A Question About Bagley's Claim.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran

â??intepretation [sic]?" I know of no direct evidence that BY â??wanted or ordered the massacreâ? either.

Nicely equivocated. You don't know of any indirect evidence either, do you?

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.

"If?" I suppose he can't be relieved of responsibility for the sinking of the Titanic either, "if" he caused something or other. But if you are looking for a "proximate cause," then I suggest you give a closer look at James Buchanan. No Johnston's army => no Utah War. No Utah War => no MMM.

Pahoran

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.

You are confused. Where and when does Crockett "try to affix the Paiutes with attacking US Troops in Northern Utah?" I have his review in front of me. What does he say and where does he say it?

And as you point out there are at least two different tribes present representing multiple bands. So much for the need to invent allies.

And yet he did.

Pahoran

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.

Gov. Kane? Which Kane was ever a governor in Utah? And Kanosh, since neither he nor any of his own direct reports were present at the massacre, is thus repeating a mere rumour that does not even rise to the level of hearsay.

So what journals place the Paiute leaders being in SLC on the 10th, the 13th and the 16th of September?

Wilford Woodruff, Dimick Huntington (whom Bagley finds so indispensably reliable) and one other.

Pahoran

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.

And yet he indisputably did it. And you can continue to try to sweep it under the rug, in typical apologetic fashion, but it stands as an indictment of his methods as well as his scholarly integrity.

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.

IOW, he found some stuff worth finding even if he did blow it.

Which he did; that is to say, he did find stuff worth finding, but he did also blow it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

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.

Blood atonement was taught as applicable to members. And for atonement to be valid, a willing sacrifice of one self was needed...as in the case of Christ being willing to sacrifice himself for all of us.

If there was any connection being made by those involved in the massacre with blood atonement, it was done in direct contradiction of the teachings of BY.

[Theophilus07]

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.

You really haven't read this stuff, have you, Pahoran? That's why you think it's all evil lies, isn't it. You actually can't imagine that what I've recounted could possibly be true. What an interesting, tightly circumscribed world you live in.

This weekend, when I have time, I'll provide the citations and quote as much of what was said as possible.

[Calm]

You really haven't read this stuff, have you, Pahoran?

Pahoran, how long have you been doing this stuff? I know you were an oldtimer on this when I joined ZLMB and that was almost 6 or 7 years ago I think. One of the first things I did was read some writing you had done.

And you just may have been a part of each of the dozens of MMM threads I've ever seen on this board and that one.

I am dying to find out what this new evidence is that you haven't actually read before.

[cdowis]

You really haven't read this stuff, have you, Pahoran? That's why you think it's all evil lies, isn't it. You actually can't imagine that what I've recounted could possibly be true. What an interesting, tightly circumscribed world you live in.

This weekend, when I have time, I'll provide the citations and quote as much of what was said as possible.

We anxiously await your response. We expect something clear and unambigious... or a sincere, heartfelt apology.

[Pahoran]

You really haven't read this stuff, have you, Pahoran?

I have read a great deal of "stuff." I suspect that I may have read the "stuff" to which you refer; but I am able to recognise only a vastly exaggerated caricature of it in your description thereof. But rather than accuse you of distorting it (as you have so much else) I am prepared to allow you to present your evidence and argue your case.

That's why you think it's all evil lies, isn't it.

Er--no.

I am, however, aware of certain specific facts that you have specifically misrepresented. I rather suspect you know exactly which facts I am talking about.

You actually can't imagine that what I've recounted could possibly be true.

I can imagine plenty; I know for a fact, however, that you have been less than scrupulous with the truth.

And more importantly, so do you.

This weekend, when I have time, I'll provide the citations and quote as much of what was said as possible.

I can hardly wait.

You see, Theo, here is your problem: you know as well as I do that the facts do not support your claims. If you thought they did, you'd feel no need to falsify them.

But you do.

As you know, the Paiutes were not repulsed, as you claim; as you know, they pressed the attack right the way through. As you know, Haslam was not sent to SLC in response the failure of the attack, as you falsely assert; as you know, he was sent before any outcome was known, and possibly before it was known in Cedar City that the attack was under way. As you know, the attacking Indians were actual Indians; as you know, the emigrants fought back with spirit, the Paiutes suffered many casualties, but the Iron County militia suffered none.

So my question to you is: do you repeat these falsehoods in support of some higher good, or only because they give you an outlet for your utter hatred of the Latter-day Saints?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Bump for Theophilus. I for one am awaiting his citations with eager anticipation.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Bump for Theophilus again. The suspense is killing me!

Regards,

Pahoran

[Programmer]

You really haven't read this stuff, have you, Pahoran? That's why you think it's all evil lies, isn't it. You actually can't imagine that what I've recounted could possibly be true. What an interesting, tightly circumscribed world you live in.

This weekend, when I have time, I'll provide the citations and quote as much of what was said as possible.

I rather get the sense that Pahoran is totally acquainted with the issues, and has asked for a legitimate proof of your claims. Your statements rather, looks like a pathetic copout. Once again, false assertions don't need to be backed up by proof do they mr theophilus?

[cdowis]

The weekend is over. It is Tuesday.

