Jump to content

Archived

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

smac97

“The Mormon Rebellion: America'S First Civil War, 1857-1858” By David L. Bigler And Will Bagley

Recommended Posts

The trouble I see is that those friendly to the Church hate a historian drawing uncomplimentary conclusions. Mutual animosity.

Especially when such conclusions lack clear evidence and are even distorted to fit the historian's prejudiced, bigoted agenda. After all, we're not big fans of false and slanderous accusations leveled against us. :acute:

Share this post


Link to post

Of course Bagley already had his conclusion: B. Young was the main fault. Without B. Young there would have been no MMM. Without the reformation fervor that he raised there would have been no motive to war. Without B. Young's polemics and religious extremism there would have been no mustering of the "battleaxe of the Lord" to "use up" the Gentiles. And all of that is supported by evidence, even factual statements.

The trouble I see is that those friendly to the Church hate a historian drawing uncomplimentary conclusions. Mutual animosity.

Doesn’t this seem uncomfortably close to the sort of reasoning that the perpetrators of the MMM used to justify their crime?

The Gentiles were the main fault. Without the murder of Joseph Smith and the expulsion from Nauvoo, the Mormons would not have been in Utah; hence would never have encountered their victims. Without 27 years of violent persecution against the Mormon people, there would have been no reformation fever. Without Buchanan sending an army against the Mormons, there would have been no war.

One can understand why the MMM murderers would find it difficult to be objective about assessing guilt. What is Bagley’s excuse?

Share this post


Link to post

Doesn’t this seem uncomfortably close to the sort of reasoning that the perpetrators of the MMM used to justify their crime?

The Gentiles were the main fault. Without the murder of Joseph Smith and the expulsion from Nauvoo, the Mormons would not have been in Utah; hence would never have encountered their victims. Without 27 years of violent persecution against the Mormon people, there would have been no reformation fever. Without Buchanan sending an army against the Mormons, there would have been no war.

One can understand why the MMM murderers would find it difficult to be objective about assessing guilt. What is Bagley’s excuse?

I find the phrasing "main fault" to be problematic, perhaps "main trigger"? The "main fault" was those who allowed their feelings of fear and anger to overwhelm those of fellowship and compassion to the point where they felt justified to murder those who did not deserve to be murder.....ah, I see now you were telling it from the viewpoint of the murderers and how they rationalized their actions....and they would have used "main fault" I suspect.

Share this post


Link to post

I said:

Questing Beast, on 07 May 2011 - 08:25 PM, said: Of course Bagley already had his conclusion: B. Young was the main fault. Without B. Young there would have been no MMM. Without the reformation fervor that he raised there would have been no motive to war. Without B. Young's polemics and religious extremism there would have been no mustering of the "battleaxe of the Lord" to "use up" the Gentiles. And all of that is supported by evidence, even factual statements.

The trouble I see is that those friendly to the Church hate a historian drawing uncomplimentary conclusions. Mutual animosity.

Doesn’t this seem uncomfortably close to the sort of reasoning that the perpetrators of the MMM used to justify their crime?

The Gentiles were the main fault. Without the murder of Joseph Smith and the expulsion from Nauvoo, the Mormons would not have been in Utah; hence would never have encountered their victims. Without 27 years of violent persecution against the Mormon people, there would have been no reformation fever. Without Buchanan sending an army against the Mormons, there would have been no war.

One can understand why the MMM murderers would find it difficult to be objective about assessing guilt. What is Bagley’s excuse?

You have just echoed Bagley. I was pointing out his conclusions. BotP arrives at the same conclusions as I briefly listed, and that you also pointed to. I argued your point of view on "exmo" and got banned. The MMM was an event that "one can understand", but of course it remains unjustified in light of the subsequent facts: facts that the perpetrators were not in possession of "on the ground". That sort of argument just makes extremist anti-Mormons angry: they will not accept anything less than the view that the perpetrators were fully aware of their fallacious justifications for mass murder and brigandage. Bagley in no way draws this conclusion at all. It was from Bagley and Brooks that I came to my point of view. Bagley does not indict B. Young: he does not even say that he believes B. Young was guilty of instigating the MMM. As I said above, he believed his culpability extended to heightening the war footing mentality before the fact, and coverup after the fact. He said that B. Young was not sorry the massacre took place. But even here, Bagley showed evidence that B. Young regretted the MMM, and the whole "battleaxe of the Lord" stance he had adopted prior to the MMM.

That Bagley is not as crisp a historian as other more professional historians are; that he committed gaffs in the arrangement of his book and its listed sources; that he "plagiarized", etc., in no way invalidates the content of his story. He raises good points and offers good evidence for presenting the story of the MMM as he does. If his subsequent offerings on the subject have veered toward "Brigham Young was guilty, guilty, guilty!" then he's become far more extreme than he was when he wrote BotP. And I cannot say one way or the other if this is or is not the case, since I only learned through this thread of the existence of yet another Bagley book on B. Young and the MMM....

(edit minor spelling)

Share this post


Link to post

The trouble I see is that those friendly to the Church hate a historian drawing uncomplimentary conclusions. Mutual animosity.

That is basically saying I can't be critic of a poor historian, nor point out that historian's flaws.

