Mountain Meadow Massacre

[mormon fool]

"The whole idea behind appealing to God for vengeance upon one's enemies is that such an appeal necessarily entails an explicit renunciation of any right to exact vengeance on one's own behalf."

I found it mormon fool. Up in Pahoran's post above.

Are you using him as authority now, or has everything been "clearly debunked" by citing Pahoran?

[gramps]

mormon fool wrote:

Remember I don't want to further overwhelm you by citing my own evidence when you have yet to respond to logical analysis of evidence already on the board.

You far from overwhelm me and, which you may take as a compliment or not, Pahoran even less so.

No one is worked up, except for perhaps Pahoran. You made the claim that Alexander had completely debunked the claim that the temple oaths had anything to do with the massacre. Your notes fell way short of establishing that fact.

Alexander may have done so (complete debunked the claim). Again, I wasn't there. But, I wouldn't go straight ahead and take your word for it based on just what I've read so far from your account.

I have not cited anything that has not already been cited in texts from Bagley, Denton, Krakauer and Gibbs, as well as Lee's Confessions. Juanita Brooks did not have some of the evidence that is now available, or she may have come down on that side as well. But, that we will never know.

My thesis has always been that ideology had something to do with the massacre, in fact, a lot to do with the massacre. A quite simple one, actually. No FARMS-FAIR supporting, true believing Mormon will ever agree with that. That's a shame, but seems to be the case. And is to be expected. These are not new claims and I do not have to make any claim that hasn't already been made for people here to understand.

No matter what you say in defense of Pahoran, he has not stated anything rationally. Now he would be the person to tell not to get "worked up."

In any event, about following your "friendly" advice. I feel no need to follow your points step by step to rebut anything Pahoran says. Neither is this forum the place to do so. There are now many books already published. We wait another. What is a fact is that no LDS writer sees it like any non-LDS writer. This will continue forever. I surely doubt Pahoran or even the new Turley, Walker book will change that.

One other fact. I have met many, and have spoken with many, many more people who have left the church after carefully considering the evidence available and the church's reaction, even to this day, to the massacre. I trust that any rational person can see through how the church has tried to cover up this mess and not have to deal with it. Many, many people have done just that. What you and Pahoran offer is smoke and mirrors in order to deflect away from the reality of the ideology-based reformation hysteria that engulfed Mormon country in the 1850's.

We all live with our choices, as I am sure you well know.

[USU78]

"Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, and I have taken a little." (Brigham Young at the site of the massacre)

If correctly reported (I notice that you don't provide the source for this -- is there a reason you didn't?), it is, at best, an ambiguous statement, more likely meant with bitter irony at the whole nasty, messy business. BY sufferred personally by JDL's betrayal of all the Church stood and stands for.

"Blood atonement was a literal and terrible reality. Brigham Young advocated it and preached it without compromise." (Juanita Brooks)

JB misunderstands what BA was all about and unwittingly becomes the champion of such as gramps: read BY carefully -- he never once advocated that a Gentile should pay for his sins thus; that was reserved for the "Temple Mormon" as worthy Saints are sneeringly referred to by such as gramps. It thus cannot logically have anything to do with MMM.

"To pretend there were no holy murders in Utah and along the trails to California, that there was no saving of the souls of sinners by the shedding of their blood during the blood atonement revival of 1856, that there was no mysterious disappearance of apostates and offensive Gentiles, is simply bad history." (Wallace Stegner)

A pretty historical novelist. He wholly and utterly misunderstands BA to abuse it thus. When one is initiated into the knowledge of G-d in His Holy Temple, and sins against that knowledge, the Master's atoning blood is thereby rejected, and only the sinner's own blood can wash away the sin. Who among the Fanchers was ever so initated, gramps? You thus prove yourself a sensasionalistic slanderer, because the Blood Atonement Slander is as vicious and pernicious as the Blood Slander against our cousins in the Levant.

I consider it an honor to be called a liar and slanderer by the likes of Pahoran, USU78, and others. It is no different today than after the massacre, or any other time in Mormon history, for that matter. Nearly anyone trying to do good history involving the Mormons has been considered such a person.

The persecution complex, as peculiarly evidenced in the Mormon culture, seems to know no bounds.

{Yawn at inapposite ad hominem}

First, it is a fact that Brigham Young inserted an Oath of Vengeance, or prayer of vengeance, as Pahoran would have it, into the temple ceremony. It was not withdrawn from the ceremony until 1927.

For those who wish to read it, you will have to google it. I will not quote it here. What in heaven's name such an oath or prayer could have to do with getting into heaven, I leave each one of you to consider.

gramps well knows the context, yet continues to assert it had something to do with MMM without providing a single scrap of evidence therefor. "But, but, it just must have!" he sputters, because it fits his preconceptions, however acquired.

I'm sure Brothers George A. Smith, Haight, Klingensmith and Lee were well familiar with this oath (prayer). I have never said that all those who participated in the massacre knew of this oath. Perhaps some of those 50 knew nothing about it.

Exactly. "But, but, it just must have!"

But, all of them knew that it wasn't wise to go against the counsel of the priesthood leaders. Many, in the days, months, and years following the massacre admitted that they feared for their own lives if they had not have participated. Follow orders, or watch out for your safety. That was the rule of the day in southern Utah at the time of the massacre.

And they were dead wrong and teaching contrary to the Church's true teachings then as now to the extent you accurately portray them. I don't doubt fear was the primary motivation for everybody whose life was touched by those awful events.

I take only one sermon, of many which could be quoted, that Brigham Young delivered to the Saints on March 16, 1856.

There is not a man or woman who violates the covenants made with their God (in the Mormon temples?) that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man or woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants.

(See, Journal of Discourses)

It is Klingensmith and Lee who have something to fear, to the extent BY taught true doctrine and not his own speculation on the subject, not anybody passing through, and definitely not anybody travelling with Johnston's Army. Your own quote gives the lie to the proposition that BA had or could have had anything to do with MMM.

I am familiar, through my own family history research, with the reality of this environment at the time of this massacre. There is murder in my family history, directly relating to this principle. What was the murderer's reward for spilling the blood of an enemy to the Church? Why, he was called to serve as Bishop in the Orderville Ward for many, many years. And everyone knew he had murdered a man on Main Street, in downtown Salt Lake City, in the middle of the day, in cold blood, and rode off with known Danites, never to be brought to justice. Noone would testify.

