Yesterday was Pioneer Day in Utah. My post on 17 Miracles would have been the most appropriate Pioneer Day post, but I don’t think I can re-use that post since it was just a month ago. I thought I’d talk about some stories you probably won’t hear at church. Since I discussed early Mormon positions on slavery last week, I thought it might be nice to review some stories related to that topic as well.
Brigham Young is famous for saying “This is the Place” when he arrived in the Salt Lake Valley. The actual quote was, “This is the right place. Move on.” What’s not so famous is the fact of who he was talking to, and who was driving the wagon: a slave by the name of Green Flake.
Flake was baptized in 1844 in the Mississippi River by John Brown. James Madison Flake was Green’s owner, and was given Green as a wedding present by James’ father. Green was age 10 at the time. Brigham Young released Green from slavery in 1854. There’s no evidence that Flake held the priesthood (though other blacks did hold the priesthood at this time), but he holds a very interesting place in Mormon history.
As I mentioned last week, between 1830-1844 under the direction of Joseph Smith, Mormons were Anti-Slave and Anti-Abolition. However, under Brigham Young, Mormons developed a more pro-slavery position. As we talk about race relations, many often point to the fact that Utah passed a law legalizing slavery in the territory called “An Act in Relation to Service.” It doesn’t appear that slavery was very popular in Utah; there were never more than about 100 slaves in the territory. However, what often gets lost in the conversation is the subject of Indian slavery. Eugene Campbell discusses this in his book Establishing Zion. Signature Books has published the entire book online, and you can read it here. Campbell is a former history professor at BYU. In a footnote, he says,
The Mormons had first confronted the problem of buying Indian children soon after their arrival in the Salt Lake Valley. Children were brought into the pioneers’ fort as early as the winter of 1847-48, and Indians said that they were war captives and would be killed if not purchased. The Mormons bought one of the children. Two more children were brought to the fort under the same threat, and the Mormons bought both of them. Charles Decker bought one of these two, Sally Kanosh, who was later given to Brigham Young and raised in his family. Speaking with church members in the Iron County Mission, Young advised them to buy children and teach them to live a good life. According to the Journal History for 12 May 1851, Young said, “The Lord could not have devised a better plan than to have put the saints where they were to help bring about the redemption of the Lamanites and also make them a white and delightsome people.”
However, the Mormons did try to stop the practice of trading Indian slavery. In
November 1851, the Deseret News called attention to a party of twenty Mexicans in the San Pete Valley, trading for Indian children. In his book, Forty Years Among the Indians, Daniel Jones wrote that when this party of traders arrived in Utah Valley, Brigham Young was notified and came to Provo. According to Jones, who acted as interpreter,
Mr. Young had the law read and explained to them showing them that from this day on they were under obligation to observe the laws of the United States instead of Mexico. That the treaty of Guadaloupe-Hidalgo had changed the conditions and that from this day on they were under the control of the United States. He further showed that it was a cruel practice to enslave human beings and explained that the results of such business caused war and bloodshed among the Indian tribes. The Mexicans listened with respect and admitted that the traffic would have to cease….
The Mexicans were found guilty and fined. The fines were afterwards remitted, and the men were allowed to return to their homes.
Stopping the slave trade embittered some Indians. Some of them attempted to sell their children to the Mormons. Jones related one graphic incident. Arrapine, Walker’s brother, insisted that because the Mormons had stopped the Mexicans from buying these children, the Mormons were obligated to purchase them. Jones wrote, “Several of us were present when he took one of the children by the heels and dashed his brains out on the hard ground, after which he threw the body toward us telling us we had no hearts or we would have saved its life.”
