Bloody Brigham

[USU78]

I've never suggested that it was "your" choice. I do wonder if it would be in you to offer it to him.

Had I chosen such a law enforcement or military career, and it were my duty, I would man up and do it. The warrior ethos hasn't entirely expired in this country. I'm also fine with the death penalty, however administered. The Frogs thought la belle Madame Guillotine quite humane and relatively painless: they may have been right.

You seem quite obsessed with the reasons for maintaining firing squad as a method of execution. Me? Doesn't much matter. It's certainly no less barbaric than poison administered via gas or IV. Hanging, however, I don't think I could ever get used to. The ritual surrounding it did, apparently, provide the opportunity for moral teaching and catharsis.

As for Senhor Gilmore? Glad he's dead. "He that harms one of these little ones" oughta pay with his own life, however taken.

I'm suggesting that it was a well known doctrine, accepted by many to a point that it was part of the laws of the land, which persisted into the late 1900's.

You apparently have no problem imputing an ethos upon a people, whether that people accepts it as their own or not.

I've also suggested that theological reasoning behind the doctrine is sound. If I were still a TBM, apparently I would be in fairly good company with my old beliefs:

{snipsies of Dialogue tendentiousness}

And yet it's not what you have come to think. There's no evidence that anybody at any time anywhere actually employed or employs your views of the Blood Atonement Libel as motivation for action. No evidence. Nobody. No time. What we do see and what we definitely have is an ethos of declaring our willingness to give up our lives rather than breach our agreements with G-d.

But, of course, that leads the antiMo crowd to lift their skirts and run away screeching, "Blood Atonement! Blood Atonement! Fire! Foes! Danites! Brigham! Bugaboos! Boogeymen!"

Here's a secret: "Riders of the Purple Sage is fiction. So's Blood Atonement as employed by the ignorant and the bigot. It's a libel. The Blood Atonement Libel. And it's employed by the interested and ignorant bigot to scare the socks out of anybody who would become a stolen sheep."

Maybe, from time to time, you guys might try having the where-with-all to stand-up for something and defend the actual doctrine instead of personally attacking and belittling anyone that tries to approach the subject.

Provide actual evidence for the Blood Atonement Libel as activating, actuating force in the lives of XIXth Century or any other Mormons and maybe you can earn your way out of the honestly earned and bestowed appellation of antiMormon bigot.

[rockslider]

funny that a "critic" would put up a defense for BY's doctrine and continue to be attacked for it.

keep up the good work ... You've won, your defense seems true, the modern day church has no doctrine.

[USU78]

keep up the good work ... You've won, your defense seems true, the modern day church has no doctrine.

But you forgot:

Provide actual evidence for the Blood Atonement Libel as activating, actuating force in the lives of XIXth Century or any other Mormons and maybe you can earn your way out of the honestly earned and bestowed appellation of antiMormon bigot.

The only reason to keep harping on the Blood Atonement Libel is to scare children with it. Don't be cute, rocky. You get us to agree with the Evie take on a a very obscure teaching by BY that was never adopted by the Church, which take is far, far from what BY intended by it. Then you take the next step that it is an activating, actuating force in Mormondom even today. Or you leave it to others, who can then say, "See! See! We always knew it!"

So sorry. Not falling for that trap.

[rockslider]

But you forgot:

The only reason to keep harping on the Blood Atonement Libel is to scare children with it. Don't be cute, rocky. You get us to agree with the Evie take on a a very obscure teaching by BY that was never adopted by the Church, which take is far, far from what BY intended by it. Then you take the next step that it is an activating, actuating force in Mormondom even today. Or you leave it to others, who can then say, "See! See! We always knew it!"

So sorry. Not falling for that trap.

I

[USU78]

I

[rockslider]

Kinda noticed.

After William

[USU78]

Right or wrong, that is just the way things were/are. By simple association, that does not make me or you a bad person. Maybe it

[rockslider]

Thank you for the reply.

[paulpatter]

I guess we've had enough fun. Since paulpatter's having trouble providing the requested context, I will do so. Here is the page of the JoD, in toto:

And here is the FAIR response to this bit of UTLM mischief, to which our friend paulpatter subscribes

. . . .

