A Question About Bagley's Claim.

[TAK]

CI

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

Where is Bagley altering the Huntington diary documented?

[Pahoran]

CI

Where is Bagley altering the Huntington diary documented?

Thank you for asking. Here is the relevant entry:

Kanosh the Pahvant Chief[,] Ammon & wife (Walkers

Brother) & 11 Pahvants came into see B & D & find out

about the soldiers. Tutseygubbit a Piede chief over 6 Piedes

Bands Youngwuols another Piede chief & I gave them all

the cattle that had gone to Cal[.] the southa rout[.] it made

them open their eyes[.] they sayed that you have told us not

to steal[.] so I have but now they have come to fight us & you

for when they kill us then they will kill you[.] they sayed

the[y] was afraid to fight the Americans & so would raise

grain & we might fight.

Your hero Baglady quoted it with "allies" in place of that "grain." Falsifying evidence is a popular anti-Mormon pastime; I'm sure this will not cause his book to fall in the estimation of any of his fans.

Regards,

Pahoran

[TAK]

Thank you for asking. Here is the relevant entry:

Kanosh the Pahvant Chief[,] Ammon & wife (Walkers

Brother) & 11 Pahvants came into see B & D & find out

about the soldiers. Tutseygubbit a Piede chief over 6 Piedes

Bands Youngwuols another Piede chief & I gave them all

the cattle that had gone to Cal[.] the southa rout[.] it made

them open their eyes[.] they sayed that you have told us not

to steal[.] so I have but now they have come to fight us & you

for when they kill us then they will kill you[.] they sayed

the[y] was afraid to fight the Americans & so would raise

grain & we might fight.

Your hero Baglady quoted it with "allies" in place of that "grain." Falsifying evidence is a popular anti-Mormon pastime; I'm sure this will not cause his book to fall in the estimation of any of his fans.

Regards,

Pahoran

And where was this exposed and what was Bagleys response ?

[Jaybear]

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.

Ah, "those" vile people are spouting lies and propaganda again.

Please show me where someone on this board has used the Massacre to rebut the 'truth" claims of "the Church." I would like to join you in your seething anger. I just need to know who specifically is worthy of my scorn.

Also, I am little puzzled on the connection with discussion about the mormon's role in MMM, and anti-semitic propaganda. Could you please elaborate.

[Pahoran]

And where was this exposed and what was Bagleys response?

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."

Jaybear,

Ever heard of the Blood Libel?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Marvelous]

QUOTE(Marvelous @ May 2 2007, 09:19 PM)

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.

Wasn't John D. Lee a bishop and a member of the Coucil of Fifty? Weren't members of the local high council involved? My understanding is that this was not an ad hoc group but was comprised of, and organized by, priesthood leadership. Am I mistaken?

QUOTE(Marvelous @ May 2 2007, 09:19 PM)

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.

Regards,

Pahoran

Don't you think your reaction is a little over-the-top? I didn't suggest MMM has anything to do with LDS truth claims. How odd!

I do think the tragedy was facilitated by the LDS belief system. First, the Church teaches that killing for reasons other than self-defense is permissible. For instance, it believes in capital punishment. I'm not suggesting that the Church, in any way, condones what happened, only that its members view killing differently than, say, pacifists. There are many scriptural instances when life was taken by believers in the name of God. This backdrop made the members susceptible to considering killing as acceptable.

Second, although he may not have ordered MMM, BY had sensitized members to immigrant parties passing through Mormon territories and discouraged trade with them. He required them to obtain permission from him to ensure safe passage. IOW, immigrants were treated as foreigners and interlopers. This contributed to the hostile attitude that led to MMM.

Finally, it has been demonstrated many times in history that when people blindly obey, tragedy often results. Obedience to ecclesiastical leadership is stressed in Mormonism. One isn't supposed to question or challenge Church authority. I believe many of the participants, including Lee, believed they were carrying out the will of their Church leaders. That they sent a messenger to consult with BY about the situation supports this. I think they believed, erroneously, that their action would benefit the general welfare of Utah society and the Church, and that it was in harmony with the spirit (small "s') of what Salt Lake priesthood leaders had been preaching. Without the LDS emphasis on obedience, I don't believe MMM would have occurred.

[Theophilus07]

Your hero Baglady quoted it with "allies" in place of that "grain." Falsifying evidence is a popular anti-Mormon pastime; I'm sure this will not cause his book to fall in the estimation of any of his fans.

