A Question About Bagley's Claim.

[Pahoran]

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.

Shot, Nevo!

So Theophilus, how much like "allies" does that "grain" look?

Regards,

Pahoran

[smac97]

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.

Mr. Coates' review, including the image of the page from Huntington's diary, is available online here.

The image is part of a .pdf file of Coates' review, which you can download in its entirety here.

-Smac

[Pahoran]

Mr. Coates' review, including the image of the page from Huntington's diary, is available online here.

The image is part of a .pdf file of Coates' review, which you can download in its entirety here.

-Smac

The article "Save The Emigrants: Joseph Clewes on the Mountain Meadow Massacre" is also well worth reading. Particularly for anyone who thinks Theo's desperate attempts to fix the blame on Brigham have anything other than malice to recommend them.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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.

This assertion is as truthful as anything else you have claimed in this thread, or elsewhere, about the MMM. The commanding officer of the Nauvoo Legion in 1857 was Daniel H. Wells, Lieutenant General. George A. Smith was indeed an officer in that body; he held the rank of colonel.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

If Brigham did order it, my question would be for what purpose?

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

Theophilus07

That's false, of course.

Brigham didn't order it, period. He had everything to lose and nothing to gain by murdering civilians.

One fact that rabid Brigham-haters invariably overlook is that, while the MMM was being carried out in Southern Utah, Brigham was 300 miles away in SLC conducting a highly successful and essentially bloodless defense against Johnston's army. Why, if he was so bloodthirsty? What is the most parsimonious explanation for the fact that the MMM is so starkly, jarringly different from the pattern of operations carried out under his direct control?

To Brigham-hating fanatics, there will be some sinister purpose to it all, but how would a reasonable person answer that question?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

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

One fact that rabid Brigham-haters invariably overlook is that, while the MMM was being carried out in Southern Utah, Brigham was 300 miles away in SLC conducting a highly successful and essentially bloodless defense against Johnston's army. Why, if he was so bloodthirsty? What is the most parsimonious explanation for the fact that the MMM is so starkly, jarringly different from the pattern of operations carried out under his direct control?

Regards,

Pahoran

Nor do the efforts to place the blame on the Indians after the fact work under this scenario. If the whole point is to demonstrate he was in control, out of control natives contradict that 'message'.

[Ray Agostini]

Well I just went through this whole thread, and also listened to Bagley on PBS this morning, who said he is "certain" that Brigham Young ordered the massacre. There are many complexities in the MMM, but still no hard evidence that BY ordered it. This is pure conjecture.

Out of interest I went through some Amazon reviews of Brook's The Mountain Meadows Massacre, and found some comments similar to those made in this thread:

I would recommend this book to anyone who wants more than the sugar-coated LDS Church history and wants to find the truth. For LDS church members, I would recommend you take this with a grain of salt. Because it is not pretty. And for non-LDS readers, I would just like to remind that acts of religious fundamentalism does not prove a religion false. If that were the case, then Judaism, Christianity and Islam all would be false, because all three faiths are guilty of murdering men, women and children in the name of God. From the Israelites slaughtering the men, woman and children of Canaan, to Church Fathers and Protestant Reformers condoning the persecution and murder of Jews, Muslims, Witches, Pagans, Native Americans and other "heathens" and to modern day Fundamentalist Islam clerics crashing planes into buildings for God.

Brooks stated:

"The completeâ??the absoluteâ??truth of the affair can probably never be evaluated by any human being; attempts to understand the forces which culminated in it and those which were set into motion by it are all very inadequate at best."

Quoting from Robert D. Crockett's review of Bagley's book (earlier quoted by Pahoran):

The story of the Mountain Meadows Massacre in Blood of the Prophets fascinates us in a somewhat prurient sense. We read of sensational marital practices of the Mormons, repulsive violence in the name of religion, and futile resistance to the armed might of a nascent antebellum nation. Bagley describes the tyranny of a domineering leader in an oppressive ecclesiastical society. A group of innocent men, women, and children is caught in the convergence of forces between the good of American Christian principles and the evil of Mormonism.

