Massacre At Mountain Meadows

[Scott Lloyd]

So Scott,

Do you believe if the authors had found a smoking gun that Brigham Young was a murder, the Church leadership would make those facts know to the public? Even if it meant damaging the Church's Mission?

In other words, do I believe Turley and the leaders of the Church were lying about this? No.

[TAK]

In other words, do I believe Turley and the leaders of the Church were lying about this? No.

I did not ask you if you thought they were lying - it was straight yes or no questions..

"Do you believe if the authors had found a smoking gun that Brigham Young was a murder, the Church leadership would make those facts know to the public? Even if it meant damaging the Church's Mission?"

[emeliza]

I did not ask you if you thought they were lying - it was straight yes or no questions..

"Do you believe if the authors had found a smoking gun that Brigham Young was a murder, the Church leadership would make those facts know to the public? Even if it meant damaging the Church's Mission?"

Do you mean was a murderer?

[Log]

Correct answer: "Yes. The Church appears to act with forthrightness about its history, even when it would appear that certain aspects would damage the Church's mission. For example, the Church did not seek to suppress the Salamander letter, which cast grave doubt upon the foundational story of the Church's founding, but rather published it."

[Scott Lloyd]

I did not ask you if you thought they were lying - it was straight yes or no questions..

"Do you believe if the authors had found a smoking gun that Brigham Young was a murder, the Church leadership would make those facts know to the public? Even if it meant damaging the Church's Mission?"

Which is tantamount to asking if Turley and the Church leaders were lying when they said they would.

So I've answered the question.

[Scott Lloyd]

7,500 views and counting, folks. And more than 500 posts.

This thread started out rather slowly but has really taken off.

[Scott Lloyd]

Which is tantamount to asking if Turley and the Church leaders were lying when they said they would.

So I've answered the question.

Do you think Turley and the Church leaders were lying, TAK?

[TAK]

Which is tantamount to asking if Turley and the Church leaders were lying when they said they would.

So I've answered the question.

No you have not.

[ttribe]

No you have not.

I believe Scott has answered your question, but I can also see why you think he might be doing so in a bit of cagey fashion.

Not that I matter, but I'll answer your question (although you haven't shown me the same courtesy):

"Do you believe if the authors had found a smoking gun that Brigham Young was a murder, the Church leadership would make those facts know to the public? Even if it meant damaging the Church's Mission?"

My answer - Yes.

[emeliza]

My understanding is that all the documents that Turley, Walker and Leonard had access to for this are going to be available to the public or researchers of the subject. If that is true (and I might be mistaken) wouldn't it be hard to hide such a smoking gun.

However if hypothetically the authors did uncover that BY had committed a murder, I believe it would probably be pushed towards being a Moses type situation. I don't think it would be hidden though.

Of course I don't believe that is the case either, but I am attempting to go along with the hypothetical laid out.

[Scott Lloyd]

No you have not.

I answered your question while putting it in the context of our discussion here.

What reason do you think I would have for believing Turley and the Church leaders lied?

[Pahoran]

But does Elder Roberts say the rumors were false and/or the Fancher train did not deserve to be murdered?

As you are no doubt intelligent enough to realise, the two things are not the same. No, he did not say the rumours were false, but yes, he absolutely and emphatically declared that the emigrants did not deserve to be murdered.

Thank you for leading with the chin on that one, Tak.

This notion of â??Official Churchâ? anything â?? doctrine, teaching or policy are really hollow arguments.

That claim is, as you know and clearly intended, entirely false. Theophilus07 falsely accused the Church of teaching its members that the emigrants "had it coming." (Yes, I know he didn't name names, and coyly tried to obfuscate his accusation by relying upon the disingenuous passive voice, but there is nobody else teaching the members en masse about the history of the Church.)

He lied.

You support him in that.

Our esteemed friend Dr. Peterson must have at least a 100 posts on a single MMM thread on the Board-That-Cannot-Be-Named, many of which are trying to convince critics that the Church does not have an â??Official Policyâ? to hide truths that are harmful to the Church, that truth is not secondary to the Church mission â?? despite comments from Elders Packer, Oaks and Ballard to the contrary, and that if the authors of MMM had uncovered a smoking gun that would have implicated Brigham Young as a murderer, the Church would allow that information to be published.

Which has been abundantly documented.

And which is not contrary to anything said by Elders Packer, Oaks and Ballard.

Unless you are prepared to show otherwise.

Okay, it's your turn: CFR, please.

And no, Elder Packer's talk to Seminary and Institute teachers defining the scope of their classroom teaching will not cut the mustard, just in case you were planning to try that one.

