A Question About Bagley's Claim.

[Marvelous]

I'm responding to Pahoran's denials. Why haven't you corrected him when he's deviated?

The idea that the perpetrators were heavily influenced by their Church affiliation is perfectly reasonable when one is familiar with early Utah history. I'm suggesting that informed and scholarly sources recognize this. Perhaps your faith has blinded you.

[Pahoran]

Marvelous,

can you please be so kind as to leave the goal posts in the ground? I'd appreciate it.

You originally wrote:

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.

To which I responded:

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.

And now in a truly "Marvelous" display of fancy footwork, you write:

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.

That "again" is intended to give the impression that you are reiterating your original point, when in fact, as you and I both perfectly well know, you are shifting your ground.

It is true that the initial attack was planned, evidently between Haight and Lee, on the evening of Friday September 4. But there is no evidence whatsoever that the planned attack contemplated an actual massacre. That is a rather substantial leap of your own. Furthermore, in the meeting you mention--at which time the Fancher party was already encamped at the Meadows--it was decided that the attack should not go ahead. The decision was made then that nothing should be done to interfere with the Fancher party without first consulting the territorial governor to discover (1) what their military orders were, and (2) whether the train fell within the scope thereof. I emphasise that the decision to ask Brigham for instructions had been made before a shot had even been fired in anger; the frequently reiterated claim that Haslam was sent in response to an initial defeat is a brazen fabrication. (The trouble was that the militia communications were not up to snuff, and Lee didn't get notified that the attack was called off until after it was already under way. Contrary to the utterly vile falsehood about "LDS disguised as Indians," Lee admitted being the only white man on the ground at the time of the initial attack on Monday.)

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.

Here is what Brooks actually said on the subject:

"All these [religious and other considerations] carried some weight," she said. "But military orders brought them to the scene; military orders placed each man where he was to do his duty." (Quoted by Briggs in Sunstone. Not FARMS, but Sunstone.)

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

And they were considerably less confident than you, as is evidenced by the fact that they did their level best to conceal the truth from him for as long as possible.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Marvelous]

Marvelous,

can you please be so kind as to leave the goal posts in the ground? I'd appreciate it.

You originally wrote:

To which I responded:

And now in a truly "Marvelous" display of fancy footwork, you write:

That "again" is intended to give the impression that you are reiterating your original point, when in fact, as you and I both perfectly well know, you are shifting your ground.

It is true that the initial attack was planned, evidently between Haight and Lee, on the evening of Friday September 4. But there is no evidence whatsoever that the planned attack contemplated an actual massacre. That is a rather substantial leap of your own. Furthermore, in the meeting you mention--at which time the Fancher party was already encamped at the Meadows--it was decided that the attack should not go ahead.

Regards,

Pahoran

I don't have time to provide a complete response but I would like to at least get the timetable right. The Fancher party arrived in Cedar City on Friday, September 4. They almost certainly left the next day and proceeded about thirty-five miles to Mountain Meadows. They arrived there the evening of Sunday, September 6, the train's last wagons probably arriving after dark. The High Council meeting at which the attack was planned commenced at 4:00 p.m. that same Sunday. The meeting preceded the Fancher party's arrival at Mountain Meadows.

[Pahoran]

I don't have time to provide a complete response but I would like to at least get the timetable right. The Fancher party arrived in Cedar City on Friday, September 4. They almost certainly left the next day and proceeded about thirty-five miles to Mountain Meadows. They arrived there the evening of Sunday, September 6, the train's last wagons probably arriving after dark. The High Council meeting at which the attack was planned commenced at 4:00 p.m. that same Sunday. The meeting preceded the Fancher party's arrival at Mountain Meadows.

Are you perchance channelling the spirit of our dear Theophilus? Your ability to use irrelevancies as a distraction tactic is beginning to uncannily resemble his.

The substantive points at issue are these:

1) There is not a shred of evidence whatsoever that the attack was planned to result in a massacre.

2) The meeting of the evening of September 6, which you erroneously identify as the one "at which the attack was planned," actually resulted in a decision not to attack.

