A trio of LDS Church historians is producing what they believe will be the definitive account of the infamous Mountain Meadows Massacre in which 120 men, women and children from Arkansas were murdered by Mormon settlers and their American Indian accomplices as they passed through Utah.
Their book, Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, scheduled to be published next year by Oxford University Press, was announced Friday at a packed session of the Mormon History Association in Tucson, Ariz.
It will join an array of new interpretations of the 1857 massacre, which took place just outside of present-day Cedar City and is seen by many as the darkest chapter in Latter-day Saint's history.
Salt Lake Tribune columnist Will Bagley's long-anticipated volume, Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, will be published in the fall by University of Oklahoma Press; investigative reporter Sally Denton's book, tentatively titled American Massacre, is to be issued by Knopf; and Judith Freeman's novel Red Water, was recently issued by Pantheon.
But the first quasi-official Mormon account has decided advantages over its competitors -- namely, access to documents in LDS Church archives off-limits to other scholars.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the "best historical resources for writing about the massacre," Richard Turley Jr., managing director of the church's family and history departments, said Friday. After the book is published, the LDS Church plans to "open new sources we have discovered for public use," said Turley, one of the book's authors.
Those sources include government documents, emigrant diaries, newspaper reports, affidavits of men who participated in the massacre and the field notes of Assistant Church Historian Andrew Jenson, who 40 years after the event tried to preserve as much of the historical record as he could.
Turley also said other documents and collections will be made available to researchers on computer disks later this year.
"There was a clear signal that the church archives will welcome scholars and make its resources more available," said Jan Shipps, one of the foremost non-LDS scholars of Mormonism. "We may have arrived at another point in Mormon history when openness will be the order of the day."
Even Turley's participation was noteworthy, Shipps said. "This is the first time in years that a member of the historical department staff was involved in the Mormon History Association," which is not sponsored by the church.
After researching the massacre separately for years, Turley joined forces with Glen Leonard, director of the LDS Museum of Church History and Art, and Ronald Walker, professor of history at Brigham Young University.
Though full-time LDS Church employees, the three believe they can be candid and impartial, Turley said in a phone interview.
"If women can write women's history and Jews can write Jewish history, then we should be able to write fair, accurate Mormon history," he said. "We are not concerned about protecting the church's image. The events are far enough away, it's time to let the chips fall where they may."
Walker added: "We are not interested in simply a church statement, but in truth-telling. If we are honest and courageous in the book, others will see that. If not, we deserve to be whacked in the head."
The announcement caused a stir at the Mormon history meetings, which end Sunday.
"I was impressed by their candor and desire for full disclosure," said Curt Bench of Benchmark Books in Salt Lake City. "I welcome any effort by the church to try to put this episode in perspective. We haven't really had a lot from official sources."
But some attendees questioned the authors' ability to be unbiased.
Bagley argues in The Blood of the Prophets that Brigham Young was directly responsible for the attack. He sees the book by the church-employed scholars as "another attempt to clear the skirts of Brigham Young."
Walker and the others say their book will not settle the question of Young's involvement.
"The charge that Brigham Young ordered the massacre remains the canard that it always has been," he said.
The responsibility of John D. Lee, the only man ever executed for his part in the massacre, grew as they pursued their research, he said, adding that Lee was a complex character.
Lee "deceived others by first deceiving himself. He had kaleidoscopic and extreme drives, the result perhaps of the horrid abuse he had experienced in his childhood," Walker said. He also had "larger-than-life generosity, piety and even religious force."
Their research confirmed many elements of the church's long-standing explanation of what triggered the massacre -- U.S. troops sent to quell the Mormon rebellion in Utah, Mormon leaders' inflammatory sermons urging the people to defend themselves, a pervasive sense of persecution among southern Utah Saints and antagonistic behavior by members of the wagon train.
"We approached this with an open mind and I frankly was surprised that several elements of the traditional story were born out," Walker said. "But the story is more nuanced, more complex and detailed than we have had before."
While the Mormon historians believe the massacre was made possible "by cascading events in a setting of extreme excitement and fear," Walker said, "the tinderbox need not have been lit."
The acts of the militia and LDS Church leaders of Iron County "demand the strongest condemnation," he said. "Circumstance may explain their acts; nothing can justify them."