New Evidence Re: B. Young's Complicity in Mountain Meadows Massacre

[alter idem]

I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm not aware of any biblical instructions with regards to tithing being used to purchase historic documents.

D&C 85:1

"It is the duty of the Lord's clerk whom he has appointed to keep a history, and a general church record of all things that transpire in Zion,.."

This charge is made in other places in the D&C as well. The church has followed this commandment by documenting it's history through acquiring property and items that document that history as well. And it's a good thing to do this, otherwise you get people claiming we're just going on 'assumptions' and we don't really know what happened, it's all just speculation.

As a tithe payer and a lover of history and antiquities, and purchasing things that document our history, I agree with the church's desire to spend tithing money in this manner.

[O-Brother]

Who ordered the expeditionary force without informing the territorial authorities?

What were BY and the rest to think when a largish [for the time and place] army with materiel for a largish [for the time and place] operation was on its way?

Why would they not prepare to defend themselves?

So what conclusions can we derive from speculations?

[O-Brother]

D&C 85:1

"It is the duty of the Lord's clerk whom he has appointed to keep a history, and a general church record of all things that transpire in Zion,.."

This charge is made in other places in the D&C as well. The church has followed this commandment by documenting it's history through acquiring property and items that document that history as well. And it's a good thing to do this, otherwise you get people claiming we're just going on 'assumptions' and we don't really know what happened, it's all just speculation.

As a tithe payer and a lover of history and antiquities, and purchasing things that document our history, I agree with the church's desire to spend tithing money in this manner.

Thanks for quoting scripture to substantiate a point. OK. So you believe Brigham Young is a murderer? I don't and I tend to question the validity of such "documents" Show me a document that demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that he murdered those people, directly or indirectly and I will be satisfied.

[O-Brother]

I agree with this as well...but I still believe the doctrine of blood atonement to be a doctrine of Satan, not of Christ. As I said, I know that won't be popular with many other members of the Church, but it's something I've arrived at through prayer and fasting and a strong testimony of the cleansing blood of Christ for all sins, save blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

I still think Young will gain his exaltation. I have a testimony of that...I just think there are some things he, and other Church leaders, are currently working through in the spirit world as a result of some of the things they said and carried out. Those in the US government at the time are doing the same, if they've accepted the gospel.

But now I believe I'm getting off topic. I apologize for that.

You can't work through the deliberate shedding of innocent blood anymore than you can justify the deliberate killing of an innocent child.

[alter idem]

Thanks for quoting scripture to substantiate a point. OK. So you believe Brigham Young is a murderer? I don't and I tend to question the validity of such "documents" Show me a document that demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that he murdered those people, directly or indirectly and I will be satisfied.

Oh brother, you NEED to read posts more carefully. How did you ever get the impression I believe Brigham Young is a murderer.

I have discussed this topic on earlier threads and even on this thread I have said I do not believe Brigham Young ordered the massacre--in fact, I will state that after reading extensively on this topic, I am certain Brigham Young had nothing to do with the massacre of the Emigrants.

Do you understand?

You also seem to beleive there are documents that prove Brigham Young was involved. As far as I know, there are none, so I'm not sure why you are talking to me like I'm saying there are.

Let me make this clear: You are confused and you need to go back and read posts more carefully--accusing me of believing Brigham Young was a murderer is highly offensive.

[Anijen]

Thanks for quoting scripture to substantiate a point. OK. So you believe Brigham Young is a murderer? I don't and I tend to question the validity of such "documents" Show me a document that demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that he murdered those people, directly or indirectly and I will be satisfied.

Alter idem never said nor do i think she believes Brigham Young was a murderer. I for one don't know where you get that from.

BY knew that the situation was heating up and could erupt soon, he even sent a messenger back telling them not to attack them. That message arrived too late.

What does that leave us with;

A hot spot full of panicked fearful people on both sides. This unfortunate escalates to murder by some saints and Indians of the Fancher party.

What we conclude from this;

1. Sadly a people were massacred and some local members were to blame.

2. BY did not condone this and even instructed them not to.

[O-Brother]

Alter idem never said nor do i think she believes Brigham Young was a murderer. I for one don't know where you get that from.

