A Question About Bagley's Claim.

[Pahoran]

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.

Thank you, Nana, for demonstrating so clearly just how prejudice works. When you hate someone enough, there is simply no such thing as exculpatory evidence, and anything that appears to be so must in reality be some kind of deception, thus proving that the target of one's hatred is every bit as evil as you prejudge him to be.

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"

Not quite, no.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Marvelous]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

(Bold emphasis above is mine.)

This is a point which I had planned to make. The comparison to modern-day Muslim terrorism is apt. The hostile language of LDS leaders (and LDS scripture) led to the hostility at MMM. And, no, I'm not claiming that it was the intention of LDS leaders to incite such crime. (At least I hope it was not.) However, had their instruction been uniformly charitable and benign, I seriously doubt MMM would have happened. To me, this is the relevance of MMM and one of the lessons to take from it.

[Marvelous]

Is there evidence that BY ordered MMM? Yes, but not beyond a reasonable doubt. Although I am no longer active or believing, I still identify with Latter-day Saints and wish the best for them and their church. I very much hope that BY didn't have foreknowledge.

On the other hand, I have no doubt that the perpetrators believed that their actions were congruent with BY's wishes. I believe Haslam was sent to confirm this and seek counsel. There is no way they would have committed a crime of this enormity without believing that it was condoned. It is precisely because of BY's pervasive influence and tight control that some scholars, including Brooks and Bagley, believe BY either ordered it, or had foreknowledge of it.

[KDBowler]

This is a point which I had planned to make. The comparison to modern-day Muslim terrorism is apt. The hostile language of LDS leaders (and LDS scripture) led to the hostility at MMM. And, no, I'm not claiming that it was the intention of LDS leaders to incite such crime. (At least I hope it was not.) However, had their instruction been uniformly charitable and benign, I seriously doubt MMM would have happened. To me, this is the relevance of MMM and one of the lessons to take from it.

Which LDS scripture? As opposed to hostile language in biblical scripture? Please give some examples. Thanks

And, since we are off the OP anyway...

I will grant you the possiblity that it may have had an impact, but I think it is, once again, the presumption that if they had been instructing a more amicable philosophy, that it would likely not have happened. I think that is conjecture even with the information we have.

Now again, I know that I read the history of this event with my LDS eyes. But, from what I have read, I feel that the biggest contributing factor was still the murder of what appears to be a couple of members of the wagon train prior to any attack, and the subsequent fear of retaliation from others if the wagon train were allowed to continue to CA.

However, you may be right. And even, if I am... no reason for the attack will justify it. It was absolutely appalling in every way. I just think your assumption still attempts to indicate that the church was liable, if not by its Prophet, then at least by its doctrine or rhetoric.

Just my opinion. Thanks

Is there evidence that BY ordered MMM? Yes..

Please provide this evidence. Thanks.

And please limit the evidence to that which shows BY ordered the MMM?

[Marvelous]

Which LDS scripture? As opposed to hostile language in biblical scripture? Please give some examples. Thanks

And, since we are off the OP anyway...

I will grant you the possiblity that it may have had an impact, but I think it is, once again, the presumption that if they had been instructing a more amicable philosophy, that it would likely not have happened. I think that is conjecture even with the information we have.

Now again, I know that I read the history of this event with my LDS eyes. But, from what I have read, I feel that the biggest contributing factor was still the murder of what appears to be a couple of members of the wagon train prior to any attack, and the subsequent fear of retaliation from others if the wagon train were allowed to continue to CA.

However, you may be right. And even, if I am... no reason for the attack will justify it. It was absolutely appalling in every way. I just think your assumption still attempts to indicate that the church was liable, if not by its Prophet, then at least by its doctrine or rhetoric.

Just my opinion. Thanks

Thanks for your considerate reply. I agree that the Bible is just as aggressive and militant as the BOM or D&C ("Veangance is mine..."). If you want me to quote scripture I can, but I think it's self-evident if you're familiar with it, as I assume you are.

I suggest you read more extensively about MMM. This attack was planned by local LDS leadership, at least.

[KDBowler]

Thanks for your considerate reply. I agree that the Bible is just as aggressive and militant as the BOM or D&C ("Veangance is mine..."). If you want me to quote scripture I can, but I think it's self-evident if you're familiar with it, as I assume you are.

