The Mountain Meadows Massacre

[Zakuska]

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).

But... they where targeting everyone on all trails into SLC. If no other cows where scattered but the ones in the Francher Party then you might have a point.

[kawikadave]

But the "had gone" language is entirely consistent with Brigham's later statement to Haight

I think we've now reached the level of "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" when it comes to the "had gone" part of the discussion.

Carry on gentlemen, you're almost there...

(I love this quote and just have to repeat it one more time - in a strictly bi-partisan way, of course...)

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....

[Zakuska]

I say the nature of the cairn makes a great deal of difference as to whether its removal constituted desecration of the remains of the dead.

Following Rollos Logic the demolition of the destroyed Twin towers was Grave desicration.

[Rollo Tomasi]

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".

...

Repeating an accusation does not endow it with greater validity.

1. I emphasized Lee's description because that journal entry was Lee's recordation of what BY told Lee had occurred during BY's visit to the site 6 days earlier (it may have even been BY's words Lee was using to describe the monument). The context of the debate on this thread is what BY said and did at the monument site in May 1861 -- Lee's diary entry relates to the very discussion he had with BY about this (Carleton's report obviously does not). BY and Lee obviously knew that the monument marked a mass grave (whether within or under is unimportant, imo), and BY had it destroyed -- if that isn't desecration of a grave, I don't know what is.

2. I agree that repetition doesn't change truth -- truth just is, no matter how hard you try to deny it. But you can keep trying if it makes you feel better.

[Rollo Tomasi]

But... they where targeting everyone on all trails into SLC. If no other cows where scattered but the ones in the Francher Party then you might have a point.

BY's 9/10 letter to Haight states that the Fancher party was the only emigrant train on the south route that he knew of; this means that during the 9/1 meeting with the Indian chiefs, when BY gave those Indians tribes the cattle that "had gone" on the south route, BY was targeting the Fancher party (since he didn't "know of" any other train on the south route at that time).

[Rollo Tomasi]

I say the nature of the cairn makes a great deal of difference as to whether its removal constituted desecration of the remains of the dead.

Following Rollos Logic the demolition of the destroyed Twin towers was Grave desicration.

The difference: the demolition of the Twin Towers debris was part of the recovery of remains of innocent victims of terrorism. The demolition of the MMM monument was not about the recovery of remains (the remains were already there; ergo, the placement of the monument) -- in fact, it's clear from BY's words at the site that he felt the Fancher party got what it deserved. That's what makes all this so damn sick.

[Zakuska]

That's what makes all this so damn sick.

Don't we all get what we deserve?

11 For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways.

If Only...

Some of the Francher Party... hadn't boasted.

The Army Hadn't boasted.

The telegraph had been invented then.

etc. etc.

[Pahoran]

But... they where targeting everyone on all trails into SLC. If no other cows where scattered but the ones in the Francher Party then you might have a point.

BY's 9/10 letter to Haight states that the Fancher party was the only emigrant train on the south route that he knew of; this means that during the 9/1 meeting with the Indian chiefs, when BY gave those Indians tribes the cattle that "had gone" on the south route, BY was targeting the Fancher party (since he didn't "know of" any other train on the south route at that time).

Once again we see that the entire foundation for Rollo's house of cards rests upon that slender participle. A one-paragraph summary of an entire meeting cannot possibly be a verbatim transcript of every word spoken; but Rollo's hate campaign relies upon it being that and nothing else.

The fact, however, is that the 9/1 meeting with the southern Indian chiefs, just like the one two days earlier with the northern chiefs, was done to enlist them as allies against the army. Not the Fancher train, or any other civilians, but the army. It is therefore false to claim that "BY was targeting the Fancher party."

What a pity you have torpedoed your own credibility in this discussion.

You previously wrote:

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.

An assertion which you know to be false.

You think Brigham is responsible. I disagree. If you can't accept that this is an honest disagreement on my part, then you are clearly projecting your own dishonesty onto me.

To say that Brigham didn't do it is to say that Brigham didn't do it. It makes no value judgements about the massacre itself, or how serious or wicked or righteous etc. it was.

