The Mountain Meadows Massacre

[Zakuska]

Rollo,

2. The plan or principle in the two meetings between the Indians (northern Indians on 8/30 and southern Indians on 9/1) was the same -- steal emigrant cattle to stop overland travel through Utah. The key difference, however, is how that principle was applied -- in the case of the 9/1 meeting, it included the cattle that "had gone" on the south route -- the Fancher party. Remember that GAS, Hamblin and the southern Indian chiefs meeting with BY, had camped beside the Fancher party at Corn Creek just a few days before; thus, it makes perfect sense that this particular emigrant party was discussed and the specific instruction applied to this cattle that "had gone" on the south route.

I don't see a "key difference" here Rollo. The 8/30 meeting specifically targeted cattle "that had gone on the North trail."? Am I missing something?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Good, because you don't have the facts to do so. Your interpretation (and that's only what it is at this point) amounts to jumping to the most damning conclusion possible.

...

You have presented nothing to document grave desecration by Brigham Young or his party. This is more hostile conclusion-jumping on your part.

...

Do you know that all 34 were thrown into a common grave, or is this another assumption?

...

I'm not justifying the massacre in the least. Others have called you on such mischaracterization, and I highly resent it.

1. I don't know whether it's the most "damning conclusion," but it certainly is the most "reasonable."

2. How would you describe the complete destruction of a monument 50-feet in circumference and 12-feet high, with a 24-foot cedar cross, over or encompassing a mass grave? If not "desecration," then what?

3. According to Carleton, the 34 skeletons were buried together (they used a part of the rifle pit of the emigrants). Sounds like a mass grave to me.

4. Your repeated excuses and spin to deflect blame from Brigham and other high Church leaders for anything related to the massacre, lead me to believe you feel you need to justify what happened. And my point is, there is no justification for the wholesale murder of innocent men, women and children.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I don't see a "key difference" here Rollo. The 8/30 meeting specifically targeted cattle "that had gone on the North trail."? Am I missing something?

The phrase "had gone" is not used in the entry about the 8/30 meeting -- just the 9/1 meeting dealing with the south route.

[Zakuska]

7. Brooks was not "convinced" BY was innocent; she in fact felt he was guilty of being an accessory after the fact. Although she didn't know the details of the 9/1 meeting (she only knew it occurred, not what was said), she still accused BY and GAS of setting the stage for the hysteria that led to the massacre. I agree with her (and not Bagley) that BY did not plan and order the massacre; I agree with her that he played a role in creating the atmosphere that allowed the massacre to occur.

And in this I would agree... but "setting the stage" I have issue with.

Do we not all play roles that effect other people and create atmosphere for certian things to happen?

Does that make him a false prophet? No. It makes him Human.

He was reacting to a very real threat.

[Zakuska]

I don't see a "key difference" here Rollo.

[gtaggart]

4. Your repeated excuses and spin to deflect blame from Brigham and other high Church leaders for anything related to the massacre, lead me to believe you feel you need to justify what happened.

Having followed this discussion to this point, I offer a one word rebuttal: Balderdash. You know better than that. (Ooops. That's six.)

[Scott Lloyd]

How would you describe the complete destruction of a monument 50-feet in circumference and 12-feet high, with a 24-foot cedar cross, over or encompassing a mass grave?  If not "desecration," then what?

I don't equate a makeshift cairn and an inflammatory inscription with graves, as you seem determined to do. Your accusation implies that Brigham Young and his party disturbed the interred remains of the victims. That is reckless spin on your part.

According to Carleton, the 34 skeletons were buried together (they used a part of the rifle pit of the emigrants).

[gtaggart]

And my point is, there is no justification for the wholesale murder of innocent men, women and children.

And no one here is attempting to make such a justification. Yet you keep returning to that as your favorite buzz language to bolster weak arguments.

I agree, though I get the impression that Rollo keeps repeating it because he thinks he occupies some sort of moral high ground from which he can lecture us--the uninformed--about the "facts" as he sees them.

[Scott Lloyd]

And my point is, there is no justification for the wholesale murder of innocent men, women and children.

And no one here is attempting to make such a justification. Yet you keep returning to that as your favorite buzz language to bolster weak arguments.

I agree, though I get the impression that Rollo keeps repeating it because he thinks he occupies some sort of moral high ground from which he can lecture us--the uninformed--about the "facts" as he sees them.

Your one word, "balderdash," is an apt summation for this thread, and, for my part, I think I will consider it the last word.

[Observer]

Ahh, but Scott, perhaps we should first discuss the possible meanings of "balderdash"...or perhaps when desecration of burial sites is really desecration? I assume you have a list somewhere of qualifying instances.

