preface and no further mention of Jenson or his contribution appears anywhere in the book. Furthermore, “Jenson” appears in the “Abbreviations Used in Notes” but I could not find a single reference to Jenson in the Notes. Apparently it is acceptable for the authors to read and be directly influenced by Jenson but not the reader.

The idea that the First Presidency knew in 1892 that this was an important historical event, directed contemporary research into the matter, and secreted away firsthand accounts of the massacre expecting later vindication is, without further explanation, ruinous. In the case of mass murder the Church cannot ethically solicit and retain evidence of guilt and selectively choose to use the evidence for defense of the innocent. Credibility is sacrificed in such an endeavor.

At the very least it makes one question how much investment in genealogical and historical research the various First Presidencies have conducted attempting to prove massacre victims were indeed Missourians and ruffians guilty of past Mormon persecutions prior to privately accepting that Mormon folklore was simply wrong. Is the reader really expected to believe that until the publication of this book in 2008 all prior First Presidencies dating back to 1892 had no clue such was the case? And if any of the First Presidencies did know that “…the emigrants did not deserve what eventually happened to them… All the purported wrongs of the emigrants, even if true, did not justify the killing of a single person” – why didn’t they publish a mea culpa earlier? Why would latter day prophets allow eight generations of Latter Day Saints to go to their graves falsely justifying evil misdeeds of their fellow church members? And if eight, why not nine, ten, eleven, etc…? Bagely. That’s why. Unlike Brooks, Denton, and others, Bagely directly impugned their mantra that “…the Prophet will never lead you astray” and it stuck. Even a high school student knows that in 1857 one person could not massacre 120 people. And, fortunately, it is no longer politically acceptable to blame the massacre on the indians and expect people to accept a racially biased version of events.

The authors are able to claim their work is based on “primary source” material and "primarily not a response" to Bagely precisely because the prima facie documentary evidence is that Brigham Young did not explicitly order the attack. One wonders what their book would be if that were not the case. As it is they claim the evidence changed some of their pre-existing opinions yet offer no examples of such.

The book is not blatantly apologetic but mild pro-Mormon bias is present. A clear example is the author’s commentary on Carleton’s monument [italics and bold are mine:]: “Finally, a monument marked the victim’s final resting place. But Carleton meant the monument to be more than a mausoleum. He meant it to shame the Mormons.” [p.5:] Note that this commentary is not footnoted to reflect historically documented intent by Carleton. It is solely the authors’ interpretation of Carleton’s intent, and while possibly accurate, does not reflect the narrative style imposed elsewhere that relies on documentary evidence.

A more subtle example is where the authors take issue with a Bagely conclusion by stating “… Brigham Young’s invitation for Indians to take cattle was a generalized war policy, not an order to massacre the Arkansas company.” [p.146:] Do historians really expect Indians to parse the translated English-to-Paiute nuance of “we want you to attack and steal cattle on the southern route, but not the Arkansas party”? Bagely’s claim may be a bit of an overstatement, but it is far more logical that the Paiutes would have interpreted any message broadly as opposed to narrowly.

The authors’ work does provide some insight into precipitating events from records of Church documents, although none aside from Brigham’s Young’s exculpatory letter address the massacre itself. Most certainly there were relevant communiqués and letters exchanged with Brigham Young in the immediate aftermath but the authors are remarkably silent on that subject.

They do, however, admit documented evidence of anger in Church leadership and membership over polygamous wives leaving the territory in large numbers with Gentile parties large enough to provide them safe harbor to California or back East. They also explore and explain the folklore of the Arkansas emigrants poisoning wells and livestock as likely due to an outbreak of anthrax.

The book strives to clear Brigham Young of any explicit or implicit order to kill the emigrants and places blame squarely on John D. Lee and his southern Utah local Church leadership associates. Yet, it leaves the impression that Young excommunicated Lee not for murder but for “keeping bad company, playing cards, and using foul language”. [p.231:][Subsequent excommunication of other massacre participants is completely unmentioned.:]

Lee’s case begs the question: What sort of moral or divine justice is being administered here. People expect churches to hold the moral high ground. In this work we are told that Lee committed atrocious acts yet Young forestalled his restitution for twenty years and the Church reinstated Lee’s membership and temple blessings posthumously in 1961 – certainly long after Mormon folklore regarding the massacre was known to be false to the First Presidency.