USU's link takes one to an article by Mike Parker entitled "Did Brigham Young Say that He Would Kill an Adulterous Wife with a Javelin?" Brother Parker makes a gallant effort to explain that Brigham Young wasn't referring to his day but rather to a time when the Saints "fully know the principles of eternal salvation." Parker adds: ". . .Brigham clearly indicates that the time when 'blood atonement' would be practiced was far in the future, when the Latter-day Saints would be educated in. . .celestial law."

Even a cursory reading of other statements by BY re. blood atonement leads one to readily believe he was referring to his day, his time. Thus we read in Vol. 4 of the Journal of Discourses (p. 54) the following: "I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins." Obviously, those brethren believed blood atonement was operative in their day. BY followed the preceding statement with this: "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. As it was in ancient days, so it is in our day [emphases added]. . . ."

In Vol. 1 of the JoD (pp. 108-109), BY gives this counsel: "If you want to know what to do with a thief that you find stealing, I say kill him on the spot, and never suffer him to commit another iniquity" [emphasis added]. And in the same JoD volume (p. 83), Young states, regarding the treatment of apostates: "I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife, and conquer or die. [Great commotion in the congregation, and a simultaneous burst of feeling, assenting to the declaration.] Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put on the line. . . . [Voices, generally, 'go it, go it.'] If you say it is right, raise your hands. [All hands up.] Let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this, and every good work."

Brother Parker's article is not without merit, but--quite honestly--paints a less than complete picture.

[USU78]

{snipsies to get to} Brother Parker's article is not without merit, but--quite honestly--paints a less than complete picture.

"[L]ess than complete" meaning, of course, "doesn't say the bigoted, libelous things I would say."

It is called the Blood Atonement Libel because, PitarPater, it doesn't exist as you understand it and never did.

Find us some objectively verifiable evidence and then maybe we can have a discussion on what motivated the incidents and whether BY approved. Otherwise, I'm not clear exactly what it is you're trying to accomplish with your inappositions like the one I just snipped.

[Pahoran]

Paul,

you pattered:

Your supposition that BY's blood atonement doctrine did not apply to Gentiles is questionable at best. In a Feb. 8, 1857, sermon delivered in the tabernacle and published in the Deseret News on Feb. 18, President Young rehearsed the rationale for his belief in blood atonement. Here are two on-point excerpts:

"All mankind [underlining added] love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation."

"I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. . . . This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. . .that is the way to love mankind" [emphases added]. It is not a stretch to say that BY was sanctioning murder, in certain situations, by individuals acting alone. In fact, he was encouraging it. Astounding!

Your brazenly false accusation is indeed "astounding," but you're right that "it is not a stretch." A blatant, out-and-out fabrication goes far beyond a stretch.

Look again at your carefully cropped excerpts. They abound with expressions like "he would be glad" and "if he wants salvation," etc. "Blood atonement" as a theory of capital punishment contemplated a model of criminal justice in which a perpetrator, recognising his wrongoing, and seeking to make amends, voluntarily steps forward and asks to have justice done upon him. The accusation that Brigham was either "sanctioning murder" or "encouraging" it is entirely counterfactual.

Now Paul, you have two outstanding calls for references before you. Please answer these in your next post in this thread. For your convenience, I reproduce them here:

1) Call for references that Brigham actually owned a javelin.

Because if he didn't, then there is simply no way that his "javelin" remarks, so beloved of accusers such as yourself, could be any more than rhetorical flourish.

2) Call for references that Brigham ever ordered, authorised or condoned such an act of murder as you so casually accuse him of, in real life.

Retract my earlier statement? No way.

Why? Would a retraction be too much like honesty?

Regards,

Pahoran

[paulpatter]

Paul,

you pattered:

Your brazenly false accusation is indeed "astounding," but you're right that "it is not a stretch." A blatant, out-and-out fabrication goes far beyond a stretch.

Look again at your carefully cropped excerpts. They abound with expressions like "he would be glad" and "if he wants salvation," etc. "Blood atonement" as a theory of capital punishment contemplated a model of criminal justice in which a perpetrator, recognising his wrongoing, and seeking to make amends, voluntarily steps forward and asks to have justice done upon him. The accusation that Brigham was either "sanctioning murder" or "encouraging" it is entirely counterfactual.