The first trial of John D. Lee was an all-Mormon jury and "not guilty" as the verdict. The retrial made sure that the jury was mixed Gentile and Mormon, and the verdict was "guilty". If someone cannot see machinations behind the scenes going on with that simple fact alone I don't know what else to say....

This is very wrong.

The first trial was a mixed jury and was a hung jury. All Mormons voted to acquit along with a former Mormon; the non-Mormons voted to convict.

The second trial was 100% Mormon.

Bagley, like you, says there were machinations but his proofs are ridiculous. Instead, when you read the trial transcript closely (and I don't think Bagley did, nor did he read the closing arguments), you can see that the prosecutor, Sumner Howard, tried to keep Gentiles on the jury but that William Bishop kept striking them off. Since there were more Mormons than non-Mormons, Bishop had his way.

As another example of a huge gaffe, Bagley writes that Sumner Howard and Bishop had an arrangement with Bishop that the local Mormon community would present some jurors with stars -- yes stars -- pinned under their arms as to the ones that would be acceptable to both. This is such a laugher; I can see Bagley salivating over this one. But, the person telling this story was Frank Lee who was not even there, and who was 13 years old at the time. Instead, Frank Lee in later years confused a story where he was told that William Bishop tried to rank his jurors from one to four stars (as do most lawyers) before picking them. Howard had absolutely nothing to do with this process and, in the end, Lee was convicted contrary to Bishop's wishes.

In closing, Bishop argued that the Church got to the jurors to urge their conviction and that it was all a scam put upon him to have an all-Mormon jury. Howard responded that it was Bishop, not Howard, who wanted an all-Mormon jury.

Bagley thus argued that the jurors were corrupted, but after years of investigation and press inquiries, not a single juror claimed to have been corrupted.

He raises good points and offers good evidence for presenting the story of the MMM as he does.

Does he really? Like what is your best example of newly-raised good points with good evidence? I say he doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
The beginning question for setting the MMM narrative in motion is “Why should anyone believe that the LDS leadership of the stakes, wards, and militia of southern Utah would originate, plan, and carry out an attack and massacre of an emigrant wagon train without the shared belief that such an action would be approved by headquarters in Salt Lake City?” That is exactly the questionTurley et al try to answer. For those of you have not read the literature, begin at the begin. Read Brooks, read Bagley, read Turley et al on MMM, then read Mormon Rebellion. Study the sources and the noting. Those who do will quickly realize that Morgan Deane has simply not done that necessary lifting, while Crockett is merely the LDS equivalent of Krakauer on these issues. Have fun reading!

"Crockett is merely the LDS equivalent of Krakauer" = smearing by association. You and your ideological bedfellows can afford to throw Krakauer under the bus; you are sacrificing a discredited pawn in the hope of taking an opponent's rook out of play.

It won't work.

It does no good to wave a hand at a large body of literature and then smugly announce that anyone who has not read all of it is "uninformed" and had better shut up until they do. Since you subsequently tell us that you can "develop three lines of evidential argumentation," why don't you go ahead and show us how you do that?

Here's an alternative to your beginning question: "Why should anyone who is aware of the state of roads and communications in Southern Utah in 1857 believe that Brigham Young ordered the MMM, if they don't have a fairly strong, if not absolutely determinative, prejudice against him?"

Here are a few more:

1. Why should the Southern Utah militia leaders ask Brigham for instructions if in fact they had a "shared belief that such an action would be approved by headquarters in Salt Lake City?" Doesn't Haslam's journey, authorised by Isaac Haight, requesting instructions, demonstrate that they did not share such a belief?

2. Why should the perpetrators of the massacre work so hard to keep the facts of their involvement from Brigham Young and other Church leaders if in fact they had a "shared belief that such an action would be approved by headquarters in Salt Lake City?"

3. If Brooks' strained, tendentious reading of Brigham's letter to Haight is accurate, why did Haight exclaim with horror that it was "too late?" Why did he never appeal to it as justification for the massacre?

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

...

The first trial was a mixed jury and was a hung jury. All Mormons voted to acquit along with a former Mormon; the non-Mormons voted to convict.

The second trial was 100% Mormon.

Sorry my memory was faulty. I remembered the Mormons giving 100% "not guilty". Which was the point, I think. Because in the second trial, with an all Mormon jury, they reversed and went 100% "guilty". Does that seem likely to you without "machinations" going on behind the scenes between the trials and during the second trial? It doesn't seem likely to me. The newspapers of the day certainly thought there was Mormon collusion going on: "It would be as unreasonable to expect a jury of highwaymen to convict a stage robber as it would be to get Mormons to find one of their own peculiar faith guilty of a crime." Yet that is exactly what the "highwaymen" did shortly after.

Bagley, like you, says there were machinations but his proofs are ridiculous. Instead, when you read the trial transcript closely (and I don't think Bagley did, nor did he read the closing arguments), you can see that the prosecutor, Sumner Howard, tried to keep Gentiles on the jury but that William Bishop kept striking them off. Since there were more Mormons than non-Mormons, Bishop had his way.

Obviously the "Gentiles" trying to proceed reasonably with a trial wanted a mixed jury. An all Mormon jury would just be 12 men casting "not guilty" instead even a remote chance that "12 angry men" might be convinced by the Gentiles on the jury to go with "guilty".

