A Question About Bagley's Claim.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Then it is likewise unrealistic for outsiders to expect us to be bound by criteria that are foreign to our theological and ecclesiastical framework.

But such a framework is not so very difficult to understand. Suppose a corporate executive, while on a business trip, robs a bank. It would not be reasonable to hold the corporation accountable for the unlawful behavior of its executive. After all, the executive was not sent out to rob a bank; that was not part of his corporate duties, and it was not what he was commissioned to do.

Likewise, committing mass murder is not part of the ecclesiastical functions of one who holds a leadership position in the Church; therefore, it should not be surprising if the Church refuses to accept accountability for one who does commit such a heinous act.

By the way, religious believers are not the only ones who propose that certain premises be taken on faith. Secularists do that very thing when they expect one to accept, on their say-so alone, that nothing is real that cannot be empirically proved.

[Alf O'Mega]

Then it is likewise unrealistic for outsiders to expect us to be bound by criteria that are foreign to our theological and ecclesiastical framework.

But such a framework is not so very difficult to understand. Suppose a corporate executive, while on a business trip, robs a bank. It would not be reasonable to hold the corporation accountable for the unlawful behavior of its executive. After all, the executive was not sent out to rob a bank; that was not part of his corporate duties, and it was not what he was commissioned to do.

Likewise, committing mass murder is not part of the ecclesiastical functions of one who holds a leadership position in the Church; therefore, it should not be surprising if the Church refuses to accept accountability for one who does commit such a heinous act.

No argument here. I wonder if you've been paying attention to what I have been arguing?

By the way, religious believers are not the only ones who propose that certain premises be taken on faith. Secularists do that very thing when they expect one to accept, on their say-so alone, that nothing is real that cannot be empirically proved.

Let me know the next time you spot such a thing being claimed by a secularist. I'd certainly never do so.

[Scott Lloyd]

No argument here. I wonder if you've been paying attention to what I have been arguing?

The same reasoning would apply to the hypothetical example you proposed: that of a bishop acting uncharitably toward a member of his ward. To the extent he does so, he should not be regarded as representing the Church.

[Alf O'Mega]

The same reasoning would apply to the hypothetical example you proposed: that of a bishop acting uncharitably toward a member of his ward. To the extent he does so, he should not be regarded as representing the Church.

One more try. (There's a voice deep inside saying, "Walk away," but the other voices are just too fond of you to let that happen just yet!)

Suppose that an adjuster for your homeowners insurance company denied your claim for water damage in your basement. You happen to know, from your sister-in-law that used to work for the same company, that his guidelines require him to make an onsite visit before denying water-damage claims, but he denies your claim without any such visit. Do you hold his behavior against the company? If you decided to pursue legal action, whom would you name in the suit? Would it be the adjustor himself, or the company? How would your experience with this adjustor affect your willingness to recommend this insurance company to your friends?

[selek]

One more try. (There's a voice deep inside saying, "Walk away," but the other voices are just too fond of you to let that happen just yet!)

Suppose that an adjuster for your homeowners insurance company denied your claim for water damage in your basement. You happen to know, from your sister-in-law that used to work for the same company, that his guidelines require him to make an onsite visit before denying water-damage claims, but he denies your claim without any such visit. Do you hold his behavior against the company? If you decided to pursue legal action, whom would you name in the suit? Would it be the adjustor himself, or the company? How would your experience with this adjustor affect your willingness to recommend this insurance company to your friends?

You skipped the intermediate step of contacting the company and allowing them to denounce or correct the situation and punish the perpetrator.

Clearly, even in your hypothetical, the misdeed is on the part of the adjuster and not the company- until such time as the company becomes aware of, and fails to deal with, the malefactor.

[Scott Lloyd]

One more try. (There's a voice deep inside saying, "Walk away," but the other voices are just too fond of you to let that happen just yet!)