The point of Mike Parker's article is that BY's blood atonement doctrine was not in force in his day. With or without the qualifying phrases, the fact remains that BY himself said that men (number not identified) had come to him "and offer[ed] their lives to atone for their sins" (see Post 84). It's obvious they believed the blood atonement policy was in force at that time (adopted by BY via Joseph Smith). BY also said, re. sins not covered by the Savior's atonement, "As it was in ancient days, so it is in our day. . . ." Young didn't qualify that statement in any way; the meaning is clear.

I also stated in Post 84 BY's obsession (what else to call it?) with the shedding of blood. I cited Vol. 1 of the JoD (pp. 108-109) in which BY encourages individuals who are caught stealing to "kill [them] on the spot." You may not think that advice sanctions or encourages murder, sans something resembling a judicial procedure, but I do. Additionally, I cited BY's counsel for dealing with apostates (technically Gentiles): "I will unsheath my bowie knife, and conquer or die" (Vol. 1 of the JoD, p. 83).

Your fanciful notion that I have fabricated something is. . .just that.

: Now Paul, you have two outstanding calls for references before you. Please answer these in your next post in this thread. For your convenience, I reproduce them here:

1) Call for references that Brigham actually owned a javelin.

Too, too funny. Let's see, a speaker or writer cannot use an object in an analogy that he/she does not possess. Even more ludicrous is your belief that BY's reference to a javelin somehow mitigates/justifies the recklessness of his language.

: Because if he didn't, then there is simply no way that his "javelin" remarks, so beloved of accusers such as yourself, could be any more than rhetorical flourish.

Nice try. What matters, however, is what BY said he would do with a javelin. Did that point escape you?

: 2) Call for references that Brigham ever ordered, authorised or condoned such an act of murder as you so casually accuse him of, in real life.

Although he was troubled by what happened at MMM, he condoned it when, in visiting the site, he declared that "Vengeance is mine, and I HAVE repaid" (exact wording varies), as recorded in Wilford Woodruff's journal who was with him at the time. Hence, he didn't condone "an act of murder"--he condoned 123 such acts. Moreover, 1) he frustrated every effort by federal authorities to investigate the atrocity; and 2) he shared, albeit perhaps indirectly, in the plunder from the Fancher wagon train. Sumner Howard, a federal investigator, wrote that he had very good evidence "Young had the benefit of the property of the murdered Emigrants and [had] defrauded the United States" (Dwyer, The Gentile Comes to Utah, 105-7, 110-11). And then there is this statement by John Chislet (handcart veteran) who, talking with Robert Baskin, pointed to a carriage escorted by an armed guard. Said Chislet: "That man in the carriage with Brigham Young is John D. Lee. . .and the carriage in which they are riding is one which the emigrants owned" (Baskin, Reminiscences of Early Utah, 138-39).

: Why? Would a retraction be too much like honesty?

Not at all, provided it were justified.

Regards,

Pahoran

[paulpatter]

"[L]ess than complete" meaning, of course, "doesn't say the bigoted, libelous things I would say."

It is called the Blood Atonement Libel because, PitarPater, it doesn't exist as you understand it and never did.

Find us some objectively verifiable evidence and then maybe we can have a discussion on what motivated the incidents and whether BY approved. Otherwise, I'm not clear exactly what it is you're trying to accomplish with your inappositions like the one I just snipped.

What are inappositions? Couldn't find the plural noun form, eh? 'Tis a pity.

[USU78]

'78: "[L]ess than complete" meaning, of course, "doesn't say the bigoted, libelous things I would say."

It is called the Blood Atonement Libel because, PitarPater, it doesn't exist as you understand it and never did.

Find us some objectively verifiable evidence and then maybe we can have a discussion on what motivated the incidents and whether BY approved. Otherwise, I'm not clear exactly what it is you're trying to accomplish with your inappositions like the one I just snipped.

What are inappositions? Couldn't find the plural noun form, eh? 'Tis a pity.