Incidents such as this led the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah on 7 March 1852 to pass an act legalizing Indian slavery. The purpose was to induce Mormons to buy Indian children who otherwise would have been abandoned or killed.9 It provided that Indian children under the proper conditions could be legally bound over to suitable guardians for a term of indenture not exceeding twenty years. The master was required to send Indian children between the ages of seven and sixteen years to school for a period of three months each year and was answerable to the probate judge for the treatment of these apprentices. As a result of this act, many Mormon families took small Indian children into their homes to protect them from slavery or from being left destitute. John D. Lee, for example, wrote in his journal about a group of Indians who “brought me two more girls for which I gave them two horses. I named the girls Annette and Elnora.”
Negro slavery was also permitted in the territory, but the pioneers had passed no similar rules about the treatment of blacks, certainly [p.108] not the requirement that they be schooled. However, blacks were not permitted to be sold to others without their own consent.
What do you make of these stories. Did you hear any non-traditional stories yesterday?
Wheat & Tares 
what do I make of these stories? They certainly don’t build my Mormon identity, or make it stronger. It makes me even more disinterested in caring for or wanting to know more of Mormon history in Utah.
The stories point out how difficult it is to just take one approach or another.
I don’t really get the point of pioneer stories in general. I don’t have pioneer ancestry, and they always seem to be so simplistic and unrealistic, like the way some people want to falsify their journals so they only look in a good light. To those of us without pioneer ancestors, we have no dog in the fight. To those who do have pioneer ancestors – isn’t truth more interesting than a faith promoting ficion anyway?
hawkgrrrl-
Help me understand your position on “faith promoting fiction”. Do you believe everything past on to us from the early Mormon pioneers is more fiction than fact?
Nice stories do not get us to the Celestial Kingdom.
Dan,
Your comments often leave me scratching my head. A week or two ago, you complained that not enough Mormons write about Mormon history, leaving the subject ripe for anti-Mormons to write biased history. Now, you seem to complain when I write about it. What gives? Are you saying Brigham Young was wrong by purchasing Indian slaves in order to save their lives and teach them the gospel?
Hawk, I didn’t really grow up with pioneer stories. My dad is a convert. My mom did tell me that her ancestors came about a decade later than most of the pioneer stories we hear in church. So, I guess some people just acquire an interest. My wife’s family, on the other hand, has deep pioneer roots on both sides, and they’re not very interested in the stories.
I absolutely agree with you that truth is more interesting than a faith promoting fiction. I’m tired of the white-washed version of history taught at church, where white hats and black hats are clearly defined. the reality is that most people wore gray hats, and did the best they could under the circumstances–just like us.
Jared, I think you’re reading too much into Hawkgrrrl’s comment. The church often whitewashes the complexity out of stories in order to make them more faith-promoting, and larger than life. But the unvarnished truth is still faith-promoting, IMO. when people find out things aren’t so white and black, that’s when people become disillusioned.
I have a bit of a problem with the term “white-wash” when it comes to Church History.
From the Encyopedia Brittanica Dictionary:
“To whitewash is a metaphor meaning to gloss over or cover up vices, crimes or scandals or to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data. It is especially used in the context of corporations, governments or other organizations.”
I am not sure you can call how the Church protrays its History as a “whitewash” perhaps with the exception of the MMM. Most of the time, the History is summarized, boiled down and presented in a simplified manner, leaving out some level of detail. In some cases, they have relied on accounts which turned our not to be quite accurate. But not necessarily deceptive.
And you cannot compare some of these historical events to what the some of the history of the United States has done in terms of real “whitewashing.”
MH,
Sorry. I am allowed to hem and haw on something. 🙂
Honestly I thought talking more about the history would do something for me, but the more I hear about the history, the less interest I have in it. I guess the correlation department figured out that most people would feel this way, which is why they more or less gloss over things like this. (I did previously read about this incident with the Native American who killed the kid because the Mormons wouldn’t take him).
MH:
We heard the typical story: the man who traveled with the handcarts was sitting in SS listening to those say how it was such a travesty to have traveled when they did and lost the lives they did. Then he arose, in majesty and great power, rebuking the faithless dissidents while scolding him with a testimony sent straight from the heavens. He concluded his glorious rant with ” … and we all knew, with certainty, that God lives and His Church is led by a Prophet of God.”