Suppose that an adjuster for your homeowners insurance company denied your claim for water damage in your basement. You happen to know, from your sister-in-law that used to work for the same company, that his guidelines require him to make an onsite visit before denying water-damage claims, but he denies your claim without any such visit. Do you hold his behavior against the company? If you decided to pursue legal action, whom would you name in the suit? Would it be the adjustor himself, or the company? How would your experience with this adjustor affect your willingness to recommend this insurance company to your friends?

I don't, at present, see how this illustration applies to the discussion at hand, but trusting that you will make that clear presently, I'll play along and answer the question.

I should think it extremely premature to pursue legal action at this point. The appropriate thing to do would be to contact company management directly about the matter. If the company is honest and above-board, it will either remove the adjuster from the case and assign someone else to handle it or require the adjuster to perform in accordance with company policy.

I would not, however, expect the company to assume blame for the adjuster's errant performance if it was clear he was behaving contrary to instruction he had been given. And, in such a case, I would readily accept the company's disavowal of the adjuster's performance. That's only fair.

You skipped the intermediate step of contacting the company and allowing them to denounce or correct the situation and punish the perpetrator.

Clearly, even in your hypothetical, the misdeed is on the part of the adjuster and not the company- until such time as the company becomes aware of, and fails to deal with, the malefactor.

Not only did you beat me to the punch, but you expressed my thoughts far more concisely than I did. Bravo.

[selek]

Not only did you beat me to the punch, but you expressed my thoughts far more concisely than I did. Bravo.

I....I may frame this post.....

[Alf O'Mega]

And Scott and Selek came unto Alf, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the claims adjustor.

If you didn't have the inside information provided by your sister-in-law, it would be entirely reasonable to draw an unfavorable opinion of the company based on your experience with its adjustor. And even when you do have the inside information, to hold that because of his variance from policy this adjustor does not represent his company during the transaction with you is just daft. He's a representative of the company until his employment is terminated, and it is the company's responsibility to monitor and correct his performance.

Assume that the company is absolutely committed to its principles, which are beyond reproach. It is still a valid question whether the training and management of its employees are adequate to put those principles into practice. Cases like this one are entirely germane to evaluating that question.

Please remember, I have not been trying to leverage the Mountain Meadows Massacre as evidence against the Church's goodness. I am suggesting that it is a valid data point to be considered in that evaluation. These were members and leaders of the Church, and their behavior is fair game in the evaluation process, just as an experience with an uncharitable bishop would reasonably color an outsider's opinion of Church leadership generally.

(Oh, and for the lower-wattage bulbs in the neighborhood:

• claims adjustor = bishop
  
• insurance company = LDS Church
  
• sister-in-law = LDS member
  
• Scott = outsider forming opinion of Church
  

)

[selek]

And Scott and Selek came unto Alf, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the claims adjustor.

If you didn't have the inside information provided by your sister-in-law, it would be entirely reasonable to draw an unfavorable opinion of the company based on your experience with its adjustor. And even when you do have the inside information, to hold that because of his variance from policy this adjustor does not represent his company during the transaction with you is just daft. He's a representative of the company until his employment is terminated, and it is the company's responsibility to monitor and correct his performance.

Assume that the company is absolutely committed to its principles, which are beyond reproach. It is still a valid question whether the training and management of its employees are adequate to put those principles into practice. Cases like this one are entirely germane to evaluating that question.

Please remember, I have not been trying to leverage the Mountain Meadows Massacre as evidence against the Church's goodness. I am suggesting that it is a valid data point to be considered in that evaluation. These were members and leaders of the Church, and their behavior is fair game in the evaluation process, just as an experience with an uncharitable bishop would reasonably color an outsider's opinion of Church leadership generally.

And thus spake Selek, saying:

Alf, taking a strained and marginal analogy and make it more absurd doesn't help your argument. If I as a customer am not happy, I am by no means required to hold up my bowl like a frightened waif and say, "Please sir, may I have some more."

If I feel a job is done incorrectly or the results are unfair or specious, it is incumbent upon me (insider knowledge or not) to seize the day by the forelock and address the issue head on. Evil or abuse unchallenged is evil or abuse accepted.