I agree...

I suggest you read more extensively about MMM. This attack was planned by local LDS leadership, at least.

Please tell me how being planned by LDS leadership (also military leadership) invalidates my supposition that the driving force was fear of retaliation for the murders of a couple of men who had wandered from the wagon train?

I think had the doctrine or scripture been the driving force... you may have had more examples like this one during that period of history.

Just my opinion. Thanks

[KDBowler]

Also, in your previous post you stated that there was some evidence that BY ordered the massacre. I again ask for that evidence.

[Marvelous]

I agree...

Please tell me how being planned by LDS leadership (also military leadership) invalidates my supposition that the driving force was fear of retaliation for the murders of a couple of men who had wandered from the wagon train?

I think had the doctrine or scripture been the driving force... you may have had more examples like this one during that period of history.

Just my opinion. Thanks

Also, in your previous post you stated that there was some evidence that BY ordered the massacre. I again ask for that evidence.

There is convincing evidence that this attack was planned by Haight and other Church leaders. Some of that evidence has been presented within this thread. There is no historian since Juanita Brooks of whom I'm aware that denies that local LDS leadership planned the massacre before the Fancher party had arrived.

As far as evidence that BY may have ordered the attack, again some of it has been presented within this thread. Since I am not attempting to assert that he did, I don't want to take the time to provide citations.

If you truly want to know more, get one of the two histories mentioned earlier. They are both very serious and thorough.

[KDBowler]

Is there evidence that BY ordered MMM? Yes..

I've read the thread and I've read a considerable amount of information "trying" to link BY to the order. I wouldn't say there is any actual evidence of it. And since that was - at least in spirit - part of the request of this original OP, I thought you could end this thread with the direct evidence. I can find speculation, heresay, generalizations, preconceived feelings... but of evidence I can find none.

So, in light of that I believe that the proponderence of actual evidence indicates that BY did not order the attack. One piece of evidence would be the letter he sent back with Haslam. That document would rise to the level of evidence. Disputing his reasoning for writing it requires a serious conspiracy theory, and I'm sorry, theories don't rise to the test of evidence.

So, since you have failed to provide any evidence for your statement above, I conclude that there is none, and you introduced a supposition and held it to be fact without proof. That happens here alot, either by design of accident. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

There is convincing evidence that this attack was planned by Haight and other Church leaders. Some of that evidence has been presented within this thread. There is no historian since Juanita Brooks of whom I'm aware that denies that local LDS leadership planned the massacre before the Fancher party had arrived.

I have not tried to make an arguement that the attack wasn't planned by Haight and other leaders. Although in your response you capitalize Church and I again would like, in what I think is fairness, to remind you that they were also military leaders. So, I don't really need any evidence on your second line because we agree, and I did not make that arguement. As for a historian who would disagree....here is a quote from one.

Q: Why did the massacre happen?

So in my view it was naked fear--they were just scared to death that these guys were going to go on to California and report that Mormons had attacked them and this would bring them in a mob out of California. That's my view and the view of many other historians as well.

I appreciate your sincerity and civility. It can be difficult to have a very civil discussion about these types of issues. I believe educated people can have different opinions and I realize as I stated earlier that I come with a bias. I'd be lying if I said I didn't.

But that being said, I would like to believe that I am an honest person which means that I would not offer as fact that which was not fact. My problem with this whole issue is what I perceive to be the attempt to first; Link it to BY if at all possible, and if that becomes impossible by evidence, then use conjecture. Second; if the BY link cannot be made then link it to the LDS church as much as possible.

In fairness, you do not seem to have that as an agenda.

[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."

I am about to back my earlier claim that blood atonement is killing in Christâ??s name with citations from Brigham Young. Since my conclusion may depend upon my interpretation of Youngâ??s word, please tell me if you read him differently and why.

My first reason for saying this is simply that President Young attributed the teaching to Jesus. That in itself makes it â??in Christâ??s nameâ? in one sense. He said:

All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant. He never told a man or women to love their enemies in their wickedness, never. He never intended any such thing; his language is left as it is for those to read who have the Spirit to discern between truth and error; it was so left for those who can discern the things of God. Jesus Christ never meant that we should love a wicked man in his wickedness. [See context here: http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_04/refJDvol4-42.html]

In the second place, but more profoundly, blood atonement is an action of sacrifice. Young said:

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. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins. [See context here: http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_04/refJDvol4-10.html]

Nothing is more significant to me than that Young is using sacrificial language and reasoning. He speaks of smoke ascending to heaven in offering for appeasement. Though such a killing may resemble legal justice and capital punishment, the rationale is different. The rationale is sacrificial immolation.

