Massacre At Mountain Meadows

[TAK]

That is assuming that no other Imigrant trains took the northern route in a contemporary time frame of course. Have you looked into that possiblility?

Thats a good question.. I dont know the answer. I am pretty sure at least some subsequent trains went through the South the remainder of the year ..

This notion that SL leaders would not know which way the train was going I think tho is specious.. They were not playing poker where each others hands were hidden. I suspect it would have been normal to have been talking to each other asking and offering advice.

[Analytics]

And you reached that conclusion absent any bias regarding your opinions of the LDS Church, right?

I'm stating my belief that reasonably committed Latter-day Saints will have enough dedication to their religious principles to successfully resist the temptation to commit mass murderâ??even in superlatively trying times.

Do you consider this to be biased opinion?

So the facts that: 1) Brigham Young was prone to hyperbole; and 2) there is no good evidence which places him at the head of this scheme, are irrelevant? You're just going to take this alleged statement by BY regarding "vengeance" and make as much hay as possible?

No and no. Recognizing something as a possible motivation doesnâ??t somehow mean I think anything else is irrelevant.

As you fight to exonerate Brigham Young from any responsibility, just remember that the reason why these details are controversial in the first place is because of the steps he took to cover up and obfuscate the truth.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

This notion that SL leaders would not know which way the train was going I think tho is specious.. They were not playing poker where each others hands were hidden. I suspect it would have been normal to have been talking to each other asking and offering advice.

I imagine they would have asked advice... which makes one wonder why they initially used the Northern route.

[Snotty Unwarranted Sarcasm] No doubt because Brigham had told them the Northern route would be safe in hopes that they would die in the mountains (MMM was only a secondary plan). [/Snotty Unwarranted Sarcasm] (The AC isnâ??t working here, itâ??s 10,000 degrees, humid, and itâ??s making me grumpyâ?¦ sorry )

[ttribe]

I'm stating my belief that reasonably committed Latter-day Saints will have enough dedication to their religious principles to successfully resist the temptation to commit mass murder—even in superlatively trying times.

Do you consider this to be biased opinion?

No. But your other statement is - "There must have been a religeous [sic] reason for them believing their duty entailed leaving no witnesses."

As you fight to exonerate Brigham Young from any responsibility, just remember that the reason why these details are controversial in the first place is because of the steps he took to cover up and obfuscate the truth.

First, I'm not "fight[ing] to exonerate Brigham Young from any responsibility"; primarily because I think such a fight is unnecessary. THAT opinion is based on the dearth of credible evidence (other than conspiracy theories, tangential coincidence, speculation, and questionable attempts to interpret comments made by Brigham Young in the aftermath of the event).

Second, you'll need to back up your little claim of an attempt to "cover up and obfuscate the truth". Pretty easy to make that accusation when the actual "truth" doesn't line up with the "truth" YOU were hoping for.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree that there were plenty of dark reasons why an ordinary group of people in these circumstances might take this course of action. But what my mind keeps coming back to is the fact that these weren't "ordinary" people. These were pious, dedicated Latter-day Saints. I just can't believe these particular folks didn't have enough dedication to their religious principles to counterbalance the hatred, greed, fear, and jealousy. There must have been a religeous reason for them believing their duty entailed leaving no witnesses.

They were ordinary in the sense that they used their sense of religious piety to rationalize the dark motives. This is inherent in human nature and is not by any means unique to the Mormonism. Again, this fits the pattern identified by scholars of groups committing mass killing. If anything, Mormonism endeavors to preach against such "natural man" inclinations.

Brigham Young perceived the massacre as being a little of God's vengeance. Helping God have his vengeance could be a possible motivation.

Again, you have no evidence for such conjecture. The existing evidence, on the other hand, argues compellingly against it. The letter sent by express rider to James Haslam to Isaac Haight explicitly instructed him not to meddle with the emigrants and to let them go in peace.

The authors indicate that President Young learned about the massacre "incrementally," over many years. If his reported statement was meant as an indictment against the emigrants, that could be explained by the possibility that he, like many Mormons over many years, was misled about the behavior of the Fancher party and the role of Mormon settlers in the massacre and thought the actions of the Fancher party to be far more hostile and threatening than they were.

Excellent point. It is totally conceivable that the plan in Salt Lake on July 27th included the Saints in Southern Utah stealing some wartime booty from Fancher party, with a green light to use violence if necessary. The rationalization for authorizing violence against these passerbyers would have been the blood of the prophets, including that of Parley P. Pratt. The orders could have entailed something like, â??To protect the good name of our people, you must take any and all steps are necessary to ensure that the Indians get the blame.â?