Daft or not, it is up to you to bring the misdeeds of the adjustor to the company and allow them to correct or explain the situation before leaping to conclusions (or off bridges).

And they were forced to eat Sir Robin's minstels. And there was much rejoicing.

[Alf O'Mega]

If I as a customer am not happy, I am by no means required to hold up my bowl like a frightened waif and say, "Please sir, may I have some more."

If I feel a job is done incorrectly or the results are unfair or specious, it is incumbent upon me (insider knowledge or not) to seize the day by the forelock and address the issue head on. Evil or abuse unchallenged is evil or abuse accepted.

Daft or not, it is up to you to bring the misdeeds of the adjustor to the company and allow them to correct or explain the situation before leaping to conclusions (or off bridges).

What have I written that would lead you to believe I that disagree with any of this? The parable was narrowly tailored to address a rather narrow point of Scott's (his proposal that priesthood holders who exercise unrighteous dominion are ipso facto no longer priesthood holders).

Being a prudent consumer is something I strongly endorse.

[selek]

What have I written that would lead you to believe I that disagree with any of this? The parable was narrowly tailored to address a rather narrow point of Scott's (his proposal that priesthood holders who exercise unrighteous dominion are ipso facto no longer priesthood holders).

Being a prudent consumer is something I strongly endorse.

Not a thing, but the flaw in your argument is the assumption that an agent of the Church must be acting at the direction of the Church despite established guidance to the contrary.

Your last argument was that not knowing an inspection was necessary, one could assume that the adjustor truly represented his company in denying your claim for water damage.

One could assume, but we all know the old saw.

Your argument (and analogy) falls apart because a wise or informed consumer is not going to take an arbitrary decision (at least one with which he disagrees) at face value.

The actions of the Iron County militia were abhorrent. It would be absurd and unwise to assume they were acting as agents of the Church when so much of the Church's teachings clearly condemns thier behavior.

Further, when the matter was brought to the attention of their superiors, it was roundly condemned and they were (and will be) brought to the bar and punished for thier misdeeds.

[Alf O'Mega]

[T]he flaw in your argument is the assumption that an agent of the Church must be acting at the direction of the Church despite established guidance to the contrary.

Your last argument was that not knowing an inspection was necessary, one could assume that the adjustor truly represented his company in denying your claim for water damage.

One could assume, but we all know the old saw.

Your argument (and analogy) falls apart because a wise or informed consumer is not going to take an arbitrary decision (at least one with which he disagrees) at face value.

The actions of the Iron County militia were abhorrent. It would be absurd and unwise to assume they were acting as agents of the Church when so much of the Church's teachings clearly condemns thier behavior.

Further, when the matter was brought to the attention of their superiors, it was roundly condemned and they were (and will be) brought to the bar and punished for thier misdeeds.

So much that we agree upon! (Except your perception of what my argument is.) The truth is out there, Selek, perhaps even on this very thread. Feel free to read it.

[Scott Lloyd]

And Scott and Selek came unto Alf, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the claims adjustor.

If you didn't have the inside information provided by your sister-in-law, it would be entirely reasonable to draw an unfavorable opinion of the company based on your experience with its adjustor.

So now, you are changing the elements of the analogy, because it didn't quite work for you the first time. I think it's strained, in any case.

And even when you do have the inside information, to hold that because of his variance from policy this adjustor does not represent his company during the transaction with you is just daft. He's a representative of the company until his employment is terminated, and it is the company's responsibility to monitor and correct his performance.

Assume that the company is absolutely committed to its principles, which are beyond reproach. It is still a valid question whether the training and management of its employees are adequate to put those principles into practice. Cases like this one are entirely germane to evaluating that question.

Selek was spot on in his analysis. Before going off half-cocked threatening or bringing legal action, the proper thing to do would be to contact the company directly and give it the information and opportunity it needed to make things right. If, in doing so, the company explained its policy and chose to disavow the performance of its errant agent, it would be mulish of me indeed not to accept such a disavowal, as the agent did act contrary to the express policy and procedure of the company.

