Mountain Meadow Massacre

[thesometimesaint]

gramps:

My personal speculation is that a small group of Saints got the bejesus scared out of them, and did something totally against everything they had previously been taught.

[gramps]

Hi. What did they get scared of? And why take it out on the Fancher party?

[thesometimesaint]

gramps:

Is it really necessary to repeat all of the charges and countercharges that have been presented?

[USU78]

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.

That is not true.

Whether the teaching [bA] 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.

I'm not derailing the thread, gramps. No amount of huffing and puffing will change that.

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.

Which gives, alas, the lie to the assertion that: "I never asserted that '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.'" If somebody's not prone to violence, no amount of speachifying is going to make them violent. Didn't gramps know that?

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.

Ideology is only an issue in this context if it tends to make people violent. If it doesn't tend to make people violent, then it's irrelevant (or not a violent ideology). You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth because I called you on the absurdity of your position and you tried and yet try to weasel out of it.

Quite weaseling.

It's unseemly in someone of your tender years.

[Pahoran]

Hi Pahoran.

Well, let's begin.

"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.)

Two things:

1) You are confused about the source of the story you are citing. The story of the dismantling of the cairn comes from Dudley Leavitt, not Dimick Huntington. Note that Leavitt is the only person who mentions the dismantling.

2) Note that Wilford Woodruff, who was present, gives a version of Brigham's remark, but does not mention anything being done to the cairn. Note that others report it still standing some time later.

Thus, your analysis is exactly backwards. What we "know" is that Brigham said something. We do not know that the cairn was dismantled. Given your intense bigotry against the Latter-day Saints, you will of course prefer to believe the unsupported version that best serves your prejudices.

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 based upon your use of it, your attitude seems to be that mass murder is to be exploited to the absolute hilt, in the advancement of your anti-Mormon agenda.

It does in fact tell us something about what Brigham thought at the time; he thought that no Mormons were involved.

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?

Not really.

The reason we are here debating is that there are some people willing to exploit a dreadful crime and tragedy in order to score cheap polemical points.

Your appeal to authority is noted. Other authorities disagree.

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

And all the "ideology" appears to be on your side of it.

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.

He knew a whole heck of a lot more about it than you do.

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.)

Ah. The old ad hominem fallacy. Did you really think that would fly?

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.

A martyr isn't necessarily dead. Did you really not know that?

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

No, that is not a fact.

or prayer of vengeance, as Pahoran would have it,

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

Well, we will beg to differ.

Indeed. I will agree to tell the truth, and accept the fact that you won't.

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?

No there weren't; I already said that. The fact is that you are unable to show any evidence of a "Mormon ideology" of wholesale murder of gentiles.

The grand total: one, that I know of.

Thank you. So, the "ideology" being constant through all that time, still there was only one MMM.

I think it's important to be clear on that fact, don't you?

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.

"No qualms." So it's not because you have any principles, it's just that you lack the backbone. Got it.

Just to be clear: there are many good people in the world today who disagree with me upon many subjects, including but not limited to those discussed in this forum. But there are no good people in the world today who have "no qualms" about desecrating matters that others hold sacred.

None.

Not even any.

This is an undisputed condition of interfaith dialogue, unanimously adhered to by people of good will.

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.

So glad to hear it.

Not to clutter the thread, here are a few passages on the subject:

1 Samuel 24:

12 The LORD judge between me and thee, and the LORD avenge me of thee: but mine hand shall not be upon thee.

And:

Proverbs 20:

22 Say not thou, I will recompense evil; but wait on the LORD, and he shall save thee.

And:

Romans 12:

18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

There are others in the Bible, but just in case you want to fall back on the old anti-Mormon canard that Latter-day Saints don't bother with it, here are a couple more:

Mormon 8:

20 Behold what the scripture says

[Pahoran]

Response to Gramps, part 2.

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.

The Church isn't false, but that accusation is.

Do you care?

It is just more evidence of that nice restored Christian spirit that Joseph Smith gave the world. That's all.

Could you say anything more vicious, however hard you tried? That is merely a gratuitous piece of spite.

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.

He gloated, with undisguised glee.

If you are right, then it is only because the Internet supports sound-bite propaganda far more than it does serious, effortful historical research, such as is necessary to understand a complex event such as the MMM.

But you don't have the slightest problem with that, do you?

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.

Yes, true. See above.

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.

No you don't respect it--you made that perfectly clear when you said it was a lack of "free speech" that restrained you--you merely knuckle under to it. It's not that you have principles, it's just that you lack backbone.

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.

Well now gramps, it's a little late for you to try to pose as a perfectly disinterested truth seeker. Your posts work much too hard trying to push your barrow to allow for that.

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.

Of course it's true, which is why you deny it. But thank you for at last admitting that the army was coming. The fact remains, though, that Utah was far less violent than anywhere else in the American west at the time, as Richard Burton observed, and others have supported with serious research. (Not anti-Mormons though, so I don't expect you to be aware of them.)

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.

So the only reason the hundreds of other trains made it through safely was so the Mormons could make money off them?

How much do you hate us, really?

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.

Still parrotting Baglady, I see.

Question, Gramps: do you really expect us to believe your ridiculous denials about the significance of Johnston's army?

And do you believe them, really?

(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.

Yes, and you haven't answered the question: why was GAS touring the southern settlements? What "duty" was he "rallying" them to do? I'll give you a hint: it had something to do with J_______'_ A___.

