Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows/Use of sources/Bishop Philip Klingensmith

Table of Contents

Use of sources: The testimony of Bishop Philip Klingensmith

Use of sources: The testimony of Bishop Philip Klingensmith

Jump to Subtopic:

The problem

  • Critics often use the testimony of (former) Bishop Philip Klingensmith on the Massacre.

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, click here


Question: How reliable is the testimony of Bishop Philip Klingensmith with regard to the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Klingensmith's testimony was considered to be worthless at the time of the trial

Critics often use the testimony of (former) Bishop Philip Klingensmith on the Massacre. One reviewer discussed the problems with this witness:

How good is Klingensmith's testimony?...upon cross-examination during the first Lee trial, Klingensmith admitted that whatever passed between Lee and Young about the massacre was outside his hearing. His testimony was so worthless that U.S. District Attorney Sumner Howard declined to recall Klingensmith for the second trial. Klingensmith also admitted to participating in the massacre. He turned state's evidence before Lee's first trial in exchange for a grant of immunity. He gave his testimony as a disillusioned apostate. Thus his 6 October 1857 account is very suspect, even without Young's denial." [1]


Notes

  1. ↑ Robert D. Crockett, "A Trial Lawyer Reviews Will Bagley's Blood of the Prophets," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 199–254. off-site