It is not acceptable for the authors (or the Church) to merely recite “Brigham Young didn’t order the attack” over and over again in defense of their latter day prophet. The magnitude of the tragedy demands an explanation as to why only one person, among dozens of Mormon perpetrators and several prominent local Church leaders, was ever brought to trial and punished for such a horrific crime. [The authors leave this subject for a supposed second volume.:]

The catharsis that Mormon Church leaders want in regards to the Mountain Meadows Massacre remains elusive because justice is unfulfilled. [p.x:] Lee has paid his price. Like it or not, it is up to the Church to pay the rest because Young purposely denied justice being served on the remaining massacre participants. I doubt that the second volume mentioned by the authors will be published anytime soon for the simple reason that Brigham Young can’t be cleared of conspiracy to obstruct justice. There’s no way for Walker, Turley, Leonard, Bushman, Jensen, or the Church to spin this part of the tragedy to a neutral outcome (although I am aware that Arrington tried).

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

A book of narrow but dramatic interest, Massacre at Mountain Meadows contains the most complete historical record of one of the bleakest events in the history of the Mormon settlement of the West. Few people know the extent of the Mormon colonization of what is today the western United States, Mexico, and even Canada. For example, you may not know that Las Vegas was a sleepy Mormon colony right up until people like Bugsy Siegel turned it into a modern Mecca for debauchery.

The 1857 massacre of an emigrant train of more than a hundred men, women, and children from Arkansas and Missouri while crossing southern Utah was an unparalleled tragedy. Contemporary Mormon settlers laid it at the feet of the Paiute Indians for years until it was later discovered to have been a raid led primarily by a handful of overzealous and paranoid Mormon community leaders. Because of the modest cover up, enemies of the Mormon church concluded that the cover up must lead all the way to the head of the Mormon church, Brigham Young, hundreds of miles away.

Because of this enmity, the Mormon church refused to be open with hostile investigators and later historians because they perceived a desire to unfairly persecute the church. Such wariness is not unwarranted, given Mormon history. So it is a relief that enough time has passed that the Mormon church was finally willing to open its entire archive collection from the time period to a trio of historians who surfaced every piece of relevant information possible to reconstruct what likely happened in the Mountain Meadows so many years ago.

The writing has deliberately been tamed for the lay reader rather than the historian, though the ample endnoting provides any interested reader with more than enough source material. There is some necessary insertion of theoretical perspective in order to explain how otherwise normal people could commit such an atrocity, but the theory serves to guide the reader rather than distract.

The result is a penetrating and terrible description of this awful event, but one finally grounded in fact with holes filled using legitimate historical methods rather than conjecture. The scene is horrible to contemplate, but at least a light has finally been shone on the scene and the victims are properly honored. Many once accused -- both Paiute and Mormon -- have been vindicated, while others -- mostly Mormon, some Paiute -- are firmly accused.

The purpose of the book is not to stand as judge or jury but to exonerate where possible, respect where necessary, and learn from the mistakes of history so that we are not condemned to repeat them. This book enables all three purposes and its authors are to be congratulated.

[Clay · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really struggled with whether or not to give this book 3 or 4 stars.
The book is well written, and it gives an in depth look into the Massacre, early Mormon settlements and the American West.
Things I like about the book.

1) They did not skirt around the horrific nature of the massacre.
2) I learned a lot about the American West and early times in the great basin.

Beefs I have with the book.

1) Out of THREE AUTHORS, don't you think that they could have chosen at least ONE non-LDS author? Due to the sensitivity of the subject, I wish they would have. This would have carried a lot of weight with the masses. There has been so much cover up that any team of authors that are all LDS will bring skepticism upon them. I picked up some bias, but not tones. However, it seems like some will chose to see more bias just because of the authors' relationship to the Mormon church.

2) They do not talk about any of the cover-up. They NEEDED to, to do it justice. The authors stated, "two narrative themes emerged. One dealt with the story of the massacre and the other with its aftermath... This first volume tells only the first half of the story, leaving the second half to another day."

I am not convinced that that other day will ever arrive, and I find it gross negligence not to tell the entire story in a single book. It could have, and should have been done. Not doing so undermines their said goals.

3a) Even though they state repeatedly that the massacre was inexcusable. It seems like they still almost take Daniel Wells' attitude that the massacre was the result of a "combination of circumstances such as will probably never exist again". The situation was complex, I give them that. But it almost seemed like the authors spent more time weaving the reader into the web of complexity than making hardliner conclusions.

3b) It also seems like they spend a lot of time trying to absolve Brigham Young. Brigham Young did not order the massacre, OK, but his hardliner statements are minimized and brushed aside.