Please remember, I have not been trying to leverage the Mountain Meadows Massacre as evidence against the Church's goodness.

What you are doing is pressing a point which, carried to its logical conclusion, would pin accountability for the massacre upon the Church as an institution. I can't accept that.

I am suggesting that it is a valid data point to be considered in that evaluation. These were members and leaders of the Church, and their behavior is fair game in the evaluation process, just as an experience with an uncharitable bishop would reasonably color an outsider's opinion of Church leadership generally.

I understand that, which is why I reject it

(Oh, and for the lower-wattage bulbs in the neighborhood:

• claims adjustor = bishop
  
• insurance company = LDS Church
  
• sister-in-law = LDS member
  
• Scott = outsider forming opinion of Church
  

)

I understand all that, and that is why I reject your point. Church leaders over the years have repeatedly disavowed the actions of the massacre perpetrators. After all that, to insist on pinning accountability on the Church is not reasonable at all. In fact, I would call it small-minded, vindictive, petty and any of a number of other synonyms you are apt to find in your favorite dictionary or mine.

[TAK]

Scott:

I understand all that, and that is why I reject your point. Church leaders over the years have repeatedly disavowed the actions of the massacre perpetrators. After all that, to insist on pinning accountability on the Church is not reasonable at all. In fact, I would call it small-minded, vindictive, petty and any of a number of other synonyms you are apt to find in your favorite dictionary or mine.

So if someone does not share your opinion of what is â??reasonableâ? they are â??small-minded, vindictive, petty and any of a number of other synonyms..â? ??

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott:

So if someone does not share your opinion of what is â??reasonableâ? they are â??small-minded, vindictive, petty and any of a number of other synonyms..â? ??

I think what I said was that to insist on pinning blame on the Church for the massacre, when one knows Church leaders have repeatedly disavowed the actions of the perpetrators, is small-minded.

You can draw from that what you will.

[Alf O'Mega]

I understand all that, and that is why I reject your point. Church leaders over the years have repeatedly disavowed the actions of the massacre perpetrators. After all that, to insist on pinning accountability on the Church is not reasonable at all. In fact, I would call it small-minded, vindictive, petty and any of a number of other synonyms you are apt to find in your favorite dictionary or mine.

So many inapposite points, so little time. Those who may benefit from my argument probably already have. Brethren, adieu.

[Scott Lloyd]

So many inapposite points, so little time. Those who may benefit from my argument probably already have. Brethren, adieu.

You said:

These [killers at Mountain Meadows] were members and leaders of the Church, and their behavior is fair game in the evaluation process, just as an experience with an uncharitable bishop would reasonably color an outsider's opinion of Church leadership generally.

If my reply to that statement was not relevant, then I confess I'm at a loss to figure out what you are trying to say. Perhaps it is best that we lay the thing down here.

[Alf O'Mega]

Scott, I've been marinating in the afterglow of this latest exchange, and it occurred to me that we might be able to explain our disconnect as a misunderstanding over the difference between evidence being admissible versus incriminating.

I believe that the Mountain Meadows Massacre is admissible: it is relevant to the inquiry. It is a fruit to be evaluated (Matt. 7:20 again), just as the obviously well-adjusted family life of an outsider's Mormon neighbors is.

I do not believe that it is, finally, incriminating: it did/does not contribute anything in my personal deliberations leading to my verdict against the Church. On this point, I am happy to emphasize, we agree.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, I've been marinating in the afterglow of this latest exchange, and it occurred to me that we might be able to explain our disconnect as a misunderstanding over the difference between evidence being admissible versus incriminating.

I believe that the Mountain Meadows Massacre is admissible: it is relevant to the inquiry. It is a fruit to be evaluated (Matt. 7:20 again), just as the obviously well-adjusted family life of an outsider's Mormon neighbors is.