We are ............ patiently....... awaiting your response.

Are you going to give us the goods, or are you going to give us an apology.

[Calm]

The weekend is over. It is Tuesday.

We are ............ patiently....... awaiting your response.

Are you going to give us the goods, or are you going to give us an apology.

Life happens. If he shows up again, then it's time nail him to the wall.

[Theophilus07]

The weekend is over. It is Tuesday.

We are ............ patiently....... awaiting your response.

Are you going to give us the goods, or are you going to give us an apology.

Thank you all for waiting so patiently.

The apologist position is that the LDS Church encouraged the Indians to scatter the cattle of Johnston's Army approaching northern Utah, but not the cattle of the Fancher party in the south. Here is evidence that the Church also advocated stealing the cattle in southern Utah.

On Sunday, August 30, 1857, Apostle George A. Smith stopped in Provo where he preached death and destruction to outsiders coming in to the Utah Territory. He spoke about resurrecting the Danites and noted that â??â?¦ their has been none for the last 19 years. You know that Dan was to be an adder in the path & I propose that we have some now to help to carry out the purposes of God. Let Dan be on the alert & meet them on the way.â? [utah Stake Minutes, 30 August 1857, 668-69.] Note that the Danites were never Indians, only LDS. Also note that Elder Smith was on a tour of central and southern Utah, Provo being south of SLC. In Provo, Elder Smith would not be referring to the Army as â??themâ?; he would be referring to the only wagon train at that time on the southern route through Utah â?? the Fancher party.

In Provo that day, LDS Bishop Elias Hicks Blackburn gave a sermon in which he explained that BY had unleashed the battle-ax of the Lord against emigrants passing through Utah [the Fancher party at that moment] and identified imigrants specifically as the enemy. Bishop Blackburn quoted BY as saying â??[the] Enemy is in our hands if we will do right. â?¦ [bY] has held the Indians back for 10 years past but shall do it no longer! As soon as this word went out they have commenced upon our enemies!â? [utah Stake Minutes, 30 August 1857, 671]. Again, this isnâ??t in SLC or northern Utah where the Army was approaching the Territory, but in Central Utah on the southern route with only the Fancher party on the route.

On September 1, 1857, Pres. Young met in SLC with important chiefs â?? not of the northern Utah Indians â?? but of the southern Utah Indians. According to the diary of Pres. Youngâ??s brother-in-law and interpreter, Dimick Huntington, in the LDS Archives, the chiefs included the Chiefs of the Piedes, of the Deserts, the Santa Clara, the Rio Virgen, and Harmony, Kanosh of Corn Creek, Ammon from Beaver Creek (presumed leader of the Ute Nation), Youngwuds, chief of the Paiute band at Harmony, and Tutsegabit of the Piedes Bank. All of these are tribes were not in Northern Utah, but Southern Utah, and in the vacinity of Cedar City, to boot. Brother Huntington wrote in his journal that in the meeting, Pres. Young said, â??I gave them the cattle that had gone to Cal the south 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 they will kill you they sayd they[y] will kill you they sayd the[y] was afraid to fight the Americans & so would raise grain and we might fight.â? [D.B. Huntington, Journal, 1857-1859, 13-15; and Cooley, ed., Diary of Brigham Young, 71.]

Who was the â??Iâ? in the quote above? Critics claim it is Brigham Young. And theyâ??re not alone, so does at least one LDS historian [The Fancher-Baker Train 14, Lawrence G. Coates, professor of history at Ricks College.] In any event, the point is probably moot because to the Indians it may not have mattered who the LDS leader was in Youngâ??s office in SLC that gave them the cattle, just that one of them did. Since the Piutes had camped with the Fancher party just the week before at Corn Creek, there would be no question in their mind whose cattle was being discussed. And note that the whoever â??Iâ? was explicitly gave these Southern Utah Indians the â??cattle that had gone to Cal the south rout.â? Not the cattle with the Army in the north, but the cattle on the way to Cal on the south route, cattle to which the Church had no right.

The LDS return missionary James Gemmell claimed that he was in Youngâ??s office when Hamblin arrived with news that the Fancher Party was near Cedar City. According to James Gemmell, Brigham Young said if he were in command of the Nauvoo Legion, he â?? â?¦ would wipe them out.â? [Wheeler, The Late James Gemmell, p. 334.]

The Sunday night before the MMM attack, Stake President Isaac Haight in Cedar City (and not northern Utah) gave a sermon blasting the gentiles, saying â??I have been driven from my home for the last time. I am prepared to feed to the Gentiles the same bread they fed to us.â? [brooks, Mountain Meadows Massacre p. 32, citing Cedar Ward Records at LDS Archives.]

Weâ??ll never know the proportions of Indians to LDS in the attack because no such records were kept. LDS apologists, of course, want to slant it to only Indians led by Lee, but they cannot document that. Critics, of course, want to slant it to quite a number of LDS as well as Indians, but they cannot document that, either. There is documentation that regardless of the exact proportions, the attacking party included both Indians and LDS disguised as Indians. At a council at Cedar City, Stake President Haight, Higbee, and Lee assigned a large number of LDS to â?? â?¦ perform the work of dispatching these emigrants.â? They were ordered to report well armed in the hills near Hamblinâ??s ranch near Mountain Meadows. Once there, they â??â?¦ painted and otherwise disguised themselves so as to resemble Indians.â? [William Rogers statement, Valley Tan, 29 February 1860, p 3]

An eyewitness, William Winsor even identified some of the LDS from Cedar City as George Adair, Bill Stewart, Jim Pierce, and Carl Shirts. [brimhall, Gleanings Concerning John D. Lee, p. 31.]