Regards,

Pahoran

I've read and reread your post, but I'm totally unable to see how either "allies" or "grain" is in the least way harmful or exculpable to the Church. In fact, in context, I wonder if "allies" might not be more appropriate. In any event, handwritten diaries can be difficult to decipher and I wonder how the original appeared.

In addition, I must admit to more than just a little disappointment. Your wording was so emotional and forceful I'd rather built up my expectations to encounter some blatant and brazen falsification of such a magnitude that it would knock my socks off. But when I got to your punchline, all I read was "Your hero Baglady quoted it with 'allies' in place of that 'grain.'" Quite a let-down, I must say.

Did you forget to write the rest of the post?

Theophilus07

[auteur55]

only that its members view killing differently than, say, pacifists

And yet the seriousness the church places on the sin of taking another human life sure sounds like Pacifism to me.

[Pahoran]

Wasn't John D. Lee a bishop and a member of the Coucil of Fifty? Weren't members of the local high council involved? My understanding is that this was not an ad hoc group but was comprised of, and organized by, priesthood leadership. Am I mistaken?

You are mistaken. It was an operation of the Iron County militia, carried out under the authority of Colonel William H. Dame, CO of the Iron Military District, and under the command of Major Isaac C. Haight, his 2IC.

It is true that those men also happened to be local Priesthood leaders. For instance, Major Haight was a Stake President, while Colonel Dame was a bishop in his stake. In the Church, bishops do not direct the actions of stake presidents, but colonels do command majors in military formations.

To those who are really interested in the truth of these events, these distinctions are significant. To those wishing to pin the blame on the Church any old how, they are annoyances to be brushed aside.

And I think I know how you will respond to these facts.

Don't you think your reaction is a little over-the-top? I didn't suggest MMM has anything to do with LDS truth claims. How odd!

I do think the tragedy was facilitated by the LDS belief system.

And you think there's a material distinction here? Like all anti-Mormons, your target is Mormonism. Whether you are attempting to disprove its truth claims by rational arguments or make Mormonism hated by appeals to emotion is a distinction without a difference.

First, the Church teaches that killing for reasons other than self-defense is permissible. For instance, it believes in capital punishment. I'm not suggesting that the Church, in any way, condones what happened, only that its members view killing differently than, say, pacifists.

And how unusual is that, really? How many pacifists were marching with Johnston's army?

There are many scriptural instances when life was taken by believers in the name of God. This backdrop made the members susceptible to considering killing as acceptable.

Since there is no evidence that the MMM was conducted "in the name of God," those "scriptural stories" are hardly relevant.

But demagoguery isn't really about relevance, is it?

Second, although he may not have ordered MMM,

Oh, he "may not," may he? How wonderfully generous a concession!

BY had sensitized members to immigrant parties passing through Mormon territories and discouraged trade with them.

"Sensitised?" The territory was under martial law and the citizens were husbanding their food resources. They were indeed permitted to sell food to emigrant parties as long as it was for people and not livestock.

He required them to obtain permission from him to ensure safe passage. IOW, immigrants were treated as foreigners and interlopers. This contributed to the hostile attitude that led to MMM.

In whose opinion?

Finally, it has been demonstrated many times in history that when people blindly obey, tragedy often results.

Perhaps, but "blind obedience" has nothing to do with LDS life and teaching, except in the deliberate distortions of demagogues.

Obedience to ecclesiastical leadership is stressed in Mormonism. One isn't supposed to question or challenge Church authority. I believe many of the participants, including Lee, believed they were carrying out the will of their Church leaders.

Do you? And have you any facts in support of this belief?

That they sent a messenger to consult with BY about the situation supports this.

And I suppose the fact that BY was the territorial governor at the time is completely irrelevant, right? Actually, to those who give this point a moment's actual thought--as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction--supports the opposite conclusion: if they thought the situation with the Fancher Train was covered by instructions they already had, your very own utterly prejudicial "blind obedience" cardboard cutout stereotype dictates that they would have seen no need to ask for any guidance about the situation at all, would they?

The fact is that they acted without such instructions.

The fact is that the kind of "blind obedience" you fondly attribute to Mormons would have prevented the MMM had they actually practiced it.

I think they believed, erroneously, that their action would benefit the general welfare of Utah society and the Church, and that it was in harmony with the spirit (small "s') of what Salt Lake priesthood leaders had been preaching. Without the LDS emphasis on obedience, I don't believe MMM would have occurred.