And you still have yet to find a single reputable historian who supports your assertion that "local LDS leadership planned the massacre before the Fancher party had arrived." Bagley, I'm afraid, will simply not do, given that his opinions are for sale to the highest bidder.

Incidentally, since, by your own admission, the Fancher party reached Cedar City before the meeting between Haight and Lee in which the attack was actually planned, that "before they arrived" is a very patent falsehood. Unless you mean "before they arrived at the ambush point," which is an entirely trivial observation; that is the nature of ambuscades, in which the killing ground is selected before the enemy have occupied it, and does not support your desperate desire to implicate high Church leaders, which desire becomes more obvious each time you try to dissemble it.

As the unfolding of events clearly shows, the operation was planned, not in obedience to orders from Salt Lake, but in response to the actual presence of the emigrant party. If you did genuinely "very much hope that BY didn't have foreknowledge," this fact would be a source of considerable comfort to you, instead of being a constant irritant that you continuously try to brush aside.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Marvelous]

It may be a couple of days before I can provide a full response. In the meantime, what do you think the object of their plan was?

[Pahoran]

It may be a couple of days before I can provide a full response. In the meantime, what do you think the object of their plan was?

Given that the participants' statements are replete with denials and attempts to shift the blame, this is not such an easy question to answer. The whole affair was clearly botched and bungled at every turn, which makes it almost as difficult to see just what the plan itself was. Once we understand that, it becomes easier to distinguish its object.

So, what do you think the plan was?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

It may be a couple of days before I can provide a full response.

Marvelous,

you have made four posts in three threads since the above. If you want to make an accusation stick, it really is incumbent upon you to be a little more diligent in supporting your claims. It is quite unfair, both to the accused and to those waiting to evaluate the evidence, to simply leave an accusation, whether explicit or implicit, hanging unsupported. When should we expect to see your full response?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Marvelous]

Given that the participants' statements are replete with denials and attempts to shift the blame, this is not such an easy question to answer. The whole affair was clearly botched and bungled at every turn, which makes it almost as difficult to see just what the plan itself was. Once we understand that, it becomes easier to distinguish its object.

So, what do you think the plan was?

Regards,

Pahoran

Marvelous,

you have made four posts in three threads since the above. If you want to make an accusation stick, it really is incumbent upon you to be a little more diligent in supporting your claims. It is quite unfair, both to the accused and to those waiting to evaluate the evidence, to simply leave an accusation, whether explicit or implicit, hanging unsupported. When should we expect to see your full response?

Regards,

Pahoran

Hopefully, tomorrow! In the meantime, what seems unfair to me that you are so very critical of Theo and my explanations for the perpetrators' actions when you admit to being confused. Which is it? Are you confident about what happened and why, or not? If so, please explain. If not, please be less strident in criticizing others' comments.

As far as diligence, how much evidence have you provided to support your contrary stance?

Earlier in the thread, when Theo promised to return and was absent for a few days, you and others were disparaging of him. Well, I have checked in to reassure you and others that I haven't forgotten my promise and you are unappeased. I wish I could devote more time to this bulletin board, but life intervenes.

[Pahoran]

Hopefully, tomorrow! In the meantime, what seems unfair to me that you are so very critical of Theo and my explanations for the perpetrators' actions when you admit to being confused. Which is it?

Which is what? And where did I "admit to being confused?" I'm unaware of making any such admission.

Are you confident about what happened and why, or not? If so, please explain. If not, please be less strident in criticizing others' comments.

As far as diligence, how much evidence have you provided to support your contrary stance?

I'm sorry, are you perhaps labouring under the misapprehension that accusations can be established by default? Do you suppose that we bear an equal burden of proof?

If so, you are sadly mistaken.

If you want to accuse Brigham of ordering the MMM, or of giving anyone the impression, in advance, that he wouldn't really mind, or whatever angle of attack looks most promising as of this moment--which will probably change in the next ten minutes anyway--then you shoulder the entire burden of proof. I don't have to provide counter-evidence until you've made some attempt to support your accusations.

