A Question About Bagley's Claim.

[Scott Lloyd]

For that matter, I thought your article was excellent and pulled no punches. As a result, I suggest you might wish to brace yourself for zings not only from us critics, but also from LDS who have only been taught the LDS distortions and mischaracterizations and will find your more accurate reporting to be non faith-promoting.

So far, there has been nary a zing from either camp. In fact, the reception has been most warm among those who share my faith and affinity for the gospel of Christ as restored through Joseph Smith the Prophet. Which suggests to me that my people are as receptive to the truth as you claim to be, but they want it from a source they can trust, not someone disposed to assign blame to the entire Church for the crimes of a relatively few committed 150 years go and which have been repeatedly disavowed over the years by the leaders of the Church.

At the same time, I'm fascinated that you show up very abruptly at 5:37AM your time to respond to my post at 2:24AM my time. Depending on your time zone, there couldn't have been more than three or four hours after my post in the middle of the night until you wake up (or are awakened by someone) read my post, compose your response, and hit the "Add Reply" button. If someone woke you up to respond to me, I apologize. I would have appreciated your response even at a more reasonable hour. At the same time, I'll admit I'm very impressed at your flurry of early morning activity just to respond to little old me.

As it happens, my wife, children and I deliver newspapers, which puts us up in the very early morning hours. I was home by about 5:30 a.m. yesterday. I'm on vacation this week, but my 4-year-old tends to monopolize the computer during the day, so I decided that before going back to bed for a few hours, I would check my e-mail and this board. Typicaly, when I'm short of time, I do a search on my name to see if there has been anything addressing or mentioning me that calls for a response. I did so yesterday and ran across your post.

But I'm happy to have been able to respond to you so promptly. I can't guarantee that will always be the case, as I don't have the informant network you seem to think I do.

If you're going to ask me not to engage in distortion and mischaracterization, you'll have to refrain from it yourself. It is at least disengenuous (if not a full distortion and mischaracterization) to deny "Church" involvement when major players in both the actual killing attacks and shooting and the inflammatory rhetoric advocating violence to outsiders which preceeded the massacre consisted of the local stake president Haight, bishop Klingensmith, and the Cedar City High Council which unilaterally dispatched a rider to ask Brigham Young what to do about the wagon train (while continuing to press the killings and not waiting for an answer).

I recognize that one with an antagoinistic stance such as yours might be loathe to grasp this point, but there is a theological principle in Mormonism which holds that the priesthood authority of any man ceases the moment he begins to function contrary to the law and will of God (see Doctrine and Covenants 121:37). Ergo, the perpetrators of the atrocities at Mountain Meadows were no more representatives of the Church than any other killers would have been under the circumstances.

If you now wish to make a distinction between local Church activity and Church headquarters [which you did NOT do yourself in your own post], you may wish to consider how this rather feeble distinction will play with the thoughtful readers of this thread. I suspect some of them will consider the distinction a rhetorical one, not a substantive one, and will view your distinction as an evasion (another form of distortion and mischaracterization).

I'm confident that a fair-minded person would reject your guilt-by-association accusation as the sophistry that it is. By your line of reasoning, the parents and wife of Mark Hofmann are responsible for the murders he committed because he was part of their family.

I again appeal to you, Brother Lloyd, to refrain from LDS distortion and mischaracterization. You may wish to check your Utah maps. Johnston's Army wasn't approaching anywhere near Cedar City (and, never would, for that matter) and by the time the massacre started, the Fancher train was already past Cedar City in a hurry to get to California and away from the hostile threatening LDS. Indeed, the Fancher party was, according to your article, 35 miles south of Cedar City at Mountain Meadows, a full day's ride one-way on horseback from Cedar City so the Saints there were in absolutely no danger whatsoever before the attacks started.

I won't be goaded into rationalizing the behavior of the killers at Mountain Meadows. I agree with Rick Turley, who said on the bus tour that, even given the worst possible interpretation, the circumstances do not come close to justifying what happened.

At the same time, though, it defies reason to claim that the approach of the federal troops was not a factor in the hysteria which culminated in the massacre. The entire territory was being rallied for a unified resistance. Apostle George A. Smith had earlier been sent to Cedar City for that purpose. And the evidence suggests that a few drunken loudmouths among the emigrant train were boasting in Cedar City about their intent to help the army kill Mormons, though, to his credit, Captain Fancher evidently rebuked the obnoxious ones.