Again, where's the evidence for such speculation? And how do you explain the letter to Haight, sent with instruction to rider Haslam to "spare no horse flesh," directing Haight and the militia not to bother the emigrants?

Again, it is all quite clear. Bagley was misled by the quotes attributed to Lee and fabricated by Lee's attorney and constructed a conspiracy theory based on a strained "smoking gun" (the meeting with the Indian leaders in Salt Lake City) that utterly fails under scrutiny.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm stating my belief that reasonably committed Latter-day Saints will have enough dedication to their religious principles to successfully resist the temptation to commit mass murderâ??even in superlatively trying times.

Do you consider this to be biased opinion?

Most "reasonably committed Latter-day Saints" have not been subject to the atrocities these folks had so recently suffered prior to coming West. And most aren't under perceived threat of a mob in uniform bearing down on their settlements an eye toward killing their leaders and destroying their religious faith.

And again, the initial intent was not to commit mass murder. That came only at the end of a string of bad decisions. Your oversimplification in the above comment does not do justice to the facts. Do you intend at all to read the new book?

As you fight to exonerate Brigham Young from any responsibility, just remember that the reason why these details are controversial in the first place is because of the steps he took to cover up and obfuscate the truth.

I'm anxiously awaiting volume 2 on this subject. If Bagley et al. could so badly garble the facts on the subject of the massacre, I don't have much reason to trust them on the subject of the alleged cover-up.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...] I'm anxiously awaiting volume 2 on this subject. [...]

Speaking of which, I recall that not all three authors will be working on Volume 2. What's the super-secret-Scott-Lloyd-press-scoop?

As a side note; I found it rather touching when I read the dedicatory page.

[gmormon]

...As a side note; I found it rather touching when I read the dedicatory page.

Curses ! Does this mean you have received yours too? Does anyone know a clerk at a Post Office than can Help ?

[Doctor Steuss]

Brother Lloyd and Emeliza (or any others who have read and/or are reading it),

Did you find reading the book to be emotionally draining? The reason I ask is that I just read the little passage from Andrew Jensonâ??s diary (page xi), and I have a regrettable tendency towards unhealthy empathy so Iâ??m now filled with a bit of trepidation.

Thanks,

Stu

[Analytics]

If anything, Mormonism endeavors to preach against such "natural man" inclinations.

That's my point.

Again, you have no evidence for such conjecture. The existing evidence, on the other hand, argues compellingly against it. The letter sent by express rider to James Haslam to Isaac Haight explicitly instructed him not to meddle with the emigrants and to let them go in peace.

The fact that they bothered to ask proves that they were sincerely trying to act in accordance with what Brigham Young wanted.

That being the case, the question I keep asking myself is how could they have possibly believed that Brigham Young would be cool with thievery and mass murder? If Young was continually an advocate of letting settlers pass in peace, why would they think they needed to ask? How could they suddenly think that maybe Young would answer that they should do anything other than let them pass in peace?

When it came to the point where they felt they couldnâ??t wait for the answer any longer, how could they have possibly concluded that murder would be their â??dutyâ??

To me, the only conceivable answer to these questions is that Brigham Young must have said something to create the impression that normal morals donâ??t necessarily apply.

[katherine the great]

Was this book started before or after Bagley wrote his book? I'm only about a third of the way through it, and all I can say is "Wow." It is so well written that it makes the other books look like they were written by third graders. Juanita Brooks' book was very good, but I think I like the format of this book much better. I like the forward, linear style that follows the settlers down through each settlement in order. That makes it much easier to read. Being a visual person, I also like the maps. The production of this book may be the best thing to come from Bagley's book!

Did you find reading the book to be emotionally draining?

Not yet...

[Doctor Steuss]

Was this book started before or after Bagley wrote his book? [...]

According to the authors, they started work on it in late 2001 (pg x). I believe Bagley's book came out in mid-late 2002.

Not yet...

Thank you.

[Scott Lloyd]

Speaking of which, I recall that not all three authors will be working on Volume 2. What's the super-secret-Scott-Lloyd-press-scoop?

As a side note; I found it rather touching when I read the dedicatory page.

Last time I talked with Glen Leonard was over a year ago at the Mormon History Association Conference. He had only recently retired as director of the Museum of Church History and Art and was looking forward to serving a mission with his wife. My guess is he has had a belly full of Mountain Meadows and wants to move on to other things.