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.

I know so. And everyone not committed to an ideology of hatred against the Church of Jesus Christ admits it.

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.

I doubt you'll go after the Jews; not that you are too nice, but that you lack the vertebrae. Jews have more clout than we do.

But I must thnk you for assisting in my project. I didn't know that there was anyone still at large holding to such an extreme, fanatical fringe-type of anti-Mormon ideology. It's been instructive to see the vile old libels dusted off and put forward as if they actually had some credibility.

Regards,

Pahoran

[solomarineris]

Phoran

Let us accept, as a starting point, that there are no Latter-day Saints who "defend" or "excuse" the massacre. I have never met or heard of a Latter-day Saint who thnks it was anything other than a monstrous crime. Let us take that as a given.

This the quote of GBH

"We don't know what happened here'..."I come as a peacemaker. This is not a time for recrimination or the assigning of blame,"

"No one can explain what happened in these meadows 142 years ago. We may speculate, but we do not know. We do not understand it. We cannot comprehend it. We can only say that the past is long since gone."

"That which we have done here must never be construed as an acknowledgment on the part of the church of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful and tragic day."

Why then GBH puts a disclaimer on the event? It was clear that the crime was perpetrated by some LDS fanatics (mostly from Cedar City).

Some of us read and investigate the history.

[Calm]

It was clear that the crime was perpetrated by some LDS fanatics (mostly from Cedar City).

And that has to do with the complicity of the church how?

If a baptist goes in to rob the local bank, is his church somehow complicit in the action?

[solomarineris]

Calmoriah

And that has to do with the complicity of the church how?

Your answer tries to undermine the history behind MMM. I suggest you read Juanita Brooks books again.

I'm not saying anything about the complicity of Church, but people? Who were they?

They were people who served selflessly The Kingdom of God. Are we going to make them invisible?

Why the disclaimer? I just don't get it. Seems to me like somebody wanting to wash his hands clean centuries after.

Read the disclaimer quote again.

[KevinG]

"We don't know what happened here'..."I come as a peacemaker.

Them is some suspicious ellipses pardner.

Call for references so we can see what the rest of the We don't know what happened here... says.

[KevinG]

"We don't know what happened here'..."I come as a peacemaker.

Them is some suspicious ellipses pardner.

Call for references so we can see what the rest of the We don't know what happened here... says.

I guess that means we don't get to judge for ourselves what was said. We just get hand picked quotes with ellipses right in the middle.

[gramps]

Hi Pahoran.

I'm going to wind everything up with this last post, unless you specifically want me to respond after your reading it and then, I will do so to any specific parts of this post you are unclear about.

I have told you and others that I believe Brigham Young masterminded this murder. That approval came from the top. There is no hard evidence that he did.

That being said, however, there is still a lot of circumstantial evidence as to his complicity. I know that you will not agree with me, but many, many people over the years, both Mormon and non-mormon believe the same thing. Even active, temple-worthy Mormons who have frequented this board in the past agree and have argued this point on the board here with you not so long ago.

I will start with the Mormon writer Levi Petersen. I think he sees the issue quite clearly. He has written:

"If good Mormons committed the massacre, if prayerful leaders ordered it, if apostles and a Prophet knew about it and later sacrificed John D. Lee, then the sainthood of even the modern church seems tainted...Where is the moral superiority of Mormonism, where is the assurance that God has made Mormons his new chosen people?"

We know that good Mormons committed the massacre. We know that prayerful leaders ordered it. And we have some evidence that apostles and the Prophet knew about it and sacrificed John D. Lee.

Let's look at Brigham Young's behavior, after the fact.

Wilford Woodruff writes in his journal, the following:

[May 25 1861]"A very cold morning much ice on the creek. I wore my great coat & mittens. We visited the Mt. Meadows Monument not up at the burial place of 120 persons killed by Indians in 1857. The pile of stone was about twelve feet high but beginning to tumble down. A wooden cross is placed on top with the following words, Vengeance is mine and I will repay saith the Lord. Pres. Young said it should be Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little. (Brooks, The Mountain Meadows Massacre)

In Forgotten Kingdom, Bigler adds:

"One of Young's escort lassoed the cross [on the burial site] with a rope,, turned his horse and pulled it down. Brigham Young "didn't say another word," recalled Dudley Leavitt. "He didn't give an order. He just lifted his right arm to the square [a temple gesture], 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." (Bigler, Forgotten Kingdom)

And Brooks writes:

"...but since he understood well that their acts had grown out of loyalty to him and his cause, he would not betray them into the hands of their common "enemy"...Someone assuredly warned all the participants, so that for many years they were all able to evade arrest." (Brooks, The Mountain Meadows Massacre)

This leads necessarily to what this "loyalty" entailed and to the environment surrounding these events.

I wrote and you responded:

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.

Pahoran, I don't believe that wiping out enemies, perceived or actual, went against "everything the Church teaches or has ever taught."

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.

There is a lot of evidence negating this claim of yours that "this [is a]single event, standing out in stark contrast against a half-century of quiet, decorous behavior."

Since Missouri, there is a lot of evidence that the Mormons, with Joseph's approval were willing to kill and murder. (See Rigdon's extermination sermon and the Danite history)

I also said, to which your response is noted, the following:

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 don't expect you to know that, of course.