Earlier in the thread, when Theo promised to return and was absent for a few days, you and others were disparaging of him. Well, I have checked in to reassure you and others that I haven't forgotten my promise and you are unappeased. I wish I could devote more time to this bulletin board, but life intervenes.

Indeed it always does.

And in the meantime, your accusations remain unsupported.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Theophilus07]

Do you suppose that we bear an equal burden of proof?

If so, you are sadly mistaken.

Ah, Pahoran, let it never be said that now and then you never stumbled, however inadvertantly, on the truth.

Theophilus07

[cdowis]

Ah, Pahoran, let it never be said that now and then you never stumbled, however inadvertantly, on the truth.

Theophilus07

Can we assume this is your response to our continued inquiries? That you now basically admit to the utter failure of your ability to respond?

This is your apology?

[Theophilus07]

Can we assume this is your response to our continued inquiries? That you now basically admit to the utter failure of your ability to respond?

This is your apology?

Not at all. I suggest you've completely misread and completely misunderstood my response to Pahoran.

Theophilus07

[Pahoran]

Ah, Pahoran, let it never be said that now and then you never stumbled, however inadvertantly, on the truth.

Theophilus07

Actually Theophilus, as you know, in this thread I have invariably stuck to the truth, despite the fact that its logical negation has been consistently and intentionally asserted.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Earlier in the thread, when Theo promised to return and was absent for a few days, you and others were disparaging of him. Well, I have checked in to reassure you and others that I haven't forgotten my promise and you are unappeased. I wish I could devote more time to this bulletin board, but life intervenes.

Please note that I don't want you to feel disparaged. I am not here to disparage you. I just want you to feel encouraged that I have not lost interest in your forthcoming contribution.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Theophilus07]

Please note that I don't want you to feel disparaged. I am not here to disparage you. I just want you to feel encouraged that I have not lost interest in your forthcoming contribution.

Regards,

Pahoran

Okay, who are you and what have you done with the real Pahoran?

Theophilus07

[Pahoran]

Okay, who are you and what have you done with the real Pahoran?

Theophilus07

The real Pahoran is waiting for you to explain your false claims on this thread, of course.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

It looks like time is running out for polemical exploitation of this tragedy.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cdowis]

Not at all. I suggest you've completely misread and completely misunderstood my response to Pahoran.

Theophilus07

I am talking about your response (lack of response) to my post. You made a very BIG deal on BY's words to the southern Indians, but are strangely silent on his northern visit. Using basically the same words with both tribes (which you apparently were not aware), we are asking for your explanation on how BY was encouraging the northern tribes to attack the Faucher party. Your logic appears to fall apart on that point.

Help us with that misunderstanding, please. It is the central argument in your post, as I read it, and now you seem rather reluctant to clarify things.

You've had the weekend to think about it.

[selek]

I am talking about your response (lack of response) to my post. You made a very BIG deal on BY's words to the southern Indians, but are strangely silent on his northern visit. Using basically the same words with both tribes (which you apparently were not aware), we are asking for your explanation on how BY was encouraging the northern tribes to attack the Faucher party. Your logic appears to fall apart on that point.

Help us with that misunderstanding, please. It is the central argument in your post, as I read it, and now you seem rather reluctant to clarify things.

You've had the weekend to think about it.

Just a bump to remind Theo that he has other threads in which he can't answer a direct, but relevant question.

Fifteen straight posts and nothing but sneering, evasion, and disingenuousness.

I think Theo7 is going for the record.

Care to prove me wrong, Theo?

[Theophilus07]

Please don't take this thread off topic. I hope this thread...it may be a short one...is intended to be the most narrow and focused in the history of Mormon discussion boards.

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.

Regards,

Six

Let me remind Pahoran that the above story in which "Brigham Young desperately sent messangers down south to prevent the Saints from doing any harm to the wagon trains," was not, as you claimed, deliberately fabricated by me. It was Bsix's original post and I think it reflects the beliefs of some apologists to deflect any possible blame from Brigham Young.