Thank you for your opinion. While you are thinking, think how much more valuable it would be if it relied upon facts instead of assumptions.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I've read and reread your post, but I'm totally unable to see how either "allies" or "grain" is in the least way harmful or exculpable to the Church. In fact, in context, I wonder if "allies" might not be more appropriate.

Do you indeed? Baglady's thesis is that the Paiute chiefs hurried away from the meeting, "raised allies" among other Paiute bands, and immediately set upon the Fancher train. IOW, he argues that Brigham was ordering the attack in this meeting. His alteration supports his thesis; the Indians proposing to quietly slip away and devote themselves to agriculture does not.

In any event, handwritten diaries can be difficult to decipher and I wonder how the original appeared.

You may well wonder. "Grain" does not look like "allies" in any script I am familiar with.

In addition, I must admit to more than just a little disappointment. Your wording was so emotional and forceful I'd rather built up my expectations to encounter some blatant and brazen falsification of such a magnitude that it would knock my socks off.

I'm sorry Theo, can you provide an example of that "emotional" wording?

Besides, given your own penchant for creatively editing the facts in order to come up with false accusations against the Church, including but not limited to the MMM, I rather think it would take more than "blatant and brazen falsification" of whatever "magnitude" to knock your socks off.

But when I got to your punchline, all I read was "Your hero Baglady quoted it with 'allies' in place of that 'grain.'" Quite a let-down, I must say.

Did you forget to write the rest of the post?

No.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Marvelous]

You are mistaken. It was an operation of the Iron County militia, carried out under the authority of Colonel William H. Dame, CO of the Iron Military District, and under the command of Major Isaac C. Haight, his 2IC.

It is true that those men also happened to be local Priesthood leaders. For instance, Major Haight was a Stake President, while Colonel Dame was a bishop in his stake. In the Church, bishops do not direct the actions of stake presidents, but colonels do command majors in military formations.

To those who are really interested in the truth of these events, these distinctions are significant. To those wishing to pin the blame on the Church any old how, they are annoyances to be brushed aside.

And I think I know how you will respond to these facts.

And you think there's a material distinction here? Like all anti-Mormons, your target is Mormonism. Whether you are attempting to disprove its truth claims by rational arguments or make Mormonism hated by appeals to emotion is a distinction without a difference.

And how unusual is that, really? How many pacifists were marching with Johnston's army?

Since there is no evidence that the MMM was conducted "in the name of God," those "scriptural stories" are hardly relevant.

But demagoguery isn't really about relevance, is it?

Oh, he "may not," may he? How wonderfully generous a concession!

"Sensitised?" The territory was under martial law and the citizens were husbanding their food resources. They were indeed permitted to sell food to emigrant parties as long as it was for people and not livestock.

In whose opinion?

Perhaps, but "blind obedience" has nothing to do with LDS life and teaching, except in the deliberate distortions of demagogues.

Do you? And have you any facts in support of this belief?

And I suppose the fact that BY was the territorial governor at the time is completely irrelevant, right? Actually, to those who give this point a moment's actual thought--as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction--supports the opposite conclusion: if they thought the situation with the Fancher Train was covered by instructions they already had, your very own utterly prejudicial "blind obedience" cardboard cutout stereotype dictates that they would have seen no need to ask for any guidance about the situation at all, would they?

The fact is that they acted without such instructions.

The fact is that the kind of "blind obedience" you fondly attribute to Mormons would have prevented the MMM had they actually practiced it.

Thank you for your opinion. While you are thinking, think how much more valuable it would be if it relied upon facts instead of assumptions.

Regards,

Pahoran

You missed my obedience point entirely. I stated that they probably hadn't received explicit orders from BY. (And, yes, I use probably because respected researchers like Bagley believe BY had given such orders.) However, I believe they thought they were complying with the wishes of their priesthood leaders. If there wasn't such an emphasis on obedience, I doubt the tragedy would have occurred. I don't believe the perpetrators were killers, by nature. They carried out a cowardly and despicable act, as so many others have, because they believed they were obligated to follow orders.

I object to your characterizations of those who are critical of the Church. I care about one thing: the truth. I give the Church credit when I feel it deserves it. I'm not trying to tear down the Church. I'm trying to get at the truth. Why don't you focus on what is actually being stated in posts and withhold your sarcasm and innuendo?

[Pahoran]

You missed my obedience point entirely.

I'm not convinced. Sorry.

I stated that they probably hadn't received explicit orders from BY. (And, yes, I use probably because respected researchers like Bagley believe BY had given such orders.)

I'm sure Baglady is highly respected in circles where a researcher's conclusions are for sale.

