The Mountain Meadows Massacre

[Rollo Tomasi]

Did Brigham "coax them" out or was that John D. Lees doing? Brigham wanted them to be left alone.

...

Your emotions and Hate for BY are getting the better of you Rollo.

...

Wrong that Cattle which had been given came from the North Route... see my last post.

...

Wrong again... BY sayed that "innocents" possibly could be killed. And thus he dilliberated for days before making the final decision.

1. I have never said that BY participated in the massacre, including coaxing the victims out from their stronghold. The Fancher party never should have been targeted in the first place, and that was at least partially Brigham's doing. And Brigham wanted them left alone only after targeting them -- his change of mind was too little, too late, imo.

2. I have no "hate" toward Brigham Young; I simply think he bears responsibility for his part in this sordid episode, which I do, in fact, hate: the wanton slaughter of defenseless men, women and children.

3. Your last post was wrong; you're mixing up Huntington's Aug. 30 and Sept. 1 diary entries.

4. Brigham didn't say "possibly" or "could" -- rather, he said the Indians "will kill innocent People." (Wilford Woodruff's journal for August 26, 1857).

[USU78]

1. Why am I not surprised that you have no problem with the other perpetrators of this cold-blooded murder getting off scot-free?

Cold blooded? How's that exactly? As for getting off "scot-free," wasn't there a general amnesty? Wasn't there a hung jury first time out for Lee? Maybe things aren't as clear cut and in your favor as you seem to think, RT.

2. It was primarily made up of Paiute bands from Cedar City, Fort Harmony, Pinto, and the Virgin and Santa Clara Rivers. There may have been a few others from the Pahvants, Utes and Piedes.

Call for references that "Pahvants, Utes and Pieds" leaders who may have ordered or participated in MMM were among those who met in SLC.

3. I never said that BY ordered the massacre. What I'm saying is that BY knew that by ordering the Indians to engage the emigrants, he knew it was very likely that the Indians would "kill innocent People." For this reason alone, he never should have targeted civilians.

"engage" is such a slippery word as used. You don't think Amerinds, [sarcasm]sneaky devils as they were and, of course, subhuman to boot, capable of running off idiot white eyes' cattle without waking them up?[/sarcasm] He should have targeted the people on the roads' cattle for disruption, just as he should have targeted the army's advance for disruption. Muck things up! Slow 'em down! It worked for the Tsar in 1812. It worked for BY in 1857. He would have been negligent had he not done so.

4. This was not war. No army was around or threatening. The Fancher part was made up entirely of civilians who posed no threat whatever, and were nearly out of Utah (there were no more settlements between Mountain Meadows and the California border). This was premeditated murder, pure and simple.

Nope. Sorry. No seegar. It was war as war has always been. That it was illegal and unprovoked maked it far worse than Napoleon's invasion of Russia. As for the lack of settlements . . . never heard of St. George? Las Vegas? San Bernadino? As for murder . . . I don't doubt it. Innocent blood? Cannot judge. Is BY responsible? Not by a long shot.

5. BY certainly foresaw (by his own words on August 26) violence coming upon the emigrants if engaged by the Indians, but he still instructed the chiefs on Sept. 1 to do just that. As for the Mormons participating in the massacre, the dynamics of Mormonism during his presidency would strongly suggest he could foresee their actions as well (i.e., blood atonement doctrine, oath of vengeance covenant, recent murder of Parley P. Pratt, etc.).

Post haec reasoning. "Blood atonement" only works if you're a Mormon needing salvation after committing a particularly awful deed, and only if you take the most literal and extreme view on BY's words. "Oath of vengeance" never, ever equalled any provable act against any person, Zane Grey and the Brit Penny Dreadfuls notwithstanding. "Parley's murder" is a shoddy piece of thinking. They couldn't even pin Bogges' murder on a Mormon, and what he was responsible for was far worse than some sort of corporate guilt of all Arkansasnsesns.

6. Utah was not required to be a slave state -- they did it all by themselves in 1852, after Gov. Brigham Young endorsed it to the legislature as a divine institution. Utah was the ONLY territory that had slaves, and even after Abraham Lincoln outlawed slavery in U.S. territories in 1862, Brigham continued to preach from the pulpit that slavery would never be done away with. I'm amazed you're supporting Brigham in this as well -- is the man diety in your eyes, never able to make any mistake?

