Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Scott Lloyd

Massacre At Mountain Meadows

Recommended Posts

There are 68 names with a brief paragraph of information about each one. Where the evidence of involvement is inconclusive, it is so indicated. And the book indicates you can go to mountainmeadowsmassacre.org for additional information on the militiamen.

Theres a security dialog to get into that site. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Theres a security dialog to get into that site. :P

Pity. My impression is that it is operated by descendants of the victims. They have their own reasons for making it a secure site, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post

Well it doesn't look like its quite online yet... the security prompt says... "MountainMeadowsMassacre.org Coming Soon"

Share this post


Link to post
You answered specific questions about whether God had provided revelation which precipitated the massacre affirmatively, knowing full well that you do not believe God even exists.

You were using a rhetorical sleight-of-hand to attempt a cheap shot against religion.

You answered the question affirmatively, then proceeded to argue that the believers invented the answer themselves (which directly contradicts your answer to the poll question) and subseuqently attributed it to a non-existant God.

And that is intellectually dishonest.

The honest answer to the question would have been "No, God did not inspire the revelations, men did it themselves and attributed it to God."

Instead, you attempted to be "cute" and "smarmy", but achieved only "asinine".

Well, I would love to get in to this argument with you, but doing so would run into problems with moderators, I'm sure, given their latest reaction to the poll. I will completely honor that and say no more.

But...

I'm not conceding the charge. It wasn't intellectually dishonest.

And by which standard are you judging me, anyway? If it's a subjective standard, from my viewpoint, you lose. If it's a subjective standard, from your viewpoint, then I am sure I lose. So, I guess we have to leave it to the fly on the wall. I trust in the reasonably, prudent person standard, whether applied by a judge or a jury of my peers.

Maybe we should leave it at that.

Cute and smarmy is not actionable. Some of the language you use on this board would be far more up for grabs in that department.

Share this post


Link to post
Well, I would love to get in to this argument with you, but doing so would run into problems with moderators, I'm sure, given their latest reaction to the poll. I will completely honor that and say no more.

But...

I'm not conceding the charge. It wasn't intellectually dishonest.

And by which standard are you judging me, anyway? If it's a subjective standard, from my viewpoint, you lose. If it's a subjective standard, from your viewpoint, then I am sure I lose. So, I guess we have to leave it to the fly on the wall. I trust in the reasonably, prudent person standard, whether applied by a judge or a jury of my peers.

Maybe we should leave it at that.

Cute and smarmy is not actionable. Some of the language you use on this board would be far more up for grabs in that department.

Selek is right. Your response on the poll was disingenuous.

And you are derailing my thread. Take it somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm still waiting on my copy. I have had on order since 12 December 2007.

Share this post


Link to post

As I wait for others to obtain their copies of the book and post their observations, I will make this comment.

There was talk in the Tribune article, quoted in the thread that Smac started, of the book forcing a "paradigm shift" among "faithful Mormons."

If it causes a paradigm shift, it will be among those relatively few members, mostly old-timers, who still cling to the notion that the victims of the massacre brought it on themselves by their own incendiary words and actions. As the book makes clear, even if one were to believe all the rumors and notions that have grown up over the years, taken as a whole, they would not begin to justify the death of even one of the most hot-headed emigrants in the Fancher train.

On the other hand, the book compels a "paradigm shift" among the Church's critics as well, those who have propounded the notion that the massacre was instigated by Brigham Young and/or it was a consequence of a systemic condition inherent within the doctrines and beliefs of Mormonism. It is clear from the book that this is polemical nonsense. If the critics were honest with themselves and others, they would admit as much.

What the new book does is place the blame squarely where it belongs: on local Mormons who let their own ungodly tendencies go spiraling out of control.

Share this post


Link to post
If it causes a paradigm shift, it will be among those relatively few members, mostly old-timers, who still cling to the notion that the victims of the massacre brought it on themselves by their own incendiary words and actions. As the book makes clear, even if one were to believe all the rumors and notions that have grown up over the years, taken as a whole, they would not begin to justify the death of even one of the most hot-headed emigrants in the Fancher train.

Sadly I have run into this with our local seminary teachers. They argued with me on it and I still believe hold a grudge with me over it. I hadn't realized going into the discussion with them that they felt that way or I probably would have stayed out if it.

I am reading way too slow right now as life it busy. :P I am only to where the immigrants are starting to come into play even. Right after George A Smith has finished going around letting all the area know of the armies possible approach, to watch the passes and not to waste food.