BY knew that the situation was heating up and could erupt soon, he even sent a messenger back telling them not to attack them. That message arrived too late.

What does that leave us with;

A hot spot full of panicked fearful people on both sides. This unfortunate escalates to murder by some saints and Indians of the Fancher party.

What we conclude from this;

1. Sadly a people were massacred and some local members were to blame.

2. BY did not condone this and even instructed them not to.

OK. So he was innocent. Which is what I said from the beginning. Thanks for the extra info. I'm done with this thread.

[Mormon Dude]

There are partial transcriptions and photos on the auction's website here: http://www.stampauctionnetwork.com/f/f12129.cfm . The documents dealing with the MMM start about half way down! Looks like one sold for $12,000 and another for $19,000!

[alter idem]

There are partial transcriptions and photos on the auction's website here: http://www.stampauctionnetwork.com/f/f12129.cfm . The documents dealing with the MMM start about half way down! Looks like one sold for $12,000 and another for $19,000!

Thanks Mormon Dude, very interesting stuff!

[USU78]

So what conclusions can we derive from speculations?

Which speculations? The ones made by those who want to "pin" MMM on BY?

[O-Brother]

Oh brother, you NEED to read posts more carefully. How did you ever get the impression I believe Brigham Young is a murderer.

I have discussed this topic on earlier threads and even on this thread I have said I do not believe Brigham Young ordered the massacre--in fact, I will state that after reading extensively on this topic, I am certain Brigham Young had nothing to do with the massacre of the Emigrants.

Do you understand?

You also seem to beleive there are documents that prove Brigham Young was involved. As far as I know, there are none, so I'm not sure why you are talking to me like I'm saying there are.

Let me make this clear: You are confused and you need to go back and read posts more carefully--accusing me of believing Brigham Young was a murderer is highly offensive.

That's too bad you feel that way. Here's why.

Question I asked: "So, you believe Brigham Young is a murderer?" That's called a question. Not an accusation.

To which you defensively responded:

"Let me make this clear: You are confused and you need to go back and read posts more carefully--accusing me of believing Brigham Young was a murderer is highly offensive. "

edited.

[jwhitlock]

Question I asked: "So, you believe Brigham Young is a murderer?" That's called a question. Not an accusation.

The way you're phrasing your "question" is as an accusation.

Not only that, but your accusation came out of thin air, and had no basis in what had been posted before.

You've got two choices at this point. You can apologize for your error, or you can continue to dig yourself in deeper. If you do the latter, your credibility is going to take a major hit.

[handys003]

You know what I heard from some local wahines (girls) on Hapuna beach the other day?

They were in Honolulu several weeks ago, and said they met Pres. Obama. He asked them if they wanted to come over and party with him that night and they did!

[Cold Steel]

Letters do not constitute evidence unless written by the principals. In the Book of Mormon geography debate, we've seen what Rodney Meldrum has written about his research. He heavily implies church approval in areas where it just isn't there. He also implies inspiration and that the Lord is moving forward in the work he's engaged in. These are all delusional on his part and the church has made it clear that no revelation has been forthcoming on this topic. Yet if someone found his writings one or two hundred years from now, one might think the church was approving of his work.

It's not only possible, but likely, that leaders in the Mountain Meadows massacre implied to others that they were acting with the approval of church leaders (even though there's no evidence this is the case). But if someone involved in the massacre were to harbor such views, it's most likely that his conclusions were based on what he wished to believe, or was led to believe.

Bagley would love to see Young and other church leaders implicated, but documentation indicates that Brigham Young had the good sense not to want trouble. He was an eminently practical man and knew that such a confrontation not only was morally wrong, but not what the church needed. I've never believed in the purity of the Fancher-Baker party and suspect they were up to no good. But killing them would mean slaughtering innocents and it would bring down the wrath of the U.S. (not to mention harming the missionary effort).

Our critics cease to be historians when they lose their objectivity. Why they even pretend to be objective is a bit of a mystery when it's obvious to anyone that they would love to link the church with such a deed. They're far more interested in what was done to the Fancher-Baker party than any of the abuses committed by the Gentiles against the Saints. What the Missourians did the Mormons was far worse than what happened at Mountain Meadows, but even many Latter-day Saints don't know the extent of those atrocities.