Yeah, and my Great-Great-Great Uncle was a horse thief in Nauvoo. We all have scoundrels in our past. Moreover, the fact that, in the absense of other civil authority, Mormon Bishops became, to a certain extent, the only civil authority, they often applied an ecclesiastical remedy to a civil problem. And nobody trusted the Gentile courts. Can you blame them? In any case, you are asserting "family rumor" as fact, which is a faulty basis upon which to base historical understanding.

It was very real. As Stegner says, it is just plain bad history to suggest otherwise.

The massacre was ideological more than it was anything else.

Well, by all means, if Stegner says, we should just roll over, expose our bellies and necks, and give proper homage to his Alpha Wolf . . . not. If Stegner cannot get so simple a concept as BA right, why should we trust him on his other conclusions?

Consider these entries from the Cedar Stake journal. They can be accessed in the William Palmer collection at Southern Utah University archives. This journal is a record of the church meetings held between December 1856 until 1858, when the stake was dissolved.

Theses journal entries coincide with the period of the Utah reformation. And they are very telling of the mindset of the Saints at that time.

19 December 1856--"President John Higbee spoke of the benefits of the Society, and of us not encouraging those blood sucking Gentiles that bring us their goods."

21 December 1856--"President John M. Higbee made remarks on the necessity of us Saints living in subjugation unto those who are placed over us in the Lord, and of the Lord not giving us any commandments that we cannot keep. President Elias Morris spoke of the Saints not judging those who are above us, and of minding our own business and doing what we are told."

29 January  1857--"President Isaac Haight having also returned from the sitting of the Legislature, arose to address the Saints: 'The chief sins of this people are disrespect to the Holy Priesthood, and the pruning time has come'"

01 February  1857--"Richard Harrison arose and said 'We have to bring ourselves into subjugation to the proper authorities, and got to reform in everything, and make things right. Then we shall have the spirit of the Lord. Unless we are obedient to the priesthood, we cannot be saved.'"

They must have been drinking a bit too much down in the south. Consider the next two entries.

??? May  1857--"President Elias Morris:'The people of this place of late are indulging in liquor. The women even take the whiskey jugs into their tea party, and must treat a friend. I say let the men, women and children who indulge in it leave it off, unless you will go down and be condemned.'"

12 July  1857--"President I.C. Haight spoke and said 'Myself and Brother Western will not sell any more liquor unless the people bring a recommend from the bishop.'"

I cannot see what these entries, consistent with the so-called "Mormon Reformation" have anything to do with anything.

And the entry, just two days after the massacre:

13 September  1857--"At ten o'clock a.m. meeting opened by singing. Patriarch Elisha H. Groves spoke upon the principles of the gospel, and of the Lamanites as the battle-axe of the Lord, and of our faithfulness of the gospel. 2p.m. meeting opened by singing, prayer by I.C. Haight. Haight spoke upon the spirit of the times, and cousin Lemuel being fired up with the spirit of their fathers. Singing, benediction by P.K. Smith" [Phillip Klingensmith]

A dreadful business, to be sure.

I guess I am on the side of Will Bagley, when he said, while delivering a presentation to the 8th Annual Ex-Mormon Convention in Salt Lake City:

"Now, I am astonished that I still have people who I consider friends who argue that this was done because these people basically behaved badly, and made people in southern Utah mad at them, so they just went out and killed them all.

Never in the entire fury and blood of the Civil War did members of one side or another kill children of seven years old. It never happened. These were not crimes of anger. These were crimes of ideology."

Bagley states your position well, gramps, and with as little evidence. He ignores all of the inconveniences that invalidate that position, like BY's written instruction not to molest the Fancher train.

Violence was sanctioned over the pulpit. People who took out their endowments took an oath to pray to God for the vengeance of Joseph Smith and to covenant to teach this to their children and their childrens's children and their children's children's children.

This was the mindset of the 1850's in Utah. And it came right from the top, Brigham Young, and down through the local leaders to the rank and file members. There was far more going on here than just random frontier justice.

You continue to miss the point. BA has nothing to do with Gentiles. Violence against Gentiles was not advocated. Defense against aggression was. You'll grant, gramps, that one has a right of self-defense against an invading army?

So, Pahoran, and others, I am not going to sit here day in and day out and argue back and forth with you about who said what and who didn't. You will never agree with me.

But, I am not wrong, that this was more an ideological crime than anything else. And that is all I ever suggested to Dad of 7 and others.

The evidence is clear. The temple endowment, coupled with the sermons over the pulpit culminated in an environment leading to the deaths of innocent men, women and children. (Oh, did I forget George A. Smith, just two days ahead of the Fancher party in every village and town, rallying the Saints in to a frenzy to "do their duty.")

"But, but, it just has to be!"

Does this mean that the Church is not true because this massacre was caused by the Church's own ideology?  Not in any logical sense, I suppose. Maybe God does call such prophets to lead his people in these latter-days. Maybe God approves of his followers partaking of the sacrament just two days after a massacre, acting as though it never happened. Maybe. Who knows? Have stranger things than this happened over humans' history? I would suppose so.

"But, but, it just has to be!" Your acknowledgement of the illogic of the Bagley/gramps/Stegner/Godbeite position is appreciated.

I, for one, left the Church long before I had even heard about this massacre, so it didn't even factor into my decision for leaving the church. I came upon this history much later. So, I don't know. I think for many people it is a deal breaker. For others, it is not. We all live with our decisions. And with our interpretations of history.

And with our slanders, as well.

[Calm]

of the Lamanites as the battle-axe of the Lord

The Lamanites were used by the Lord to chastise the believers, to bring the Nephites---the covenant people--to remembrance of the Lord, much like the nonIsraelites are referred to from time to time in the Bible.

How is this related to the so-called encouraging the death of noncovenant people?

[gramps]

Hi USU78

You wrote:

When one is initiated into the knowledge of G-d in His Holy Temple, and sins against that knowledge, the Master's atoning blood is thereby rejected, and only the sinner's own blood can wash away the sin.

If we're calling each other on quotes, where is the source on that? But thanks anyway for teaching all of us here on the board the restored Christian doctrine. I want to cross-reference that one with all my other scriptures on the atonement. Somehow I missed that last time through.

It's obviously, I take it, not in the Bible, or for that matter, the Book of Mormon.

If correctly reported (I notice that you don't provide the source for this -- is there a reason you didn't?), it is, at best, an ambiguous statement, more likely meant with bitter irony at the whole nasty, messy business. BY sufferred personally by JDL's betrayal of all the Church stood and stands for.