As to this issue of things taught,

Which is the only issue in view anywhere,

I will let Theo address his own assertions, which from my perspective he seems to be doing just fine.

Yes, he told a lie--an uprovoked false accusation--and ran away when challenged.

And you approve and applaud both actions.

Got it.

I will say this; that things taught is a rather broad concept and people learn in different ways and not solely from a Sunday School manuals. While I am not aware of any manuals that taught anything about MMM that does not mean that blame was not inferred upon the Emigrants.

Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Pity it failed.

Theophilus07 made a specific assertion. He bears the entire burden of proving it.

What I have read from the sources over the years were the many many rumors that were spread about the conduct of the Fancher train. Nobody was saying that the rumors were false and that the Fancher train did not deserve it.

Which are not the same thing, and yes, some did say the Fancher train did not deserve it; for those who didn't say it, it's because it goes without saying.

But your intentionally deceitful smokescreen fails to conceal the only material fact: nobody was saying that the Fancher train did deserve it.

So you agree, however reluctantly, that Theo was lying.

The implication is left to the reader. As noted by me earlier, the notion of â??no innocent bloodâ? were made by Lee and Haight â?? but were made to President Young and Apostle Woodruff. I am not aware of that they (Young or Woodruff) corrected the assessment of these two comments in the many years to follow.

Nor are you aware that they ever "taught" these comments in any way, are you?

That being, once again, the sole point in dispute.

Members are left with the impressions based upon nothing but rumors that the Fancher train were at least partially responsible for their own murders. .

For example:

Mormon Experience, By Leonard J. Arrington, Davis Bitton pg. 167

â?? if not pardonableâ? ??!!!

These rumors were portrayed as facts by LDS historians. They donâ??t have to come out and say the Fancher train â??had it comingâ? but reader is left with that impression none the less.

Not this reader.

But then, this reader isn't trying to shore up a false accusation. This reader isn't so blindly bigoted against the Latter-day Saints that he sees "impressions" that exist only in the minds of those desperate to support a lie.

Please note that, in this context, "if not pardonable" means, "even though we are not able to pardon them, we can at least try to understand why they did what they did."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

I note that our friend TAK has fallen silent.

I also point out that there are a couple of questions to him from me on the table.

He cannot, it would seem, abide cross-examination, though he will readily deal it out.

[Pahoran]

I note that our friend TAK has fallen silent.

I also point out that there are a couple of questions to him from me on the table.

He cannot, it would seem, abide cross-examination, though he will readily deal it out.

Are we surprised?

Theophilus07 made a false accusation. I challenged him to support it, and he ran away. Tak thought that was "doing just fine."

Now Tak made a false accusation. I challenged him to support it. What do you think Tak would regard as "doing just fine" in that circumstance?

Only time will tell...

Regards,

Pahoran

[katherine the great]

I note that our friend TAK has fallen silent.

I also point out that there are a couple of questions to him from me on the table.

He cannot, it would seem, abide cross-examination, though he will readily deal it out.

Sheesh--give him some time. We aren't all glued to our computers all day long.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sheesh--give him some time. We aren't all glued to our computers all day long.

He was active enough here when he was pursuing his cross-examination of me.

But you're right. We should give him some time.

So... it's been nearly three hours now. I know he has returned at least once in the meantime, because I saw his name at the bottom of the thread as one of the viewers.

The questions were fairly straightforward. And in fact, both could be answered in a single response.

[Scott Lloyd]

One of the more vocal critics on that other board has ordered me to come here and point out that not all of the posters on that board have denounced Massacre at Mountain Meadows as worthless and "lame" without having ever seen it. Most have not gone so far. Instead, without having laid eyes on the book, they've been discussing the authors' bias, the authors' conflict of interests, the issues that the authors didn't deal with, etc.

One person on the board, it must be admitted, claims actually to have read the book. â??The book DOES explicitly state that the people didn't have it coming," he says. "This way critics can't claim it doesn't make the statement. But . . . " "Similarly," he reports, "the book DOES explicitly state that the vast bulk of the fighting and killing was done by white men and white men disguised as indians. This way critics can't claim that it doesn't make the statement. But . . . â?

It turns out, according to this fellow, that the real purpose of Massacre at Mountain Meadows is to reassure "TBMs" that the people of the immigrant wagon train did have it coming and that the vast bulk of the fighting and killing was really done by Indians. Fortunately, the mere fact that the authors expressly contradict both of those propositions was not enough to make this extraordinarily perceptive reader lose the scent. He immediately saw through the fiendishly cunning plan laid by the three so-called Mormon "historians."