The story of the massacre cannot be told as Bagley wishes to tell it. If Bagley wants to implicate Brigham Young, George A. Smith, and the nineteenth-century Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints itself, we should expect him to weigh and sift what will probably be voluminous evidence of dubious quality offered against an unpopular religion. Bagley accepts this dubious evidence as well as raw speculation. He rejects or misses competent evidence. I challenge the right of any historian to toss competent evidence on the ash heap in favor of salacious rumor.

But salacious rumor is what we are often served up by Blood of the Prophets in an agenda-driven account of history. We should approach the work with a healthy dose of cynicism. I, for one, am convinced even more after reading Blood of the Prophets that there is no competent evidence to show that Brigham Young and George A. Smith were accessories before or after the fact. (Emphasis added)

[Pahoran]

It is becoming increasingly clear that this thread is coming to the answer to the question posed in the OP as this: if indeed Brigham did send Haslam back to Cedar City with the written and oral messages it is alleged he gave him, this cannot be reconciled with any theory that Brigham ordered the massacre. Or even that he had any advance knowledge of any plot to attack the emigrants.

And we unquestionably know that Brigham did send Haslam back to Cedar City with the written and oral messages described.

Therefore, Brigham did not order the MMM. To the extent that any message board is competent to settle any question, this matter is settled.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

One fact that rabid Brigham-haters invariably overlook is that, while the MMM was being carried out in Southern Utah, Brigham was 300 miles away in SLC conducting a highly successful and essentially bloodless defense against Johnston's army. Why, if he was so bloodthirsty? What is the most parsimonious explanation for the fact that the MMM is so starkly, jarringly different from the pattern of operations carried out under his direct control?

[...]

This is actually something that has stood out to me...

May 1st post on another MMM thread.

[TAK]

Pahoran:

What is the most parsimonious explanation for the fact that the MMM is so starkly, jarringly different from the pattern of operations carried out under his direct control?

By blaming the Indians, quite possibly BY never thought he would caught.

Therefore, Brigham did not order the MMM. To the extent that any message board is competent to settle any question, this matter is settled.

Settled? Maybe in the minds of those who cannot fathom the thought of BYs' complicity. The issue will never go away and not because of the "Brigham-hating fanatics" ..

[Pahoran]

Pahoran:

By blaming the Indians, quite possibly BY never thought he would caught.

In the alternative universe in which Brigham ordered the MMM, by blaming the Indians, as Calmoriah points out, BY would have undone the "message" the MMM was supposed to have sent.

Settled? Maybe in the minds of those who cannot fathom the thought of BYs' complicity.

Are you really so small-minded as to assume that the only way anyone rejects your moronic non-reasoning is because we can't "fathom" it? On the contrary; we can "fathom" it quite well.

It just happens to have no evidence in support of it. The question is settled because your side of the aisle have nothing except your hatred of Brigham to keep you warm.

The issue will never go away and not because of the "Brigham-hating fanatics" ..

That's a rather confused sentence. Let me help you there:

The issue will never go away, entirely because of the Brigham-hating fanatics.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I'd like to add that I think it rather unfair of Marvelous and Theophilus to slink away with their tails between their legs (note that I'm being very charitable here--tail between the legs assumes some ground clearance) leaving poor Tak twisting in the wind. Come back guys--Tak needs you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[TAK]

Pahoran

It just happens to have no evidence in support of it. The question is settled because your side of the aisle have nothing except your hatred of Brigham to keep you warm.

Pahoran vitriolic comments to me and others in just this thread:

â?¢One fact that rabid Brigham-haters invariably overlookâ?¦

â?¢To Brigham-hating fanatics, thereâ?¦

â?¢Theo's desperate attempts to fix the blame on Brigham have anything other than malice to recommend themâ?¦

â?¢To those wishing to pin the blame on the Churchâ?¦

â?¢My "characterizations of those who are critical of the Church" is sycophantic flattery compared to their characterisations of the Church and its leadersâ?¦.

â?¢No. That is the kind of absurdity that the hate propaganda being propagated by the world's most gutless liars,â?¦

Apparently, you must believe that to find someone guilty of a crime or even suspect someone, you must hate the person. Is that what they teach in Mormon Apologetics 101?

[Pahoran]

Pahoran

Pahoran vitriolic comments to me and others in just this thread:

Apparently, you must believe that to find someone guilty of a crime or even suspect someone, you must hate the person.