Again, I appeal to you to refrain from LDS distortion and mischaracterization. My post to which you responded had, as one of its very first points, my explicit statement:

My post included what we DO know and what we DON'T know. Turley's conclusions about Pres. Young's possible blame are certainly his subjective opinions to which he has every right, but his conclusions are NOT uncontested facts. I didn't include his subjective opinions because (1) I did not have a copy of the whole Church News edition so I didn't know the sidebar even existed, and (2) even if I had read the sidebare, Church Historian Turley's subjective opinions are not uncontested facts. My inclusion of my statement that we do NOT know if Pres. Young ordered the massacre was an explicit inclusion of the point you claim I left out. By ignoring that explicit statement at the very beginning of my post and claiming I omitted what is in fact prominently included in black and white, you have mischaracterized my meaning. In light of your fine article, I ask you to refrain from such mischaracterizations and misrepresentations.

Your grudging admission hardly does justice to the fact that arguments that President Young ordered the massacre are not even persuastive enough to be taken seriously. As Rick Turley pointed out, despite conspiracy theories to the contrary, the clear meaning of President Young's message was that the emigrant train be allowed to pass umolested, and the people who received the message understood it that way.

And I'm wondering now where you got hold of a copy of my article if you were unaware of the existence of the sidebar. In the print edition, it is not easy to miss, being on the facing page opposite the jumped portion of the main story. And on the Church News Web site, it is also difficult to miss, as the main story includes a "related content" link to the sidebar. Perhaps you read a pirated copy in a post on a message board or Web site, possibly an anti-Mormon one. I find it disturbing -- though not altogether surprising, given the anti-Mormon MO -- that my article is perhaps being circulated -- likely in violation of copyright -- disconnected from its sidebar, which was intended as an integral accompaniment to the main story.

I appeal yet again to you, Brother Lloyd, to refrain from distortion, mischaracterization, and to this I add an appeal to refrain from unjustifiable ad hominal attacks on my personal integrity.

If you will reread my post, you will see that the first mention of the Church's intent to blame the Indians was your words quoted accurately from your article in which you yourself did not differentiate between Church headquarters or the local Church authorities.

Nowhere in your statement did you make a differentiation between intent at Church headquarters or intent at the local Church authority level. At the end of my post, I mentioned your quotation as an admission that the "Saints" (used throughout my post consistently to refer to the local Cedar City LDS not Church headquarters) ntended to blame the Indians for the slaughter. To consequently characterize my accurate quotation of your own words as a falsehood is completely unjustified and offensive. I must ask for an apology because I've just documented that you zinged me for something you yourself said -- and I didn't.

Nothing in the quoted remarks of Rick Turley and Ron Walker, and nothing in my report of the tour, casts the Church in the role of a party to the massacre. That is your own jaundiced and antagonistic spin. Responsiblitly for the massacre rests with the perpetrators and them alone.

[Bob Crockett]

Thats not quite true either .. within the year, the Church sent out leaders to California and the east to spin the churches early version to the newspapers - it was the indians, misdeads by the Fancher party etc.

This is not correct. The California Alta newspaper in October reported that non-member immigrants arriving in Los Angeles reported the massacre because they were directly behind the Fancher train. The Alta newspaper reports the stories of provocation. It wasn't the "Church leaders" spinning it, if there was spinning.

rcrocket

[Bob Crockett]

It was exposed (for want of a better word) in The FARMS Review 15/2 (2003) in the essay "A Trial Lawyer Reviews Will Bagley's Blood of the Prophets" by Robert D. Crockett. I have heard various accounts of Baglady's response(s) only one of which I can vouch for. The one which shows him in the best light has him admitting that he got it wrong. The one I can vouch for has him dismissing FARMS as "sleazy."

Bagley's formal response is at http://www.samwellers.com/booktalk/feb-mar06.pdf. He declines to respond except to accuse FARMS of an ad hominem hatchet job. However, I really do think that my review of his work went out of its way to avoid impugning him as a person. The closest I really ever came was when I indicated that I thought he lacked the breadth of knowledge (he had depth in Utah) necessary to understand the Massacre. My view was that outside the Wasatch Front, he wasn't very well-versed -- see my article for an explanation.

But, Bagley's response in the samwellers' piece is that he just refuses to engage me.