Your statement flies in the face of your own scriptures, specifically the Doctrine and Covenants.

D&C: 101, in part reads:

43: And now, I will show unto you a parable, that you may know my will concerning the redemption of Zion.

44: A certain nobleman had a spot of land, very choice; and he said unto his servants: Go ye unto my vineyard, even upon this very choice piece of land, and plant twelve olive trees;

51: And the enemy came by night, and broke down the hedge; and the servants of the nobleman arose and were affrighted, and fled; and the enemy destroyed their works, and broke down the olive-trees.

55: And the lord of the vineyard said unto one of his servants: Go and gather together the residue of my servants, and take all the strength of mine house, which are my warriors, my young men, and they that are of middle age also among all of my servants, who are the strength of mine house, save only those whom I have appointed to tarry;

56:And go ye straight way unto the land of my vineyard, and redeem my vineyard; for it is mine; I have bought it with money;

57: Therefore, get ye straightway unto my land; break down the walls of mine enemies; throw down the tower, and scatter their watchmen.

58: And inasmuch as they gather against you, avenge me of mine enemies, that by and by I may come with the residue of mine house and possess the land.

D&C 103 is even more telling because it includes very similar language to that included in the oath of vengeance:

15: Behold, I say unto you, the redemption of Zion must needs come by power;

16: Therefore, I will raise up unto my people a man, who shall lead them like as Moses led the children of Israel.

22: Therefore let my servant Baurak Ale [Joseph Smith, Jr.] say unto the strength of my house, my young men and the middle aged-Gather yourselves together unto the land of Zion, upon the land which I have bought with money that has been consecrated unto me.

24: And inasmuch as mine enemies come against you to drive you from my goodly land, which I have consecrated to be the land of Zion, even from your own lands after these testimonies, which ye have brought before me against them, ye shall curse them;

25: And whomever ye curse, I will curse, and ye shall avenge me of mine enemies.

26: And my presence shall be with you even in avenging me of mine enemies, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

I guess if I had been a citizen of Jackson county, Missouri, I would have been worried if I had known of such prophecies given by the Lord to Joseph Smith.

Frightening.

When one makes a covenant and promise, that is an oath, not a prayer.

When such an oath is accompanied with a penalty, it is an oath, not a prayer.

That it was understood as an oath by the members of the church, is hardly at doubt.

Consider The Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, where he writes in 1889:

"About 4:30 p.m. this meeting adjourned and was followed by a meeting of Presidents Woodruff, Cannon and Smith and Bros. Lyman and Grant...In speaking of the recent examination before Judge Anderson Father said that he understood when he had his endowments in Nauvoo that he took an oath against the murderers of the Prophet Joseph as well as other prophets, and if he had ever met any of those who had taken a hand in that massacre he would undoubedly have attempted to avenge the blood of the martyrs. The Prophet charged Stephen Markham to avenge his blood should he be slain."

Here is how Heber C. Kimball saw things:

...the Twelve would have to leave shortly, for a charge of treason would be brought against them for swearing us to avenge the blood of the anointed ones, and some one would reveal it, and we shall have to part some day between sundown and dark-....I have covenanted, and never will rest nor my posterity after me until those men who killed Joseph & Hyrum have been wiped out of the earth. (Heber C. Kimball's Journal, December 21, 1845)

It was an oath and the leaders of this church took it very, very seriously.

Now, it is true that they took this oath while standing in the prayer circle. But, it was still an oath.

And according to the D&C, God even sometimes asked his followers to avenge His enemies.

Finally, a little more about violence and the early Church. Just a little more than ten years ago, the Associated Press' Vern Anderson reported on Michael Quinn and his research into early church documents. Among other things Anderson wrote:

"....In attempting to establish his kingdom of God, Smith embraced a set of what Quinn calls 'theocratic ethics' that placed Mormon priesthood authority above civil law. At times, primarily after Smith's death, those ethics sanctioned public denials of actual events, counterfeiting and stealing from non-Mormons, threats and physical attacks against dissenters, killing and castration of sex offenders, murdering of anti-Mormons and bribery of government officials."

Even Mormon scholar Allen Roberts admits to what we aunties have been saying from the beginning. In his words:

"Leaders repeatedly make it clear that they alone are authoritative in matters of church policy and belief. Even in the area of history, leaders attempt to control depictions of the Mormon past, advocating 'faithful history' and condemning historical findings, however true, revealing information contrary to the sanitized, apologetic, church-approved histories. Quinn, for one, was not excommunicated because his history writing was inaccurate. He was cut off because his findings did not reinforce pictures the church has painted of its past."

Pahoran, you wonder why still today the Mountain Meadows Massacre is such a big issue? If the church had even attempted to paint a true picture of the events of that terrible day, by opening up its archives, giving free access to researchers, it would have been over a long time ago. But, no, we are still waiting for that definitive work, even 150 years later.

Why is that?

[KevinG]

...we are still waiting for that definitive work, even 150 years later.

Why is that?

Perhaps because of beliefs like this:

I have told you and others that I believe Brigham Young masterminded this murder. That approval came from the top.

that are based on evidence like this:

There is no hard evidence that he did.

Is the hallmark of the "we [that] are still waiting".

Which is the purpose of this thread. To show that despite evidence to the contrary, there are plenty of people who hate the Mormons enough to attempt to spin a conviction of Brigham Young and the LDS teachings based on an incident that was clearly in opposition to both.