To claim that it does make such judgements is a deliberate, bare-faced lie.

Regards,

Pahoran

[USU78]

From Eastwood's second best movie:

Bill Munny: H*** of a thing, killin' a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.

The Schofield Kid: Yeah, well, I guess he had it comin'.

Bill Munny: We all got it comin', kid.

[Scott Lloyd]

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".

...

Repeating an accusation does not endow it with greater validity.

I emphasized Lee's description because that journal entry was Lee's recordation of what BY told Lee had occurred during BY's visit to the site 6 days earlier (it may have even been BY's words Lee was using to describe the monument). The context of the debate on this thread is what BY said and did at the monument site in May 1861 -- Lee's diary entry relates to the very discussion he had with BY about this (Carleton's report obviously does not). BY and Lee obviously knew that the monument marked a mass grave (whether within or under is unimportant, imo), and BY had it destroyed -- if that isn't desecration of a grave, I don't know what is.

You gave a source for your assertion after I mentioned (twice) that it had been unattributed. Thereafter, some fire was lost from your inflammatory rhetoric when you felt compelled to offer the conjecture that the cairn did not actually "contain" the bones, but rather, it was placed over them. And, no, the removal of a grave marker does not automatically equate to grave desecration. See the hypothetical example I offered earlier, the revision of the bad analogy you gave.

I agree that repetition doesn't change truth -- truth just is, no matter how hard you try to deny it.

[Scott Lloyd]

I say the nature of the cairn makes a great deal of difference as to whether its removal constituted desecration of the remains of the dead.

Following Rollos Logic the demolition of the destroyed Twin towers was Grave desicration.

The difference: the demolition of the Twin Towers debris was part of the recovery of remains of innocent victims of terrorism. The demolition of the MMM monument was not about the recovery of remains (the remains were already there; ergo, the placement of the monument) -- in fact, it's clear from BY's words at the site that he felt the Fancher party got what it deserved. That's what makes all this so damn sick.

False. That conclusion is neither clear nor definitive.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Once again we see that the entire foundation for Rollo's house of cards rests upon that slender participle. A one-paragraph summary of an entire meeting cannot possibly be a verbatim transcript of every word spoken; but Rollo's hate campaign relies upon it being that and nothing else.

It is undisputed (even by you) that part of BY's battle plan against the coming U.S. Army was to stop all emigrant overland travel through Utah. The 9/1 meeting was consistent with this; the "had gone" language was consistent with this (since these same Indians had camped next to the Fancher party just days before on the south route); BY's 9/10 letter to Haight about the Fancher party being the only emigrant train on the south route that he knew of, is consistent with this. All just a mere coincidence?

[Zakuska]

Everybody who wasn't Mormon where being "targeted".

[Rollo Tomasi]

You gave a source for your assertion after I mentioned (twice) that it had been unattributed. Thereafter, some fire was lost from your inflammatory rhetoric when you felt compelled to offer the conjecture that the cairn did not actually "contain" the bones, but rather, it was placed over them. And, no, the removal of a grave marker does not automatically equate to grave desecration.

I was simply giving additional evidence from a source unrelated to Brigham's words and actions at the site (the context being discussed). What was wrong with that? Were BY and Lee mistaken in believing the cairn contained bones "within" rather than "under"? Perhaps, but so what? It doesn't make Brigham's words and actions any less abhorrent. And can you honestly say you believe that the destruction of a grave marker is not the desecration of a grave? I realize you frequently indulge the tactic of hair-splitting to try and create a smokescreen over embarrassing LDS history, but there simply is no way to spin Brigham's words and actions at Mountain Meadows in a favorable light. But, again, if it makes you feel better, keep trying.

[Confidential Informant]

It doesn't make Brigham's words and actions any less abhorrent.

Actually, you haven't the slightest clue what BY's words meant.

In context, they don't make a lot of sense. What had the Fanchers done that required "vengence"? What was their perceived actions that required the Lord's vengence?

Moreover, at the time, was Young yet aware that Mormons had actually participated in the massacre? Or did he still think that the it was strictly the Indians?

In short, you have constructed an elaborate interpretation of what Young might have meant but there is no support for your preferred interpretation.