He and I were members of the same LDS-Bookshelf list for some time; that list was dominated by persons hostile to the Church's view of things. I repeatedly prodded Bagley for answers to questions. He would just insult me and refuse to engage. For instance, I pointed out to him that he was a Huntington Library scholar, and contained within the massacre files there is a letter from John D. Lee's lawyer indicating that the lawyer was going to fictionalize Lee's confession to make it sell better. I asked Bagley whether he had seen that, and whether he thought it was worth mentioning in his book since he cited so much and frequently to Lee's confession. Bagley just called me a hack and a stooge.

I know that Van Hale would like to have Bagley and me on his radio program together. I don't think Bagley's interested.

rcrocket

[Alf O'Mega]

I recognize that one with an antagoinistic stance such as yours might be loathe to grasp this point, but there is a theological principle in Mormonism which holds that the priesthood authority of any man ceases the moment he begins to function contrary to the law and will of God (see Doctrine and Covenants 121:37). Ergo, the perpetrators of the atrocities at Mountain Meadows were no more representatives of the Church than any other killers would have been under the circumstances.

No, Scott. See No True Scotsman.

D&C 121 warns that unrighteous dominion eviscerates the power of the priesthood (because such power can only be maintained "by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned"). It does not define a priesthood-holder as being a non-priesthood-holderâ??operating ipso facto outside the Church's ambitâ??the instant he exercises unrighteous dominion.

I am awfully fond of this particular teaching of Joseph's, which is so widely ignored even as it is praised and quoted. It is so familiar, in fact, that I think most of us scarcely recognize how deeply radical it is: calling upon your followers to obey you because you are the designated, priesthood-authorized leader ("by virtue of the priesthood") is contrary to the order of heaven. People need to be persuaded to be loyal by the leader's unfeigned love. He's saying that as soon as you are given a little authority, you must ignore that authority when convincing people to follow you. The calling itself cannot be used to require obedience.

It's a principle that Joseph didn't practice all the time, but the fact that he recognized it and often did practice it is, in my opinion, one of the marks of his nearly unique charisma.

[TAK]

It wasn't the "Church leaders" spinning it, if there was spinning.

rcrocket

So what was George Q Cannon publishing in four papers in San Francisco, Washington, D.C., St. Louis, and New York City ?

[Bob Crockett]

So what was George Q Cannon publishing in four papers in San Francisco, Washington, D.C., St. Louis, and New York City ?

The first reports were not from the Church. They were from Arkansans and other emigrants who immediately followed the Fanchers. See "Our Los Angeles Correspondence: Massacre of Emigrantsâ??Execution of Johnsonâ??Another Murderâ??State of the Weatherâ??Rainâ??Snowâ??Grapes," Daily Alta Californian, 12 October 1857, p. 1, col. 2; "Our Los Angeles Correspondence," Daily Alta Californian, 27 October 1857; p. 1, col. 2; Brooks, Mountain Meadows Massacre, 46, 48â??49. Note that these newspaper articles were in October 1857, one month after the massacre.

In 1857 Cannon was thirty years old and not an authority in the Church. He was not ordained a general authority until 1860.

But, if you have a reference that George Q. Cannon beat these non-Mormons to the punch with publications, I would very much appreciate having a reference to add to my library.

Look, I don't claim the Church did no "spinning" on the massacre, ever. But the very earliest reports of provocation came from non-Mormons making a report in California. And then, any "spinning" was consistent with the very earliest reports.

rcrocket

[TAK]

The first reports were not from the Church. They were from Arkansans and other emigrants who immediately followed the Fanchers. See "Our Los Angeles Correspondence: Massacre of Emigrantsâ??Execution of Johnsonâ??Another Murderâ??State of the Weatherâ??Rainâ??Snowâ??Grapes," Daily Alta Californian, 12 October 1857, p. 1, col. 2; "Our Los Angeles Correspondence," Daily Alta Californian, 27 October 1857; p. 1, col. 2; Brooks, Mountain Meadows Massacre, 46, 48â??49. Note that these newspaper articles were in October 1857, one month after the massacre.

In 1857 Cannon was thirty years old and not an authority in the Church. He was not ordained a general authority until 1860.

But, if you have a reference that George Q. Cannon beat these non-Mormons to the punch with publications, I would very much appreciate having a reference to add to my library.

Look, I don't claim the Church did no "spinning" on the massacre, ever. But the very earliest reports of provocation came from non-Mormons making a report in California. And then, any "spinning" was consistent with the very earliest reports.

rcrocket

We agree.

