Rating: 
Summary: No new facts
Review: All that the author adds with this book are more conjectures based on arbitrary interpretation of phrases in documents, plus opinions that agree with his own, evident anti-mormon bias.
Rating: 
Summary: Well researched account of mass murder in the old west
Review: As a native Utahan I have always wondered about the strange and mysterious events which occurred and still occur in rural Utah to this day, including the murder of Dr. Allred and the ritualistic crimes of the Laferty brothers. Mr. Bagley has exposed the cultural of violence and revenge which characterized the early Mormon Church from the Nauvoo exodus to the death of Brigham Young. Had the American Civil War not diverted attention away from Utah in the 1860's the LDS Church would have had to answer for in its complicity in the murder of 120 California bound emigrants. The questions which still need to be answered concern the Farmington Utah meeting between Church Prophet/President Woodruff and a group of faithful Mormons who were directed to hide in the southern Utah wilderness and keep the original church alive including the practice of polygamy, consecration, and blood atonement. Only when the Mormons openly confront their own history can they separate themselves from the view of Mormon exceptionalism which is the bane to all non Mormons with whom they share the State. My only critique is with Mr. Bagley’s writing style. It is obvious that he is a newspaper columnist. In some places the narrative is choppy and redundant as if the events described were unrelated. Mr. Bagley's greatest strength though is his flawless research. I have purchased many copies of the book so far and sent them as gifts around the country. If Mr. Bagley will write a book about the Church from the death of Brigham Young to Utah statehood it would go a long ways towards resolving the continued questions about the strange events which still occur here.
Rating: 
Summary: Brooks Said It All A Long Time Ago
Review: Bagley wants to show that Brigham was involved in Mountain Meadows. He amasses tremendous amounts of evidence but the details and the trivia simply don't add up to convicting Brigham of anything more than being in the same stew as Henry {"Will no one rid me of this (wagon train)man?" And, then being totally surprised when some one actually does the deed. His defense of John D. Lee is very interesting and sympathetic. For a detailed criticism of this book see the current issue of Sunstone. For a more rational, less vitrolic approach go back to Brooks who doesn't clutter the page with mountains of detail none of which convicts or even indicts Brigham. This is a good case wherein more doens't mean better.
Rating:
Summary: BOTP Is A Marvelous Work
Review: Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows is not for thefaint-hearted, or those who want a popular "read", of this sensational or lurid event of the American West. Rather, it calls mightily to the professional historian and the serious layperson. Its words strike to the heart, and appeal to the gut, of human experience. The author's authentic voice as a great storyteller emerges swiftly in the prologue, "The Mountain Meadow", and continues to inform the book to its end. Bagley magnificently narrates, interprets, and deconstructs the myth, legend, and lore surrounding the events and subsequent retelling (often false or misinformed) of the massacre. It meets the imperative that good history writing inherits the criteria underpinning good literature. Impeccable, exhaustive research with a clear, fresh narrative and interpretative style makes the book a must read for those truly interested in the tragedy and its subsequent versions of its retelling. All future works must meet the bar that Bagley has set; Blood of the Prophets convinces the objective reader that Brigham Young's words, intent, and actions were clearly revealed on the meadows. If you truly desire to know the truth about Mountain Meadows, buy this book.
Rating:
Summary: Laying the blame at Brigham's feet
Review: For years the slaughter of the Fancher wagon train at Mountain Meadows in southern Utah has been a point of contention for the Mormon Church. Who is to blame? According to the official version of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon John D. Lee was the primary villain who, as the lone scapegoat, paid for his crime when he was executed in 1877. Although the massacre had been discussed in "anti-Mormon" books, it was a loyal Mormon by the name of Juanita Brooks who bravely penned "The Mountain Meadows Massacre" in 1950. Her book created a firestorm by giving credible reasons to believe that several Mormons in high positions were, in fact, responsible for the tragic event of September 11, 1857. Now a new book by historian Will Bagley is going to cause the Mormon Church even more consternation as he attempts to lay blame for the massacre directly at the feet of second LDS President Brigham Young. This was a theory privately held by Brooks, but she could not prove this at the time of her book. On page 363 Bagley writes, "A historian's professional and personal conclusions often differ, as was the case with Brooks' final assignment of responsibility for the massacre at Mountain Meadows. In the last revision of her book, she stressed the importance of Young's manipulation of the Indian leaders and the military orders placing 'each man where he was to do his duty.' She retained her original conclusion that the existing evidence did not prove that Brigham Young and George A. Smith specifically order the massacre, but it showed they 'set up social conditions that made it possible.' In a private letter to Roger B. Mathison of the University of Utah Library, she went much further: she had 'come to feel that Brigham Young was directly responsible for the tragedy.' John D. Lee, she believed, would make it to heaven before Brigham Young."