Share this post


Link to post

Early on in the announcement of this book, ( many moons ago,) preceding the release of Denton's and Bagley's version I recall something about a CD, this CD was to contain scans of original documents dealing with this. What ever happen to this CD or am I just remembering wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Early on in the announcement of this book, ( many moons ago,) preceding the release of Denton's and Bagley's version I recall something about a CD, this CD was to contain scans of original documents dealing with this. What ever happen to this CD or am I just remembering wrong?
I never heard that there would be such a disc. I do recall sitting in a Mormon History Association session in 2006 presented by the three authors, where Edward Kimball, son of Spencer W. Kimball, suggested to them that they include such a disc. He had included a disc with extensive supplemental material in his own book, a sequel to the biography he wrote about his father. Whether the authors ever intended to follow that suggestion, I don't know.
Sadly I have run into this with our local seminary teachers. They argued with me on it and I still believe hold a grudge with me over it. I hadn't realized going into the discussion with them that they felt that way or I probably would have stayed out if it.
Just curious: Are these seminary teachers full-time CES employees or are they part-time volunteers?

Share this post


Link to post
Just curious: Are these seminary teachers full-time CES employees or are they part-time volunteers?

Oh just part-time. I think they thought I was attacking the Church or something. I was saying how it was basically just rumors about the poisoning of the cattle/water and such and the wife sort of jumped on me saying that the Seminary manual was pretty clear that it all actually happened and the Fancher party instigated some of it (though they didn't deserve what happened to them). I haven't read the seminary manual so I couldn't really say anything to that.

I haven't read far enough into the MMM book to know what it says yet. I so need a night to myself to just finish it.

Share this post


Link to post
Oh just part-time. I think they thought I was attacking the Church or something. I was saying how it was basically just rumors about the poisoning of the cattle/water and such and the wife sort of jumped on me saying that the Seminary manual was pretty clear that it all actually happened and the Fancher party instigated some of it (though they didn't deserve what happened to them). I haven't read the seminary manual so I couldn't really say anything to that.

I haven't read far enough into the MMM book to know what it says yet. I so need a night to myself to just finish it.

The authors are fairly certain the "poisoning" was actually a case of anthrax or some other such microbe that infected the cattle. Such diseases were fairly common on the plains in the 1850s, and the infections could easily spread to humans. The notion that the emigrants did the poisoning just doesn't add up. Some of the rumors didn't develop until after the massacre and were likely a matter of participants trying to justify their actions.

I doubt the seminary manual actually says the Fancher party poisoned the cattle or water, as that has never been conclusively shown. I think the wife was probably exaggerating. But then, I haven't read the seminary manual in question, so I can't say for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
I never heard that there would be such a disc. I do recall sitting in a Mormon History Association session in 2006 presented by the three authors, where Edward Kimball, son of Spencer W. Kimball, suggested to them that they include such a disc. He had included a disc with extensive supplemental material in his own book, a sequel to the biography he wrote about his father. Whether the authors ever intended to follow that suggestion, I don't know.

As I indicated it was fairly early on I read this, but I don't remember in what context. However I have never seen anything else on this. Maybe we could encourage them?

Share this post


Link to post
Early on in the announcement of this book, ( many moons ago,) preceding the release of Denton's and Bagley's version I recall something about a CD, this CD was to contain scans of original documents dealing with this. What ever happen to this CD or am I just remembering wrong?

The next issue of BYU Studies is devoted to new primary sources, and is guest-edited by Walker and Turley. See here for some addition info.

Additionally, Walker and Turley are editing and publishing the Andrew Jenson papers, which they relied upon so heavily in this volume. No date has been given when we might expect that volume.

Share this post


Link to post
The next issue of BYU Studies is devoted to new primary sources, and is guest-edited by Walker and Turley. See here for some addition info.

Additionally, Walker and Turley are editing and publishing the Andrew Jenson papers, which they relied upon so heavily in this volume. No date has been given when we might expect that volume.

That's one area where I wish the new book had done a better job: clearly defining specifically what information comes from new research or newly discovered documents.

Share this post


Link to post
That's one area where I wish the new book had done a better job: clearly defining specifically what information comes from new research or newly discovered documents.

Yeah, further, I was surprised that they didn't take certain authors' instances of poor source usage to task.

Share this post


Link to post
The next issue of BYU Studies is devoted to new primary sources, and is guest-edited by Walker and Turley. See here for some addition info.

Additionally, Walker and Turley are editing and publishing the Andrew Jenson papers, which they relied upon so heavily in this volume. No date has been given when we might expect that volume.

Current Issue

Volume 47, no. 1,

Share this post


Link to post
Yeah, further, I was surprised that they didn't take certain authors' instances of poor source usage to task.

