Massacre At Mountain Meadows

[gmormon]

...I find it interesting that, according to this report, Bagley is now acknowledging there is "no solid evidence" of Brigham Young's complicity in the massacre. I was under the impression his book purportedly exposed a smoking gun pertaining to Brigham Young's involvement.

This is interesting. Does Mr Bagley ever post here? I would kinda like to hear his current reasoning on this.

[emeliza]

Yeah, I couldn't read his book because from the very beginning it started talking about how BY was responsible. I tried really hard to read it, but it was just too one sided.

I also thought that Turley, Leonard and Walker did a good job of showing that many of the participants did believe they were following leadership in their church, however it wasn't higher leadership, it was local leadership.

[Scott Lloyd]

I also thought that Turley, Leonard and Walker did a good job of showing that many of the participants did believe they were following leadership in their church, however it wasn't higher leadership, it was local leadership.

Bagley talks about obedience to authority as though it were a pathological characteristic of Mormonism that makes its members prone to fanatical excess. Yet the authors of the book, citing scholarly literature on group violence, say this is human nature, and not just among Mormons:

"Most ordinary people readily allow the dictates of 'authorities' to trump their own moral instincts," one scholar wrote, summarizing a half century of experimental and historical experience.

(page 127)

People like Krakauer unfairly point to examples such as the Lafferty murders as exemplifying Mormon behavior. But they ignore the fact that these were committed by apostate renegades and members of schismatic groups that in no way reflect the normal behavior of faithful members of the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is interesting. Does Mr Bagley ever post here? I would kinda like to hear his current reasoning on this.

The new book pretty much impales his contention that Brigham Young encouraged the Paiutes to attack the Fancher party when, in a Sept. 1 meeting with Indian tribal leaders from central and southern Utah, he invited them to take emigrant cattle. Bagley probably recognizes that by now. And apparently, from his acknowledgment that there is "no solid evidence," not even he believes that the published confessions of John D. Lee are authentic as to Brigham Young ordering the attack on the Fancher train.

[TAK]

The new book pretty much impales his contention that Brigham Young encouraged the Paiutes to attack the Fancher party when, in a Sept. 1 meeting with Indian tribal leaders from central and southern Utah, he invited them to take emigrant cattle. Bagley probably recognizes that by now. And apparently, from his acknowledgment that there is "no solid evidence," not even he believes that the published confessions of John D. Lee are authentic as to Brigham Young ordering the attack on the Fancher train.

For someone who never read Bagleyâ??s book you are reaching far into your own wishful thinking as to what Bagley believes.

Just consider this.. It is far more important to you and the Church that Brigham Young be shown innocent than it is for anyone else to show his guilt.

[emeliza]

For someone who never read Bagleyâ??s book you are reaching far into your own wishful thinking as to what Bagley believes.

Just consider this.. It is far more important to you and the Church that Brigham Young be shown innocent than it is for anyone else to show his guilt.

Well I personally don't think he was that innocent in the aftermath of it all. I just think he was in the first part. Course that is my opinion from the start. However I admit I didn't finish Bagley's book, but dang it really was pretty biased. Have you read it? I probably could have read it fine if I had started with it. I am okay so far with Brooks book, but Bagley was just too much opinion.

[Scott Lloyd]

For someone who never read Bagleyâ??s book you are reaching far into your own wishful thinking as to what Bagley believes.

I'm only reacting to his quoted acknowledgment that there is "no solid evidence" of complicity by Brigham Young. At long last, I think that quite a significant concession.

Just consider this.. It is far more important to you and the Church that Brigham Young be shown innocent than it is for anyone else to show his guilt.

Just consider this: As one who bears the burden of proof but has nothing solid to go on, you have the far more daunting task.

[gmormon]

The new book pretty much impales his contention that Brigham Young encouraged the Paiutes to attack the Fancher party when, in a Sept. 1 meeting with Indian tribal leaders from central and southern Utah, he invited them to take emigrant cattle. Bagley probably recognizes that by now. And apparently, from his acknowledgment that there is "no solid evidence," not even he believes that the published confessions of John D. Lee are authentic as to Brigham Young ordering the attack on the Fancher train.

For someone who never read Bagleyâ??s book you are reaching far into your own wishful thinking as to what Bagley believes.

Just consider this.. It is far more important to you and the Church that Brigham Young be shown innocent than it is for anyone else to show his guilt.