I like Braveheart. Especially where Stephen, the insane Irishman, makes his appearance, and says:

Stephen: The Almighty says,

[Bernard Gui]

I also stated in Post 84 BY's obsession (what else to call it?) with the shedding of blood. I cited Vol. 1 of the JoD (pp. 108-109) in which BY encourages individuals who are caught stealing to "kill [them] on the spot." You may not think that advice sanctions or encourages murder, sans something resembling a judicial procedure, but I do.

It was not uncommon in the US and England at the time to make stealing a capital crime.

Additionally, I cited BY's counsel for dealing with apostates (technically Gentiles): "I will unsheath my bowie knife, and conquer or die" (Vol. 1 of the JoD, p. 83).

Your fanciful notion that I have fabricated something is. . .just that.

Let's look at the context of this "Bloody Brigham" quote [in bold italic]. What precedes it is crucial to understanding it. I have underlined some salient points. You could not be further from the truth.

Let me ask this congregation, that portion of it that was in Jackson county; and again that portion that was in Kirtland in the days of Joseph, and in leaving Kirtland; then those that were in Caldwell and Davis counties, Missouri; then ask those who were in Nauvoo in his day, and after he was slain; these portions of my congregation which I have mentioned I will ask, what has produced your persecutions and sorrow? What has been the starting point of all your affictions? They began with apostates in your midst; these disaffected Spirits caused others to come in, worse than they, who would run out and bring in all the devils they possibly could. That has been the starting point and grand cause of all our difficulties, every time we were driven. Are there not witnesses of this, here? Yes, a good portion of this congregation are witnesses of these things, although many of them never saw Joseph, and were not personally acquainted with him.

We have been persecuted

[Bob Crockett]

Although he was troubled by what happened at MMM, he condoned it when, in visiting the site, he declared that "Vengeance is mine, and I HAVE repaid" (exact wording varies), as recorded in Wilford Woodruff's journal who was with him at the time. Hence, he didn't condone "an act of murder"--he condoned 123 such acts.

This really the best of the evidence; evidence Bagley cites as being an accessory after the fact. But, Will just defines the term "accessory" to his own liking; this is not accessory evidence. All Brigham said here was that the Fanchers got what they deserved, and he probably shared the view that many in region shared. But, he was known for his intemperate and sarcastic remarks; we don't really know what he intended by the remark, but if this is the best you have it is nothing. St. Paul himself is guilty of many intemperate and sarcastic remarks, including a pun to suggest that apostates ought to have their genitals cut off.

Moreover, 1) he frustrated every effort by federal authorities to investigate the atrocity; and 2) he shared, albeit perhaps indirectly, in the plunder from the Fancher wagon train. Sumner Howard, a federal investigator, wrote that he had very good evidence "Young had the benefit of the property of the murdered Emigrants and [had] defrauded the United States" (Dwyer, The Gentile Comes to Utah, 105-7, 110-11).

And then there is this statement by John Chislet (handcart veteran) who, talking with Robert Baskin, pointed to a carriage escorted by an armed guard. Said Chislet: "That man in the carriage with Brigham Young is John D. Lee. . .and the carriage in which they are riding is one which the emigrants owned" (Baskin, Reminiscences of Early Utah, 138-39).

This is just plainly false on a number of fronts. Your quote: "Young had the benefit of the property of the murdered Emigrants and [had] defrauded the United States" is indeed Sumner Howard's words (I am a careful student of his work, have been in touch with his descendants and have been contemplating an article about him but haven't located his deposited files yet), but this statement came 20 years after the atrocity. The reality is that Howard long suspected that Brigham Young had something to do with the massacre, but for every one of these kind of quotes I can cite to quotes where he said he had no evidence. In a 28 September 1876 letter to Attorney General Howard Taft, Howard said he had no evidence against Brigham Young when called on the carpet by the press for not prosecuting the prophet. "It became apparent early in the investigation, that there is no evidence whatsoever to connect the chief authorities of the Mormon Church with the Massacre, on the contrary those authorities produced documents and other evidence showing clearly that not only was that great crime solely an individual offense on the part of those who committed it, but that the orders, letters[,] proclamations etc. which issued from the central Mormon authority which was also at that time the Territorial authority were directly and positively contrary to all shedding of blood, not only of emigrants passing through the Territory, but also forbade the killing of the Soldiers of Johnsons [sic] Army which was marching on Utah." (William Nelson and Sumner Howard to Alphonso Taft, 28 September 1876, General Records of the Department of Justice, Letters Received, "Mountain Meadows Massacre Letters," RG 60, box 1015, National Archives.) Do you think Will Bagley would cite to this letter? He didn't even possess it! Remarkable.