The first reports came in October from other trains passing through which I had indicated to another poster on page two. - I thought you were implying the church did not put its own version of the events with : It wasn't the "Church leaders" spinning it, if there was spinning. Clearly it did.

[Bob Crockett]

We agree.

The first reports came in October from other trains passing through which I had indicated to another poster on page two. - I thought you were implying the church did not put its own version of the events with : It wasn't the "Church leaders" spinning it, if there was spinning. Clearly it did.

The larger question is whether the Church did any "spinning" when it knew the facts to be to the contrary. I just don't see it.

I think one sliver of evidence to indicate that Brigham Young really didn't know the full extent of the atrocity comes from the pen of John D. Lee, in a part of his diaries that was never doctored by his lawyer.

Plural wife Lovina received permission on 21 December 1870 from Brigham Young to leave Lee. Young told Lovina that Lee would never be readmitted to the church in Youngâ??s lifetime.

Lee met with Brigham Young on 29 December 1870 and demanded an explanation for his treatment. Lee said he told Young: â??I was held in fellowship 13 years for an act the commited & all of a sudden I Must be cut off from the church. If I was wrong now, it certainly was wrong then.â? Young responded by saying that he did not know the particulars of Leeâ??s full involvement â??until lately.â? Lee demanded a rehearing, which Young purportedly told Lee he would have. Cleland and Brooks, The Diaries of John D. Lee, vol. 2, pp. 144-52.

Lee, who was a very accomplished diarist, and who also filled his diary entries with self-promotion and self-justification, could have said something at this point to the effect that: "Hey, fool, I told you everything in October 1857 and you didn't excommunicate me then. In fact, you let me have one more wife after that. Why now?" But he didn't. The best explanation is the one Brigham Young offers through the mouth of John D. Lee, the latter whom had every possible reason to exculpate himself. And didn't.

rcrocket

[Scott Lloyd]

No, Scott. See No True Scotsman.

D&C 121 warns that unrighteous dominion eviscerates the power of the priesthood (because such power can only be maintained "by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned"). It does not define a priesthood-holder as being a non-priesthood-holderâ??operating ipso facto outside the Church's ambitâ??the instant he exercises unrighteous dominion.

I am awfully fond of this particular teaching of Joseph's, which is so widely ignored even as it is praised and quoted. It is so familiar, in fact, that I think most of us scarcely recognize how deeply radical it is: calling upon your followers to obey you because you are the designated, priesthood-authorized leader ("by virtue of the priesthood") is contrary to the order of heaven. People need to be persuaded to be loyal by the leader's unfeigned love. He's saying that as soon as you are given a little authority, you must ignore that authority when convincing people to follow you. The calling itself cannot be used to require obedience.

It's a principle that Joseph didn't practice all the time, but the fact that he recognized it and often did practice it is, in my opinion, one of the marks of his nearly unique charisma.

It looks like we have found yet another thing on which to disagree sharply, Alf.

The "no true Scotsman" illustration does not apply here, because, unlike being a Scotsman, being a priesthood holder is not a condition of birth. Rather, it is a condition of divine bestowal and continuing approbation.

The Doctrine and Covenants passage declares clearly that when a man undertakes to exercise control, dominion or compulsion "in any degree of unrighteousness,"

behold, the heavens withdraw themselves, the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

There could hardly be a more extreme example of unrighteous dominion than the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

And when unrighteous dominion occurs, in the eyes of heaven, the offender is no longer a servant of the Lord, and thus, can not truly represent the Church in any sense that the Almighty would validate.

Thus, the case of the offending priesthood holder is more in line with the exception given in your cited Wikipedia reference, that being "no true vegetarian would eat a beef steak." This statement is not a fallacy, because a vegetarian, by definition, does not eat meat, and the moment he does, he ceases to be a vegetarian. Similarly, by definition, a man cannot hold the priesthood while at the same time committing mass murder and atrocities, because such is contrary to the order of heaven. The moment he undertakes such crimes, "the heavens withdraw themselves" and he ceases to hold the priesthood.

Though they desperately try, the antagonists cannot reasonably pin blame for the massacre upon the Church as a whole through guilt by association, which itself is a logical fallacy that would make the parents of Mark Hofmann guilty of the murders he committed simply because they are members of his family.