Bagley states, "Claiming that Brigham Young had nothing to do with Mountain Meadows is akin to arguing that Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with the Civil War" (p. 379). He discounts the vilification of the Arkansas immigrants/victims as nothing but lies perpetrated by the murderers themselves. Bagley recognizes the complicated events leading up to the tragic event, but he makes it clear that one cannot overlook the fact that this was an act to avenge the blood of Mormon apostle Parley P. Pratt who was killed in May of 1857 by the legal husband of his 12th wife, Eleanor McLean, in Arkansas. Bagley's "smoking gun" (?) is the journal of Dimick Huntington, a source never seen by Brooks. Huntington recorded a meeting that Young had with local Indians on September 1, 1857 where he agreed to give the emigrants' cattle to the Indians. Says Bagley, "He [Young] encouraged his Indian allies to attack the Fancher party to make clear to the nation the cost of war with the Mormons" (p. 379). Bagley's book is a must read for anyone who wants to get beyond the LDS Church spin on this very thorny issue. Mormon Church historian Richard Turley and his loyal band of researchers will be coming out next year with what will certainly look like a rebuttal to Bagley's conclusions. Regardless, "Blood of the Prophets" is sure to shake up many Mormons who for the first time will realize that it is quite possible their second president was responsible for the murders of 120 innocent men, women, and children.
Rating: 
Summary: Difficult to know....
Review: I find this all interesting, but realistically the researchers could not possibly understand motives or true involvements into the massacre. Even after reading this book, the question still remains, what REALLY happened?
Rating: 
Summary: Well written fiction.
Review: I liked Bagley's work as the product of years of effort and the assembly of some new material. However, the book is very weak in the assessment of official documents, probably its greatest defect. When Blood of the Prophets concludes that the LDS Church reached a "deal" in September 1876 with the Justice Department which would require the government to cease any further investigation of the massacre in exchange for the scapegoating of John D. Lee, Bagley misses two important things. First, he ignores federal case law which would have made any such deal a nullity and unenforceable. A federal prosecutor cannot offer a deal like the one Bagley describes without the approval of a judge or a president. Second, he ignores official correspondence from 1876 to 1884. In that correspondence, government lawyers express the feeling that it would be wise not to make their investigation public, as it would alert possible suspects. The investigation, in the end, proved ineffectual. Nonetheless, the government pursued it for years. A president, a secretary of war, three attorneys general, several marshals, and a federal judge all weighed in on the prosecutorial effort from 1876 to 1884. A presidential pardon was secretly offered Lee to turn against Brigham Young in 1877 -- months after the date Bagley tells us a deal was made to ignore the prosecution of Brigham Young and others. A reward was offered by the Department of Justice in 1884 for the apprehension of massacre perpetrators who were fugitives. Bagley's theory of a "deal," however, is the central theme of the book. There really is, not yet, any definitive treatise on the massacre which adequately handles the official documents.
Rating:
Summary: Prodigious Research, But Misses Official Correspondence
Review: I liked Bagley's work as the product of years of effort and the assembly of some new material. However, the book is very weak in the assessment of official documents, probably its greatest defect. When Blood of the Prophets concludes that the LDS Church reached a "deal" in September 1876 with the Justice Department which would require the government to cease any further investigation of the massacre in exchange for the scapegoating of John D. Lee, Bagley misses two important things. First, he ignores federal case law which would have made any such deal a nullity and unenforceable. A federal prosecutor cannot offer a deal like the one Bagley describes without the approval of a judge or a president. Second, he ignores official correspondence from 1876 to 1884. In that correspondence, government lawyers express the feeling that it would be wise not to make their investigation public, as it would alert possible suspects. The investigation, in the end, proved ineffectual. Nonetheless, the government pursued it for years. A president, a secretary of war, three attorneys general, several marshals, and a federal judge all weighed in on the prosecutorial effort from 1876 to 1884. A presidential pardon was secretly offered Lee to turn against Brigham Young in 1877 -- months after the date Bagley tells us a deal was made to ignore the prosecution of Brigham Young and others. A reward was offered by the Department of Justice in 1884 for the apprehension of massacre perpetrators who were fugitives. Bagley's theory of a "deal," however, is the central theme of the book. There really is, not yet, any definitive treatise on the massacre which adequately handles the official documents.
Rating:
Summary: A Biased Treatment By an Intelligent but Prejudiced Author!
Review: I read this book anticipating an honest and unbiased treatment of an important and tragic event in Utah and Mormon history. However, I was greatly disappointed instead by the biased voice of the author reflected throughout the book, which in numerous instances were unsubstantiated by questionable and unsupported evidences. I frequently examined the end notes supporting the quotes as I read, and found the author's sources were taken from the conclusions drawn by other authors, not direct sources. Many times the author gave quotes without any documentation whatsoever. It was difficult to find additional light and knowledge on this subject when the author's bias was so plainly manifested in his writings. It appeared that Bagley's ulterior motive was to negate the veracity of Brigham Young and the leaders of the LDS Church down to the current church President, Gordon B. Hinckley. In my opinion, this book has little merit for a scholarly study. In other words, let's put it this way: Juanita Brooks -- You're still Number #1!!
Rating:
Summary: Mental Motives known over 100 years later? Nay..
Review: If people are honestly reading this book, and taking it to heart to be a "true" "solid" book, worth reading, then they are just about as ignorant as Simon was when he offered money to Peter to purchase the power of God, as stated in the book of ACTS. This author claims to know the mental motives of a man that lived over 100 years ago! How can you say that Brigham Young was feeling this... or thinking that... When in all actuality, YOU CANT READ DEAD PEOPLES MINDS! Not even journals can "tell" you there thoughts and feelings. So that right there should tell you that this author was biased when producing this book. And when it comes to "TRUE HISTORY" A biased document can not be trusted.
| 
