I would like to point out one mistake in your article; you refer to Will Bagley as a scholar. He has already been soundly and accurately chastised for his book Blood of the Prophets where he caught manufacturing fictitious quotes in order to make is central argument. Unfortunately it appears that he is up to his old tricks. While books of this genre are highly important, perhaps a peer review process should be implemented in order to negate propaganda posing as academics.

A timely and relevant piece. I will read the book. Mormonism has gotten
much public attention recently because of the Presidential candidacies of Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman; the HBO series Big Love, which focuses on
polygamy within the LDS; and the recent trial and conviction of Warren Jeffs, the cult leader.

Characterizations of Romney as "strange" are intended to raise doubts about him in southern and border states, in particular, where Mormonism is uncommon and not understood.

The church, and the states in which LDS members are numerous, still must face some unresolved issues. Only Texas has stepped up to frontally challenge illegalities. Polygamous communities are still tolerated, in particular, in parts of Arizona and Utah. If you travel roads and highways in those states, you can see large houses built like dormotories---way too big for single-family occupancy. State attorneys general decry
abuses but do not act on them. (My life partner, who lives in Arizona,
at one time directed the regional U.S. Census and discovered how heavily populated some polygamous communities were).

The infamous Meadow Massacre, in which Mormons disguised as Indians
raided a pioneer wagon train and killed the settlers, is long past.
But the hard working, family-oriented Mormon majority---and prominent Mormons such as Romney and Huntsman---will continue to be unfairly characterized until the LDS and LDS-populated states give more than lip service to confronting illegal practices by a minority of that faith.

I don't see how this is news. The very foundation of Mormonism is an explicit rejection of the concept of separation of church and state. That's the whole reason Utah was founded as far as possible from the reach of secular government.

I haven't read this book yet, but the review oversimplifies Mormon views and actions towards American Indians during the settlement period. While it's true they viewed them as Lamanites, there are examples where they viewed them as a nuisance that needed to be eliminated. One example is the Bear River Massacre of 1863, just outside present-day Preston, ID (yes, something made that area famous before Napoleon Dynamite).

Largely absent from the history books in spite of its being on a scale with Sand Creek and other such tragic events, Bear River nearly decimated the Northwestern band of Shoshones. Local Mormon settlers basically cheered on the U.S. Army soldiers, helped them after the battle (it took place amidst a very cold winter), and even erected a monument paying tribute to the soldiers and the settlers who helped them.

Full disclosure - the journal "The Public Historian" published an article I wrote on this subject: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44040929/The-Struggle-to-Control-the-Past-Memory-Commemoration-and-the-Bear-River-Massacre-of-1863

It is my understanding that the claim that Young directed the Mountain Meadows Massacre is still debated.

I would add that some care is needed to distinguish the mainstream LDS church from other Mormon sects. The LDS church rejected polygamy a long time ago, which prompted a split, led by some leaders who rejected the change.

Ted, why do the mainstream LDS need to apologize for a custom they don't practice? And what kind of snooping do the governments of Arizona and Utah need to be performing in regards to houses you find suspiciously spacious? Assuming child abuse isn't the issue, the government has no more right to intrude on fringe Mormon matrimonial arrangements than yours. The voters can make up their own mind about Romney.

teagesmania: Where did you get the idea that I want the LDS to apologize for polygamy by some of its members? I do believe the LDS, and states with
large numbers of LDS members, do need to pursue more aggressively legal violations which in many cases could include child abuse and exploitation. Much media attention recently was devoted to explusions of uneducated teenage boys from southern Utah/northern Arizona polygamous communities because their elders wanted young girls for themselves.

Of course voters will make up their own minds about Romney. I don't like the fact, though, that second-hand smears related to his religion are surfacing. Don't like it anymore than smears involving JFK's Catholicism
or Joe Lieberman's Jewishness. Underhanded, inappropriate stuff.

Fast forward 150 years. The LDS church is far more progressive on the issue of immigration than either of the gentleman running for president who embrace the faith. See The Utah Compact at: http://www.theutahcompact.com/

One wonders if Bagley's latest book is any different than his other books including the "Blood of the Prophets" A friendly reviewer wrote of that book: "The result is a great book: colorfully written, grimly factual, passionately partisan. Yet the price of taking one side of the argument is that this is not the final statement ...it is more like an closing argument... skillfully argued." Can one write a "passionately partisan" book in an objective way? One wonders.

I have ancestors, and a few living relatives, who are Mormon. In fact, I have a clock in my living room that came west with Brigham Young's party. So I've never considered Mormons to be mysterious or to have a belief system that's any more "weird" than that of, say, President Obama.

This article claims: "The culmination of this came when Young directed the massacre of a wagon train of passing "Gentile" settlers from Missouri at Mountain Meadows."

If this misstatement of fact came from the book, then I regard the book as a diatribe, not as serious history. There is no credible evidence that Brigham Young knew anything about the killing until after it occurred. A rider came to him with a message about the standoff and Brigham sent him back with a command to "spare no horseflesh" in getting back there as soon as possible and to advise the local leaders to let the group pass through. Unfortunately, the rider arrived back at the scene too late.

