A Question About Bagley's Claim.

[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.)

I admire your charity.

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.

There was no such doctrine, but do you know what the theory of "blood atonement" entailed? It was that Latter-day Saints who had committed capital crimes ought to voluntarily surrender themselves so that the lawful sentence might be carried out.

Now, what connection could that possibly have to a party of non-Mormons who may or may not have merely threatened to assist the government, being ambushed and slaughtered even while they fought for their lives? Can you not see how the MMM violates every key element of "blood atonement" theory?

Between the initial Mormon settlement in 1847 and the completion of the trans-continental railroad in 1869, there were dozens if not hundreds of wagon trains crossing the territory. The Utah portion of the journey was widely regarded as the safest leg of the trip. This all changed just once in 1857. What is the explanation? There are some who want to locate the explanation in LDS life, belief and practice; and yet the same Mormons, teaching and believing the same things, were there in 1856 and 1858. What, then, was different?

Could it be that Johnston's Army wasn't approaching in any other year?

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."

There are a number of problems with this story, not least of which being that Woodruff does not say anything about the cairn being torn down and in fact mentions it in the present tense. Also, a number of later travellers describe seeing it. The story of the desecration of the cairn comes not from Wilford Woodruff but from Dudley Leavitt, who was himself a massacre participant, and who therefore wanted to give the impression that Brigham approved of what had been done. Interestingly, Leavitt does not say that Brigham "ordered" anything; only that he made a gesture which Leavitt and others interpreted to mean that the cairn should be torn down.

Incidentally, the inscription on the cross does not seem to have included the entirey of the verse, but merely the last part, starting with the word "vengeance." Taken thus out of context, the passage could rightly be read as a not-so-thinly veiled threat; not only towards the guilty parties, but given the national sentiment at the time, towards all the Latter-day Saints anywhere in Utah. Thus, it is not surprising that the person many saw as the chief target of the threatened vengeance (remember the first Lee trial pretty much collapsed because the prosecution spent all their time grandstanding and trying to implicate Brigham instead of convicting Lee) might take a dim view of it.

It is easy, sitting in 21st-century air-conditioned comfort, to sneer at the early Saints for a "siege mentality." That's largely because we fail to appreciate the extent to which they really were under siege. We may have the luxury of making politically correct gestures; they, being even then engaged in a struggle for survival, did not.

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

See above.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Pahoran, sent you a PM.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran, sent you a PM.

Thank you, yes. I read it and clicked the link.

As Count Dracula once said, "fangs for the memories." My, but these old arguments do get recycled, don't they?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Thank you, yes. I read it and clicked the link.

As Count Dracula once said, "fangs for the memories." My, but these old arguments do get recycled, don't they?

Regards,

Pahoran

Deja vu all over again.

[KDBowler]

My, but these old arguments do get recycled, don't they?

Regards,

Pahoran

Yes they do. And, they are going to recycle again in the movie, "September Dawn". And they will infer that Brigham Young ordered the attack. There will be no balance in that film at all.

Thanks for all your information. I find it very enlightening.

[auteur55]

Yes they do. And, they are going to recycle again in the movie, "September Dawn". And they will infer that Brigham Young ordered the attack. There will be no balance in that film at all.

Thanks for all your information. I find it very enlightening.

[/quote

The first review of September Dawn is in. See here:

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=2925

If these types of reviews continue, which I believe they will, it is not looking good for the filmmakers. Their sensational, overblown attempt to paint the early saints as fanatic, fundamentalists terrorists may very well blow up in their own faces.

[Theophilus07]

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.

The materials I quoted are from the LDS Archives and are available (with some restrictions, and not always consistently) through the Church Archives Search Room at this location:

Church Office Building

50 East North Temple Street

East Wing, Second Floor

Salc Lake City, Utah 84150

The Search Room is open Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. through 4:15 p.m.

When I first started using the Church Archives back in the 1980s, you could just walk in and go to the catalogs and then actually walk around the (then) open stacks and just find most things yourself. That's all changed now. You'll need a photo id just to get in and then you'll need to fill out an application form to actually do research.

Back in the 1980s, there was a lot of material easily locatable on your own and there were unguarded copy machines available so you could make your own copies. Now, increasingly, materials formerly available are no longer even listed in the catalogs (or at least the Archive workers claim they're not), and materials some researchers found and used in recent publications no longer appear in the catalogs and indexes.

There is an online catalog at

http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/content/0...-1-2721,00.html

but more often than not, this URL just gets me a "The page cannot be displayed" error message. Other researchers tell me even when you CAN get it, it's extremely limited and not worth even trying.

If you live outside of the SLC area, you could send your citations to a friend in the area and have them go in to the Search Room and see if they can get access to the materials. Remember that patience and persistence tends to work.

Theophilus07

[Theophilus07]

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

I have to hand it to you, Pahoran. Your over-the-top vitriolic diatribes have justifiably earned you legendary status among critics and thoughtful people alike. Sometimes your fiery posts actually take my breath away.

I will admit, though, that I find the extreme level of emotion and character assassination of all who oppose you to be, well, let's just say 'more than just inappropriate.' I would not be surprised if some readers found your extreme posts less than persuasive and judged your self-proclaimed absolute knowledge of the opposition's evil and foul intent (and cowardliness) impossible because they know (but you may not) that humans can't really read minds.

I don't blame you for turning to emotion to try to distract from the tragic facts. Anyone can read the sermons of the LDS GAs as the Fancher party traveled to southern Utah which were filled with bloodthirsty threats against outsiders. Even you, Pahoran, admit that Brigham Young met with the chiefs of Indians of both northern and southern Utah and promised them the cattle of the outsiders. That's not a baldfaced and evil lie as you charged, that's the truth and even you now admit it. Many people find Pres Young's offer just chilling. You know he didn't have title to Johnston's Army's cattle and you know he didn't have title to the Fancher train's cattle. That's quite a thing for an LDS Prophet and Church President to offer to give away non-LDS peoples' property. It's even worse for any leader of any church to threaten violence to the outsider non-Mormons. Again, anyone can read these sermons. I leave it up to them to judge whether these sermons may not have set the stage for the violence and betrayal at Mountain Meadows. Contrary to your charges, those sermons were not a bald-face lie. They're available for anyone to read both at the LDS Church Archives and in any of a number of books written about the MMM.

