Mountain Meadows

[_Blixa]

John Larsen, you have completely misread the statement on the monument. It doesn't even take an English teacher to read it correctly. As DCP so correctly observed, people who are blinded by an ideology often can't see what is plainly obvious.


MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE
GRAVE SITE MEMORIAL
Built by and maintained by
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
out of respect for those who died and
were buried here and in the surrounding area
following the massacre of 1857.

Dedicated 11 September 1999

You add this statement: "You will notice that if you read it carefully, the monument is to the Church, who generously built the site “out of respect…”. So the monument is, in effect, a monument to the Church for building a monument."

"Built out of respect to those who died and were buried here...." Quite an obvious statement.

Runtu, you have a degree in literature, I believe you said. Care to straighten John Larsen out about his erroeous interpretation?

I have more degrees than runtu in literature and I think John's interpretation has been twisted in your version of it. Because of the absense of other information, the plaque reads in a highly self-congratulatory way. What is the name found more times on the monument than any other? Gordon B. Hinckley.

[_Blixa]

The issues surrounding the monuments on the massacre site are complex and ongoing. The Dan Sill Hill monument, though, was built before the reconstructed cairn on the site of the corralled wagons (in 1990). The original cairn was built by Brevert Major J.H. Carleton and included a cross and plaque. Brigham Young had the original cairn destroyed. It was rebuilt and torn down, and grafittied over the years (there are extent photos of the cairn in various stages of rubble from about 1915-1928). In 1932 it was rebuilt by local Southern Utahns with a retaining wall and steps. (Interestingly enough it was at the dedication ceremony that Juanita Brooks was first proposed to by her second husband Will Brooks.)

This 1932 monument was subject to erosion over the years. The whole meadows having been overgrazed are demolished by erosion making the topography one encounters now very different than that of 1857. In fact by 1877 when John D. Lee was executed on the same spot as the most recent monument (or at least close by...I think where the parking lot is now) it had changed utterly.

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.

If I remember correctly, the Church blocked forensic examination of the bodies they uncovered in 1999.

Dr. Novak was able to have access to the bones while various parties fought over their swift reinternment. Her study is fascinating.

[_charity]

John Larsen, you have completely misread the statement on the monument. It doesn't even take an English teacher to read it correctly. As DCP so correctly observed, people who are blinded by an ideology often can't see what is plainly obvious.


MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE
GRAVE SITE MEMORIAL
Built by and maintained by
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
out of respect for those who died and
were buried here and in the surrounding area
following the massacre of 1857.

Dedicated 11 September 1999

You add this statement: "You will notice that if you read it carefully, the monument is to the Church, who generously built the site “out of respect…”. So the monument is, in effect, a monument to the Church for building a monument."

"Built out of respect to those who died and were buried here...." Quite an obvious statement.

Runtu, you have a degree in literature, I believe you said. Care to straighten John Larsen out about his erroeous interpretation?

I have more degrees than runtu in literature and I think John's interpretation has been twisted in your version of it. Because of the absense of other information, the plaque reads in a highly self-congratulatory way. What is the name found more times on the monument than any other? Gordon B. Hinckley.

What? The only possible complaint could be that the monument should not say who built it. But it very clearly says it was built "out of respect to those who died. . . "

I live in a very historic place, the seat of government for the Oregon Territory, where the plat map for San Francisco is kept in the county courthouse, a state which attained statehood 30 years before Washington state. We are inundated by monuments. Every single one says something about who built the monument. That is the way of monuments. And nobody understands that the monument was built to honor what/whoever built the monument.

Give me a break, guys. You may have some legitimate criticisms against the Church. This isn't one of them. And it really makes you look silly to be advancing this pathetic argument.

And putting runtu down? Shame on you.

[_Jersey Girl]

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?

[_Jersey Girl]

John Larsen, you have completely misread the statement on the monument. It doesn't even take an English teacher to read it correctly. As DCP so correctly observed, people who are blinded by an ideology often can't see what is plainly obvious.


MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE
GRAVE SITE MEMORIAL
Built by and maintained by
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
out of respect for those who died and
were buried here and in the surrounding area
following the massacre of 1857.

Dedicated 11 September 1999

You add this statement: "You will notice that if you read it carefully, the monument is to the Church, who generously built the site “out of respect…”. So the monument is, in effect, a monument to the Church for building a monument."

"Built out of respect to those who died and were buried here...." Quite an obvious statement.

Runtu, you have a degree in literature, I believe you said. Care to straighten John Larsen out about his erroeous interpretation?

Where does it identify those who died as non-Mormon?

[Anonymous]

What? The only possible complaint could be that the monument should not say who built it. But it very clearly says it was built "out of respect to those who died. . . "

I live in a very historic place, the seat of government for the Oregon Territory, where the plat map for San Francisco is kept in the county courthouse, a state which attained statehood 30 years before Washington state. We are inundated by monuments. Every single one says something about who built the monument. That is the way of monuments. And nobody understands that the monument was built to honor what/whoever built the monument.