Overall, I think the book was well written and documented the Massacre with diligence. However, I feel like there needed to be coverage of the aftermath and less time spent on some of the web-weaving.

[Kurt · Rating 4 out of 5]

I take no pride in knowing that my great-great-grandfather participated in this awful episode in western American history. But I feel compelled to learn and understand how events and circumstances could unfold in such a way that a group of mostly honest and good people could abandon their values and principles in order to commit the atrocity described by this book.

An important saying tells us that if we fail to learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. I strongly believe that the people who participate in mob and military and state-sanctioned violence and those who condone it or allow it to happen or refuse to try to stop it are for the most part no different than any of us -- they are just normal people who, because they find themselves in a difficult or frightening situation, are easily persuaded to go along with the crowd. The Ox-bow Incident is an excellent fictional story that describes this very phenomenon. True historical accounts of similar events abound, especially during wars. The Mountain Meadows massacre is just one of numerous case studies, but it is somewhat unique because of its scale, the remoteness of the incident, and the religious factor involved.


This book is the second I have read on the Mountain Meadows massacre. It is far superior to the first one I read -- a book with the same title by William Wise. After reading this book I feel, for the first time since learning about this tragedy many years ago, that I can finally, in a small way, understand the states of mind of probably most of the perpetrators. I will never try to excuse their actions, but I feel we should try to understand what their feelings and motivations were so that we can learn from their mistakes and thereby avoid similar pitfalls should they occur in our own lives.

[Jake Zollinger · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent writing, depressing subject

[Sarah Wagner · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't have sufficient words to express how horrific and atrocious the realities of this massacre are. Truly nauseating. A heavy, heavy read, but important. I especially appreciated the thorough additional context of politics and U.S. History of the time.

[Stephen Durrant · Rating 4 out of 5]

Can devout Mormons write serious, credible history about a shameful and controversial event from the Mormon past? This must be asked precisely because so much history written by the faithful, in this tradition and others, is committed to certain conclusions before the act of research even begins. After reading Walker, Turley, and Leonard's new book on the Mountain Meadows massacre, the Mormon 9/11 (September 11, 1857), my answer to the question posed above, albeit with a few reservations, is "yes." The authors announce in their preface that "Church leaders supported our book by providing full and open disclosure" (xi), which is to say that previous writers on this topic such as Juanita Brooks and Will Bagley, did not have such total access. The implication is clear. If you want the most accurate account of this event available, then look no further. It is, in fact, hard to imagine a study with more detail than this one. The authors have chased down virtually every fact available about the tragic events leading up to the massacre of 120 men, women, and children that took place at Mountain Meadows, one of the most quiet, lovely places I have ever visited. Still, much must be reconstructed because so many of the critical meetings and conversations are shrouded in secrecy. Conspirators confound historians by not keeping careful accounts of what they say to one another! Furthermore, so many of the reports of who said what to whom must be pieced together from much later testimony taken when there was a very high price for asserting innocence and assigning guilt. The authors do a solid job of weaving the mountain of facts at their disposal into a convincing narrative. For all its strengths as an impressive work of research, "Massacre," remains a book of Mormon apologetics. Two large arguments shape this history: first, Brigham Young did not give the order to kill the wagon train of Arkansas emigrants; and second, the violence at Mountain Meadows, however deplorable, fits a common pattern that repeats all too often in human history. Brigham Young's involvement in the massacre has been an issue of sharp controversy. Will Bagley's 2002 book, "The Blood of the Prophets," is perhaps the strongest argument to date claiming his guilt. This new book, I believe, makes a plausible case that Brigham Young not only did not order the massacre but would have averted it had communication between Salt Lake and Cedar City not been so agonizingly slow. However, the authors do not exactly let Brigham Young off the hook. It was in part his overheated rhetoric, in the face of the knowledge that U.S. troops were marching toward Utah at the time, that created the atmosphere in which an atrocity of this type could take place. The Mormon leader does not come off as a murderer in "Massacre," but he does not come off as a particularly wise prophet either. Reducing this mass murder to a common historical pattern for such acts of violence should raise another question for Mormon readers, and especially for the authorities that lead them. "Most ordinary people," says one scholar the authors quote, "readily allow the dictates of 'authorities' to trump their own moral instincts" (p. 127). Later, John D. Lee, the only man executed for the murders, is quoted as saying that "All said they were willing to carry out the counsel of their leaders: that the leaders had the Spirit of God and knew better what was right than they did" (p. 189). The implications to me seem clear: uncritical obedience to authorities who claim special access to God's will can set the stage for moral atrocities. So the question must then be asked, and of course this takes us far beyond this well-researched study: to what extent does the contemporary Mormon Church teach and even validate challenging, questioning, and at times even disobeying leaders "called and inspired by God"?