Nayajja, you are correct that there is no reliable or credible evidence that Young directed the "Mountain Meadows massacre." Beyond that it does not pass the smell test. Why would Young have give such an order with a fourth of the regular army descending on your people? That makes no sense and Young was the most pragmatic leader you can find in the history of the West. When there is no motive and no evidence what is a "historian" to do? Throw sand in the air and write passionately seems to be Bagley's way.

Bagley's "passionately partisan" body of work though compelling reading often lacks evidence or stretches such evidence as he can adduce. For which Trial Lawyer Robert Crockett take him to task in great detail here:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15#=2&id;=509

RDWinmill, thank you for the reference. Crockett's article should be read by anyone who decides to read the book reviewed in the article above. His conclusion:

"The story of the massacre cannot be told as Bagley wishes to tell it. If Bagley wants to implicate Brigham Young, George A. Smith, and the nineteenth-century Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints itself, we should expect him to weigh and sift what will probably be voluminous evidence of dubious quality offered against an unpopular religion. Bagley accepts this dubious evidence as well as raw speculation. He rejects or misses competent evidence. I challenge the right of any historian to toss competent evidence on the ash heap in favor of salacious rumor.

"But salacious rumor is what we are often served up by Blood of the Prophets in an agenda-driven account of history. We should approach the work with a healthy dose of cynicism. I, for one, am convinced even more after reading Blood of the Prophets that there is no competent evidence to show that Brigham Young and George A. Smith were accessories before or after the fact."

Assuming child abuse isn't the issue, the government has no more right to intrude on fringe Mormon matrimonial arrangements than yours."

I'd assume it is after the trial and conviction of Warren Jeffs for rape. so yes, I do want the government to watch over those communities closely. He was a leader and, as it turns out, a rapist.

I grew up in Southern Arizona where it is largely Catholic and Mormon so I don't find Mormonism all that strange (compared to any other religion). I hadn't realized until Romney ran for office that so many in the East and South don't know much about Mormons and regard the religion with suspicion.

Sure there's the 3 levels of heaven and magic undergarments but it's a religion and they all have their oddities.

I always found Mormons very family and community oriented.

The book sounds very interesting.

First, Knute, thanks for getting it. You obviously read the book, something our zealous critics seldom do.

I would have responded to various slanders and absurdities in these comments earlier, but I was finishing the second volume to this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/bitter-crossing/8610/

It seems that trolls like Porterfield have their browsers set to find any favorable mention of David Bigler or me, so they can spread malarky like this: "I would like to point out one mistake in your article; you refer to Will Bagley as a scholar. He has already been soundly and accurately chastised for his book Blood of the Prophets where he caught manufacturing fictitious quotes in order to make is central argument." This is a lie. I challenge this poor deluded soul to name one manufactured "fictitious quotes in order to make is central argument." And if poor Nayajja wants to accept Br'er Crockett's propaganda, that's her problem. Unless, of course, she IS Br'er Crockett.

Maybe Porter Rockwellfield should take his "Bagley is no scholar" complaint to the editors of the Atlantic Monthly.

Will Bagley

Sorry, Mr. Bagley, I am not "poor" and I am not "Br'er Crockett" (and I am not a "she".) If you were a scholar, you would not resort to calling your critics "poor deluded souls" and accuse them of "various slanders and absurdities." Instead you might actually respond to Mr. Robert D. Crockett's very convincing criticisms of your book, rather than just calling them "propaganda." Just because you may have been published by the Atlantic Monthly doesn't justify making up your history as you go and defending yourself by name-calling.

rdwinmill's citation to Robert Crockett's review did not take me directly to his article (I had to search for his name from the landing page). I think this citation will lead directly to the article:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15#=2&id;=509

Oh, and as to whether you were "caught manufacturing fictitious quotes in order to make [your] central argument," it appears that you changed the word "grain" to the word "allies." Rather than accuse Porterfield of a "lie," maybe you should explain why you made this crucial change to the quote upon which you base your accusation against Brigham Young.

Here is the excerpt from the article in which you are called on your dishonest quotation:

"Serious errors in historical scholarship, however, severely undermine the fundamental arguments in his book. First, there are several important primary sources that he did not use accurately. Historians must verify the facts they use and avoid misusing information to support their interpretations. Bagley fails on both counts, because he seems to be driven by his passion to blame Brigham Young for this tragic event. For example, Bagley sees Young's offer to give the Piedes, a band of the Paiutes, "all the cattle that had gone to Cal[ifornia] the south rout" as the formation of an alliance (114). To make this point, Bagley quotes D. B. Huntington, Brigham Young's interpreter, as saying that the Piedes were "afraid to fight the Americans & so would raise [allies]" (114). Instead, Huntington's journal for September 1, 1857, says the Piedes "would raise grain"1 (fig 1). Replacing the word grain with allies substantially changes the meaning, but most readers will not be aware of Bagley's changing these words."

from Lawrence Coats' review found at https://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=6825 .