The answer to Bsix's question is that while the idea is romantic and faith-promoting of a pack of LDS riders galloping hell-bent-for-leather to Cedar City dispatched unilaterally and desperately by Brigham Young to save the Fancher party, but it's not what can be documented. There was only one messenger, James Haslam, and he wasn't initiated by Brigham Young at all, he was initiated by the Cedar City High Council AFTER the morning attack. There is evidence that Brigham Young gave him an answer to whatever question he brought, but there is no evidence that if the High Council hadn't dispatched James Haslam, Brigham Young would have done anything.

Iâ??d like to recap what we don't know and what we DO know about the MMM versus the criticsâ?? and apologistsâ?? interpretations.

We don't know if Brigham Young ordered the massacre. Any conclusions about Young's possible blame are completely subjective and probably based on whether you're an apologist or a critic.

We don't know what the Cedar City High Council asked Brigham Young in the message which James Haslam carried to SLC. Because Brigham Young's surviving response told the Saints to leave the Fancher party alone, it is probable that the original question may have had something to do with what the Cedar City Saints were to do with the wagon train.

We do know that before Johnstonâ??s Army arrived in the north to depose Brigham Young and before the Fancher Party arrived in Utah and was dispatched on the southern route, the Utah Territory had undergone what historians call the Utah Reformation in which Brigham Young and other GAs preached Blood Atonement.

We do know that Brigham Young held a meeting in SLC with the chiefs of Indian tribes from northern and southern Utah and promised them the cattle of outsiders passing through the Territory. Stealing the cattle of Johnstonâ??s Army (â??scatteringâ? them in the LDS interpretation) in the north may well have been an â??act of war,â? but the Fancher party deep in southern Utah had nothing to do with war and Brigham Young didnâ??t have the legal title to the Francher cattle.

We do know that speeches and sermons in Church by LDS GAs and local leaders advocated violence against outsiders passing through the Territory. Apostle George A. Smith, on a speaking tour of southern Utah just before the Fancher party made it to Cedar City, made rousing speeches advocating violence against outsiders, speeches which even FAIR called â??incendiary.â?

[http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Shining_New_Light_on_the_Mountain_Meadows_Massacre.html]

The Sunday before the Monday attack, Pres. Haight of Cedar City gave a sermon advocating violence to any outsiders. We donâ??t know what listeners in Cedar City to either Apostle Smith or Pres. Haight would have understood what was meant by â??outsiders,â? but we do know that Johnstonâ??s Army was many daysâ?? travel far to the north and the only outsiders near Cedar City was the Fancher party passing by.

We do know that, contrary to Pahoranâ??s claims, no messenger was sent from Cedar City before the attack. The attack started early that Monday morning and the Cedar City High Council did not send James Haslam to BY until that afternoon. We know that Cedar City men from the Nauvoo Legion did not stop the fighting to wait to hear what message Haslam might bring back from Brigham Young. After the messenger was sent; they (and few of the Indians â?? more about this it a moment) continued to shoot at the Fancher wagon train for the next four days.

We do know, contrary to Pahoranâ??s claims, that the Cedar City Saints did most of the killing and that the numbers of Indians involved was exaggerated. According to the June 2, 2007 LDS Church News article â??Remembering Mountain Meadows,â? by R. Scott Lloyd,

â??He [Richard E. Turley, Jr., Church Historian Turley] added that white men did most of the killing and that later, the numbers of Indians involved was exaggerated.â?

We do know, contrary to Pahoranâ??s claims, that the Paiute Indiansâ?? attack on Monday failed because of stiff Fancher party defense and the LDS Cedar City Saints had to move in to finish the job. According to the June 2, 2007 Church News article,

"In the initial attack, Isaac Haight, a stake president and militia leader in Cedar City, endeavored to incite Paiute Indians to attack the emigrant train because he had been denied permission by militia commander William Dame to use white men. The plan faltered, Brother Turley said, â??in part because this was not the Paiutes' fight. They're promised some horses and guns [and cattle], but they quickly withdrew.â??

The intent from the start was to blame the attack on the Indians, â??but it was quickly determined that it was impossible to have it happen that way,â?? he said, â??so they brought in white men to finish up the job.â??â?