[gramps]

Dad of 7,

The LDS teachings are involved. I have agreed there is no hard evidence of Brigham masterminding it. But, I can still believe it.

Both points are clear in my post.

Did you read my post? How are LDS teachings not involved?

D&C.

Kimball's journal.

Abraham Cannon's journal.

Just to start.

Edited to read: Oh and you are trying to tell me that the Church waited to put out a definitive account because I believe something. Like I said, the belief would have to disappear if the Church would come out with all the documents, all the new evidence. Why have they waited so long?

[KevinG]

What I was implying is that there is perhaps no definitive account to be had. The perpetrators are long dead and so is their ability to tell tales or reveal things.

...and yes I've read your quotes. I've seen almost all of them before.

Brighams actions and words upon seeing the makeshift memorial strike me as the actions of a bitter and angry man, but taking that bitterness and assuming it was his idea to massacre innocents is a very biased interpretation by someone who desperately wants to convict Brigham of something that there is no evidence of.

The vengance quote could have been about Lee or the Fancher party.

In short you have taken a whole lot of disparate and sometimes second and third hand reports of the event and tried to spin them into whole cloth in order to justify your desire to implicate Brigham and the whole of the LDS Church.

USU and others have given you good evidence to the contrary... they have asked you questions in return that don't get answered, but evaded, and then you start into another long thread of second and third hand accounts...

Its old and stale and reveals that you really don't have any desire to get to the truth, only to smear the Saints...

Again, you illustrate very well the reasons Pahoram started this thread.

(Please keep in mind I don't condone or excuse the terrible murders at Mountain Meadows and never have, but Brigham isn't responsible for them. I'm willing to guess that if he had it to do over again he wouldn't have used quite the strong polemics he did prior to the incident and would have sent messengers much earlier to calm the local population down. But would have, could have and should have are hardly reasons to convict of murder and conspiracy.)

[Pahoran]

Hi Pahoran.

I'm going to wind everything up with this last post, unless you specifically want me to respond after your reading it and then, I will do so to any specific parts of this post you are unclear about.

I have told you and others that I believe Brigham Young masterminded this murder. That approval came from the top. There is no hard evidence that he did.

Nor is there any soft evidence, nor indeed any evidence of any kind, but that doesn't stop some people from making the accusation anyway.

That being said, however, there is still a lot of circumstantial evidence as to his complicity.

Really? What is it?

I know that you will not agree with me, but many, many people over the years, both Mormon and non-mormon believe the same thing. Even active, temple-worthy Mormons who have frequented this board in the past agree and have argued this point on the board here with you not so long ago.

Really? Who? I don't remember any.

I remember a few anti-Mormons who used "active, temple-worthy Mormon" cover stories, but that's not quite the same thing, is it?

But in any event that is irrelevant. Opinions are not evidence, "circumstantial" or otherwise. Do you even know what circumstantial evidence is?

I will start with the Mormon writer Levi Petersen. I think he sees the issue quite clearly. He has written:

"If good Mormons committed the massacre, if prayerful leaders ordered it, if apostles and a Prophet knew about it and later sacrificed John D. Lee, then the sainthood of even the modern church seems tainted...Where is the moral superiority of Mormonism, where is the assurance that God has made Mormons his new chosen people?"

Yes, that's a series of ifs.

And who is Levi Petersen? Is he Levi S. Petersen, the novelist and fiction writer?

We know that good Mormons committed the massacre.

Actually we only know that Mormons committed it.

We know that prayerful leaders ordered it.

Actually we only know that leaders ordered it.

And we have some evidence that apostles and the Prophet knew about it and sacrificed John D. Lee.

So you keep asserting. I have looked carefully into the last issue and am fully satisfied that Lee was in no regard "sacrificed." He was the prime culprit for the massacre, although he was by no means the only culprit.

Stop trying to load the dice with "atmosphere" and get to the evidence you claim you've got.

Let's look at Brigham Young's behavior, after the fact.

Wilford Woodruff writes in his journal, the following:

[May 25 1861]"A very cold morning much ice on the creek. I wore my great coat & mittens. We visited the Mt. Meadows Monument not up at the burial place of 120 persons killed by Indians in 1857. The pile of stone was about twelve feet high but beginning to tumble down. A wooden cross is placed on top with the following words, Vengeance is mine and I will repay saith the Lord. Pres. Young said it should be Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little. (Brooks, The Mountain Meadows Massacre)

And how does this constitute evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that Brigham ordered the massacre?

In Forgotten Kingdom, Bigler adds:

"One of Young's escort lassoed the cross [on the burial site] with a rope,, turned his horse and pulled it down. Brigham Young "didn't say another word," recalled Dudley Leavitt. "He didn't give an order. He just lifted his right arm to the square [a temple gesture], 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." (Bigler, Forgotten Kingdom)

As mentioned, Leavitt was a massacre participant. It was in his interest to portray Brigham as sympathetic.

Question: why didn't Wilford Woodruff mention the destruction of the cairn, if indeed it did take place? Why did he go to the trouble of writing about the visit to mention only Brigham's passing comment, and not the act of destruction, if indeed it did take place?

And why did you make that spiteful editorial insertion about "a temple gesture?" It's a gesture that is used every Sunday in sacrament meetings when people are released and sustained. Why didn't you call it that? Did you not know that, or were you simply trying to spin your interpretation?