Perhaps we should start a new thread about "inflammatory" grave inscriptions. What an outrage! There is NO excuse for inflammatory grave inscriptions. Those nasty grave inscribers had to have had the worst of damnable intentions!!! That's just the worst thing I can possibly fathom! Somebody else, quick, get riled up about this with me! I just can't think of anything so wicked.

Well, maybe murdering 120 innocent people...

[gtaggart]

Ahh, but Scott, perhaps we should first discuss the possible meanings of "balderdash"...or perhaps when desecration of burial sites is really desecration? I assume you have a list somewhere of qualifying instances.

Perhaps we should start a new thread about "inflammatory" grave inscriptions. What an outrage! There is NO excuse for inflammatory grave inscriptions. Those nasty grave inscribers had to have had the worst of damnable intentions!!! That's just the worst thing I can possibly fathom! Somebody else, quick, get riled up about this with me! I just can't think of anything so wicked.

Well, maybe murdering 120 innocent people...

Well, let's see. Baldersdash is a nice word for B.S. which is what your most recent post represents. Are you Rollo in disguise? Has anyone on this thread ever denied that the murder of 120 innocent people was anything other than wrong and horrible? In case you've missed the point: We're tired of the donkeys' 150 year effort to pin the tail on Brigham Young.

[Observer]

...Are you Rollo in disguise?  Has anyone on this thread ever denied that the murder of 120 innocent people was anything other than wrong and horrible?  In case you've missed the point: We're tired of the donkeys' 150 year effort to pin the tail on Brigham Young.

Now that's rich. That's also me in the black helicopter directly overhead!

Brigham Young's actions following the MMM reveal that he didn't give two toots about the innocent, justice, perpetrators, truth, etc.

We'll never know where the "donkey tail" belongs when it comes to intentions and orders prior to the massacre.

However, Brigham's actions following the massacre are quite clear. I'd say that with his oblivious attitude following the massacre, he pinned the tail squarely on the "donkey" all by himself. Sorta like OJ and his famous Bronco ride.

If Brigham Young had no involvement in the massacre at all, surely he should have had some minimal involvement in the aftermath. Oh and did he ever. Let's see, what was his reaction to the event?

[Rollo Tomasi]

I don't equate a makeshift cairn and an inflammatory inscription with graves, as you seem determined to do. Your accusation implies that Brigham Young and his party disturbed the interred remains of the victims.

...

So you no longer hold to the notion that Carleton's rock pile contained bones of the dead that Brigham's party threw around when they took the cairn down? Maybe we are making progress here.

...

Brigham and other high Church leaders were not to blame for the massacre. Any such "blame" is of your own manufacture and projection.

...

And no one here is attempting to make such a justification.

1. According to Lee's diary entry for the 1861 meeting, BY knew the monument encompassed or was over a mass grave. If someone did the same with the monument over Joseph Smith's grave in Nauvoo, I'm sure you'd have no problem calling it desecration.

2. I don't know if the cairn contained bones -- Lee describes it that way, but to me it makes no difference whether the bones were in or under the monument -- it was a grave site and the destruction of the cairn was desecration, just like it would be for any headstone or other grave marker that is destroyed.

3. Any blame was manufactured by BY and GAS alone, by their own actions. It's called accountability.

4. Justification is exactly what you're doing, by diverting blame from Brigham and other Church leaders for their roles in setting the stage for wanton murder.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I agree, though I get the impression that Rollo keeps repeating it because he thinks he occupies some sort of moral high ground from which he can lecture us--the uninformed--about the "facts" as he sees them.

You are very "informed" ... the problem is that you are also in "denial."

[gtaggart]

I agree, though I get the impression that Rollo keeps repeating it because he thinks he occupies some sort of moral high ground from which he can lecture us--the uninformed--about the "facts" as he sees them.

You are very "informed" ... the problem is that you are also in "denial."

Whatever.

[Rollo Tomasi]

...Are you Rollo in disguise?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Yes you are correct but then this just becomes a symantec game because the cows "that had gone" on the south trail where still on the road too.

I [Huntington] told them that the Lord had come out of his Hiding place & they had to commence their work[.] I gave them all the Beef cattle & horses that was on the Road to CalAfornia[,] the North Rout[,] that they must put them into the mountains & not kill any thing as Long as they can help it but when they do Kill[,] take the old ones & not kill the cows or young ones.13

Huntington Diary (Sep 1)

But the "had gone" language is entirely consistent with Brigham's later statement to Haight (on 9/10) that the Fanchers were the only train on the south route that he knew of (having left SLC on 8/5).

[Ron Beron]

Brigham Young's actions following the MMM reveal that he didn't give two toots about the innocent, justice, perpetrators, truth, etc.

We'll never know where the "donkey tail" belongs when it comes to intentions and orders prior to the massacre.