Without B. Young, et al. pushing for conviction, the second Mormon stand would have been exactly as the first. And Lee would have walked. But Young could see the writing on the wall: the Fed were not going to let this slide by; they would have their justice; and somebody had to go down. Lee was the obvious man. (and I was not the one using "scapegoat" first; it is accurate enough)

As another example of a huge gaffe, Bagley writes that Sumner Howard and Bishop had an arrangement with Bishop that the local Mormon community would present some jurors with stars -- yes stars -- pinned under their arms as to the ones that would be acceptable to both. This is such a laugher; I can see Bagley salivating over this one. But, the person telling this story was Frank Lee who was not even there, and who was 13 years old at the time. Instead, Frank Lee in later years confused a story where he was told that William Bishop tried to rank his jurors from one to four stars (as do most lawyers) before picking them. Howard had absolutely nothing to do with this process and, in the end, Lee was convicted contrary to Bishop's wishes.

In closing, Bishop argued that the Church got to the jurors to urge their conviction and that it was all a scam put upon him to have an all-Mormon jury. Howard responded that it was Bishop, not Howard, who wanted an all-Mormon jury.

Bagley thus argued that the jurors were corrupted, but after years of investigation and press inquiries, not a single juror claimed to have been corrupted.

Yes, I can see that you've gleaned an "impressive" array of Bagley's faults as a historian. That was your motivation going in. But a list of faults does not address the conclusion of a book's message. BotP's message is simply that B. Young was key to the atmosphere that resulted in the MMM. That's it. Bagley would have preferred to have evidence showing Young's direct complicity; or even better, proof of a direct order to "use up" the Arkansans. Nothing of the kind exists, and Bagley had to settle for "I do not like Brigham Young: and if there had been enough evidence of his guilt he would have been put on trial" (words to that effect, I am paraphrasing from memory). That the two trials produced diametrically opposite results among the Mormon participants is the direct evidence of tampering with the jury. I don't see how your pointing out Bagley's faults can brush that fact away.

Does he really? Like what is your best example of newly-raised good points with good evidence? I say he doesn't.

I never said newly raised good points. I said good evidence for the conclusions that he draws. I don't think that his books need publishing at all. Imho, the MMM is already done to "death". At this point, all that can be covered is the imperfections of the extant seminal histories. As you are still doing. Does any of this overturn the obvious? Which is: that B. Young was central to the plot, being the man behind the religious fervor and attitude "to war" gripping the Saints; that Mormons instigated the massacre and pinned it on the Indians; that from B. Young on down afterward, Mormons obfuscated and road-blocked all Fed efforts to bring anyone to trial, and dissembled with the facts (as many do to this day); that the Mormons on the jury swung 180 degrees in their conviction. Why? remains the unknowable mystery. Bagley was convinced that Young was behind it. You are convinced of what? I have not read your papers (but I see that you are the FARMS BotP critic that I read about back in the day). Why did the Mormons turn a 180 between the first trial and second?

Let's leave Bagley out of this for a moment. Do you have a problem with this writer's approach to the story? Douglas O. Linder says, "What a difference a trial makes: the second trial of John D. Lee bore almost no resemblance to the first. Mormon witnesses against Lee suddenly materialized in the second trial, many with enhanced memories that put Lee in the middle of the killing. The prosecutors, in a rejection of the strategy in the first case which placed shared blame well up the Mormon command chain, suddenly seemed only too willing to present Lee as the driving force behind the massacre. What happened?

What happened, apparently, is that a deal--or at least an understanding--was reached."

And Douglas O. Linder seems to like Bagley's book, calling it "the best source". If it is as flawed as you claim to have discovered, then why don't YOU write its replacement? Or would the final product not be that different from the contents of Bagley's book after all?...

Share this post


Link to post
Without B. Young, et al. pushing for conviction, the second Mormon stand would have been exactly as the first.

And what is the evidence of this?

None of the jurors ever mentioned anything to the press for years thereafter about feeling any pressure from the Church to vote in any particular way. Many of the jurors were inactive Church members.

Sumner Howard went out of his way to deny to the Attorney General the Salt Lake Tribune's charge that he had conspired with the Church to obtain a victory. Indeed, Howard for years after tried to pin Brigham Young to the crime. All that Howard said was that he had asked for cooperation from Church officials in the location of witnesses; they agreed and provided that cooperation.

Your repeated faulty recollection seems to prove my point.

Douglas O. Linder says, "What a difference a trial makes: the second trial of John D. Lee bore almost no resemblance to the first. Mormon witnesses against Lee suddenly materialized in the second trial, many with enhanced memories that put Lee in the middle of the killing. The prosecutors, in a rejection of the strategy in the first case which placed shared blame well up the Mormon command chain, suddenly seemed only too willing to present Lee as the driving force behind the massacre. What happened?

Why the differences?

1. Pres. Grant fired the first prosecutor and replaced him with Sumner Howard. The first prosecutor didn't seem apparently interested in evidence.