Probably on the same streets where other more honest prostitutes are plying their trade.

However, I believe they thought they were complying with the wishes of their priesthood leaders.

Uh-huh. IOW, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. They didn't have any orders to "blindly obey," but they were being "blindly obedient" to what they thought their leaders might want. Or something.

If there wasn't such an emphasis on obedience, I doubt the tragedy would have occurred. I don't believe the perpetrators were killers, by nature. They carried out a cowardly and despicable act, as so many others have, because they believed they were obligated to follow orders.

Yes, that's how it usually is with military units in times of military emergency. Oddly enough, Mormon soldiers aren't the only ones who obey orders. Much to your surprise.

I object to your characterizations of those who are critical of the Church.

My "characterizations of those who are critical of the Church" is sycophantic flattery compared to their characterisations of the Church and its leaders.

I care about one thing: the truth.

(Waiting for the stirring music to die down.) Which is very nice, but it explains why you failed to even try to respond to the facts I presented regarding the military nature of the operation--how, exactly?

I give the Church credit when I feel it deserves it. I'm not trying to tear down the Church. I'm trying to get at the truth. Why don't you focus on what is actually being stated in posts and withhold your sarcasm and innuendo?

That is what I focus on. Why don't you answer what is actually said to you instead of working yourself into a state over the "sarcasm and innuendo?"

Regards,

Pahoran

[Marvelous]

The rank-and-file were following their local leaders who were, in turn, following what they believed to be the wishes of Salt Lake leadership. It's not that hard to comprehend. They sent a representative to BY to make sure what they were doing was, in fact, in line with the thinking of their GAs.

As far as the military aspect, how do you separate it from the ecclesiastic, in this case? It's convenient for you to do so, but I don't think it's justified. Faithful Latter-day Saints are, first and foremost, disciples of Christ and JS. This was a society dominated by Mormons and the LDS Church. It was a theocracy, which is why federal troops were dispatched.

I'm very curious how you explain what happened. These are Saints who professed love for God's children. What prompted them to suspend their compassion and slaughter innocent people? What was the motivation of those who participated?

As far as your dismissal of my motivation, I think it's sad that you ridicule the very thing that prompted JS to visit the Sacred Grove.

[smac97]

Smac...am I reading your post to understand that you believe that Brigham Young ordered the killings?

Or, am I reading that incorrectly?

Six

You are reading incorrectly. You asked:

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?

I should have been more clear, I guess. You asked "If Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre," and I was simply responding to how folks who subscribe to that theory would defend it.

Personally, I do not think he did. The evidence does not bear it out.

Thanks,

-Smac

[TAK]

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 Richard 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.

In appears Crockett only mentions the error in a footnote:

Dimick B. Huntington, diary, MS 1419 2, Family and Church History Department Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereafter Church Archives), 13â??14. Bagley interpolates "allies" where "grain" should be used. I think Bagley's conclusion is wrong. See Lawrence Coates, review of Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, by Will Bagley, BYU Studies 42/1 (2003): 153.

My edition of BotP has grains in brackets. I have attempted to read Coates's review but have not located a version that will not cost me $20.

I would still like to see what Bagley says about this issue. If anybody has a link..

[Programmer]

...

The fact is that the kind of "blind obedience" you fondly attribute to Mormons would have prevented the MMM had they actually practiced it.

....

Wow, Pahoran, you rock!! Thanks for making this a great thread. Man I wish I had time to participate like I used to back in 2004 and 2005.

[Pahoran]

The rank-and-file were following their local leaders who were, in turn, following what they believed to be the wishes of Salt Lake leadership. It's not that hard to comprehend.

I agree. Sub-freshman superficiality is never hard to comprehend. It might be a little harder to document, though.

What is your evidence for what you claim they "believed?" Is there some documentation to this effect? Other than self-serving claims made years after the event as an attempted prototype of the Nuremburg Defense, that is?

They sent a representative to BY to make sure what they were doing was, in fact, in line with the thinking of their GAs.

Why are you trying to desperately hard to evade the fact that is staring you in the face: that they sent the "representative" to Brigham because they simply didn't know what his wishes were? And that they singled him out, not to get the "thinking of their GAs" (remember George A. Smith had visited them very recently, and is generally blamed for whipping them into a frenzy, if not actually ordering the massacre) but because he was the territorial governor and Superintendant of Indian Affairs at the time?

As far as the military aspect, how do you separate it from the ecclesiastic, in this case?

Very easily.

