Comments on: It Does Not Die?: The Mountain Meadows Massacre

By: Pioneer Day and Mountain Meadows « CJK

Pioneer Day and Mountain Meadows « CJK — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 07:45:45 +0000

[...] to sites like Mountain Meadows for Latter-day Saints today? It’s clear that this issue “will not die,” but what place does Mountain Meadows deserve in our historical consciousness? I’m not [...]

By: Juvenile Instructor » Remembering 7/24 and 9/11 in Mormon History: A Photo Essay

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:47:58 +0000

By: Janiece

Janiece — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:59:15 +0000

I agree that there will be those for whom it will never die, no matter what is accomplished. I do believe that the church’s support for the MMM projects is portent of good things to come. I’m currently most intrigued by what continued interest in the massacre tells us about those propelling the continued focus. Academically, I’m focusing my dissertation on what the prosecution for the massacre tells us about mid-19th century Americans. Likewise I think it’s an interesting question in a contemporary context.

joel-
interestingly, that young man isn’t the only descendant who has converted.

mmiles-
the blogging world is new to me. i suppose i try to ward off potential addictions.

By: kevinf

kevinf — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:51:07 +0000

Joel, your story of the Arkansas convert made me think about the little bit I have read about Rene Girard and his theories of imitative desire and violence. He came to the conclusion that Christianity in its truest form is the only way of breaking these cycles of scapegoating and violence for injuries often generations in the past. Problem is that Christianity, including our Mormon faith, has its own baggage we are still dealing with. Institutionally, it probably won’t die, but perhaps individual by individual, the balance can be tipped towards a more rational balance.

By: smb

smb — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:55:33 +0000

Die for whom is the real question. There are constituencies within and without the church for whom the MMM holds very little interest, and when the Bagley-based slugfests unfold, they tend to turn away and look for something more interesting to read about. There are others who will be forever enwrapped by the controversy of the massacre.

By: Joel

Joel — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:04:23 +0000

The only hope I have comes in the form of a young man and fairly new convert from the hill country of Arkansas that came into the Special Collections at BYU-Idaho when I was working there quite a few years ago. He had one of the most unique Southern accents I have ever heard–it was some combination of Southern and Celtic mixed together. He was from a very insular community in the Southern hills. He was learning all that he could about the massacre because he was descended from one of the survivors of the Fancher-Baker Party. Obviously, his family was very hostile to the Church, but he told me about his touching conversion story. Last thing I knew about him was that he was serving a mission somewhere. To me, he represents the hope for reconciliation someday–though we must always hold the massacre up as an example of what terrible things Mormons are capable of doing when their religious fervor goes wrong.

By: Edje

Edje — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:09:26 +0000

I agree with the “nay”-sayers. What would it take for it to die? I see three possibilities:

(1) The church disappears. With no one claiming heirship to Brigham Young’s spiritual or institutional mantles, the Mormon/anti-Mormon emotion dissipates. At best, MM maintains its place on a list of mean things Americans did in the 19C in present-vs-past narration and/or in religious-vs-non-religious narration. The only people perhaps still vested become survivor descendants. But, no longer needing to contest the interpretation, they probably maintain private remembrances but slowly lose the collective sense of identity rooted in history. [Note: I don't know any survivor descendants personally or know any scholarly studies on their collective identities. I'm making a generic statement about how collective memories tend to fade unless they perform contemporary work.]

(2) The opposite: everyone on Earth joins the church. MM becomes a thing from long ago that scholars study but that doesn’t impinge on anyone’s sense of self—until folks start unjoining the church and MM narration serves a useful sociological function again.

(3) Prolonged devastation or conflict pushes the folks vested in MM interpretations into a common camp in need of unifying narration. If remembered at all, MM becomes footnote on the “joy of fratricide” (see Benedict Anderson)—until the devastation passes and the unifying narration with it. (Alternate interpretation: driven by desire for Mormon food storage, hungry folks bring MM to the fore, narrating that Mormons have always murderously withheld food from non-Mormons and should be deprived thereof by violence.)

I don’t see (1) happening. (2) and (3) are only temporary deaths that allow for re-animation.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 07:00:00 +0000

No, like the Crusades, it will never die as an emotional historical issue. But for individuals, it can move from being “an issue” to being just an unfortunate event.

By: mmiles

mmiles — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 06:36:06 +0000

No.
Janiece,
Have you posted elsewhere under a pseudonym? I was waiting for you to post some stuff. We have a mutual friend so I know all about your brilliance from her.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 01:28:06 +0000

No. When a good cop shots an innocent kid, it will never leave him, even if others try to comfort him.
I think the Church feels a collective guilt even today. And it’s goodness, will never let it have a peace