Such a nasty, messy business that his minions had to go and tear down the monument already erected there. Again, showing those fine restored Christian colors, to be sure.

What? There were too many of them and Brigham couldn't hold them back, but really wanted to and felt bad about it ever after?

gramps well knows the context, yet continues to assert it had something to do with MMM without providing a single scrap of evidence therefor. "But, but, it just must have!" he sputters, because it fits his preconceptions, however acquired.

I've read the oath and I don't agree with Pahoran that it is a prayer. And actually, I'm not sure why it is in there. Again, very strange stuff to be reciting for people calling themselves Christian.

Yeah, and my Great-Great-Great Uncle was a horse thief in Nauvoo. We all have scoundrels in our past. Moreover, the fact that, in the absense of other civil authority, Mormon Bishops became, to a certain extent, the only civil authority, they often applied an ecclesiastical remedy to a civil problem. And nobody trusted the Gentile courts. Can you blame them? In any case, you are asserting "family rumor" as fact, which is a faulty basis upon which to base historical understanding.

I had always thought personal diaries, letters, etc. are used by historians regularly. You are the historian. Are those types of sources considered "family rumor?"

And I'll call and raise you one on the g-g-guncle story. Heck, maybe our uncles were buddies. Mine signed one of the affidavits(writs) which led to Joseph's arrest and incarceration in Carthage. And that's no family rumor.

And about the civil problem-ecclesiastical remedy dilemma. The Mormons always have an excuse for why they shouldn't be subject to civil law. This was the case up until they jumped into bed with big business and the politicians to save their empire and their own skins.

You'll grant, gramps, that one has a right of self-defense against an invading army?

Yes, I will grant that. The Fancher party was not that, however.

Your acknowledgement of the illogic of the Bagley/gramps/Stegner/Godbeite position is appreciated.

What acknowledgement?

And, finally, "But, but, it just has to be the way our leaders tell us it was," or "But, but, it just has to be true because the spirit told me it was" are the two mantras you believers seem to always employ, whether to escape the BofA problems, to absolve the Church from its responsibility for the massacre, and so on ad infinitum.

Broken record. Skip, skip, skip...

[gramps]

of the Lamanites as the battle-axe of the Lord

The Lamanites were used by the Lord to chastise the believers, to bring the Nephites---the covenant people--to remembrance of the Lord, much like the nonIsraelites are referred to from time to time in the Bible.

How is this related to the so-called encouraging the death of noncovenant people?

What on earth are you talking about? Ask the guy who gave the sermon in church two days after the massacre. He is the one who said it, not me.

[Calm]

of the Lamanites as the battle-axe of the Lord

The Lamanites were used by the Lord to chastise the believers, to bring the Nephites---the covenant people--to remembrance of the Lord, much like the nonIsraelites are referred to from time to time in the Bible.

How is this related to the so-called encouraging the death of noncovenant people?

What on earth are you talking about? Ask the guy who gave the sermon in church two days after the massacre. He is the one who said it, not me.

IOW, you don't really understand the theology of the LDS that you are condemning.

[USU78]

Hi USU78

You wrote:

When one is initiated into the knowledge of G-d in His Holy Temple, and sins against that knowledge, the Master's atoning blood is thereby rejected, and only the sinner's own blood can wash away the sin.

If we're calling each other on quotes, where is the source on that? But thanks anyway for teaching all of us here on the board the restored Christian doctrine. I want to cross-reference that one with all my other scriptures on the atonement. Somehow I missed that last time through.

{snip to end}

I was paraphrasing this, which you provided:

I take only one sermon, of many which could be quoted, that Brigham Young delivered to the Saints on March 16, 1856.

There is not a man or woman who violates the covenants made with their God (in the Mormon temples?) that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man or woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants.

(See, Journal of Discourses)

Do we need to parse this? Okeydokey, let's do it:

"There is not [one] who violates [Temple covenants] that will not be required to pay the debt."

The application of BA is made explicitely and solely to "Temple Mormons" here. Do you dispute that? While you're at it, explain, if you must and can, how this:

"When one is initiated into the knowledge of G-d in His Holy Temple, and sins against that knowledge" is substantially different from that?

Then there's this:

"The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it."

Did I misrepresent that Christ's atoning sacrifice won't apply, having been rejected by the sinner, such that one's own blood "must atone?"

How is this: "the Master's atoning blood is thereby rejected, and only the sinner's own blood can wash away the sin" substantially different from that which I had paraphrased?

gramps, you're embarrassing yourself here. You don't understand what you're reading: yet this is not a complex issue. All this talk about "culture of violence" engendered in our ancestors by BA is silly. There was no culture of violence. The Wild West was a violent place, to be sure, but no amount of "Riders of the Purple Sage" will ever cover the fact that the Mormons were not more violent and indeed were far less violent than their neighbors throughout the West from 1850-1900.

[gramps]

Hi USU78

You wrote:

When one is initiated into the knowledge of G-d in His Holy Temple, and sins against that knowledge, the Master's atoning blood is thereby rejected, and only the sinner's own blood can wash away the sin.

If we're calling each other on quotes, where is the source on that? But thanks anyway for teaching all of us here on the board the restored Christian doctrine. I want to cross-reference that one with all my other scriptures on the atonement. Somehow I missed that last time through.

{snip to end}

I was paraphrasing this, which you provided:

I take only one sermon, of many which could be quoted, that Brigham Young delivered to the Saints on March 16, 1856.

There is not a man or woman who violates the covenants made with their God (in the Mormon temples?) that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man or woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants.

(See, Journal of Discourses)

Do we need to parse this? Okeydokey, let's do it:

"There is not [one] who violates [Temple covenants] that will not be required to pay the debt."

The application of BA is made explicitely and solely to "Temple Mormons" here. Do you dispute that? While you're at it, explain, if you must and can, how this:

"When one is initiated into the knowledge of G-d in His Holy Temple, and sins against that knowledge" is substantially different from that?

Then there's this:

"The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it."

Did I misrepresent that Christ's atoning sacrifice won't apply, having been rejected by the sinner, such that one's own blood "must atone?"