We do know that Haslam with Brigham Youngâ??s message to leave the wagon train alone, did not arrive until after the massacre was over and that the Saints did not wait for Brigham Youngâ??s response, but shot at the wagon train all through the five days of the massacre.

We do know that the massacre was a long ordeal which lasted from Mondayâ??s early morning initial attack until Friday, when the Cedar City militia with a few Indians under the leadership of John Lee, still without receipt of Brigham Youngâ??s message with Haslam, betrayed an arrainged surrender of the wagon trainâ??s surviving defenders and slaughtered all the men, women, and even children over the age of about 6-8 [no one was checking birth certificates to check the age, it was done strictly by sight determination].

The new article in the LDS Church News appears to admit that two factors of the prior LDS presentation of the MMM have been incorrect. One was the admission [documented above] that the Saints did indeed intend to have the Indians do most of the killing so the Church could blame the Indians. Another admission [also documented above] was that the initial attack was indeed repulsed by the Fancher party so white men had to be called in to take over most of the fighting and killing. I look forward to the publication of Turleyâ??s LDS Church-sanctioned MMM book to see if the Church makes other admissions.

Theophilus07

[pcarthew]

Please don't take this thread off topic. I hope this thread...it may be a short one...is intended to be the most narrow and focused in the history of Mormon discussion boards.

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.

Regards,

Six

There is no evidence at all that Birgham ordered it, none what so ever.

[Scott Lloyd]

The new article in the LDS Church News appears to admit that two factors of the prior LDS presentation of the MMM have been incorrect. One was the admission [documented above] that the Saints did indeed intend to have the Indians do most of the killing so the Church could blame the Indians. Another admission [also documented above] was that the initial attack was indeed repulsed by the Fancher party so white men had to be called in to take over most of the fighting and killing. I look forward to the publication of Turleyâ??s LDS Church-sanctioned MMM book to see if the Church makes other admissions.

Theophilus07

If you are going to quote my Church News article, do not engage in the favorite anti-Mormon pastime of distortion and mischaracterization.

Nothing in our Church News coverage of the recent Mormon History Association tour to Mountain Meadows states or implies that there was direction or complicity on the part of "the Church" in the massacre. Rather, it was evidently a local affair in which the Iron County settlers let their militant fervor over the wrongs suffered in Missouri and Illinois, their fear about the approach of Johnston's Army and their indignation over the behavior of a few hotheads among the emigrant party get out of hand. And there was a sidebar article -- part of the new "Insights & Analyses" series -- in which Rick Turley is quoted as giving four reasons out of several for concluding that Brigham Young had no part in the massacre. This you have conveniently ignored.

You are thus uttering a falsehood when you imply that the intent of "the Church" was to have the Indians do most of the killing so that "the Church" could blame the Indians.

Shame on you.

As for alleged "admissions" by the Church or the Church News, to what "prior LDS presentation of the MMM" are you referring?

[JNclone]

If you are going to quote my Church News article, do not engage in the favorite anti-Mormon pastime of distortion and mischaracterization.

Nothing in our Church News coverage of the recent Mormon History Association tour to Mountain Meadows states or implies that there was direction or complicity on the part of "the Church" in the massacre. Rather, it was evidently a local affair in which the Iron County settlers let their militant fervor over the wrongs suffered in Missouri and Illinois, their fear about the approach of Johnston's Army and their indignation over the behavior of a few hotheads among the emigrant party get out of hand.

I am in no position to comment on the historical questions about who bore responsibility here - let others argues about that. But the phrase 'get out of hand' is really choice!

Scene: The reception suite of the Other Side.

The Recording Angel has just played back the full holographic DVD of the whole massacre to a member of the Iron County militia, newly passed on, and a candidate for Exaltation, There is surround sound, so you can hear the thudding crunch of rifle stocks on kids' heads as their skulls are smashed, and there is smell-o-vision so you can smell the blood on the ground, you can hear the teenage girls pleading for mercy before they are shot ... the playback comes to an end. Retching slightly, the Recording Angel (who is new to this job - mostly he has had to deal with Word of Wisdom violations so far) turns to the figure in front of him, who shifts a little uneasily in his chair.