Leaving aside the question of how sinnerâ??s blood would even be acceptable to God, it disturbs me sufficiently to observe that the offering of sin-sacrifices is a defining function of priesthood. Further, the offering of blood atonement would be an offering to God, presumably Heavenly Father. Since Christ is both our high priest and the one mediator between God and man, how could this offering not be in his name? This question seems especially pertinent since blood atonement is an offering unto salvation, yet Peter says of Christ "there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

[KDBowler]

Nothing is more significant to me than that Young is using sacrificial language and reasoning. He speaks of smoke ascending to heaven in offering for appeasement. Though such a killing may resemble legal justice and capital punishment, the rationale is different. The rationale is sacrificial immolation.

Leaving aside the question of how sinnerâ??s blood would even be acceptable to God, it disturbs me sufficiently to observe that the offering of sin-sacrifices is a defining function of priesthood. Further, the offering of blood atonement would be an offering to God, presumably Heavenly Father. Since Christ is both our high priest and the one mediator between God and man, how could this offering not be in his name? This question seems especially pertinent since blood atonement is an offering unto salvation, yet Peter says of Christ "there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

I'm not real familiar with this discussion, but in my naivite' let me tell you my interpretation. In the first section all I read is BY stating that we do not have to love a wicked man in his wickedness. And as for the "do you love that man or women enough to shed their blood?" This may have inferred that he believed that for some sins, there can be no forgiveness exept to atone for the spilling of innocent blood by giving their life. In effect, capital punishment.

As for the second part... I actually think this is quite clear. BY is simply saying that if we could truly know the punishment for some sins, then those who have committed those sins would rather die than face the pending punsihment, if their death would or could lessen that punishment.

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.

I don't see where he making a claim that it could help their case. I think his point is that they have no idea how bad the punishment will be.

But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spiritâ??and would that I might bnot drink the bitter cup, and shrinkâ??

Given this scripture... I can appreciate someone wanting to die rather than face certain punishments. I sometimes would rather die than go to the dentist. I would say that if I were listening to this, I would not be more inclined to spill innocent blood since that would place me directly in the position BY is warning me about.

Now, how any of that can be turned as leading to MMM.... I'm at a loss. But I'm willing to listen.

[Marvelous]

I've read the thread and I've read a considerable amount of information "trying" to link BY to the order. I wouldn't say there is any actual evidence of it. And since that was - at least in spirit - part of the request of this original OP, I thought you could end this thread with the direct evidence. I can find speculation, heresay, generalizations, preconceived feelings... but of evidence I can find none.

So, in light of that I believe that the proponderence of actual evidence indicates that BY did not order the attack. One piece of evidence would be the letter he sent back with Haslam. That document would rise to the level of evidence. Disputing his reasoning for writing it requires a serious conspiracy theory, and I'm sorry, theories don't rise to the test of evidence.

So, since you have failed to provide any evidence for your statement above, I conclude that there is none, and you introduced a supposition and held it to be fact without proof. That happens here alot, either by design of accident. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

I have not tried to make an arguement that the attack wasn't planned by Haight and other leaders. Although in your response you capitalize Church and I again would like, in what I think is fairness, to remind you that they were also military leaders. So, I don't really need any evidence on your second line because we agree, and I did not make that arguement. As for a historian who would disagree....here is a quote from one.

Q: Why did the massacre happen?

So in my view it was naked fear--they were just scared to death that these guys were going to go on to California and report that Mormons had attacked them and this would bring them in a mob out of California. That's my view and the view of many other historians as well.

I appreciate your sincerity and civility. It can be difficult to have a very civil discussion about these types of issues. I believe educated people can have different opinions and I realize as I stated earlier that I come with a bias. I'd be lying if I said I didn't.

But that being said, I would like to believe that I am an honest person which means that I would not offer as fact that which was not fact. My problem with this whole issue is what I perceive to be the attempt to first; Link it to BY if at all possible, and if that becomes impossible by evidence, then use conjecture. Second; if the BY link cannot be made then link it to the LDS church as much as possible.