You admit (now) that Haslam was not sent to ask Brigham Young what to do with the Fancher party BEFORE the attack. You know that Haslam was sent Monday afternoon and that the attack started before dawn that morning. Though you charged this was a lie, it is, in fact, the truth which you now admit (though I doubt you'll apologize for saying I lied when I recounted it). I think you may be having a little trouble with the time gap because you know it shows the local LDS leaders in a really bad light. What you don't seem to be having trouble with is the idea that instead of attacking the wagon train with the Indians, the Cedar City LDS should have come to the wagon train's rescue. Haven't you wondered about that?

Another thing which seems to elude you is that the attacks went on for five days and at any time, the Cedar City LDS could have called it off and allowed the survivors and wounded to escape. Haven't you ever wondered about that? They didn't need to send a messenger to SLC before stopping the attacks, they could have just stopped them.

You also don't seem to be asking why the Cedar City High Council had to send a messenger to BY, anyway. How many other LDS Stake High Councils do you know of who had to send a messenger to SLC to see if the Church President wanted them to massacre a hundred odd non-LDS strangers passing by, or just leave them alone? I can't think of any -- other than the Cedar City Stake High Council. Or are you charging that I'm lying when I say the High Council sent a volunteer messenger? You make so many claims about me lying I have a hard time keeping track.

You admit (at least now you do) that both LDS and Indians took part in the attacks on the Fancher party (though you originally claim I lied shamelessly about that -- you can read your claims in this very thread), and that the attacks went on for five days, ending in treachery and cold-blooded slaughter of unarmed people and children under a white flag. You admit (at least now) that some of the LDS who took part in the massacre were the Cedar City Stake President Haight and Bishop Klingensmith, the LDS leaders in Cedar City. Or have you claimed that's an evil lie, too?

As far as whether Brigham Young formally ordered the massacre, I contend that even you don't know one way or another because there's no way for you to know any better than there is for me.

Personally, I don't know whether or not Young did issue a formal massacre order, though I suspect he may have issued a blanket order -- probably oral so it couldn't be traced to him and possibly relayed by Apostle George A. Smith during his visit to southern Utah -- that any wagon train without a written pass from him should be destroyed -- this would answer many questions about the MMM. Now for heaven's sake, Pahoran, don't start in about this being an evil -- what do you like to call them? -- bald-faced lie; it's just my personal opinion clearly described as just an opinion. In any event, I think his sermons definitely helped set the stage for violence and I find it chilling that he offered to let the Indians steal anyone's cattle (not as you claimed a bald-faced lie, but a truth I think you now admit) and that he let the Indians loose on Johnston's Army or any other outsiders passing through the Territory. I find it absolutely inexcusable for the Cedar City LDS to have joined in on the massacre instead of rescuing the people on the wagon train. I don't understand why the Cedar City High Council had to send ANY messenger to ask what to do about the wagon train when it could have just left the wagon train alone. I cannot fathom why the Cedar City LDS dragged the massacre over five days and I am dumbfounded at the treachery and cold-blooded murder at the end. But I DO think their diaries and journals and later testimony indicated they thought they were following Brigham Young's orders, whether or not he actually gave any. And I find THAT chilling.

On an undocumentable anecdotal level, I personally know several people from southern Utah who told me directly that their family stories -- for what that's worth -- were that their ancestors thought they'd been ordered by BY to massacre the wagon train, but they were sickened by it and didn't want to do it and only did it reluctantly to keep their temple covenants and then were absolutely horrified when Young sent the note -- conveniently too late -- not to harm the people in the wagon train. They felt utterly and profoundly betrayed by their Church and by BY.

By the way, Pahoran, many of us are getting tired of your predictable tirades in which you call us liars and cowards. How about trying civility so we don't have to take two aspirin to read through your posts? Civility is always appropriate and won't hurt you at all. You may be surprised at how much better we can all get along without hysterical attacks.

Theophilus07

[KDBowler]

Many people find Pres Young's offer just chilling.

I find it chilling that he offered to let the Indians steal anyone's cattle

And I find THAT chilling.

Theophilus07

First.... get a coat. Did ypu read that phrase somewhere and just fall on love with it??

Personally, I don't know whether or not Young did issue a formal massacre order.

Here endeth the thread. If you recall the requst was...

This is not a thread about any other aspect of the Mountain Meadows Massacre...but this:

If Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre as Bagley claimed in the PBS documentary...what is the explaination for the story that Brigham Young desperately sent messangers down south to prevent the Saints from doing any harm to the wagon trains?

That's it. That is the simple topic of this thread.

So with that being the question and this document on record;

PRESIDENT YOUNG'S LETTER TO ISAAC C. HAIGHT

"President's Office,

G. S. L. City, Sept. 10th, 1857.

Elder Isaac C. Haight,

Dear Brother: Your note of the 7th inst. is to hand. Captain Van Vliet, acting commissary is here, having come in advance of the army to procure necessaries for them. We do not expect that any part of the army will be able to reach here this fall. There are only about 850 men coming, they are now at or near Laramie. A few of the freight trains are this side of that place, the advance of which are now on Green river. They will not be able to come much, if any farther, on account of their poor stock. They cannot get here this season without we help them. So you see that the Lord has answered our prayers and again averted the blow designed for our heads.

In regard to emigration trains passing through our settlements we must not interfere with them until they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please, but you should try and preserve good feelings with them. There are no other trains going south that I know of if those who are there will leave let them go in peace. While we should be on the alert, on hand and always ready we should always possess ourselves in patience, preserving ourselves and property, ever remembering that God rules. He has overruled for our deliverance this once again, and he will always do so if we live our religion, be united in our faith and good works. All is well with us. May the Lord bless you and all saints forever.

I remain as ever your brother in the Gospel of Christ

-BRIGHAM YOUNG."

Coupled with this verbal record;

"Go with all speed, spare no horse flesh. The emigrants must not be meddled with, if it takes all Iron county to prevent it. They must go free and unmolested."