How is this: "the Master's atoning blood is thereby rejected, and only the sinner's own blood can wash away the sin" substantially different from that which I had paraphrased?

gramps, you're embarrassing yourself here. You don't understand what you're reading: yet this is not a complex issue. All this talk about "culture of violence" engendered in our ancestors by BA is silly. There was no culture of violence. The Wild West was a violent place, to be sure, but no amount of "Riders of the Purple Sage" will ever cover the fact that the Mormons were not more violent and indeed were far less violent than their neighbors throughout the West from 1850-1900.

No, I understand completely. I just wanted to see you tell me it is doctrine and where it comes from. You can't have the JoD when you want to own it, and then say it is not doctrine, when you don't want to own it.

So, what is his statement? Mormon Christian (restored) doctrine or not? And can we find it anywhere in the scriptures?

About violence. I wouldn't agree with you that Mormons were indeed less violent than their neighbors, whereever they have resided since Church beginnings. They seem to be a more pleasant folk these days, however. I guess something happens whenever they isolate themselves from everyone else. Some genetic mutation, perhaps. I probably wouldn't argue that Mormons were more violent, either.

[USU78]

No, I understand [brigham Young's views on blood atonement] completely. I just wanted to see you tell me it is doctrine and where it comes from. You can't have the JoD when you want to own it, and then say it is not doctrine, when you don't want to own it.

So, what is his statement? Mormon Christian (restored) doctrine or not? And can we find it anywhere in the scriptures?

Of course it's not doctrine. It was a short-lived speculation which has been expressly disavowed by subsequent Church authorities. But I suspect you already knew that. And since that disavowal undercuts the position that Mormons are inherently violent, I wonder why you continue to use this as a reed to thwack Mormons upside the head with.

About violence. I wouldn't agree with you that Mormons were indeed less violent than their neighbors, whereever they have resided since Church beginnings. They seem to be a more pleasant folk these days, however. I guess something happens whenever they isolate themselves from everyone else. Some genetic mutation, perhaps.  I probably wouldn't argue that Mormons were more violent, either.

Cute. Easy to say, impossible to falsify, impracticable to dissuade from.

The perfect antiMormon tool.

[gramps]

Was it doctrine then, at the time he was preaching it?

And, I'm off to bed. See you all in the morning.

[Pahoran]

What excuse do you apologists give for Brigham Young not rigorously investigating the crime and prosecuting the perpetrators, other than sacrifical lamb Lee?

"Excuse?"

Please clarify your question, oh humble one. What responsibility do you believe Brigham had to carry out criminal investigations and/or prosecutions after he had been removed from office as territorial governor?

That is the question that your question begs. Only if he has such a responsibility does he need any "excuse" for not carrying it out.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Pahoran wrote:

You should read the Bible sometime. The whole idea behind appealing to God for vengeance upon one's enemies is that such an appeal necessarily entails an explicit renunciation of any right to exact vengeance on one's own behalf.

Show where the Bible teaches that. "Necessarily" is an awful mighty big word. So is "explicit."

I shall be happy to provide some references for that; I have several at my fingertips.

But you get to go first, Gramps.

I asked you several direct questions regarding some of your assertions. You don't get to skip out while demanding answers from me. You get to provide the documentation I requested and then ask for documentation from me.

Do I make myself perfectly clear?

Regards,

Pahoran

[KevinG]

Gramps seems to be better at asking questions than answering them.

[USU78]

What excuse do you apologists give for Brigham Young not rigorously investigating the crime and prosecuting the perpetrators, other than sacrifical lamb Lee?

"Excuse?" Please clarify your question, oh humble one. What responsibility do you believe Brigham had to carry out criminal investigations and/or prosecutions after he had been removed from office as territorial governor? That is the question that your question begs. Only if he has such a responsibility does he need any "excuse" for not carrying it out.

BY was many things. What he was not is the chief (or even a) law enforcement officer in Utah Territory following the settlement that put an end to the Utah War.

Just what investigatory and/or prosecutory duties does Marvelous assert BY possessed after that time?

Who granted such to him?

What evidence exists upon which one can base a supposition that BY possessed them after that time?

[Calm]

I guess something happens whenever they isolate themselves from everyone else. Some genetic mutation, perhaps.

I'm sorry, but perhaps you could explain this comment so it makes sense.

[Pahoran]

I guess something happens whenever they isolate themselves from everyone else. Some genetic mutation, perhaps.

I'm sorry, but perhaps you could explain this comment so it makes sense.

It makes perfect sense to me.

Gramps thinks Mormons are genetically inferior. We are, to him, untermenschen.

Everything he has posted is entirely consistent and sensible within that paradigm, however out of touch it may be with reality.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

I guess something happens whenever they isolate themselves from everyone else. Some genetic mutation, perhaps.

I'm sorry, but perhaps you could explain this comment so it makes sense.

It makes perfect sense to me.

Gramps thinks Mormons are genetically inferior. We are, to him, untermenschen.

Everything he has posted is entirely consistent and sensible within that paradigm, however out of touch it may be with reality.

Regards,

Pahoran

Yes, this is what it appears to mean.

It seems strange that someone would be so blatant about his own prejudice in these pc days though.

[mormon fool]

Gramps,

I am pleased by the tone of your last post to me and I am happy to move on.

I have a weekly Friday deadline I need to prepare for but when I get done I think I will start up a new thread that focuses on investigating whether blood atonement and vengeance oaths had anything to do with the massacre. I will go step by step through 1-7 I outlined earlier and won't shy away from introducing Bagley's, Denton's, Wise's, or even Brooks' best shots as I have all these books in my office now.

I am glad that I haven't overwhelmed you yet. I have been really holding back and restraining myself. I think we can both agree that I have yet to contribute anything of substance to this thread.

I think most non-LDS historians who have informed themselves of the matter would defer to Brooks. The Bagley-Denton case has not been built on significant new evidence that has surfaced since Brooks. The Crockett-Alexander-Turley et. al. findings are based on new research. Time has a way of vindicating the prophets (and Hugh Nibley ) as they say.

No FARMS-FAIR supporting, true believing Mormon will ever agree with that.

There is a wonderful irony about that statement. I know it is not what you intended but I would extend that to cover 19th century TBM's as well, i.e. Mormon ideology is/was anti-ethical to the acts of the MMM perps.

You say you aren't overwhelmed by Pahoran and I will grant you that little space in your mind where you know what you know and perhaps have read a considerable amount of literature that reinforces those beliefs. However, it doesn't look good for you as far as this MB is concerned to avoid interacting with your interlocutor's position or avoid the burden of proof for the allegations you have made. If I had time I would come over to your side and play devil's advocate to show you how much better it could/should be argued. You do deserve some credit for coming up with some references and handling your end while being considerably out-numbered, so my compliments to what you have been able to accomplish so far.

