
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
m |
m |
||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
::P.S.—Be assured that no gentleman will be permitted to make any reply to your address on that occasion. | ::P.S.—Be assured that no gentleman will be permitted to make any reply to your address on that occasion. | ||
− | :Brocchus refused the invitation, asserting that his speech "in all its parts were the result of deliberation and care" and that he did not feel he had said "anything deserving the censure of a justminded person." | + | :Brocchus refused the invitation, asserting that his speech "in all its parts were the result of deliberation and care" and that he did not feel he had said "anything deserving the censure of a justminded person."<ref>Campbell, 211-12.</ref> |
==The officials leave Utah== | ==The officials leave Utah== | ||
Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
Soon thereafter, many of the appointees would leave the state, including Brandebury, Brocchus, Harris, and Day: | Soon thereafter, many of the appointees would leave the state, including Brandebury, Brocchus, Harris, and Day: | ||
− | :Brocchus decided to vacate the territory but before leaving told the governor [Brigham Young] that he wanted to "bury the hatchet, shake hands and forget the past." He also asked Young to apologize to those whom he might have offended. Young announced the apology in a meeting the following day, 28 September, and two days later informed Brocchus by letter that his apology would be accepted if he agreed to control his tongue and cease to vilify "those who must everlastingly be your superiors." | + | :Brocchus decided to vacate the territory but before leaving told the governor [Brigham Young] that he wanted to "bury the hatchet, shake hands and forget the past." He also asked Young to apologize to those whom he might have offended. Young announced the apology in a meeting the following day, 28 September, and two days later informed Brocchus by letter that his apology would be accepted if he agreed to control his tongue and cease to vilify "those who must everlastingly be your superiors."<ref>Campbell, 213.</ref> |
Said Brigham later: | Said Brigham later: | ||
− | :The expression, "Old Zechariah Taylor is dead and in hell, and I am glad of it," which the returning officers, in their Report, alleged was said by me, I do not know that I ever thought of, until I heard Brocchus himself mention it on the stand in the Old Bowery. When he made the statement there, I simply bore testimony to the truth of it. But until then, I do not know that it ever came into my mind whether Taylor was in hell or not, any more than it did that any other wicked man was there. I suppose he is where all the ignorant wicked are gone, and where they will continue to go.{{ | + | :The expression, "Old Zechariah Taylor is dead and in hell, and I am glad of it," which the returning officers, in their Report, alleged was said by me, I do not know that I ever thought of, until I heard Brocchus himself mention it on the stand in the Old Bowery. When he made the statement there, I simply bore testimony to the truth of it. But until then, I do not know that it ever came into my mind whether Taylor was in hell or not, any more than it did that any other wicked man was there. I suppose he is where all the ignorant wicked are gone, and where they will continue to go.<Ref>{{JDfairwiki|vol=1|start=185|author=Brigham Young|disc=29}}</ref> |
===Inconsistencies=== | ===Inconsistencies=== | ||
− | Brandebury, Brocchus, Harris, and Day would leave Utah, and later claim that they left because of "the lawless and seditious conduct of the inhabitants of Utah, and Day said specifically that he could 'no longer take the abuse that was being given to the United States and its officials by the Mormons.'" | + | Brandebury, Brocchus, Harris, and Day would leave Utah, and later claim that they left because of "the lawless and seditious conduct of the inhabitants of Utah, and Day said specifically that he could 'no longer take the abuse that was being given to the United States and its officials by the Mormons.'"<ref>Campbell, 105.</ref> |
− | However, Holeman remained, and while he "complained of the Mormons taking Indian lands [and] also accused Young of using his office and government funds to further Mormon colonization," he seems to have been in no fear for his life. | + | However, Holeman remained, and while he "complained of the Mormons taking Indian lands [and] also accused Young of using his office and government funds to further Mormon colonization," he seems to have been in no fear for his life.<ref>Campbell, 105.</ref> |
Brigham Young's office journal would also report on August 18, 1860 of a member's visit to the east: | Brigham Young's office journal would also report on August 18, 1860 of a member's visit to the east: | ||
Line 121: | Line 121: | ||
==Reaction in the east== | ==Reaction in the east== | ||
− | The appointees' report that the Mormons were seditious and threatening their lives certainly affected attitudes in the east. But, the new president (Millard Fillmore) did not seem to accept that the appointees were being entirely truthful, and worked with Utah's territorial representative to find appointees that would better interface with the Mormons. | + | The appointees' report that the Mormons were seditious and threatening their lives certainly affected attitudes in the east. But, the new president (Millard Fillmore) did not seem to accept that the appointees were being entirely truthful, and worked with Utah's territorial representative to find appointees that would better interface with the Mormons.<Ref>Campbell, 218-220.</ref> |