2. Sumner Howard asked the Church for cooperation in finding witnesses.

3. Instead of trying Brigham Young to the press in the first trial, the prosecutor in the second case tried Lee. In the first trial, according to the transcript I've read, there was almost no effort to provide eyewitnesses against Lee. In the second trial, there were many eyewitnesses against Lee. Juror affidavits after that trial showed that the jurors were troubled about convicting Lee but they felt that the evidence was there.

There was quite a difference in approach between the first prosecution and second, so much so that that the first prosecutors (George C. Bates and Robert Baskin) tried to undermine and ruin the second prosecutor (Sumner Howard) when it was apparent that the second was having success.

You just oddly accept your faulty recollection of the facts to convict Brigham Young when H.H. Bancroft couldn't, and he was closer to the witnesses. You've just accepted the theory of a "deal" when it was all an invention of the Salt Lake Tribune.

What happened, apparently, is that a deal--or at least an understanding--was reached."

Let's deal with this assertion. What is the single one piece of evidence, the very best one, that proves this? I would predict you will refuse to answer. But, please try. I mean, did a DoJ witness cop to this? Did a church employee or official cop to this? Did one of the jurors admit to being a part of the conspiracy? Is there a letter from the Church to the prosecutor or to the defense talking about this? [seems William Bishop would have had evidence of this, right? Wouldn't that have found its way into Lee's confessions?]

Share this post


Link to post

"Crockett is merely the LDS equivalent of Krakauer" = smearing by association. You and your ideological bedfellows can afford to throw Krakauer under the bus; you are sacrificing a discredited pawn in the hope of taking an opponent's rook out of play.

It won't work.

It does no good to wave a hand at a large body of literature and then smugly announce that anyone who has not read all of it is "uninformed" and had better shut up until they do. Since you subsequently tell us that you can "develop three lines of evidential argumentation," why don't you go ahead and show us how you do that?

Here's an alternative to your beginning question: "Why should anyone who is aware of the state of roads and communications in Southern Utah in 1857 believe that Brigham Young ordered the MMM, if they don't have a fairly strong, if not absolutely determinative, prejudice against him?"

Here are a few more:

1. Why should the Southern Utah militia leaders ask Brigham for instructions if in fact they had a "shared belief that such an action would be approved by headquarters in Salt Lake City?" Doesn't Haslam's journey, authorised by Isaac Haight, requesting instructions, demonstrate that they did not share such a belief?

2. Why should the perpetrators of the massacre work so hard to keep the facts of their involvement from Brigham Young and other Church leaders if in fact they had a "shared belief that such an action would be approved by headquarters in Salt Lake City?"

3. If Brooks' strained, tendentious reading of Brigham's letter to Haight is accurate, why did Haight exclaim with horror that it was "too late?" Why did he never appeal to it as justification for the massacre?

Regards,

Pahoran

That you are unhappy with my comparison is unimportant. My ideology has always been the factual grasp of narrative and sources, and has served quite well. The "state of roads and communications" apparently facilitated much more rapid communication than one would suppose, which, however, did not contribute to the tragedy.

Your #1: Brooks' letter given above clearly puts your concern to rest.

Your #2: Your comment reveals that you do not know the basic literature of the event, particularly concerning time lines demonstrating when one knew what.

Your #3: Answered by my answered to your #2.

Asa young man in St George and at Dixie College, I heard and learned much about Jacob Hamblin, Indian missions, and whatnot, but about MMM, the comment always seemed to be "the Indians did it and the emigrants were a bad people." That from three very active LDS all of their lives who had no problem talking badly about Brigham Young and other LDS leaders on issues.

Pahoran, please, put glib assertions such as "had better shut up until they do." I wrotea lack of knowing the basic works (and I will know add the basic documents) made for "uninformed" commentary. I told no one to "shut up." I leave that to you.

I have no need to reveal my three lines of analysis until you do a much better effort in answering my question. Avoidance is not conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Asa young man in St George and at Dixie College, I heard and learned much about Jacob Hamblin, Indian missions, and whatnot, but about MMM, the comment always seemed to be "the Indians did it and the emigrants were a bad people." That from three very active LDS all of their lives who had no problem talking badly about Brigham Young and other LDS leaders on issues.

Well, then, I guess this matter has been put to rest. Those of us who know the facts very well are condemned by your friends who do not.

Your attempt to pigeonhole the MMM analysis into a simple question (the one that Will favors, as you know), just won't work. The locals ran amok. Perhaps at the time they thought they might have Pres. Young's support, but their thinking was flawed.

If I were you, I'd focus upon the critical flaws and failures of Will's work and ask yourself if he's the star to whom you'd like to pin your hopes.

Share this post


Link to post
That you are unhappy with my comparison is unimportant. My ideology has always been the factual grasp of narrative and sources, and has served quite well.

Yes, yes. You're not anti-Mormon, you're pro-truth. We've heard all the self-congratulatory cliches before, Melvin.

The "state of roads and communications" apparently facilitated much more rapid communication than one would suppose, which, however, did not contribute to the tragedy.

Really? I challenge that glib assertion. Isaac Haight told James Haslam that Brigham Young's letter was "too late," and it arrived just hours after the massacre. Haslam had made the 600-mile round trip in record time with relays of fresh horses; more usual travel times indicate a rate of advance of around 30 miles per day.