And I quite disagree. BY kept petitioning and petitioning and petitioning. The South was particularly key to getting Utah admitted. What was those senators' price of admission for Utah?

7. The cattle belonged to people; The cattle BY instructed to be stolen belonged to people; BY stated that if Indians engaged emigrants, the Indians would "kill innocent People." What are you missing here?

Targeting cattle is not targeting people. What are you missing here?

1. The massacre occurred on September 11, 1857, in a remote corner in Utah, well past any settlement in Utah. This was no "military campaign," not even a "defensive one." The Fancher party was pursued, surrounded for several days, and then 120 men, women, and children were coaxed out by lies and slaughtered in cold blood. And this makes BY a "great leader and an honest man"?

Horse hockey. Every Mormon was subject to being killed on sight by the expeditionary force if he would not agree to rape, theft, and disenfranchisement, from Logan and points north to San Diego, from the divide to the Sierras. BY was a great leader and an honest man. Your inuendo will never change that.

2. According to Huntington, the chiefs balked at first to Brigham's instruction. In the end, they did it because Brigham "gave" them the huge herd of Fancher cattle. Thus, they had self-interest in doing as he instructed them.

Horse hockey. He asked. They acquiesced in his request. He did not control them, not by a long shot [remember Black Hawk?]. Fuzzy details from Huntington about an alleged consideration for their agreement does not make it a carte blanche by BY to kill the nomads.

3. I wonder if the ancestors of the Fancher party feel the same gratitude that you do.

Since my wife's also a Fancher, I'll ask her tonight.

4. I don't want your in-laws executed; I only wish those who committed this horrible deed would have paid; instead (other than John D. Lee), they got away with it.

Did they indeed "get away with it?" I wonder. I for one think they paid every day of their lives. Perhaps beyond. Maybe Lee was the lucky one.

5. I'm glad some good came out of Klingensmith's life (such as your spouse), but he also participated in cold-blooded murder, for which he will answer to God.

I agree, see above.

6. I have never said that Brigham ordered the massacre; only that he set the stage that allowed for the massacre, for which he, too, will answer to God.

How does one "allow for" an unforseeable act, I wonder? How can one be responsible for the unforseeable consequences (assuming they are indeed consequences) of an voluntary act? There is a doctrine whereunder a causal nexus between and among a chain of events logically breaks, leaving events following the break in the category of post hoc, establishing them as not legally or morally caused by anything prior to the break in the chain. BY and MMM are of this kind, and it is the lack of forseeability, which you acknowledged above, which makes the break. Buchanan does not enjoy this, as every act of savagery on the American Frontier is the responsibility of the CinC of the army sent out.

[Zakuska]

Kanosh the Pahvant Chief[,] Ammon & wife (Walkers Brother) & 11 Pahvants came into see B & D & find out about the soldiers. Tutseygubbit a Piede chief over 6 Piedes Bands Youngwuols another Piede chief & I gave them all the cattle that had gone to Cal[.] the southa rout[.] it made them open their eyes[.] they sayed that you have told us not to steal[.] so I have but now they have come to fight us & you for when they kill us then they will kill you[.] they sayed the[y] was afraid to fight the Americans & so would raise grain & we might fight.9 (cf. p. 114)

Ok I see where I have mixed the quotes. <blush>

How can he give them something he did not possess?

And Second giving Cattle does not equate to Giving them the lifes of 120 men women and Children.

Brigham forsaw the train circling up the cattle being scattered and probably a few shots being fired possible killing a few, then them being left alone. Thats acceptable callateral damage if you ask me.

Or are you saying he should of peeped in his stone in a hat to know the outcome?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Cold blooded? How's that exactly?

...

As for getting off "scot-free," wasn't there a general amnesty?

...

Wasn't there a hung jury first time out for Lee?

...

Maybe things aren't as clear cut and in your favor as you seem to think, RT.

...

Call for references that "Pahvants, Utes and Pieds" leaders who may have ordered or participated in MMM were among those who met in SLC.

...

"engage" is such a slippery word as used. You don't think Amerinds, [sarcasm]sneaky devils as they were and, of course, subhuman to boot, capable of running off idiot white eyes' cattle without waking them up?[/sarcasm] He should have targeted the people on the roads' cattle for disruption, just as he should have targeted the army's advance for disruption.