You see, it just so happens that military formations pick up their guns and carry out military operations; Elders' Quorums do not.

Get it now?

It's convenient for you to do so, but I don't think it's justified.

That facts justify it. Your determination to see the event in broad brush strokes is predictable, but the old saying holds true here as it does everywhere else: "the devil is in the details." To ignore the details is to suppress the truth.

Faithful Latter-day Saints are, first and foremost, disciples of Christ and JS.

JS? I am not a disciple of anyone named JS. Faithful Latter-day Saints are not disciples of anyone named JS.

This was a society dominated by Mormons and the LDS Church. It was a theocracy,

Then why did a bishop outrank a Stake President? You have failed to even try to address this aspect of the case. Why? Because it eviscerates your "theocracy" characterisation, and you know it.

which is why federal troops were dispatched.

That's false.

I'm very curious how you explain what happened. These are Saints who professed love for God's children. What prompted them to suspend their compassion and slaughter innocent people? What was the motivation of those who participated?

This is where your simplistic hand-waving has the advantage. The real causes are both complex, requiring lengthly explanations, and difficult to understand from our vastly more comfortable 21st Century perspective. The events of 1857 took place in what is now a vanished world. There is an old saying, "the past is like a foreign country: they do things differently there." My expanded version, based upon years of internet debate, goes like this: "the past is exactly like a foreign country. Not only do they do things differently there, but few Americans have even the vaguest inkling that it actually exists; and most of those assume it's a grubby place with undrinkable water that could be fixed up with some hard work and good ol' American know-how."

But let's be clear on this point: simplistic one-liners like "blind obedience" are not explanations; they are merely slogans, and as such explain nothing at all. People who are genuinely interested in the truth are not satisfied to settle for them.

As far as your dismissal of my motivation, I think it's sad that you ridicule the very thing that prompted JS to visit the Sacred Grove.

Then you can cheer up. I don't "ridicule the very thing that prompted JS to visit the Sacred Grove."

I do quite cheerfully stick a pin in your pompous and self-congratulatory posturing, though.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Nevo]

In any event, handwritten diaries can be difficult to decipher and I wonder how the original appeared.

This isn't great quality--I just took it with a digital camera (I don't have a scanner)--but I think you can still make out the word "grain" pretty clearly (it's the last word on the second line from the bottom).

Source: Lawrence Coates, review of Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, by Will Bagley, BYU Studies 42, no. 1 (2003): 157.

[Theophilus07]

Why are you trying to desperately hard to evade the fact that is staring you in the face: that they sent the "representative" to Brigham because they simply didn't know what his wishes were?

Are you claiming the Cedar City saints didn't know what Brigham Young's wishes were were on cold-blooded murder of strangers and that he might be FOR their murder?

And that they singled him out, not to get the "thinking of their GAs" (remember George A. Smith had visited them very recently, and is generally blamed for whipping them into a frenzy, if not actually ordering the massacre) but because he was the territorial governor and Superintendant of Indian Affairs at the time?

So are you saying that because of George A. Smith's visit, the Cedar City Saints already knew the ecclesiastical leaders were in favor of the massacre? And that now it was settled that the Church favored the massacre, the Cedar City Saints wanted to know if precisely the same individuals at the head of the Church, but who also wear the territorial governor hat, are in favor of the massacre in their civil roles?

What you are trying desperately hard to evade is that they sent a messenger at all to ask about the massacre. In the context of LDS theology, massacres are never "okay." So why did they have to send a messenger at all? And if they were just rogue religious leaders who snapped in an instant, why did the massacre go on for five days and why in the world would they want to alert the Church president and governor that they were about to commit a massacre?

You see, it just so happens that military formations pick up their guns and carry out military operations; Elders' Quorums do not.

Get it now?

It just so happens that George A. Smith's visit to Cedar City, the actual Mountain Meadows (where he spoke to representatives from the Fancher party] and other nearby communities, was in his official role as supreme commander of the Nauvoo Legion. Part of his activities, as recorded by the Church, were to view the Iron County Brigade as it performed military maneouvers and to check on its readiness for military action. And then he gave some talks in Church in his role as Apostle. Marvelous is right: the Saints had blurred the line between church and state and Joseph Smith's Nauvoo Legion.

Get it now?

JS? I am not a disciple of anyone named JS. Faithful Latter-day Saints are not disciples of anyone named JS.

You set a fine example, Pahoran, by your repeated reference to Mr. Bagley as "Baglady."

Then you can cheer up. I don't "ridicule the very thing that prompted JS to visit the Sacred Grove."