Was the initial attack successfully defended against, as claimed by the critics? That may be a matter of interpretation, but this is certain: surviving members of the Fancher party fought off attacks from Monday through Friday, five days, until betrayed by men under Lee.

When was Haslam sent to SLC, before or after the initial Monday attack took place? It was after. Monday afternoon (the attack started before dawn on Monday), Stake President Haight asked for volunteers to ride to put the matter before BY and James Haslam raised his hand. He started immediately, but that was Monday afternoon AFTER the initial attack. [John Frederick Nash, Notebook MS 4581, LDS archives]

While the mix of Indians and LDS disguised as Indians may never be known, we do know that a video exists of Elder Gordon Hinckley, when an Apostle, stating that â??seventy-three volunteers from townâ? took part in the massacre. The tape was broadcast on KUTV on 14 September 1990. if you wish to argue that no LDS were involved, you'll have to disagree with Elder Gordon Hinckley.

Thursday evening, several LDS (not Indians) from Cedar City arrived at Mountain Meadows thinking they were part of a burial party, only to find they were expected to help kill the surviving members of the Fancher party. [Edwards, William, Affidavit, 14 May 1924, Utah State Historical Society] In the party, Legion Pvt John Bradshaw answered muster with a shovel, but an angry Stake President Isaac Haight asked him why he was unarmed. â??I told him I didnâ??t know we wanted a gun to bury the dead.â? Haight called him a fool and sent him home. [John W. Bradshaw testimony, Lee Trials Transcript. p. 230].

The horrific end is admitted even by LDS: Lee hoodwinked the surviving Fancher party members into surrendering their weapons and then the Indians and LDS killed all but the small children.

Theophilus07

[Theophilus07]

Life happens. If he shows up again, then it's time nail him to the wall.

I thought LDS were taught to demonstrate their moral superiority by example. If so, I'm having a hard time seeing how the above post could be an example of loving Christ-like behavior.

I showed up again, Calmoriah, and I provided documentation.

Theophilus07.

[Calm]

[utah Stake Minutes, 30 August 1857, 668-69.]

Is this your source or did you get this source from something else--can't find this on the net, am wondering where to access it. Thank you.

====

It was a joke, I was teasing them about their 'eagerness'.

As far as demonstrating our moral superiority...funny thing I never heard that being taught. I have heard us being taught to follow God's commandments including love our neighbour, etc.

But no, nothing about "moral superiority".

PS: just to be sure that I hadn't missed some crucial teaching, I did a search on lds.org for all church content. 0 hits for "moral superiority". Perhaps you are confusing it with one of your own teachings. (yes, I am now teasing you)

[Theophilus07]

I rather get the sense that Pahoran is totally acquainted with the issues, and has asked for a legitimate proof of your claims. Your statements rather, looks like a pathetic copout. Once again, false assertions don't need to be backed up by proof do they mr theophilus?

See above for my documentation, Mr. Programmer.

Pahoran may well be acquainted with the LDS slant on the MMM, but I don't think he's aware of Elder Hinckley's statements about non-Indian LDS volunteers from Cedar City or some of the other materials from LDS archives I presented.

I understand the LDS apologist desire to present the LDS Church history in the most favorable light. I know that many LDS have been told that all critics present only deliberate lies and falsehoods, but I suggest that thoughtful people can disagree with you apologists without resorting to lies and falsehoods.

I find more than a little irony in apologists' charges of lies and falsehoods from critics considering the spin LDS put on the MMM. The apologist charge, echoed by Pahoran who should know better if he's all that acquainted with the facts, that only Indians led by Lee and no other LDS participated in the MMM is demonstrably false -- just look at the videotaped statement by Elder Hinckley and affidavits from non-Indian LDS from Cedar City. The apologist charge that the Church only offered Indians Johnston's Army's cattle in northern Utah can be shown to be only partly true and certainly misleading. Based on sermons in central and southern Utah from the period, we can see that the Church also specifically offered the cattle in southern Utah, too. Either way, the cattle didn't belong to the Church, to say nothing of the questionable morality of BY turning the Indians loose to hurt anyone, soldiers or innocent people and innocent children in the Fancher wagon train. And how about the apologist claim that BY dispatched the messenger Haslam to stop the massacre? The truth is that Haslam was a volunteer from Cedar City sent without BY's knowledge to SLC. The reason Haslam returned to Cedar City with BY's message is that was the whole idea to begin with. Also, contrary to apologist claims otherwise, Haslam wasn't sent until AFTER the initial pre-dawn attack on Monday. Besides, it was already too late when he was sent.

Theophilus07

(yes, I am now teasing you)

Is that before or after you lovingly nail me to the wall?