...

It was war as war has always been.

...

As for the lack of settlements . . . never heard of St. George? Las Vegas? San Bernadino?

...

Innocent blood? Cannot judge.

...

"Blood atonement" only works if you're a Mormon needing salvation after committing a particularly awful deed, and only if you take the most literal and extreme view on BY's words. "Oath of vengeance" never, ever equalled any provable act against any person, Zane Grey and the Brit Penny Dreadfuls notwithstanding. "Parley's murder" is a shoddy piece of thinking.

...

And I quite disagree. BY kept petitioning and petitioning and petitioning. The South was particularly key to getting Utah admitted. What was those senators' price of admission for Utah?

...

Targeting cattle is not targeting people. What are you missing here?

...

Every Mormon was subject to being killed on sight by the expeditionary force if he would not agree to rape, theft, and disenfranchisement, from Logan and points north to San Diego, from the divide to the Sierras.

...

He asked. They acquiesced in his request. He did not control them, not by a long shot [remember Black Hawk?]. Fuzzy details from Huntington about an alleged consideration for their agreement does not make it a carte blanche by BY to kill the nomads.

...

Since my wife's also a Fancher, I'll ask her tonight.

...

Did they indeed "get away with it?" I wonder. I for one think they paid every day of their lives. Perhaps beyond. Maybe Lee was the lucky one.

...

How does one "allow for" an unforseeable act, I wonder? How can one be responsible for the unforseeable consequences (assuming they are indeed consequences) of an voluntary act?

1. Does this sound like anything other than "cold-blooded"?:

After surrendering, the Fancher party was split into three groups: the first group was made up of a wagon of small children and some adult wounded. The second group was made up of women and children. The third group was made up of unarmed men, walking in single file, with an armed guard walking beside each of them. After walking for about a half hour, Higbee shot his gun in the air and yelled, "Halt! Do your duty!" At this signal, each guard shot the man next to him in the head; those men merely wounded were finished off. Those who escaped this initial execution were hunted down and killed (one got as far as 150 miles away). The women and children were generally bludgeoned to death (although recent analysis of skulls unearthed at Mountain Meadows reveals that many were shot like the men). Some women and children who escaped the first volley, begged for mercy, but were clubbed to death and "brained." Some had their throats cut. There were reports that two Dunlap sisters, 12-year old twins, were raped before being killed (Jacob Hamblin later found their nude bodies when he came upon the massacre scene). Lee was in charge of killing the wounded in the wagon. 17 young children were the only survivors (they were spared because it was believed they were too young to tell the tale; originally there were 18, but one was considered too old and was executed in front of the other children). After the deed was done, many bodies were stripped naked and left to the elements and beasts.

2. I don't know of any general amnesty that covered murdering civilians. BY received a presidential pardon for sedition and treason in 1858 in exchange for his accepting full federal authority in Utah, but this would not cover any role in the murder of civilians.

3. The jury (made up of 8 LDS, 1 former LDS, and 3 non-LDS) did deadlock in Lee's first trial. Btw, the 3 non-LDS voted to convict.

4. Murder seems pretty darn "clear cut" to me.

5. My reference to various Indian bands related to those at the massacre, not the meeting with BY on 9/1. The information I have indicates that only southern Utah Indian chiefs met with BY on 9/1.

6. It would be a bit difficult to "sneak off" with a 1,000 head of cattle without the owners knowing it. BY did target the cattle of "people on the road" -- he referred to it as the "south rout[e]" to California. I guess it was more a trail than a road, but the chiefs knew what he was talking about.

7. There was no "war" at that time (nor would there be), nor hostilities -- these were civilians traveling to California, with no army nearby. And on the trail between Moutain Meadows and the Utah border there were no settlements. No threat, military or otherwise, posed. As for whether "innocent blood" was shed at Mountain Meadows, is your reluctance to agree your way of justifying the slaughter? That is just sick, dude.

8. Blood atonement was used for non-Mormons as well (and there were perceived Mormon "apostates" among the Fancher party). John D. Lee specifically raised the "oath of vengeance" as a reason for the massacre (believing that killers of Joseph, Hyrum and Parley were among the Fancher party). Parley had just recently been murdered in Arkansas, and his widow (among many), whose legal husband had killed Parley, had just arrived in SLC. There is evidence that she claimed she recognized some men in the Fancher party as being present at Parley's murder (when the Fancher party passed through SLC).