Finally, if the cairn was destroyed so that "there wasn't one stone left upon another," why did later visitors report seeing it there?

And Brooks writes:

"...but since he understood well that their acts had grown out of loyalty to him and his cause, he would not betray them into the hands of their common "enemy"...Someone assuredly warned all the participants, so that for many years they were all able to evade arrest." (Brooks, The Mountain Meadows Massacre)

Again with offering opinions for evidence. And what are you concealing with those ellipses, Gramps? I am much too old a hand at dealing with anti-Mormon skulduggery not to know that if the material thus elided was helpful to your argument, you would have left it intact.

Apart from that, mind-reading is not evidence, whether "circumstantial" or otherwise. The fact is that the federal occupation of Utah was marked by a number of criminal investigations, the object of which was not to bring the perpetrators to justice, but to "get something" on Brigham Young. You cannot deny that such a mindset existed, because you yourself share it, even today. The Saints, including the vast majority who had no complicity in any crime, had every reason to not co-operate with any witch hunt, however legal it might have been.

This leads necessarily to what this "loyalty" entailed and to the environment surrounding these events.

Or not.

I wrote and you responded:

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.

Pahoran, I don't believe that wiping out enemies, perceived or actual, went against "everything the Church teaches or has ever taught."

What you believe, what you profess to believe, and the question of how much overlap there is between the two, are entirely irrelevant to what the Church actually taught.

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.

There is a lot of evidence negating this claim of yours that "this [is a]single event, standing out in stark contrast against a half-century of quiet, decorous behavior."

Really? Then let's see it.

Keeping in mind that discredited old anti-Mormon libels are not evidence of anything except the malice of their authors.

Since Missouri, there is a lot of evidence that the Mormons, with Joseph's approval were willing to kill and murder. (See Rigdon's extermination sermon and the Danite history)

You need to do better than casually dropping accusations. You will not wear me down with defender fatigue, Gramps, so you're going to have to support your claims with evidence.

I am aware that, after five years of brutal treatment, of which you of course wholeheartedly approve, some Latter-day Saints, including Sidney Rigdon, started talking tough. I am also aware that others, including Sampson Avard, started taking matters into their own hands. I am further aware--as I suspect you are--that Joseph Smith squashed Avard's danite scheme. (That's the real danite history, just so you know.)

So you will need to substantiate your accusations, or else they will have to stand refuted. I don't expect you to withdraw them; that would be asking too much.

I also said, to which your response is noted, the following:

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 don't expect you to know that, of course.

Your statement flies in the face of your own scriptures, specifically the Doctrine and Covenants.

D&C: 101, in part reads:

43: And now, I will show unto you a parable, that you may know my will concerning the redemption of Zion.

44: A certain nobleman had a spot of land, very choice; and he said unto his servants: Go ye unto my vineyard, even upon this very choice piece of land, and plant twelve olive trees;

51: And the enemy came by night, and broke down the hedge; and the servants of the nobleman arose and were affrighted, and fled; and the enemy destroyed their works, and broke down the olive-trees.

55: And the lord of the vineyard said unto one of his servants: Go and gather together the residue of my servants, and take all the strength of mine house, which are my warriors, my young men, and they that are of middle age also among all of my servants, who are the strength of mine house, save only those whom I have appointed to tarry;

56:And go ye straight way unto the land of my vineyard, and redeem my vineyard; for it is mine; I have bought it with money;

57: Therefore, get ye straightway unto my land; break down the walls of mine enemies; throw down the tower, and scatter their watchmen.

58: And inasmuch as they gather against you, avenge me of mine enemies, that by and by I may come with the residue of mine house and possess the land.

Really, and so?

How does that "fly in the face" of what I wrote, which you have not addressed?

And how, even in the fevered imagination of a fanatical anti-Mormon, can that possibly be linked to ambushing and murdering a party of emigrants who are only passing through? How would doing that possibly contribute to the "redemption of Zion?" Explain, please.

D&C 103 is even more telling because it includes very similar language to that included in the oath of vengeance:

15: Behold, I say unto you, the redemption of Zion must needs come by power;

16: Therefore, I will raise up unto my people a man, who shall lead them like as Moses led the children of Israel.

22: Therefore let my servant Baurak Ale [Joseph Smith, Jr.] say unto the strength of my house, my young men and the middle aged-Gather yourselves together unto the land of Zion, upon the land which I have bought with money that has been consecrated unto me.

24: And inasmuch as mine enemies come against you to drive you from my goodly land, which I have consecrated to be the land of Zion, even from your own lands after these testimonies, which ye have brought before me against them, ye shall curse them;

25: And whomever ye curse, I will curse, and ye shall avenge me of mine enemies.

26: And my presence shall be with you even in avenging me of mine enemies, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

And again, what on earth can this possibly have to do with the MMM?

And how does it address the fact that asking the Lord to avenge one's wrongs also entails relinquishing any claim to avenge them oneself?

I guess if I had been a citizen of Jackson county, Missouri, I would have been worried if I had known of such prophecies given by the Lord to Joseph Smith.

You might; but only if you were among those who had forcibly dispossessed the Saints in the first place.

Not that you see anything wrong with that.

Frightening.

Of course. Demagogical hate propaganda is supposed to be frightening.