In this case, it's just more wishful thinking. Bagley should turn to more fruitful pursuits.

[O-Brother]

The way you're phrasing your "question" is as an accusation.

Not only that, but your accusation came out of thin air, and had no basis in what had been posted before.

You've got two choices at this point. You can apologize for your error, or you can continue to dig yourself in deeper. If you do the latter, your credibility is going to take a major hit.

And you are? How did you get in the middle of this? My credibility is independent of ANY assessment from you or anyone else, especially when it comes to digital bytes. You can interpret my post anyway you desire. That's irrelevant to me. I am quite comfortable with what I stated and If I felt an apology was necessary, it would have been there already. I don't demand one either.

[jwhitlock]

And you are? How did you get in the middle of this? My credibility is independent of ANY assessment from you or anyone else, especially when it comes to digital bytes. You can interpret my post anyway you desire. That's irrelevant to me. I am quite comfortable with what I stated and If I felt an apology was necessary, it would have been there already. I don't demand one either.

Well, there's your choice. Lack of credibility - and unwarranted arrogance - noted.

I don't wonder that alter didn't waste any more time with you. I don't intend to either.

[cdowis]

I agree with this as well...but I still believe the doctrine of blood atonement to be a doctrine of Satan, not of Christ. As I said, I know that won't be popular with many other members of the Church, but it's something I've arrived at through prayer and fasting and a strong testimony of the cleansing blood of Christ for all sins, save blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

You obviously feel very strongly about this.

Please tell us specifically what the doctrine of blook atonement means. Let's see exactly what you are talking about. Specifically, the antimormons teach a docttrine they call "blood atonement" which has nothing to do with the LDS church doctine.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi folks,

Before you pass judgment on Will Bagley's assessment of the documents, you may actually want to familiarize yourselves with their content.

If nothing else, a few of the documents are provocative, and all of them are relevant for Mormon studies.

For details of the documents' contents and their purchase prices, see here, here, here, and here.

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Joseph Antley]

Hello,

>>>LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter confirmed that the Utah-based faith was acquiring documents from the auction house, but declined to say how much it spent (records show at least $150,000) or what it will do with the material.

...

Among the items the church won in the auction are documents from a lawsuit brought by Joseph Smith in 1841-42; letters from a non-Mormon who lived near Nauvoo; letters from Army men about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and letters written by Col. Albert Sidney Johnston, who commanded the Army in Utah.<<<

I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm not aware of any biblical instructions with regards to tithing being used to purchase historic documents.

I believe the original article stated that the documents were purchased by a benefactor for the Church.

However, the Church does buy historical items, but why do you assume it would be with tithing money? The Church makes money in several other ways besides tithing.

[lukas_s]

You obviously feel very strongly about this.

Please tell us specifically what the doctrine of blook atonement means. Let's see exactly what you are talking about. Specifically, the antimormons teach a docttrine they call "blood atonement" which has nothing to do with the LDS church doctine.

I do feel strongly about it, because I believe the ultimate testimony any of us can receive, besides the Second Comforter, is a sure knowledge of the forgiveness of ALL sins (save 'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit') by Christ's infinite atonement. I believe such a testimony fills God's creations with such love for their Creator that they are indeed made "new creatures in Christ." I think you would agree with this.

I don't get my knowledge of blood atonement from the anti-Mormons. I find it offensive that you suggest I would. Brigham Young's own sermons, as found in the Journal of Discourses, are the only sources I need. I don't buy into the idea that certain parts of the JoD weren't "transcribed properly," especially considering the number of references made about the teaching by other leaders in the Church, and just for the simple fact that most Latter-day Saints feel comfortable quoting all the "lovey-dovey" stuff from the JoD, but then disregard everything else and give ridiculous explanations for doing such.