Or something like that.
[The actual text, from Our Heritage, page 78, reads this:
]
I heard rumors here online, somewhere, that this story wasn’t exactly true – at least not in the way we tell it. Is that correct?
Geoff, I have heard that quote, and believe it is quite legitimate–it is quoted by historian Wallace Stegner, and the quote comes from a talk from David O. McKay. (I believe the pioneer’s name was William Palmer.) On the other hand, the manual doesn’t bother to tell that John Chislett was one of the handcart pioneers who left the church. He blamed Franklin Richards for the tragedy.
So coming back to Jeff S’s comment about whitewashing, the church is choosing to emphasize the McKay quote at the expense of the Chislett quote. Chislett complains that Richards promised “we should get to Zion in safety.”
I understand that the church is trying to put things in the best light possible, but by ignoring Chislett quote in favor of the McKay quote, there is a bit of whitewashing and leader worship that goes on.
Now truth be told, I think the vast majority of pioneers were faithful, and probably supported William Palmer’s version more than John Chislett’s version, but certainly the leaders were not blameless in the Martin and Willie handcart tragedies. The manual overemphasizes (IMO) that we should follow leaders in spite of bad advice. While I do not doubt the pioneers were blessed by their obedience, and God will count the followers acts as acts of righteousness, I also think God will hold the leaders responsible for the unnecessary deaths.
Jeff, just to use your definition, I believe the manual does “gloss over or cover up vices”–in this case poor planning by leaders–“to exonerate”–follow your leaders—“by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data.”–the church isn’t going to talk about Chislett, and downplays the poor planning aspect of this tragedy.
Dan, I’m not used to your hemming and hawing. It always seems like you know it all. 😉 Glad to see that’s not the case! And I hope that I can be considered a trustworthy source on Mormon History.
MH,
“On the other hand, the manual doesn’t bother to tell that John Chislett was one of the handcart pioneers who left the church. He blamed Franklin Richards for the tragedy. ”
Seriously? There are six paragraphs on the handcart companies in the Our Heritage book. Did you really expect them to include that quote? I would have expected the Levi Savage story long before a quote from from some ex-member, who left the Church for reasons unknown, but blames Richards for them leaving late. Who knows, maybe a number of those who were on those companies might have blamed Richards or BY for leaving late but still remained faithful?
And what difference does it make if some guy, William Palmer had a extraordinary experience and that quote is included in the book? is the fact he felt that way a “whitewash” because ever negative quote isn’t included?
Jeff —
The problem with the Palmer quote is that it indicates that everyone in the effected handcart companies remained faithful and/or never criticized the decision to go.
Both were simply false. Some left. And, several, including Levi Savage made it abundantly clear what they thought of the decision to leave — included about a 100 who left the group and later went to Utah.
The quote misleads in isolation.
Steve,
“The problem with the Palmer quote is that it indicates that everyone in the effected handcart companies remained faithful and/or never criticized the decision to go. ”
Where does it say that? it says, I was in and my wife… We…. We is him and his wife
MH,
You’re doing fine with these topics. Don’t mind me. 🙂
MH,
Where is that Chislett quote from. I cannot find it in context.
Much of the Chislett journal is found in a book by BYU history professors Leroy and Ann Hafen, Handcarts to Zion: The Story of a Unique Western Migration, 1856-1860.
Thanks, I ordered the book sine the account that I have do not mention that particular quote or the rest of his story. Even the Stenhouse quote is almost positive,
Jeff (#15),
The quote includes the following statement: “[D]id you ever hear a survivor of that company utter a word of criticism? This story is in a number of church manuals, I hear it frequently cited at church, and it strongly implies that nobody subsequently criticized the decision to go or left the church, which is not true.
Of course I would expect the institutional church to present this story in the best possible light. I simply don’t like the fact that the institutional church perpetuates this story in a manner which implies a falsehood.