Besides, it's my understanding that much of volume 2 has already been done. This is based on my being in Rick Turley's office and having him point to a shelf full of looseleaf binders, identifying them as volume 2.

[Scott Lloyd]

Brother Lloyd and Emeliza (or any others who have read and/or are reading it),

Did you find reading the book to be emotionally draining? The reason I ask is that I just read the little passage from Andrew Jensonâ??s diary (page xi), and I have a regrettable tendency towards unhealthy empathy so Iâ??m now filled with a bit of trepidation.

Thanks,

Stu

It's definitely not pleasant reading. In my case I was rushing to get through the narrative in a day so I could write a news story, and I was eager to get a better understanding of the whole thing. So I haven't had to return to it again and again over a period of weeks, and I've been able to view it with some degree of clinical detachment, not unlike covering a traffic accident. Like you, though, I experienced sorrow for the victims, especially the children deprived of their parents, and, to a lesser degree, the perpetrators, who were haunted by their deeds for the rest of their lives.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's my point.

And my point is that everyone falls short of the ideal to one degree or another. Horrendously so in the case of these folks.

The fact that they bothered to ask proves that they were sincerely trying to act in accordance with what Brigham Young wanted.

Haight was pressured into sending the express rider to seek President Young's counsel. Many of the participants didn't grasp what was happening until the thing had spiraled out of control

That being the case, the question I keep asking myself is how could they have possibly believed that Brigham Young would be cool with thievery and mass murder? If Young was continually an advocate of letting settlers pass in peace, why would they think they needed to ask? How could they suddenly think that maybe Young would answer that they should do anything other than let them pass in peace?

When it came to the point where they felt they couldnâ??t wait for the answer any longer, how could they have possibly concluded that murder would be their â??dutyâ??

To me, the only conceivable answer to these questions is that Brigham Young must have said something to create the impression that normal morals donâ??t necessarily apply.

The fact that they kept the extent of their own participation a secret from Brigham Young, and he only found out the truth "incrementally" says a great deal.

[LeSellers]

Brigham Young perceived the massacre as being a little of God's vengeance. Helping God have his vengeance could be a possible motivation.

"Possible", yes; sufficient, not likely.

As I said before, Brigham Young had

1. More on his plate than vengeance, and that "more" consisted of an army that, given what he knew about the federal government and its antipathy for the Saints, was quite likely to annihilate the Saints.
   
2. A record of pragmatism that would make a vendetta against some alleged conspirators in the murder of Parley Pratt unlikely.
   
3. Enough shrewdness to know that no matter what happened, this act would give the church an indelible black eye, and in the face of the approaching Army, he needed all the goodwill back in the states that he could muster.
   

To believe he was responsible for this is ridiculous.

Excellent point. It is totally conceivable that the plan in Salt Lake on July 27th included the Saints in Southern Utah stealing some wartime booty from Fancher party, with a green light to use violence if necessary. The rationalization for authorizing violence against these passerbyers would have been the blood of the prophets, including that of Parley P. Pratt. The orders could have entailed something like, “To protect the good name of our people, you must take any and all steps are necessary to ensure that the Indians get the blame.”

You are bound and determined to place this event on Brother Brigham's head, are you not? Any theory, irrespective of how far-fetched or improbable is good enough for you to hang your hat on. Any conspiracy will do, no matter if it engages all of the evidence or ignores most of it will do because, in your heart, you "know" he was the guilty party.

There is simply no convincing evidence that he was involved in either the planning or the execution of the massacre. There is no believable motive for him to have participated in any way. What, I keep wondering, is your motivation in all of this?

Lehi

[Hawkmoon]

"Possible", yes; sufficient, not likely.

As I said before, Brigham Young had

1. More on his plate than vengeance, and that "more" consisted of an army that, given what he knew about the federal government and its antipathy for the Saints, was quite likely to annihilate the Saints.
   
2. A record of pragmatism that would make a vendetta against some alleged conspirators in the murder of Parley Pratt unlikely.
   
3. Enough shrewdness to know that no matter what happened, this act would give the church an indelible black eye, and in the face of the approaching Army, he needed all the goodwill back in the states that he could muster.
   

To believe he was responsible for this is ridiculous.

You are bound and determined to place this event on Brother Brigham's head, are you not? Any theory, irrespective of how far-fetched or improbable is good enough for you to hand your hat on. Any conspiracy will do, no matter if it engages all of the evidence or ignores most of it will do because, in your heart, you "know" he was the guilty party.