Also, your statement that Young "frustrated every effort by federal authorities to investigate the atrocity" is also false. Keeping in mind that he was not in political power at the time, he did a number of interesting things -- the most interesting was that he offered to pay for the services of a Mormon territorial marshal to locate and arrest the perpetrators. The U.S. Marshal explained to his superiors that he turned down the offer because it came from a Mormon. Brigham Young also provided testimony to Sumner Howard for use at the second trial, and also asked witnesses to come forward and testify. As Howard's letter which I cite above indicates, Brigham Young provided what the church could in providing evidence.

And then, you cite from Baskin. What a totally unreliable witness Baskin is -- removed in disgrace from the prosecution of the Lee trial for grandstanding without evidence. He was so embittered about his removal that he repeatedly went on the attack against U.S. Attorney Sumner Howard (his replacement), charging him with all sorts of terrible things, from bribery to incompetence. Bagley repeatedly cites from Baskin as an authoritative witness to the events of the second trial of John D. Lee when, in fact, Baskin did nothing more than read about the trial in the comfort of his Salt Lake City law offices. He never went close to the second trial. Does Bagley tell us that Baskin's sole knowledge of events of the case after he was kicked off it came from the Salt Lake Tribune? No.

The truth is here that there is no evidence that Chislet ever said such a thing, or would have any possible basis for knowing the fact claimed by Baskin. How would a person, who was not at the massacre, possibly know that a carriage was one of the Fanchers?

Chislet, of course, was a very bitter fellow. He condemned Franklin D. Richards for urging the Martin company on so late in the summer; but a witness to events in Southern Utah he was not.

[Smith]

Unless the limp-wrist, lace-panty crowd can come up with something factual, substantive, and truly damning, I've yet to see any reason to consider the association embarassing to either party- let alone that the association somehow proved Young to have been a murderous tyrant.

Selek,

Just got to tell you, I love your style, your writings have put a broad grin on my face...

Now back to the scheduled programming.

[rockslider]

Selek,

Just got to tell you, I love your style, your writings have put a broad grin on my face...

Now back to the scheduled programming.

He truly is one of the masters of ad hominem attack isn't he!

[Pahoran]

The point of Mike Parker's article is that BY's blood atonement doctrine was not in force in his day. With or without the qualifying phrases, the fact remains that BY himself said that men (number not identified) had come to him "and offer[ed] their lives to atone for their sins" (see Post 84).

And in how many cases did he take them up on it?

Again, and again, and again, you make my point: you have no evil deeds to accuse Brigham of -- much as you wish you did -- so you have to spin his words to the utmost.

It's obvious they believed the blood atonement policy was in force at that time (adopted by BY via Joseph Smith). BY also said, re. sins not covered by the Savior's atonement, "As it was in ancient days, so it is in our day. . . ." Young didn't qualify that statement in any way; the meaning is clear.

You hope, given that Brigham never acted in a way that would support your claim.

As I mentioned above: Sir Richard Burton, the English explorer, personally met Brigham in 1860, and made this observation:

"He often reproves his erring followers in purposely violent language, making the terrors of a scolding the punishment in lieu of hanging for a stolen horse or cow." (Burton, The City of the Saints, Page 239.)

Therefore, any honest comment upon Brigham's discourse, if such we are ever to see provided by one of the Church's critics, will most scrupulously take this habit of his into account.

So when are you planning to start?

I also stated in Post 84 BY's obsession (what else to call it?) with the shedding of blood.

What else to call it? I guess it depends upon whether you want to be honest about it or not. It's a strange "obsession" that never actually motivates the "obsessed" person to action!

Here's a suggestion: if you want to be honest about it, you could refer to Brigham's "occasional use of bloodshed rhetoric during a limited period of his presidency."

But only if you want to be honest about it.