I do not believe that it is, finally, incriminating: it did/does not contribute anything in my personal deliberations leading to my verdict against the Church. On this point, I am happy to emphasize, we agree.

Ah, then I will assure you I have nothing against consideration of the matter as evidence. It is the arrival at an ignorant and hasty verdict that occasions my disapproval. Of course, one compelling item of essential evidence is the Church's own doctrine that the power, authority and priesthood of a man is withdrawn the moment he undertakes "any degree of unrighteousness" (see D&C 121:37).

Now, if the Church had violated its own doctrine and, with full and adequate knowledge of the facts, undertaken to uphold the massacre perpetrators in their heinous deeds as being representatives of the Church first, last and always, then the accusers would have a valid point in saying the Church bears accountability for the massacre. But of course, such was never the case.

[Pahoran]

Let me remind Pahoran that the above story in which "Brigham Young desperately sent messangers down south to prevent the Saints from doing any harm to the wagon trains," was not, as you claimed, deliberately fabricated by me. It was Bsix's original post and I think it reflects the beliefs of some apologists to deflect any possible blame from Brigham Young.

I concede that the following egregious falsehood was not deliberately fabricated by you. It was intentionally and counterfactually parlayed by you from a single mistyped letter: the "s" at the end of Bsix's "messengers." As you ought to know, it is a common artifact of ordinary English to use the plural when the speaker is merely unsure of the number. Therefore you have no reason to base your false (and therefore in-character) accusation upon that. Bsix did not claim a plural number of messengers existed. Had he used the singular instead of the plural, you would have been unable to claim any excuse from the hilariously overdrawn picture you have sourced entirely from your own rabidly hostile imagination.

The answer to Bsix's question is that while the idea is romantic and faith-promoting of a pack of LDS riders galloping hell-bent-for-leather to Cedar City dispatched unilaterally and desperately by Brigham Young to save the Fancher party, but it's not what can be documented.

Nor is it what anyone has claimed. Ever. Here or anywhere else. No Latter-day Saint "apologist" or otherwise has ever described "a pack of LDS riders galloping hell-bent-for-leather to Cedar City dispatched unilaterally and desperately by Brigham Young to save the Fancher party." You made that up. All by yourself.

As you do.

There was only one messenger, James Haslam, and he wasn't initiated by Brigham Young at all, he was initiated by the Cedar City High Council AFTER the morning attack.

And no Latter-day Saint has claimed otherwise. As you perfectly well know.

There is evidence that Brigham Young gave him an answer to whatever question he brought,

Yes, fairly conclusive evidence too,

but there is no evidence that if the High Council hadn't dispatched James Haslam, Brigham Young would have done anything.

Of course not. Because there is also no evidence that Brigham had any reason to suppose that anything was going on that would require any message until Haslam showed up.

Iâ??d like to recap what we don't know and what we DO know about the MMM versus the criticsâ?? and apologistsâ?? interpretations.

Your attempt to pose as an impartial commentator is funny!

We don't know if Brigham Young ordered the massacre. Any conclusions about Young's possible blame are completely subjective and probably based on whether you're an apologist or a critic.

Not quite.

There is no evidence at all that Brigham ordered the massacre. He is not reasonably suspected of so doing.

We don't know what the Cedar City High Council asked Brigham Young in the message which James Haslam carried to SLC. Because Brigham Young's surviving response told the Saints to leave the Fancher party alone, it is probable that the original question may have had something to do with what the Cedar City Saints were to do with the wagon train.

We do know that before Johnstonâ??s Army arrived in the north to depose Brigham Young and before the Fancher Party arrived in Utah and was dispatched on the southern route, the Utah Territory had undergone what historians call the Utah Reformation in which Brigham Young and other GAs preached Blood Atonement.

Yes. The notion that (1) Latter-day Saints who (2) committed capital crimes should (3) voluntarily submit themselves for execution.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Baker-Fancher party, but it makes a good smear-by-association label for cheap demagogues to exploit.