Regarding the Chislett quote, I’ve never seen a copy of his book (don’t know how many still exist, if any), but if you are interested you can to go this website hosted by BYU
http://handcart.byu.edu/Default.aspx
and read the official journal of the Willie Handcart Company, which is pretty interesting. You can go to various dates, click on the “view more” button, and the site actually contrasts what the official journal states and Chislett states for that particular day. Check out the entries for September 12, 1856 for a good illustration of this.
Good link, Matt73. Here’s the portion you linked to:
Paragraphs and bolding are mine, obviously.
The only issue I have with the continual discussion in Church of only the positives of the trek (i.e. the story shared previously about the old man scolding those with a lack of faith) is that we develop this mentality that all is black or white, the faithful or faithless, those prospered by their obedience to the leaders and those cursed for following the dictates of their own conscience. We tend to glorify comments like Richards exuberant speech to the party… but when it doesn’t happen. Then, when it doesn’t happen it’s never heard from again. That wouldn’t be too bad, except that we simply don’t discuss the other side. I didn’t know much of the 100 who stayed behind. I didn’t know much of Savage. I didn’t know much of Richards’ boastful proclamations.
Buoc
“The only issue I have with the continual discussion in Church of only the positives of the trek (i.e. the story shared previously about the old man scolding those with a lack of faith) is that we develop this mentality that all is black or white, the faithful or faithless, those prospered by their obedience to the leaders and those cursed for following the dictates of their own conscience.”
I have the same issue in a similar vein. There is so much talk about living by the spirit, making decisions by the spirit, being guided by the spirit in Church service, etc. Then one finds regular talks by the brethren in conference about the delicate nature of recognizing the whisperings of the spirit and how, for growth, we must make decisions on our own. I think growth comes more from what we suffer, more from failures than successes. I feel God intends for us to grow here as much as we are willing.
I heard a person say she is a passenger in her ‘car’ of life and God is the driver. Someone said in church this past Sunday that righteousness was “doing the bidding of the spirit” and unrighteousness was “doing things without the guidance of the spirit.”
I find these statements troubling since I believe the cautions the brethren express about the difficulty in recognizing the whispering of the spirit are valid and important. I have wondered if my faith is just weak and/or do I fail to recognize spiritual guidance or, are others over exuberant in giving credit to the spirit for their decisions.
My wife and I saw 17 Miracles today and I did some reading afterwards online about the handcart companies. I didn’t realize before seeing the movie that it was about the Willie company or I would have resisted going since I find some of the stories of miracles less compelling than the more complete unvarnished truth.
As with individual claims to guidance by the spirit, my reading lead me to believe there were miracles but also mistakes enough to go around that cost lives in the Willie and Martin companies.
Obviously, life and death are a ‘given’ in this existence but growth, experience, knowledge and wisdom are all we take with us to the next phase and seeing life or living life behind rose colored classes was never intended otherwise we’d still be in the garden of eden. IMO
History likes to paint with a broad brush, both in the church and outside of it. The morals one tries to tell through history are often more revealing about the teller than the subject of the fable. That’s why I enjoy history more than morality plays masquerading as history. I can’t think of a group focused on morality that doesn’t do this either. It’s so hard to be impartial about history.
What I don’t understand is the fact that some cannot seem to get over the fact that big mistakes were made concerning The Willie and Martin Companies. It’s obvious. One of the lessons here is that in spite of the best intentions and the wishful prophesy of some Church leader, nature and God had other ideas.
The leaders including BY make huge errors in this situation.
Why do good people die in spite of prayers and blessings of safety and health? Why do drunk drivers kill faithful members of the Church?
It’s easy to point the finger 150 years later without knowing all the facts and having been there.
As was said, under the circumstances, it is a miracle that anyone survived.
Have you confessed every wrong thing that ever happened to you to everyone you’ve met just to be sure they know the whole story about you?