9. Sorry to burst your bubble, but to see Brigham's role in bringing slavery to Utah (for both blacks and Indians), read his "Governor

[Rollo Tomasi]

How can he give them something he did not possess?

And Second giving Cattle does not equate to Giving them the lifes of 120 men women and Children.

Brigham forsaw the train circling up the cattle being scattered and probably a few shots being fired possible killing a few, then them being left alone. Thats acceptable callateral damage if you ask me.

Or are you saying he should of peeped in his stone in a hat to know the outcome?

1. I agree that BY shouldn't have given something he didn't own -- so did the Indian chiefs who met with him on 9/1, balking at BY's suggestion of stealing cattle when he had always taught them not to steal.

2. I never said BY told the Indians to kill the emigrants; but BY knew that by instructing the Indians to engage the emigrants by stealing their cattle, the Indians would "kill innocent People." That is not acceptable no matter what kind of "damage" you want to call it.

3. As a prophet, seer and revelator, it would have been nice if he could have acted a little less like a despot in this case. He clearly was "not acting as a prophet" in this matter.

[USU78]

Cold blooded?  How's that exactly?

...

As for getting off "scot-free," wasn't there a general amnesty? 

...

Wasn't there a hung jury first time out for Lee?

...

Maybe things aren't as clear cut and in your favor as you seem to think, RT.

...

Call for references that "Pahvants, Utes and Pieds" leaders who may have ordered or participated in MMM were among those who met in SLC.

...

"engage" is such a slippery word as used.  You don't think Amerinds, [sarcasm]sneaky devils as they were and, of course, subhuman to boot, capable of running off idiot white eyes' cattle without waking them up?[/sarcasm]  He should have targeted the people on the roads' cattle for disruption, just as he should have targeted the army's advance for disruption.

...

It was war as war has always been.

...

As for the lack of settlements . . . never heard of St. George?  Las Vegas?  San Bernadino?

...

Innocent blood?  Cannot judge. 

...

"Blood atonement" only works if you're a Mormon needing salvation after committing a particularly awful deed, and only if you take the most literal  and extreme view on BY's words.  "Oath of vengeance" never, ever equalled any provable act against any person, Zane Grey and the Brit Penny Dreadfuls notwithstanding.  "Parley's murder" is a shoddy piece of thinking.

...

And I quite disagree.  BY kept petitioning and petitioning and petitioning.  The South was particularly key to getting Utah admitted.  What was those senators' price of admission for Utah?

...

Targeting cattle is not targeting people.  What are you missing here?

...

Every Mormon was subject to being killed on sight by the expeditionary force if he would not agree to rape, theft, and disenfranchisement, from Logan and points north to San Diego, from the divide to the Sierras.

...

He asked.  They acquiesced in his request.  He did not control them, not by a long shot [remember Black Hawk?].  Fuzzy details from Huntington about an alleged consideration for their agreement does not make it a carte blanche by BY to kill the nomads.

...

Since my wife's also a Fancher, I'll ask her tonight.

...

Did they indeed "get away with it?"  I wonder.  I for one think they paid every day of their lives.  Perhaps beyond.  Maybe Lee was the lucky one.

...

How does one "allow for" an unforseeable act, I wonder?  How can one be responsible for the unforseeable consequences (assuming they are indeed consequences) of an voluntary act?

1. Does this sound like anything other than "cold-blooded"?:

After surrendering, the Fancher party was split into three groups: the first group was made up of a wagon of small children and some adult wounded. The second group was made up of women and children. The third group was made up of unarmed men, walking in single file, with an armed guard walking beside each of them. After walking for about a half hour, Higbee shot his gun in the air and yelled, "Halt! Do your duty!" At this signal, each guard shot the man next to him in the head; those men merely wounded were finished off. Those who escaped this initial execution were hunted down and killed (one got as far as 150 miles away). The women and children were generally bludgeoned to death (although recent analysis of skulls unearthed at Mountain Meadows reveals that many were shot like the men). Some women and children who escaped the first volley, begged for mercy, but were clubbed to death and "brained." Some had their throats cut. There were reports that two Dunlap sisters, 12-year old twins, were raped before being killed (Jacob Hamblin later found their nude bodies when he came upon the massacre scene). Lee was in charge of killing the wounded in the wagon. 17 young children were the only survivors (they were spared because it was believed they were too young to tell the tale; originally there were 18, but one was considered too old and was executed in front of the other children). After the deed was done, many bodies were stripped naked and left to the elements and beasts.

