DiscussMormonism.com

Interesting AP article in yesterday's Trib (link below) about GBH's refusal to allow Mountain Meadows to be administered by the federal government, contrary to the wishes of the Fancher-descendant MMM organization. One thing that strikes me: GBH has gone out of his way over the years to disclaim any responsibility of the Church institution for the massacre. That being the case, why should he care if the Church owns the massacre site? Perhaps that's a rhetorical question, since we all know GBH is a PR guru who knows he can better control the spin as long as he owns the property.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6170178

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Interesting AP article in yesterday's Trib (link below) about GBH's refusal to allow Mountain Meadows to be administered by the federal government, contrary to the wishes of the Fancher-descendant MMM organization. One thing that strikes me: GBH has gone out of his way over the years to disclaim any responsibility of the Church institution for the massacre. That being the case, why should he care if the Church owns the massacre site? Perhaps that's a rhetorical question, since we all know GBH is a PR guru who knows he can better control the spin as long as he owns the property.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6170178

What bugs me is hearing all the apologists acting like the Fancher descendants are just a hateful anti-Mormon group that has no right to have any feelings about their ancestors.

I'm wondering if the church doesn't want to lose control over the land for fear that, if it does, "official" explanations of the massacre will eventually be erected on the site that indict LDS leadership. As long as they control the site, they control what information is offered on the site.

Runtu, that bothers me as well!

I wonder if the Church would consider selling the property. I'd throw some money in for that.

I can't believe someone suggested that on the other board! The Church would never sell the land to the Fanchers if they won't turn it over to the Feds.

I just read this post by "ed2276"

Really? I think that the Church ought to demand that the Fanchers turn their land over to a neutral third party as Parley P. Pratt was murdered in Arkansas , perhaps by descendants of the Fanchers , so that the presently-complicit-in -P.P.P's-murder Fanchers cannot hold the land to the chagrin of the LDS Church.

I can't believe people are still repeating this nonsense, when it has been thoroughly debunked. The Fancher party had nothing do with killing Joseph Smith, they had nothing to do with killing Parley Pratt.

This reminds me of the repeated discussion I had with Pahoran. He basically claimed that MMM had nothing to do with the church. The territory of Utah was under attack, and the Iron County Military, by order of their own rogue leadership, and against the expressed will of the territorial government, carried out the attack.

Curious that the church would insist on controlling a site that with which it had nothing to do.

What is the worst thing that the government could do? Reconstruct the original memorial and explain that it is a reconstruction of the one that Brigham Young had destroyed?

beastie wrote:I just read this post by "ed2276"

Really? I think that the Church ought to demand that the Fanchers turn their land over to a neutral third party as Parley P. Pratt was murdered in Arkansas , perhaps by descendants of the Fanchers , so that the presently-complicit-in -P.P.P's-murder Fanchers cannot hold the land to the chagrin of the LDS Church.

I can't believe people are still repeating this nonsense, when it has been thoroughly debunked. The Fancher party had nothing do with killing Joseph Smith, they had nothing to do with killing Parley Pratt.

There is no evidence that anyone in the Fancher train had anything to do with the murder of PPP. There is some 'evidence,' however, that PPP's widow (whose estranged legal husband had killed PPP) arrived in SLC shortly before the Fancher train and allegedly claimed (as reported by apostate Charles Wandell) that she recognized one or more of the Fancher party as being present at the death of PPP (Bagley, Blood of the Prophets, p. 98). The fact that many in the Fancher party originated from the same general area where Pratt was killed, didn't help with the rumor mill.

The way the LDS church is handling MMM and treating the Fancher descendants is embarassing. They won't admit they had anything to do with the massacre, yet they won't allow anyone else to control the site. Ultimately they're shooting thenselves in the foot.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:There is no evidence that anyone in the Fancher train had anything to do with the murder of PPP. There is some 'evidence,' however, that PPP's widow (whose estranged legal husband had killed PPP) arrived in SLC shortly before the Fancher train and allegedly claimed (as reported by apostate Charles Wandell) that she recognized one or more of the Fancher party as being present at the death of PPP (Bagley, Blood of the Prophets, p. 98). The fact that many in the Fancher party originated from the same general area where Pratt was killed, didn't help with the rumor mill.

Not only that, but Pratt was murdered after the Fancher party left the state.

As others have pointed out, yes "the church" wants to control the site to control the narrative. Why...because they arer implicated in the murders to one degree or another.

Also they do not want excavations of remains. That is why they have let the area where the women and children were killed be farmed over for years. Even so, there are still likely some undiscovered burial plots from the army's burials, and they would like them to stay undiscovered.

cdowis:

This is the reason why the church should not turn over control. It will become a monument to Bagley and his version of history.

This is exactly what I suspected. The church will never, never, relinquish control of that site because it wants to control the information that is offered on the site.

Actually, their fear is probably reality based. It takes quite a bit of devotion and dedication to "spin" MMM in a way that totally absolves church leadership of involvement. (witness Pahoran's claims with Analytics, which I remember) Only someone loyal to the LDS church and concerned about protecting its PR image will engage in that much spin. If any group other than the LDS church controls the site, there will be monuments and/or plaques that implicate church leadership, at least at the local level. You can't avoid that, unless you're spinning for the Lord.