[Katherine Addison · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was, I admit, a little skeptical about this book, being as it is "the most professional, transparent account of a controversial event in Mormon history produced under church auspices" (from the Journal of American History review, quoted on the back cover). From other reading, notably Salamander: The Story of the Mormon Forgery Murders with a New Afterword, I am aware that the Mormon church has not always put its best foot forward in the enterprise of historiography. That would be why I made sure I found and read The Mountain Meadows Massacre first, knowing that Juanita Brooks set the bar.

I was pleasantly surprised. Walker, Turley, and Leonard live up to the JAH review; their account of the massacre is both professional and transparent. They make the story as clear as it is ever likely to be; they make careful delineations about who shoulders what part of the blame for the way the events at Mountain Meadows unfolded (I have a tag on my blog for "clusterfucks of the old west," and believe me, this qualifies); they (a) remember that Native Americans are not a homogeneous population and that their society is not monolithic, (b) incorporate the perspective of the Paiutes into their narrative from what evidence they have, and (c) include among their appendices (the roster of emigrants known to have been killed and known to have survived; the value of the emigrants' property, the roster of Mormons suspected or proved to have taken part in the massacre) a list of Native Americans known to have participated in the massacre and a list of Native Americans accused of participating who can be proved to have been somewhere else. This is responsible historiography, and I appreciate it.

They also pull in modern research on how atrocities happen and really do an excellent job of showing the steps on the road to Hell: why relations between Mormon settlers and non-Mormon emigrants were so tense; the spread of rumor and gossip (I even buy their theory that the story of the emigrants poisoning dead cattle to kill Indians and Mormons is based in an anthrax outbreak); the terrible snowballing effect of one bad decision after another, until the Mormon leaders Dame and Haight had convinced themselves that the only option left to them was to massacre the Fancher wagon train.

I also appreciate the fact that Walker, Turley, and Leonard track carefully, and incorporate the testimony of, the children who survived because they were judged too young to talk. I've talked other places about children and history, and although that's not really something Walker, Turley, and Leonard are pursuing, the fact is that they treat respectfully the testimony from people who were seven or younger at the time of the massacre. One of the children, who was not quite three at the time of the massacre, nevertheless remembered distinctly and vividly her father being killed while he held her.

The massacre at Mountain Meadows is dreadful both in and of itself and in the way that it demonstrates how horribly easy it is to paint yourself into a corner, how difficult it is for human beings to stand firm against a group decision, even if they think the decision is wrong, and the awful awful things that happen because someone decides it's "too late" to do something better.

[Brent Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had mixed feelings approaching this book. Wasn't sure I trusted this "establishment" version of the story, but hearing that it was good. My great=great grampa was Laban Morrill, and my great-great grand-uncle was Nephi Johnson. AND - my wife's great-great grampa was John D Lee - so there was plenty of natural interest in the story.

My reaction:

- Surprisingly lean telling of the story, at times even tedious
- Authors stuck close to the script; did not engage other historians much - which was a little hard actually
- Overall I felt a fair and honest telling
- Disappointing to stop abruptly with Lee's execution, leaving the LDS coverup and denial largely untold

Sharman and I visited the Mountain Meadows memorial site a year ago - I had not been there before. It was sobering and challenging for me to be there and witness for myself the rugged windy but beautiful land, the pathetic memorial. I still have a lot of feelings about the massacre and what it says to our faith (I am active LDS).

I read a couple of good reviews of the book in BYU Studies - gave me a context for my own reactions.

[Chris G Derrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this novel about an extremely unfortunate incident in the history of the Mormon church.
Even if the story itself is more than a little upsetting.
It comes across as being both well researched and descriptive.
In essence it describes the circumstances surrounding the killing of 120 pretty well off settlers on their way to California.
All were massacred, other than the very young children - who were then given to Mormon families to be raised.
Only one man John D Lee was ever called to pay the ultimate price for the massacre.
The Mormons attempted to point the finger of blame solely at their Paiute Indian allies.
Initially they'd wanted the Indians to carry out the ambush on their own. They refused as the settlers were too well armed and organised - insisting the Mormons accompanied them.
The method of how the ambush was carried out is truly harrowing, as is its description. I won't give any details away about how it was achieved - it really does need to be read to be believed!
A book I'd recommend to anyone with an interest in mid 19th century history.