Theophilus07

[Marvelous]

Is this your source or did you get this source from something else--can't find this on the net, am wondering where to access it. Thank you.

====

It was a joke, I was teasing them about their 'eagerness'.

As far as demonstrating our moral superiority...funny thing I never heard that being taught. I have heard us being taught to follow God's commandments including love our neighbour, etc.

But no, nothing about "moral superiority".

PS: just to be sure that I hadn't missed some crucial teaching, I did a search on lds.org for all church content. 0 hits for "moral superiority". Perhaps you are confusing it with one of your own teachings. (yes, I am now teasing you)

It is telling that after "teasing" Theo about documentation, you divert attention away from the main subject. The debate isn't about moral superiority but whether faithful Latter-day Saints were involved in the massacre from the outset, and whether Mormon authorities contributed to the hostile atmosphere precipitating the event. They were. And they did.

[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.

Regards,

Pahoran

Did you know that Apostle George A. Smith was a Colonel and founded the Iron County Battalion in 1850? So we have three colonels who also just happened to be top LDS leaders. Is this coincidence? It's a little like saying it's coicidental that all Soviet leadership also just happened to have been members of the Communist party. The LDS Church controlled the territory. It's religious leaders served similar functions in politics and the military.

The Haight speech to which Theo refers above was given in a church service! To absolve the Church of complicity because these were military men is naive at best, and disingenuous at worst. And I'm not asserting that this event was officially sanctioned by BY or any other GA. It may have been, but there is insufficient evidence, IMO, to make this accusation. However, it is clear from the record that LDS leadership contributed to the climate of intolerance that led to the tragedy.

[Calm]

Since both of you gentlemen find this discussion too serious for humour, I will bow out and leave it to the capable hands of Pahoran, a far, far better man than I.

I would like an answer to my question about sources. I'll repeat it for your ease:

[utah Stake Minutes, 30 August 1857, 668-69.]

Is this your source or did you get this source from something else--can't find this on the net, am wondering where to access it. Thank you.

Also:

some of the other materials from LDS archives I presented

Again, were you able to access the original articles or did you rely on secondary documents? If links are available, they would be appreciated.

edited to add request and clarify one word.

[Pahoran]

Post split because of quoting restrictions.

Thank you all for waiting so patiently.

The apologist position is that the LDS Church encouraged the Indians to scatter the cattle of Johnston's Army approaching northern Utah, but not the cattle of the Fancher party in the south. Here is evidence that the Church also advocated stealing the cattle in southern Utah.

Starting in with yet another of your straw men, I see.

If indeed there is such an "apologist position" as you claim, please be so good as to document it. I am unaware of such a position.

On Sunday, August 30, 1857, Apostle George A. Smith stopped in Provo where he preached death and destruction to outsiders coming in to the Utah Territory.

Really? Where?

He spoke about resurrecting the Danites and noted that â??â?¦ their has been none for the last 19 years. You know that Dan was to be an adder in the path & I propose that we have some now to help to carry out the purposes of God. Let Dan be on the alert & meet them on the way.â? [utah Stake Minutes, 30 August 1857, 668-69.]

And this is the best you can do in supporting your outrageous libel? Where is the "death and destruction to outsiders coming in to the Utah Territory?" What is that if not a deliberate fabrication?

Note that the Danites were never Indians, only LDS.

Note that as of August 1857, there hadn't been any for 19 years. That takes us back to 1838. Oh dear oh dear, what is the world coming to, when one of the most rabid anti-Mormons ever to channel the ghost of Thomas C. Sharp is reduced to using sources that support the "apologist" position!

Also note that Elder Smith was on a tour of central and southern Utah, Provo being south of SLC. In Provo, Elder Smith would not be referring to the Army as â??themâ?; he would be referring to the only wagon train at that time on the southern route through Utah â?? the Fancher party.

Tell us, Theo: do you blush when you assert these blatant falsehoods, or is your conscience completely inoperative?

Q. What was the purpose of Elder Smith's tour through Southern Utah?

A. To prepare the Saints to defend against invasion.

Q. What invasion? The Fancher party?

A. Heck no. Who would be fool enough to believe that? The invasion by Johnston's army, of course.

In Provo that day, LDS Bishop Elias Hicks Blackburn gave a sermon in which he explained that BY had unleashed the battle-ax of the Lord against emigrants passing through Utah [the Fancher party at that moment] and identified imigrants specifically as the enemy.

Really? So what did he say that thus identified them?

Bishop Blackburn quoted BY as saying â??[the] Enemy is in our hands if we will do right. â?¦ [bY] has held the Indians back for 10 years past but shall do it no longer! As soon as this word went out they have commenced upon our enemies!â? [utah Stake Minutes, 30 August 1857, 671].

And again, this is what you imagine supports your outrageous accusations?

Again, this isnâ??t in SLC or northern Utah where the Army was approaching the Territory, but in Central Utah on the southern route with only the Fancher party on the route.

Really, and had the Indians "commenced upon" the Fancher party as at 30 August?

Or not?

Q. As of August 1857, who were "our enemies?" The Fancher party?

A. Heck no. Who would be fool enough to believe that? "Our enemies" were the soldiers of Johnston's army, of course.

On September 1, 1857, Pres. Young met in SLC with important chiefs â?? not of the northern Utah Indians â?? but of the southern Utah Indians.