2. I don't know of any general amnesty that covered murdering civilians. BY received a presidential pardon for sedition and treason in 1858 in exchange for his accepting full federal authority in Utah, but this would not cover any role in the murder of civilians.

3. The jury (made up of 8 LDS, 1 former LDS, and 3 non-LDS) did deadlock in Lee's first trial. Btw, the 3 non-LDS voted to convict.

4. Murder seems pretty darn "clear cut" to me.

5. My reference to various Indian bands related to those at the massacre, not the meeting with BY on 9/1. The information I have indicates that only southern Utah Indian chiefs met with BY on 9/1.

6. It would be a bit difficult to "sneak off" with a 1,000 head of cattle without the owners knowing it. BY did target the cattle of "people on the road" -- he referred to it as the "south rout[e]" to California. I guess it was more a trail than a road, but the chiefs knew what he was talking about.

7. There was no "war" at that time (nor would there be), nor hostilities -- these were civilians traveling to California, with no army nearby. And on the trail between Moutain Meadows and the Utah border there were no settlements. No threat, military or otherwise, posed. As for whether "innocent blood" was shed at Mountain Meadows, is your reluctance to agree your way of justifying the slaughter? That is just sick, dude.

8. Blood atonement was used for non-Mormons as well (and there were perceived Mormon "apostates" among the Fancher party). John D. Lee specifically raised the "oath of vengeance" as a reason for the massacre (believing that killers of Joseph, Hyrum and Parley were among the Fancher party). Parley had just recently been murdered in Arkansas, and his widow (among many), whose legal husband had killed Parley, had just arrived in SLC. There is evidence that she claimed she recognized some men in the Fancher party as being present at Parley's murder (when the Fancher party passed through SLC).

9. Sorry to burst your bubble, but to see Brigham's role in bringing slavery to Utah (for both blacks and Indians), read his "Governor

[Zakuska]

1. Does this sound like anything other than "cold-blooded"?:

But you attributred the "Cold-Blood" to BY and not John D. Lee.

1. I agree that BY shouldn't have given something he didn't own -- so did the Indian chiefs who met with him on 9/1, balking at BY's suggestion of stealing cattle when he had always taught them not to steal.

2. I never said BY told the Indians to kill the emigrants; but BY knew that by instructing the Indians to engage the emigrants by stealing their cattle, the Indians would "kill innocent People." That is not acceptable no matter what kind of "damage" you want to call it.

Brigham didn't expect the whole train being slaughtered either. A few men being killed is acceptable.

3. As a prophet, seer and revelator, it would have been nice if he could have acted a little less like a despot in this case. He clearly was "not acting as a prophet" in this matter.

So you have problems with the Humanity of Jonah as well I take it? Was Jonah acting as a prophet?

[Rollo Tomasi]

But you attributred the "Cold-Blood" to BY and not John D. Lee.

...

Brigham didn't expect the whole train being slaughtered either. A few men being killed is acceptable.

...

So you have problems with the Humanity of Jonah as well I take it?

1. No I wasn't. "Cold-blooded" referred to the massacre itself. USU78 questioned whether the massacre was "cold-blooded," and I responded with supporting facts.

2. Given what BY said on Aug. 26, I think the "killing of innocent People" in the Fancher party was entirely foreseeable to him. And how would the murder of innocent civilians (whether men, women or children) be acceptable?

3. I really haven't studies Jonah's actions like I have Brigham's in the MMM context, so I really can't answer.

[Rollo Tomasi]

1 Pet. 4: 8

And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

... except the unforgiveable sin of murder, of course.

[Zakuska]

"Alls fair in love and war."

BY had the Nuclear strike force on its way. An Illegal war had been declared on Utah. BY was all about protecting his people. Thats why they stacked the buildings with straw and had the torches lit when Uncle Buck came marching in. Miraculously... Uncle Buck showed Charity.