Note, before I go on, that I also don't believe there are sins that Christ's Atonement did not pay for, save blaspheming the Holy Spirit. I don't believe the Scriptures teach such a notion. Surely Christ will save whom He will save, and damn whom He will damn. It is completely within His Divine Providence to save the murderous, adulterous, treasonous, and apostate amongst us. The Savior's Atonement is mocked by those who claim there is a method on this earth whereby they can receive forgiveness of their sins outside of the Lord...and that method was the doctrine of blood atonement.

"It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit.... There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, or a calf, or of turtle dove, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man." (JoD 4: pp. 53-54. Year: 1856)

From that same reference:

"There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.

"I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them....

"And further more, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins."

I think that's more than enough of a reference point. There are many, many more which expound upon this doctrine. I don't like reading these words...it causes the Spirit to leave and makes me feel great shame for some of the early leaders of the Church. I know you're well aware of the other references to this teaching found in the sermons of Brigham Young, so I think it unnecessary to continue further, if for no other reason than my own personal beliefs.

Any way you try to spin it, it is clear that Young taught that there are sins which require the sacrifice of the sinful vessel, which are outside of the power of Christ's Atonement. To me, that is pure blasphemy.

[smac97]

Hi folks

Before you pass judgment on Will Bagley's assessment of the documents, you may actually want to familiarize yourselves with their content.

If nothing else, a few of the documents are provocative, and all of them are relevant for Mormon studies.

For details of the documents' contents and their purchase prices, see here, here, here, and here.

The first, second and fourth of these four links do not seem to include the documents under discussion here. What am I missing?

The third link (this one) references Item "573" as "An incredible group of six letters, three entirely in Johnston's hand, 1857-58, while a colonel commanding the Army of Utah."

One of those letters states (the actual quotes are in italics):

The last letter, from Camp Floyd on November 2, 1859, he writes Assistant Adjutant General Lorenzo Thomas in New York about Maj. Isaac Lynde's expedition, protecting emigrants passing through the territory to California, Washington, and Oregon. All the same, "three parties were robbed and ten or twelve of their members, comprising men, women, and children, murdered; one of these parties was plundered before and two subsequent to the arrival of the troops. The perpetrators of the robbery of the first party were severely chastised" though the others were not found. "They are supposed to be vagabonds from the Shoshones or Snake and Bannack Indians. There is abundant evidence to prove that these robber bands are accompanied by white men and probably instigated and led by them. These bands are composed of vicious tools in the hands of worse white men."

I'm not sure if this is a reference to the MMM.

The next item, 574, clearly is (direct quotes from it in italics):

Angry content letter by Lieut. Benjamin Wingate of the 5th US Infantry, Camp Floyd, Utah Territory, March 24, 1859. He tells his friend A.L. Hardy of Lexington, Indiana, that the mail has been delayed by cold weather and deep snow. The soldiers hope Congress will send them better rations, but Wingate doubts it. They have heard: "from our Col. who is in Washington, that the 5th Infty would be ordered to New Mexico or Orazona this spring. I hope it will be to New Mexico...I have seen enough of mormonism. They are a set of damned sons of bitches and if justice could be done all the head devils would be hung higher than havon. But justice cannot be had. There is not the slightest possibility of the judges being able to inforce the laws. Judge Cradlbough convened his court about two weeks ago at Provo City and yesterday he discharged the grand jury telling them at the same time that they were a set of perjured damned scoundrels. The only bills they could find were against two Indians notwithstanding the judge in his charge to them pointed out several cases of murder and informed them where they could find evidence but no, they could find no bills against Mormons. The judge I believe intends to adjourn his court to this place and make an other effort...I consider the Mormon difficulty no more settled at this time than it was Eighteen months ago. The only difference is that there is a considerable force of United States troops in the Territory...If the government would only say the word for us we are almost spoiling for a mess with the heathen devils."With original cover bearing Camp Floyd, U.T. postmark. Wingate had begun as a private in the service and would ultimately reach the rank of captain and brevet major during the Civil War. He died in June 1862 of wounds suffered months before at the Battle of Valverde in New Mexico. Also an outstanding content manuscript document, a true copy of a statement by Judge Cradlebaugh from the bench, in response to a supposed "proclamation" by Governor Alfred Cumming. Cumming protests the presence of US troops in the vicinity of the Provo courthouse, where the judge presides. Cradlebaugh's reply is savage: "Governor Cumming speaks of a Company...being stationed around the Court House...and also of several Companies...in Sight of the Court House. He also says that the presence of these soldiers has a tendency...to terrify the inhabitants...also to subvert the ends of justice...I have only to say...they are stationed near the court House and on one side of it. The additional troops referred to as being within sight of the Court House, are at least four miles distant...In regard to the inhabitants being terrified...those who seem to have been stricken with terror have fled the country on account of crimes committed by them and the fear of just punishment...Among them are...several of the jurors, Presidents of 'Stakes', Bishops and also officers of the Territory." Furthermore, justice has been subverted by intimidation of witnesses by the locals, and some witnesses have asked the army not to leave, fearing they will be killed.