No, I don't believe any such thing. And I fail to see why such a conclusion would be "apparent" to you.

However, it is my understanding that people don't form opinions in a vacuum. People believe something either because they are compelled to--i.e. the evidence in favour of the belief is overwhelming--or because they prefer to--i.e. the belief in question appeals to their preferences and prejudices--or some combination of the two.

Now it happens that, regarding Brigham's alleged complicity in the MMM, there is no evidence whatsoever in support of it. None. Not a shred. Thus, it is believed only by those who want to believe it.

For a short, glorious moment in the annals of anti-Mormonism, hope leaped in the hearts of those who want to believe it when Bagley's self-discrediting opus hit the bookshelves. But his "startling new evidence" turned out to be a scribbled note that he had to doctor before it supported his thesis; as it stands, sans his doctoring, it does not.

The notion of Brigham's complicity is believed only by preference, and not because of any evidence. So what motivates people to believe it? Historically, the thesis has been advanced only by the most rabid anti-Mormons. What has changed, that that should no longer be the case?

And what motive should we attribute to someone who keeps trying to push a false accusation without a shred of evidence in support?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Pahoran

Pahoran vitriolic comments to me and others in just this thread:

â?¢One fact that rabid Brigham-haters invariably overlookâ?¦

Is this your idea of a "vitriolic comment?" Do you think perhaps that they don't overlook the fact in question? If they don't, why do they never address it?

â?¢To Brigham-hating fanatics, thereâ?¦

Do you disagree that it is fanatical to hate someone who's been dead for 130 years?

â?¢Theo's desperate attempts to fix the blame on Brigham have anything other than malice to recommend themâ?¦

Well do they?

What exactly is "vitriolic" about that? Do you deny that Theo has been trying very hard to fix the blame on Brigham? Don't you think the very casual relationship between his assertions and the facts suggest a level of desperation?

â?¢To those wishing to pin the blame on the Churchâ?¦

And this is your idea of a "vitriolic comment?"

Or is it merely padding?

â?¢My "characterizations of those who are critical of the Church" is sycophantic flattery compared to their characterisations of the Church and its leadersâ?¦.

And this is your idea of a "vitriolic comment?" Do you deny its validity? The "critics" have been trying to characterise the Church's leaders, including Brigham Young, as scheming mass-murderers. Do you really think that anything I've said even begins to approach that for vitriol?

If so, then what?

â?¢No. That is the kind of absurdity that the hate propaganda being propagated by the world's most gutless liars,â?¦

And to whom was that directed? To you, or other participants here?

No.

Theophilus asked me if it was my position 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?

And I replied that of course this was not my position, because it is absurd hate propaganda favoured only by gutless liars.

Since, to my knowledge, no-one has actually tried to argue such a position in this thread--as opposed to quite mistakenly attributing such to me--how then could my remark possibly be construed as being directed at any participant here?

Well?

Now Tak, you ought not to fall back on the old schtick of "Pahoran insulted me so his arguments must be bogus." You know that the two things are unrelated. Besides, if you see my post timestamped at 3:19 today, you can see that I am sticking up for you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[TAK]

Pahoran

No, I don't believe any such thing. And I fail to see why such a conclusion would be "apparent" to you.

However, it is my understanding that people don't form opinions in a vacuum. People believe something either because they are compelled to--i.e. the evidence in favour of the belief is overwhelming--or because they prefer to--i.e. the belief in question appeals to their preferences and prejudices--or some combination of the two.

Now it happens that, regarding Brigham's alleged complicity in the MMM, there is no evidence whatsoever in support of it. None. Not a shred. Thus, it is believed only by those who want to believe it.

Oh I see, so those that donâ??t agree with your interpretation of the evidence are the narrow-minded bigots.. Thank you for the clarification!

For the record, there are some who do not rely solely on Church historians for the facts and have concluded that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence that indicates some degree of guilt. Whether he directly ordered a destruction or set the events in place by his actions, few doubt his coverup after the fact. You may wish to steer this discussion into an absolute 100% guilt but the facts of this event are not like your tiny black and white world.