Best Wishes,

fool

[gramps]

Hi mormon fool and everyone else. A few comments on a few minor things and then, Pahoran, a post on your stuff.

mormon fool wrote:

I am pleased by the tone of your last post to me and I am happy to move on.

Always happy to please someone. And that it could possibly be you, well, that has made my day, believe me.

I have a weekly Friday deadline I need to prepare for but when I get done I think I will start up a new thread that focuses on investigating whether blood atonement and vengeance oaths had anything to do with the massacre. I will go step by step through 1-7 I outlined earlier and won't shy away from introducing Bagley's, Denton's, Wise's, or even Brooks' best shots as I have all these books in my office now.

I am, for sure, looking forward to when you might share with us your expertise. I am always willing to learn from a Master of one's craft to see how it could/should be done.

I am glad that I haven't overwhelmed you yet. I have been really holding back and restraining myself. I think we can both agree that I have yet to contribute anything of substance to this thread.

And I have always appreciated men of restraint and patience. Admirable traits to be sure.

. Time has a way of vindicating the prophets (and Hugh Nibley

[USU78]

Was it doctrine then (blood atonement), at the time he (BY) was preaching it?

Answer at your leisure.

I'm not interested in further derailment of this thread on that subject. gramps asserts BY's BA sermon in 1856 as evidence that the Deseret Saints were prone to violence as a result of the teaching and voila! MMM happens. Whether the teaching was or wasn't and is or isn't doctrine is tangential to that central point. So, no, I'm not answering beyond what I've already done.

...Mormons are inherently violent...

I have never said Mormons are inherently violent. Those are your words and you will have to own them. I won't.

If they aren't inherently violent, then why assert BA as a, perhaps the, cause of MMM? Enlighten me.

[gramps]

Hi Pahoran.

Well, let's begin.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

"Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, and I have taken a little." (Brigham Young at the site of the massacre)

And this is relevant because...?

Quite relevant, if he said it. I guess that we will never know. What we do know is that while he was at the site, those with him (around 120 people) tore the monument down, to the last rock, within minutes. And if he was there watching, it tells us a lot about his state of mind concerning the event and to just how sorry he was that the event happened. (Dimmick Huntington, as told to his granddaughter Juanita Brooks.)

One-liners are especially useful for people who do all their thinking in slogans.

It is not my one-liner, it is Brigham Young's one-liner. Quite a slogan, I might add, to express one's feelings about mass murder.

And never once did anything to put that "literal"--i.e. literary--reality into practice.

Well, that's the whole reason we are here debating this issue, isn't it?

Your appeal to authority is noted. Other authorities disagree.

That is for sure. There is a lot of disagreement.

But how does this support your exploitation of the MMM? Even if you could prove that there were "holy murders," etc., that would hardly serve to establish that the MMM was one of them. You are using a technique that Hugh Nibley identified long ago--trying to establish an "atmosphere." I see the techniques of the 19th century demagogues are still alive and well.

And I note your appeal to authority as well, that is, if you can call Nibley an authority on the Mountain Meadow Massacre. You Mormons use him for an authority for lots of stuff he is not an authority on. (See his article on Death Before Adam, for just one example.)

That's right, Gramps. You're a hero, and a martyr to the cause of impartial truth.

I'm hardly a martyr for anything, Pahoran, unless perhaps you know of something to happen in my future of which I am not yet aware.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

First, it is a fact that Brigham Young inserted an Oath of Vengeance,

No, that is not a fact.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

or prayer of vengeance, as Pahoran would have it,

Indeed I would, because that's what it was.

Well, we will beg to differ. Maybe we should take a vote on it and see what most people think it is. But, we can't quote it here, by itself, or in context, can we? So, I guess we can't take a poll on it. Each person for themselves will have their own opinion, that is, if they aren't afraid to read it for themselves. It's on the net and the ceremony, in which it was a part, is there, too. Let's leave it up to those who want to research it. What do you think?

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

into the temple ceremony. It was not withdrawn from the ceremony until 1927.

And how many wagon trains were ambushed and massacred by Mormons in 1926, Gramps?

Okay, so there were no wagon trains in 1926. How about any other year? What is the grand total of the number of wagon trains ambushed and massacred by Mormons?

About 1926? Were there any wagon trains in 1926, at all?

The grand total: one, that I know of.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

For those who wish to read it, you will have to google it. I will not quote it here.

How very noble of you. Or something.

It's hardly noble. I am just following the rules of the board. There are other free speech areas where I have no qualms in reciting it verbatim.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

What in heaven's name such an oath or prayer could have to do with getting into heaven, I leave each one of you to consider.

You should read the Bible sometime. The whole idea behind appealing to God for vengeance upon one's enemies is that such an appeal necessarily entails an explicit renunciation of any right to exact vengeance on one's own behalf.

I'm looking forward to your instruction on this matter. Really looking forward to it.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

I'm sure Brothers George A. Smith, Haight, Klingensmith and Lee were well familiar with this oath (prayer). I have never said that all those who participated in the massacre knew of this oath. Perhaps some of those 50 knew nothing about it.

And therefore it wasn't a factor for them. Thank you for your reluctant admittance of this fact.

It was a factor in Lee's mind. It is in his confessions. But, you don't think those mean anything because his lawyer was his ghost writer.

Take it or leave it. Everyone can read his confessions, as well, on line and I leave it to them to come up with their own opinion. Or should we fall back on Nibley? What did he have to say on the matter, I wonder. If he did say anything about this, I'm sure then we wouldn't have to read it for ourselves, would we?

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

But, all of them knew that it wasn't wise to go against the counsel of the priesthood leaders.

And neither you nor any other hater can produce a single instance of priesthood leaders counselling anyone to massacre wagon trains.

Much as you wish you could.

Yes, I wish I could. But, again, readers of the incident can come to their own conclusions. But, I guess, if I was going to massacre a wagon train, I wouldn't try to leave anything that could tie me to the plan, would I? Would you?

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

But, all of them knew that it wasn't wise to go against the counsel of the priesthood leaders.

And neither you nor any other hater can produce a single instance of priesthood leaders counselling anyone to massacre wagon trains.