However, Brigham's actions following the massacre are quite clear. I'd say that with his oblivious attitude following the massacre, he pinned the tail squarely on the "donkey" all by himself. Sorta like OJ and his famous Bronco ride.

If Brigham Young had no involvement in the massacre at all, surely he should have had some minimal involvement in the aftermath. Oh and did he ever. Let's see, what was his reaction to the event?

Here are some items to consider...

If there was a cover-up why did BY encourage the then Governor Cumming to investigate "this horrid affair, that, if there were any white men engaged in it, they might be justly punished for their crimes"? Governor Cummings reply was to state that President Buchanan did not wish to go behind it to search out the crime. George A. Smith pressured the governor to investigate the crime by stating it was a personal crime, but still Gov. Cummings refused to investigate causeing Bro. Smith to state, "If the business had not been taken out of our hands by a change of officers in the territory, the MM affair is one of the first things we should have attended to when a US court sat in southern Utah. We would see whether or not white men were concerned in the affair with the Indians."

BY then sent Smith and Amasa Lyman to the southern area to investigate whether a crime had been committed. They returned with the information that some LDS had been involved. If there was a cover-up why did BY write the following on Sept. 10, 1857 when asked what to do about the immigration train of Missourians, "...we must not interfere with them until they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them." He told the courier to "Go with all speed, spare no horse flesh. The emigrants must not be meddled with,....They must go free and unmolested."?

Why did John D. Lee report to BY after the massacre that only the Indians did it and the Mormons were not involved leading BY to not pursue the matter fully until the 1860's?

Why did BY say when told the full extent of Mormon involvement, "As soon as we can get a court of justice we will ferret this thing out."

All evidences point to BY attempting to keep the massacre from occurring and then, when informed of the massacre itself attempted to investigate the case only to be forestalled by U.S. government forces who wished to wash the thing away.

The fact do not support your assertion.

[Pahoran]

Let us right now, and for all time, put to bed this particular anti-Mormon lie.

Supposing I were to announce that I had evidence that Rollo was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Rollo's friends would probably deny it.

If I were dishonest enough to use the same kind of tactics seen on this thread, I might then retort with a lie such as "you are trying to justify this atrocity."

Rollo's friends would probably deny that as well.

Then, consistent with my tactics, I might then retort with a lie such as "justification is exactly what you're doing, by diverting blame from Rollo for his role in setting the stage for wanton murder."

I would be telling this lie with the intent of marginalising the defense and putting them on the back foot. This would, if I were using it, be an utterly cynical and dishonest tactic intentionally dragged up from the dregs of the old witch-hunts: anyone who defended a witch was tainted by association, just like anyone who defended Rollo would be.

Rollo's friends would be completely justified in regarding me as a bare-faced liar and manipulator who was operating with utter disregard for the truth.

But I have not used this tactic.

Rollo has, when he wrote:

Justification is exactly what you're doing, by diverting blame from Brigham and other Church leaders for their roles in setting the stage for wanton murder.

Even though I didn't tell it, this is still a lie. No honest person has ever made such a claim.

Ever.

And no honest person ever will.

Oh, and Rollo: see that you never repeat it again.

Regards,

Pahoran

[gtaggart]

...Are you Rollo in disguise?  Has anyone on this thread ever denied that the murder of 120 innocent people was anything other than wrong and horrible?  In case you've missed the point: We're tired of the donkeys' 150 year effort to pin the tail on Brigham Young.

Now that's rich. That's also me in the black helicopter directly overhead!

Brigham Young's actions following the MMM reveal that he didn't give two toots about the innocent, justice, perpetrators, truth, etc.

We'll never know where the "donkey tail" belongs when it comes to intentions and orders prior to the massacre.

However, Brigham's actions following the massacre are quite clear. I'd say that with his oblivious attitude following the massacre, he pinned the tail squarely on the "donkey" all by himself. Sorta like OJ and his famous Bronco ride.

If Brigham Young had no involvement in the massacre at all, surely he should have had some minimal involvement in the aftermath. Oh and did he ever. Let's see, what was his reaction to the event?

Observer:

I've learned over many months of conversations with Greg that when he resorts to indignance and personal attacks, it means he has NO substance with which to rebut.

Rollo, you are a caution. The more I get to know you, then better your Keaneu Reeves avatar fits. That's not a compliment by the way.

[Rollo Tomasi]

All evidences point to BY attempting to keep the massacre from occurring and then, when informed of the massacre itself attempted to investigate the case only to be forestalled by U.S. government forces who wished to wash the thing away.

I'm afraid the facts point to Brigham's targeting the Fancher party for the theft of their cattle by the Indians, just days after informing his apostles that engagement between emigrants and Indians would result in the Indians killing innocent people. Brigham, thus, set the ball in motion that only stopped with the massacre. I have never contended that Brigham planned or ordered the massacre, but he did plan and order that which made the massacre possible. He found out too late to stop it, but nevertheless, bears some blame for setting the stage.

