Mountain Meadows

[_John Larsen]

John Larsen,

Let me say that another way so you are clear about what I'm asking. The inscription above claims that the Grave Site Memorial was built by and is maintained by the LDS Church. If I didn't know better, I would think that it was a memorial for Mormons who were massacred at MM.

You are right, it is not very clear. Since this was done in 1999 it is by purposeful intent that the site is left with no information about what happened. I was at the site with another ex-Mo and he got into a discussion with some Mormons. It was clear they had no idea what had happened at all and the site merrily preserves the veil of silence, if you don't go to the top of the hill.

By the way, there were no Mormons who lost their life.

What would I see or read at the top of the hill that would tell me what historically took place there?

Here are two examples of the series of historical plaques they have:





Here is the information booth at the LDS site:

[_Jersey Girl]

From what I can read on your photos, John Larsen, if I were non-LDS traveling there and happened upon the monument, I would think it was a monument to Mormon's that had been massacred.

[_Mister Scratch]

Charity you have consistently misread at least 3/4 of the posts I've seen you address. You seem to jump to things too quickly in your efforts to "correct".

The wording on the current monument reads exactly like the public relations wary evasion that it is. My father, not an anti-mormon, critic or any combination of those terms, visited the site with me once and pointed out, incredulously, the number of time Hinkley's name in on it and how self-congratulatory the whole thing looked.

I did not misread Larsen. To say that the monument is built out of respect for the Church, as Larsen said, is hokey. Your criticism of me "misreading" posts probably comes from the fact that I can cut through the balogney that so often appears here under the guise of "logic."

Larsen's reading is not "hokey"; nor is it inaccurate. The way the sentence is written allows for two quite different direct objects: either the victims, or the Church. It would have been easy enough to make the sentence clearer, e.g.:

This monument, which was built by the LDS Church, is intended as a memorial for the men, women, and children who died on 9/11/1857."

But that's not what it says. The author of the line on the actual memorial was obviously concerned with image and PR issues. I find it quite odd that the word "respect" was chosen. I.e., what is there to "respect"? Did the victims of MMM do anything that was "respectable", per se? I don't think so. This was a poorly chosen word, in my opinion, and sadly for Church defenders, it has the effect of confusing the direct object of the sentence. One could argue that this is a kind of "grammatical egalitarianism," but, I have to ask, why should the Church be congratulating (or "respecting") itself here? The mood should be crafted to memorialize the victims, not the Church.

To my mind, the monument does a poor job of honoring the victims. The site, coupled with GBH's speech, seems aimed more at trying to exonerate the Church of any wrongdoing, which, in effect, defeats the supposed purpose of the monument.

[_charity]

From what I can read on your photos, John Larsen, if I were non-LDS traveling there and happened upon the monument, I would think it was a monument to Mormon's that had been massacred.

Sort of like a monument to the Cavalry men who died at Little Big Horn set up by the Crow Nation. They didn't do it, but their friends the Sioux did.

[Guest]

As for the Indians killing the children, while this was a staple of various official cover stories, it is pretty much disbelieved now. How many Indians were originally rounded up for the massacre is debatable, but it is certain than most of them left after the first day of fighting. I myself think that 6 or 7 is a high estimate for Indians remaining by the day of the slaughter. And the forensic work of Shannon Novak on the remains uncovered by the back hoes of the current monument revealed children and women's skulls that had close range bullet holes in them. One skull of a boy around 11 years old bore the clear outline of a gun butt (you can see it in the photographs accompanying her first article on her study) thus confiriming at least part of John D. Lee's narrative of the day's events.

YES! There were infants with skulls that showed that they died from bullets -- NO machete marks! This is a myth that the indians killed these innocents! A careful myth portrayed with the hopes that these skulls would never see the light of day, no doubt!

There are a few Fancher family websites that deal with the massacre. Here's one: http://www.mtnmeadows.org/

Most appear quite reasonable, not out for LDS blood, and are still quite grieved over the fate of their descendents.

[_Jersey Girl]

From what I can read on your photos, John Larsen, if I were non-LDS traveling there and happened upon the monument, I would think it was a monument to Mormon's that had been massacred.

Sort of like a monument to the Cavalry men who died at Little Big Horn set up by the Crow Nation. They didn't do it, but their friends the Sioux did.

What on earth does your reply have to do with what I stated?

[_Moniker]

From what I can read on your photos, John Larsen, if I were non-LDS traveling there and happened upon the monument, I would think it was a monument to Mormon's that had been massacred.

Sort of like a monument to the Cavalry men who died at Little Big Horn set up by the Crow Nation. They didn't do it, but their friends the Sioux did.

What on earth does your reply have to do with what I stated?

Ignore........ Ignore........ Ignore.......... Ignore.......... Ignore.........

[_charity]

Larsen's reading is not "hokey"; nor is it inaccurate. The way the sentence is written allows for two quite different direct objects: either the victims, or the Church. It would have been easy enough to make the sentence clearer, e.g.:

This monument, which was built by the LDS Church, is intended as a memorial for the men, women, and children who died on 9/11/1857."

But that's not what it says. The author of the line on the actual memorial was obviously concerned with image and PR issues. I find it quite odd that the word "respect" was chosen. I.e., what is there to "respect"? Did the victims of MMM do anything that was "respectable", per se? I don't think so. This was a poorly chosen word, in my opinion, and sadly for Church defenders, it has the effect of confusing the direct object of the sentence. One could argue that this is a kind of "grammatical egalitarianism," but, I have to ask, why should the Church be congratulating (or "respecting") itself here? The mood should be crafted to memorialize the victims, not the Church.

To my mind, the monument does a poor job of honoring the victims. The site, coupled with GBH's speech, seems aimed more at trying to exonerate the Church of any wrongdoing, which, in effect, defeats the supposed purpose of the monument.

To say you wished the monument had said something a little different is not that same as saying that it is possible to read that statement as saying it is the Church which is being 'respected.' Those of you who are defending the silly statement that the memorial inscription COULD be read as saying that the Church is honoring itself by building a monument would be laughed out of any English composition class from middle school up.

[_Jersey Girl]

From what I can read on your photos, John Larsen, if I were non-LDS traveling there and happened upon the monument, I would think it was a monument to Mormon's that had been massacred.

Sort of like a monument to the Cavalry men who died at Little Big Horn set up by the Crow Nation. They didn't do it, but their friends the Sioux did.

What on earth does your reply have to do with what I stated?

Ignore........ Ignore........ Ignore.......... Ignore.......... Ignore.........

Why? Did I ask a stupid question?

[_Moniker]

From what I can read on your photos, John Larsen, if I were non-LDS traveling there and happened upon the monument, I would think it was a monument to Mormon's that had been massacred.

Sort of like a monument to the Cavalry men who died at Little Big Horn set up by the Crow Nation. They didn't do it, but their friends the Sioux did.

What on earth does your reply have to do with what I stated?

Ignore........ Ignore........ Ignore.......... Ignore.......... Ignore.........

Why? Did I ask a stupid question?

I suggest we ignore rabbit trails.... did you create one? I don't want to hop down it...