Your statement, I believe, is not accurate. See, Gibbs for one, where he cites Laban Morrill's testimony in the second Lee trial concerning the council before the massacre where they "agreed" to send a messenger to Brigham Young.

Here is just a part of it:

Q: ....Was the massacre of that emigrant train discussed there at all?

A: It was, sir; and some were in favor of it, and some were not.

Q: Who were they?

A: Bishop Smith (Klingensmith) I considered, was the hardest man I had to contend with.

Q: Who else spoke about it?

A: Isaac Haight and one or two others. I recollect my companions more than anyone else.

Q: They were very anxious and rabid, were they not?

A: They seemed to think it would be best to kill the emigrants. Some of the emigrants swore that they had killed old Joseph Smith; there was quite a little excitement there.

Q: You have given us the names of two who were in favor of killing those emigrants-who were the others?

A: Those were my companions, Isaac C. Haight and Klingensmith. I recollect no others.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

Many, in the days, months, and years following the massacre admitted that they feared for their own lives if they had not have participated.

Really? And who were these "many?" Where can we read their contemporary statements? I do hope you are not pretending that John D. Lee's lawyer is "many," or that 1877 is "in the days, months, and years following the massacre."

And they "admitted" that? Since when has any version of the Nuremberg defence, which is ultimately an attempt to fix the blame for one's own misdeeds on others, constituted an admission of any kind? Can you spin it any more counterfactually?

Here is a part of just one of the testimonies, from Nephi Johnson, from the second trial of Lee (See, Gibbs):

Q: (by Bishop) State whether you were under any compulsion (to go to the meadows)?

A: I didn't think it was safe for me to object.

Q: Explain what you mean, that is what I want. Where was the danger-who was the danger to come from if you objected-from Haight or those around him-from the Indians, or from the emigrants?

A: From the military officers.

Q: Where?

A: At Cedar City.

Q: Was Haight one of those military officers?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Who was the highest military officer in Cedar City at that time?

A: I think it was Isaac C. Haight.

Q: You thought it would not be safe to refuse; had you any reason to fear danger-has any person ever been injured for not obeying, or anything of that kind?

A: I don't want to answer.

Q: It is necessary to the safety of the man I am defending, and I therefore insist upon an answer. Had any person been injured for not obeying?

A: Yes, sir, they had.

Q: (by Howard): Were you acquainted with the Indians-the Pah Vant (pahvan) Indians?

A: Yes, sir; somewhat acquainted.

Q: Were any of the Pah Vant Indians down there?

A: I didn't see any.

Gibbs from his text:

During the night of the day of the massacre President Isaac C. Haight and Bishop William H. Dame arrived from Cedar City and Parowan, respectively, and camped at Hamblin's ranch. The next morning, with John D. Lee, they visited the scene of the carnage where sixty men, forty women, and about thiry children were lying naked on the ground, having been stripped of their clothing and jewelry.

Haight, Dame and other leading elders made speeches, the substance of which may be gathered from answers by Nephi Johnson to questions asked by W.W. Bishop, Lee's attorney.

Q: Is it not a fact that after the property was all gathered up at the Meadows, and you were ready to strt for Iiron Springs, that speeches were made to the men present, by those in authority, in which speeches you were ordered to keep it a secret forever?

A: There were a great many speeches made.

Q: At the Meadows, before you left there, was it not told you in a speech then made to you, that it must be kept a secret; that it would be best to keep silent? Were not you so advised by your leaders?

A: Yes, sir.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

Follow orders, or watch out for your safety. That was the rule of the day in southern Utah at the time of the massacre.

Really? And where is this "rule" documented?

See above. I never said "rule of the day" meant there was a rule written down. Your stretching, here, Pahoran. The evidence at trial, cited above, evidences the mood at the time. And the minutes from the Cedar Stake also do so.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

I take only one sermon, of many which could be quoted, that Brigham Young delivered to the Saints on March 16, 1856.

"There is not a man or woman who violates the covenants made with their God (in the Mormon temples?) that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man or woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants." (See, Journal of Discourses)

So this is "only one sermon, of many which could be quoted," is it? Clearly, it's the very best one you could find--that old "there are plenty more like it" schtick is a well-worn one. But exactly what does Brigham say?

I hope you are not saying that this is the only quote that can be found. I am sure you are not. So what are you saying? It is a good one. There are obviously others. I need not quote them. We all can read the JofD, for ourselves. It's online for heavens sakes.

Does he say anything equivalent to "follow orders, or watch out for your safety?" No.

Does he say anything that any honest person could reasonably interpret as meaning or implying "follow orders, or watch out for your safety?" No.

He does not say it in that quote. No. But, I always liked Jedediah M. Grant's speeches, Brigham Young's second counselor. Here is a beauty:

"I would ask how many covenant breakers there are in this city and in this kingdom? I believe there are a great many: and if they are covenant breakers, we need a place designated where we can shed their blood...We have been trying long enough with these people, and I go in for letting the sword of the Almighty be unsheathed, not only in word but in deed." (Jof D)

Were there no murders at all? Here is what Gibbs says:

"It is not necessary to give the details of the blood atonement murder of William R. Parish and his son Beason for "apostacy" at Springville, in 1856: of the murder of Rosmos Anderson by the leading priesthood of the Parowan "stake of Zion" in 1856, because Philip Klingensmith, bishop of Cedar City, Utah, coveted the buxom Scandinavian stepdaughter of Anderson as his plural wife, and whom Anderson also wanted as his plural, and with whom, as alleged, he had committed adultery as the last and surest effort to secure a "recommend" to enter the "holy order of celestial marriage;" of the castration of Tom Lewis, at Manti, Utah, in 1856, because Bishop Warren Snow was lecherously ambitious to polygamously marry the girl with whom Lewis was keeping company; of the inexpressibly cowardly murder of William Hatton at Fillmore, 1856, by a man who could be named, and who was the agent of "prophets, seers, and revelators" at Salt Lake City, and whose handsome widow the unspeakable "Prophet" Heber C. Kimball soon after added to his celestial harem; of the murder, by prophetic instructions, at Farmington, during the Spring of 1858, of four of the Aiken party, and while Johnston's army at Ham's Fork was preparing to enter Utah, and the cowardly assassination of two others of the Aiken party by a present high churchman and his companion, who, under pretense of conducting them from Utah by the southern route to California, shot them in the back at a point some four or five miles south of Nephi, about 110 miles south of Salt Lake City; of the midnight murder, later on, of King, Brassfield and others who became obnoxious to the Mormon leaders. This is an abbreviated history of the Mountain Meadows Massacre-not of the entire diabolical results of the teaching of unquestioning obedience and blood atonement by the vicegerents of the Mormon god."

