Brigham Young: "I am the voice of God. And anyone who doesn't like it will be hewn down."

[Scott Lloyd]

So in that entire community, there couldnâ??t have possibly been a handful of faithful, believing people who so abhorred mass murder, and so desired ecclesiastic justice, that they would have given their beloved prophet the information he requested? After all, Iâ??m just talking about excommunication, not the death penalty. Wouldnâ??t faithful believers view the process of excommunication as opening the door to repentance, accountability, and restoration?

I think it more likely that they would rationalize their own or their friends'/relatives' actions as being necessary under the circumstances but something that general Church leaders wouldn't understand, and therefore, it would be best to keep quiet about it.

Incidentally, as a matter of procedure in the Church, excommunication is not typically done on a general level; it is left to local-level leaders to carry it out.

[smac97]

Aside from speculation, is there any evidence that Brigham Young saw a need to do such a thing immediately, when the popular understanding among Church members and leaders outside of Cedar City was that it was the Indians who did the killing?

My recollection is that Brigham Young knew about LDS involvement within days/weeks of the massacre.

-Smac

[Marmonboy]

He also, IIRC, offered to assist the feds with their investigation, and they blew him off.

[Calm]

My recollection is that Brigham Young knew about LDS involvement within days/weeks of the massacre.

-Smac

My memory is that Lee told him the LDS were involved only after the natives started firing as opposed to being instigators of the event.

You have the added issue of investigating potentially causing problems with the natives if they were seen as the ringleaders and the LDS as the cleanup crew so to speak. I can see a lot of reasons for BY to want to take his time in active investigations besides his natural and vigorous revulsion of the act as well as a lot of reasons for the locals not to actively or passively participate in in depth investigations themselves.

They had to leave a lot of justice up to the Lord with the people that had participated in massacres against them in the past; I can see the reasoning behind leaving the justice in the hands of God at least for a time being a natural step to take for all involved as much as they might want justice to be done in an abstract sense (something along the lines of "if the Lord wants these events exposed then he will provide a way for it to be done and I'll just wait to see if that happens" type of thing).

[beastie]

My memory is that Lee told him the LDS were involved only after the natives started firing as opposed to being instigators of the event.

Some of you seem to be suggesting that BY had no reason to believe LDS were involved. I find this an extraordinary suggestion considering BY had received a letter from the locals asking whether or not to attack the train, and dispatched a letter telling them NO. Later he discovers the train had already been attacked. And we're supposed to believe he had not the slightest reason to suspect LDS involvement, nor the motivation to determine LDS involvement?

[Scott Lloyd]

My recollection is that Brigham Young knew about LDS involvement within days/weeks of the massacre.

-Smac

From Rick Turley's September 2007 Ensign article:

Although Brigham Young and other Church leaders in Salt Lake City learned of the massacre soon after it happened, their understanding of the extent of the settlersâ?? involvement and the terrible details of the crime came incrementally over time. In 1859 they released from their callings stake president Isaac Haight and other prominent Church leaders in Cedar City who had a role in the massacre. In 1870 they excommunicated Isaac Haight and John D. Lee from the Church.

[Pahoran]

I'm just wondering why anyone thinks Brigham had some kind of affirmative duty to play law enforcement after he had been removed and replaced as governor.

I'm wondering why Brigham's offer to Governor Cumming, to lend his support to any investigation the secular authorities might want to undertake, and urging him to do it, wouldn't satisfy such a duty, if it did exist.

And I'm wondering how prominent the MMM is in the approximately 4,897 books on Mesoamerica that Beastie quote-mines for her anti-Mormon screeds.

(Or how prominent poor old Solly Spaulding is, for that matter.)

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Some of you seem to be suggesting that BY had no reason to believe LDS were involved. I find this an extraordinary suggestion considering BY had received a letter from the locals asking whether or not to attack the train, and dispatched a letter telling them NO. Later he discovers the train had already been attacked. And we're supposed to believe he had not the slightest reason to suspect LDS involvement, nor the motivation to determine LDS involvement?