[Meridee · Rating 5 out of 5]

The most thoroughly researched, unbiased book available on this difficult subject. These authors had access to archival documents not available to previous authors and made a valiant effort to recount this story from both sides - the victims and the perpetrators. While the fact this even happened is still unfathomable to me, an understanding of the mindset of this era from the perspective of the emigrant train and the Utah Mormon settlers gives a better understanding of how this unspeakable horror could have happened. Almost 1/3 of the book is footnotes and references that the book was based on. If you think you understand what happened, you really don't unless you've read this book!

[Nicole · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have been riveted by the tragedy of Mountain Meadows ever since I was in college. My speech and debate coach, who also was in charge of the film department at Dixie College, decided to film a documentary about Juanita Brooks’ book “The Mountain Meadows Massacre” while I was at school there. I watched him go through so much backlash for doing the documentary and being called in and chastised by his stake President, on our debate trips he would talk about his faith crisis (he was a Mormon). He left the church soon after. That was about 20 years ago. I always knew I would someday read Juanita Brooks’ book, which I finally did last year. It was choppy and hard to get through. A friend recommended this book, which I loved so much better! This is why:

This is a book written by Mormon church historians (a church approved book gives pause, will it be transparent?) but they were allowed into archives and they provide so much info, details and perspective, this book is such an easy read, I flew through it like a fictional novel and I could hardly put it down. Smooth transitions in the narrative, great setting and feel of the time, details of the immigrants of the Fancher/Baker train, a list of the Mormon men involved in the slaughter, this was such a well done book! And when you get to the part of the book where the actual massacre takes place, the way it was set up and the descriptions of how the immigrants were killed……..there are no words. I had a sleepless night after that chapter, I was so broken hearted. Such an atrocity.

Was Brigham Young involved by ordering the slaughter? I really don’t know, according to this book he wasn’t involved ;) I don’t know if we will ever know, but definitely his “no helping/trading with any immigrant passing through Utah.” And his “prepare for war” commands and church policy didn’t help and definitely contributed to the paranoia of the times in Utah.

My main complaint about the book is it is so well done, even details of which people ended up with different “spoils” of the immigrants property, which Mormon families adopted the poor orphan children (only 17 survived out of so many kids in that wagon train) but then it just ends there. We’re given barely a trial of John D. Lee and his execution and the book abruptly ends. Wait a minute!!! So much happened between those two events, about 20 years! Tell me about the cover up, why was Lee the fall guy, what happened to all the other men involved, how did the orphans get back to their families, some kids that were old enough remembered the events and testified in Washington DC? And they paint Lee as quite the loose cannon in the book. I guess church historians can’t write things that would really make the church look bad with the cover up. That’s the book I want to read next. If anyone knows of one, let me know!

[Eli · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was profoundly impacted by this book. It was so sad. I cried in multiple places. I had no I idea, and couldn’t believe it, that the bones of the victims had lain exposed for almost two years after the massacre. That is so horrible. I knew about the massacre, but I didn’t know the details. I was surprised to learn that the massacre itself was actually a cover-up for earlier, lesser crimes, to cover the tracks of the white Mormons who were involved in stirring up the natives to attack the wagon train. For me, the book was a powerful illustration of human sinfulness, not that people set out to do the most wicked things imaginable, but that we repeatedly fail in the little things, cave to pressure, give in to small suggestions of evil, until our sin becomes more than we can control, bigger than our initial desire. And then, at that point, we go into hiding. Rather than confess, we are willing to do just about anything to hide our sins, even committing unspeakable atrocities. All to hide. It’s horrendous. And if someone says: “Well, people aren’t so bad, it’s just that under pressure we get carried away,” I say, it’s precisely in the pressure that our true character is proven. When all is easy and rosy, it doesn’t mean much that we behave morally. It’s when things get hard that morality really counts, and it’s precisely then that we fail. I don’t blame the Mormons for being an especially evil people. This is a human story, the story of us all.

[Nathan]

Gene Sessions, Professor of History at Weber State University, wrote me on 06/21/2019 that "[o]f all the book-length treatments of the Massacre, I believe the one by Walker, Turley, and Leonard is the closest to telling it as it was. They had unlimited access to all the records involved and a lot of money to investigate it. I think they hit it at least 99% of the way. There are always little issues and questions on the edge of a story like this one, but they answered all the big questions very thoroughly, in my view. Let me know if I can answer any questions. I have been deeply involved in studying this horrible event for almost forty years and was for a time president of the Mountain Meadows Association. I often say that I have two wishes: (1) I wish it didn't happen. (2) Inasmuch as it did, I wish I didn't know about it. In the annals of human atrocity, it's a drop in the ocean, but it is still a brutal stain on Utah's history."