In fine, your whole attitude is based upon an interpretation of the events that you prefer but which is contradicted by the evidence on several major points.

C.I.

[Scott Lloyd]

You gave a source for your assertion after I mentioned (twice) that it had been unattributed. Thereafter, some fire was lost from your inflammatory rhetoric when you felt compelled to offer the conjecture that the cairn did not actually "contain" the bones, but rather, it was placed over them. And, no, the removal of a grave marker does not automatically equate to grave desecration.

I was simply giving additional evidence from a source unrelated to Brigham's words and actions at the site (the context being discussed). What was wrong with that? Were BY and Lee mistaken in believing the cairn contained bones "within" rather than "under"? Perhaps, but so what? It doesn't make Brigham's words and actions any less abhorrent. And can you honestly say you believe that the destruction of a grave marker is not the desecration of a grave?

I not only can but have done so. There is nothing sacrosanct about a grave marker that hints at or invites violent reprisal against uninvolved persons. Removal of such a marker, and the eventual replacement of it with one more fitting, is in no way desecration.

I have demonstrated this by revising your hypothetical analogy -- causing it to backfire on you -- about a marker on Joseph Smith's grave.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Actually, you haven't the slightest clue what BY's words meant.

In context, they don't make a lot of sense. What had the Fanchers done that required "vengence"? What was their perceived actions that required the Lord's vengence?

In short, you have constructed an elaborate interpretation of what Young might have meant but there is no support for your preferred interpretation.

The "vengeance" quote on the cross was aimed at those who perpetrated the mass murder, and was in the future tense ("will repay"). Brigham, according to witnesses, verbally altered the quote to be in the past tense (according to Dudley Leavitt, "I have repaid," and according to Wilford Woodruff, "I have taken a little [vengeance]"). He then had the massive stone monument dismantled such that no rock remained on another.

Now, exactly who do you think Brigham Young felt had received the Lord's vengeance by that time (May 1861)? Well, let's see ... since his statement coincided with the complete destruction of the monument to the massacre victims, this would strongly suggest (if not establish) that Brigham was referring to the Lord's vengeance having rested on the Fancher party.

What had the Fancher party done to deserve all this? Well, at that time the Church leaders were blaming the massacre on the emigrants' bad behavior as they traveled through Utah. Of course, there was the fact that the Fancher party had originated in the Arkansas county next to the county where Parley Pratt had been brutally murdered just months before.

And then there is this: according to Lee's contemporaneous diary, during BY's May 1861 visit, Brigham said the Fancher party was "used up" because they were the fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, and relatives of those who had murdered the prophets and merited their fate (Bagley, p. 247). Brigham also said he felt troubled by the murders of the women and children, but that couldn't be avoided.

In fine, there is nothing but support for my argument, based on Brigham's own words and actions.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I not only can but have done so. There is nothing sacrosanct about a grave marker that hints at or invites violent reprisal against uninvolved persons. Removal of such a marker, and the eventual replacement of it with one more fitting, is in no way desecration.

Oh, my goodness, Scott. BY did not have the marker "removed" (in fact, it was destroyed) in 1861 by some benevolent desire to make way for the "eventual replacement" in 1999 of a "more fitting" marker. BY had it destroyed because he felt the victims merited their fate.

[Scott Lloyd]

I not only can but have done so. There is nothing sacrosanct about a grave marker that hints at or invites violent reprisal against uninvolved persons. Removal of such a marker, and the eventual replacement of it with one more fitting, is in no way desecration.

Oh, my goodness, Scott. BY did not have the marker "removed" (in fact, it was destroyed) in 1861 by some benevolent desire to make way for the "eventual replacement" in 1999 of a "more fitting" marker. BY had it destroyed because he felt the victims merited their fate.

The easiest way to remove a pile of rocks is one rock at a time. And yes, once you've done that, the pile is, in essence, destroyed. Does this automatically equate to grave desecration? Perhaps if bodies are purposely desturbed in the process. But wait: You're not sure whether the skeletons were piled up with the rocks or whether they were somewhere under the ground, are you?