In fairness, you do not seem to have that as an agenda.

Again, thanks for your considerate reply. As I stated in an earlier post, that BY was a powerful autocrat and exercised great control over the territory, in general, and the LDS people, in particular, is circumstantial evidence that he might have had some foreknowledge or involvement.

BY gave permission for the Indians to take emigrant livestock, which can be argued led to the assault. Ringleader John D. Lee said BY ordered it. BY made the MMM site remark about getting some vengeance himself. This is some of the evidence a prosecutor would use to try to convict BY. It doesn't meet the reasonable doubt standard, IMO, but it is incriminating evidence. I prefer to believe he didn't know.

[Marvelous]

Now, how any of that can be turned as leading to MMM.... I'm at a loss. But I'm willing to listen.

Since the Fancher party was rumored to include those involved in JS' murder, perhaps they felt justified.

[Calm]

I am about to back my earlier claim that blood atonement is killing in Christâ??s name with citations from Brigham Young. Since my conclusion may depend upon my interpretation of Youngâ??s word, please tell me if you read him differently and why.

I don't really have any argument with an interpretation of blood atonement as killing in Christ's name. I suppose the person doing the killing (not the person giving himself as a sacrifice) might be seen as an agent of Christ's will.

My question was pointed toward the MMM and why you saw that as an act of killing in Christ's name, at least in the perception of those involved. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

If I didn't, I'd like something more than just the assumption that the teachings of blood atonement, even if improperly applied, led to the MMM as I think this is one way evidence either for or against the influence of blood atonement on the motivations of the MMM participants could be demonstrated.

Do you have reason to believe the participants felt the MMM was "killing in Christ's name"?

[KDBowler]

Again, thanks for your considerate reply. As I stated in an earlier post, that BY was a powerful autocrat and exercised great control over the territory, in general, and the LDS people, in particular, is circumstantial evidence that he might have had some foreknowledge or involvement.

BY gave permission for the Indians to take emigrant livestock, which can be argued led to the assault. Ringleader John D. Lee said BY ordered it. BY made the MMM site remark about getting some vengeance himself. This is some of the evidence a prosecutor would use to try to convict BY. It doesn't meet the reasonable doubt standard, IMO, but it is incriminating evidence. I prefer to believe he didn't know.

OK... I'm going to let this one go because we generally agree at this point. However, I believe that Lee vehemetly denied BY ordered it in his diary 6 mos prior or 6 mos after his arrest. However, since his diary was presented after his death by his attorney... I agree that it would not hold up in court. The remark he made at the monument is debatable and hearsay at best.

Thanks

[KDBowler]

Since the Fancher party was rumored to include those involved in JS' murder, perhaps they felt justified.

Actually this was a response to another's post... but since you answered it. I agree "perhaps". But if you read it with my glasses, and see how severe the punishment would be for innocent blood...

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.

Notice that BY is referring to someone shedding his own blood and then it is not a recommendation from him. It is a metaphor to indicate how bad the punishment would be. So much so that they might beg someone to kill them in the hope that it might lessen their eternal punishment. I would think that if anything they would be less likely to perform the act.

This is one of those cases where two people can read the same quote and come away with 180 degree perceptions. And I am really tring to see the other side. But BY's statement looks very clear to me. And, what should be used as a quote that would exhonerate him has somehow been interpreted to condemn him.

Just my opinion. Thanks

[KDBowler]

I don't really have any argument with an interpretation of blood atonement as killing in Christ's name.

I still have the arguement... so after ansering calmoriah.. I stand waiting. Thanks

[Calm]

I still have the arguement... so after ansering calmoriah.. I stand waiting. Thanks

Just to be clear, I can see it as being read both ways and probably others as well.

[Marvelous]

Again, thanks for your considerate reply. As I stated in an earlier post, that BY was a powerful autocrat and exercised great control over the territory, in general, and the LDS people, in particular, is circumstantial evidence that he might have had some foreknowledge or involvement.

BY gave permission for the Indians to take emigrant livestock, which can be argued led to the assault. Ringleader John D. Lee said BY ordered it. BY made the MMM site remark about getting some vengeance himself. This is some of the evidence a prosecutor would use to try to convict BY. It doesn't meet the reasonable doubt standard, IMO, but it is incriminating evidence. I prefer to believe he didn't know.

