According to the public testimony of the authors (and according to the private comments made to me by other historians very familiar with the project), the leaders of the Church -- specifically including President Hinckley -- insisted that the full story be told, holding no punches.
I rather doubt that is true, given the years it took to make it to press and limited scope of topic. My guess this was a rather painful process for church leaders and wonder what what left on the cutting room floor. . That said I will read it, watch the discussions it and look to see what other historians have to say.i
My guess is Daniel is correct. I think it's entirely possible the Brethren gave their blessing to this project because they knew what was in the vaults... and any damning evidence had been long since swept into the trash bin, probably years and years before Pres Hinckley was called as prophet.
This, coupled with the closed sign on the archives, makes it almost impossible to gain an accurate account, no matter how freely the current authors were allowed into the vault. Destruction of historical accounts was brought to light not long ago, by a woman (whose name escapes me) who was ripping pages from pioneer journals because they were not faith promoting. She was some pooh-bah with the Utah Pioneer/Mormon History folks, wasn't she? I see no reason to think any evidence of leaders' culpability in the MMM would have survived to this day.
If I recall correctly, it was Juanita Brooks who supposedly destroyed evidence. Others have doubted the veracity of that story.
But certainly BY and subsequent leaders wouldn't have had any problem destroying evidence themselves, in my opinion.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
And we're going to have to agree to disagree about the appropriateness of expending tithing money on this project, Jason.
Won't be the first time. But I am surprised. You don't think a book about a major historical issue relating to the LDS Church is proper use of tithing? Why?
And we're going to have to agree to disagree about the appropriateness of expending tithing money on this project, Jason.
Won't be the first time. But I am surprised. You don't think a book about a major historical issue relating to the LDS Church is proper use of tithing? Why?
I see your point Jason.
Spend a few million in tithing to secure, quite possibly, BILLIONS of dollars in future tithes.
And we're going to have to agree to disagree about the appropriateness of expending tithing money on this project, Jason.
Won't be the first time. But I am surprised. You don't think a book about a major historical issue relating to the LDS Church is proper use of tithing? Why?
For the same reason that it bothers me that FARMS/MI's apologetics is paid for with tithing (and I don't care how small that percentage is... .5% is too much, in my opinion). It's impossible for the book (or FARMS/MI) to give an accurate unbiased viewpoint, when and because the church pays for it. No one, or only a fool or Don Quixote types, bites the hand that puts food on their table or pays their rent and retirement. We have Grant Palmer as the example of what happens when someone actually prints what he thinks, when what he thinks, no matter how well documented, contradicts the Brethren. Who would want to bring that hammer down on their own head?
I'm not averse to the church defending itself by whatever means it feels is necessary. I just don't think that is a good use of the widow's mite. Tithing has very specific things it's supposed to fund; I think this is not one of those things.
Am I (and Jason), the only one who thinks the temple covenants of the day contributed to the underlying beliefs that resulted in the massacre?
Of course they did. That's why the fallacious rumor mongering tried to link the party to the murder of Joseph Smith.
So, how do serious authors deal with the motivation of the murderers without addressing this fundamental issue? Wouldn't the beliefs of the murderers seem pivotal to the event?
If they did not discuss this most important belief, in my opinion it is an apologetic work, not serious history.
Also, I'm with harmony on this... the LDS church has ZERO need to keep any information that would make the church look bad. I hardly think anything still exists that would implicate the church in anything.
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
This, coupled with the closed sign on the archives, makes it almost impossible to gain an accurate account, no matter how freely the current authors were allowed into the vault. Destruction of historical accounts was brought to light not long ago, by a woman (whose name escapes me) who was ripping pages from pioneer journals because they were not faith promoting. She was some pooh-bah with the Utah Pioneer/Mormon History folks, wasn't she? I see no reason to think any evidence of leaders' culpability in the MMM would have survived to this day.
If I recall correctly, it was Juanita Brooks who supposedly destroyed evidence. Others have doubted the veracity of that story.
But certainly BY and subsequent leaders wouldn't have had any problem destroying evidence themselves, in my opinion.
This is a libel started by a man who spun a very hard to believe story about Brooks telling him she found a letter that was "just too condeming." If I recall correctly he was a one-time forest ranger who liked to promote himself as a "tour guide" of the site and was known for his "tales". His comments in one Tribune artlcle are all there is to it. This is the first and only place such a charge was ever made. Brooks's son was angry as was anyone who ever knew her, and anyone who every read any of her books should be too.