[Alf O'Mega]

Thus, the case of the offending priesthood holder is more in line with the exception given in your cited Wikipedia reference, that being "no true vegetarian would eat a beef steak." This statement is not a fallacy, because a vegetarian, by definition, does not eat meat, and the moment he does, he ceases to be a vegetarian. Similarly, by definition, a man cannot hold the priesthood while at the same time committing mass murder and atrocities, because such is contrary to the order of heaven. The moment he undertakes such crimes, "the heavens withdraw themselves" and he ceases to hold the priesthood.

Though they desperately try, the antagonists cannot reasonably pin blame for the massacre upon the Church as a whole through guilt by association, which itself is a logical fallacy that would make the parents of Mark Hofmann guilty of the murders he committed simply because they are members of his family.

As I'm sure you've noticed, I've never tried to pin the blame for the massacre on anybody but the perpetrators. Nevertheless, to say that they were not, and did not continue to be, priesthood holders is nonsense. Why have church discipline at all if the mere act of unrighteous dominion is sufficient to terminate one's priesthood? Again, what D&C 121 is saying is that such priesthood holders will find themselves acting without the power of heaven, not that they cease to hold the priesthood. It is something very much like the No True Scotsman fallacy to require that an ordained priesthood holder only be considered as such while he is behaving ideally. Vegetarians are behaviorally defined, whereas priesthood holders are ordained.

This was a rhetorical overreach, Scott, one that's not necessary for your primary point, which is that, on present evidence, the Church does not bear the proximate blame for the massacre. It's a point on which we agree.

[TAK]

rcrocket:

I think one sliver of evidence to indicate that Brigham Young really didn't know the full extent of the atrocity comes from the pen of John D. Lee, in a part of his diaries that was never doctored by his lawyer.

Plural wife Lovina received permission on 21 December 1870 from Brigham Young to leave Lee. Young told Lovina that Lee would never be readmitted to the church in Youngâ??s lifetime.

Lee met with Brigham Young on 29 December 1870 and demanded an explanation for his treatment. Lee said he told Young: â??I was held in fellowship 13 years for an act the commited & all of a sudden I Must be cut off from the church. If I was wrong now, it certainly was wrong then.â? Young responded by saying that he did not know the particulars of Leeâ??s full involvement â??until lately.â? Lee demanded a rehearing, which Young purportedly told Lee he would have. Cleland and Brooks, The Diaries of John D. Lee, vol. 2, pp. 144-52.

It strikes me as out of character for Brigham Young to not know the â??particularsâ? immediately after the event. He knew that much of the plunder from Fancher party ended up in Mormon hands and even in the Cedar City Tithing office. Within a month of the event, as the Territory Indian Agent, Young accepted and later forwarded on the the Federal Government for reimbursement of several thousand dollars, receipts signed and witnessed by Lee and Huntington for the disbursement of hundreds of pants, shirts and dresses to the Indians. Young had to know that those clothes came from the Fancher train.

rcrocket:

Lee, who was a very accomplished diarist, and who also filled his diary entries with self-promotion and self-justification, could have said something at this point to the effect that: "Hey, fool, I told you everything in October 1857 and you didn't excommunicate me then. In fact, you let me have one more wife after that. Why now?" But he didn't. The best explanation is the one Brigham Young offers through the mouth of John D. Lee, the latter whom had every possible reason to exculpate himself. And didn't.

The obvious weakness in that argument is that many of Leeâ??s journals were either stolen or burned.

[Bob Crockett]

rcrocket:

It strikes me as out of character for Brigham Young to not know the â??particularsâ? immediately after the event. He knew that much of the plunder from Fancher party ended up in Mormon hands and even in the Cedar City Tithing office. Within a month of the event, as the Territory Indian Agent, Young accepted and later forwarded on the the Federal Government for reimbursement of several thousand dollars, receipts signed and witnessed by Lee and Huntington for the disbursement of hundreds of pants, shirts and dresses to the Indians. Young had to know that those clothes came from the Fancher train.

rcrocket:

The obvious weakness in that argument is that many of Leeâ??s journals were either stolen or burned.

The lack of evidence is not evidence. "Had to know" and "journals were either stolen or burned" is a weak argument indeed given the overwhelming depth of evidence to the contrary on these key points.

Brigham Young denied knowledge of the stolen property in his trial affidavit. Now, that's evidence.

Phil Klingensmith claimed Young knew; Young specifically denied Klingensmith's claim. Klingensmith claimed Young knew because Klingensmith told Young in a conversation with Lee. None of Lee's "confession" mentions this event. Now, that's evidence.