"So .... why? How could you do that to those innocent women and kids?"

"Er ... well you see - things just got out of hand!"

I haven't seen you add much. You are a sockpuppet and the snickering is wearing on my nerves, especially when the flaming is tasteless. ~ moderator

[Scott Lloyd]

I am in no position to comment on the historical questions about who bore responsibility here - let others argues about that. But the phrase 'get out of hand' is really choice!

Scene: The reception suite of the Other Side.

The Recording Angel has just played back the full holographic DVD of the whole massacre to a member of the Iron County militia, newly passed on, and a candidate for Exaltation, There is surround sound, so you can hear the thudding crunch of rifle stocks on kids' heads as their skulls are smashed, and there is smell-o-vision so you can smell the blood on the ground, you can hear the teenage girls pleading for mercy before they are shot ... the playback comes to an end. Retching slightly, the Recording Angel (who is new to this job - mostly he has had to deal with Word of Wisdom violations so far) turns to the figure in front of him, who shifts a little uneasily in his chair.

"So .... why? How could you do that to those innocent women and kids?"

"Er ... well you see - things just got out of hand!"

There was no intent on my part to minimize the heinous nature of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and I'm sorry that you inferred such from my phrasing.

Others have commented elsewhere on this board that my Church News article didn't mince words or pull any punches. (Evidently Theophilus quite liked it.)

So please try not to make me an offender for a word.

[Theophilus07]

If you are going to quote my Church News article, do not engage in the favorite anti-Mormon pastime of distortion and mischaracterization.

If you think your apologist colleagues don't distort and mischaractize, you're just fooling yourself. Indeed, one of the LDS distortions frequently heard from LDS sources (including several articles from FAIR) is the widely distributed Mormon Myth that the "Indians Did Most of It," and I thank you for presenting authoritative LDS information contradicting that. That will go a long ways to minimize the LDS distortion and mischaractarization. I'm sure you would want to minimize distortion and characterization from ANY source.

For that matter, I thought your article was excellent and pulled no punches. As a result, I suggest you might wish to brace yourself for zings not only from us critics, but also from LDS who have only been taught the LDS distortions and mischaracterizations and will find your more accurate reporting to be non faith-promoting. At the same time, I'm fascinated that you show up very abruptly at 5:37AM your time to respond to my post at 2:24AM my time. Depending on your time zone, there couldn't have been more than three or four hours after my post in the middle of the night until you wake up (or are awakened by someone) read my post, compose your response, and hit the "Add Reply" button. If someone woke you up to respond to me, I apologize. I would have appreciated your response even at a more reasonable hour. At the same time, I'll admit I'm very impressed at your flurry of early morning activity just to respond to little old me.

Nothing in our Church News coverage of the recent Mormon History Association tour to Mountain Meadows states or implies that there was direction or complicity on the part of "the Church" in the massacre.

If you're going to ask me not to engage in distortion and mischaracterization, you'll have to refrain from it yourself. It is at least disengenuous (if not a full distortion and mischaracterization) to deny "Church" involvement when major players in both the actual killing attacks and shooting and the inflammatory rhetoric advocating violence to outsiders which preceeded the massacre consisted of the local stake president Haight, bishop Klingensmith, and the Cedar City High Council which unilaterally dispatched a rider to ask Brigham Young what to do about the wagon train (while continuing to press the killings and not waiting for an answer).

It would be impossible to get more Church involvement than that.

If you now wish to make a distinction between local Church activity and Church headquarters [which you did NOT do yourself in your own post], you may wish to consider how this rather feeble distinction will play with the thoughtful readers of this thread. I suspect some of them will consider the distinction a rhetorical one, not a substantive one, and will view your distinction as an evasion (another form of distortion and mischaracterization).

Rather, it was evidently a local affair in which the Iron County settlers let their militant fervor over the wrongs suffered in Missouri and Illinois, their fear about the approach of Johnston's Army ...