Pahoran

For a short, glorious moment in the annals of anti-Mormonism, hope leaped in the hearts of those who want to believe it when Bagley's self-discrediting opus hit the bookshelves. But his "startling new evidence" turned out to be a scribbled note that he had to doctor before it supported his thesis; as it stands, sans his doctoring, it does not.

You must think Bagley to be an utterly stupid person - because thatâ??s the only type of person who would think they could get away altering the notes of the event knowing the degree of scrutiny his book would receive. The very under pin of his argument you claim, and you actually think he thought he would get away it? Nonsense.

Regardless of why there was a change, it does nothing to alter the existence of the meeting with the Indians. It only provides a distraction that apparently a few critics have jumped on and bluster about leaving little else to comment on and only offering rest of the commentary to conjecture. Nobody disputes that BY successfully (at times) used Indians in his war with the United States. The church and Indians were already allies and there were different tribes present in the meeting, so the notion that Bagley needed to invent allies to make a point is well-pointless.

The far more damning statement comes from the sentence before: â?? so I have but now they have come to fight us & you for when they kill us then they will kill you.â? Here we have BY telling the Indians that the Americans were coming to kill both the Mormons and the Indians. This must have had an alarming effect, inflaming the Indians who left the next morning to return to Southern Utah. Also if BY tells the Indians this dire warning, its concievable that George A Smith was saying the same thing to the Saints on his trip down to Southern Utah during the weeks prior.

Pahoran

And what motive should we attribute to someone who keeps trying to push a false accusation without a shred of evidence in support?

And what motive should we attribute to someone who becomes abusive to those that might disagree with what he thinks?

BTW: you did read Bagleyâ??s book? right?

[Ray Agostini]

Here is a review I picked up from BYU News Net, commentary on the PBS documentary:

Contrary to the unnamed scholars in the LDS church news release, the overall feeling of the film is moving, yet objective. No part of what I viewed overshadows another. Balance is the key word here. Of course, one should expect some highly critical remarks that might ruffle feathers, but producer Helen Whitney masterfully weaves powerful, poignant answers from LDS leaders, historians and, surprisingly, even some non-member scholars to counterbalance the criticism. The effect is a harmonious dialogue of fact, feelings and opinion.

Then the roller-coaster begins: an intense, emotional ride at Mountain Meadows, with historian Will Bagley trying to grind his axe against Brigham Young while the other scholars on the film, Mormon and non-Mormon alike, point to John D. Lee as the one who ordered the attack. The backdrop of the whole massacre is set up to make sure people understand what events occurred prior to the violence. Brigham Young's name is brought up routinely, and scholars on both sides generally say while Mormons were definitely at fault, Brigham Young neither ordered it nor condoned it.

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/64152

[Pahoran]

Pahoran

Oh I see, so those that donâ??t agree with your interpretation of the evidence are the narrow-minded bigots.. Thank you for the clarification!

No, you are projecting your own perceptions on to me. I am aware that there is considerable scope for interpreting the evidence. But when it comes to evidence that Brigham wanted or ordered the massacre--there's no room for intepretation because there's no evidence to begin with.

For the record, there are some who do not rely solely on Church historians for the facts and have concluded that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence that indicates some degree of guilt. Whether he directly ordered a destruction or set the events in place by his actions, few doubt his coverup after the fact.

Perhaps, but the question of a "coverup after the fact" is not before us, and is entirely separate from the hate-based fantasy that Brigham ordered the massacre.

Incidentally, what do you call someone who regards all believing Latter-day Saints as unreliable? Hint: five letters, rhymes with "spigot."

You may wish to steer this discussion into an absolute 100% guilt but the facts of this event are not like your tiny black and white world.

Nor are they like your wishful-thinking Victorian-melodrama imagination.

Pahoran

You must think Bagley to be an utterly stupid person - because thatâ??s the only type of person who would think they could get away altering the notes of the event knowing the degree of scrutiny his book would receive. The very under pin of his argument you claim, and you actually think he thought he would get away it? Nonsense.

And yet the established fact is that that is precisely what he did do. Have you actually read this thread? Have you examined the photograph of the relevant journal page? It is even clearer on the link that someone provided further up.

Does blatantly falsifying a quote make him a stupid person? If you say so.