I do quite cheerfully stick a pin in your pompous and self-congratulatory posturing, though.

[

How about unsufferable self-righteousness and angry intolerance of anyone else's opposing viewpoints? What's your viewpoint on those?

Incidentally, Marvelous, I agree with what you expressed in your posts.

Theophilus07

[Ron Beron]

The rank-and-file were following their local leaders who were, in turn, following what they believed to be the wishes of Salt Lake leadership. It's not that hard to comprehend. They sent a representative to BY to make sure what they were doing was, in fact, in line with the thinking of their GAs.

And this flies in the face of the letter sent by BY to the south to make sure they didn't interfere with the wagon train. Where is your evidence to the contrary. Innuendo is not proof.

I'm very curious how you explain what happened. These are Saints who professed love for God's children. What prompted them to suspend their compassion and slaughter innocent people? What was the motivation of those who participated?

Psychologically you can have anyone do anything given the right amount of social pressure. Consider, for example, the Japanese and Germans in WWII, and the capos who worked at the concentration camps as the Nazi's private torturers. Given the right pressure anyone will snap.

[Theophilus07]

And this flies in the face of the letter sent by BY to the south to make sure they didn't interfere with the wagon train. Where is your evidence to the contrary. Innuendo is not proof.

It is not accurate to claim that Young attempted to intervene to protect the wagon train by dispatching a messenger. The only messenger, even in LDS accounts, was the volunteer Haslam sent by the authorities in Cedar City to see if Young really wanted the wagon train destroyed. Young's response was to the messenger already sent from Cedar City and not the other way around. If Young was really concerned, why didn't he send someone from his end when he knew the train was headed south to Cedar City BEFORE the attack?

And this, itself, should be something to consider. Why in the world would the Cedar City Saints have to send a messenger to BY to see if he wanted them to massacre the Fancher party? Wouldn't the normal LDS assumption -- even back then -- be that the Church leaders would be AGAINST any massacre?

Psychologically you can have anyone do anything given the right amount of social pressure. Consider, for example, the Japanese and Germans in WWII, and the capos who worked at the concentration camps as the Nazi's private torturers. Given the right pressure anyone will snap.

The accounts and diaries from the time do not give any evidence of a "snap." That's just apologetic wishful thinking. To the contrary, the discussion we can read in the diaries and accounts from the time concerned all the planing required to get the Indians to the planned ambush point at Mountains Meadows, and to get the Nauvoo Legionaires there at the same time. Those carefully coordinated movements required several days because of the distances involved. Then, some Saints in Cedar City wanted to send a messenger to BY BEORE Monday's initial attack to make sure he wanted the massacre to proceed. After the attack, the Indians -- who were expected to do most of the killing -- backed off because the Fanchers were too successful in defending themselves. So Lee had to send for more Legionaire from Cedar City to replace the Indians who were leaving and it took the Legionaires several days to get there. Several recorded in their diaries that they went to Mountain Meadows thinking they were part of a burial detail only to discover to their horror that they were expected to kill the people. And some of the diaries and accounts related how uncomfortable some of the Cedar City Saints were with the whole idea, with some of them actually selling supplies to the Fancher parter despite the Church's order against it and the resulting threats againts them from the LDS leadership. That's not what you'd expect if they just snapped.

After the initial attack fizzled and most of the Indians left and the Saints had to send for reinforcements and paint themselves up like Indians, the Saints who'd been agitating for a messenger to BY prevailed and, after the initial attack, the High Council asked for volunteers and that's when Haslam raised his hand. They knew it would take him several days of hard riding to get to BY and several more to come back with the reply.

And remember that the massacre continued for five full days. If they had just snapped, would they have continued doggedly at this grisly work for five days? The "snap" is not borne out by the surviving accounts and diaries. The myth that BY took it upon himself unilaterally to try to intervene is also not borne out by the contemporary accounts. Even if he had, Haslam told him the attack had been underway for three days so Young had to know any message from him had no chance of preventing the event because it had already started three days before. The messenger was initiated by the Cedar City High Council, not Young.

Theophilus07

[Bsix]

Theophilus07:

Sorry, I have waited this entire thread for you or someone else to substantiate Bagley's claim that Brigham Young personally ordered a massacre. Nobody, including yourself, has provided any real evidence.

For some odd reason, you seem to be in complete denial that Brigham Young sent Haslaam back to Cedar City with a message not to interfere with the Fancher party.

