In Christ Jesus
Rich

You raise some good points. I do not contest that Catholic doctrine and history get distorted frequently by Mormons. I welcome constructive criticism on how to improve rhetoric and understanding. I hope to do my part to provide a forum where some the level of awareness of common misconceptions can be corrected.

In general, I try to be charitable towards those that misrepresent Mormonism especially if they do so ignorantly or will humbly accept correction. In responding to the anti-Mormon video and setting the record straight on some items, I did not launch into a counter-attack of evangelical Christianity although the temptation was obviously there. I am also not in the business of labeling something anti-mormon as a way of using an ad hominem as a shortcut to avoid addressing the merits of the work’s argument.

I think it is quite appropriate for some mormons to believe the video is anti-mormon even without first-hand knowledge. Not every Mormon has the time or emotional fortitude to watch a video that belittles their faith. Much of what everybody knows relies on expert knowledge systems. An expert does have to have first hand knowledge, a proven track record of demonstrating skills within a field of knowledge, and have a relationship of trust with the community he is recognized as an expert in. FAIR is a coalition of experts that has been recognized by the LDS church as such when comes to the question of identifying material as anti-mormon or not. Therefore LDS church members can trust FAIR’s conclusions on the matter. If they don’t, they are free to watch the video and form their own conclusions.

I don’t think we will see Mormons protesting around buildings of worship or start paid ministries solely for the purpose of criticizing other faiths anytime soon. Until Mormons do that I think they should at least be allowed to believe that the degree of their antagonism to other faiths is not as severe as what has been demonstrated towards them from some Evangelical Christians.

I have heard Catholic doctrine and history distorted from missionaries, return missionaries, first presidency, sacrament meetings, co-workers, etc…with stunning regularity since moving to Utah 12 years ago. I just think there is a double standard here when the Mormons I work with start calling this DVD anti-Mormon without ever watching it. Perhaps it is, but there seems to be a certain victumology within the Mormon culture that blinds Mormons to their own “anti” rhetoric towards the rest of Christendom.

You also asked about whether a consensus exists about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I think there was one between 1950 and 2000 where nearly everyone went along with Juanita Brooks’s conclusions which were:

1. The perpetration of the Massacre was brought about by local Mormon leaders and not Native Americans.
2. Brigham Young was consulted too late to prevent the Massacre and it happened against his wishes.
3. Complex influences combined to push the Mormon leaders over the brink: a persecution complex, war hysteria over the approaching US army, harsh Mormon rhetoric to retributionally punish sin, Mormon ethic to unquestionably follow leaders, millennial expectations, us-versus-them alienation, frontier violence, mob/vigilante dynamics, desires to ally with Natives, desires to steal property in anticipation of scarcity, and so forth.
4. After the massacre the local Mormon leaders attempted to cover-up their crime from US authorities.
5. John D. Lee, the site leader, was made into a scapegoat, while most participants went unpunished.
6. Brigham Young knew about the Massacre shortly after it happened and obstructed justice from happening.

When I say there was a consensus on these points I would have to qualify that by noting that not everybody was equally informed. Old Mormon myths still circulated that it was the Native Americans that did it or that the Fancher party to a large extent provoked the attack. Likewise less informed Mormon critics sincerely believed that Brigham Young master-minded the Massacre, a holdover from the governmental officials and popular newspapers in the 1860s that believed that as well.

I am sure that some will object that my informed/uninformed dichotomy over-simplifies the intellectual history and that Mormon/non-Mormon is a more useful model for understanding differences. I am a little defensive about notions that Mormons aren’t as objective as non-Mormons. (My main influences on the objectivity question on writing Mormon history are Louis Midgely, Peter Novick, Richard Bushman, and Larry Morris.) I might be hard-pressed to find an informed non-Mormon between (1950-2000)that fits neatly into my categorization. When I was on a mission in 1999 in Oklahoma, I ran into a Church of Christ preacher who had read Brooks’s book which had been published at by the OU press. We had a detailed conversation and I don’t think I can distinguish his position about the Massacre from Brooks’s, except that Brooks had more Mormon sympathies.

But I would say that a nice consensus doesn’t exist since three books came out a few years ago. Two of the books were and still are influential on a popular level but not at all on a scholarly one. Popularity-wise, an upcoming movie will only increase acceptance of some notions that run counter to the ones I am summarizing from Brooks above. A third book by Will Bagley is one that scholars have taken seriously and reviews of that work as well as new studies has staked out two positions.

Bagley’s position rejects #2 above, insisting Brigham Young was in on causing the attack. He simplifies #3 so that only unique Mormon influences are to blame. In this view, Mormons were inherently violent and fanatically followed leaders and other sociological explanations can be ruled out. With this I think he would accept 1 and 4-6, but of course would want to state those ideas in his own words. There is also many things about the MMM to discuss that don’t fit well into my parsing above. (Like whether the Mormon church should apologize, how much of the historical archives be accessible, how much interaction should the LDS church have with historians that bear bad news, etc.)

The new, informed, relatively more favorable Mormon position will differ from Brooks’s as well. It accepts and reinforces points 1-5, but will provide evidence that #6 is wrong. Point 5 will be reinforced with new analysis of Haight’s involvement. Some of this position at least has been preliminarily outlined in the various lectures I have summarized and in some FARMS Reviews and BYU Studies (which are obviously defensive in nature) and the Journal of Mormon History and Sunstone (venues that take pride in their independence from the LDS church).

I predict the new Mormon position on the major points above—after it is properly set forth by the forthcoming volumes by Turley, Leonard, and Walker—will be highly influential in building a consensus on basic points like Brooks’s did. But the public dialog that will ensue after publication won’t be fully matured for another five years or so. I think that there will be some difficult things to accept as point #3 is more fully evaluated and on point #6 Mormons will still wish Brigham had taken a more active role in identifying the participants and seeing they were punished at least ecclesiastically. Rejection of #2 is always going to be popular among conspiracy theorists and those who don’t have the patience to sift through all evidence.