When one makes a covenant and promise, that is an oath, not a prayer.

When such an oath is accompanied with a penalty, it is an oath, not a prayer.

That it was understood as an oath by the members of the church, is hardly at doubt.

I am not discussing sacred matters with such as you. Matthew 7:6 says:

6

[gramps]

The vengance quote could have been about Lee or the Fancher party.

What? Please explain how it could be about Lee.

I have specifically responded to Pahoran's comments on the oath. Did I not?

If you want to say that scripture (allowing for the Saints to wipe people out), and Woodruff's and Cannon's journals are 3rd hand, well, go ahead.

Pahoran said there was no violence and that the Saints were a quiet and decorous people and this was an aberration.

He also wants to paint a pretty picture of the oath and say it had nothing to do with it. It clearly did in the minds of some leaders.

All of those things are not true. You didn't respond to one of the pieces I offered here. And that type of behavior from the beginning of the whole cover-up is why people can't trust the Mormons to deal with their own history. If they had come clean up front, it would all be over now.

And from what we have heard, the new soon to be published account is going to tell it like it really was, and the Church has admitted to finally letting out everything. Apparently, they seem to think it will be far more definitive than anything put out so far. And are you telling me that the apologists won't be saying that exact thing. That seems to be what is being implied out on the Net these days.

A real historian, Alexander. Complete access to all the available documents. Sounds like they are trying to put out the definitive work to me.

[KevinG]

The vengance quote could have been about Lee or the Fancher party.

What? Please explain how it could be about Lee.

I have specifically responded to Pahoran's comments on the oath. Did I not?

If you want to say that scripture (allowing for the Saints to wipe people out), and Woodruff's and Cannon's journals are 3rd hand, well, go ahead.

Pahoran said there was no violence and that the Saints were a quiet and decorous people and this was an aberration.

He also wants to paint a pretty picture of the oath and say it had nothing to do with it. It clearly did in the minds of some leaders.

All of those things are not true. You didn't respond to one of the pieces I offered here. And that type of behavior from the beginning of the whole cover-up is why people can't trust the Mormons to deal with their own history. If they had come clean up front, it would all be over now.

And from what we have heard, the new soon to be published account is going to tell it like it really was, and the Church has admitted to finally letting out everything. Apparently, they seem to think it will be far more definitive than anything put out so far. And are you telling me that the apologists won't be saying that exact thing. That seems to be what is being implied out on the Net these days.

A real historian, Alexander. Complete access to all the available documents. Sounds like they are trying to put out the definitive work to me.

Gramps the reason you get dismissive answers from me is the few times I gave you complete answers you dismissed most of it.

I see Pahoran has answered you. I'll back out to avoid a three way discussion.

[Calm]

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.

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.

http://historytogo.utah.gov/salt_lake_tribune/in_another_time/070295.html

Your family history needs some updating for accuracy.

Mar 22 to Aug 11 isn't days later, a crowded street with two dozen men on it doesn't equal no witnesses. (another source said over a hundred witnesses, including many soliders)

And riding off alone doesn't equal riding off with danites, ex or otherwise.

The jury of three members and nine nonmembers declared him not guilty by reason of insanity.

An understandable conclusion considering the injury was so severe that part of his brain matter was lost and he was expected to die, but made a very remarkable recovery. Brain injury of that severity is known to alter personalities. Interesting that the jury was 3/4 nonmember.

http://www.nanilaie.com/MPHS/Chase.htm

[gramps]

For example, Pahoran is already saying it.

We had all better get our licks in now, because the definitive history will tell it like it really happened.

That will be a first for the church, to be sure.

[gramps]

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.

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.

http://historytogo.utah.gov/salt_lake_tribune/in_another_time/070295.html

Your family history needs some updating for accuracy.

Mar 22 to Aug 11 isn't days later, a crowded street with two dozen men on it doesn't equal no witnesses. (another source said over a hundred witnesses, including many soliders)

And riding off alone doesn't equal riding off with danites, ex or otherwise.

The jury of three members and nine nonmembers declared him not guilty by reason of insanity.

An understandable conclusion considering the injury was so severe that part of his brain matter was lost and he was expected to die, but made a very remarkable recovery. Brain injury of that severity is known to alter personalities. Interesting that the jury was 3/4 nonmember.

http://www.nanilaie.com/MPHS/Chase.htm

I specifically said I could not remember the particulars about dates.

He did not have a fractured skull such that he was rendered insane, or anything even close to that. If you can get the real source to that third-hand piece you throw out there, I would love to see it.

About witnesses: I said there were no witnesses, meaning they couldn't get any at the time it happened. I know very well there were many people on the street at the time. It was in the middle of the day on Main Street for heaven's sakes.

Also, other accounts say he rode off with two or three other "Danites." Your account is not my account, nor does it comport with family history.

He was hardly even close to anything like insane. There are accounts of his service in Orderville as a Bishop and on the Stake Presidency. He was nothing of the sort, insane, at the time of the murder or later.

Again, if you can find anything about that account you site, I would love to read it.

Also, like I said in my first post concerning this matter, I hadn't looked at the reports or history in some time and I guess I should go back and check on the dates. But, insanity, maybe the court found such a result, but, he was never insane, to be sure.

[Calm]

He was nothing of the sort, insane, at the time of the murder

The jury, 3/4 nonmember, would disagree with you.