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

I am familiar, through my own family history research, with the reality of this environment at the time of this massacre. There is murder in my family history, directly relating to this principle. What was the murderer's reward for spilling the blood of an enemy to the Church? Why, he was called to serve as Bishop in the Orderville Ward for many, many years. And everyone knew he had murdered a man on Main Street, in downtown Salt Lake City, in the middle of the day, in cold blood, and rode off with known Danites, never to be brought to justice. Noone would testify.

Really? What was his name? What was the date? Whom did he murder? What were the names of the "known Danites" with whom he rode off? What are the names of the witnesses to this event? Where can we read their statements?

Read about the Spencer-Pike affair. You can find it in history books of the period. It was 1856 or 57 (I would have to look it up again). His name was Howard Spencer. He got in a fight with a soldier. The soldier clubbed him a good one. Days later, Howard walked up to him and shot him. Middle of the day. He rode away scot free. There were no witnesses.

Even more revealing is the claim that he "rode off with known Danites." You either do not know or do not care that the Danite movement was squashed--by Joseph Smith--in Missouri, early in 1839. There were no danites in Utah, only ex-danites. That detail is a fiction. How much of the rest of your story is likewise fictitious?

As you wish, ex-danites then. Whatever.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

It was very real. As Stegner says, it is just plain bad history to suggest otherwise.

Ah. More irony.

Hardly ironic. Disgusting, actually. (See Gibbs above).

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

The massacre was ideological more than it was anything else.

Really?

Yes. that's not to say those 900 head of cattle didn't look appealing. But, apparently Brigham gave all those to the Indians, didn't he? Strange, huh?

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

The massacre was ideological more than it was anything else.

Really?

Then tell us, Gramps: how many wagon trains did they ambush and massacre in 1856? How many in 1855? How many in 1858? How many did the Saints in Northern Utah and Idaho bushwhack? Given--and it is a given--that they had the same "ideology" as those in Southern Utah, why didn't they go on the rampage? As in, ever?

No other wagon trains, that I recall. But, see Gibbs above. Lots of killings based on ideology. The murder of Parley P. Pratt was the kicker and led to the massacre.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

They can be accessed in the William Palmer collection at Southern Utah University archives. This journal is a record of the church meetings held between December 1856 until 1858, when the stake was dissolved.

Theses journal entries coincide with the period of the Utah reformation. And they are very telling of the mindset of the Saints at that time.

19 December 1856--"President John Higbee spoke of the benefits of the Society, and of us not encouraging those blood sucking Gentiles that bring us their goods."

Yes, and? How exactly does "not encouraging" turn out to equal "murdering?"

This quote from the minutes goes to state of mind toward Gentiles. Calling them blood-sucking, in church, no less. Now, there is some more of that peaceful restored Christian spirit. My, things have changed since then, haven't they?

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

21 December 1856--"President John M. Higbee made remarks on the necessity of us Saints living in subjugation unto those who are placed over us in the Lord, and of the Lord not giving us any commandments that we cannot keep. President Elias Morris spoke of the Saints not judging those who are above us, and of minding our own business and doing what we are told."

Goes to the rule of the day. Follow orders. Mind your own busines. Do what you are told.

So why was Brigham's injunction to leave the wagon train alone ignored?

They weren't ignored. I believe his "injunction" was a cover up. Why did he give the cattle to the Indians? He knew what was going to happen. But, we will always disagree about that.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

29 January  1857--"President Isaac Haight having also returned from the sitting of the Legislature, arose to address the Saints: 'The chief sins of this people are disrespect to the Holy Priesthood, and the pruning time has come'"

So what does a "pruning" taking place among "this people" have to do with wiping out parties of emigrants--who are most emphatically not "this people," and who are only passing through?

And you do know what the "pruning" refers to, don't you? I'm sure you'd like uninformed others to believe that he's talking about murder, but you do know perfectly well that he's actually talking about ecclesiastical sanctions, don't you?

If you mean "ecclesiastical sanctions" to include murder and other physical injury, yes I would call it such. (See Gibbs above for examples).

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

01 February  1857--"Richard Harrison arose and said 'We have to bring ourselves into subjugation to the proper authorities, and got to reform in everything, and make things right. Then we shall have the spirit of the Lord. Unless we are obedient to the priesthood, we cannot be saved.'"

Yes, and? The connection to the MMM is what, exactly?

Already answered, per above.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

They must have been drinking a bit too much down in the south. Consider the next two entries.

??? May  1857--"President Elias Morris:'The people of this place of late are indulging in liquor. The women even take the whiskey jugs into their tea party, and must treat a friend. I say let the men, women and children who indulge in it leave it off, unless you will go down and be condemned.'"

12 July  1857--"President I.C. Haight spoke and said 'Myself and Brother Western will not sell any more liquor unless the people bring a recommend from the bishop.'"

And you think this is relevant too, do you?

Actually, quite telling. I'm only surprised that you haven't added bad whiskey into the mix of excuses you raise for the massacre. That must have been some powerful stuff. And all under the control of our friend, Isaac. C. Haight, no less.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

And the entry, just two days after the massacre:

13 September  1857--"At ten o'clock a.m. meeting opened by singing. Patriarch Elisha H. Groves spoke upon the principles of the gospel, and of the Lamanites as the battle-axe of the Lord, and of our faithfulness of the gospel. 2p.m. meeting opened by singing, prayer by I.C. Haight. Haight spoke upon the spirit of the times, and cousin Lemuel being fired up with the spirit of their fathers. Singing, benediction by P.K. Smith" [Phillip Klingensmith]

Yes, and? Your point?

Was Groves a massacre participant? Do you know? Do you care?

I could care less about Groves. Haight doesn't seem to be too bothered by what he had participated in, however. Quite telling as to state of mind. Sickening isn't it?

Klingensmith, as you know, was. He subsequently left the Church and made a deal with the feds to avoid prosecution. He wasn't called to give evidence at Lee's second trial, because the prosecutor considered him unreliable. Based upon what he is writing, just two days later, would you say that his defection was a manifestation of his conscience, or was he just trying to save his own skin?

You seem to know everything. You tell me.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

People who took out their endowments took an oath to pray to God for the vengeance of Joseph Smith and to covenant to teach this to their children and their childrens's children and their children's children's children.