Give me a break, guys. You may have some legitimate criticisms against the Church. This isn't one of them. And it really makes you look silly to be advancing this pathetic argument.

And putting runtu down? Shame on you.

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.

My comment about having more degrees than runtu was aimed at YOUR citing of runtu and his degrees. Since he had in fact recently pointed out my credentials in the "credentials" thread, it was interesting that it was runtu's "authority" you called for.

No one would read this as putting runtu down, least of all someone who is one of my closest and dearest friends in real life.

Shame on me? Is this an example of what you consider a discussion of ideas? No, its another entry in your litany of mean-spirited and hateful personal remarks. You never discuss anything. You only attempt to block discussion and your remakrs on this thread are a perfect example.

Not only does this make no sense:

I live in a very historic place, the seat of government for the Oregon Territory, where the plat map for San Francisco is kept in the county courthouse, a state which attained statehood 30 years before Washington state. We are inundated by monuments. Every single one says something about who built the monument. That is the way of monuments. And nobody understands that the monument was built to honor what/whoever built the monument.

but there is no attempt to "argue" how this has anything to do with the monument being talked about in this thread. Futhermore, "the way of monuments," to use your phrase, is that yes, they are often built with an eye to monumentalizing whoever has comissioned them as much as, if not in some cases more than, who or what is being "honored" by the monument.

[_karl61]

They should have those statues of family members hugging each other and sitting on each others lap and laughing at the site. This would show the group the day before the massacre.

[_Blixa]

They should have those statues of family members hugging each other and sitting on each others lap and laughing at the site. This would show the group the day before the massacre.

Well, if we were creating something in the spirit of literal and realist representation, then the day before the killing the families would have to be portrayed huddled in the corral of wagons caring for the wounded and struggling against thirst and hunger since they'd been carrying on the seige for a week. Since they'd been turned away in their efforts to buy food and provisions for their animals at several points in their journey from Great Salt Lake City (though there were couragous Saints who broke ranks and helped them) and likely harrassed in Cedar City, I think your staging might have to be placed further back in their journey westward.

[_John Larsen]

John Larsen, you have completely misread the statement on the monument. It doesn't even take an English teacher to read it correctly. As DCP so correctly observed, people who are blinded by an ideology often can't see what is plainly obvious.


MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE
GRAVE SITE MEMORIAL
Built by and maintained by
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
out of respect for those who died and
were buried here and in the surrounding area
following the massacre of 1857.

Dedicated 11 September 1999

You add this statement: "You will notice that if you read it carefully, the monument is to the Church, who generously built the site “out of respect…”. So the monument is, in effect, a monument to the Church for building a monument."

"Built out of respect to those who died and were buried here...." Quite an obvious statement.

Runtu, you have a degree in literature, I believe you said. Care to straighten John Larsen out about his erroeous interpretation?

I think the monument speaks for itself. Notice the selective use of passive voice. This monument teaches you absolutely nothing.

[_charity]

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."

My comment about having more degrees than runtu was aimed at YOUR citing of runtu and his degrees. Since he had in fact recently pointed out my credentials in the "credentials" thread, it was interesting that it was runtu's "authority" you called for.

Sorry, blixa, but I was not aware of your degrees. I have had much more contact with runtu, and knew that he had said he had a degree in literature. Actually, appealing to any advance level is not necessary. My middle school granddaughter can parse sentences and knows who the "who" was in that sentence.

No one would read this as putting runtu down, least of all someone who is one of my closest and dearest friends in real life.

That sentence is a little muddy. Are you saying that runtu is one of your closest, etc. friends, or the person who would read that as putting runtu down?

Shame on me? Is this an example of what you consider a discussion of ideas? No, its another entry in your litany of mean-spirited and hateful personal remarks. You never discuss anything. You only attempt to block discussion and your remakrs on this thread are a perfect example.

With your advanced degrees in English, you should have told John he was overstating his case badly, and that no good comes from making an exaggerated and ridiculous claim. It makes the whole argument look silly. He made a really erroneous statement. That is what this discussion is about. And if someone choses to try to bolster the ridiculous argument when they really have the expertise to know better, then shame on them for not standing up and speaking out, even if it against a friend. Or at least standing mute, if you didn't want to oppose him openly.

Not only does this make no sense:

I live in a very historic place, the seat of government for the Oregon Territory, where the plat map for San Francisco is kept in the county courthouse, a state which attained statehood 30 years before Washington state. We are inundated by monuments. Every single one says something about who built the monument. That is the way of monuments. And nobody understands that the monument was built to honor what/whoever built the monument.

but there is no attempt to "argue" how this has anything to do with the monument being talked about in this thread. Futhermore, "the way of monuments," to use your phrase, is that yes, they are often built with an eye to monumentalizing whoever has comissioned them as much as, if not in some cases more than, who or what is being "honored" by the monument.

Sorry that was over your head. I was trying to establish that I have some experience with "monuments." And I also know that if I were to ask 100 people in and around Orego City who built the monument to John McLaughlin that stands above Willamaette Falls, they wouldn't be able to tell me. They don't take notice of the builder, only of the monument and what it stands for.