I want to modify my own statement above. Although Lee may have implicated BY to confidants, he refused to do so in court.

[KDBowler]

I want to modify my own statement above. Although Lee may have implicated BY to confidants, he refused to do so in court.

Thanks for sharing your insights and information. I actually learn a lot about differing positions and points of views from those, like yourself, who stick to debating the evidence. Good, honest dialogue I think can be helpful to all.

[cdowis]

I don't really have any argument with an interpretation of blood atonement as killing in Christ's name. I suppose the person doing the killing (not the person giving himself as a sacrifice) might be seen as an agent of Christ's will.

I see "the execution of a criminal by legal means and procedures", or the principle of capital punishment.

I do not see "taking the law into your own hands, and becoming judge, jury and executioner" which is the antMormon version of this doctrine.

Bottom line, the doctrine of Blood Atonement is the religious basis for Capital Punishment. To associate this doctrine to MMM is absurd.

[Pahoran]

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:

Here we go again. Soren, however well read you may be on any subject, as someone who is not a believing Latter-day Saint, it is utterly beyond your competence to declare what is or is not--or was or was not--LDS doctrine, in any sense of the word. Only a believer can say what is primary or secondary, what matters or does not.

Brigham's "blood atonement" sermons simply developed a theory of capital punishment that had been in the background for centuries. (That is why judges used to say "and may God have mercy upon your soul" when pronouncing a death sentence.) His main intent seems to have been to use a kind of "hellfire and brimstone" approach to a congregation that did not believe in a literal burning hell.

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]

Thank you Soren.

"Blood Atonement" was never doctrine in any sense.

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.

What evidence have you that any part of the MMM was seen as "killing in the name of Christ?"

The initial attacks were carried out by Paiute Indians, mustered by John D. Lee. The basis seems to have been some bad behaviour on the part of some elements of the emigrant party. The reports of said bad behaviour are consistent, contemporaneous, and confirmed by sources untainted by participation in the massacre. Then, while besieged by the Indians, some young men from the party managed to break out and set off to get help. A group of Mormon observers, possibly mistaking their intentions, fired upon the group, killing two of them. The survivor returned to the encampment. Reports of this incident convinced Mormon leaders that the emigrants, if they survived, would make good on their threats to lead an army back from California to help finish the Mormon settlers off--and they'd have a valid Mormon atrocity story to back them up. Thus, an error in judgement turned a perception into a reality. The local leaders felt that they could not let the Fancher party survive. They no doubt thought they were acting to protect their people, when in fact all they were doing was covering their sins.

As I said, there is no part of these events that shows the Cedar City Saints in a favourable light. The provocations provided by the emigrants, while ill-judged and even malicious, were entirely insufficient to justify what followed. The real events are quite bad enough, IMHO, without hate-deranged demagogues trying to make them seem even worse.

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.

That's the trouble with things that are "too obvious": people draw conclusions from them without any analysis. Only when someone questions what seems "too obvious" does the analysis happen. The more I have learned about the events as they actually unfolded, the less I am convinced that "blood atonement" or any other doctrine or teaching or theory or idea ever had anything to do with it.

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.

That might be interesting. I fail entirely to see how it is parallel.

The causes of the MMM are far removed from LDS teaching, whether formal or informal, canonical or speculative. While some elements of LDS experience--including multiple dispossession and expulsion events and just disillusionment with government--might provide some important background to the events, the primary causes were immediate and local. If we insist in looking beyond those, we are brought back yet again to Johnston's Army.

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.

I'm inclined to agree.

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's unlikely to be any other. However, it is obvious to me that Brigham's statement is based upon the information he had received to that point, which included exaggerated allegations of hostility on the part of the emigrants, and that the Indians were the sole perpetrators of the massacre. Wilford Woodruff certainly recorded it that way. Also, we should remember that the "I" refers, not to Brigham himself, but to the Lord. Those who want to make his statement into some kind of admission of guilt are presumably rather ignorant of the Bible. (They might, of course, be arguing that position despite knowing better, but I prefer not to believe that of them.)

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.

Thank you. That is not always well understood around here.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

This is a point which I had planned to make. The comparison to modern-day Muslim terrorism is apt.