So... I yield to all of your knowledge on the subject to answer the OP question and only his question.

[KDBowler]

As a brief sidenote. It is obvious that both Theophilus and Pahoran are intellegent and have researched this matter extensively. I think it becomes apparent that both look at the incident with a bias. I know I have one as I am LDS. I find the incident appalling in and of itself... and probably more so because it involved men of my same faith. I still find it appalling today when the news states (former bishop molests...).

However, even with my bias... I wonder why the effort to make the connection to BY giving THE order in light of no direct evidence. That, at least to me, wreaks of having an agenda. And I think the agenda is quite apparent. Just my opinion. Thanks

[Theophilus07]

This is not a thread about any other aspect of the Mountain Meadows Massacre...but this:

If Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre as Bagley claimed in the PBS documentary...what is the explaination for the story that Brigham Young desperately sent messangers down south to prevent the Saints from doing any harm to the wagon trains?

That's it. That is the simple topic of this thread.

So... I yield to all of your knowledge on the subject to answer the OP question and only his question.

Well, KDBowler, let's take that question, shall we?

On May 1, I already responded to it. So, here, I'll help refresh your memory, I wrote:

The Mormon Myth is that Brigham Young dispatched several messengers to ride to Cedar City to stop the massacre.

To which, the same day, your apologist colleague, Pahoran, answered (predictably and angrily):

This is not a "Mormon myth." It is a fiction, apparently fabricated by you [Theophilus07] in order to falsely accuse the Saints of something.

I'll agree that the statement about the "messengers dispatched by Brigham Young" is certainly false. But it's not a critic's bald-faced lie as Pahoran predictably charged. It is, indeed, as I characterized it, the Mormon Myth with which Bsix started this thread (and which KDBowler graciously supplied the original quote above).

Bsix's point is if Brigham Young ordered the massacre, why did he dispatch those messengers to stop it? My response, again, is that Brigham Young dispatched no messengers, plural or singular. That's just a Mormon Myth possibly designed to remove any possibility of guilt from Brigham Young.

There was only one messenger, James Haslam, and he wasn't dispatched by BY at all. Completely without Young's knowledge, Haslam volunteered to the Cedar City High Council, several hours after the MMM started in the pre-dawn darkness at Mountain Meadows, to ride to SLC and ask Brigham Young what the Cedar City Saints should do with the Fancher party wagon train now camped about a day's ride away from Cedar City and thus posing no threat at all to Cedar City, but which Indians and Cedar City LDS (including the Cedar City Stake President and the Bishop) under the command of John D. Lee had already been attacking for several hours (perhaps up to twelve or more hours by my calculation) with deadly intent to kill. When he got his reply from Brigham Young, Haslam returned to Cedar City with it. Yes, Brigham Young asked him to ride as quickly as he could, but Young did not in any shape or form initiate this messenger's ride. It was the Cedar City High Council. And yes, Young's message was not to harm the Fancher party. But what would you expect? that Young would put in writing that the Cedar City Saints should slaughter the Fancher party? Young was far to smart for that.

I note that when I pointed out that multiple messengers (or any messenger initiated by Young) was a Mormon Myth, Pahoran predictably jumped in to accuse me of having made up a strawman, a critic's bald-faced lie, and that he, Pahoran, was absolutely positive that no LDS apologist had ever claimed multiple messengers and challenged me to provide evidence. Well, I'm sorry, Pahoran, but here you have your evidence: an LDS apologist started this whole thread with this very Mormon Myth. I, contrary to your claims, had nothing to do with it. Contrary to your claims that I made up this lie, it was presented by your apologist colleague, Bsix. But I doubt -- again -- that you'll apologize for having once again falsely accused me of evil dishonesty.

Back to my legitimate response. Normally, you'd think the Cedar City Saints would know what to do -- just let the wagon train pass peacibly by so no messenger would be needed, but in this case, the Cedar City High Council seemed to think that (1) they wouldn't get in trouble with BY for having attacked the train with deadly intent (where would they get an idea like that?) and (2) it would be okay for Brigham Young to know that while waiting for his reply, they would continue shooting and killing the people -- including children -- in the wagon train. This would be consistent with the possibility that Brigham Young had already issued a blanket order that any wagon train without a pass from him should be destroyed.

Far from exhonorating Brigham Young of guilt for the massacre, the mere fact of a messenger from Cedar City lends credence to the possibility that one way or another Young did indeed order the massacre.

Now, Pahoran, before you get up on your high horse and start claiming that I'm making bald-faced lies, please note that I have expressed an opinion which KDBowler specifically asked me for and that I stated it was just an opinion and am not claiming it's Eternal Truth.

Also, Pahoran, how about an apology for having accused me of a deliberate lie?

And, KDBowler, please note that I restricted myself to just the Mormon Myth question you and Bsix posed.

While we're on the subject, Calmoriah, after you praised and worshipped Pahoran for his extensive knowledge about everything about the MMM (except, evidently, this completely untrue Mormon Myth) and expressed glee at being able to nail me to the wall, don't you feel a little sheepish? Don't you think Pahoran owes me an apology for his unjust accusation?

Theophilus07

[KDBowler]

Well, KDBowler, let's take that question, shall we?

Theophilus07

So let me see if I understand... since I came in late. The "mormon myth" (is this a well known thing?) is a myth because the OP used messengers in the plural and because the one messenger didn't originate from SLC so somehow BY didn't dispatch him.

OK... then I'll ask it my way. How does one conclude that BY ordered the massacre... given the fact that he sent Haslam (only one messenger) back (not dispatched originally by him... but dispatched to return - blah blah) with the document previously posted?

Far from exhonorating Brigham Young of guilt for the massacre, the mere fact of a messenger from Cedar City lends credence to the possibility that one way or another Young did indeed order the massacre.

Now you lose me a bit here. So, you speculate that BY had previously ordered a massacre and Haslam was comming to double check the order (Are you sure you want us to massacre these people) and then BY --changed his mind and sent a message not to hurt them?