Regards,

Six

[Pahoran]

Are you claiming the Cedar City saints didn't know what Brigham Young's wishes were were on cold-blooded murder of strangers and that he might be FOR their murder?

No, that is not my claim. That would be a lie. I don't tell lies.

It is my contention that the Cedar City Saints didn't have ANY instructions AT ALL regarding the Fancher train. Nor did they have any instructions that covered the situation that then obtained at the Mountain Meadow: namely that their Paiute allies were engaged, were taking casualties, and were expecting their assistance. THAT is why they sent to Brigham for his instructions.

This explanation is the only parsimonious one. Every other contrived explanation requires imagining into existence a conspiracy theory as all-encompassing as it is absurd.

So are you saying that because of George A. Smith's visit, the Cedar City Saints already knew the ecclesiastical leaders were in favor of the massacre?

No, that is not my claim. That would be a lie. I don't tell lies.

I am saying that despite Smith's visit, they had NO instructions AT ALL regarding the Fancher train. That's it. As simple as that.

And that now it was settled that the Church favored the massacre, the Cedar City Saints wanted to know if precisely the same individuals at the head of the Church, but who also wear the territorial governor hat, are in favor of the massacre in their civil roles?

No. That is the kind of absurdity that the hate propaganda being propagated by the world's most gutless liars, would require. My explanation is consistent with all the known facts, and does not require any hate-based assumptions.

What you are trying desperately hard to evade is that they sent a messenger at all to ask about the massacre. In the context of LDS theology, massacres are never "okay." So why did they have to send a messenger at all? And if they were just rogue religious leaders who snapped in an instant, why did the massacre go on for five days and why in the world would they want to alert the Church president and governor that they were about to commit a massacre?

Your (rhetorical) questions assume that they sent Haslam to ask for permission to commit a massacre. Even if that assumption were not utterly absurd, it is clearly false, as the content of Brigham's letter and his verbal instructions to Haslam show. Furthermore, it is not the case that "the massacre [went] on for five days." What went on for five days was the battle, in the which the emigrants gave a good account of themselves; the massacre happened on the final day.

What you are trying desperately hard to evade is that they sent a messenger at all to get instructions. In the context of LDS theology, massacres are never "okay." So why did they have to send a messenger at all? Clearly because they did not (as of the 6th/7th) plan a massacre, and had no instructions that covered the situation that then obtained.

It just so happens that George A. Smith's visit to Cedar City, the actual Mountain Meadows (where he spoke to representatives from the Fancher party] and other nearby communities, was in his official role as supreme commander of the Nauvoo Legion. Part of his activities, as recorded by the Church, were to view the Iron County Brigade as it performed military maneouvers and to check on its readiness for military action. And then he gave some talks in Church in his role as Apostle. Marvelous is right: the Saints had blurred the line between church and state and Joseph Smith's Nauvoo Legion.

No, that is just ridiculous. How does that "blur the line?" Like a lot of people on the frontier, he had more than one role. What was he supposed to do, take two trips into the area, one to discharge his ecclesiastical duties, and a separate one for his non-ecclesiastical ones?

Get it now?

I've always got the intent of the hate propaganda.

You set a fine example, Pahoran, by your repeated reference to Mr. Bagley as "Baglady."

And the remarkable thing is, I actually believe you do think that is worse than knowingly manufacturing false accusations.

How about unsufferable self-righteousness and angry intolerance of anyone else's opposing viewpoints? What's your viewpoint on those?

You mean--like the "unsufferable self-righteousness and angry intolerance of anyone else's opposing viewpoints" displayed by the so-called "Concerned Christians[TM]"?

Incidentally, Marvelous, I agree with what you expressed in your posts.

Of course you do. The expression "a herd of independent thinkers" comes to mind.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

It is not accurate to claim that Young attempted to intervene to protect the wagon train by dispatching a messenger.

And it is likewise not accurate to pretend that anyone has made such a claim. This is a rather obvious straw man. Just how desperate are you to pin something on Brigham?

The only messenger, even in LDS accounts, was the volunteer Haslam sent by the authorities in Cedar City

And no Latter-day Saint has claimed otherwise. Not in this thread, anyway.

to see if Young really wanted the wagon train destroyed.

No, it was to see if Young really wanted them to stop beating their wives. Could you load your deliberate misrepresentation any more heavily? You have not the slightest reason to suppose that they or any of them thought that Brigham "wanted the wagon train destroyed." That is a blatant fabrication, which you then blithely project upon them.