Kate Carter is the former head of the DUP who spoke about destroying materials. Since Brooks took her publically to task for it, it's an extremely sad irony that this less-than-rumor still gets repeated.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
This is a libel started by a man who spun a very hard to believe story about Brooks telling him she found a letter that was "just too condeming." If I recall correctly he was a one-time forest ranger who liked to promote himself as a "tour guide" of the site and was known for his "tales". His comments in one Tribune artlcle are all there is to it. This is the first and only place such a charge was ever made. Brooks's son was angry as was anyone who ever knew her, and anyone who every read any of her books should be too.
Kate Carter is the former head of the DUP who spoke about destroying materials. Since Brooks took her publically to task for it, it's an extremely sad irony that this less-than-rumor still gets repeated.
Thanks for the information - so did Carter admit destroying materials that were damaging to the church? Maybe that's who Harmony was thinking of all along.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I'm prettty sure that's who harmony was thinking of since I've brought the story up here before. Anyway, here's the background on Carter vs. Brooks. I'm drawing on several sources here, Juanita Brooks' book of memoirs, Quicksand and Cactus, the Dale Morgan letters and Levi Peterson's Brooks bio, Juanita Brooks: Mormon Woman Historian.
When Brooks started working on her historical writing she used the archives of the Huntington Library quite a bit. They were interested in building up their collection of western americana and so hired her as a kind of pioneer journal scout---she received a small stipend to search for diaries, journals and other records and secure them for the Huntington's collection (the deal was that the library would borrow the original and make two copies; in exchange for donating a copy to the Huntington the owners would get the original back PLUS a copy of their own, a nice offer in the pre-xerox world).
Kate B. Carter as head of the DUP (I think for over 20 years in the 40's and 50's) was already canvassing Utah and outlying areas for pioneer journals to be donated to the DUP for inclusion in their series (edited by Carter) of journal excerpts, published under titles like Heartthrobs of the West (these are fascinating to peruse and run to, I think, well over 40 volumes under various titles. You can find them in the Rare Books and Manuscripts collection at the U of U, or on the shelves at Ken Sanders Rare Books).
Carter apparently saw herself in competition with Juanita, never mind the implications of such sacred "legacies" going to a secular institution. In Peterson's words, "...Carter...issued an edict against members conveying documents to 'anyone working for libraries or interests outside the state,' a proscription aimed chiefly at Juanita."
So Brooks not only had to contend with Carter's attempt to secure pioneer journals within a non-public archive (unlike the Huntington, the DUP collection was accessible only to members), but she also attended a speech Carter gave to a BYU faculty group where she mentioned her practice of purging documents of "offensive" passages. Juanita wrote to Dale Morgan, "when she talked of 'editing' journals, one of the audience asked specifically what it was that she was editing. She explained that she omitted material that seemed not important or was repetitious and then she said, 'I never allow anything into print that I think will be injurious to my church, or that will in any way reflect discredit upon our pioneers. I hope that if I ever do, I shall lose my position and my power to do so.'"
In reaction to Carter's remarks Brooks read a paper before the Utah Academy at the University of Utah called, "The First One Hundred Years of Southern Utah History." As Peterson notes it was "an open denunciation of Kate Carter's editorial practices: "They [the DUP] do not wish to see their pioneers realistically as tough frontiersmen, sometimes disagreeing among themselves, quarreling upon occasion, swearing under provocation, drinking a little once in a while, loyal to each other, but cheating Gentiles with impunity. Like the pink-and-white portraits of the leaders, all smoothed of character wrinkles, they lack only a halo...we should study our history in a dispassionate and objective manner, not as proselyters of the faith, but as historians. We should reproduce the diaries and journals of our pioneers without deletion or modification."
I wish I had a link or citation to the Tribune article which related the bizarre story about Brooks. I don't have it handy. There were letters-to-the-editor disputing it afterward, and I've heard the reporter was taken to task by his editor (he clearly knew nothing of Brooks or Utah history if he didn't immediately do a spit take upon hearing such an improbable tale).
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
harmony wrote:It's impossible for the book (or FARMS/MI) to give an accurate unbiased viewpoint, when and because the church pays for it.
Sigh. Of course, the Church doesn't "pay for it." But pointing that out a thousand times more isn't likely to make much difference. (The first thousand times certainly haven't.)
And there's really nothing to be gained by going around and around and around and around some more with people who judge books they haven't read on the basis of things extraneous to the books.
The movie I just returned from was a much, much more satisfying use of my time.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:55 am, edited 1 time in total.