Regarding the journal evidence, the part I cite where he confronts Brigham Young over his excommunication was neither in the stolen or burned part, if such really occurred If Lee had really told Brigham Young the full story in 1857 he would have obviously noted that in his conversation with Young over his 1870 excommunication. Now, that's evidence.

But, I know Church critics rely on lack of evidence as evidence where the masscare is concerned. I'm just a dumb trial and appellate lawyer, and I don't know if such argument passes muster for historians. Maybe it does.

rcrocket

[TAK]

rcrocket:

The lack of evidence is not evidence. "Had to know" and "journals were either stolen or burned" is a weak argument indeed given the overwhelming depth of evidence to the contrary on these key points.

Brigham Young denied knowledge of the stolen property in his trial affidavit. Now, that's evidence.

Thatâ??s his statement and other statements and incidences have contradicted him. So were did Young think Lee came upon hundreds of clothing items that were given to the Indians or what had been placed in the Tithing office? You seemed to have missed that point.

rcrocket:

Phil Klingensmith claimed Young knew; Young specifically denied Klingensmith's claim. Klingensmith claimed Young knew because Klingensmith told Young in a conversation with Lee. None of Lee's "confession" mentions this event. Now, that's evidence.

â??None of Leeâ??s confessionâ?¦â? ?!!

You just said above â??a lack of evidence is not evidenceâ?. Now it is? Which is it counselor?

Bishop Klingensmith cited a conversation with Young. If Youngâ??s statement to the contrary is evidence, then so is Klingensmiths.

rcrocket:

Regarding the journal evidence, the part I cite where he confronts Brigham Young over his excommunication was neither in the stolen or burned part, if such really occurred If Lee had really told Brigham Young the full story in 1857 he would have obviously noted that in his conversation with Young over his 1870 excommunication. Now, that's evidence

.

Again you cite a lack of evidence as evidence. Tisk.. But let us review Leeâ??s quote: â??I was held in fellowship 13 years for an act the commited & all of a sudden I Must be cut off from the church. If I was wrong now, it certainly was wrong then.â? So Lee implies that Young knew the facts before and did not condemn Lee then, so why now? Young says he did not know the particulars of Leeâ??s full involvement â??until latelyâ? But that rings hollow - If Lee had lied to Young before (Something I doubt he would have done given Lee never betrayed Young even when he had a chance to save his own life and after Young betrayed Lee) then he would never had made that statement to Young about the double standard. By the wayâ?¦ as I recall Lee never did get the appeal hearing promised by Young.

However if you wish to play Sisyphus on the issue of what Young knew and when so be it. I think the â??evidenceâ? is stacked against you.

rcrocket:

]But, I know Church critics rely on lack of evidence as evidence where the masscare is concerned.

You know?? I do not believe my thinking the church was built upon a lie makes me a critic nor do I donâ??t think one has to be a â??criticâ? to look at the facts and circumstances and draw their own conclusions. Whether Brigham Young ordered or did not order the murders makes no difference to me. It does not change anything for me. So do not be so sure about what â??you knowâ? .

On the other hand an apologist such as you appear handicapped from the start. You have a pre-drawn conclusion that Brigham Young must be innocent and all facts must be marshaled accordingly. If shown guilty it does impact the Churchâ??s reputation â?? not to mention the thousands of poor souls with the name Brigham Young on their resumes.

rcrocket:

I'm just a dumb trial and appellate lawyerâ?¦

I doubt that, but I do think you may want to brush up on Evidence Law.

rcrocket:

..I don't know if such argument passes muster for historians. Maybe it does

.

Oh?? .. So lets trust history to the lawyers ?? I donâ??t think so.

[Scott Lloyd]

As I'm sure you've noticed, I've never tried to pin the blame for the massacre on anybody but the perpetrators.

And I appreciate your fair-mindedness.

Nevertheless, to say that they were not, and did not continue to be, priesthood holders is nonsense. Why have church discipline at all if the mere act of unrighteous dominion is sufficient to terminate one's priesthood?

Formal Church discipline is a means by which the Lord's servants bring their administration of his Church into conformity with his will. Maybe it is done imperfectly, and in some cases with an inordinate delay. But I find it inconceivable that meanwhile he would validate an act of unrighteousness, even one committed in his name by one who is nominally a priesthood holder. Again, if the man is not representing the Lord, he is definitely not representing the Church.