Actually it is the comparison of those who make that connection to such demagogues and hate-mongers as Goebbels that is apt.

The hostile language of LDS leaders (and LDS scripture) led to the hostility at MMM.

Really?

Then why is the history of America in the 19th century a long tale of blood and gore, with massacres committed by many people far removed from the baleful influence of "LDS leaders (and LDS scripture)?" Why is it that the people subjected to such influence committed only one such act, and that three hundred miles away from Brigham Young? Why were the military operations he personally directed both successful and bloodless, while the MMM was both bungled and bloody?

If "LDS leaders (and LDS scripture)" are actually to blame for the MMM, as you so fondly imagine, then why were they so ineffective as to bring about only one such event? Clearly they must have been pretty poor at getting things done, mustn't they?

And, no, I'm not claiming that it was the intention of LDS leaders to incite such crime. (At least I hope it was not.) However, had their instruction been uniformly charitable and benign, I seriously doubt MMM would have happened.

Right. Had their "instruction been uniformly charitable and benign" Buchanan would never have sent Johnston's army either, is that it?

To me, this is the relevance of MMM and one of the lessons to take from it.

And if you are ever personally threatened by invasion and dispossession, do please keep it in mind.

I'm glad you are so awfully superior to those poor benighted barbarians who were so wicked and ignorant as to be born in the 19th century.

Is there evidence that BY ordered MMM?

Not to any reasonable person, no.

Yes, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not even to the level of "reasonable suspicion."

Although I am no longer active or believing, I still identify with Latter-day Saints and wish the best for them and their church.

Of course you do. Repeat after me: "I just lurve the Mormon people."

I very much hope that BY didn't have foreknowledge.

I'm confident that your hope is unlikely to be disappointed.

On the other hand,

Here we go.

I have no doubt that the perpetrators believed that their actions were congruent with BY's wishes.

Really?

Then why did they go to the trouble of sending Haslam to find out what those wishes were? And why, after the event, did they go to such lengths to conceal their actions from Brigham?

I believe Haslam was sent to confirm this and seek counsel.

After the attack had already started? How lame an attempt to explain away the obvious is that?

There is no way they would have committed a crime of this enormity without believing that it was condoned.

He assumed, entirely without evidence.

It is precisely because of BY's pervasive influence and tight control that some scholars, including Brooks and Bagley, believe BY either ordered it, or had foreknowledge of it.

Please do not insult Brooks's memory by associating her with Bagley's bigotry. Brooks did not conclude that Brigham had any such "foreknowledge." Your argument is a transparent appeal to prejudice, in the worst traditions of the cheapest demagogues. How "tight" a "control" could Brigham possibly exert at a distance of more than three hundred miles, with no cellphones, email or even telegraph? Was Brigham's "control" so "tight" that they would have to sit on their hands in any emergency and wait for instructions from him? I'm sorry Marvelous, but the "blindly obedient mindless morgbot" is a creature that exists only in the trashiest of paperback fiction; it has no basis whatsoever in reality, and only cheap peddlers of cheap stereotypes rely upon it.

Regards,

Pahoran

There is convincing evidence that this attack was planned by Haight and other Church leaders. Some of that evidence has been presented within this thread. There is no historian since Juanita Brooks of whom I'm aware that denies that local LDS leadership planned the massacre before the Fancher party had arrived.

Er--no, that is not the case.

The massacre was not planned until the battle was well under way. There is no historian that I am aware of from any period who asserts that "local LDS leadership planned the massacre before the Fancher party had arrived." I'm not talking demagogues, I'm talking historians.

As far as evidence that BY may have ordered the attack, again some of it has been presented within this thread.

Really? Where?

Since I am not attempting to assert that he did, I don't want to take the time to provide citations.

So you're not "attempting to assert" it, but you still hope it will be believed.

And some people accuse me of being unkind when I point out how cowardly such tactics are.

If you truly want to know more, get one of the two histories mentioned earlier. They are both very serious and thorough.

Which "two histories" are those? Bagley's or Krakauer's? As hatchet jobs they are most comforting to those who are predisposed to want to believe them.

Again, thanks for your considerate reply. As I stated in an earlier post, that BY was a powerful autocrat and exercised great control over the territory, in general, and the LDS people, in particular, is circumstantial evidence that he might have had some foreknowledge or involvement.