==Note on secondary source: Bigler== | ==Note on secondary source: Bigler== | ||
Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
:Bigler claims that previous historians, presumably LDS ones, have been "too close to the events [of Utah history] to treat them without bias" (p. 16). If this is the case, Bigler does not correct bias so much as invert it....Forgotten Kingdom's assertions apply a seemingly inequitable bias or go contrary to established understandings of well-scrutinized historical patterns. In every instance, Bigler's interpretive choices paint an unfavorable portrait of Latter-day Saints. | :Bigler claims that previous historians, presumably LDS ones, have been "too close to the events [of Utah history] to treat them without bias" (p. 16). If this is the case, Bigler does not correct bias so much as invert it....Forgotten Kingdom's assertions apply a seemingly inequitable bias or go contrary to established understandings of well-scrutinized historical patterns. In every instance, Bigler's interpretive choices paint an unfavorable portrait of Latter-day Saints. | ||
− | :''Forgotten Kingdom'' seems to display a problematic interpretive bias in the opposing ways in which it interprets specific similar historical events. In cases where Mormon actions might seem questionable, the worst possible interpretations are often given and Mormons are condemned. In cases where the actions of federal officials might seem questionable, the best possible motives are often assumed and Bigler provides friendly justification.{{ | + | :''Forgotten Kingdom'' seems to display a problematic interpretive bias in the opposing ways in which it interprets specific similar historical events. In cases where Mormon actions might seem questionable, the worst possible interpretations are often given and Mormons are condemned. In cases where the actions of federal officials might seem questionable, the best possible motives are often assumed and Bigler provides friendly justification.<ref>{{FR-12-1-9}}</ref> |
ONUG goes on to provide several examples. Interested readers should consult the article (linked to the endnotes) for a discussion of the many errors in interpretation which ONUG both shares and exceeds. | ONUG goes on to provide several examples. Interested readers should consult the article (linked to the endnotes) for a discussion of the many errors in interpretation which ONUG both shares and exceeds. | ||
Heber C. Kimball--violence and intimidation | A FAIR Analysis of: One Nation Under Gods A work by author: Richard Abanes
|
Cutting off from the earth |
There is no evidence that the first federal appointees were threatened or at risk of their lives. Some, despite disagreeing with the Mormons and their administration, did not flee Utah, and suffered no consequences as a result. The St. Louis Republican criticized those who had left as having abandoned their posts, and noted that the judges' report did not suggest that any laws had been broken:
ONUG here relies on the early testimony of some of the first federal officials appointed to Utah territory.
ONUG accepts their testimony uncritically, despite the fact that virtually all historians' opinions are against the conclusion drawn by ONUG.
Mentioned by ONUG
Unmentioned, but important
Things with the new appointees began badly:
Judge Brocchus was also disappointed in his desire to become territorial representative, and was upset to learn that John M. Bernhisel had already been elected.[4]
Historians have not been kind to these first federal appointees:
Hubert Howe Bancroft wrote:
After Brocchus two-hour harangue of the Mormons, during which he attacked their beliefs and insisted that they should appeal to state governments for redress (though they had already done so for Missouri and Illinois and failed), Brigham Young replied:
Soon thereafter, many of the appointees would leave the state, including Brandebury, Brocchus, Harris, and Day:
Said Brigham later:
Brandebury, Brocchus, Harris, and Day would leave Utah, and later claim that they left because of "the lawless and seditious conduct of the inhabitants of Utah, and Day said specifically that he could 'no longer take the abuse that was being given to the United States and its officials by the Mormons.'"[10]
However, Holeman remained, and while he "complained of the Mormons taking Indian lands [and] also accused Young of using his office and government funds to further Mormon colonization," he seems to have been in no fear for his life.[11]
Brigham Young's office journal would also report on August 18, 1860 of a member's visit to the east:
There would be no reason for Cannon to lie; the journal was not for public consumption or public-relations purposes. Why would Brandebury have something of a 'change of heart,' if his life had been threatened while in Utah?
The appointees' report that the Mormons were seditious and threatening their lives certainly affected attitudes in the east. But, the new president (Millard Fillmore) did not seem to accept that the appointees were being entirely truthful, and worked with Utah's territorial representative to find appointees that would better interface with the Mormons.[12]
ONUG relies frequently on Bigler's Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847—1896 (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1998).
Bigler's work has a prevalent anti-Mormon bias and presentist approach. As one reviewer noted:
ONUG goes on to provide several examples. Interested readers should consult the article (linked to the endnotes) for a discussion of the many errors in interpretation which ONUG both shares and exceeds.
Also see use of Bigler with similar misrepresentation in:
Notes
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.
Donate Now