That's right.

Q. Was that because he was plotting against the Fanchers, as various unscrupulous demagogues want to deceive people into believing?

A. Heck no. Who would be fool enough to believe that? It was because he had already met with the Northern Utah Indian leaders two days before. Let me emphasise this fact: he met with the Northern leaders FIRST.

Thus, anyone who tries to pretend that Brigham met only with Southern Indian leaders is lying through his moss-covered teeth.

According to the diary of Pres. Youngâ??s brother-in-law and interpreter, Dimick Huntington, in the LDS Archives, the chiefs included the Chiefs of the Piedes, of the Deserts, the Santa Clara, the Rio Virgen, and Harmony, Kanosh of Corn Creek, Ammon from Beaver Creek (presumed leader of the Ute Nation), Youngwuds, chief of the Paiute band at Harmony, and Tutsegabit of the Piedes Bank.

Rather than rely upon your manipulative and disingenuous paraphrasing, let us quote Brother Huntington's actual words:

Kanosh the Pahvant Chief[,] Ammon & wife (Walkers Brother) & 11 Pahvants came into see B & D & find out about the soldiers.

So there was Kanosh, Ammon and his wife and eleven other Pahvants. Additionally, Tutsegabit and Youngwouds who were Piede Paiutes.

All of these are tribes were not in Northern Utah, but Southern Utah, and in the vacinity of Cedar City, to boot.

So sorry to contradict you so bluntly, but the majority of the Indians present were Pahvants, whose lands and interests lay nowhere near the Cedar City area.

Brother Huntington wrote in his journal that in the meeting, Pres. Young said, â??I gave them the cattle that had gone to Cal the south 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 they will kill you they sayd they[y] will kill you they sayd the[y] was afraid to fight the Americans & so would raise grain and we might fight.â? [D.B. Huntington, Journal, 1857-1859, 13-15; and Cooley, ed., Diary of Brigham Young, 71.]

Yes, this is the well-known Huntington diary entry that Bagley falsified.

Snip some irrelevant fluff.

Since the Piutes had camped with the Fancher party just the week before at Corn Creek, there would be no question in their mind whose cattle was being discussed.

Indeed there would not be. Let us look again at some relevant passages from Huntington's report:

Kanosh the Pahvant Chief[,] Ammon & wife (Walkers Brother) & 11 Pahvants came into see B & D & find out about the soldiers .... But now they have come to fight us & you for when they kill us they will kill you.

So tell us: who had "come to fight us & you?" Who had the power to "kill us [and] they will kill you?" The forty guys in the Fancher train?

Try to give an honest answer just for once, Theo. I'm confident that you can do it if only you make the effort.

And note that the whoever â??Iâ? was explicitly gave these Southern Utah Indians the â??cattle that had gone to Cal the south rout.â? Not the cattle with the Army in the north, but the cattle on the way to Cal on the south route, cattle to which the Church had no right.

Really? As Crockett demonstrated, the "Southern Route" was the whole road south of Lander's Pass in Wyoming. Yes, the Fancher party were on part of that route, namely the Old Spanish Trail, but that was also the route the army were expected to take.

End of part 1.

[Pahoran]

Part 2.

The LDS return missionary James Gemmell claimed that he was in Youngâ??s office when Hamblin arrived with news that the Fancher Party was near Cedar City. According to James Gemmell, Brigham Young said if he were in command of the Nauvoo Legion, he â?? â?¦ would wipe them out.â? [Wheeler, The Late James Gemmell, p. 334.]

Thank you for telling us what "Wheeler" claimed in 1896, fifteen years after Gemmell was dead. What did Gemmell himself actually claim, and where and when did he claim it?

Your use of this statement is the standard anti-Mormon one, as used by standard anti-Mormons. But it is mere gossip that does not even rise to the level of hearsay. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but of course I do not expect that you will be.

The Sunday night before the MMM attack, Stake President Isaac Haight in Cedar City (and not northern Utah) gave a sermon blasting the gentiles, saying â??I have been driven from my home for the last time. I am prepared to feed to the Gentiles the same bread they fed to us.â? [brooks, Mountain Meadows Massacre p. 32, citing Cedar Ward Records at LDS Archives.]

Yes, and what does this have to do with the Fancher party? Were the forty armed men in any position to drive the Saints from their homes?

Or perhaps not?

Weâ??ll never know the proportions of Indians to LDS in the attack because no such records were kept.

And is that all it takes for you to present your hate-based speculations as evidence?

LDS apologists, of course, want to slant it to only Indians led by Lee, but they cannot document that.

Actually we can.

Critics, of course, want to slant it to quite a number of LDS as well as Indians, but they cannot document that, either.

You're right. You can't.

There is documentation that regardless of the exact proportions, the attacking party included both Indians and LDS disguised as Indians. At a council at Cedar City, Stake President Haight, Higbee, and Lee assigned a large number of LDS to â?? â?¦ perform the work of dispatching these emigrants.â? They were ordered to report well armed in the hills near Hamblinâ??s ranch near Mountain Meadows. Once there, they â??â?¦ painted and otherwise disguised themselves so as to resemble Indians.â? [William Rogers statement, Valley Tan, 29 February 1860, p 3]

And who is William Rogers? Was this bit of newspaper journalism ever tested in court? By what measure of chutzpah do you call this assertion "documentation?"