There is simply no convincing evidence that he was involved in either the planning or the execution of the massacre. There is no believable motive for him to have participated in any way. What, I keep wondering, is your motivation in all of this?

Lehi

Hence, the irony of the poster's user name....

[Analytics]

You are bound and determined to place this event on Brother Brigham's head, are you not? Any theory, irrespective of how far-fetched or improbable is good enough for you to hand your hat on. Any conspiracy will do, no matter if it engages all of the evidence or ignores most of it will do because, in your heart, you "know" he was the guilty party.

There is simply no convincing evidence that he was involved in either the planning or the execution of the massacre. There is no believable motive for him to have participated in any way. What, I keep wondering, is your motivation in all of this?

My only motivation is trying to understand it. I just can't imagine that the Saints themselves would have done this unless they thought it was right thing to do. And I just can't imagine that they would have thought it was the right thing to do unless their priesthood leaders gave them some reason to believe so.

You canâ??t imagine how Brigham Young could have been involved, and I canâ??t imagine how he could not have been. I guess the main difference between you and me is that you have a lot of faith in the unbounded wisdom and virtue of Brigham Young, while I have a lot of faith in the basic decency of the Latter-day Saint people.

That's just the way I see it. Call me stupid. Call me obstinate. Call me a hateful anti-Mormon. Call me whatever you want. That's just the way I see it.

[Glenn101]

My only motivation is trying to understand it. I just can't imagine that the Saints themselves would have done this unless they thought it was right thing to do. And I just can't imagine that they would have thought it was the right thing to do unless their priesthood leaders gave them some reason to believe so.

You canâ??t imagine how Brigham Young could have been involved, and I canâ??t imagine how he could not have been. I guess the main difference between you and me is that you have a lot of faith in the unbounded wisdom and virtue of Brigham Young, while I have a lot of faith in the basic decency of the Latter-day Saint people.

That's just the way I see it. Call me stupid. Call me obstinate. Call me a hateful anti-Mormon. Call me whatever you want. That's just the way I see it.

Analytics,

I have not read the book yet, but those who have did not fond the smoking gun that Will Bagley proposed. At this point in my experience, I cannot imagine how anyone could be driven to commit such an act. I do not think that we will ever know in this life everything that took place leading up to that black day.

There are those who seem to want Brigham Young implicated for what ever reason. I do not know where you stand since my mind reading skills are nil. The actual evidence that we have does not point the finger at him. Until something more conclusive comes to light, the better course would be to give the benefit of the doubt to those who have not been shown to be involved.

I have done a lot of rethinking to the events that occurred at Haun's mill also and the hysteria that caused the LDS to be driven out of Missouri and Illinois.

I do not believe that all of those who participated in those events were hard hearted, evil men, although so many of the acts certainly were. Some of the psychology about mob violence that the authors of the current tome on MMM to those situations also.

Glenn

[ttribe]

My only motivation is trying to understand it. I just can't imagine that the Saints themselves would have done this unless they thought it was right thing to do. And I just can't imagine that they would have thought it was the right thing to do unless their priesthood leaders gave them some reason to believe so.

So because YOU "can't imagine" things being any other way then, by definition, it must really be the way you CAN imagine it, the facts notwithstanding. Do I have that right?

Analytics, I have not read the book yet, but those who have did not fond the smoking gun that Will Bagley proposed. At this point in my experience, I cannot imagine how anyone could be driven to commit such an act. I do not think that we will ever know in this life everything that took place leading up to that black day.There are those who seem to want Brigham Young implicated for what ever reason. I do not know where you stand since my mind reading skills are nil. The actual evidence that we have does point the finger at him. Until something more conclusive comes to light, the better course would be to give the benefit of the doubt to those who have not been shown to be involved.I have done a lot of rethinking to the events that occurred at Haun's mill also and the hysteria that caused the LDS to be driven out of Missouri and Illinois.I do not believe that all of those who participated in those events were hard hearted, evil men, although so many of the acts certainly were. Some of the psychology about mob violence that the authors of the current tome on MMM to those situations also.Glenn

Glenn - I bolded part of your message; did you really mean "DOES", or was that a typo?

[Analytics]

Analytics,

I have not read the book yet, but those who have did not fond the smoking gun that Will Bagley proposed....

Fair enough, although I'm not convinced that most of the critics of Bagley's version even understand it. In fact, that is the only reason I even entered this thread--Bagley's actual position from the link Scott provided is different from what I recall his critics saying it was.