Well! An army lieutenant (Wingate) who calls the Mormons "a set of damned sons of bitches," the "head devils" of which would, "if justice could be done," "be hung higher than havon." I suppose the attractiveness of this sentiment to Will Bagley is pretty darn self-evident.

This lieutenant goes on to yearn for "the word" from "the government" to unleash the Army on the Mormons, because the soldiers "are almost spoiling for a mess with the heathen devils." How dare the Mormons feel like Johnston's Army was a hostile force! What on earth brought about that stupid inference?

Meanwhile, Judge Cradlebaugh - that paragon of judicial objectivity - condemns Gov. Cummings because he (Cummings) "says that the presence of these soldiers has a tendency...to terrify the inhabitants." Idiot Mormons! As we can see from Wingate's letters, Johnston's Army only went to the Utah Territory to do a bit of sight-seeing!

The next item, 575, is a letter by Charles Brewer, an assistant surgeon, who has this to say (actual quotes in italics):

Brewer writes in outrage to Dr. Abram Claude in Annapolis, MD: "You are already aware of the horrible state of morality among these people. I can call by names individual cases of men marrying...a mother & her daughters, a man his own 5 & 6 nieces, & even horrible to relate living with their own children: this they do they say to propagate rapidly & make tabernacles for souls which they suppose to be flying about in the air like nats looking for an abode.""Evidence of murders too horrible to be told & perpetrated by the authority of the Church are becoming unraveled. It is now proved that at the massacre of the Emmigrants at the Mountain Meadows, after the men were murdered by the Mormons, the Indians were called in to do the bloodier part of the butchery, and Mormons have told me that defenceless women & children clung in numbers around the legs of the brutal savages in vain imploring mercy and offering themselves as slaves. They were not only scalped, but according to Mormon custom their throats cut from ear to ear & heads severed...The Juries & grand juries are composed of Mormons. This too sanctioned by the Governor who is the pot companion of the Traitor (Brigham) Young & whose private secretary is married to a mother & her daughter.""Judge Sinclair with volumes of evidence of crime before him was forced to adjourn his court as a failure. Judge Cradlebaugh is now using his strongest efforts. The bishops of Provo, Springville & other cities were engaged in the murders. Guilt has driven them to the mountains. When officers approach a city to arrest criminals the alarm is sounded from the walls with a bugle & the criminal is shielded & is assisted to escape. Even when criminals are caught, the legislature have in every way attempted to embarrass the execution of Justice. AT LAST the Judiciary have been vested with the power of calling upon troops to act as a posse comitatus. The Mormons are in a state of rebellion. In their tabernacles they pray that pestilence & famine may destroy the army & foreign power subvert the Government. They preach & practice excommunication against those who sell to the army. Such are the people just pardoned from treason (by President Buchanan, who had just botched a show of military force) Are they not, TRAITORS still?"

So let's parse this out a bit:

"Evidence of murders too horrible to be told & perpetrated by the authority of the Church are becoming unraveled. It is now proved that at the massacre of the Emmigrants at the Mountain Meadows, after the men were murdered by the Mormons, the Indians were called in to do the bloodier part of the butchery, and Mormons have told me that defenceless women & children clung in numbers around the legs of the brutal savages in vain imploring mercy and offering themselves as slaves."

This is truly horrific stuff, and it follows the general contours of what apparently happened in the MMM. But how does it implicate Brigham Young?