Young's response was to the messenger already sent from Cedar City and not the other way around. If Young was really concerned, why didn't he send someone from his end when he knew the train was headed south to Cedar City BEFORE the attack?

Indeed. Here is a parallel question: if you were really concerned about the Virginia Tech massacre, why didn't you do something BEFORE the kid went on a shooting spree?

Could it be because you, just like Brigham, had no advance notice of any such intentions?

Don't worry, Theo. I will acquit you on that basis. That's because, unlike you, I'm not trying to blame anyone for a massacre they didn't cause.

And this, itself, should be something to consider. Why in the world would the Cedar City Saints have to send a messenger to BY to see if he wanted them to massacre the Fancher party? Wouldn't the normal LDS assumption -- even back then -- be that the Church leaders would be AGAINST any massacre?

Of course it would. And it happens that they did not sent a messenger "to see if he wanted them to massacre the Fancher party." That is a malicious fabrication that has no basis in fact.

The accounts and diaries from the time do not give any evidence of a "snap." That's just apologetic wishful thinking. To the contrary, the discussion we can read in the diaries and accounts from the time concerned all the planing required to get the Indians to the planned ambush point at Mountains Meadows, and to get the Nauvoo Legionaires there at the same time. Those carefully coordinated movements required several days because of the distances involved. Then, some Saints in Cedar City wanted to send a messenger to BY BEORE Monday's initial attack to make sure he wanted the massacre to proceed. After the attack, the Indians -- who were expected to do most of the killing -- backed off because the Fanchers were too successful in defending themselves. So Lee had to send for more Legionaire from Cedar City to replace the Indians who were leaving and it took the Legionaires several days to get there. Several recorded in their diaries that they went to Mountain Meadows thinking they were part of a burial detail only to discover to their horror that they were expected to kill the people. And some of the diaries and accounts related how uncomfortable some of the Cedar City Saints were with the whole idea, with some of them actually selling supplies to the Fancher parter despite the Church's order against it and the resulting threats againts them from the LDS leadership. That's not what you'd expect if they just snapped.

There are too many distortions, deliberate misrepresentations of fact, intentional twistings of the calendar, and other assorted falsehoods in that paragraph for me to want to wade through it all. But I will hit some of the high points:

1. The Iron County troops only started to be mustered after the attack began. This is a matter of recorded fact. Thus, they did not get "there at the same time" as the Paiutes.
   
2. The messenger wasn't sent to "make sure he wanted the massacre to proceed." He was sent to get instructions because they didn't know how to handle the situation.
   
3. The Paiutes did not just "back off" and go home. The emigrants dug in and defended themselves successfully for four days. What happens in a shooting battle for an entrenched position? People die; attackers generally suffer two casualties for every one they inflict--and in fact the ratio is even more unfavourable before the position is stormed. So who were the Mormon casualties for the MMM?
   
4. There was no instruction not to sell supplies to the emigrants; thus nobody disobeyed any orders, and no "resulting threats againts[sic] them" were received "from the LDS leadership." The instruction was only that they could sell the emigrants food for the people, but not for the livestock.
   

After the initial attack fizzled and most of the Indians left and the Saints had to send for reinforcements and paint themselves up like Indians,

Did you make that falsehood up yourself, or are you quoting someone else?

the Saints who'd been agitating for a messenger to BY prevailed and, after the initial attack, the High Council asked for volunteers and that's when Haslam raised his hand.

That's a brazen falsehood. Haslam departed the morning of the initial Indian attack.

They knew it would take him several days of hard riding to get to BY and several more to come back with the reply.

And remember that the massacre continued for five full days.

That's false. The battle continued five days, as the Paiutes whom you claim had already left, continued to press the attack and continued to take casualties; the massacre seems to have taken about half an hour.

If they had just snapped, would they have continued doggedly at this grisly work for five days? The "snap" is not borne out by the surviving accounts and diaries. The myth that BY took it upon himself unilaterally to try to intervene is also not borne out by the contemporary accounts.

"The myth that BY took it upon himself unilaterally to try to intervene" is, as pointed out above, a straw man entirely of your own manufacture.

Even if he had, Haslam told him the attack had been underway for three days so Young had to know any message from him had no chance of preventing the event because it had already started three days before. The messenger was initiated by the Cedar City High Council, not Young.

And nobody has claimed otherwise.

As you perfectly well know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[soren]

Sorry, I have waited this entire thread for you or someone else to substantiate Bagley's claim that Brigham Young personally ordered a massacre.

We will have to wait for the movie to get the REAL evidence.