We do know that Brigham Young held a meeting in SLC with the chiefs of Indian tribes from northern and southern Utah and promised them the cattle of outsiders passing through the Territory. Stealing the cattle of Johnstonâ??s Army (â??scatteringâ? them in the LDS interpretation) in the north may well have been an â??act of war,â? but the Fancher party deep in southern Utah had nothing to do with war and Brigham Young didnâ??t have the legal title to the Francher cattle.

Which is entirely irrelevant, because we don't know that the Fancher cattle were discussed or even contemplated in any of those meetings.

We do know that speeches and sermons in Church by LDS GAs and local leaders advocated violence against outsiders passing through the Territory. Apostle George A. Smith, on a speaking tour of southern Utah just before the Fancher party made it to Cedar City, made rousing speeches advocating violence against outsiders, speeches which even FAIR called â??incendiary.â?

[http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Shining_New_Light_on_the_Mountain_Meadows_Massacre.html]

You are distorting and misrepresenting, as you habitually do when you aren't fabricating outright. As you know, Smith's "incendiary" sermons were a call to arms to defend the territory against invasion.

The Sunday before the Monday attack, Pres. Haight of Cedar City gave a sermon advocating violence to any outsiders. We donâ??t know what listeners in Cedar City to either Apostle Smith or Pres. Haight would have understood what was meant by â??outsiders,â? but we do know that Johnstonâ??s Army was many daysâ?? travel far to the north and the only outsiders near Cedar City was the Fancher party passing by.

Nor do we know what Haight actually said in the sermon you have chosen to represent, probably in a manner consistent with your usual representation of LDS sources.

We do know that, contrary to Pahoranâ??s claims, no messenger was sent from Cedar City before the attack.

Pahoran made no such claim. You made that up.

Of course Haslam was sent because the Indian attack had started. I have never claimed otherwise. Your assertion that I have is typically counterfactual.

The attack started early that Monday morning and the Cedar City High Council did not send James Haslam to BY until that afternoon. We know that Cedar City men from the Nauvoo Legion did not stop the fighting to wait to hear what message Haslam might bring back from Brigham Young. After the messenger was sent; they (and few of the Indians â?? more about this it a moment) continued to shoot at the Fancher wagon train for the next four days.

That's false, as you intended. The Indians continued to press the attack for the next four days. The few Cedar City men, as you call them, largely sat and watched for most of that time.

We do know, contrary to Pahoranâ??s claims, that the Cedar City Saints did most of the killing and that the numbers of Indians involved was exaggerated.

What claims? Where?

Or are you making things up again?

We do know, contrary to Pahoranâ??s claims, that the Paiute Indiansâ?? attack on Monday failed because of stiff Fancher party defense and the LDS Cedar City Saints had to move in to finish the job.

You know no such thing. You are trying to pretend that the massacre (on Friday) happened because the Monday morning attack failed; IOW, that the intervening four days of fighting didn't happen. As you know (and intended, because you love falsehoods) that is false.

We do know that Haslam with Brigham Youngâ??s message to leave the wagon train alone, did not arrive until after the massacre was over and that the Saints did not wait for Brigham Youngâ??s response, but shot at the wagon train all through the five days of the massacre.

We do know that that last statement is a blatant falsehood. The massacre perpetrators did not "shoot at the wagon train all through the five days of the massacre." The massacre did not last five days. It took place in about half an hour on Friday. The white massacre perpetrators were not shooting at the wagon train in the intervening time.

We do know that the massacre was a long ordeal which lasted from Mondayâ??s early morning initial attack until Friday, when the Cedar City militia with a few Indians under the leadership of John Lee, still without receipt of Brigham Youngâ??s message with Haslam, betrayed an arrainged surrender of the wagon trainâ??s surviving defenders and slaughtered all the men, women, and even children over the age of about 6-8 [no one was checking birth certificates to check the age, it was done strictly by sight determination].

We do know that the four-day battle was not the massacre. Your assertion is false, as usual.

Regards,

Pahoran