The malicious assumption that Brigham micro-managed everything in every corner of Utah, is immensely popular in some quarters; but if we ask ourselves how it could be done, we realise that it was not possible.

Your #1: Brooks' letter given above clearly puts your concern to rest.

Really? Which part?

Note that we have not read Brooks' letter. We have read carefully edited excerpts, quoted not directly from Brooks, but from your own rather disparaging review of Massacre at Mountain Meadows, the main problem with which is that it did not stick it to Brigham as hard as you would like.

Well, tough luck.

I have re-read your excerpt with great care. I am unable to find a single reference to the Southern Utah leaders' request for instructions from Brigham Young, much less any attempt to explain it in terms of your smugly imagined "shared belief that such an action would be approved by headquarters in Salt Lake City."

So my question is not answered, and you have attempted to brush it aside with a mere wave of the hand.

Your #2: Your comment reveals that you do not know the basic literature of the event, particularly concerning time lines demonstrating when one knew what.

Your #3: Answered by my answered to your #2.

More dismissive hand-waving. While you are providing links to your own reviews, as though they were somehow authoritative, how about you provide some links to this "basic literature?" For instance, perhaps you might give us a page number I can look up in my copy of BoTP?

Asa young man in St George and at Dixie College, I heard and learned much about Jacob Hamblin, Indian missions, and whatnot, but about MMM, the comment always seemed to be "the Indians did it and the emigrants were a bad people." That from three very active LDS all of their lives who had no problem talking badly about Brigham Young and other LDS leaders on issues.

Pahoran, please, put glib assertions such as "had better shut up until they do." I wrotea lack of knowing the basic works (and I will know add the basic documents) made for "uninformed" commentary. I told no one to "shut up." I leave that to you.

I have no need to reveal my three lines of analysis until you do a much better effort in answering my question. Avoidance is not conclusion.

Really? Exactly who died and bequeathed to you control of the discussion?

Since your "three lines of analysis" are not before us -- being withheld until we jump through your hoops -- you may not conjure by them. For the purposes of this discussion, they don't exist, and will not exist until they are available for our examination.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

You do not have control of this discussion, Pahoran, so you won’t have to worry about that responsibility. You again just demonstrated what I wrote earlier. Your prejudices are quite clear. You refuse to look at the sources. No, Pahoran, I said “My ideology has always been the factual grasp of narrative and sources, and has served quite well.” Your “self congratulatory” back slapping is fun to watch. The emigrants were under siege by LDS militia, Pahoran. The emigrants were dead before the rider was anywhere near Cedar City. If you wish, you could have argued “why didn’t the leadership send a rider off earlier?” But you can’t, because that lock steps you.

“The malicious assumption that Brigham micro-managed everything in every corner of Utah, is immensely popular in some quarters; but if we ask ourselves how it could be done, we realise that it was not possible.” You truly do not think BY did not control the citizens of Utah Territory? What do you think all of the yelling was about from 1850 to 1857?

This may help, from Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Stephen H. Smoot, “Wilford Woodruff’s 1897 Testimony,” in Banner of the Gospel: Wilford Woodruff, ed. Alexander L. Baugh and Susan Easton Black (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2010).

The Anointed Quorum, together with the Council of the Kingdom, constituted the Kingdom of God. John Taylor, who was present during these Nauvoo meetings, received a revelation reflecting this definition of the Kingdom of God, together with its purpose:

Thus saith the Lord God who rules in the heavens above and in the earth beneath, I have introduced My Kingdom and my government, even the Kingdom of God, that my servants have heretofore prophesied of, and that I taught my disciples to pray for, saying “Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” for the establishment of my rule, for the introduction of my law, for the protection of my Church, and for the maintenance, promulgation and protection of civil and religious liberty in this nation and throughout the world; and all men of every nation, color and creed shall yet be protected and shielded thereby; And every nation and kindred, and people, and tongue shall yet bow the knee to me, and acknowledge me to be Ahman Christ, to the glory of God the Father.<a href="http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/banner-gospel-wilford-woodruff/wilford-woodruff-s-1897-testimony#_edn41" title="">[41]

These words are pregnant with meaning & full of intelligence & point out our position in regard of these matters—it is expected of us that [we] can act right—that our interests [are] bound up in the K[ingdom] of God. That we should consider we are not acting for ourselves, but we are the Spokesmen of God selected for that purpose in the interest of God & to bless & exalt all humanity. We acknowledge him as our God and all men who enter this body must acknowledge him here. There is peculiary [sic] significance to these things which needs some consideration.

That is exactly how Young, Taylor, and Woodruff tried to govern Utah Territory, as a theocracy. That is why the feds took the probate courts away from the bishops.

Ask for a copy of Brooks’ letter because you have believe incorrectly that you “have read carefully edited excerpts, quoted not directly from Brooks, but from your own rather disparaging review of Massacre at Mountain Meadows, the main problem with which is that it did not stick it to Brigham as hard as you would like.” You will find that my “carefully edited excerpts” are in fact almost completely verbatim and accurate.