If they had a standing order... and knew BY intent, why send anyone. And if you were going to double check... why would you then not wait for the answer? (Especially if you were quite sure that it would give you written permission)

A bit off topic:

And, KDBowler, please note that I restricted myself to just the Mormon Myth question you and Bsix posed. In the future, you may wish to double check your facts. It appears you apologists can't keep them straight. So much for the moral high ground there.

Hmmm. I'm a bit new here, but you seem somewhat angry. I'm happy to engage in a good honest debate, but maybe we could also keep some civility.

[KDBowler]

Since you are an honest man... I have two other questions.

I admit that if there was Proof ( or even some real hard evidence) that BY directly ordered a massacre of innocent women and children it would not please me.

How would you feel if, finally, undisputed evidence showed BY did indeed order the murders directly?

And, does it bother you at all that Bagley was hired by a man that wanted him to link BY to the massacre?

Just curious.

[KDBowler]

You know... I reallly don't like to post three times in a row, but I just finished reading your original response and I have reached a conclusion. Before I state that - here is your response in it's entirety so as to not be accused of taking anything out of context.

Brigham Young sent no messengers anywhere. Not one messenger. That's a Mormon Myth.

The MMM began on Monday, Sept 7, 1857 when the Iron County Brigade of the Nauvoo Legion in Cedar City, Utah, along with some Piute Indians, attacked the Francher wagon train. But the Francher party fought back successfully and the Indians lost heart and most of them left, leaving the Saints to disguise themselves as Indians to continue the attack. Even many of the Cedar City militia members lost heart and the Cedar City High Council decided to send a courier to Brigham Young for instructions. James Holt Haslam volunteered to ride. It took him until Thursday, Sept 10, to reach Salt Lake City. By that time, the attack had been going on for four days. Brigham Young spoke with Haslam and gave him a message to take back to tell the Nauvoo Legion not to attack the wagon train. However, Brigham Young knew from Haslam that the attack had already started the previous Monday. Haslam rode back as hard as he could. Thursday, as Haslam was speaking to Brigham Young in Salt Lake City, the Francher party tried sending out messengers to get help, but the Legion marksmen shot them dead. The rest of the Francher party was killed on Friday, Sept 11, five days after the massacre began, when they were lured into surrender, putting their weapons down, and then shot to death by the Nauvoo Legionaires. Haslam didn't arrive back in Cedar City until after it was over.

Theophilus07

I highlighted the part I have an issue with. First you state NOT ONE MESSSENGER and then you state BY gave Haslam a message to take back. So I can only assume that your issue is that he was not dispatched by BY although BY did give him a message and then dispatched him back to Cedar City.

That coupled with you response to the question as to why BY would do it...

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

So I conclude that you will indeed twist, turn, spin, and about anything else to suport your preconceived conclusions. You need not respond to my other requests as it no longer matters to me what you say. I think there are a lot of honest people that I can discuss issues with in a civil and HONEST manner. I promise you this... you will get the last word as I will not waste any additional time on you. Why Parohan continues too is beyond me. He should have better things to do and certainly better people to do them with. This will read harsh to those that have experience with me elsewhere.... but I have absolutely no tolerence for those who refuse to dabate issues respectfully and honestly. JUST MY OPINION... THANKS

Here endeth the lesson-

[Theophilus07]

So let me see if I understand... since I came in late. The "mormon myth" (is this a well known thing?) is a myth because the OP used messengers in the plural and because the one messenger didn't originate from SLC so somehow BY didn't dispatch him.

It's a myth because Young had nothing to do with the messenger other than to give him a response. I don't know how widespread it is, just that Bsix presented it when he started this thread. Haslam was dispatched by the Cedar City High Council without Young's knowledge. The Mormon Myth is that Young heroically called up a number of messengers to ride dramatically to Cedar City to stop the Rogue Mormons from massacring the Francher party [notice that the myth conveniently avoids telling us how Young knew about the massacre]. The myth is designed to show that Young couldn't possibly have ordered the massacre because he initiated multiple messengers to try to stop it. The image of these brave messengers riding hell-bent-for-leather on the Prophet's orders is dramatic and Defends the Faith, but is simply not true.

OK... then I'll ask it my way. How does one conclude that BY ordered the massacre... given the fact that he sent Haslam (only one messenger) back (not dispatched originally by him... but dispatched to return - blah blah) with the document previously posted?

There is no documentary proof from which to conclude that BY ordered the massacre (or didn't as LDS would like to have it). But you have to ask yourself, since the Cedar City Saints could have stopped at any time and even rescued the wagon train from the Indians if they'd wanted to, why send a messenger at all, particularly one after the initial attack? Why a messenger? You don't need a messenger to BY to stop the attack you started yourself.

One scenario which would explain why any messenger was needed is that Young had already issued a probably oral order through Apostle George A. Smith who'd visited Cedar City only days before the massacre that any wagon train without Young's pass should be destroyed. If so (and this is just speculation), that would explain why the Cedar City Saints would send any messenger -- to confirm the oral order. There is documentary evidence which I have not presented (diaries and journals) which would support claims that the Cedar City Saints did not want to go through with what they thought were Young's orders to destroy any wagon train without Young's pass.

Now you lose me a bit here. So, you speculate that BY had previously ordered a massacre and Haslam was comming to double check the order (Are you sure you want us to massacre these people) and then BY --changed his mind and sent a message not to hurt them?

Yes. It has been suggested that Young thought the Indians would pretty much take care of the killing themselves so the Mormons wouldn't have to take the blame. But eyewitness accounts by the surviving Francher children and some Cedar City Saints, including John D. Lee, indicate that the initial attack on Monday by the Indians faltered and many of the Indians up and left and it dawned on Lee that the Saints would have to do much if not most of the fighting. When Young got Haslam's message about the attack, he may have realized the same thing and decided to deflect the blame (which he did, anyway, years later to scapegoat Lee, his adopted son). And think about what questions the Cedar City Saints could possibly have sent with the messenger (conveniently, the original letter is "lost"). They had to tell Young the attack had already started, so if there was no pre-existing order, wouldn't this self-initiated massacre get them in trouble with BY. And remember, after dispatching Haslam, they continued with the attacks for four more days!