Incidentally, I am finding both the thrust of your argument and the clever use of passive voice remarkably familiar. Is there a reason for that?

An eyewitness, William Winsor even identified some of the LDS from Cedar City as George Adair, Bill Stewart, Jim Pierce, and Carl Shirts. [brimhall, Gleanings Concerning John D. Lee, p. 31.]

And does Winsor himself say so, or is Brimhall another Wheeler?

Was the initial attack successfully defended against, as claimed by the critics?

Is that denied by anyone? As I'm sure you understand, it is not the success of the defence that is in question, but your whole-cloth fabrication that the Indians immediately all just gave up and left the field.

That may be a matter of interpretation, but this is certain: surviving members of the Fancher party fought off attacks from Monday through Friday, five days, until betrayed by men under Lee.

Not in dispute.

When was Haslam sent to SLC, before or after the initial Monday attack took place? It was after. Monday afternoon (the attack started before dawn on Monday), Stake President Haight asked for volunteers to ride to put the matter before BY and James Haslam raised his hand. He started immediately, but that was Monday afternoon AFTER the initial attack. [John Frederick Nash, Notebook MS 4581, LDS archives]

No, it was WHILE the attack was under way. And incidentally, who knew? It is possible that a fast rider could have set off from the Meadows as soon as the first shots were fired and got to Cedar City in time to tell Haight that an attack was happening before Haslam left, but it is NOT the case that Lee flipped open his cellphone and said "hey Isaac, we're losing here. Better get reinforcements from Brigham."

Although that is the preposterous scenario you would like to foist upon us.

And incidentally, what does "started immediately" actually mean? If you imagine him running out of the saloon and leaping aboard his already-saddled-up horse tied to the hitchin' rail just outside, you've been watching too many westerns. He would have had to have gone home to get provisions for his journey.

While the mix of Indians and LDS disguised as Indians may never be known,

And while the existence of (white) "LDS disguised as Indians" has never been proven,

we do know that a video exists of Elder Gordon Hinckley, when an Apostle, stating that â??seventy-three volunteers from townâ? took part in the massacre.

What a shock! You mean that Elder Hinckley acknowledged a fact that is not in dispute here? And has not been since at least 1877? Who'da thunk it!

The tape was broadcast on KUTV on 14 September 1990. if you wish to argue that no LDS were involved, you'll have to disagree with Elder Gordon Hinckley.

Since, as you perfectly well know, I have no "wish to argue that no LDS were involved," you are beating up yet another straw man.

Thursday evening, several LDS (not Indians) from Cedar City arrived at Mountain Meadows thinking they were part of a burial party, only to find they were expected to help kill the surviving members of the Fancher party. [Edwards, William, Affidavit, 14 May 1924, Utah State Historical Society] In the party, Legion Pvt John Bradshaw answered muster with a shovel, but an angry Stake President Isaac Haight asked him why he was unarmed. â??I told him I didnâ??t know we wanted a gun to bury the dead.â? Haight called him a fool and sent him home. [John W. Bradshaw testimony, Lee Trials Transcript. p. 230].

There are a number of disputable points in that, but I particularly want to draw attention to the fact that, according to your source, they arrived Thursday evening. Why, if they had been there all along, "disguised as Indians?"

The horrific end is admitted even by LDS: Lee hoodwinked the surviving Fancher party members into surrendering their weapons and then the Indians and LDS killed all but the small children.

Again, this is not in dispute.

Read this carefully, Theo: that you may have no further excuse to waste our bandwidth pretending to respond to arguments that have not been made, let me make my position perfectly clear.

It is accepted by all, and denied by none, least of all me, that the actual massacre, carried out after a four-day battle, was committed by Mormons from Cedar City. It is likewise accepted by all, and denied by none, least of all me, that the massacre was a dreadful crime that was not justified by any theory of self-defence or military necessity.

What I dispute is the devious sleight-of-hand and dirty tricks that you use to attempt to pin the blame for the massacre on Brigham Young. You have tried to prove--though you have hitherto been too cowardly to outright assert--that the Church leaders in Cedar City intended a massacre from the outset, while those in Salt Lake City actually ordered the attack.

These claims are not only false, they are unsupportable and unsupported.

When you are not indulging your own delight in making outright fabrications, you rely slavishly upon Bagley, whose thesis was that "even before the Fancher party left Salt Lake, George A. Smith was on his way to southern Utah to arrange their destruction at a remote and lonely spot." This claim is a vicious falsehood that is not legally actionable only because one cannot libel the dead.

It is also my position that a false accusation is morally equivalent to the act falsely accused. That means that any person who falsely accuses Brigham of ordering the MMM is no better than Brigham. Let me make this clear: they are no better than Brigham as they accuse him of being, not as he actually was.

Brigham, as he actually was, was a better man than all of them put together.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Pahoran may well be acquainted with the LDS slant on the MMM, but I don't think he's aware of Elder Hinckley's statements about non-Indian LDS volunteers from Cedar City or some of the other materials from LDS archives I presented.