I again appeal to you, Brother Lloyd, to refrain from LDS distortion and mischaracterization. You may wish to check your Utah maps. Johnston's Army wasn't approaching anywhere near Cedar City (and, never would, for that matter) and by the time the massacre started, the Fancher train was already past Cedar City in a hurry to get to California and away from the hostile threatening LDS. Indeed, the Fancher party was, according to your article, 35 miles south of Cedar City at Mountain Meadows, a full day's ride one-way on horseback from Cedar City so the Saints there were in absolutely no danger whatsoever before the attacks started.

... and their indignation over the behavior of a few hotheads among the emigrant party get out of hand. And there was a sidebar article -- part of the new "Insights & Analyses" series -- in which Rick Turley is quoted as giving four reasons out of several for concluding that Brigham Young had no part in the massacre. This you have conveniently ignored.

Again, I appeal to you to refrain from LDS distortion and mischaracterization. My post to which you responded had, as one of its very first points, my explicit statement:

We don't know if Brigham Young ordered the massacre. Any conclusions about Young's possible blame are completely subjective and probably based on whether you're an apologist or a critic.

My post included what we DO know and what we DON'T know. Turley's conclusions about Pres. Young's possible blame are certainly his subjective opinions to which he has every right, but his conclusions are NOT uncontested facts. I didn't include his subjective opinions because (1) I did not have a copy of the whole Church News edition so I didn't know the sidebar even existed, and (2) even if I had read the sidebare, Church Historian Turley's subjective opinions are not uncontested facts. My inclusion of my statement that we do NOT know if Pres. Young ordered the massacre was an explicit inclusion of the point you claim I left out. By ignoring that explicit statement at the very beginning of my post and claiming I omitted what is in fact prominently included in black and white, you have mischaracterized my meaning. In light of your fine article, I ask you to refrain from such mischaracterizations and misrepresentations.

You are thus uttering a falsehood when you imply that the intent of "the Church" was to have the Indians do most of the killing so that "the Church" could blame the Indians.

Shame on you.

I appeal yet again to you, Brother Lloyd, to refrain from distortion, mischaracterization, and to this I add an appeal to refrain from unjustifiable ad hominal attacks on my personal integrity.

If you will reread my post, you will see that the first mention of the Church's intent to blame the Indians was your words quoted accurately from your article in which you yourself did not differentiate between Church headquarters or the local Church authorities.

"In the initial attack, Isaac Haight, a stake president and militia leader in Cedar City, endeavored to incite Paiute Indians to attack the emigrant train because he had been denied permission by militia commander William Dame to use white men. The plan faltered, Brother Turley said, â??in part because this was not the Paiutes' fight. They're promised some horses and guns [and cattle], but they quickly withdrew.â??

The intent from the start was to blame the attack on the Indians, â??but it was quickly determined that it was impossible to have it happen that way,â?? he said, â??so they brought in white men to finish up the job.â??â?

Nowhere in your statement did you make a differentiation between intent at Church headquarters or intent at the local Church authority level. At the end of my post, I mentioned your quotation as an admission that the "Saints" (used throughout my post consistently to refer to the local Cedar City LDS not Church headquarters) ntended to blame the Indians for the slaughter. To consequently characterize my accurate quotation of your own words as a falsehood is completely unjustified and offensive. I must ask for an apology because I've just documented that you zinged me for something you yourself said -- and I didn't.

As for alleged "admissions" by the Church or the Church News, to what "prior LDS presentation of the MMM" are your referring?

That's grist for another day, since I have a life outside this forum to which to attend. But I'll return when I have time (and hopefully no one will wake me up in the very early hours of the morning to respond to you). In the meantime, some of the frequently encountered LDS presentations of the MMM can be read in

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...s_Massacre.html

In parting, may I again commend your for the quality of the writing in your article, your honesty, your accuracy, and your courage in entering the fray.

Theophilus07

I was thinking about your posts and decided it wasn't so much what was in your insults as how much of them you can pack into one post. A reporter isn't responsible for what all apologists and what every member thinks so you aren't even on topic with the flying slams. You are on your last leg here one more complaint and you are out. ~ Mods