Regarding witholding judgement, I'm not judging anybody. I'm not in a jury box. I don't pretend to know everything that happened. What I find interesting is why anybody here cares what my opinion is on the matter.

So because YOU "can't imagine" things being any other way then, by definition, it must really be the way you CAN imagine it, the facts notwithstanding. Do I have that right?

Not at all.

[LeSellers]

the question I keep asking myself is how could they have possibly believed that Brigham Young would be cool with thievery and mass murder? If Young was continually an advocate of letting settlers pass in peace, why would they think they needed to ask? How could they suddenly think that maybe Young would answer that they should do anything other than let them pass in peace?

Why do you imagine they would think this? The plan was to blame the Paiutes, and this plan would have been what Brother Brigham would have heard, too.

The Indians were upset with all the white men coming through the territory, and were on the verge of war anyway. The story would have been believable, and probably not questioned. That part of the plan was fairly good. (It was the execution the sucked ditch water, tactically speaking.)

When it came to the point where they felt they couldn’t wait for the answer any longer, how could they have possibly concluded that murder would be their “duty”?

One's first duty is to protect his family.

The Saints of Parowan, as I have evaluated the evidence, were terrified that the Fancher-Baker party would complain to the Army in California (as they had threatened to do) and bring back troops to punish them for not selling them provisions (among other things). They knew their situation was precarious, at best: poor defenses and isolated from any succor or support. Doing away with the train was the only way (and try as I might, I cannot envision another myself, in my comfortable chair and not feeling the threat personally, 160 years later — given their fears) they could fulfill that duty.

The proverbial "reasonable, prudent man" may have done things differently, and I hope that I would have chosen a different path had I been there. But I was not, nor was this fiction of the law. The Saints who were there did a poor job of analyzing their situation, but there is no need to complicate things by bringing in a man hundreds of miles away, whose course had always been flamboyant, but pragmatic and peaceful. You know: "It's cheaper to feed the Indians than to fight them."

To me, the only conceivable answer to these questions is that Brigham Young must have said something to create the impression that normal morals don’t necessarily apply.

While I admit my imagination is limited in some areas, I believe yours is far more restricted.

Fear and greed are the two most primitive and powerful emotions of man. Greed is one we can overcome, however, and to some extent most of us do. Fear is only rarely set aside. I believe the Saints in Parowan were terrified, and reacted without weighing the consequences of their actions before committing them.

Lehi

[ttribe]

Fair enough, although I'm not convinced that most of the critics of Bagley's version even understand it. In fact, that is the only reason I even entered this thread--Bagley's actual position from the link Scott provided is different from what I recall his critics saying it was.

Regarding witholding judgement, I'm not judging anybody. I'm not in a jury box. I don't pretend to know everything that happened. What I find interesting is why anybody here cares what my opinion is on the matter.

Not at all.

Not at all? Really? Prove me wrong then. Show where you are willing to give some objective consideration to the alternative facts that do not agree with your "imagined" world.

[Analytics]

Why do you imagine they would think this? The plan was to blame the Paiutes, and this plan would have been what Brother Brigham would have heard, too.

If that was what they wanted Young to think, why did they send a messanger to Salt Lake explaining the situation and asking for advice?

The Indians were upset with all the white men coming through the territory, and were on the verge of war anyway. The story would have been believable, and probably not questioned. That part of the plan was fairly good. (It was the execution the sucked ditch water, tactically speaking.)

One's first duty is to protect his family.

The Saints of Parowan, as I have evaluated the evidence, were terrified that the Fancher-Baker party would complain to the Army in California (as they had threatened to do) and bring back troops to punish them for not selling them provisions (among other things). They knew their situation was precarious, at best: poor defenses and isolated from any succor or support. Doing away with the train was the only way (and try as I might, I cannot envision another myself, in my comfortable chair and not feeling the threat personally, 160 years later â?? given their fears) they could fulfill that duty.

That's an interesting spin on it.

Not at all? Really? Prove me wrong then. Show where you are willing to give some objective consideration to the alternative facts that do not agree with your "imagined" world.

You seem to have me mistaken for somebody who cares what you think.

[ttribe]

You seem to have me mistaken for somebody who cares what you think.

Oh gee. Wasn't that a clever little retort? You want to sell yourself as objective, then you better be prepared to be called on the carpet when your actions are inconsistent with your words. In EVERY SINGLE case where someone has referenced evidence that is both credible and inconsistent with your preconceived notions, you have simply dismissed it as spin or irrelevant. You want to perform honest inquiry (hallmarked by objective consideration of evidence) or a biased search for additional ammunition?