ROLLO:

1. Why am I not surprised that you have no problem with the other perpetrators of this cold-blooded murder getting off scot-free?

USU:

Cold blooded? How's that exactly? As for getting off "scot-free," wasn't there a general amnesty? Wasn't there a hung jury first time out for Lee? Maybe things aren't as clear cut and in your favor as you seem to think, RT.

You implicated BY and others and have been this whole thread.

... except the unforgiveable sin of murder, of course.

Yep Just like Jonah and Nineveh... you want BY to suffer the same fate as David.

Better be careful Rollo. (Matt. 7)

[Rollo Tomasi]

BY was all about protecting his people. Thats why they stacked the buildings with straw and had the torches lit when Uncle Buck came marching in.

...

You implicated BY and others and have been this whole thread.

1. I have only implicated Brigham is setting the stage that allowed for the later massacre; I never accused him of having ordered or participated in the actual murder. Nevertheless, he carries some responsibility for what happened, and that's been my only point this entire thread.

2. "Uncle Buck" didn't come marching into Utah, and Brigham didn't stack hay in the buildings, until well after the Fancher party had been slaughtered. There was neither war nor hostilities when the Fancher party was wiped out. It never should have happened.

[Zakuska]

ROLLO,

1. I have only implicated Brigham is setting the stage that allowed for the later massacre; I never accused him of having ordered or participated in the actual murder. Nevertheless, he carries some responsibility for what happened, and that's been my only point this entire thread.

And you have also placed BY in a vacuum.

You fail to follow the money on this one. BY was reacting to a threat.

2. "Uncle Buck" didn't come marching into Utah, and Brigham didn't stack hay in the buildings, until well after the Fancher party had been slaughtered. There was neither war nor hostilities when the Fancher party was wiped out. It never should have happened.

Uncle Bucks Army would have Marched in before the snow fell if BYs strategy hand't have slowed them down so well.

I agree the Fancher Party should not have been killed. But you ignore the initial cause.

The Blame lies with Uncle Buck. So quit passing the buck Rollo!

[Rollo Tomasi]

And you have also placed BY in a vacuum.

...

You fail to follow the money on this one. BY was reacting to a threat.

...

Uncle Bucks Army would have Marched in before the snow fell if BYs strategy hand't have slowed them down so well.

...

The Blame lies with Uncle Buck. So quit passing the buck Rollo!

1. I have simply placed Brigham in the facts, which many here would rather not do.

2. The Fancher party posed no threat whatever.

3. The Fancher party was butchered long before the "snow fell."

4. The "buck" stopped squarely at Brother Brigham's ostentatious desk.

[Zakuska]

1.

[Rollo Tomasi]

But they did have cattle that could be used to block the trail to the military and thats what BY Ordered.

...

Sept 11... Snow usually begins falling in Utah middle October.

...

Buck was in Washington and could have called of the dogs.

1. The army was coming from the route north of SLC; the Fancher party was 300 miles south of SLC, and not far from leaving Utah altogether. Zak, can't you see there was no connection between the two (i.e., stealing the Fancher cattle would not have blocked the trail of an army hundreds of miles to the north). Stop trying to create justification where absolutely none exists.

2. Snow doesn't come to southern Utah by mid-October, either; and we are talking 9/11 here -- like your other arguments, "snow" is just another red herring.

3. Brigham was in Salt Lake and actually sicced the dogs on those innocent men, women and chidren. All sure wasn't well in Zion then ....

[Zakuska]

Rollo,

1. The army was coming from the route north of SLC; the Fancher party was 300 miles south of SLC, and not far from leaving Utah altogether. Zak, can't you see there was no connection between the two (i.e., stealing the Fancher cattle would not have blocked the trail of an army hundreds of miles to the north). Stop trying to create justification where absolutely none exists.

The Army Just as easily could have been coming from California. Isnt that what the Francher party threatend to do?

All routes to SLC where being cut off other wise there would have been no reason to call the Cheifs from the South in. Cant you see that?

2. Snow doesn't come to southern Utah by mid-October, either; and we are talking 9/11 here -- like your other arguments, "snow" is just another red herring.