Again, what D&C 121 is saying is that such priesthood holders will find themselves acting without the power of heaven, not that they cease to hold the priesthood.

"Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man" seems pretty absolute to me ("amen" in this context clearly meaning the end). Holding the priesthood vs. not having power or authority seems to me to be arguing semantics.

It is something very much like the No True Scotsman fallacy to require that an ordained priesthood holder only be considered as such while he is behaving ideally. Vegetarians are behaviorally defined, whereas priesthood holders are ordained.

Whether one's priesthood is valid is also a matter that is behaviorally defined. That is the message in D&C 121.

This was a rhetorical overreach, Scott,

I understand what you are saying, but unless you can come up with a more compelling argument, I'm afraid we'll end up repeating ourselves on this.

[Neighbor]

Please don't take this thread off topic. I hope this thread...it may be a short one...is intended to be the most narrow and focused in the history of Mormon discussion boards.

This is not a thread about any other aspect of the Mountain Meadows Massacre...but this:

If Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre as Bagley claimed in the PBS documentary...what is the explaination for the story that Brigham Young desperately sent messangers down south to prevent the Saints from doing any harm to the wagon trains?

That's it. That is the simple topic of this thread.

Regards,

Six

I'm reading Bagley's book now. Seems that he said that the order being sent to grant the wagon train safety implied that he had given previous orders otherwise. If not so, how would you reason that BY would have sent the order?

[Zeta-Flux]

I'm reading Bagley's book now. Seems that he said that the order being sent to grant the wagon train safety implied that he had given previous orders otherwise. If not so, how would you reason that BY would have sent the order?

Why invent secret orders that need to be reversed, instead of asking what reason Haslam gave for his trip? Wouldn't they have followed such secret orders, instead of asking Brigham what to do?

That just doesn't make sense. The Indians were threatening the Mormons if they didn't help 'finish the job' that Lee has started them on. The Mormons didn't want war with the Indians.

For those more knowledgeable on the subject, feel free to correct me. It just seems to me this question is really off base.

[Brian's Mom]

From the Saturday, May 26, 2007 Deseret News story, "New Mountain Meadows book places blame on local leaders," by Carrie A. Moore

Glen Leonard said: "We kept our minds open to all the eventualities," he said, adding they initially overlooked the significant role that Isaac C. Haight played in ordering an LDS militia to carry out the massacre. Ultimately, "we put him in the responsible chair many have said Brigham Young occupied."

I find this, imperceptive at best. Anyone who has done any reading about the MMM would immediately know Haight was the major player in Southern Utah. I can understand perhaps considering Lee first, but "initially overlooked the significant role" is just obtuse to me.

Mom

[Alf O'Mega]

"Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man" seems pretty absolute to me ("amen" in this context clearly meaning the end). Holding the priesthood vs. not having power or authority seems to me to be arguing semantics.

It also says "any degree of unrighteousness." Are you sure you want to go down that road? A bishop who behaves uncharitably toward the Relief Society president is now no longer a priesthood holder?

I think you are misapplying this scripture. In a previous post you said that "the offender . . . can not truly represent the Church in any sense that the Almighty would validate." Perhaps here is the way through our disagreement. If I grant you that point as you stated it (a trivial concession for an atheist), I think you have to recognize how irrelevant it is to outsiders trying to grapple with apportioning responsibility for the massacre among the various parties. Proximate blame does not reach the general institutional Church, but it obviously does reach its duly authorized local representatives. Is that a point to be weighed in the larger question of whether the Church is true? That's something to be evaluated individually. For me, it makes not a whisper of difference.

I understand what you are saying, but unless you can come up with a more compelling argument, I'm afraid we'll end up repeating ourselves on this.

I sense that the end is near as well. This is not a topic designed to stir our deepest passions, like lexicography.

[Scott Lloyd]

It also says "any degree of unrighteousness." Are you sure you want to go down that road? A bishop who behaves uncharitably toward the Relief Society president is now no longer a priesthood holder?

To the extent he behaves uncharitably or unrighteously, he should not be regarded as representing the Lord -- or the Church.

I think you are misapplying this scripture. In a previous post you said that "the offender . . . can not truly represent the Church in any sense that the Almighty would validate." Perhaps here is the way through our disagreement. If I grant you that point as you stated it (a trivial concession for an atheist), I think you have to recognize how irrelevant it is to outsiders trying to grapple with apportioning responsibility for the massacre among the various parties. Proximate blame does not reach the general institutional Church, but it obviously does reach its duly authorized local representatives. Is that a point to be weighed in the larger question of whether the Church is true? That's something to be evaluated individually. For me, it makes not a whisper of difference.

