Mountain Meadows

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

I'm afraid not, charity. One of the key principles taught to comp students is clarity and accuracy of language. Since English is a language in which the above kinds of confusion can fairly easily occur, it is doubly important to phrase sentences (especially ones as grave as the one on this memorial ought to have been!) as clearly and accurately as possible. I think it's safe to say that this inscription was revised and gone over multiple times before the final version was decided upon. It is very unfortunate that the Powers That Be opted for this phrasing.

[Anonymous]

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."

John Larson did not say the monument was built out of respect for the church. You have misread what he quoted and his point in quoting it.

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.

Then you did not bother to read several of runtu's responses to you in the "credentials" thread.

Actually, appealing to any advance level is not necessary.

Uh, that was the point of my comment. And it was also the point runtu was making to you, over and over, in the aforementioned "credentials" thread.

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?

Yes, people write quickly without measured editing on message boards. Still it is hard to beleive that you don't really know that I am telling you that runtu and I are very good, very close, personal friends. Something that I think both of us have made quite apparent on this board. In fact, I recall that one of the very first posts you directed to me included a snotty remark about runtu being my "cheering section."

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.

You don't need to tell me my moral duty. You are not anyone's judge, though you often pose as one here. Obviously I didn't tell John Larson that because it was not true---in fact it was the same as the response my father had to the monument. There was no error except yours. You thought he said something he didn't. In fact, this is quite a bit like another recent thread where you misread something The Road to Hana wrote.

I don't know what the bolded part refers to, John Larson is not someone I know personally, and I have no reason to either oppose or support him.

Sorry that was over your head.

Please dispense with the personal insults. This one makes you look especially nasty, vindictive and ignorant.

[_Alter Idem]

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.

I don't think anyone who actually reads the plaques comes away with the idea that they were Mormons who were massacred. It's clear it was a group from Arkansas and that Mormons and indians did the killing.

The monument site is very beautiful--Hard to believe such a horrific event took place there. There's something eery about the place-I wonder if there have been any paranormal or ghostly activities reported there. Blixa, do you know of any stories?

I must say, it had the nicest portable toilet I have ever seen. It was deluxe.

[_Moniker]

I'm afraid not, charity. One of the key principles taught to comp students is clarity and accuracy of language. Since English is a language in which the above kinds of confusion can fairly easily occur, it is doubly important to phrase sentences (especially ones as grave as the one on this memorial ought to have been!) as clearly and accurately as possible. I think it's safe to say that this inscription was revised and gone over multiple times before the final version was decided upon. It is very unfortunate that the Powers That Be opted for this phrasing.

Absolutely. It was left vague on purpose, I believe, so that the Church could create a monument without taking responsibility and opening themselves up to lawsuits.

[_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.

I don't think anyone who actually reads the plaques comes away with the idea that they were Mormons who were massacred. It's clear it was a group from Arkansas and that Mormons and indians did the killing.

I've only seen pictures (never been to Utah), but how is it clear that there were a group from Arkansas that were killed from the monument that the Church erected? Where does the monument say that Indians and Mormons were responsible for the deaths? Am I missing something?

[_Blixa]

The monument site is very beautiful--Hard to believe such a horrific event took place there. There's something eery about the place-I wonder if there have been any paranormal or ghostly activities reported there. Blixa, do you know of any stories?

Yes I know several, but not any recent ones. Ghost stories about the massacre site have been documented by western folklorists. I've wondered if there are more recent variations, but so far I've not heard of any.

I don't find the site beautiful exactly. I think its "haunting" in more than one way. I'm disturbed by the most recent momument and its building, but I also think the Dan Sill Hill monument problematic as well. Bad things happen in the passive voice, as one western americana author has put it.

[_Jersey Girl]

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

Well, I dunno, did I? Hey, if I did/said/typed something stupid I expect you to call me on it.

[_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.

I don't think anyone who actually reads the plaques comes away with the idea that they were Mormons who were massacred. It's clear it was a group from Arkansas and that Mormons and indians did the killing.

The monument site is very beautiful--Hard to believe such a horrific event took place there. There's something eery about the place-I wonder if there have been any paranormal or ghostly activities reported there. Blixa, do you know of any stories?

I must say, it had the nicest portable toilet I have ever seen. It was deluxe.

Please demonstrate to me in the images that John Larsen has posted that it is clear that Mormons and Indians did the killing or that the group were non-Mormons.

I ask you seriously, Alter. Did I overlook something in the images?

[_solomarineris]

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.

DCP will parrot anything in the LDS Church's interested. In fact he refers MMM as
"So called Mountain Meadows Massacre".
Is it only me who thinks that this monument is hideously ugly and the inscription reflects
the irony of disrespect and mockery?
Ask yourself first; who killed these people? Even if anybody could never prove BY's involvement, the killers were Stake Presidents, Bishops and other high Church officials.
Isn't that mean Mormons KILLED Fencher Party?
Why they are so gutless to admit this plain fact? If I was a descendant of these people I guarantee you I would go there piss and excrete on that inscription.
Because it would mean that much to me.
A proper apology is very important. LDS Church fell way short of that compassionate act.

Take this from someone whose ancestors were mercilessly slaughtered wholesale, some time ago.

[_charity]

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

Pssst. "Ancestors." But that isn't even really a correct statement. There are few direct Fancher train descendants. (Remember they were killed. Dead people don't produce offspring. And only a few survived.) But there are many Fancher train relations.

And I wonder about those who grieve for people they were only marginally related to and never knew, after a period of at least 100 years has gone by. My great-greatgrandfather and one of his sons (a brother to my great grandfather) were ambused an killed by a neighbor. John Taney laid in wait and shot them in a dispute over the boundary of their land claims. These deaths happened in the 1860's. Do I expect the Taney family to erect a monument? NO. Do I grieve over these deaths? NO. And if I were to do so, it would be indicative of a dysfunctional personality.

Can I be sorry that this family tragedy occurred almost 150 years ago? Of course. But to "grieve?" Ask any grief counselor and he/she will tell you this is a sign of mental dysfunction.