I knew when I first cracked the cover of Massacre at Mountain Meadows that I was in for a sobering experience.

On September 11, 1857, Mormon settlers in southern Utah used a false flag of truce to lull a group of California-bound emigrants from their circled wagons and then slaughter them.

From that straightforward opening, blame is assigned squarely on the shoulders of the Mormons, and the horrific and inexcusable actions are described for what they were.  The authors present a gripping account of events that help give context for what transpired, but those same authors never flinch at placing the blame where their research led them.  Walker, Turley and Leonard provide a convincing case that despite being employees of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, their objectivity was kept firmly intact.

Of the 408 pages of text, roughly a quarter of it is made up of small-font notes.  This thoroughness and scholarly care makes the book, according to highly respected historian Richard Bushman, “the best researched, most complete, and most evenhanded account of the Mountain Meadows incident we are likely to have for a long time.”

The timetable leading up to the atrocities is amazingly detailed.  The killings themselves are also described to the point of leaving me physically sickened.  I pitied the authors for having to piece together those gruesome facts.  I was deeply troubled again when reading in the appendices of all of the emigrants who perished; I was ashamed as I read about their killers.

I read the book mostly in search of finding answers to these key questions:

1) Was Brigham Young somehow involved in the events leading up to the slaughter?  Although I am not a historian, I was well aware of accusations that historian Will Bagley has made regarding Brigham Young’s alleged involvement. Was there any merit to his charges?

2) What horrific details would I learn of how local church leaders were involved in the crime?

3) Lastly, how would I feel about the event after learning more than I had ever known about this part of Mormon history?

With regards to the first question, the authors answered my questions about Will Bagley’s statements head-on:

Bagley concluded that when Young “’gave’ the Paiute chiefs the emigrants’ cattle on the southern road to California,” he “encouraged his Indian allies to attack the Fancher party.”

But neither chronology nor unfolding events confirm such a charge.

They then go on to present fact after fact that would dispute Bagley’s conclusions.

Regarding the local leaders’ involvement, this set of facts was perhaps the most disturbing to me.  After Sunday worship services, a council meeting was convened to discuss plans to attack the emigrant train:

The meeting included members of the Cedar City stake presidency—Haight and his two counselors, John Higbee and Elias Morris; the Cedar City bishopric—Klingensmith and his counselors, James Whitaker Sr. and Morris’s father, John; and members of the stake high council.  Other leading citizens were also present.

Besides being intimately involved in the planning of the attack, some of these leaders also played major roles in the actual killings:

The fleeing emigrant men did not get far.  Some were dead within twenty steps, although one emigrant almost got to the mountains, a half mile off.

When later asked if he killed his man, obeying orders to his “fullest capacity,” Klingensmith acknowledged that he had.  Then he said he watched Higbee do one of the follow-up killings.  His account made it sound as if Higbee and his victim knew each other.  “That man was wounded, a little” and “lying on the ground,” Klingensmith said.  “John M. Higbee went up to him and dr[ew] his knife out and cut his throat.  This man begged for his life.”

The one ray of hope for me in the book was to learn that at least one person tried to reason with his leaders after hearing of the plan:

[Laban] Morrill was stunned by what he heard.  “Do not our principles of right teach us to return good for evil and do good to those who despitefully use us?” he later remembered countering….Morrill wanted to know “by what authority” Haight and the others were planning such drastic measures.  Had something come from Col. Dame? If so, Morrill demanded to see the documents.  In response, Haight and his supporters had to admit they were acting on their own…..The debate continued until Morrill finally got the men to agree “that all should keep still [and] quiet and that there should be a dispatch to Governor Young to know what would be the best course.”

That communication was sent, but the snare was already set and word back from Brigham Young with his counsel to let the emigrants pass peacefully would not reach Haight until after the slaughter had occurred.

As for my last question regarding how I felt learning the details of the massacre, I would best summarize it as one of sadness.  Even though none of my ancestors participated in the slaughter, I felt a deep sense of shame that my people could have ever participated in the events.  That sense of sorrow has led me to want to apologize to the emigrants’ descendants for the carnage and plundering that took place.  Even though only local church leaders were ever implicated in the planning and massacre, I wondered if the church could ever be rid of the ‘sins of scarlet’ this event brought upon its name.  The church had the courage to let three historians uncover the facts.  What should come next now that those facts are in plain view?

Massacre at Mountain Meadows is a weighty work – and one that affected this reader in a profound way.

-- David Winters, Editor of LDS Today

    August 1, 2008