If they had a standing order... and knew BY intent, why send anyone. And if you were going to double check... why would you then not wait for the answer? (Especially if you were quite sure that it would give you written permission)

That's just it -- they HADN'T waited. The attack was already underway and had been for over 12 hours BEFORE Haslam left. Some of the Cedar City High Council members had tried to get Haight to dispatch a messenger BEFORE the attack, but he refused. When the Monday morning attack went badly with the Indians faltering and some leaving, Stake President Haight saw the light and gave in to the Council members' request for a double-checking messenger to take some of the blame off them. And after sending the messenger, they just kept on attacking. I doubt they would have continued the killing if they didn't think it was okay with BY. I know *I* wouldn't have. Would you?

A bit off topic:

Hmmm. I'm a bit new here, but you seem somewhat angry. I'm happy to engage in a good honest debate, but maybe we could also keep some civility.

Interesting that you were able to quote my post BEFORE I was done editing it to remove the incivility [which I did]. I thought your reply came unusally fast almost as though you were reading it as I was editing it. Either you're actually a moderator sock-puppeting so you can see my posts in progress, or you caught my original unedited post just before I started editing it and didn't see the final edited version. I think I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter. That'll teach me to put more effort into writing posts that don't need to be calmed down with subsequent editing.

In any event, if you'd like to see real incivility and anger, I can't hold a candle to Pahoran. Go back through this thread and read HIS posts. I don't know about you, but some of his posts take my breath away.

Theophilus07

[nana]

It could have been a cover story. When it was too late BY sent a courier when he knew it would be too late, thereby clearing himself of any wrongdoing.

Wasn't it BY who visited the site, had the memorial taken down and then said "vengence is mine sayeth the lord, and I have a taken a little today"

[soren]

I admire your charity.

There was no such doctrine,

In the official sense of the First Presidency signing off on it, no there was not. And I don't demand that any Latter-day Saint defend the teaching as his own belief. Yet I do call it a doctrine in the sense that it was a teaching propagated by those in authority. I also think, as an historical stance, that it is a great understatement to call it only a "theory," since Young asserted it as a point of his knowledge, not just opinion:

I do know that there are sins committed, of such a nature that if the people did understand the doctrine of salvation, they would tremble because of their situation. And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. [Emphasis added]

but do you know what the theory of "blood atonement" entailed? It was that Latter-day Saints who had committed capital crimes ought to voluntarily surrender themselves so that the lawful sentence might be carried out.

Yes I do know that. In fact, I already pointed out in my second post, in agreement with calmoriah, that the MMM did not follow the model of blood atonement set forth my Young.

Now, what connection could that possibly have to a party of non-Mormons who may or may not have merely threatened to assist the government, being ambushed and slaughtered even while they fought for their lives? Can you not see how the MMM violates every key element of "blood atonement" theory?

One element is common: it is killing in the name of Christ. That's the most important part. If you cannot see how preaching such an idea can contribute to the madness of the MMM, I cannot explain it to you. It is too obvious.

To give a parallel example, Muslims today point out that the killings on 9/11 were not consistent with principles of jihad. That is true. I have studied the Q'uran and some of the Hadith, and I find no warrant for terrorism there, at least not if our interpretation allows context and historical background to speak. Yet the Q'uran does contain teachings that can and do provoke such violence because the elements of detruction are holy war really are there. Those elements, joined to other factors, social pressure, persecution, etc. can lead to terrorism and killing, even if that is not the true intent.

Between the initial Mormon settlement in 1847 and the completion of the trans-continental railroad in 1869, there were dozens if not hundreds of wagon trains crossing the territory. The Utah portion of the journey was widely regarded as the safest leg of the trip. This all changed just once in 1857. What is the explanation? There are some who want to locate the explanation in LDS life, belief and practice; and yet the same Mormons, teaching and believing the same things, were there in 1856 and 1858. What, then, was different?

Could it be that Johnston's Army wasn't approaching in any other year?

I would readily admit to the relevance of this point. I would hardly pin blood atonement as the sole factor in what happened. Bear in mind, my view of LDS history is not that the 19th century was a filthy den of whoring, murder, and the like. It was many strange things, but not that. Besides, compared the the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre committed by Catholics against Protestants in 1572, I would have to be quite the hypocrite to put simple blame on the LDS Church for the sins of some of its members.

There are a number of problems with this story, not least of which being that Woodruff does not say anything about the cairn being torn down and in fact mentions it in the present tense. Also, a number of later travellers describe seeing it. The story of the desecration of the cairn comes not from Wilford Woodruff but from Dudley Leavitt, who was himself a massacre participant, and who therefore wanted to give the impression that Brigham approved of what had been done. Interestingly, Leavitt does not say that Brigham "ordered" anything; only that he made a gesture which Leavitt and others interpreted to mean that the cairn should be torn down.

That's not a problem with the story. That's a problem with my memory of it. Reading this paragraph I remember that you are correct.

Incidentally, the inscription on the cross does not seem to have included the entirey of the verse, but merely the last part, starting with the word "vengeance." Taken thus out of context, the passage could rightly be read as a not-so-thinly veiled threat; not only towards the guilty parties, but given the national sentiment at the time, towards all the Latter-day Saints anywhere in Utah. Thus, it is not surprising that the person many saw as the chief target of the threatened vengeance (remember the first Lee trial pretty much collapsed because the prosecution spent all their time grandstanding and trying to implicate Brigham instead of convicting Lee) might take a dim view of it.

The threatening nature of the insrcription is indeed obvious on face. But what about "Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little?" Perhaps another interpretation may be proposed, but it sounds to me that Young is talking about the victims of the massacre. If that is what he means, I cannot see any context that would justify it. Yet perhaps I misread. What particular act of vengeance do you think he is or may be referring to?

It is easy, sitting in 21st-century air-conditioned comfort, to sneer at the early Saints for a "siege mentality." That's largely because we fail to appreciate the extent to which they really were under siege. We may have the luxury of making politically correct gestures; they, being even then engaged in a struggle for survival, did not.

See above.