Do you really not think that?

I understand the LDS apologist desire to present the LDS Church history in the most favorable light. I know that many LDS have been told that all critics present only deliberate lies and falsehoods, but I suggest that thoughtful people can disagree with you apologists without resorting to lies and falsehoods.

Perhaps so, but that has certainly not happened in this thread.

I find more than a little irony in apologists' charges of lies and falsehoods from critics considering the spin LDS put on the MMM. The apologist charge, echoed by Pahoran who should know better if he's all that acquainted with the facts, that only Indians led by Lee and no other LDS participated in the MMM is demonstrably false

The claim that I or any other "apologist" has even made such a "charge" is even more "demonstrably false."

-- just look at the videotaped statement by Elder Hinckley and affidavits from non-Indian LDS from Cedar City. The apologist charge that the Church only offered Indians Johnston's Army's cattle in northern Utah can be shown to be only partly true and certainly misleading.

Which I take as an admission that you can't prove otherwise.

Based on sermons in central and southern Utah from the period, we can see that the Church also specifically offered the cattle in southern Utah, too.

What? Is it now your assertion that the cattle were offered in sermons?

Either way, the cattle didn't belong to the Church,

Either way, the cattle were legitimate spoils of war.

to say nothing of the questionable morality of BY turning the Indians loose to hurt anyone, soldiers or innocent people and innocent children in the Fancher wagon train.

So if conducting combat operations in the presence of civilians is of "questionable morality," shall we see you bloviating about James Buchanan, whose blunder was the real cause of the MMM, and Albert Sidney Johnston?

Or perhaps not?

And how about the apologist claim that BY dispatched the messenger Haslam to stop the massacre?

Well, how about it?

The truth is that Haslam was a volunteer from Cedar City sent without BY's knowledge to SLC.

Guess what?

Not ONE "apologist" has claimed otherwise!

This is yet another of your vast army of straw men. Will you, for crying down the sink, kindly STOP attributing to us arguments we HAVE NOT MADE?

As you PERFECTLY well know!

I'm writing it nice and big so that you no longer have any plausible deniablity; everyone will know you have seen it.

The reason Haslam returned to Cedar City with BY's message is that was the whole idea to begin with.

What was the whole idea? What are you accusing here?

Also, contrary to apologist claims otherwise, Haslam wasn't sent until AFTER the initial pre-dawn attack on Monday.

Yet again, Not ONE "apologist" has claimed otherwise!

Besides, it was already too late when he was sent.

Too late to stop the initial attack? Of course. But too late to stop matters escalating out of control? It was worth a try.

After all, contrary to the vicious imaginings of the vilest haters, it isn't as if anyone in Cedar City actually intended any massacre, as of that Monday. The sending of Haslam is entirely incompatible with any theory that they did.

Regards,

Pahoran

[soren]

Part 2.

Thank you for telling us what "Wheeler" claimed in 1896, fifteen years after Gemmell was dead. What did Gemmell himself actually claim, and where and when did he claim it?

Your use of this statement is the standard anti-Mormon one, as used by standard anti-Mormons. But it is mere gossip that does not even rise to the level of hearsay. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but of course I do not expect that you will be.

Yes, and what does this have to do with the Fancher party? Were the forty armed men in any position to drive the Saints from their homes?

Or perhaps not?

And is that all it takes for you to present your hate-based speculations as evidence?

Actually we can.

You're right. You can't.

And who is William Rogers? Was this bit of newspaper journalism ever tested in court? By what measure of chutzpah do you call this assertion "documentation?"

Incidentally, I am finding both the thrust of your argument and the clever use of passive voice remarkably familiar. Is there a reason for that?

And does Winsor himself say so, or is Brimhall another Wheeler?

Is that denied by anyone? As I'm sure you understand, it is not the success of the defence that is in question, but your whole-cloth fabrication that the Indians immediately all just gave up and left the field.

Not in dispute.

No, it was WHILE the attack was under way. And incidentally, who knew? It is possible that a fast rider could have set off from the Meadows as soon as the first shots were fired and got to Cedar City in time to tell Haight that an attack was happening before Haslam left, but it is NOT the case that Lee flipped open his cellphone and said "hey Isaac, we're losing here. Better get reinforcements from Brigham."

Although that is the preposterous scenario you would like to foist upon us.

And incidentally, what does "started immediately" actually mean? If you imagine him running out of the saloon and leaping aboard his already-saddled-up horse tied to the hitchin' rail just outside, you've been watching too many westerns. He would have had to have gone home to get provisions for his journey.

And while the existence of (white) "LDS disguised as Indians" has never been proven,

What a shock! You mean that Elder Hinckley acknowledged a fact that is not in dispute here? And has not been since at least 1877? Who'da thunk it!

Since, as you perfectly well know, I have no "wish to argue that no LDS were involved," you are beating up yet another straw man.

There are a number of disputable points in that, but I particularly want to draw attention to the fact that, according to your source, they arrived Thursday evening. Why, if they had been there all along, "disguised as Indians?"

Again, this is not in dispute.