Thank you for admitting that this was a prayer and nothing more. I hope it didn't hurt too much. Note again, that by placing the matter in God's hands they were ipso facto removing it from their own.

I could care less what you want to call it. Let each for him/herself read it and decide it. I think a lot of people will read that and call it an oath or at best a mixture of both a prayer and an oath. But, really, call it what you want. It is the words that matter. Not what you label it.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

This was the mindset of the 1850's in Utah.

Oh, so that's all there was to it, was there? No other factors were in play, is that your contention?

I've always said there are other factors. Bad liquor, a expensive stallion, gold and whatever else. It's the ideology that allowed them to justify such a disgusting thing. Saints don't kill people just for money. They do for ideology, it appears.

I notice that Johnston's army doesn't even rate a mention in your summary. Is it your contention that the invasion was not relevant to the massacre? That it is a mere coincidence that the only wagon train to have been wiped out in the transit of Utah territory in all the 19th century--out of the hundreds that crossed the territory safely--just happened to be passing through when the Saints were preparing for war?

Just an excuse to murder a lot of people. In the testimony cited above, they don't mention the Army. They mention that the emigrants boasted of killing Joseph Smith. That's what they say, anyway.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

So, Pahoran, and others, I am not going to sit here day in and day out and argue back and forth with you about who said what and who didn't. You will never agree with me.

Does that mean that you are dropping this rather large cow-pat and running away?

Why would I drop out? I have nothing to lose here. The church isn't false because priesthood leaders from the top down approved of killing a whole lot of people. It is just more evidence of that nice restored Christian spirit that Joseph Smith gave the world. That's all.

Like I said before. I left long before I read anything about this at all. For others, and understandably so, at least to them, it appears to be a deal-breaker. The Internet has been a disaster for your side, really.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

But, I am not wrong,

Would you admit it if you were? Could you even recognise it?

As easily as you could.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

that this was more an ideological crime than anything else.

No. It was not.

It was contrary to everything the Church teaches or has ever taught. That is a fact, Gramps. A fact that every honest, decent, informed person who has ever taken the time to examine the events, willingly admits. Without exception.

Not true. See above.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

And that is all I ever suggested to Dad of 7 and others.

We know. You slyly tried to insinuate that the cause of the massacre is located in the teachings of the Church. This is the most extreme form of the propaganda that some try to adduce from the MMM.

Hardly slyly. I was respecting the board rules. That's all. I'm happy to scream out from the rooftops the words of the oath or prayer. I just can't do it here. I respect that, here.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

The evidence is clear.

Yes, and it is all against you. Every scrap of it.

I trust you may win some to your side here. I trust you may lose some. Whatever. Let the chips fall where they may.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

The temple endowment, coupled with the sermons over the pulpit culminated in an environment leading to the deaths of innocent men, women and children.

That's right. This single event, standing out in stark contrast against a half century of quiet, decorous behaviour, is the logical and expected consequence of all that violent indoctrination. It all fits. Well, all except for one teeny tiny little detail that your revised version of the Blood Libel fails to explain, Gramps: and that's the singularity of this event.

Quiet, decorous behavior. That's a joke. That's why the army was coming in in the first place. Also, see above. It's just not true.

You see, if in fact the legendary Utah of the Bloody Valleys really did exist, then being ambushed and massacred would have to be the normal fate of any wagon trains foolish enough to venture within the reach of the dreaded danites. Indeed, you've done your best (or worst) to try to revive that vile old legend, but it only serves to raise the question even higher: why was Utah so very safe for every emigrant party except the Fanchers? Why did any trains make it out alive? Why did they even go in there?

It's hard to make money off all of them if you kill them off. But, when you kill Parley, the family man, then all bets are off.

Any impartial observer can see that there must have been something unusual, either about the personnel of that train, or the specific time in which they were present. The "Mormon ideology" that you and your hero Baglady try so desperately to pin the blame upon was not unique to that time or place, but was constant throughout the territory, and for the entire last half of the 19th century; therefore, that cannot be the explanation.

They had already killed people. But, Parley was a deal breaker. That helped push them over the top, and lead to the massacre.

Primarily, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That's for sure.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

(Oh, did I forget George A. Smith, just two days ahead of the Fancher party in every village and town, rallying the Saints in to a frenzy to "do their duty.")

"Just two days ahead?" Your timing is out by several weeks. You are clearly attempting to describe GAS as riding down the road just in front the Fancher party and rousing the countryside, when in fact he was heading in the opposite direction to them, and was back in SLC before they reached the Meadows.

Do you know why GAS really toured the southern settlements, or would you prefer not to know?

Should have said 2-3 weeks or so. My bad.

QUOTE (gramps @ Sep 25 2006, 03:16 PM)

Does this mean that the Church is not true because this massacre was caused by the Church's own ideology?

Since the massacre was not "caused by the Church's own ideology," the question is moot.

If you think so.

Others, whose love for truth and impartial history is exactly the equal of theirs, used to insist that Jews eat Christian children at Passover.

I've never insisted that. But, you are always giving me new buckshot with which to load up my anti-religion shotgun to go a'huntin. I must give you thanks.

Cheers.

gramps

[gramps]

Usu78 wrote:

gramps asserts BY's BA sermon in 1856 as evidence that the Deseret Saints were prone to violence as a result of the teaching and voila! MMM happens.

I never asserted that.

Whether the teaching was or wasn't and is or isn't doctrine is tangential to that central point.

It is hardly merely tangential. Did the people listening to Brigham Young during the reformation think that such speeches were doctrine or not? If they did, then it is clearly not tangential.

Of course, Mormons wouldn't accept it as doctrine now. I'm talking about those who were listening to him at that time.

If they aren't inherently violent, then why assert BA as a, perhaps the, cause of MMM? Enlighten me.

Because such speeches helped to create an environment that allowed such a massacre to happen.

And, again, for the last time, I have never said that the blood atonement doctrine was the cause. It is a big factor because it came from the Prophet at the time and it goes to whether it is a crime of ideology or not. That's all. It is hardly tangential to this argument.

[thesometimesaint]

gramps:

A point well worth remembering is that groups of other pioneers traversed Deseret before, during, and after MMM unmolested.

[gramps]

Hi thesometimesaint.

I thank you for that reminder.

So, then what happened this time? Do you think there is any connection to the death of Parly P. Pratt?