Regards,

Pahoran

I do think they were under seige and that they were persecuted for their religion. For instance, I think the Mormons had a natural right as a society to resist federal imposistions against polygamy. You seem to presuppose that I buy into all kinds of common stereotypes that I in fact do not. I understand the difference between history and sensationalism.

[KDBowler]

I understand the difference between history and sensationalism.

Still new to this board. But I have added you to my list of people who use sound logic and civility when discussing issues. I learn a lot from different and sometimes opposing positions that have been based on sound information. Thanks. Just my opinion

[Calm]

Just so I can understand your thinking, could you cite what you believe supports this comment for the MMM: "One element is common: it is killing in the name of Christ."

[cdowis]

Bagley tells us that the language in Huntington's diary entry for 1 September 1857 implies an instruction for attack on the Fancher train. Why then did Dimick Huntington use the same language elsewhere with Indian tribal leaders who could have had no geographic proximity to the Fancher train? For instance, two days earlier in Huntington's diary, 30 August 1857, 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.13

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.

Let us look at who was present at that 1 September 1857 meeting because this bears on Bagley's theory about instructions to destroy the Fancher train. Most of the Indians present led tribes that had no geographic proximity to the Fancher train, as massacre historian and attorney Robert Briggs has pointed out.16 Only two or three of the twelve chieftains present might have had some connection to the tribes that participated in the massacre. Tutsegabit and Youngwuds were the two Southern Paiute chiefs present in Brigham Young's office whose tribes resided in Iron County (p. 113).

Not only were the wrong people in the 1 September 1857 meeting, the participants were probably talking about a geographic area far from the location of the Fancher train. I have substantial doubt that Brigham Young's reference to the "south rout[e]" on 1 September meant anything more than the entire route south of present-day Wyoming upon which the army was advancing. With contemporaneous descriptions of the south route referring to the entire road south of Lander Pass in Wyoming, it is unreasonable to conclude that Brigham Young had some other meaning for "south rout[e]."17

Further, Bagley's chronology is problematic to the point of impossibility. Tutsegabit and Youngwuds did not have time to get from Salt Lake City to Mountain Meadows and return to Salt Lake City by 16 September 1857 or, as Huntington says, by 10 September 1857.18 Blood of the Prophets tells us these Indian chiefs were surprised when they were purportedly told to massacre the Fancher train on 1 September but that they recovered from this surprise, and within five days (without horses, no less)19 traveled three hundred miles to organize and lead the first wave of assaults, assembling for the assault on the evening of 5 September for a predawn attack the next morning. In contrast, John D. Lee claims he rushed on horseback to Salt Lake City to make a report to Brigham Young of the massacre, saying that "I was on the way about ten days," and Lee did not get started for ten days.20 With excellent and replenished horseflesh, it took James Haslam three days to travel the same distance with Isaac Haight's request for instructions. Wilford Woodruff records Tutsegabit's presence to be ordained an elder in Salt Lake City, certainly not an emergency, five days after the massacre concluded or, as the Huntington diary says, in the middle of the massacre.21 It is implausible to think that Tutsegabit and Youngwuds made this round-trip in such a short period of time. Moreover, neither Tutsegabit nor Youngwuds were reported to be at the massacre.

Thus, I disagree with Bagley's effort to render what is simple and relatively benign (general cattle running) to what is complex and malicious (killing emigrants). The developed law of evidence cautions against reaching conclusions about wrongful conduct from a set of facts that could explain more benign actions.22 As Robert Briggs asks in his Sunstone essay, with twenty-five hundred troops approaching, why would Brigham Young concern himself with forty armed men in the Arkansas train?23

A Trial Lawyer Reviews Bagley

Theo,

whose cattle was BY referring to? This is the crux of your argument regarding BY's involvement. What was he talking about to the Northern tribes (BY's trip to the Northern tribes was PRIOR to his trip to the Southern tribes.) Was he telling the northern tribes to attack the wagon train as well?

[soren]

Just so I can understand your thinking, could you cite what you believe supports this comment for the MMM: "One element is common: it is killing in the name of Christ."

Hmmm. I will have to think about my answer to that. It may be very lengthy. I will respond tomorrow as I have no time now..

[KDBowler]

A Trial Lawyer Reviews Bagley

Theo,

whose cattle was BY referring to? This is the crux of your argument regarding BY's involvement. What was he talking about to the Northern tribes (BY's trip to the Northern tribes was PRIOR to his trip to the Southern tribes.) Was he telling the northern tribes to attack the wagon train as well?

This guy you are choosing to engage in debate... in my opinion isn't worth your time. Read his first and second posts in this thread. He actually takes the position that BY sent no messenger (NOT ONE) and his reasoning is that Haslam was sent from Cedar City. Even though in the same post he aknowledges that after meeting with BY, Haslam was given a message and was to return to Cedar.

I am in disbelief that he actually stands with that position. I guess that somehow, since the journey began in Cedar City that it somehow nullifies him to me a messenger sent by Brigham Young. I say that after he met with BY, he was certainly "sent" by BY back to Cedar City with a "message".

Seriously, carefully read his response to me. It is so full of assumptions, (in the face of evidence) and spin that it is actually somewhat comical. Instead of taking the historical position... (one even held by Lee) that the reason for Haslam being sent to BY, was that some of the men wanted to massacre these people because of the fear of retaliation for some that had already died. He leaps to his story (which will implicate BY) that some found a conscience and felt they needed to "double check" BY massacre order.

There are so many on this board who will discuss this issue intellegently and if not without bias (which I personally think is impossible) at least with the understanding that they have such a bias. I know I have such a bias... but even so I challenge anyone to show PROOF that BY ordered the attack, or even knew that it was going to happen. Not, influenced it with his speeches, not hoped for it, not covered it up... all of those I think can be discussed and debated. But, the evidence would tend to exhonerate BY from having ordered the attack or having knowlege that it was to happen.

So, my simple advice... find someone else to discuss it with. Just my opinion!!

[Bsix]

And I thought this would be a short thread.

I appreciate everyone's participation. I wish the tone had been less personal and more pleasant. Given the topic, I can understand.

This is a topic that has a lot of emotion and your point-of-view may color how you view Brigham Young's role.