Read this carefully, Theo: that you may have no further excuse to waste our bandwidth pretending to respond to arguments that have not been made, let me make my position perfectly clear.

It is accepted by all, and denied by none, least of all me, that the actual massacre, carried out after a four-day battle, was committed by Mormons from Cedar City. It is likewise accepted by all, and denied by none, least of all me, that the massacre was a dreadful crime that was not justified by any theory of self-defence or military necessity.

What I dispute is the devious sleight-of-hand and dirty tricks that you use to attempt to pin the blame for the massacre on Brigham Young. You have tried to prove--though you have hitherto been too cowardly to outright assert--that the Church leaders in Cedar City intended a massacre from the outset, while those in Salt Lake City actually ordered the attack.

These claims are not only false, they are unsupportable and unsupported.

When you are not indulging your own delight in making outright fabrications, you rely slavishly upon Bagley, whose thesis was that "even before the Fancher party left Salt Lake, George A. Smith was on his way to southern Utah to arrange their destruction at a remote and lonely spot." This claim is a vicious falsehood that is not legally actionable only because one cannot libel the dead.

It is also my position that a false accusation is morally equivalent to the act falsely accused. That means that any person who falsely accuses Brigham of ordering the MMM is no better than Brigham. Let me make this clear: they are no better than Brigham as they accuse him of being, not as he actually was.

Brigham, as he actually was, was a better man than all of them put together.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran,

I agree with you that Brigham Young did not order the massacre. I don't think a meaningful case for it has ever been made. I also agree with you that dishonesty is the evident motive underlying such charges. (I don't think Theo is dishonest, but I would say that Bagley is.)

Yet I have always looked dubiously at Young's role in the massacre for two reasons. First, the doctrine of blood atonement seems a likely theological motivator for violence, and I know of no evidence that Young ever acknowledged or regretted that histeaching had led to such a consequence. Second, I have always been profoundly disturbed by an oft-quoted entry in Wilford Woodruff's journal. In it, Woodruff speaks of Young's visit to the scene of the massacre many years later. A monument had been built there facing towards Salt Lake City with Romans 12:19 inscribed upon it: "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." Young ordered the marker torn down and then remarked to Woodruff that it ought to say, "Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little."

You seem to be very knowledgeable about the MMM and the related events. What are your views on these two circumstances?

[Calm]

soren, you might find these interesting: Blood Atonement in Encyclopedia of Mormonism and other articles from FAIR Topical Guide.

What should be noted was that blood atonement was taught as a voluntary sacrifice such as was Christ's and was taught only as a hypothetical for endowed members. A massacre of nonLDS does not qualify by any stretch.

At best, blood atonement might be claimed to add to the air of overall violence, but I don't think a teaching that occurred on a couple of occasions among numerous other sermons would have contributed even a small percentage as the knowledge of the approaching armies and the memories of past sorrows.

[soren]

soren, you might find these interesting: Blood Atonement in Encyclopedia of Mormonism and other articles from FAIR Topical Guide.

What should be noted was that blood atonement was taught as a voluntary sacrifice such as was Christ's and was taught only as a hypothetical for endowed members. A massacre of nonLDS does not qualify by any stretch.

At best, blood atonement might be claimed to add to the air of overall violence, but I don't think a teaching that occurred on a couple of occasions among numerous other sermons would have contributed even a small percentage as the knowledge of the approaching armies and the memories of past sorrows.

Right. I wouldn't suggest that the MMM was a correct application of Young's principles, and for exactly the reasons you state. I wouldn't attempt to make such a case.

My thought is along different lines. It seems to me, that if I were Brigham Young, and I had given some of the sermons that he gave, and then a whole bunch of people got killed, well ... I would feel pretty bad for having said that. I think I might look in the mirror and ask myself, "What have I done?" Even if blood atonement were a true doctrine, and even if I had no intent to bring about such a thing, and if other factors outside my control had contributed, I would feel absolutely wretched. I would want to make up for it and would make some kind of gesture to express this to my followers. That's what I would do, and that's what I don't see Young doing.

[Calm]

Right. I wouldn't suggest that the MMM was a correct application of Young's principles, and for exactly the reasons you state. I wouldn't attempt to make such a case.

My thought is along different lines. It seems to me, that if I were Brigham Young, and I had given some of the sermons that he gave, and then a whole bunch of people got killed, well ... I would feel pretty bad for having said that. I think I might look in the mirror and ask myself, "What have I done?" Even if blood atonement were a true doctrine, and even if I had no intent to bring about such a thing, and if other factors outside my control had contributed, I would feel absolutely wretched. I would want to make up for it and would make some kind of gesture to express this to my followers. That's what I would do, and that's what I don't see Young doing.

I can understand that perspective.

OTOH, BY had specifically encouraged nonviolence against people in many cases. I am not sure that he would have felt that his teachings that restricted killings to very limited cases and were apparently hypothetical would have outweighed his actual actions and instructions to avoid it.

The problem here is that we cannot be aware of everything that was going on back then, we have very limited information about the personal feelings and perceptions of the people involved and any conclusions we draw about how we would feel in that situation is rather limited in its usefulness, imo, except perhaps to help us examine ourselves.