You are “unable to find a single reference to the Southern Utah leaders' request for instructions from Brigham Young, much less any attempt to explain it in terms of your smugly imagined ‘shared belief that such an action would be approved by headquarters in Salt Lake City" because you have not read the primary and secondary literature. You are completely unfamiliar with Brooks, Bagley, and Turley. Yes, your questions have been answered over and over.

You simply don’t like the answers, and who cares about that?

Pahoran, please, put away glib assertions such as "had better shut up until they do." I wrote that a lack of knowing the basic works (and I will now add the basic documents) made for "uninformed" commentary. I told no one to "shut up." I leave that to you.

I have no need to reveal my three lines of analysis until you do a much better effort in answering my question. Avoidance is not conclusion. You are unfamiliar with the subjects, you are prejudiced to the point that you won’t look at the primary and secondary sources, and you simply have failed.

You still not have answered the primary question and may begin there.

Share this post


Link to post

Bob, you clearly do not know the facts, don't even understand the Bishop letter, as an example, and simply believe the "locals ran amok." You have been reproved over and over by historians who actually know about what they are discussing, and you refuse to accept correction. You lost your appeal where it counted. At least you had the grace to state here the locals may have "thought they might have Pres. Young's support, but their thinking was flawed." How was their thinking flawed?

Share this post


Link to post
You do not have control of this discussion, Pahoran, so you won’t have to worry about that responsibility.

Fortunately, I'm not the one trying to control the discussion. For instance, I'm not the one issuing edicts like:

You still not have answered the primary question and may begin there.

As you perfectly well know, Melvin, you chose that question, and pretend that it is nothing less than "the primary question," solely in order to control the direction of the discussion.

Whether indeed it should be "the primary question" remains, conta your attempts to privilege it, an entirely valid line of inquiry. If you are not happy with it, then once again, tough luck. You have yet to provide a single cogent argument why it should be "the primary question."

You again just demonstrated what I wrote earlier. Your prejudices are quite clear. You refuse to look at the sources.

My prejudices may be almost as clear as your own, but I have never refused to look at the sources. You made that up, entirely out of whole cloth, as yet another expression of your clear prejudices.

Which is why you need to produce the sources you keep waving at us. Because you know all that evidence you claim incriminates Brigham, and is to be found in them? We need to know you're not making that up as well.

No, Pahoran, I said “My ideology has always been the factual grasp of narrative and sources, and has served quite well.”

So you keep bragging. Your performance fails to keep up with the expectations your self-promotion creates.

Your “self congratulatory” back slapping is fun to watch. The emigrants were under siege by LDS militia, Pahoran. The emigrants were dead before the rider was anywhere near Cedar City. If you wish, you could have argued “why didn’t the leadership send a rider off earlier?” But you can’t, because that lock steps you.

Actually I am well aware of the circumstances under which Haslam was sent to Salt Lake. Do you think the question you've offered is relevant? Then feel free to argue it.

As it is, the fact that Haight et al sent Haslam to SLC is clear evidence that they did not know what to do in the circumstances. The actual communications among the massacre participants show dithering, mounting panic, and a complete lack of direction; explain, please, how this is at all consistent with your smug, polemical and utterly asinine assumption that they had a "shared belief that such an action would be approved by headquarters in Salt Lake City."

And while the Iron County militia were lurching from bungle to disaster, Brigham Young was carefully directing a highly successful -- and bloodless -- defensive operation against the largest body of regular troops in the United States. His attention was riveted north and east, and the MMM happened far away to the south and west. The contrast between the two operations is complete, and in all my reading of military history I have never seen an example of two such completely dissimilar operations being the product of the same generalship.

“The malicious assumption that Brigham micro-managed everything in every corner of Utah, is immensely popular in some quarters; but if we ask ourselves how it could be done, we realise that it was not possible.” You truly do not think BY did not control the citizens of Utah Territory? What do you think all of the yelling was about from 1850 to 1857?

A moment's reflection -- something I recommend to you -- reveals that, if Brigham was really so closely "in control," there wouldn't need to be so much "yelling."

This may help, from Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Stephen H. Smoot, “Wilford Woodruff’s 1897 Testimony,” in Banner of the Gospel: Wilford Woodruff, ed. Alexander L. Baugh and Susan Easton Black (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2010).

The Anointed Quorum, together with the Council of the Kingdom, constituted the Kingdom of God. John Taylor, who was present during these Nauvoo meetings, received a revelation reflecting this definition of the Kingdom of God, together with its purpose:

Thus saith the Lord God who rules in the heavens above and in the earth beneath, I have introduced My Kingdom and my government, even the Kingdom of God, that my servants have heretofore prophesied of, and that I taught my disciples to pray for, saying “Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” for the establishment of my rule, for the introduction of my law, for the protection of my Church, and for the maintenance, promulgation and protection of civil and religious liberty in this nation and throughout the world; and all men of every nation, color and creed shall yet be protected and shielded thereby; And every nation and kindred, and people, and tongue shall yet bow the knee to me, and acknowledge me to be Ahman Christ, to the glory of God the Father.[41]

These words are pregnant with meaning & full of intelligence & point out our position in regard of these matters—it is expected of us that [we] can act right—that our interests [are] bound up in the K[ingdom] of God. That we should consider we are not acting for ourselves, but we are the Spokesmen of God selected for that purpose in the interest of God & to bless & exalt all humanity. We acknowledge him as our God and all men who enter this body must acknowledge him here. There is peculiary [sic] significance to these things which needs some consideration. Article

That is exactly how Young, Taylor, and Woodruff tried to govern Utah Territory, as a theocracy. That is why the feds took the probate courts away from the bishops.