It would be interesting to see the minutes of the trial.

[gramps]

Indeed, it would be. Please, check your PM box.

[gramps]

Calmoriah was kind enough to do some research concerning an ancestor of mine.

The following is a report by Schindler at the site Calmoriah indicated in his post. It is quite classic. Notice who helped him get away. No Danites. Huh!

The antagonisms of the 1850s in Utah were painfully slow in easing, so slow some carried over to the late 1880s. A perfect example is the Pike-Spencer affair, an abrasion between Mormon settlers and the frontier Army that erupted into attempted murder and murder charges that spanned three decades.

In 1859, the U.S. Army had taken possession of Rush Valley in Tooele County as a government reserve for pasture and hay for its horses and mules. A Mormon stock company--Spencer, Little & Co.--owned a ranch adjacent to the reserve in the north part of the valley. Twenty-year-old Howard O. Spencer with one or two other men employed by the stock company were at the ranch on March 22 to make the spring roundup of cattle. They were stopped by a detachment of infantry from Camp Floyd and ordered off the "government's range."

Spencer argued his right to be on the property since he was one of the owners. Because of overriding agreements between Territorial officials, settlers and Brig. Gen. Albert Sidney Johnston on the part of the Army, the question of whether Spencer was right in arguing his position was never reconciled. And the versions of what occurred next are conflicting.

What is certain is that 1st Sgt. Ralph Pike, I Company, 10th Infantry Regiment, with men of his unit, confronted Spencer and his cowboys and ordered them off the pasturage. Spencer had a hay fork in his hand and responded to Pike's words with a few of his own. They argued. Pike, a veteran of the Utah Expedition and a career soldier, later swore that Spencer attacked him with the pitchfork, while the Mormon's companions claimed he tried to defend himself with it.

In any case, Pike, brandishing a musket, brushed the pitchfork aside and, swinging his weapon by the barrel, brought the gun butt down on Spencer's head with such force that the pitchfork handle was splintered into three pieces and the rancher's skull was crushed. It's possible that the pitchfork handle actually saved Spencer's life. The soldiers carried him to the ranch house and sent for a doctor, Army Surgeon Charles E. Brewer, who pulled several pieces of shattered bone from his head and skillfully patched the fracture as best he could. Spencer, drifting in and out of consciousness, was moved to the home of relatives where it was thought he would soon die from his fearsome wounds.

Incredibly, despite the loss of some brain matter, he began to recover. And with his recovery came thoughts of revenge. Under a doctor's care until June of that year, Spencer, with an ugly, livid trench high along the right side of his head, brooded about his lot in life. It was said that he and friend George Stringham in late summer discussed ways of decoying Pike from the camp to even the score.

At the same time Spencer had taken the matter to law and a grand jury indicted the sergeant for "assault with intent to kill." When the news was posted on I Company's bulletin board, Pike's comrades-in-arms were enraged. Lt. Louis H. Marshall, who had been in charge of Pike's detail, reported to Gen. Johnston that Pike was blameless, that Spencer's behavior was that of "a perfect bully" who was lucky he wasn't shot instead of having his head broken.

Going to Trial: Nevertheless, on Aug. 11 the sergeant, accompanied by a four-man military escort who also were to be witnesses in the case, along with Major Fitz John Porter, Johnston's assistant adjutant general, appeared before Associate Justice Charles R. Sinclair in District Court in Great Salt Lake City and entered a plea of not guilty. A noon recess found the defendant, Major Porter and four soldiers in uniform strolling south on the east side of Main Street near the Salt Lake House [about 169 S. Main].

It was a crowded summer afternoon. Orlando F. Herron remembered there was an immigrant wagon--and about two dozen men on the street. Nearby, Trumbo's Elephant Store, a favorite gathering place in the late 1850s and '60s, was enjoying its usual steady business. Leonard Phillips was sitting in the Salt Lake House when he spotted a crowd coming down the street. In front of it were Pike and another soldier. A man came up behind the sergeant and tapped him on the shoulder. "He said, 'Is that you, Pike?'" Phillips remembered. "Pike turned around and the man shot him in the side."

The muzzle of the revolver was about two or three feet from Pike when it was fired; the man who pulled the trigger stopped for an instant, looking at Pike, with his pistol in his hand, Phillips said. "Bill Hickman came up and said, 'Git!'; the man went over the [irrigation ditch] and ran across the street into an alley," he recalled. Phillips also noticed that George Stringham was a dozen feet or so from the man with the revolver.

Pike, clutching his side, wobbled and cried out, "My God! I'm shot!" Phillips sprang out and caught the wounded man and a corporal in the crowd helped carry Pike into the Salt Lake House. Pike had been wearing a gunbelt, but his holster flap was buttoned. The bullet struck the bone handle of a Bowie knife on the belt, and coursed upward entering just above the right hip and lodged behind the ribs. A bit of bone from the knife also penetrated his body.

As the soldiers moved Pike to a room in the hotel, Hickman, a lawyer with the reputation of a thug and desperado, was seen with a pistol in each hand, chasing the shooter west in an alley between blocks. At the same time he was warning others away from the scene, "Keep back, I'll drop him!" Some thought Hickman was actually hindering pursuit; the shooter jumped a fence into a lumber yard where a saddled horse was tethered, and mounting up made good his escape.