"They were not only scalped, but according to Mormon custom their throats cut from ear to ear & heads severed...The Juries & grand juries are composed of Mormons. This too sanctioned by the Governor who is the pot companion of the Traitor (Brigham) Young & whose private secretary is married to a mother & her daughter.""

This letter was written in March 1859, about 18 months after the MMM (in September 1857). The reference here to a "Governor" who is the "companion" of the "Traitor" Brigham Young is an apparent reference to Alfred Cummings, who replaced Brigham Young as governor in 1858. So the indictment seems to be primarily against Cummings, not Young. And the antecedent to this indictment seems to be the presence of Mormons on juries and grand juries (not the MMM), since Cummings was not on the scene in 1857, and so could not have "sanctioned" the MMM.

"Judge Sinclair with volumes of evidence of crime before him was forced to adjourn his court as a failure. Judge Cradlebaugh is now using his strongest efforts. The bishops of Provo, Springville & other cities were engaged in the murders."

Assuming "the murders" is a reference to the MMM, what "bishops of Provo, Springville and other cities" did Brewer have in mind?

Also, Brewer was not a percipient witness to the MMM, so does he know who was involved?

Also, how does any of this implicate Brigham Young in the MMM?

-Smac

[cdowis]

Any way you try to spin it, it is clear that Young taught that there are sins which require the sacrifice of the sinful vessel, which are outside of the power of Christ's Atonement. To me, that is pure blasphemy.

Thank you for expressing your understanding of this doctrine. I guess since you claim to have received a direct revelation on the matter, there is no point in discussing it with you.

I wish you all the best.

[Scott Lloyd]

The first, second and fourth of these four links do not seem to include the documents under discussion here. What am I missing?

The third link (this one) references Item "573" as "An incredible group of six letters, three entirely in Johnston's hand, 1857-58, while a colonel commanding the Army of Utah."

One of those letters states (the actual quotes are in italics):

I'm not sure if this is a reference to the MMM.

The next item, 574, clearly is (direct quotes from it in italics):

Well! An army lieutenant (Wingate) who calls the Mormons "a set of damned sons of bitches," the "head devils" of which would, "if justice could be done," "be hung higher than havon." I suppose the attractiveness of this sentiment to Will Bagley is pretty darn self-evident.

This lieutenant goes on to yearn for "the word" from "the government" to unleash the Army on the Mormons, because the soldiers "are almost spoiling for a mess with the heathen devils." How dare the Mormons feel like Johnston's Army was a hostile force! What on earth brought about that stupid inference?

Meanwhile, Judge Cradlebaugh - that paragon of judicial objectivity - condemns Gov. Cummings because he (Cummings) "says that the presence of these soldiers has a tendency...to terrify the inhabitants." Idiot Mormons! As we can see from Wingate's letters, Johnston's Army only went to the Utah Territory to do a bit of sight-seeing!

The next item, 575, is a letter by Charles Brewer, an assistant surgeonhas this to day (actual quotes in italics):

So let's parse this out a bit:

"Evidence of murders too horrible to be told & perpetrated by the authority of the Church are becoming unraveled. It is now proved that at the massacre of the Emmigrants at the Mountain Meadows, after the men were murdered by the Mormons, the Indians were called in to do the bloodier part of the butchery, and Mormons have told me that defenceless women & children clung in numbers around the legs of the brutal savages in vain imploring mercy and offering themselves as slaves."

This is truly horrific stuff, and it follows the general contours of what apparently happened in the MMM. But how does it implicate Brigham Young?

"They were not only scalped, but according to Mormon custom their throats cut from ear to ear & heads severed...The Juries & grand juries are composed of Mormons. This too sanctioned by the Governor who is the pot companion of the Traitor (Brigham) Young & whose private secretary is married to a mother & her daughter.""

This letter was written in March 1859, about 18 months after the MMM (in September 1857). The reference here to a "Governor" who is the "companion" of the "Traitor" Brigham Young is an apparent reference to Alfred Cummings, who replaced Brigham Young as governor in 1858. So the indictment seems to be primarily against Cummings, not Young. And the antecedent to this indictment seems to be the presence of Mormons on juries and grand juries (not the MMM), since Cummings was not on the scene in 1857, and so could not have "sanctioned" the MMM.