Regardless of why there was a change, it does nothing to alter the existence of the meeting with the Indians. It only provides a distraction that apparently a few critics have jumped on and bluster about leaving little else to comment on and only offering rest of the commentary to conjecture.

Your ranting is becoming increasingly incoherent. Yes, we know that there was a meeting with the Indians. Several meetings in fact, with different tribal groups ranging across various parts of the territory, something your hero seems reluctant to mention. Only two Paiute chiefs were present in the meeting Baglady thinks cooks Brigham's goose; the rest were Pahvant Utes, whose territory did not include the trail the Fancher train was following.

Nobody disputes that BY successfully (at times) used Indians in his war with the United States. The church and Indians were already allies and there were different tribes present in the meeting, so the notion that Bagley needed to invent allies to make a point is well-pointless.

And yet the fact remains that Baglady did indeed fabricate "allies." You can wave away the obvious implications of this with a snort, and you can somehow try to shift the blame to me, but the fact remains that Baglady did indeed fabricate it.

Can you explain why?

The far more damning statement comes from the sentence before: â?? so I have but now they have come to fight us & you for when they kill us then they will kill you.â?

And why is that "damning?"

Here we have BY telling the Indians that the Americans were coming to kill both the Mormons and the Indians.

And did subsequent events prove him a false prophet on that point? Do you deny that US Indian policy, whether intentionally or otherwise, had at least the effect of exterminating vast numbers of them in subsequent years?

This must have had an alarming effect, inflaming the Indians who left the next morning to return to Southern Utah.

"Must have?" And you have the temerity to accuse me of relying upon conjecture?

Oh, and did they in fact leave "the next morning to return to Southern Utah?" I know Baglady and his mindless acolytes leap to the assumption that they did; but if they did, why do various contemporary journals record the Paiute leaders being in SLC on the 10th, the 13th and the 16th of September?

If Brigham ordered the massacre, the September 1 meeting was not when he did it. Sorry.

If Brigham ordered the massacre, then he has been supernaturally clever at covering his tracks. And before you resort to the standard old fall-back position of declaring that the lack of evidence is evidence of his skulduggery, ask yourself whether that is more desperate a resort, or more bigoted.

Also if BY tells the Indians this dire warning, its concievable that George A Smith was saying the same thing to the Saints on his trip down to Southern Utah during the weeks prior.

"Concievable[sic]?" And you have the temerity to accuse me of relying upon conjecture?

It seems reasonable to suppose that the fear and tension attendant upon placing the territory on a war footing may have contributed to the massacre. It seems vastly less than reasonable to leap to the conclusion that placing the territory on a war footing, in the face of an invading army, was a blameworthy act.

It was not.

Pahoran

And what motive should we attribute to someone who becomes abusive to those that might disagree with what he thinks?

How?

By ignoring their arguments and whingeing about their "vitriolic" remarks instead?

Speaking of which, do you plan to answer this question? The "critics" have been trying to characterise the Church's leaders, including Brigham Young, as scheming mass-murderers. Do you really think that anything I've said even begins to approach that for vitriol?

BTW: you did read Bagleyâ??s book? right?

Right. Thanks for asking.

It's still sitting on my shelf, incidentally. Quite a good read, some smart illustrations, perhaps the best quality hatchet job/propaganda piece I've seen.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Theophilus07]

And we unquestionably know that Brigham did send Haslam back to Cedar City with the written and oral messages described.

BY wouldn't have been able to send Haslam back to Cedar City if Haslam hadn't volunteered in the first place in Cedar City to ride to SLC with the original question. Young sent no unilateral messengers from his end.

We also know some other unquestionable facts. Just prior to the arrival of the Fancher wagon train in the Utah Territory, BY and other LDS authorities made public speeches which explicitly advocated blood atonement and violence. As the Fancher party traveled through Utah Territory, BY called a meeting of some of the Indian chiefs and offered them the Fancher party's cattle and horses, though he did not have title to that property. The Sunday before the Monday morning MMM attack took place, local Cedar City LDS leaders made public speeches in church meetings which preached hatred to non-LDS and explicitly threatened violence. The next morning, when the initial attack took place, the attackers included both Indians and LDS from Cedar City painted to look like Indians. The proportion of Indians and LDS is not documentable. The Monday attack did not finish off the Fancher party and the LDS Cedar City High Council -- and not the Indians -- asked for a volunteer to ride to SLC and ask BY what to do. The attacks carried out by both Indians and LDS from Cedar City lasted for five days. On the last day, Friday, the LDS leaders, not the Indians, offered to let the survivors flee unarmed, leaving everything including cattle, horses, food and supplies behind, but did not honor their own offer and a combination of Indians and LDS painted and dressed to look like Indians killed most of the remaining survivors AFTER they'd surrendered their weapons.

