Thanks for calling the Turner review to my attention. It confirms my contention that Bagley has emerged as the history of the massacre of choice for non-Mormon readers.

The context was in a discussion of this article ( http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/005/7.35.html ):

at Christianity today, which has the following to say:
Bagley explains that on September 1—ten days before the massacre—Young “gave them [the Paiutes] all the cattle that had gone to Cal on the south rout … they [the Americans] have come to fight us & you for when they kill us they will kill you.” “If any court in the American West (excepting, of course, one of Utah’s probate courts) had seen the evidence it contains,” writes Bagley of Huntington’s journal, “the only debate among the jurors would have been when, where, and how high to hang Brigham Young.”

Only a jury packed with anti-Mormons would have hung Brigham Young as an “accessory to murder” on the evidence available to Bagley. The distance between Young “giving” the Paiutes the cattle on the southern route and ordering his own men to attack the Fancher train is as wide as the distance between Salt Lake and Mountain Meadows, and the commonsensical reading of Young’s letter to Haight remains exculpatory.

FWIW.

In my case, not being part of the clique, there would be serious social and professional consequences if I used my real name.

So, I’m a filthy coward. Doesn’t mean I’m wrong. (This also should not be construed as a criticism of the clique. I think cliques are fine as well as a natural and useful part of the social order).

Unfortunately, that is tempered by his two greatest weaknesses: His inability to accurately interpret new sources, and his inability to take criticism.

I have to add, however, that I don’t read much in the way of “personal assassination in the replies” here on this thread. Granted, #29 is over the top, and there are three other comments that express reservations about a few aspects of your work, but overall the tone has not been one of “vitriol” here. May I humbly suggest that your view of these replies is influenced by the beatings you undeservedly take elsewhere – and one comment (#29) that is not representative of the rest of us?

As for me and my house, we read sections of it in family home evening as part of our research into the religious and social context surrounding the relatively unknown extermination/massacre of the Utah Lake Utes in February, 1850.

Thanks.

It is true that I believe you lack a basic sympathy for the perpetrators of the massacre that Juanita had in abundance. I believe that because of the body language of your book–the arrangement of chapters and sections, the connotations of the words you choose, and your choice of plausibilities (as distinct from proven fact).

I don’t see this as a fault on your part. Your book is truly an achievement. And I appreciate your cheerful personality and your generosity in sharing historical sources. You are a major figure in the historiography of Mormonism.

Levi