Our biases aside, there are at least three absolute facts learned from this thread that can be stated concerning the question of this thread:

1. There is no direct evidence that Brigham Young ordered the massacre. None.

2. Brigham Young did not send several riders south bfore being asked by messenger what should be done.

3. Brigham Yound did order the messenger Haslaam to return south with orders to protect the Fancer party.

Thanks for all your input.

Regards,

Six

[Pahoran]

Post split due to quote restrictions (again.)

I have to hand it to you, Pahoran. Your over-the-top vitriolic diatribes have justifiably earned you legendary status among critics and thoughtful people alike. Sometimes your fiery posts actually take my breath away.

I will admit, though, that I find the extreme level of emotion and character assassination of all who oppose you to be, well, let's just say 'more than just inappropriate.' I would not be surprised if some readers found your extreme posts less than persuasive and judged your self-proclaimed absolute knowledge of the opposition's evil and foul intent (and cowardliness) impossible because they know (but you may not) that humans can't really read minds.

Do you have anything substantial to say, or are you simply bloviating?

I don't blame you for turning to emotion to try to distract from the tragic facts.

No, you don't blame me, you merely accuse me; which accusation, like every other you have made in this thread, is false and you cannot credibly claim to believe it.

Anyone can read the sermons of the LDS GAs as the Fancher party traveled to southern Utah which were filled with bloodthirsty threats against outsiders.

So you keep asserting. Yet when asked for references, you were able to quote not one of those "bloodthirsty threats." Instead, your methodology was predicably tanneresque: you mentioned a speech, claimed that it was replete with such "bloodthirsty threats," and then proceeded to quote the worst excerpt you could find--an excerpt which by no means answered the description of "bloodthirsty threats" to any reasonable person. And you repeated this pattern several times.

Even you, Pahoran, admit that Brigham Young met with the chiefs of Indians of both northern and southern Utah and promised them the cattle of the outsiders.

Of course "even I" admit it, because it is true. It was you, Theophilus, who counterfactually denied that Brigham had met with the Indian leaders from Northern Utah.

Of course you'd prefer to forget that you denied it, but you did.

That's not a baldfaced and evil lie as you charged, that's the truth and even you now admit it.

As you perfectly well know, and contrary to your assertion above, I have never at any time denied that he met with them and offered them cattle.

If you think differently, please cite the post in which I did deny it.

You and I both know that you will not.

And everyone who reads this thread will know why.

Many people find Pres Young's offer just chilling.

Do they? Then "many people" are quite clueless about the rules of war.

You know he didn't have title to Johnston's Army's cattle and you know he didn't have title to the Fancher train's cattle.

I do know that; and it is entirely irrelevant. I am charitably presuming that you did not already know this, but a belligerent force's means of supply and sustenance are the legitimate military targets of the forces opposing them. To deprive your enemy of his means of sustenance and use them to sustain your own forces in the field is quite the proper way to conduct military operations. By electing a strategy of operating only against the army's means of supplying itself, Brigham was able to successfully defend the territory without bloodshed.

As I said, I am charitably presuming that you did not already know this. Now, however, you do.

If, being now without excuse, you continue to persevere in your arrogant and unrighteously judgemental windbaggery, it will be consistent with your observed pattern of behaviour in this thread.

The Fancher party's cattle are doubly irrelevant, since they were not the subject of any discussion Brigham had with any Indian leaders.

Snip more bloviations.

You admit (now) that Haslam was not sent to ask Brigham Young what to do with the Fancher party BEFORE the attack. You know that Haslam was sent Monday afternoon and that the attack started before dawn that morning. Though you charged this was a lie, it is, in fact, the truth which you now admit (though I doubt you'll apologize for saying I lied when I recounted it).

Excuse me.

You are, as you know, intentionally falsifying the discussion. Why do you do this, when you know you cannot possibly get away with it?

What I said was:

To assert, as you repeatedly do, that Haslam was dispatched to SLC only after the intial attack failed is utterly without foundation.

It suits your agenda to pretend that I disputed that he was sent after the attack had started, but you know perfectly well that that is quite false. I disputed, and continue to dispute, your vicious fabrication that he was sent only after the attack failed. Why do you insist upon this blatant falsehood? And why do you duck for cover and pretend to have been talking about something else every time it is challenged? Well, I have never pretended to be able to read minds, either of my contemporaries or of people long dead; but I can read posts, and it is obvious what you are trying to achieve. It is your accusation that Brigham ordered the very attack itself, and so only after it failed was it necessary to ask for his instructions. That's why you fabricate a fictitious repulse and general Indian withdrawal on the Monday morning, so that you can pretend that Haslam set off to report that Brigham's scheme had failed.

In reality, no such thing happened. Haight sent Haslam to ask for instructions because the situation was getting out of his control. He may or may not have known that the attack had begun, but it absolutely had not ended or produced any kind of result when Haslam set off.

And you have not the slightest reason to pretend to believe that it did.

I think you may be having a little trouble with the time gap because you know it shows the local LDS leaders in a really bad light. What you don't seem to be having trouble with is the idea that instead of attacking the wagon train with the Indians, the Cedar City LDS should have come to the wagon train's rescue. Haven't you wondered about that?

I have already discussed this. There is no part of the real events of the MMM that shows the Cedar City Saints in a favourable light. There is no need to trump up additional false accusations against them, as you do.

Another thing which seems to elude you is that the attacks went on for five days and at any time, the Cedar City LDS could have called it off and allowed the survivors and wounded to escape. Haven't you ever wondered about that? They didn't need to send a messenger to SLC before stopping the attacks, they could have just stopped them.

That presumes that we accept your extremist-hater revisionist version that has the attack being mounted by "LDS disguised as Indians." The fact, however, is that from Monday to Thursday it was the Paiutes who were doing the attacking.

End of Part 1.

[Pahoran]

Part 2

You also don't seem to be asking why the Cedar City High Council had to send a messenger to BY, anyway.

I have already discussed this, as well.

As you know.