I was going to snip all the above as being irrelevant to the subject at hand; but I have decided to leave it in, simply to demonstrate that you can produce all sorts of irrelevant tidbits whenever it suits you, but you refuse to produce references in support of your disputed claims. Instead, you look down your lordly nose and declare that when we agree with you, then we'll have read enough to make it worth your while to discuss things with us.

Sorry Melvin, but nobody dragged you into this forum. You are here of your own volition. You are participating in a discussion that has rules that actually do apply to you; shocking as that may seem.

Ask for a copy of Brooks’ letter because you have believe incorrectly that you “have read carefully edited excerpts, quoted not directly from Brooks, but from your own rather disparaging review of Massacre at Mountain Meadows, the main problem with which is that it did not stick it to Brigham as hard as you would like.” You will find that my “carefully edited excerpts” are in fact almost completely verbatim and accurate.

Perhaps, but they are not complete. We do not see the context.

And in what you have produced, there is no reference to anything that addresses my questions.

You are “unable to find a single reference to the Southern Utah leaders' request for instructions from Brigham Young, much less any attempt to explain it in terms of your smugly imagined ‘shared belief that such an action would be approved by headquarters in Salt Lake City" because you have not read the primary and secondary literature. You are completely unfamiliar with Brooks, Bagley, and Turley. Yes, your questions have been answered over and over.

I was, of course, referring to the excerpts from the Brooks letter at which you previously waved your hand. You, of course, know this quite well. Those exerpts contain no such reference.

You have failed entirely to even try to answer my CFR.

You simply don’t like the answers, and who cares about that?

You have no idea how I might react to "the answers" since you have yet to actually provide any.

Pahoran, please, put away glib assertions such as "had better shut up until they do." I wrote that a lack of knowing the basic works (and I will now add the basic documents) made for "uninformed" commentary. I told no one to "shut up." I leave that to you.

I have no need to reveal my three lines of analysis until you do a much better effort in answering my question.

What "three lines of analysis?" I have no reason to believe any such thing exists.

Avoidance is not conclusion. You are unfamiliar with the subjects, you are prejudiced to the point that you won’t look at the primary and secondary sources, and you simply have failed.

Thank you for your opinion. I'm sure it is just as valuable as every other opinion you have spouted in this forum.

You still not have answered the primary question and may begin there.

Your arrogance is exceeded only by your arrogance.

In the meantime, you have this unanswered Call For References before you:

You said that the Brooks Letter, previously referenced, answered my question no. 1. The excerpts quoted by you do not contain any allusion to the issues I raised. Please note, again, that my question was:

1. Why should the Southern Utah militia leaders ask Brigham for instructions if in fact they had a "shared belief that such an action would be approved by headquarters in Salt Lake City?" Doesn't Haslam's journey, authorised by Isaac Haight, requesting instructions, demonstrate that they did not share such a belief?

Since the excerpts you have previously posted from the Brooks letter do not allude to these issues, please post the complete letter, or at least the portions that do.

This is a CFR, Melvin. The forum rules oblige you to answer it.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

Bob, you clearly do not know the facts, don't even understand the Bishop letter, as an example, and simply believe the "locals ran amok." You have been reproved over and over by historians who actually know about what they are discussing, and you refuse to accept correction. You lost your appeal where it counted. At least you had the grace to state here the locals may have "thought they might have Pres. Young's support, but their thinking was flawed." How was their thinking flawed?

No I haven't. I don't consider reproval by sycophants any kind of reproval.

The fact remains: Your bud Will missed the Bishop letter even though it was right in front of him. That letter states that Bishop intended to add to Lee's confessions to make them more interesting. Will, the "historian" missed it, didn't mention it and missed a whole lot of other things as well.

Share this post


Link to post

Questing Beast: Don't let my challenge to you go by. I know Mel or Joe won't rise to the bait. Why not you?

Let's deal with this assertion. What is the single one piece of evidence, the very best one, that proves [a deal between the DoJ and the Church]? I would predict you will refuse to answer. But, please try. I mean, did a DoJ witness cop to this? Did a church employee or official cop to this? Did one of the jurors admit to being a part of the conspiracy? Is there a letter from the Church to the prosecutor or to the defense talking about this? [seems William Bishop would have had evidence of this, right? Wouldn't that have found its way into Lee's confessions?]

Share this post


Link to post

...

So has anyone read this? I'm particularly interested in whether Chapter 7 (all 24 pages of it) has anything new to say about Brigham Young's alleged role in the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Thanks,

Smac

I doubt it. Perhaps because the author failed once to smear the church, he thinks that by repeating something often enough someone might believe him. Thus he will seal his damnation even more by fighting against the church.

Share this post


Link to post

I understand the authors next book will be "The Protocols of the Elders of Utah".

Share this post


Link to post

I have seen nothing added here for consideration by any of the naysayers, and I will leave the above as my final thoughts for this thread.