Do you know every detail of your parents lives so that you can judge whether they were good parents or not?
jeff, where is the church acknowledging that richards and young were guilty of blame? it’s certainly not in the manuals. for people who only read manuals, all they know is we should follow our leaders. none of the leaders mistakes are acknowledged. even my dad admits to mistakes he made as a parent, but I am not seeing a similar admission in the manuals. the manuals simply extol the virtues of following your leaders. it is almost hero worship that leaders can do no wrong.
Skewed perspective comes in many forms. For example, of the ten handcart companies, the Willie company and the Martin company are very well known. Very few can name even one of the other eight.
MH,
“jeff, where is the church acknowledging that richards and young were guilty of blame?”
Why is this so important to you? Anyone who spends any amount of time studying this would come to the conclusion that mistakes were made.
Do you think that Richards and Young did it on purpose so we’d all have a good story to tell afterwards?
jeff, why is it so important to you to defend the manual?
“Jeff, why is it so important to you to defend the manual?”
I am not. The title is a “Brief History…” the handcarts gets six paragraphs.
Did you seriously want them to have to explain the entire episode for pages and pages just so they can say Richards and Young were wrong and made a mistake?
sure. why can’t they add a 7th paragraph explaining that many lives could have been saved if church leaders had listened to levi savage who warned everyone that it was too late in the year to leave?
Jeff:
I honestly don’t understand your point of view.
The fact of the matter is, in Church, we hear of the miracles of the handcart company – that, in spite of the harsh conditions, they persevered and were prospered by God for following their leaders. We hear of those members who say how great it is to be following a Prophet, that they grew to know God during their struggles. We hear of BY ending conference early to send people to save the freezing members.
What we don’t here is the story of Savage, nor the story of the 100 who stayed behind, nor the culpability of leadership in a disastrous trip, nor that errors were made, nor Richard’s invoking the God of Israel when stating the party would be protected – which had the effect of people buying in to the trip even more.
You mentioned you didn’t like the term whitewashing in this context, but what else is it? Why can’t a manual contain both sides of the story, mention that some errors were made? I’d love to see even just a modicum of candor in our manuals…
You’re right, it’s a whitewash. I am surprised anyone could find out the real truth.
I give
jeff, what’s with the sarcasm?
I wonder what the death toll would have been if the entire 1000+ members of the Willie and Martin companies had stayed in Florence and tried their hand at Winter Quarters II. For the original Winter Quarters, the death toll was about 360 out of 2500, about 1 in 7. That compares with the Willie company’s 1 in 6 death rate and 1 in 4 for the Martin company.
For my part, it boils down to this. The church admonishes the membership to study from approved resources, which are all published by the church. I don’t hear as much warnings to stay away from ‘non-approved’ resources as I used to, but it’s still implicit today. The most impressionable members (youth and new converts) are thus heavily influenced by church publications. They are produced for one reason, to give a faith-promoting picture of our history. Whether or not you agree that this is OK for a church to do, it does not prepare members for potential faith crises when they are exposed to the truth. This is becoming nearly inevitable. I’ve experienced it already with my 15-year old child. She found out about many things the church doesn’t prepare her for, which are unfortunately all true.
Sure Jeff, it’s difficult to give a complete picture in a brief history. But even in more detailed church publications, the ‘other side’ is not adequately told. Experienced members know where to find it, but the more impressionable ones usually don’t. This is an avoidable problem. Give a more detailed picture of our history. Acknowledge problems in an official setting. Don’t automatically assume they are easily accessible for all to find. That way, when members hear about problems in our history, they are prepared for it. Otherwise, there is resentment and feelings of deception. Why risk members’ faith this way?
“jeff, what’s with the sarcasm?
We have different POVs on this issue and I am tired of arguing about it.
I think it is simple to find out the entire story if one has the curiosity and willingness to find out. When a statement such as “They left late” is made, my first question is “Why did they leave so late?”
And then I discovered the mistakes.
So but I am sure that’s just me.