How many other LDS Stake High Councils do you know of who had to send a messenger to SLC to see if the Church President wanted them to massacre a hundred odd non-LDS strangers passing by, or just leave them alone? I can't think of any -- other than the Cedar City Stake High Council. Or are you charging that I'm lying when I say the High Council sent a volunteer messenger?

No, but that won't stop you from claiming that I am.

You admit (at least now you do) that both LDS and Indians took part in the attacks on the Fancher party

As you perfectly well know, I have never denied that.

For instance, on May 2 at 9:19 pm, Marvelous asked:

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

To which I responded, on May 3 at 1:09 pm:

No.

Further, at 6:29 pm the same day, I wrote:

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.

Your claim, then, that I "admit" only "now" that white Mormons were involved is yet another blatant falsehood; just one among many.

(though you originally claim I lied shamelessly about that -- you can read your claims in this very thread),

Indeed we can. See above.

and that the attacks went on for five days, ending in treachery and cold-blooded slaughter of unarmed people and children under a white flag. You admit (at least now) that some of the LDS who took part in the massacre were the Cedar City Stake President Haight and Bishop Klingensmith, the LDS leaders in Cedar City. Or have you claimed that's an evil lie, too?

No. I brought that up before you did.

As far as whether Brigham Young formally ordered the massacre, I contend that even you don't know one way or another because there's no way for you to know any better than there is for me.

Thank you for admitting that you don't know. In the absence of such knowledge, your devious and underhanded attempts to pin it on him are simply false accusations.

Personally, I don't know whether or not Young did issue a formal massacre order, though I suspect he may have issued a blanket order -- probably oral so it couldn't be traced to him and possibly relayed by Apostle George A. Smith during his visit to southern Utah -- that any wagon train without a written pass from him should be destroyed -- this would answer many questions about the MMM.

And the fact that there is no evidence that anyone had any idea of such an order ever existing won't slow you down one bit.

Now for heaven's sake, Pahoran, don't start in about this being an evil -- what do you like to call them? -- bald-faced lie; it's just my personal opinion clearly described as just an opinion.

So it is.

And the opinion that all Jews are engaged in a global conspiracy is likewise just an opinion. That opinion and yours have many features in common, but I will mention just two: (1) neither of them have a shred of evidence in their favour, and (2) both of them appeal exclusively to bigots and haters.

In any event, I think his sermons definitely helped set the stage for violence and I find it chilling that he offered to let the Indians steal anyone's cattle (not as you claimed a bald-faced lie, but a truth I think you now admit) and that he let the Indians loose on Johnston's Army or any other outsiders passing through the Territory.

Poor little you. I hope you will get over it eventually.

I find it absolutely inexcusable for the Cedar City LDS to have joined in on the massacre instead of rescuing the people on the wagon train.

So do I. No-one has, to my knowlege, tried to excuse them.

I don't understand why the Cedar City High Council had to send ANY messenger to ask what to do about the wagon train when it could have just left the wagon train alone.

Yes, they could conceivably have let the Paiutes and the Fanchers slug it out. With hindsight, it appears that the Paiutes would have given up eventually (although they did not give up on the Monday as you claimed) and gone home to lick their wounds. The complication, to the Mormons who would be left behind as their neighbours, is that the Paiutes would have seen them as unreliable allies. "What, you let us fight the emigrants alone, and now you expect us to help you fight the army? Where were you when we needed help, huh?"

That there may be no excuse for misrepresentation here: I do not say this to provide any "justification for the massacre;" there is none, and anyone who tries to accuse me of so doing will be (true to form) lying. However, while it excuses nothing, it does explain what you pretend to find so wonderfully inexplicable on any basis other than your own hate-based conspiracy theory: why they didn't come to the rescue of the emigrants, and why they asked Brigham for instructions. They were out there in the wilderness, hundreds of miles from the main LDS settlements, expecting the army to come pouring through the mountain passes at any moment, relying upon the good graces of the Indians not only as potential allies against the army, but even for their day-to-day survival--and the situation between the Indians and the emigrants had all the makings of a first-class disaster.

I cannot fathom why the Cedar City LDS dragged the massacre over five days

The short answer is: they didn't. As you know. They actually carried it out with dreadful efficiency once they actually got involved. The four days before the massacre were, after all, a battle in which they, apart from Lee and a couple of his sons, did not participate, a fact no reputable researcher disputes.

But I DO think their diaries and journals and later testimony indicated they thought they were following Brigham Young's orders, whether or not he actually gave any. And I find THAT chilling.

While I find it "chilling" that you can make these assertions without any basis, and actually expect them to be believed.

On an undocumentable anecdotal level, I personally know several people from southern Utah who told me directly that their family stories -- for what that's worth -- were that their ancestors thought they'd been ordered by BY to massacre the wagon train, but they were sickened by it and didn't want to do it and only did it reluctantly to keep their temple covenants

There never were any "temple covenants" to any such effect. Most of the participants had not even made any temple covenants. Whoever originated this claim had no knowledge of mid-19th century Utah, but may have some familiarity with the contemporary Church, in which almost all active adults are Temple patrons.

So if indeed any person has said such things to you, then they have lied to you. Shamelessly and completely.

That is, if....

and then were absolutely horrified when Young sent the note -- conveniently too late

Yes, it was just so "convenient" to Brigham that, communications being what they were in 1857, neither he nor Haslam nor anyone else in SLC had any information whatsoever about the state of the emigrants or the Paiutes or anyone else in the Cedar City area at the time he wrote the note.

not to harm the people in the wagon train. They felt utterly and profoundly betrayed by their Church and by BY.

And you claim that multiple people have told you this, eh?

Well, when it comes to anecdotal evidence, we have to first consider the source.

And it happens that the only source for this rather fantastic tale is an anti-Mormon zealot who may well be proud to claim the title of a 21st century Beadle.

By the way, Pahoran, many of us are getting tired of your predictable tirades in which you call us liars and cowards. How about trying civility so we don't have to take two aspirin to read through your posts? Civility is always appropriate and won't hurt you at all. You may be surprised at how much better we can all get along without hysterical attacks.

The solution, Theo, lies in your hands. The hate propagandist has no business chiding the target for not treating him more kindly.

Regards,

Pahoran