These facts are not in dispute. Did BY order the MMM? We have no documentation to that effect, but we DO have documentation that he called a meeting of some of the Indian chiefs and offered them the Fancher party cattle and horses. We DO have documentation that in the weeks before the MMM, BY and other LDS leaders made speeches preaching blood atonement and violence to non-LDS and outsiders. We DO have documentation that the day before the MMM started, the Cedar City Stake President Haight preached a sermon which advocated violence to outsiders. We may never be able to document that BY formally ordered the MMM, but there is indisputable documentation that he and other LDS leaders set the stage for violence and bloodshed.

BY's offer of the Fancher party's cattle and horses to the Indians is documented and chilling, particularly since that property was not BY's to offer to anyone -- at least while the Fancher party was still alive. Haslam's ride to SLC to ask BY what to do after the attack started is documented and chilling. Wouldn't the normal response for anyone, LDS or not, be to ride to the wagon train's rescue and not to join in the attack?

Therefore, Brigham did not order the MMM. To the extent that any message board is competent to settle any question, this matter is settled.

I'm sure it's settled in your mind, Pahoran, but the fact that you make that claim means nothing, other than to raise reasonable questions about your estimate of your own influence. I can guarantee that the controversy will continue, aided by the mounting documentable evidence which shows BY and other leaders setting the stage for violence and bloodshed.

Theophilus07

[Ron Beron]

but we DO have documentation that he called a meeting of some of the Indian chiefs and offered them the Fancher party cattle and horses.

You do not have documentation to this or you would have mentioned it. As posted previously, BY did meet with and discussed with them the possibilty of disrupting the cattle lines NOT killing settlers.

In order to close the trail to the approaching army he asked the Indian leaders to scatter the cattle. One historian, Norman Furniss wrote, "early in the war at least, the Church's leaders had a deliberate policy of seeking military assistance from the Indians." There was no intent for the Indians to attack the settlers.

One diarist Dimick Huntington wrote,

I [Huntington] told them that the Lord had come out of his Hiding place & they had to commence their work[.] I gave them all the Beef cattle & horses that was on the Road to CalAfornia[,] the North Rout[,] that they must put them into the mountains & not kill any thing as Long as they can help it but when they do Kill[,] take the old ones & not kill the cows or young ones.

The emphasis here is on cattle not people.

One researcher, Robert D. Crockett, wrote for the Maxwell Institute,

When Huntington talks about not killing anything "as Long as they can help it" he is talking about "cows." He asked the northern Indians for help to run cattle off the northern California route upon which the Fancher train would never tread. Following the massacre, Indian agent Garland Hurt, certainly no friend of the Mormons, noted the same requests were made to the northern Snake Indians.14 T. B. H. Stenhouse also confirms that running the cattle off was a general strategy used successfully against the army.15 Thus, Brigham Young's 1 September 1857 comment: "I gave them all the cattle" can only mean one thing. He offered the Indians all the cattle they could scatter that were owned by the army.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=509

Either post some evidence to the contrary or acknowledge your sources are incorrect.

>>Posted earlier<<

[Theophilus07]

The emphasis here is on cattle not people.

Either post some evidence to the contrary or acknowledge your sources are incorrect.

I did focus on cattle not people -- read my post again.

I wrote:

As the Fancher party traveled through Utah Territory, BY called a meeting of some of the Indian chiefs and offered them the Fancher party's cattle and horses, though he did not have title to that property.

As I said, BY's offer of the cattle is not in dispute. You even agree. Neither is there any dispute that they weren't BY's cattle to offer.