The evidence also supports that Brigham made little effort to investigate and bring the perpetrators to justice (he later claimed in his 1875 deposition that this was due to his anticipating a new governor being sent to take his place). The later governor Cummings said that Brigham was not cooperative in turning over the evidence he had of the crime. And, let's face it, if the feds hadn't kept on the case, John D. Lee would never have been prosecuted, convicted and executed 20 years later.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Even though I didn't tell it, this is still a lie. No honest person has ever made such a claim.

You have given excuse after excuse (or justification after justification) as to why the massacre had nothing whatever to do with the Church, its leaders, its doctrines, practices, etc., in 1857 Utah. Evidence of those involved with this original "9/11 attack" is "spun away" as irrelevant or justified under some historical nuance, and any "cause" however remote is emphasized so as to overlook the real intervening causes and actions that led to this particular wagon train being targeted and ultimately wiped out.

[Ron Beron]

The evidence also supports that Brigham made little effort to investigate and bring the perpetrators to justice (he later claimed in his 1875 deposition that this was due to his anticipating a new governor being sent to take his place). The later governor Cummings said that Brigham was not cooperative in turning over the evidence he had of the crime. And, let's face it, if the feds hadn't kept on the case, John D. Lee would never have been prosecuted, convicted and executed 20 years later.

Then, I can assume that despite all evidences you have chosen to ignore the actions BY took after the massacre and, instead, have believed the politicians sent in afterward? BY probably didn't investigate immediately because he was told the indians had done the deed. It wasn't until much later that he heard otherwise. He then petitioned the then governor to investigate it. Publicly it is true the governor said he was stonewalled, but privately he was told to "let it go". Hardly BY's fault.

Lee's ultimate conviction was due to BY and not to the feds. Remember, he was the scapegoat.

Third, I believe that BY had some culpability in this incident however tangential. It seems he was haunted by it until his death.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Then, I can assume that despite all evidences you have chosen to ignore the actions BY took after the massacre and, instead, have believed the politicians sent in afterward? BY probably didn't investigate immediately because he was told the indians had done the deed. It wasn't until much later that he heard otherwise.

For me, what says it all about Brigham's feelings about the massacre were his words and actions during his visit to the massacre site in May 1861. I think this explains his ambivalence about investigating the matter.

I, too, think Brigham bears some responsibility for what happened. At least enough for the Church to make a public apology for his role and that of other Church leaders, like GAS.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't equate a makeshift cairn and an inflammatory inscription with graves, as you seem determined to do. Your accusation implies that Brigham Young and his party disturbed the interred remains of the victims.

...

So you no longer hold to the notion that Carleton's rock pile contained bones of the dead that Brigham's party threw around when they took the cairn down? Maybe we are making progress here.

...

Brigham and other high Church leaders were not to blame for the massacre. Any such "blame" is of your own manufacture and projection.

...

And no one here is attempting to make such a justification.

According to Lee's diary entry for the 1861 meeting, BY knew the monument encompassed or was over a mass grave. If someone did the same with the monument over Joseph Smith's grave in Nauvoo, I'm sure you'd have no problem calling it desecration.

As it stands, this is a bad analogy -- because it obfuscates or ignores some pertinent facts in the matter to which comparison is being made. An analogy is supposed to elucidate, not confuse, as this one does.

But we could retool it to make it a bit more applicable. Let's see -- suppose the monument were hastily constructed over Joseph's grave by persons with no connection to the family or the Church. And suppose the monument contained a threat, veiled or otherwise, against Protestants in the county because certain Protestants were among those who planned or executed the assassination of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. It wouldn't bother me in the least if such a monument were removed; I certainly wouldn't consider it desecration. I wouldn't even mind if Protestants were the ones who did the removal, particularly if they replaced it with a monument that was more fitting and proper, as was eventually done at Mountain Meadows.

I don't know if the cairn contained bones -- Lee describes it that way, but to me it makes no difference whether the bones were in or under the monument -- it was a grave site and the destruction of the cairn was desecration, just like it would be for any headstone or other grave marker that is destroyed.

I note an interesting dynamic here. Earlier, you were oh so eager to emphasize that the cairn contained bones of the dead and that Brigham Young et al thus committed desecration by disturbing these bones. When pressed on the point, you admitted that you got the notion from an entry in John D. Lee's diary, and that you really don't know whether bones were among the rocks piled up to form the cairn or if they were somewhere in the ground underneath it. But to salvage your accusation of desecration, you are now saying it makes no difference to you whether the bones were in or under the "monument". I say the nature of the cairn makes a great deal of difference as to whether its removal constituted desecration of either the remains or the graves of the dead.

Any blame was manufactured by BY and GAS alone, by their own actions.