Since the letter to Brigham Young is not extant, it is your own supposition that they were asking whether or not to attack the train.

Also, in his reply, President Young said, "The Indians we expect will do as they please," suggesting that he thought it not unlikely that the Indians would take it upon themselves to attack the train.

[beastie]

I'm just wondering why anyone thinks Brigham had some kind of affirmative duty to play law enforcement after he had been removed and replaced as governor.

I'm wondering why Brigham's offer to Governor Cumming, to lend his support to any investigation the secular authorities might want to undertake, and urging him to do it, wouldn't satisfy such a duty, if it did exist.

And I'm wondering how prominent the MMM is in the approximately 4,897 books on Mesoamerica that Beastie quote-mines for her anti-Mormon screeds.

Since you mentioned me, I'm assuming your response had something to do with me. Just in case it did, and wasn't some random brainburp, I haven't said anything about BY playing "law enforcement".

[beastie]

Since the letter to Brigham Young is not extant, it is your own supposition that they were asking whether or not to attack the train.

Also, in his reply, President Young said, "The Indians we expect will do as they please," suggesting that he thought it not unlikely that the Indians would take it upon themselves to attack the train.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...__&locale=0

On Sunday, September 6, Haight presented the plan to a council of local leaders who held Church, civic, and military positions. The plan was met with stunned resistance by those hearing it for the first time, sparking heated debate. Finally, council members asked Haight if he had consulted with President Young about the matter. Saying he hadnâ??t, Haight agreed to send an express rider to Salt Lake City with a letter explaining the situation and asking what should be done.

President Youngâ??s express message of reply to Haight, dated September 10, arrived in Cedar City two days after the massacre. His letter reported recent news that no U.S. troops would be able to reach the territory before winter. â??So you see that the Lord has answered our prayers and again averted the blow designed for our heads,â? he wrote.

â??In regard to emigration trains passing through our settlements,â? Young continued, â??we must not interfere with them untill they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them. There are no other trains going south that I know of[.] f those who are there will leave let them go in peace. While we should be on the alert, on hand and always ready we should also possess ourselves in patience, preserving ourselves and property ever remembering that God rules.â?6

When Haight read Youngâ??s words, he sobbed like a child and could manage only the words, â??Too late, too late.â?7

Are you suggesting that â??explaining the situationâ? and â??we must not interfere with themâ? do not indicate awareness that mormons were involved at that point?

[smac97]

Since the letter to Brigham Young is not extant, it is your own supposition that they were asking whether or not to attack the train.

Also, in his reply, President Young said, "The Indians we expect will do as they please," suggesting that he thought it not unlikely that the Indians would take it upon themselves to attack the train.

From Bagley's Blood of the Prophets, p. 127:

Haight asked several men to volunteer before James Holt Haslam accepted the job. No copy of this critical message survived, but allegedly Haight's letter to Brigham Young said, "The Indians have gotten the emigrants coralled at Mountain Meadows and Lee wants to know what to do."

The footnote states: "John Frederick Nash, Notebook, MS 4581, LDS Archives. Oddly, no copy of Haight's letter survived; Nash's version may be derived from James Haslam's testimony."

I'm not sure what's "odd" about a letter not surviving. Most letters written in that era did not survive.

BTW, I believe this is the reference for Haslam's testimony:

"Testimony of James Holt Haslam: Taken at Wellsville, Cache County, Utah, December 4, 1884," supplement to Charles W. Penrose,

The Mountain Meadows Massacre: Who Were Guilty of the Crime?

(Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1884), in L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...__&locale=0

Are you suggesting that â??explaining the situationâ? and â??we must not interfere with themâ? do not indicate awareness that mormons were involved at that point?

Here is a plausible suggestion of what might have been contained in a letter that occasioned the above response from President Young:

A passing train of emigrants from Missouri and Arkansas have come into our town and behaved in a riotous manner. They have endangered our citizens, insulted our women, killed some of our livestock, demanded that we sell them our scarce goods and defied our police authority. They have boasted of taking part in the Missouri persecutions against our people and in the murders of Joseph and Hyrum in Illinois. They are threatening to raise an army in California to come back and join with the army now approaching from the East in destroying us.