No, it's not "circumstantial evidence." It is an "I wouldn't put it past him" opinion, otherwise known as an appeal to prejudice.

BY gave permission for the Indians to take emigrant livestock, which can be argued led to the assault. Ringleader John D. Lee said BY ordered it.

Did he? You have subsequently admitted that he did not say so in court. Where and when did he make this claim?

BY made the MMM site remark about getting some vengeance himself.

No. He didn't. That is a total misrepresentation of what was said.

This is some of the evidence a prosecutor would use to try to convict BY. It doesn't meet the reasonable doubt standard, IMO, but it is incriminating evidence.

Actually it doesn't rise to the level of evidence at all.

I prefer to believe he didn't know.

Then you must be immensely pleased with what I have posted.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Marvelous]

Again, there is no historian since Brooks with whom I'm aware who doesn't believe the attack was planned before the Fancher party arrived at Mountain Meadows. This took place in Cedar City at a meeting of the High Council.

"Figuring out what to do about the troublesome emigrants had obsessed the authorities in Cedar City since the waggon train left town on Friday evening. At their meeting around Dame's woodpile, the militia officers had decided to orchestrate an "Indian" attack on the Fancher train, but Isaac Haight needed public support for the plan. Haight raised the question on September 6, 1857 at a 'prayer circle, composed of the members of the Cedar Stake Presidency, Bishop Klingensmith and Counselors, and the members of the High Council.' Laban Morrill recalled the coucil generally met at about 4 o'clock, after Sunday services. Arriving late, he 'saw there a little excitement in regard to something [he] did not understand.' He 'inquired in a friendly way, what was up.' Morrill then heard many threats against the Fancher train. Haight and Klingensmith proposed killing the emigrants for boasting they had helped to murder Joseph Smith. John Higbee, perhaps humiliated by his failure to arrest the party's outriders, agreed. (Blood of the Prophets, p. 126; footnote is "Elias Morris, statement, 2 February 1892, Mountain Meadows File, LDS archives, 2-3; Laban Morrill testimony, Gibbs, The Mountain Meadows Massacre, 48-49. Morris recalled that those who "opposed severe measures were John Morris, Laban Morrill, Hopkins, Pugmire, Elias Morris and others." Kate Carter, longtime president of the Daughters of Utah Pioneers, boasted that tshe burned the original minutes of this Stake High Council meeting

As far as the role of LDS belief and rhetoric, both researchers with the best grasp of all the facts (Brooks and Bagley) feel it played a significant role. I am confident that the perpetrators believed their actions would be condoned by BY, or they wouldn't have proceeded. These were faithful Priestood holders and leaders. Isaac Haight was Stake President. To settle the Southern Utah area, they had made considerable sacrifices at the request of BY. Given the rhetoric of Church leaders, most recently Apostle George A. Smith, concerning vengeance, I believe they felt justified in carrying out this perfidy.

[cdowis]

Again, there is no historian since Brooks with whom I'm aware who doesn't believe the attack was planned before the Fancher party arrived at Mountain Meadows. This took place in Cedar City at a meeting of the High Council.

Our discussion is focused on whether BY ordered or had complicity in the MMM.

As far as the role of LDS belief and rhetoric, both researchers with the best grasp of all the facts (Brooks and Bagley) feel it played a significant role.

Apparently you espouse the absurd notion that we should let the "experts" do the thinking for us. On the other hand, many of us on this forum prefer the "give us the facts and let us come to our own conclusions".

I am familiar with many other forums which follow your philosophy, but if you choose to talk with us, you might change your logic in your posts before we laugh you right out of the forum.

I am confident that the perpetrators believed their actions would be condoned by BY, or they wouldn't have proceeded.

Since your "confidence" is based on a logical fallacy (see above), since your thinking is dictated by someone whose research and conclusions have already been refuted (see my previous post on a review of Bagley), why should we be interested in what you think?

These were faithful Priestood holders and leaders. Isaac Haight was Stake President. To settle the Southern Utah area, they had made considerable sacrifices at the request of BY. Given the rhetoric of Church leaders, most recently Apostle George A. Smith, concerning vengeance, I believe they felt justified in carrying out this perfidy.

Again, this thread is about BY.