[Garrett Hazen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Absolutely harrowing. I believe it is important to scrutinize the history, culture, and identity of your own people so that you can better understand how you can 1) decide if that identity is something you want to take ownership of and 2) become an agent within that culture so that the dark side of its history is hopefully never repeated.

This is a highly readable and well-contextualized account of the events and cultural framework that lead to the infamous massacre at Mountain Meadows in 1857. It also takes several moments to reflect on modern psychological insight to understand what conditions must exist for even the most amicable individual to end up participating in and justifying a crime as heinous as genocide. That, for me, was the most poignant and horrifying realization: given the right conditions, I am just as capable as anyone.

[Jennifer · Rating 3 out of 5]

I downgraded the rating because of what it left out. I knew this book would have an agenda. I read it on the recommendations from their content editor. I did like the documents and sources, that seems pretty thorough. A couple times though: "we know this was revised but it showed what people were thinking about" ? Really?

I did appreciate the context and background.

I think this was times to the 2007 150 event.

However, skipping from the "adoption" of the children to 20 years later to John Lee's execution - very thin information about the years.

It was a very sad event. Not, I am not.

[Richard (Rick) · Rating 3 out of 5]

Brutally depressing, but well researched and authoritative. Read more like a history book (not surprising given the authors), and thus goes from event to event instead of being character-driven. Probably this helps it stay more accurate, but it makes for a dry reading at the beginning.

[Megan]

The research of this study is impressive! At least 1/3 of the book’s pages are appendices & endnotes. Events leading up to the massacre were a tragic, volatile mix of anger against “the other”, pride, greed, and fear-instead-of-faith. I look forward to reading the next volume about the aftermath.

[Carl · Rating 4 out of 5]

The other book I read over the Xmas break after the Dark Elf Trilogy was the newly published book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I was at Costco with my sister-in-law when I saw all three of the Jason Bourne movies for $20. I resisted the temptation to buy them because I don’t like impulse buying. Then I saw this book and immediately bought it. So much for not impulse buying. The next day my friend Chris was over and he picked it up. “MASSACRE!!” he intoned, and then paused. “Oh, this is a serious book.” It is, indeed.

More than the book itself, which I found to be adequate, I like what the publication of this book heralds. Many times we LDS haven’t been exactly honest with ourselves with regard to our history. One of the major anti-Mormon tactics is to simply tell the truth, that Brigham said such-and-such, or that such-and-such an event happened. Since that event or saying doesn’t fit into most Latter-day Saints preconceived notion of how things are (infallible prophets, mostly) it can be quite damaging. I have multiple friends who have left the church over these issues much to my dismay. The solution, in my opinion, is to get rid of the false preconceived paradigm. When the PBS documentary on Mormons was aired a few years ago many of the people in my old ward were shocked and amazed to learn that that the Mountain Meadows Massacre took place. That is not helpful, because in an environment of ignorance like that anti-Mormon propaganda can work wonders in causing doubt and fear. And getting rid of that preconceived notion is something that this book heralds—the continuation of our quest to be honest with our past in a way that is still faithful. In that vein this book stands with Rough Stone Rolling, Richard Bushman’s wonderful biography of the Joseph Smith that shows the prophet warts and all.

This book does a good job of describing the lead-up the massacre. Let’s just say I’m glad I was not a Mormon in Utah during the year 1857 with Johnston’s army marching towards us and the federal government silent. “Army? We’re not sending an army.” With the persecutions of Missouri and Illinois relatively fresh in the minds of the saints and a last-days mentality, it’s easier for me now to see the conditions that led to the massacre, conditions that allowed generally good people to commit such an atrocity. It’s an interesting thought experiment to put yourself in their shoes and ask yourself what you would have done in their situations. You see, the perpetrators, as the book says, pretty much lived good lives before and after.

I have two major complaints about the book. First, that the modern religious violence psychology the authors bring to play is not used very consistently. It seems to show up and random times or places. What would have been better would have been to have an entire chapter dedicated to the modern discussion of religious violence and its bearing on the Mountain Meadows Massacre, instead of a page there, a paragraph here.