What is of gravest concern to us is that their outrages have aroused the anger of the Indians, some of whom have died from poison placed along the way by the emigrants. It has become nigh unto impossible for us to pacify the Indians, and we fear to try, lest they turn on us as well.

How shall we deal with this situation?

Read the above, then read the response from Brigham Young, and you will see that the letter need not have contained any indication of an intent by the Mormon settlers to attack the wagon train.

[smac97]

Here is a plausible suggestion of what might have been contained in a letter that occasioned the above response from President Young:

Read the above, then read the response from Brigham Young, and you will see that the letter need not have contained any indication of an intent by the Mormon settlers to attack the wagon train.

I wonder if Haslam verbally communicated additional details to Brigham Young (over and above the contents of Haight's letter).

As far as Brigham Young's comments that the Mormons should not "interfere" or "meddle" with the train, I think that the letter (and/or Haslam) left Brigham Young with the impression that the Indians had attacked the train and were threatening the Mormons unless they (the Mormons) agreed to join forces against the train.

Either that, or else Brigham Young understood that the Mormons were contemplating "interfering" or "meddling" with the train, and hence had to be warned against "interfering" or "meddling" (which is what he did in the letter he sent with Haslam).

-Smac

[beastie]

The individuals who were hesitant about the attack wanted reassurance from BY that he sanctioned the attack. How in the world could such a response as Scott has imagined possibly reassure anyone that BY was sanctioning an attack?

[Confidential Informant]

The individuals who were hesitant about the attack wanted reassurance from BY that he sanctioned the attack. How in the world could such a response as Scott has imagined possibly reassure anyone that BY was sanctioning an attack?

Beastie:

What, exactly, is the answer you are fishing for? What do you want us to admit? That we think that Brigham could have found out right away who was guilty? That he had some affirmative duty to do so? What are looking for here to satisfy your overcharged sense of justice?

C.I.

[Anijen]

The individuals who were hesitant about the attack wanted reassurance from BY that he sanctioned the attack. How in the world could such a response as Scott has imagined possibly reassure anyone that BY was sanctioning an attack?

I think just the opposite those who were hesitant and felt pressure from President Haight and Lee (Lee outranked Haight in the militia btw) wanted reassurance from BY that he did not sanctioned any attack thereby not feeling coerced by the local leaders.

[beastie]

I think just the opposite those who were hesitant and felt pressure from President Haight and Lee (Lee outranked Haight in the militia btw) wanted reassurance from BY that he did not sanctioned any attack thereby not feeling coerced by the local leaders.

That's exactly why I think the letter would have mentioned that an attack was being considered as an option. It really doesn't make sense to me that these people would write to BY and not even mention the imminent attack.

What, exactly, is the answer you are fishing for? What do you want us to admit? That we think that Brigham could have found out right away who was guilty? That he had some affirmative duty to do so? What are looking for here to satisfy your overcharged sense of justice?

First, it's odd that you would use the phrase "overcharged sense of justice" as if this were some minor infraction that only a zealot would think called for some sort of reaction from church leadership.

I'm not trying to get you to admit anything. I'm curious as to your reasoning as you all deal with what I think is obvious - ie, BY had good reason to suspect involvement of LDS, that he could have discovered who the perpetrators were had he so desired, and that mass murderers ought to be excommunicated promptly.

Personally, I think BY had mixed feelings about the subject, and that could have contributed to his inaction. After all, he did connect the massacre to the Lord's vengeance later.

[Scott Lloyd]

I wonder if Haslam verbally communicated additional details to Brigham Young (over and above the contents of Haight's letter).

It's not clear to me how much Haslam could have told him. Apparently he was not part of the inner circle that did the planning, but was merely an express rider recruited on the spur of the moment.

[Scott Lloyd]

The individuals who were hesitant about the attack wanted reassurance from BY that he sanctioned the attack. How in the world could such a response as Scott has imagined possibly reassure anyone that BY was sanctioning an attack?