Theophilus07

[Scott Gordon]

BY's offer of the Fancher party's cattle and horses to the Indians is documented and chilling, particularly since that property was not BY's to offer to anyone -- at least while the Fancher party was still alive. Haslam's ride to SLC to ask BY what to do after the attack started is documented and chilling. Wouldn't the normal response for anyone, LDS or not, be to ride to the wagon train's rescue and not to join in the attack?

Help me out a bit Theo. I don't recall an offer to specifically give the cattle of the Francher party to anyone. Could you please provide me a source on this?

Note...I am asking specifically about the Franchers.

[Ron Beron]

I did focus on cattle not people -- read my post again.

I wrote:

As I said, BY's offer of the cattle is not in dispute. You even agree. Neither is there any dispute that they weren't BY's cattle to offer.

Theophilus07

Cattle is not the question here. Whose cattle is the question. It certainly wasn't the settlers cattle in question, but the cattle that belonged to the military. BY was conducting a military campaign against the U.S. Army of harassment to deny them of foodstuffs. To this end he used his allies, the Indians. This occurred in the north NOT the south.

[TAK]

Pahoran

I am aware that there is considerable scope for interpreting the evidence. But when it comes to evidence that Brigham wanted or ordered the massacre--there's no room for intepretation because there's no evidence to begin with.

â??intepretation [sic]?" I know of no direct evidence that BY â??wanted or ordered the massacreâ? either. BY may not have intended for the murders to happen but that does not relieve him of being responsible for what happen if he caused other things to happen that resulted in the murders.

Pahoran

Yes, we know that there was a meeting with the Indians. Several meetings in fact, with different tribal groups ranging across various parts of the territory, something your hero seems reluctant to mention. Only two Paiute chiefs were present in the meeting Baglady thinks cooks Brigham's goose; the rest were Pahvant Utes, whose territory did not include the trail the Fancher train was following.

Nonsense. Bagley mentions meetings with Northern Utah tribes in the two weeks prior. Itâ??s Crockett that overlooks the fact when trying to affix the Paiutes with attacking US Troops in Northern Utah. And as you point out there are at least two different tribes present representing multiple bands. So much for the need to invent allies.

Pahoran

I know Baglady and his mindless acolytes leap to the assumption that they did (Leave SLC on September 2 ); but if they did, why do various contemporary journals record the Paiute leaders being in SLC on the 10th, the 13th and the 16th of September?

Kanosh told Gov. Kane that Tutseygubbit and Youngwuols were part the massacre though Bagley mentions that it could be a furtherance of what BY wanted him to say. So what journals place the Paiute leaders being in SLC on the 10th, the 13th and the 16th of September?

Pahoran

And yet the fact remains that Baglady did indeed fabricate "allies." You can wave away the obvious implications of this with a snort, and you can somehow try to shift the blame to me, but the fact remains that Baglady did indeed fabricate it. Can you explain why

No. I will let him answer that, but it appears to me that it was for no apparent reason and at the risk of his career and reputation. You can continue to belly ache about it in typical apologetic fashion and ignore the other 400 plus pages of research Gene Sessions called: an â??..intense research and that it was fairly exhaustive. He solved whatever he could see and looked very deeply, plumbed very deeply, to find much information that Juanita Brooks did not have when she published her landmark book in 1950.â? â?? and who recommended the book for publication despite not agreeing with Baglelyâ??s conclusions.

[Pahoran]

BY wouldn't have been able to send Haslam back to Cedar City if Haslam hadn't volunteered in the first place in Cedar City to ride to SLC with the original question. Young sent no unilateral messengers from his end.

And no-one has claimed that he did. As you perfectly well know.

At what point does a straw man become a deception? You appear to be approaching that point.

We also know some other unquestionable facts.

Indeed we do; but you have yet to post any.

Just prior to the arrival of the Fancher wagon train in the Utah Territory, BY and other LDS authorities made public speeches which explicitly advocated blood atonement and violence.

Really? I question that assertion. Please cite the speeches in question so that we may look them up and see what they really say, as opposed to what you merely assert that they said.

As the Fancher party traveled through Utah Territory, BY called a meeting of some of the Indian chiefs and offered them the Fancher party's cattle and horses, though he did not have title to that property.

