Recovery to Mormonism
The Mountain Meadows Massacre
The Mountain Meadows Massacre happened on September 11, 1857—and is one of the greatest tragedies in Mormon history. A group of emigrants was driving their cattle to California—passing through Utah was part of their route. And in the process of passing through Utah, they were ambushed and killed. No one sees this as anything but a terrible thing, as terrible a sin and murder as one can commit. But those who write “recovery from Mormonism” sites, those anti- and ex-Mormons who use anything unsavory done by a Mormon as a sign that the church is one of evil and violence—those will tell you that the Mormon Church is implicated in the massacre and that the morality of the faith must be wanting. They will tell you that the massacre was all about “blood atonement” and that Brigham Young ordered it. In this article, we hope to give the massacre context, and to separate fact from fiction.
The Baker-Fancher Party
The Baker-Fancher Party came to Salt Lake City in July of 1857. Originally, they came from Arkansas, but emigrants from Missouri had also joined the party. The size of the party, in total, was somewhere between 120 to 140 people, including men, women, and children. (Of course, there were also hundreds of cattle.) Utah was just a stop enroute to their ultimate destination, California.
The Utah War
And that same July was the tenth anniversary of the Mormons’ arrival in Salt Lake Valley. Naturally, the Mormons were celebrating, but they had more than celebrating to do. Anniversary or no, times were tense. Church leaders saw their congregations as increasingly apathetic and sermons were very fiery. Simultaneous with this, Brigham Young had only just learned that the mail service for Utah had been cut off by President Buchanan. Further, a new governor of Utah Territory was making his way to said territory—Brigham Young had been acting as Utah’s governor, as well as president of the Church, and this new appointment of a new governor was a surprise to him. The government may well have been aware that this was a surprise. After all, this new governor was not coming alone—he was coming by troop escort, the purpose of the troops being to “restore order.” To their own knowledge, the Mormons had done nothing wrong or illegal, but that they had elected Brigham Young as their governor had angered some former appointees of the territory. These appointees had returned to Washington, bearing tales of Mormon treason and insurrection. The President responded.
Ten years was not enough time to dull the memory of the Mormons—they had been driven out from multiple settlements, East, and would not be driven out again. They saw the troops’ approach as a threat, designed, indeed, to evict them. Brigham Young declared martial law in the territory, reinstated the Nauvoo legion, and prepared for war. He sought alliances with neighboring Indian tribes, believing that the banding together of both outcast groups, Native Americans and Mormons, would be essential to avoid destruction.
Contentions and Accusations
And what of the Baker-Fancher Party? They went unnoticed until they reached Fillmore. But once the party reached Fillmore, Mormons took notice. Rude and threatening behavior was reported from the party. The reports also claimed that those party members who can from Missouri called themselves the Missouri Wildcats. The “Wildcats” bragged about driving the Mormons from Missouri and Illinois. And additionally, by report, they even bragged about killing Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church, and his brother, Hyrum. And the party members from Arkansas were reported to have boasts of their own—bragging that they had killed Parley P. Pratt, another Church leader, only months before. The party as a whole claimed responsibility for poisoning a spring, the effects of which had killed a number of American Indians and a Mormon settler. And yet additionally, the party declared that they’d return to Utah, after settling in California, and they’d return expressly to help the army deal with the Mormons.
It’s impossible to tell if these reports were true or not, if they were wildly exaggerated by rumor, or if the party really did say such things. It doesn’t matter much in the end. The party could have claimed anything and not been worthy of what they received and there’s no doubt that the Mormons felt threatened, even if the facts they had were distorted or fabricated. The army was advancing on Utah, newspapers in California were making threats, and this was a bad time for a party to be associated with murderous anti-Mormon fervor. Even if the rumors had no truth whatsoever, the association that local Mormons made between the party and the murder of Church leaders (and possible future murders/attacks) was likely a primary cause of the massacre.
The Siege
Outside Cedar City, Utah, was a pasture called Mountain Meadows, and this is where the emigrants and their cattle rested in the beginning of September. The pasture would give their animals a good grazing opportunity before the party pushed across the desert to California. By this point, however, the leaders of the militia in Iron County had heard the rumors about this particular party. Nonetheless, these leaders still ordered settlements near the meadows to leave the party alone—save one. This one militia leader, Major Isaac Haight, decided to incite local Paiute Indians against the Baker-Fancher party. On September 5th, he sent John D. Lee, and others, to carry out his plan. We don’t know how seriously Indians were involved—whether they were slightly involved, extensively . . . . We are sure of Haight’s order and Lee’s involvement.
Haight’s decisive and violent order regarding the party hardly reflected the only opinion, even in Iron County, of what should be done about the emigrants. The results of an Iron County council meeting were far more mixed. Haight still pressed action, but Laban Morill finally persuaded him that it would be wiser to ask Brigham Young what to do.
So, James Haslam rode toward Salt Lake City on the morning of September 7, his purpose to acquire orders from Brigham Young. Messengers were also sent off to Lee, with the order to delay any inciting efforts, but these messengers arrived too late. We believe, by this point, the Paiutes had already attacked Mountain Meadows and killed several. After the initial attack, though, the conflict turned into a stand-off—a four-day siege.