After employing a number of Google search strategies, I finally found the thread on "the other board" to which Daniel referred above. Pretty funny. It's now up to some 29 pages and only one or two of the book's vociferous critics have actually read or even seen it. They are ranting on and on about the things Dan mentioned above: alleged bias, conflict of interest, supposed Church funding of it, etc.

Ironically, there are some unflattering references to this thread, which contains substantive discussion on the book's actual content by people who have actually read it.

[Glenn101]

After employing a number of Google search strategies, I finally found the thread on "the other board" to which Daniel referred above. Pretty funny. It's now up to some 29 pages and only one or two of the book's vociferous critics have actually read or even seen it. They are ranting on and on about the things Dan mentioned above: alleged bias, conflict of interest, supposed Church funding of it, etc.

Ironically, there are some unflattering references to this thread, which contains substantive discussion on the book's actual content by people who have actually read it.

It doesn't matter. All that matters is the truth. Not what we/they believe to be the truth. Not what we/they wish to be the truth. The only relevant question is, does the book, in the opinions, of those who have read it, attempt to honestly portray the truth as well as it can be determined? That judgment may have to wait until the documents from which the information was gleaned are made public.

I have not read the book yet, so my opinions of it would be irrelevant.

Glenn

[ruski_canuk]

Correct answer: "Yes. The Church appears to act with forthrightness about its history, even when it would appear that certain aspects would damage the Church's mission. For example, the Church did not seek to suppress the Salamander letter, which cast grave doubt upon the foundational story of the Church's founding, but rather published it."

rofl

[Calm]

But does Elder Roberts say the rumors were false and/or the Fancher train did not deserve to be murdered?

We are talking women and children here as well as men. There is a difference in thinking that it might be expedient for someone to be killed and thinking that they deserve it. This distinction seems to be missing in the accusations that there are LDS out there that think the entire train deserved to be slaughtered.

The 'expediency' that has been mentioned in what I've read and heard in the past was based as far as I can see on the idea that if some of the immigrants communicated with federal authorities or even just mob types that this might lead to some sort of action taken against the settlers. The ringleaders saw it as an all or nothing action even if there were immigrants---such as the women and children--that were innocent of any threatening.

OTOH, it was widely thought that the aboriginals of the area (Paiutes IIRC) were the one who did the main killing with just a few of the settlers heavily involved. Is there any reason why any LDS in the past would feel a need to justify the actions of the aboriginals by pushing the idea that the "settlers deserved it"? There seems to be quite a few contradictions in the claims being made here (no knowledge of the MMM among church members, yet church members think or thought the train deserved to be murdered, the aboriginals were wrongly blamed for the killings yet the settlers are being excused for their actions because the train members deserved it).

BTW, the "it's understandable, if not pardonable" phrase read to me (due to the greater context of his comments when I read them in the original text) as him saying they weren't pardonable, just understandable.

I suppose there might be some LDS in the past that saw some of the immigrants as deserving of death and some of the explanations could be taken that way, but I have known of no explanation (save perhaps for Lee's) that could be taken that they all--women and children included--deserved it.

[Pahoran]

I see you're bak, Tak. Any chance you might deign to answer some of the questions before you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

rofl

Yes, hilarious, isn't it?

And you know what the funniest part is?

Simply that it is true. But the legend of the Church's massive "cover-up" of its history is so firmly implanted in the minds of "some people" that they just can't recognise the truth when they see it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[TAK]

I see you're bak, Tak. Any chance you might deign to answer some of the questions before you?

Regards,

Pahoran

In due time my friend ..

[Daniel Peterson]

After employing a number of Google search strategies, I finally found the thread on "the other board" to which Daniel referred above. Pretty funny. It's now up to some 29 pages and only one or two of the book's vociferous critics have actually read or even seen it. They are ranting on and on about the things Dan mentioned above: alleged bias, conflict of interest, supposed Church funding of it, etc.

Ironically, there are some unflattering references to this thread, which contains substantive discussion on the book's actual content by people who have actually read it.

It's been absolutely hilarious to watch.

That thread -- substantively without much if any value because almost nobody on it has so much as seen the book -- really does remind me of the late medieval scholastics who believed that objects of different weight fall at different speeds because Aristotelian physics said so, but who never bothered to actually test the proposition. So Galileo climbed the campanile at Pisa, and, in a sense, founded modern science.

Why bother to drop two objects? Why bother to read the book? We already know the answers. We already know the physics of falling objects. We already know the nature of the book. We already know, as one of the posters put it, that Brigham Young ordered the massacre.

[Log]

Yes, hilarious, isn't it?

I rather think he's mocking my poor choice of wording, rather than the substance.