I'm sorry, but that is false. Yes, Brigham called several meetings of several Indian chiefs and offered them cattle, as legitimate spoils of war, if they would assist him in defending Utah against the approaching army. The claim that he was offering them the Fanchers' cattle is a complete fabrication that has no documentary (or other) evidence in support.

The Sunday before the Monday morning MMM attack took place, local Cedar City LDS leaders made public speeches in church meetings which preached hatred to non-LDS and explicitly threatened violence.

Really? I question that assertion. Please cite the speeches in question so that we may look them up and see what they really say, as opposed to what you merely assert that they said.

The next morning, when the initial attack took place, the attackers included both Indians and LDS from Cedar City painted to look like Indians.

So you keep asserting. Where is your documentation for this claim? I put it to you, sir, that you have none, and you know it. I put it to you that you are knowingly, intentionally and with malice aforethought repeating discredited old libels which you know to be false.

Isn't that right?

The proportion of Indians and LDS is not documentable.

No part of your fiction is documentable.

The Monday attack did not finish off the Fancher party and the LDS Cedar City High Council -- and not the Indians -- asked for a volunteer to ride to SLC and ask BY what to do.

Why do you keep repeating this falsehood, when you know it is not true?

To assert, as you repeatedly do, that Haslam was dispatched to SLC only after the intial attack failed is utterly without foundation. Are you so desperate to pin something on Brigham that there is no level too low for you to stoop?

The evidence unequivocally shows that Haslam was sent as soon as the initial attack began. Indeed, there is some question as to whether Haight and Haslam even knew the attack was under way at the time he was sent. When are you going to stop maligning the dead?

And nobody ever claimed that the Indians asked anyone to ask Brigham for advice. How many new straw men will you introduce into the discussion?

The attacks carried out by both Indians and LDS from Cedar City lasted for five days.

No, the attacks carried out by the Indians, although certainly under John D. Lee's direction, lasted for five days.

On the last day, Friday, the LDS leaders, not the Indians, offered to let the survivors flee unarmed, leaving everything including cattle, horses, food and supplies behind, but did not honor their own offer and a combination of Indians and LDS painted and dressed to look like Indians killed most of the remaining survivors AFTER they'd surrendered their weapons.

At last, you've finally managed to write a single sentence that is free of gratuitous falsehoods. I hope it didn't strain you too much. But then you undo all that supreme effort with:

These facts are not in dispute.

You're kidding, right?

Did BY order the MMM? We have no documentation to that effect,

Hooray! Someone give the man a medal!

but we DO have documentation that he called a meeting of some of the Indian chiefs and offered them the Fancher party cattle and horses.

No. We do not.

We DO have documentation that in the weeks before the MMM, BY and other LDS leaders made speeches preaching blood atonement and violence to non-LDS and outsiders.

Do we? Where is it?

We DO have documentation that the day before the MMM started, the Cedar City Stake President Haight preached a sermon which advocated violence to outsiders.

Do we? Where is it?

We may never be able to document that BY formally ordered the MMM, but there is indisputable documentation that he and other LDS leaders set the stage for violence and bloodshed.

Is there? Where is it?

BY's offer of the Fancher party's cattle and horses to the Indians is documented and chilling, particularly since that property was not BY's to offer to anyone -- at least while the Fancher party was still alive.

It wasn't the Fancher party's cattle.

Haslam's ride to SLC to ask BY what to do after the attack started is documented and chilling. Wouldn't the normal response for anyone, LDS or not, be to ride to the wagon train's rescue and not to join in the attack?

It might be, if we are racist enough to assume that white lives are more valuable than Indian ones, as you clearly do. However, the Mormons were counting upon the Indians as allies against the coming invasion. There was a clear conflict of loyalties in play. The situation was in no wise as simple as you are trying to pretend that it was.

I'm sure it's settled [that Brigham did not order the MMM] in your mind, Pahoran, but the fact that you make that claim means nothing, other than to raise reasonable questions about your estimate of your own influence.

You have yet to show that you would even recognise a reasonable question.

I can guarantee that the controversy will continue, aided by the mounting documentable evidence which shows BY and other leaders setting the stage for violence and bloodshed.

Is that what you are trying to do with your sustained, relentless campaign of hate propaganda?

Regards,

Pahoran