Slowing the Army down was the Goal. The Snow came and ultimatley stopped them. The red herring is you saying that they didnt stack the hay until well after the Masacre. The only reason they didn't was because they had successfully slowed the army down else where, and the Snow stopped them dead in their tracks until the next spring. The hay staking and torch lighting was the last ditch effort of a whimpering dog. The Army knew it would be a fight to the death and thus held up at Ft. Douglas and left the Mormons alone. Reminds me of Moroni's last stand.

3. Brigham was in Salt Lake and actually sicced the dogs on those innocent men, women and chidren. All sure wasn't well in Zion then ....

BY wanted their cattle scattered to slow down any travel of any Military Regiments coming from California.

It would have been rather idiotic to not take care of his flank wouldn't you say?

The Buck stopped in Washington.

[Rollo Tomasi]

The Army Just as easily could have been coming from California. Isnt that what the Francher party threatend to do?

...

Slowing the Army down was the Goal. The Snow came and ultimatley stopped them. The red herring is you saying that they didnt stack the hay until well after the Masacre. The only reason they didn't was because they had successfully slowed the army down else where, and the Snow stopped them dead in their tracks until the next spring.

...

BY wanted their cattle scattered to slow down any travel of any Military Regiments coming from California.

...

The Buck stopped in Washington.

1. Brigham knew the 2,500 soldiers had been sent from Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; this meant they would travel to Utah via the Oregon Trail (and enter to the northeast of SLC, through Wyoming). They had no knowledge of an army coming from California, because there was none; they may have feared such a scenario, but had no information to back it up, as they did with the army approaching from Kansas.

2. There was no army coming from California to slow down; and snow wasn't going to help them in southern Utah, as it would in Wyoming.

3. And remember the Fancher was trying to get OUT of Utah, and very nearly did until they were slaughtered. They posed neither threat nor tactical advantage by murdering them.

4. Keep trying. The buck still sits in Brigham's office.

[Confidential Informant]

4. Keep trying. The buck still sits in Brigham's office

In your mind possibly, but since your opinion is hardly authoritative you'll excuse me if I fail to agree with your conclusions.

C.I.

[Rollo Tomasi]

4. Keep trying. The buck still sits in Brigham's office

In your mind possibly, but since your opinion is hardly authoritative you'll excuse me if I fail to agree with your conclusions.

Fair enough.

[Zakuska]

Rollo,

1. Brigham knew the 2,500 soldiers had been sent from Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; this meant they would travel to Utah via the Oregon Trail (and enter to the northeast of SLC, through Wyoming). They had no knowledge of an army coming from California, because there was none; they may have feared such a scenario, but had no information to back it up, as they did with the army approaching from Kansas.

2. There was no army coming from California to slow down; and snow wasn't going to help them in southern Utah, as it would in Wyoming.

How did BY know that. The Francher train boasted they where coming back after the Mormons with the Army in CA the second they stepped foot in CA.

3. And remember the Fancher was trying to get OUT of Utah, and very nearly did until they were slaughtered. They posed neither threat nor tactical advantage by murdering them.

But their cattle did, and murdering them wasnt the order.

Apparently Judge Rollo is alone in his Judgment, Jury and Execution. The Supreme Court deemed it thusly as well else BY would ofd met the same fate as Lee.

[Bertram]

Zakuska,

Are we allowed to even say this, I mean,.....

post deleted by moderator

Moderator: No, you are not allowed to say that. Does that even need to be said? Do not make a post of personal insults again. Consider this a warning.

[kawikadave]

I really haven't studies Jonah's actions like I have Brigham's in the MMM context, so I really can't answer.

Rollo,

Which leads me to wonder, why the fixation on MMM?

We've been going on 17 pages, and this is what, the 20th recent thread on MMM where you've actively participated?

What do you want? What is the point? What do you want anyone to do as a result of your in-depth studies?

Should the church issue some kind of apology like "Well it seems that somehow BY was responsible because he set in motion the possibility that something bad could happen to the Fancher party"?

What would that accomplish? It wouldn't satisfy you, I don't think, but the facts don't speak much louder than a statement like that unless your continued search for a smoking gun bears fruit.

Are you trying to prove that BY wasn't a prophet? Should we throw out the hundreds of other amazing acts the man did? Do you think he was a prophet?

Man, I'm just confused about what this obsession does for you or anyone else. I place it in the same bucket as the Kennedy assasination and Bigfoot -- things that will be sorted out and explained on the other side.