My suggestion isn't any less plausible than yours. In fact, subjected to scrutiny, it is your scenario that strains credibility. The wording and tone of President Young's response is more consistent with an open-ended inquiry (such as "What shall we do about this troublesome emigrant train?") than with a specific question (i.e. "We have these people penned up under siege outside of town and are intending to kill all the men, women and older children, then blame the whole thing on the Indians; are you OK with that?")

Incidentally, the book by Walker, Turley and Leonard, published last year, supports my theory. From page 163:

Haslam was asked to carry Haight's letter to Young -- a letter that was later lost or destroyed, though several people remembered its contents. The emigrants had been acting "verry mean," the letter reportedly said, and it rehearsed their threats. The letter also claimed the emigrants had gotten into trouble with Paiutes, who had surrounded them and forced them "to seek shelter behind their wagons." Finally, it sought counsel from Young "on what they must do with the Americans," suggesting that Haight had heard about Young's changed Indian policy and was uncertain about it.

Also, it is indicated on page 162 that Haight was wrestling with the question "How much should Brigham Young be told?"

The "changed Indian policy," by way of background, was that, in view of the coming hostile invasion of the territory by a U.S. government army, the Mormons would no longer step in as a buffer to prevent hostilities should the behavior of passing emigrant trains provoke the anger of the Indian tribes. This was part of Brigham Young's negotiation strategy: The safety of the wagon trains to California could no longer be ensured, so the government would be obliged to find other routes for overland travel.

[Scott Lloyd]

After all, he [brigham Young] did connect the massacre to the Lord's vengeance later.

Probably because he still believed -- as did many Mormons at the time -- that the behavior of the emigrants had been far worse than it actually was, and that it had provoked the attack, not by Mormons but by Indians. I confess I would have less sympathy for a group if I believed they had participated in the Missouri persecution, including the atrocities at Haun's Mill, and had been involved in the murders of Joseph and Hyrum.

[Scott Lloyd]

There were a few days of lag before I had occasion to reply to some posts here. So I'm bumping this thread pursuant to giving my responses a bit longer visibility.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm curious as to your reasoning as you all deal with what I think is obvious - ie, BY had good reason to suspect involvement of LDS, that he could have discovered who the perpetrators were had he so desired, and that mass murderers ought to be excommunicated promptly.

Obvious? The image of Brigham Young as an omnipresent despot who micromanaged every bit of minutia all up and down the territory is your fanciful supposition, not ours.

[Scott Lloyd]

Bumping this one more time, then I let it die.

[Jaybear]

Obvious? The image of Brigham Young as an omnipresent despot who micromanaged every bit of minutia all up and down the territory is your fanciful supposition, not ours.

Actually, its no one's supposition that Young was an "omnipresent despot." Nor would he have to be to have had good reason to suspect that Mormons participated in the massacre.

Probably because he still believed -- as did many Mormons at the time -- that the behavior of the emigrants had been far worse than it actually was, and that it had provoked the attack, not by Mormons but by Indians.I confess I would have less sympathy for a group if I believed they had participated in the Missouri persecution, including the atrocities at Haun's Mill, and had been involved in the murders of Joseph and Hyrum.

Some 50 unarmed children they killed that day. I can't imagine that they played much a role in any mormon persecution that occured some 13 years earlier.

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, its no one's supposition that Young was an "omnipresent despot." Nor would he have to be to have had good reason to suspect that Mormons participated in the massacre.

No. But I've not seen persuasive evidence so far that he did suspect that early on. All I've seen is the notion, "He had to have known because he was Brigham Young." Pardon, but I just don't find that compelling.

Some 50 unarmed children they killed that day.

I can't imagine that they played much a role in any mormon persecution that occured some 13 years earlier.

Of course not. But it's not obvious that Brigham Young had the children in mind in reportedly making the remark. In fact, it's not clear what Brigham Young meant. The statement is quite cryptic, and he's not around to ask about it. Of course, that doesn't stop anti-Mormons from putting the worst possible spin on it. Why? Because he is Brigham Young, whom they detest so.