By the way, this remarkable ability you have to read Brigham Young's mind -- how far does your clairvoyance extend? Does it work with the living as well? Can you tell me what I'm thinking right now? Maybe we could make some money off this.

[Rollo Tomasi]

The easiest way to remove a pile of rocks is one rock at a time. And yes, once you've done that, the pile is, in essence, destroyed. Does this automatically equate amount to grave desecration? Perhaps if bodies are purposely desturbed in the process. But wait: You're not sure whether the skeletons were piled up with the rocks or whether they were somewhere under the ground, are you?

...

By the way, this remarkable ability you have to read Brigham Young's mind -- how far does your clairvoyance extend? Does it work with the living as well? Can you tell me what I'm thinking right now? Maybe we could make some money off this.

Brigham knew the monument marked a mass grave (again, whether he thought the bones were within the cairn or under it makes no difference), and had it destroyed. It wasn't destroyed one rock at a time; according to Dudley Leavitt, it was destroyed by putting ropes around it and having horses pull it over; it was over in 5 minutes. Thus, a slam dunk case of desecration of a grave.

Hmm (in my best Swami voice), what is Scott thinking ....? Wait, wait, I'm getting an impression! Yes! Yes! Here it is:

(Using Scott's voice): "I can't believe Rollo is kicking my backside again!"

[Zakuska]

Hmm... That discription doesn't match what you said earlier.

Something about one rock not being left upon another

[Bob Crockett]

1.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Hmm... That discription doesn't match what you said earlier.

Something about one rock not being left upon another

This was based on Dudley Leavitt's statement (bold mine):

"He [brigham] didn't say another word. He didn't give an order. He just lifted his right arm to the square, and in five minutes there wasn't one stone left upon another. He didn't have to tell us what he wanted done. We understood." (Bagley, p. 247).

[Bob Crockett]

Brigham knew the monument marked a mass grave (again, whether he thought the bones were within the cairn or under it makes no difference), and had it destroyed.  It wasn't destroyed one rock at a time; according to Dudley Leavitt, it was destroyed by putting ropes around it and having horses pull it over; it was over in 5 minutes.  Thus, a slam dunk case of desecration of a grave.

Should we believe Dudley Leavitt? Wilford Woodruff does not mention this.

Dudley Leavitt was one of the major participants in the massacre, a fact neither Brigham Young nor Wilford Woodruff would likely have known at the time of the visit to the grave. Certainly Leavitt had every incentive to justify his conduct and spice up things to show Brigham's approval.

I might also point out again the problem with trusting history without a certain amount of cynicism. Juanita Brooks is the biographer of Dudley Leavitt. Although she plainly knew that Leavitt was a participant in the massacre, when she got to the event of the massacre she said essentially that some things are better left unsaid and that she wasn't going to discuss it.

Why not? He was her great-grandfather.

Do I trust Brooks? No. Do I trust Bagley's version? Absolutely not; he purposely ignored exculpatory information I document elsewhere in published material.

rcrocket

[Scott Lloyd]

The easiest way to remove a pile of rocks is one rock at a time. And yes, once you've done that, the pile is, in essence, destroyed. Does this automatically equate amount to grave desecration? Perhaps if bodies are purposely desturbed in the process. But wait: You're not sure whether the skeletons were piled up with the rocks or whether they were somewhere under the ground, are you?

...

By the way, this remarkable ability you have to read Brigham Young's mind -- how far does your clairvoyance extend? Does it work with the living as well? Can you tell me what I'm thinking right now? Maybe we could make some money off this.

Brigham knew the monument marked a mass grave (again, whether he thought the bones were within the cairn or under it makes no difference), and had it destroyed . It wasn't destroyed one rock at a time; according to Dudley Leavitt, it was destroyed by putting ropes around it and having horses pull it over; it was over in 5 minutes.

Whatever. Removed, in this case, is a synonym for destroyed. The fact remains, removal of a grave marker does not necessarily amount to desecration of a grave.

By the way, Wilford Woodruff's journal, as quoted by Brooks (page 182), says, "Most of those killed were buried some distance north in a hollow and not at that monument." What does this do to your grave-desecration notion?