A Question About Bagley's Claim.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran

With instructions that gruesome, I would imagine they wanted to hear it from the horse's mouth..

So they wouldn't believe it from a senior apostle, but they would from a recent pommie migrant? Could you be any more desperate to pin a false accusation on Brigham, than to reach for any ad hoc argument, however thin?

Not anticipated? Like what? The Indians can not do the job?

Pretty TAKy, but then that's par for the course. How about--like that the Indians would attack in the first place.

You still have not answered the question...

Yes I have.

Why was such a message from BY even be necessary ??

Asked and answered, thus:

The only reason for sending Haslam to get instructions was that the Indian attack upon the train was something that Smith's instructions had not anticipated.

Feel free to read that as s-l-o-w-l-y as it takes for the message to eventually penetrate your cranium.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Kenngo1969]

For the prophet's defenders, this letter [to Isaac Haight] is proof he did not order the massacre. Juanita Brooks concluded it cleared him of direct responsibility, yet she found the letter characteristic of Brigham Young's style. He often began a critical communication with generalities and inserted 'the real message in a single terse sentence or two in the very heart of his letter.' In this case the operative message was that the Indians would 'do as they please.' The order not to meddle with the emigrants was subordinate to the main message: let nothing interfere with the Mormon military alliance with the tribes. Brooks thought this strangely conditional letter suggested that Young might not condemn an Indian massacre.

The letter begs several questions: Why did Superintendent of Indian Affairs Brigham Young have to send orders to the south not to 'interfere' with the emigrants? Why did he later deny knowing anything about the massacre until weeks after it happened? As David White concluded, Young's shrewd reply seems calculated to correct a policy gone wrong if it arrived in time and to cover his tracks if received too late. Whatever the letter's intent, it carried a hidden but clear message for Isaac Haight: make sure the Mormons could blame whatever happened on the Paiutes. (p. 136)

Oh, I see! We know Brigham Young was responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre because Will Bagley read his mind! Itâ??s all so clear to me now!

[William Schryver]

Pahoran:

Apostle George A Smith had just been down to Southern Utah and met Haight and others .. Why was such a message from BY even be necessary ?

Because George A. Smith didn't come to Parowan with any message from Brigham Young regarding the Fancher party. He came to visit family and to preach to the Saints. Simple as that.

[solomarineris]

If Brigham did order it, my question would be for what purpose? What was to be gained by it? I don't understand the motive Brigham Young would have had to feel the need for it.

The MMM issue in my mind is simply a smokescreen. If the LDS Church is true than it was true before the MMM occurred and the event itself does not change it being true. If its false, it was false before the MMM occurred and there is no reason to appeal to the MMM since it was false long before it occurred. I see it used just to raise emotions that Mormons where a bunch of murders and baby killers.

Maan,

How clueless and calleous you can get? Is this about protecting or accusing mormons? You call this masaccre smokescreen? Is this "Us" vs "them"?

[TAK]

Pahoran

So they wouldn't believe it from a senior apostle, but they would from a recent pommie migrant?

Why would they do that? He returned -albeit too late, w/ a letter from BY.

[Ron Beron]

Oh, c'mon. Even LDS historians agree that Haslam wasn't sent by Brigham Young. Haslam lived in Cedar City and was sent by the High Council there to ride to Brigham Young for instructions. Well, actually, Isaac Haight in Cedar City asked for volunteers and Haslam volunteered. BRigham Young had nothing to do with sending Haslam anywhere. All Young did was give him the letter.

By the way, read the letter and see if you think this reads like an emergency order.

Theophilus07

And who are these historians? Leonard Arrington wouldn't agree with you. As to whether the letter is emergency or not it is nonetheless very clear in its message; leave them alone!

[Ron Beron]

Oh, c'mon. Even LDS historians agree that Haslam wasn't sent by Brigham Young. Haslam lived in Cedar City and was sent by the High Council there to ride to Brigham Young for instructions. Well, actually, Isaac Haight in Cedar City asked for volunteers and Haslam volunteered. BRigham Young had nothing to do with sending Haslam anywhere. All Young did was give him the letter.

By the way, read the letter and see if you think this reads like an emergency order.

Theophilus07

Leonard Arrington in his book, American Moses, states that Haslam later testified that he started back for Cedar City just four hours after he arrived in SLC. BY then stopped him and said, "Go with all speed, spare no horse flesh. The emigrants must not be meddled with, if it takes all Iron County to prevent it. They must go free and unmolested." (The Lee Trials, Deseret News, 16 September 1876, p.544).

[Anijen]

It is a fact that Brigham Young ordered it? That is the issue. Whether its a fact or not needs to be based on evidence.

No evidence to prove he did. Brigham Young did not order it. it was at the highest possibly stake presidency.

[Smith]

You're 100% correct that if the Church were true, it was true before the MMM occurred, and if it were false, it was false before the MMM occurred.

I understand your point on the fruit and the trees etc. So do you see this LDS tree as only bearing bad fruit? Or do you see good fruit as well? And if there is good fruit why would that be so if the tree is a bad tree? Could the bad fruit not be the results of humans making mistakes as we find all over the world? And so what does that prove but that humans are human? That does not mean that there is no good fruit or that there is no true church. Nor does it relieve you of the responsibility of finding it.