Share this post


Link to post

I have seen nothing added here for consideration by any of the naysayers, and I will leave the above as my final thoughts for this thread.

As best you should.

Share this post


Link to post

I said: "What happened, apparently, is that a deal--or at least an understanding--was reached.""

Let's deal with this assertion. What is the single one piece of evidence, the very best one, that proves this? I would predict you will refuse to answer. But, please try. I mean, did a DoJ witness cop to this? Did a church employee or official cop to this? Did one of the jurors admit to being a part of the conspiracy? Is there a letter from the Church to the prosecutor or to the defense talking about this? [seems William Bishop would have had evidence of this, right? Wouldn't that have found its way into Lee's confessions?]

Do you allow that Lee's "confessions" have any validity? He accused Young et al. of pinning on him the very things that he had seen other men do at the massacre. The second trial bears all the marks of an "arrangement" to convict SOMEONE. I seriously doubt the events were revelatory at the second trial; the jury was not informed of facts that they had not been privy to beforehand. Nothing in Utah Territory was more on the public mind than the MMM. Everyone was an "expert" by the time John D. Lee was tried and executed. The best piece of evidence that some kind of "deal" was struck is the complete shift in the Mormon jurors' verdicts. That not ONE juror was persuaded that Lee was being sacrificed, was offended at the blatant prejudicial nature of the proceedings, and cast "not guilty", is almost impossible to countenance without some kind of influence going on to cause the complete about-face. I'm no "fan" of this subject, as I've already said. I have no axe to grind here. It doesn't bother me in the least to accept the president Young decided that Lee had to be given to the Fed; and that he transmitted this decision down through the ranks, and that the jurors knew this.

You seem to accept that the MMM is tied to the subsequent coverup stories, that shifted the blame to the Indians first, then to the "renegade" Mormons, then finally to Lee alone. That IS a conspiracy. It endures to this day. Obfuscation of the facts to steer blame far away from the heads of the Church began the moment news arrived in Salt Lake city of the massacre. So why wouldn't this very same spirit of self defense impinge upon the trials of John D. Lee?...

Share this post


Link to post

Do you allow that Lee's "confessions" have any validity? He accused Young et al. of pinning on him the very things that he had seen other men do at the massacre.

Of course. Erastus Snow learned the details and the crime was pinned on Lee because he did it. Haight was excommunicated too. Others might have been as well; we don't have the records one way or the other.

The second trial bears all the marks of an "arrangement" to convict SOMEONE.

If such an arrangement existed, there'd be evidence. What is it? Conspiracies to obstruct justice involving dozens of people can't succeed long. Somebody will spill it.

The best piece of evidence that some kind of "deal" was struck is the complete shift in the Mormon jurors' verdicts. That not ONE juror was persuaded that Lee was being sacrificed, was offended at the blatant prejudicial nature of the proceedings, and cast "not guilty", is almost impossible to countenance without some kind of influence going on to cause the complete about-face.

That is a poor theory indeed. In the first trial, there was no evidence pinning Lee to the crime. I've read the transcripts. In the second trial, there was.

And, you are wrong to say that the jurors didn't think Lee was being sacrificed. At least two thought so, but they still voted guilty. The "sacrifice" theory was Lee's only defense. Of course the jurors are going to think "sacrifice" if that is all that came out of Lee's attorney's mouth. And, at the same time, the Salt Lake Tribune was declaring "sacrifice."

The problem is that there was no evidence of a sacrifice. You're just assuming a sacrifice based upon the outcome -- with no other evidence -- but the outcome also supports the theory (this one supported by evidence) of a change in prosecutors, a change in prosecution theory and better evidence.

You seem to accept that the MMM is tied to the subsequent coverup stories, that shifted the blame to the Indians first, then to the "renegade" Mormons, then finally to Lee alone.

No I don't. The massacre was committed by 50 men who swore each other to secrecy and who swore to blame the Indians. But, that agreement broke down within days; one can read the press in Los Angeles a few weeks after the massacre to see that people were talking.

It endures to this day. Obfuscation of the facts to steer blame far away from the heads of the Church began the moment news arrived in Salt Lake city of the massacre. So why wouldn't this very same spirit of self defense impinge upon the trials of John D. Lee?...

I believe in theories supported by evidence. Yours has none.

Share this post


Link to post
I have seen nothing added here for consideration by any of the naysayers, and I will leave the above as my final thoughts for this thread.

"I win!" he shouted, as he fled the field.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

...

I believe in theories supported by evidence. Yours has none.

You are a very rational, coherent person. All I have based my understanding of the MMM on is the seminal books treating it: especially Brooks' and Bagley's. That they got some things wrong is a given. I accepted and expected this going in. What exactly they got wrong I did not know. But as you are also apparently an authority on this subject, I will accept your claim that the best interpretation of the evidence indicates that the "guilty" verdict of the second trial can be explained by the change in prosecutors and the better evidence presented. I am not a fan of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" when forming a working hypothesis. And if you say that there is no evidence of a coverup or a deal or an arrangement with the Fed, then I will go with that. If no one can bring forth such evidence (and surely Bagley would have done if there is any, since he dislikes B. Young so much), then I'm willing to accept your theory over my previous assumptions....

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.

×