They stated upfront, in the preface, that their intent was to take a fresh look at the sources and not spend energy arguing with authors of earlier works. That said, I think they quite handily rebutted Bagley without appearing combative or strident.

Share this post


Link to post
They stated upfront, in the preface, that their intent was to take a fresh look at the sources and not spend energy arguing with authors of earlier works. That said, I think they quite handily rebutted Bagley without appearing combative or strident.

True enough, but I think that this goes back to your wish that they identified what sources were new. In a narrative vacuum, one tends to treat all sources as if new.

RE: the MMM BYU Studies, it is the forthcoming issue. Apparently, to ensure that one receive it, they suggest that a new subscription be purchased before August 8.

Share this post


Link to post
True enough, but I think that this goes back to your wish that they identified what sources were new. In a narrative vacuum, one tends to treat all sources as if new.

RE: the MMM BYU Studies, it is the forthcoming issue. Apparently, to ensure that one receive it, they suggest that a new subscription be purchased before August 8.

Thanks for the info and the link :P;):crazy:

Share this post


Link to post

I just ordered my copy. I'm very excited to read this book. I didn't have any interest in the massacre until I found out that I'm related to some of the assailants. Up to this point, I believe that John D. Lee may have been a scapegoat, but he was still one of the main goats and I think he ended up with the lion's share of the wealth from the wagon train. My opinion at this point is that many of these men absolutely idolized Brigham Young and were influenced by his (and apostle George Smith's) rhetoric, but that Brigham Young did not know that these men were going to slaughter these people or would have ever approved of it. I also don't think that most of the participants even knew it was going to happen until they arrived at the site. I think that almost everybody involved (including the highest leadership) lied about it at some point and I'm not sure that we will ever really know exactly what happened because I believe the church went to great lengths to cover it up and saw to it that journal accounts, etc. were destroyed. I'm not making a judgment, but that's what I believe the evidence shows. I hope this book sheds more light on what has already been written.

Share this post


Link to post
I just ordered my copy. I'm very excited to read this book. I didn't have any interest in the massacre until I found out that I'm related to some of the assailants.

Would you care to disclose their names? The book has an appendix listing militia members involved (or allegedly involved). I could look up the names and tell you what it has to say about them.

Up to this point, I believe that John D. Lee may have been a scapegoat, but he was still one of the main goats and I think he ended up with the lion's share of the wealth from the wagon train. My opinion at this point is that many of these men absolutely idolized Brigham Young and were influenced by his (and apostle George Smith's) rhetoric, but that Brigham Young did not know that these men were going to slaughter these people or would have ever approved of it. I also don't think that most of the participants even knew it was going to happen until they arrived at the site.

A good many, it seems, thought they were going to help bury the dead, not realizing that they would be called upon to produce the dead. Still, were I in that situation, I prefer to think I would have told the militia authorities to be damned, and left the scene.

I'm reminded of Alexander Doniphan, one of the non-Mormon heroes of Church history, who refused to obey a command from a military superior to execute Joseph Smith and other Church leaders in Missouri.

I think that almost everybody involved (including the highest leadership) lied about it at some point and I'm not sure that we will ever really know exactly what happened because I believe the church went to great lengths to cover it up and saw to it that journal accounts, etc. were destroyed. I'm not making a judgment, but that's what I believe the evidence shows.

I'm not willing to conclude that until I've seen volume 2 of the latest book. I trust Turley and colleagues far more than I do Bagley, Denton or anyone else who has written on the subject so far, including Brooks.

I know there was great effort on a local level to cover things up and evade prosecution. A huge part of the problem was ineptitude on the part of the federal officials, who let their anti-Mormon bigotry (determination to pin it on Brigham Young) get in the way of doing an effective job.

I hope this book sheds more light on what has already been written.

If it's the alleged cover-up you're talking about, you'll have to wait for volume 2.

Share this post


Link to post
[...] you'll have to wait for volume 2.

Which should be available shortly after the Second Coming...

(I still haven't received my copy; I'm beginning to wonder if Emeliza bribed someone, or if she is in the same upper-echelons as Scott).

Share this post


Link to post
Which should be available shortly after the Second Coming...

Lets hope not.

(I still haven't received my copy; I'm beginning to wonder if Emeliza bribed someone, or if she is in the same upper-echelons as Scott).

I am.....just that I am so secretly in the uppers that even I don't know it. :P

Share this post


Link to post
(I still haven't received my copy; I'm beginning to wonder if Emeliza bribed someone, or if she is in the same upper-echelons as Scott).

And thus we see the practical consequences of joining the SSCE instead of the UMW....

By their fruits you shall know them, and all that... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...