[TAK]

Because George A. Smith didn't come to Parowan with any message from Brigham Young regarding the Fancher party. He came to visit family and to preach to the Saints. Simple as that.

Once again not true..

He may have seen family, but Smith traveled south stopping in towns along the way to fanning the flames against outsiders and instructions from BY to the bishops to stop selling supplies to migrants traveling though. He returned to SLC within the same month with Jacob Hamblin and Indian chiefs from southern Utah.

[maklelan]

Oh, c'mon. Even LDS historians agree that Haslam wasn't sent by Brigham Young. Haslam lived in Cedar City and was sent by the High Council there to ride to Brigham Young for instructions. Well, actually, Isaac Haight in Cedar City asked for volunteers and Haslam volunteered. BRigham Young had nothing to do with sending Haslam anywhere. All Young did was give him the letter.

By the way, read the letter and see if you think this reads like an emergency order.

Theophilus07

I don't know where you get your information, but it's monstrously warped.

You're 100% correct that if the Church were true, it was true before the MMM occurred, and if it were false, it was false before the MMM occurred.

The problem is the interpretation of various negative aspects of LDS history and claims as being the reason the LDS church isn't true. Nobody's claiming that, or else, nobody should be claiming that, and if they are, they're wrong and need to rethink some things.

If the LDS Church isn't true, it wasn't true already before most of the "negative" things happened, and the negative things are merely demonstrative of its non-truth. The Book of Abraham problems aren't the reason why the LDS Church isn't true. The BoA problems are merely a consequence of its not being true. The MMM isn't the reason the church isn't true. It's merely another consequence of its not being true. Joseph Smith's polyandry and polygamy aren't the reason the LDS church isn't true. Again, they are just one of the consequences of the fact that the church was man-made and man-lead, by a particular man who thought that these things were a good idea at the time.

I don't know all that happened in the MMM. I do believe, however, that the act itself, and the coverup that followed it, are merely fruits of a man-made tree, and not the reason the tree is manmade.

An apple comes from an apple tree because the tree is an apple tree. The apple tree isn't an apple tree because its fruit is an apple, if that makes any sense.

Then all religion must be false.

[Pahoran]

Once again [i'm about to say something] not true..

He may have seen family, but Smith traveled south stopping in towns along the way to fanning the flames against outsiders and instructions from BY to the bishops to stop selling supplies to migrants traveling though. He returned to SLC within the same month with Jacob Hamblin and Indian chiefs from southern Utah.

If GAS really wanted to be "fanning the flames against outsiders" he could do so simply by emulating your demagogical tactics.

What he really did: encouraged the Saints to prepare to defend their homes against an invading army.

How the haters spin it: "fanning the flames against outsiders."

Smith gave no instructions about the Fancher party. That's why Haight sent Haslam to SLC to get Brigham's counsel. Anyone not blinded by bigotry can see this with perfect clarity.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Maan,

How clueless and calleous you can get?

Nowhere near as clueless and callous as those who are cynical enough to exploit the MMM for their hate agenda.

Is this about protecting or accusing mormons?

Why yes. It is.

You call this masaccre smokescreen?

No, lone sailor, he didn't.

He called the issue a smokescreen. In the 1850's, and the 1860's, and the 1870's, and in every decade down to the 2000's, there have been those who delight to use it "just to raise emotions that Mormons where a bunch of murders and baby killers."

We know this, because such people are found in this very forum. They participate in this very thread, in fact.

All we need is for the usual hate-inspired lie that we are "excusing the massacre" for this thread to go the way of all its predecessors.

Regards,

Pahoran

[TAK]

Pahoran:

If GAS really wanted to be "fanning the flames against outsiders" he could do so simply by emulating your demagogical tactics.

What he really did: encouraged the Saints to prepare to defend their homes against an invading army.

How the haters spin it: "fanning the flames against outsiders."

I guess Gene Sessions is a hater spinner too because this is how he described GAS trip south:

... George A. Smith was sent on a long speech-making trip through Southern Utah. We don't know a lot of what he said in his speeches. We know about some of what he said but they were tough speeches about standing up to the army and the Americans and it was incendiary.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran:

I guess Gene Sessions is a hater spinner too because this is how he described GAS trip south:

... George A. Smith was sent on a long speech-making trip through Southern Utah. We don't know a lot of what he said in his speeches. We know about some of what he said but they were tough speeches about standing up to the army and the Americans and it was incendiary.

You would guess wrong.

What he really did: encouraged the Saints to prepare to defend their homes against an invading army.

How the haters spin it: "fanning the flames against outsiders."

What Sessions said: "they were tough speeches about standing up to the army and the Americans."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

to the bishops to stop selling supplies to migrants traveling though

I believe this was during a time when there was concern about having enough to provide for their own families and stock. I have heard him issuing restrictions on selling them grain for their cattle, I'd like to see a reference for them to not sell food stuffs for the people, as opposed to their cattle, traveling through.