I have read both, (and almost every other one; I might be missing and older version,) and I find that I don't agree with Bagley's contention at that time thus my interest into to his inferred change of thought. Has Bagley ever posted here? I would like to see more of his input on the new book "Massacre At Mountain Meadows"

[Scott Lloyd]

For someone who never read Bagleyâ??s book you are reaching far into your own wishful thinking as to what Bagley believes.

Just consider this.. It is far more important to you and the Church that Brigham Young be shown innocent than it is for anyone else to show his guilt.

I have read both, (and almost every other one; I might be missing and older version,) and I find that I don't agree with Bagley's contention at that time thus my interest into to his inferred change of thought. Has Bagley ever posted here? I would like to see more of his input on the new book "Massacre At Mountain Meadows"

I've not seen him post here. I don't know whether he even knows this board exists.

[gmormon]

I've not seen him post here. I don't know whether he even knows this board exists.

Do we know where he posts? I know I have seen him respond somewhere

[Scott Lloyd]

Well I personally don't think he was that innocent in the aftermath of it all.

Innocent of what, specifically?

[TAK]

I'm only reacting to his quoted acknowledgment that there is "no solid evidence" of complicity by Brigham Young. At long last, I think that quite a significant concession.

Just consider this: As one who bears the burden of proof but has nothing solid to go on, you have the far more daunting task.

I do not think there is solid evidence that OJ killed Nicole and Ron Goldman and I certainly do not have to prove anything to believe he did it.

Scott, since you acknowledge that Brigham Young:

"when, in a Sept. 1 meeting with Indian tribal leaders from central and southern Utah, he invited them to take emigrant cattle."

Let me ask you something..

What do you think Brigham Young thought was going to happen? The emigrants would just peacefully let the Indians have their property? No. They would shoot at the Indians and the Indians would fight back.. Brigham Young did not need to say "go kill the Americans" but the result potentially would be the same.

[gmormon]

I do not think there is solid evidence that OJ killed Nicole and Ron Goldman and I certainly do not have to prove anything to believe he did it.

Scott, since you acknowledge that Brigham Young:

"when, in a Sept. 1 meeting with Indian tribal leaders from central and southern Utah, he invited them to take emigrant cattle."

Let me ask you something..

What do you think Brigham Young thought was going to happen? The emigrants would just peacefully let the Indians have their property? No. They would shoot at the Indians and the Indians would fight back.. Brigham Young did not need to say "go kill the Americans" but the result potentially would be the same.

TAK if Brigham Young's words/command where always followed to the letter why was the Francher/Baker Train the only one completely "used up". There where other wagon trains in the territory at the same time that made it through and by your logic they should have been attacked also.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's a link to the Juvenile Instructor blog site containing notes from a panel discussion about the book.

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/notes-fr...nel-part-5-q-a/

A couple of interesting factoids:

-- Research materials used in producing the book will be available in a "research collection" to which anyone will be allowed access. Bagley, who apparently was in the audience, chimed in: "Even me!"

This is interesting, because one of the recurring themes in the the Exercise in Vacuity over at the Shady Rest was that others wouldn't be allowed access to the sources. Their fears were for naught, apparently.

-- The authors are launching a Web site. I haven't yet found the Web site but will provide a link when I do.

[Scott Lloyd]

I do not think there is solid evidence that OJ killed Nicole and Ron Goldman and I certainly do not have to prove anything to believe he did it.

Scott, since you acknowledge that Brigham Young:

"when, in a Sept. 1 meeting with Indian tribal leaders from central and southern Utah, he invited them to take emigrant cattle."

Let me ask you something..

What do you think Brigham Young thought was going to happen? The emigrants would just peacefully let the Indians have their property? No. They would shoot at the Indians and the Indians would fight back.. Brigham Young did not need to say "go kill the Americans" but the result potentially would be the same.

This has been covered before.

Brigham Young was essentially enunciating a change in policy. Whereas the Mormons had previously intervened in disputes between passing emigrants and the Indians, the new defensive policy in light of the approach of Johnston's army was that they no longer would do so. The U.S. government was now on its own as pertaining to placating the Indians so as to ensure safe passage through the territory for emigration.

[gmormon]

Scott how did you and Doctor Peterson get Amazon to delay Beastie's copy; "UNBELIEVABLE. It's now not scheduled to be delivered until Dec. 9. Geez Louise!"?

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott how did you and Doctor Peterson get Amazon to delay Beastie's copy; "UNBELIEVABLE. It's now not scheduled to be delivered until Dec. 9. Geez Louise!"?

Her order has been delayed again? Too funny.

