The Mormon Church heirarchy has frequently had a dilemma with history. Should it be faith promoting or accurate? Or can it be both? This year the “Ensign” has published two potentially interesting articles on historical subjects: one good and one not so good. I commend the Church for the former.
The September edition of the “Ensign” has an article on the Meadow Mountain Massacre. I suppose the article is timed to counteract the potential negative press coming from the release of the movie “September Dawn.” I generally appreciated the article. I am not a professional historian, so my comments should be taken as strictly my personal observations. I like it that the article was written by a trained historian, Richard E. Turley Jr., Managing Director, Family and Church History Department. I know that sounds snobbish, but I think that is important.
I really appreciated the upfront comment: “nothing that any of the emigrants purportedly did or said, even if all of it was true, came close to justifying their deaths.” I wish Richard had left it there, but he did add a qualifying sentence which did detract from his strong conclusion. But on the whole, the article was much more forthright than I had expected. I hope this trend of more real historical information continues.
I am not an authority on the Meadow Mountain Massacre, so these comments come mostly from just reading the article. Richard acts an apologist for Brigham Young, and down plays his role in the massacre. I’m not sure how totally believeable that is. President Young was a strong personality and Richard’s version has a bit of an empty ring. But given the communications of the day, who knows. I wish Richard would have paid tribute to Juanita Brooks for her seminal work on the subject and, at least, mentioned that other historians have come to other conclusions about roles and responsibilities. But on the whole, I commend Richard for walking the fine line between historical writing and the needs of a Church publication. I agree with a “Comment” by Nathan Oman published at the end of the magazine: “Kudos to all involved for addressing the issue forthrightly in a Church magazine.”
On the other hand, I was very disappointed with the article on the Mormon Battalion in the July edition. This article went for 4 of its 6 pages saying little substantial. What I would have liked to have seen is more history and fewer superlatives. For instance, besides money, when the members returned to the SL Valley, what knowledge did they bring back with them? What is the legacy of the battalion? I would be interested in knowing if a historian reviewed this article. Also in the “Comment” section of the September edition was the following: “Several readers have pointed out the discrepancies in the image of the Mormon Batallion on the cover of the July 2007 “Ensign.” So aparently the cover had issues also.
As Mormons, we need to own our past, warts and all.
The following comment about the Meadow Mountain Massacre story in the Ensign was published in Sunstone (October 2007, p. 74):
“The Ensign article, written by Turley, implies that Brigham Young and other leaders did not conspire to hide any of the facts after the massacre because “their understanding of the extent of the settlers’ involvement and the terrible details of the crime came incrementally over time.” The article briefly mentions that “in 1870 [Church leaders] excommunicated Isaac Haight and John d. Lee” but does not explain why it took twelve years to discipline the men. Nor does the article mention that Lee was later executed in what has been widely regarded as an “official sacrifice”–as Mormon historian Juanitya Brooks put it–so that the charges against all other organizers would be dropped.”