"Outsiders trying to grapple with apportioning responsibility," if they are fair-minded, must recognize from this doctrinal point why the Church does not claim responsibility for the unrighteous behavior of a few. Especially when such behavior has been repeatedly decried and preached against.

I sense that the end is near as well. This is not a topic designed to stir our deepest passions, like lexicography.

Agreed.

[Platypus Man]

To send a message to the U.S. president and Johnston's army approaching Utah (to depose Brigham Young) that Brigham Young could destroy anyone who came into the territory and thus stop the army. Brigham Young had all kinds of reasons for destroying the Francher party and much to gain.

Theophilus07

This would only make sense if he took credit for it. He didn't.

[TAK]

This would only make sense if he took credit for it. He didn't.

Nonsense !

To take credit would only put a hangman's rope around his neck.

[Alf O'Mega]

"Outsiders trying to grapple with apportioning responsibility," if they are fair-minded, must recognize from this doctrinal point why the Church does not claim responsibility for the unrighteous behavior of a few.

You can't just declare such evidence out of bounds, or you are in a circular argument. If the question to be tested is whether the Church is good, then unrighteous behavior of its representatives ought to be considered (see Matt. 7:20). If one defines the Church as embracing only the best ideals expressed by its leaders and leaving the rest out as either unofficial (e.g., racist justifications for the priesthood ban, advocacy of salvific violence) or unrepresentative (e.g., Mountain Meadows Massacre, Danite depredations), you have an evidence valve that admits only the positive for consideration.

Even if we exclude such an obvious outlier as this atrocity, it ought to be a fair question whether, for instance, the Church's bishops are charitable people. (Personally, I haven't known a single exception.) For an outsider, the question of whether they truly represent the Lord is a hypothesis to be tested, not a given to be accepted at the outset of the investigation.

[Platypus Man]

Nonsense !

To take credit would only put a hangman's rope around his neck.

Okay, so he wouldn't take credit for it. That destroys Theophilus07's theory that he butchered the Fancher party to "send a message to the U.S. president and Johnston's army approaching Utah (to depose Brigham Young) that Brigham Young could destroy anyone who came into the territory and thus stop the army."

It can't be both.

[Scott Lloyd]

You can't just declare such evidence out of bounds, or you are in a circular argument. If the question to be tested is whether the Church is good, then unrighteous behavior of its representatives ought to be considered (see Matt. 7:20). If one defines the Church as embracing only the best ideals expressed by its leaders and leaving the rest out as either unofficial (e.g., racist justifications for the priesthood ban, advocacy of salvific violence) or unrepresentative (e.g., Mountain Meadows Massacre, Danite depredations), you have an evidence valve that admits only the positive for consideration.

The Church is not obliged to accept accountability for the actions of those who ignore or disobey its teachings just because some outsider thinks it should. One who argues that the Church has culpability for the wrongdoing of its errant members bears the responsibility to prove it. Otherwise, we are back to the guilt-by-association fallacy.

Even if we exclude such an obvious outlier as this atrocity, it ought to be a fair question whether, for instance, the Church's bishops are charitable people. (Personally, I haven't known a single exception.) For an outsider, the question of whether they truly represent the Lord is a hypothesis to be tested, not a given to be accepted at the outset of the investigation.

That is a question that cannot be empirically tested any more than other questions of religious faith, such as the veracity and saving power of Christ's resurrection and atonement or the very existence of God.

This very day, in writing an editorial, I had occasion to quote Ezra Taft Benson, who said: "We are not obligated to answer every objection. Every man eventually is backed up to the wall of faith, and there he must make his stand."

I think the statement applies well here.

[Alf O'Mega]

That is a question that cannot be empirically tested any more than other questions of religious faith, such as the veracity and saving power of Christ's resurrection and atonement or the very existence of God.

This very day, in writing an editorial, I had occasion to quote Ezra Taft Benson, who said: "We are not obligated to answer every objection. Every man eventually is backed up to the wall of faith, and there he must make his stand."

I think the statement applies well here.

Placing some questions outside the reach of empirical analysis actually makes evaluating their merits easier.

When you suggest that outsiders must use the same criteria (like D&C 121) to partition the evidence that insiders do, I just have to point out how unrealistic that expectation is.