"Judge Sinclair with volumes of evidence of crime before him was forced to adjourn his court as a failure. Judge Cradlebaugh is now using his strongest efforts. The bishops of Provo, Springville & other cities were engaged in the murders."

Assuming "the murders" is a reference to the MMM, what "bishops of Provo, Springville and other cities" did Brewer have in mind?

Also, Brewer was not a percipient witness to the MMM, so does he know who was involved?

Also, how does any of this implicate Brigham Young in the MMM?

-Smac

Thanks for this excellent summary and analysis, Smac.

In my opinion, it was irresponsible of the newswriter to quote Bagley as saying it "bolsters" his opinion without including any background or substantiation as to why he feels that way. Also, Turley, Walker and Leonard, whose book is the best to date on Mountain Meadows, undoubtedly would have given a contrasting opinion and should have been sought out for comment as well, if the news writer was going to include Bagley's opinion. As it is, the inclusion of Bagley's comment seems like a gratuitous slam at the Church.

[Bob Crockett]

As I mention in my FARMS review of Bagley's book, an army Captain's journal was published by the UHQ in the 1940s. He has quite a different view of things and wasn't all that enamored with Judge Cradelbaugh. He claims Cradelbaugh terminated the Provo grand jury early when Johnston withdrew army support. U.S. District Attorney Wilson wrote in his official correspondence that he never brought indictments against MMM persons in Provo, handling other crimes instead.

Wilson and Cradelbaugh had a fundamental disagreement. Wilson argued that the indictments should be brought in southern Utah so that he could muster witnesses. Cradelbaugh wanted to bring indictments in northern Utah without witnesses.

Finally, Cradelbaugh called Wilson's bluff and went to southern Utah to bring indictments. But, as I point out in my article, he didn't bring Wilson with his court and it was Wilson's job to bring indictments. Although indictments may have been issued in 1859, Wilson didn't execute them. Eventually, U.S. Attorney General Black condemned Cradelbaugh for all this.

So, Captain Tracy was fairly knowledgeable about the problems Cradelbaugh was posing. Cradelbaugh was grandstanding and just didn't want to work with other federal officials to carefully muster evidence.

Bagley misses all of this in Blood of the Prophets -- particularly Tracy's account. His new book might have picked up on some of this; I haven't finished reading it.

[William Schryver]

Thanks, smac, for taking the time to review some of the letter summaries and then posting them here.

Wow!

That is some great stuff!

I will be interested in examining how much the perception of the "Mormon Problem" among the troops in the army breaks down along "party lines." That is, I would like to examine the subsequent allegiances of these solider/letter writers in the Civil War which ensues shortly after these letters were written. Of course, we know where Johnston's sympathies were, and he was killed on April 6, 1862 at the Battle of Shiloh in Tennessee, a devout "rebel".

Benjamin Wingate, who wrote the inflammatory letter you cited, remained with the United States Army, and was killed early in the war. Fort Wingate (an army base until the 1990s, but since closed) in New Mexico was named for him.

Captain Albert Tracy, whom Scott cites above, was a New Yorker, and a confirmed "Yankee".

Philip St. George Cooke, who had led the Mormon Battalion, and who famously removed his hat as Johnston's army first passed through Salt Lake, fought for the North, although he was born in Virginia. His son-in-law was the soon-to-be-famous J.E.B. Stuart, the flamboyant southern calvary commander who is probably as responsible as anyone for the confederate loss at Gettysburg.

I have already been aware of numerous fascinating stories concerning the subsequent Civil War experience of many of the officers and soldiers who spent time at Camp Floyd during the "Mormon War." This collection of letters should add a considerable amount of knowledge and color to that very interesting episode in American history. I'm quite excited to see them all published.

As for Will Bagley and his dark suggestions of conspiracy--both in 1857 as well as 2010--take them for what they're worth. Bagley is the single biggest blowhard in the exmormon crowd at the moment. As a historian, he is a second-rate propagandist. As an anti-Mormon activist, his days will pass just like those who have gone before him.