I also didn’t like the fact that the narrative ends the day after the massacre and then picks up the day John Lee is executed, a gap of over a decade. There is no discussion of the aftermath, trials, cover-ups (to whatever extent there were any, various aspects of the conver-ups, like blaming the Indians, are interspersed through the book but never discussed in detail), or how the surviving children were eventually taken back from the LDS settlers. This lack of discussion in a relatively short book will probably come across as yet more LDS attempts to hide from their own history to anti-Mormons, which is unfortunate. What is apparent is that while Brigham Young may have contributed to the atmosphere the massacre took place in with some of his speeches, he did not have any direct contribution to the massacre itself, and ordered the train released once he discovered what was happening. Sadly, the messenger arrived the day after the massacre, having run a number of horses almost to death.

I know that the authors have contracted with Oxford University Press to write a follow-up on those events, so I look forward to "Part 2."

This is a good book. It’s not a great book, but it does demonstrate how difficult it is to pin down things that happened a long time ago. In the end, however, I must conclude with the authors that we are all human, even Mormons sometimes “do not live up to their lofty ideals.” In this case, the Mormons who directly participated in the massacre utterly failed to do so. In reading the accounts of the actual shooting, I almost cried. Such a terrible tragedy. And while I can now more readily understand the atmosphere that produced it, an atmosphere even contributed to by the victims themselves, I do not think that it in any way excuses the cold-blooded murder of all those innocent people. But God will be the judge; I’m just glad it’s not my job.

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

Every people has shady, hidden corners of the past that they would prefer to sweep under the rug and pretend didn't exist. For Latter-day Saints, the Mountain Meadows massacre represents the very darkest shadow in our history. The cold-blooded murder of more than one hundred men, women, and children was an inexplicably evil act by those who should have known better, who professed not only Christianity, but a better and purer and more righteous form of it. It's difficult and uncomfortable for modern Latter-day Saints to think about, so many simply choose not to, or attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

But pretending the ugly parts don't exist doesn't make them disappear. Ignoring them doesn't make them less visible or less heinous. Rather, it reduces our credibility and diminishes any moral authority we might have. We seem ignorant at best, hypocritical at worst. So it is vital that we learn about our history - both the good and the bad - and are honest about it.

As Justice Louis Brandeis declared, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." Written by three faithful Latter-day Saints who are professional historians, Massacre at Mountain Meadows shines a bright light on the events leading up to September 11, 1857. Walker, Turley and Leonard gathered primary sources from across the country regarding the massacre, and were given unprecedented access to Church historical archives. "Church leaders supported our book by providing full and open disclosure," they said in their introduction. "Only complete and honest evaluation of the tragedy can bring the trust necessary for lasting good will."

The authors excel at explaining events in the context of the time and culture. They cover the deep-seated, and not entirely irrational, fear among the Mormons that the U.S. Army was on its way to invade and occupy their lands. Militant sermons given by Church leaders stirred up a sense of fear and urgency among the members in outlying settlements. The recent widespread revival, later called the Mormon Reformation, led to a religious retrenchment and a suspicion of anyone even slightly out of lockstep with the Church leadership. Even simple aspects like the dry weather and poor crop yield, and difficulty of communicating over long distances before the telegraph was available affected the tragic outcome.

To read the rest of this review, visit my blog at Build Enough Bookshelves.

[Yvonne swinson · Rating 3 out of 5]

So far very good, although a lot of information to absorb. I was intrigued because a few years ago, my husband and I (our ward, to be precise) were unwitting participants in a PBS special on "mormons" which was supposed to be very favorable to the church. Instead, a huge chunk of the program was on the MMM. Now I live near the infamous site and wanted a truly insightful look at what happened. Since the LDS church opened their archives and contributed research $ to this project, I knew it would be good.

Well, I'm not really sure how to rate this - it didn't have everything I hoped it would, but I don't guess that's fair criteria. As far as research, it's indisputably thorough - almost to the point of confusion in a place or two. But with 120 or so emigrants involved, plus an unknown count of indians and mormon militia, there are a LOT of names, places and times to keep straight. I really don't see how they could have done it "better"

I guess I was hoping for more of the after-story though - maybe I would have felt some small bit of catharsis had I known more of what happened afterwards - with the investigation, with the surviving children, something. There is a brief epilogue, but only focused on one of the perpetrators. I guess I can't really put my finger on what I wanted -it really is just a tough topic - no easy answers and plenty of blame to go around.

The only real complaint I have is that the book is written assuming you already know most of the story, and in this regards, I wish I'd read Juanita Brooks account first, and then this. I think.

Sorry, I guess this isn't all that helpful.