Two members of the Baker-Fancher party slipped past the siege on September 9th, and made their way toward Cedar City, with the intent to get help. They ran across some members of the militia on their way, who they naturally turned to for aid. That they turned to the militia members at all would seem to indicate that the party, at this time, didn’t connect the Mormons with the Paiute attacks. This would change, immediately . . . for the moment the militia members realized which party these people were from, they attacked them, killing one. The other escaped.
This event sealed the Baker-Fancher’s fate, through no fault of that party. An attack openly made by a Mormon militia could only prove the Mormons hostile. If the party arrived in California, they would have every concrete, justified reason to stir up California against Utah and the Church. The entire state might come out to destroy the Mormon Church. The militia had acted in a murderous panic and were terrified of the consequences.
James Haslam arrived in Salt Lake on the tenth of September, and was able to give his message to Brigham Young. He left Salt Lake within hours, a letter from Brigham Young in his possession. This letter stated that the emigrants be left alone. Unfortunately, Lee sent to Cedar City for further orders on this very same day.
The result was the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
The Mountain Meadows Massacre
Fifty to sixty members of the militia were in Mountain Meadows by the morning of September 11th. They raised a white flag, and party member Mr. Hamilton answered it. Lee said that the Paiutes would let the Baker-Fancher Party be and the Mormons would give them safe passage to Cedar City—if the party would lay down their weapons. The party was exhausted. Several of their number were dead already, several more dying. They had little ammunition. They agreed to the terms.
The party’s wounded were loaded on one wagon, their wounded on another. They marched in single file in this order: wagons, women and children. Lastly, the men. No man of the party marched alone—a member of the militia marched on his right. When the group had reached a patch of cedar and scrub oak, the leader of the march gave a signal, which, as reported, was “Do your duty!” Each member of militia turned to his man and shot him. The Paiutes, reportedly, fell on the party as well. A few escaped, but these, even, would be recovered and killed. All children under eight (of which there were seventeen) were spared. No one else.
The Aftermath
Brigham Young’s orders would arrive two days too late, on September 13. Some time later, John D. Lee would report to Salt Lake City.
Local leaders would later report the massacre as an Indian attack and it would be largely forgotten. The army would arrive, as would the new governor. But when settlers were implicated by the evidence and not Indians, when accusations began to run in the settlers’ direction, Brigham Young asked the new governor (Cummings) to investigate. Mormons had been granted amnesty by President Buchanan (in 1858) for the Utah War. In Cumming’s opinion, anything that whites had done during the war was, therefore, covered. So there was not a formal investigation, but the matter didn’t die. Mark Twain wrote an account of the massacre in Roughing It and it wasn’t the only unofficial account that popped up. These accounts were distorted, based more on supposed evidence than real. The only survivors of the massacre were young children and the perpetrators were not giving out much information.
Many people in Arkansas were furious and a full investigation may well have occurred if the Civil War hadn’t gotten in the way. The matter didn’t show up again until the 1870s and, by that time, rage had cooled and much of the evidence, or potential evidence, had been lost. Also, the Mormons were wary that this would yet bring on more persecution and banded together to protect their own. John D. Lee was the only man convicted, although there were undoubtedly other participants. Lee was executed in 1877.
Recent Events
The Mountain Meadows Massacre was a taboo subject in the Church for many years, a terrible thing better left forgotten. But, even so, B.H. Roberts, Church Historian, wrote about the massacre in the early 20th century. Juanita Brooks, a Mormon writer, would publish a very thorough treatment of the massacre in 1962, which the Church neither endorsed nor condemned. At the time of both these publications, however, the massacre was not a debated issue, nor under much scrutiny. Juanita’s detailed and straightforward account came and went quietly.
In 1999, in memory of the murdered, Gordon B. Hinckley helped dedicate a new monument at Mountain Meadows. Perhaps partly as a result, and perhaps partly through the greater prominence of the Internet, the issue has recently resurged in importance. And enemies of the Church use it as a jumping off point for attacking on Mormon doctrine and the Mormon religion as a whole.
Blood of the Prophets and American Massacre are two recent books which try to blame the massacre on Brigham Young. Although John D. Lee would later denounce Brigham Young for singling out him and only him as perpetrator, even he would always insist the prophet was not involved. Several historians of Mormonism’s history, Ronald Walker, Glen Leonard, and Richard Turley, are working on a book on the massacre. They hope this book will be definitive, as they have access to historical documents not previously available.
That the Baker-Fancher Party was murdered in cold blood is not in debate. Those responsible will receive the severe judgments of Lord.
Mormon leaders and many of the descendants of the murdered have worked hard to restore good will between both parties. To this aim was the Mountain Meadows Association founded.
But what about blood atonement?
Many people claim that Mountain Meadows Massacre came as a result of the “doctrine of blood atonement.” We have a full article on blood atonement elsewhere on the site. But even if blood atonement were a practiced doctrine (which it is not and never was), this massacre could not have spurred from it.
Blood atonement was always about the voluntary submission of the offender to God’s punishment, in cases of grievous sin, and it was purely theoretical. After all, only in an Old Testament style theocracy could people really submit to God in such a way and this was often reiterated in those fiery sermons. Blood atonement was largely a rhetorical device used by Brigham Young, to point out the seriousness of sin.
In any case, a massacre is not “voluntary.”