Pike lingered for two days, long enough to make a dying declaration to Justice Sinclair that Howard Spencer had shot him. Lt. G.A. Gordon said, "Pike, are you positive it was Spencer?"

"I know it," was the reply. Pike died on Aug. 14, despite the efforts of an Army surgeon to save him. He was buried at the Camp Floyd Cemetery.

Brig. Gen. Johnston took preliminary measures to keep the situation from becoming explosive, but his order regarding the death of Pike was scarcely calming: "It is with much regret the commanding officer announces to the regiment the death of that excellent soldier, First Sergeant Ralph Pike, of Company I, late last night, the victim of Mormon assassination, through revenge for the proper discharge of his duty."

After the funeral, hell broke loose in I Company. Capt. Jesse A. Gove, company commander, had always taken great pride in his men and was especially proud that among other units of the 10th Infantry Regiment, it was conceded that the "I's have it." On the night of Aug. 15, however, Gove lost control of his fiercely disciplined company. Lorenzo Brown, a Mormon, had quite a different view of the troops. It was the "grandest company of rascals in the command," he said, a bunch that gained for itself very justly the title of "the Forty Thieves--that being their number."

That night I Company roared out of the camp, despite orders confining all soldiers to the post, and descended on Cedar Fort, a Mormon settlement some five miles distant. Whooping and hollering, they set ablaze a number of haystacks. When the townfolk ran to extinguish the flames, they were greeted by gunfire. A horse was killed, no one was injured.

Consternation over the raid on Cedar Fort overshadowed Pike's murder. Although soldiers always kept an eye peeled for Howard Spencer, there was no other concerted effort by Utah authorities to arrest him and a grand jury after issuing an indictment for murder, ignored the matter. Spencer lived in the Fourth LDS Ward in Great Salt Lake City, and in 1862 joined Col. Lot Smith's Utah volunteer battalion to protect the Overland Mail route against Indian depredations. In 1874, Spencer moved to Kanab in southern Utah to live. His was a life of relative obscurity until August 1888 when U.S. Marshals swooped down on Liberty Park in Salt Lake City to round up a number of Mormon men on warrants charging "unlawful cohabitation," one of the several legal devices used to nab polygamists.

Outstanding Warrant: Among those snared was Howard O. Spencer. Prison Warden Arthur Pratt, who also was a U.S. Marshal, not only slapped him with the cohab warrant but also with the indictment on the 29-year-old murder. Pratt arrested George Stringham at his ranch on charges of being an accessory to murder. Spencer posted $6,000 bail; Stringham was held on $5,000.

Trial was scheduled for May 6, 1889, before Third District Court Judge J.W. Judd. A 12-member jury, nearly all non-Mormons, was to hear the case. Spencer's lawyers sought and were granted a separate trial; Stringham was to face the music the following week.

Defense counsel LeGrand Young argued that no one actually saw Spencer pull the trigger, and even if they had, "Would it be strange if Spencer was fired by the torture of his wound, and in his demented condition grew frenzied and brought retributive justice to the boastful sergeant who had committed the cowardly assault? And when Pike was brought in, he was permitted to go on parade with his subordinates, an armed man flaunting in the face of his victim the position he was in, and boastful of what he had done. Would not a sane man have become uncontrollable under such circumstances? In those days men carried pistols because the law did not afford them protection ----."

At that point, Judge Judd cut him off. "Stop that. Keep within the evidence!" The prosecution contended there was no reasonable doubt that Spencer fired the fatal shot and argued that Stringham, Hickman and a number of others since deceased had conspired to protect Spencer's escape from the scene of the crime.

Not Guilty: After three days of testimony, the jury brought in a verdict for acquittal. It was a decision that sent The Salt Lake Tribune straight up. In a stinging editorial, the newspaper railed at the verdict: Hickman, [Jason] Luce, Stringham and the rest, while pretending to be trying to arrest him, were really keeping the crowd back until the murderer should escape. The whole business was as plain as sunlight.

All the insanity in the brain of Spencer was there long before he received that blow on the head. He was born with the same insanity that the wolf feels when he is hungry and meets a lamb in his path. And The Tribune was not alone in its disappointment.

Judge Judd had a few words to say on the subject when the jury announced, "Not guilty." He quickly gaveled down an attempt at applause in the courtroom, and turning to the panel, intoned: "I want to say to you in reference to the verdict you have rendered, that you have doubtless followed your oath according to your own consciences, and you have doubtless done it honestly. But if this is not a case of murder, speaking from a practice of over twenty-three years, then I have never seen one in a court of justice. I am now of the opinion that [LeGrand] Young was exactly right when he said in his argument to the jury that the law and courts of justice in this country were no protection to anybody." You may now be discharged, Judd told the jurors.

Howard O. Spencer lived to be 80. He died March 4, 1918, after an accidental fall from a bridge in Glendale, Kane County, Utah.

[Bob Crockett]

To quote only from the Tribune about the Howard Spencer trial is rather naive, woudn't ya say?

Most of the jurors were non-Mormons. Except for the Tribune's report the verdict seemed to have been favorably received by most of Salt Lake City, Mormons and non-Mormons alike, or so says Orson F. Whitney. So the other side of the coin has a different set of facts.

Also interesting is your claim there were no witnesses. There were 32 witness at trial. It was uncontroverted that Spencer did the deed. The question is whether he was insane at the time; many witnesses were called to testify as to that point.

rcrocket