[TAK]

TAK if Brigham Young's words/command where always followed to the letter why was the Francher/Baker Train the only one completely "used up". There where other wagon trains in the territory at the same time that made it through and by your logic they should have been attacked also.

Did you read the book? other trains were attacked and there were cattle taken.

Im done for the night ..

[Scott Lloyd]

... I certainly do not have to prove anything to believe he did it.

But you have to do more than grumble, "I wouldn't put it past him," to make a persuasive argument.

Did you read the book? other trains were attacked and there were cattle taken. Im done for the night ..

Passing emigrants, many of whom regarded the Indians as sub-human, had a propensity to antagonize Indians. So what?

[gmormon]

Did you read the book? other trains were attacked and there were cattle taken.

Im done for the night ..

Yes ! But where they all massacred as in Mountain Meadows? Letting the Indians (Mormons as was the case at MM) raid as they please is one thing but killing every person is another

[emeliza]

Innocent of what, specifically?

I think BY had something to do with the cover up. Whether it was because he didn't know the full extent of the situation or not, I still think he had something major to do with that. Might have been more to do with not wanting the US gov to know what had happened. I look forward to reading all that stuff in the follow up book.

In my mind these were separate incidents. The Massacre and the cover up. I think in many critics eyes they are the same incident.

As for the Sept 1st meeting with BY, yes I agree he told them they could take the cattle. Indians were already taking the cattle and it appears BY was reinforcing that they would not stand in the way at all. Probably even endorsing they could take more than before to stop the emmigrants from coming thru Utah so much. I don't think this has much to do with this particular massacre though as it appears none of the Indians at that meeting were present for the massacre. I think the Indians that participated with this particular massacre did so because of the local pioneers promises and also explanations of what they said the emmigrants were doing.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think BY had something to do with the cover up. Whether it was because he didn't know the full extent of the situation or not, I still think he had something major to do with that. Might have been more to do with not wanting the US gov to know what had happened. I look forward to reading all that stuff in the follow up book.

In assessing the fact or extent of Brigham Young's guilt in the cover up, I think a number of questions have to be explored; here are a few suggestions:

1. What, precisely, did he know of the massacre, and at what point in time did he know it?

You can't cover up information you don't have to begin with. Rick Turley indicated in his Ensign piece published last year that President Young learned the details of the massacre "incrementally" over time.

I think the notion that Brigham Young knew at any given time exactly what was going on with everything in every part of the territory is more lore than it is fact.

2. What was Brigham Young in a position to do about the massacre and at what point could he do it?

He had been stripped of the office of territorial governor with the arrival of Johnston's army and Alfred Cumming in Utah. His only powers after that were ecclesiastical.

Initially, he had his hands full with defensive measures against what Mormons saw as an invasion by a hostile armed force. This included the massive "move south," wherein all the settlers in Salt Lake Valley relocated themselves and left all of their property to be torched lest it fall into the hands of the enemy. This "move south" dwarfed any previous exodus undertaken by the Mormons up to that time.

What could be done after the situation settled down? A good question. The failure of swift action against the massacre perpetrators is in large measure attributable to the fact that Cumming believed they were protected under the pardon that had been given by U.S. President James Buchanan to the Mormons in their actions against Johnston's army. Moreover, prosecutors in the first Mountain Meadows trial botched the case because they were more interested in implicating Brigham Young than they were in fact-finding and bringing the real criminals to justice.

3. To what extent was President Young morally and/or legally obliged to cooperate with individuals who had malevolent intentions of their own?

For example, we've seen in a statement quoted twice on this thread that Major Carleton of the U.S. Army was privately calling for essentially what Lilburn Boggs had ordered in Missouri: the expulsion of every Mormon under penalty of mass annihilation.

The question of any complicity by Brigham Young in covering up the massacre is a complicated one. I expect that, as you've indicated, all of this will be taken up in the second volume of the Turley-Leonard-Walker work. In some respects, I anticipate that volume 2 will be the more interesting of the two.

[emeliza]

Well hopefully the next book will answer those questions and more.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's a link to the Juvenile Instructor blog site containing notes from a panel discussion about the book.

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/notes-fr...nel-part-5-q-a/

A couple of interesting factoids: ...

-- The authors are launching a Web site. I haven't yet found the Web site but will provide a link when I do.

I have now found the new Web site. Have a look:

http://mountainmeadowsmassacre.org/

[gmormon]

I have now found the new Web site. Have a look:

http://mountainmeadowsmassacre.org/

Thanks Scott I 've added it to my MMM links