[Heather · Rating 3 out of 5]

Commissioned by the LDS church, this book was surprisingly unsparing in its description of the atrocities at Mountain Meadows (more detailed in its account of the actual murders than Brooks' book). They had lots of information at their disposal, and I'm sure it was overwhelming to sift through all of the obviously biased accounts (mostly left by perpetrators) to come up with a reasonable assessment of what happened. They give details about the victims and others that were not present in Juanita Brooks' books, and they effectively place the event in the context of broader American history.

My only complaint is that while the authors did not give special treatment to the leaders in southern Utah, they did appear to give Brigham Young special treatment. They are clear about the culpability of those directly involved but shy away from making direct links to the doctrines of blood atonement and the dehumanization of "gentiles" that were taught from Brigham Young's pulpit. They also completely fail to mention Young's involvement in the cover up and his failure to discipline the leaders. Their focus is not on the trials and cover up, but they do provide an epilogue in which mention of Brigham Young's reaction to the massacre is glaringly absent.

Overall, I think this is a good book and it represents a big step for the LDS people toward accepting and learning from the unsavory parts of their past.

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

I gave it 5 stars not because I liked the story but because I think the work was well researched and produced. It is extremely disturbing knowing that this horrific massacre is part of the history of my inherited faith. Reading chapter 13, which describes the massacre in great detail is like being forced into a horror movie. The inertia of paranoia, religious conviction, fear, limited communication, and poor leadership all led to violence that any healthy minded individual would find unconscionable.

This story should be known and understood by all members, in fact all religious people would benefit from knowing this awful series of events in order to protect themselves and their community from group-think and unjustified justification of extremely immoral behavior. We are all susceptible to justifying ourselves as human beings, the difference is that we generally have people around us that stop the craziness before it does much damage. Assimilation into wider society in the 20th century has been the best thing that has happened to the Mormon faith. The wider world keeps us from reverting to fundamentalism and helps us become a positive force in the world, not the other way around.

[MKF · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was one of those books I quickly lost interest in. It just seemed that the authors focused more on the Mormons and their history which is a bit understandable but not what I was expecting to read.
When you finally did get to the part of the siege and massacre the parts with the emigrants felt rushed and incomplete with the usual rumors. Compare it to the other accounts you will see that there are some differences. What I really disliked was how the authors made it so that most of the blame was on the Pauite Indians not the militia. I do not think that it has ever been proven that the Pauite were actually involved in the massacre or even if Pauite indians were even there and participated in the killing.
There was so much more wrong so I would not recommend this book. There are probably some people who would find it interesting but not many.

[Sandy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This one was hard to rate. It was slow going, with a lot of people and events to keep straight. Although the authors are all LDS church members, you would not know it from reading the book. It was not at all religious or biased in tone, and they made no effort to excuse or justify the actions of the Mormon militia--in fact, just the opposite. I felt the book ended too abruptly and left me with unanswered questions. Why did it take 20 years to bring John Lee to trial (and subsequent execution)? What happened to the others that were indicted for the crime? The book only briefly reports that the 17 surviving children were taken into federal custody two years after the massacre and returned to family members still living in Arkansas. I would have liked to know more about them.

[Jenalyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must-read for anyone interested in southern Utah, Mormon, or pioneer history. Very factual. Very sad. Extremely powerful.
To get a fuller picture of the story, I found it helpful to go back and read books by Juanita Brooks "John Doyle Lee" and "Mountain Meadows Massacre", the collection of affidavits she was unable to see that are now published in "Mountain Meadows Massacre: the Andrew Jenson and David H. Morris collection, and finally to reread this book.
I too, like many others, would like to know the rest of the story that the authors hinted at, to be told in another volume.

[Bill · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent and balanced treatment of a difficult subject. Each source is meticulously cited and they are careful in drawing broad conclusions. They also are show how many factors combined to create a tragic situation without removing the blame from the individuals who appear to have made the most grievous errors. Not a happy story, but a great resource for those trying to make sense of the time and place see a broad view of the problems.

[Brad · Rating 4 out of 5]

A gut-wrenching but powerful account of one the darkest periods in Mormon history. Meticulously researched and refreshingly honest. Highly recommended for anyone willing to take on unvarnished version of history. The authors do not pass judgment but let the facts speak for themselves. Made my heart ache for the victims left to wonder at the senselessness of human cruelty.

[Michael Lyman · Rating 5 out of 5]

The definitive-- and from what I can tell, objective-- history of these horrific events. Was impressed with the authors' thorough research into seemingly obscure, but important details, such as the anthrax poisonings in Fillmore. Also, impressed with the inclusion of content from social psychology to set the context of the situation that led to these events.