Until then...

[Observer]

I really haven't studies Jonah's actions like I have Brigham's in the MMM context, so I really can't answer.

Rollo,

Which leads me to wonder, why the fixation on MMM?

We've been going on 17 pages, and this is what, the 20th recent thread on MMM where you've actively participated?

What do you want? What is the point? What do you want anyone to do as a result of your in-depth studies?

Should the church issue some kind of apology like "Well it seems that somehow BY was responsible because he set in motion the possibility that something bad could happen to the Fancher party"?

What would that accomplish? It wouldn't satisfy you, I don't think, but the facts don't speak much louder than a statement like that unless your continued search for a smoking gun bears fruit.

Are you trying to prove that BY wasn't a prophet? Should we throw out the hundreds of other amazing acts the man did? Do you think he was a prophet?

Man, I'm just confused about what this obsession does for you or anyone else. I place it in the same bucket as the Kennedy assasination and Bigfoot -- things that will be sorted out and explained on the other side.

Until then...

A similar question for you: why the obsession with other peoples' obsessions? Or could it be that you just don't want to see it discussed? For some people, the search for the truth is justification enough, all by itself. Another question is, what reason would be good enough for you to study this tragedy at all? Lastly, it appears that the study of events and facts which cast a less than perfect light upon the church are, coincidentally, aligned perfectly with subjects that discussion of or interest in "confuses" you. Is there a connection?

The Articles of Faith - #13:

We believe in being honest, true... *

* Primarily "on the other side".

[kawikadave]

A similar question for you: why the obsession with other peoples' obsessions?

My hope in participating in boards like this is to understand the other people on the board. It's not just about doctrine, facts, complaints, etc. If possible I'd like to understand why people feel the way they do.

Or could it be that you just don't want to see it discussed?

Discuss away! How could I possibly keep anyone from discussing anything? It does seem rather pointless in this case, however, to go back and forth with the "I'm right!" "No you're not" "Yes I am" "No you're not" ad nauseum. With much of history, you often can't determine what people's intentions were. So what ends up happening is we fill that empty space with our own pre-conceived notions and call it fact.

Another question is, what reason would be good enough for you to study this tragedy at all?

I have studied it to my satisfaction. I've read Juanita Brook's book as well as other accounts of what happened. It was a horrible, but somewhat predictable tragedy. There was a lot of pent up anger, distrust and fear on all sides - not a good combination.

What's my OPINION of BY's involvement? I think he didn't want them harmed. He certainly could have been much more explicit if he did or he could have picked many other opportunites to kill and maim if he was the vengeful monster some people want to portray. My guess is that he wished none of it would have happened.

Lastly, it appears that the study of events and facts which cast a less than perfect light upon the church are, coincidentally, aligned perfectly with subjects that discussion of or interest in "confuses" you. Is there a connection?

Are you tracking what I'm confused about? Cool! I've finally met a cyber-stalker.

What I find interesting are people that seem to grab onto some pet complaint and fixate on it to the point it seems to consume them. People are welcome to bring up subjects that "cast a less than perfect light upon the church" just like I'm free (I believe) to ask them what the end goal of the discussion may be.

(Actually, I hope to single-handedly muzzle all naysayers and questioners on the planet and you've uncovered my plot. Drat!)

[juliann]

The new book that will be coming out from historians who are LDS (and keeps getting pushed back) will have used more documents than any other historian has used. As it was explained in a lecture...that is not because of lack of access it is because there are three authors who can physically go through more. What is never told is the context for this incident. We know the usual stuff about the conflict between the wagon train and residents but I heard things in that lecture that just made me say "ohhhhh". First and foremost that Utahn's were battening down the hatches in preparation for being overrun by an army while in a famine and the settlers were told not to sell precious supplies to wagon trains. Very common sense...of course! But what is never told is that SLC was a well known store that all wagon trains expected to be open. This created a lot of anger when the door was closed. That can make a difference in behavior. And so on and so on.

This book will be dismissed by the critics because some Mormons did it. However, the book is going to lay out information that cannot be ignored any longer in order to continue the neener neener brand of "history" the critics rely on. It will never excuse what happened (we always have to say that or be accused of "defending" it ) but we will get a lot closer to understanding this awful episode.