To sell supplies would have given them money, but if they starved or their own cattle starved it wouldn't do them much good. It does make sense if food sources were limited, which I believe they were...I'll try and find some background on this if my computer quits being so tempermental, but perhaps someone who is more familiar with the time period can supply it for me...anyway, it makes sense to me that BYU would be more concerned with making sure that the people he was responsible for were taken care of first and foremost.

[TAK]

You would guess wrong.

What he really did: encouraged the Saints to prepare to defend their homes against an invading army.

How the haters spin it: "fanning the flames against outsiders."

What Sessions said: "they were tough speeches about standing up to the army and the Americans."

Regards,

Pahoran

and it was incendiary...

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...s_Massacre.html

[selek]

and it was incendiary...

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...s_Massacre.html

Sorry P, I gotta side with TAK, here. Sessions does qualify Smith's speeches as incendiary even as he dismisses the conspiracy theory nutters as merely speculating.

[Pahoran]

and it was incendiary...

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...s_Massacre.html

So let's read a little more, shall we?

The only other piece of the story that might suggest that he did is that just before the massacre happened, George A. Smith was sent on a long speech-making trip through Southern Utah. We don't know a lot of what he said in his speeches. We know about some of what he said but they were tough speeches about standing up to the army and the Americans and it was incendiary. And so, there are those who think that Smith was sent down there with that kind of invective and then when he got done with his speech, he'd pull a stake president or a few bishops aside and say, 'And by the way don't hesitate to kill anybody you can.' But that's all speculation.

I think most scholars who are honest about this, the trail doesn't lead to Brigham Young--it just doesn't in my view at all.

However "incendiary" his speeches might have been, the notion that he was merely trying to "fan the flames against outsiders" is unavailable on the evidence, largely because it is false.

Regards,

Pahoran

[TAK]

So let's read a little more, shall we?

However "incendiary" his speeches might have been, the notion that he was merely trying to "fan the flames against outsiders" is unavailable on the evidence, largely because it is false.

Regards,

Pahoran

LOL!

Just keep thinking what you want..

[Pahoran]

LOL!

Just keep thinking what you want..

Absolutely.

I'll keep believing the facts. You can keep believing the unsupported speculation.

Regards,

Pahoran

[TrespassersW]

The MMM began on Monday, Sept 7, 1857 when the Iron County Brigade of the Nauvoo Legion in Cedar City, Utah, along with some Piute Indians, attacked the Francher wagon train. But the Francher party fought back successfully and the Indians lost heart and most of them left, leaving the Saints to disguise themselves as Indians to continue the attack.

Call for references, please. Do you select your anti-Mormon propaganda on no other basis than its slander value?

I'd like to echo the call for references on this point. Where exactly did that tidbit come from, Theo?

[Marvelous]

Absolutely.

I'll keep believing the facts. You can keep believing the unsupported speculation.

Regards,

Pahoran

Who do you believe murdered the Fancher party, the Indians alone? If it included many prominent priesthood holders, do you not find this troubling?

I, too, doubt BY ordered it. The larger question for me is what would have led faithful Latter-day Saints to slaughter innocent men, women, and children. Did their LDS belief system play a role in this atrocity?

[Confidential Informant]

Bagley is like a little chihuahua, yapping and nipping but born with a raging inferiority complex.

His argument that "Brigham Young knew everything that happened" in the territory is, quite simply, silly. It's akin to a Christian saying the bible is true because the bible says so.

And doesn't Bagley's alteration of the Huntington diary concern any of the critics who like Bagley's work? The alteratin is so blatently intentional. Bagley was tampering with the evidence. Also, does it not concern the critics who love Bagley's book that he was paid to write the book after he answered an ad in the paper looking for someone to pin the massacre on Smith?

C.I.

[Pahoran]

Who do you believe murdered the Fancher party, the Indians alone?

No.

If it included many prominent priesthood holders, do you not find this troubling?

The whole event is "troubling," whoever was involved. I suppose anyone could be called "prominent" in a small community.

I, too, doubt BY ordered it. The larger question for me is what would have led faithful Latter-day Saints to slaughter innocent men, women, and children. Did their LDS belief system play a role in this atrocity?

No. It did not.

And the attempt to somehow exploit this tragedy against the truth claims of the Church is the single most cynically dishonest manifestation of modern anti-Mormonism. It is vile, and it is odious, and those who attempt it know exactly what they are doing.

It is also exactly parallel with anti-Semitic propaganda.

Bagley is like a little chihuahua, yapping and nipping but born with a raging inferiority complex.

His argument that "Brigham Young knew everything that happened" in the territory is, quite simply, silly. It's akin to a Christian saying the bible is true because the bible says so.

And doesn't Bagley's alteration of the Huntington diary concern any of the critics who like Bagley's work?

Evidently not.

The alteratin is so blatently intentional. Bagley was tampering with the evidence. Also, does it not concern the critics who love Bagley's book that he was paid to write the book after he answered an ad in the paper looking for someone to pin the massacre on Smith?

It probably doesn't even bother them that he was paid to write the book after he answered an ad in the paper looking for someone to pin the massacre on Young. Indeed, given their predispositions, that probably endears him to them all the more.

Regards,

Pahoran