I cited Vol. 1 of the JoD (pp. 108-109) in which BY encourages individuals who are caught stealing to "kill [them] on the spot." You may not think that advice sanctions or encourages murder, sans something resembling a judicial procedure, but I do. Additionally, I cited BY's counsel for dealing with apostates (technically Gentiles): "I will unsheath my bowie knife, and conquer or die" (Vol. 1 of the JoD, p. 83).

For the which malicious misrepresentation, Bernard has handed you your head.

Your fanciful notion that I have fabricated something is. . .just that.

No, I have understated the case.

Too, too funny. Let's see, a speaker or writer cannot use an object in an analogy that he/she does not possess.

On the contrary, a speaker or writer is perfectly entitled to use such imagery.

The error arises when someone purporting to explain said speaker or writer's meaning tries to create the impression -- knowing it to be false -- that the metaphor is to be taken literally.

I'll explain this to you v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y, so there's a chance you just might be able to keep up:

1. Brigham did not own a javelin.
   
2. Therefore, when he said he would use one in some circumstance or other, he was not speaking literally.
   
3. Therefore, those who try to pretend that he was speaking literally, lose all credibility by virtue of that indefensible falsehood.
   

Is it clear now?

Even more ludicrous is your belief that BY's reference to a javelin somehow mitigates/justifies the recklessness of his language.

What is actually "ludicrous" is your attempt to convince the gullible that Brigham's reference to a javelin was meant to be understood as a literal exhortation to murder.

That claim is a barefaced lie.

But at least you are not the author of it.

Nice try. What matters, however, is what BY said he would do with a javelin. Did that point escape you?

The only point that seems to be escaping anyone is the point that, since he didn't own such an object, he could not, in real life, possibly do what Phineas did.

And who does that point escape? Why yes, it's you.

Since Rob has handed you your head for your malicious misrepresentations about the MMM, I see no reason to labour that particular point.

Not at all, provided it were justified.

It is.

Regards,

Pahoran

[paulpatter]

This really the best of the evidence; evidence Bagley cites as being an accessory after the fact. But, Will just defines the term "accessory" to his own liking; this is not accessory evidence. All Brigham said here was that the Fanchers got what they deserved, and he probably shared the view that many in region shared.

Remarkable: "All [emphasis added] Brigham Young said was that the Fanchers got what they deserved." Hence, the cowardly slaughter of 123 men, women, and children 18 and older was--in BY's mind--justifiable. Imagine, a man of God, a prophet, sanctioning the cold-blooded murder of entire families. And to disguise their horrific acts, some S. Utah zealots--driven by BY's blood atonement pronouncements--tried to blame the act on Native Americans by disguising themselves as such. Did BY speak out against this? Hardly. Rather he used the Mormon controlled courts to protect himself and to frustrate every attempt to bring the killers to justice. Bagley writes: "To limit the power of the federal courts, the 1859 territorial legislature assigned jury selection to Mormon county officials [emphasis added], most of whom had been appointed by Brigham Young. "They placed upon the juries the very criminals themselves, together with their relatives, friends and accomplices" Blood of the Prophets, p. 217). Was Brigham Young unaware of this? Of course not. He had his heavy hand on everything that happened in the territory.

Young didn't even have the decency to arrange proper burial for the victims. James Lynch, who knew the MM area well, accompanied federal officials to the site, including deputy marshal William Rogers. Bagley writes: "Rogers found the 'the scene was one too horrible and sickening for language to describe,' [and Lynch] gave this written account: "Human skeltons, disjointed bones, ghastly skulls and the hair of women were scattered in frightful profusion over a distance of two miles.' . . . Lynch found 'the remains of an innocent infant beside those of some fond, devoted mother, ruthlessly slain by men worse than demons.' . . . The bones bleaching in the sun bore 'a mute but an eloquent appeal to a just but offended God for vengeance.'" (Sources cited by Bagley: Brooks, Mountain Meadows Massacre, 267; Lynch, Affadavit, 29 July 1859, 81; San Francisco Bulletin, 31 May 1859, 3/3.)

But, in your view, BY was not an accessory after the fact.

Astonishing.

[Out of time. . .more to follow.]

[Bob Crockett]

You certainly bank a lot on Will Bagley, who structured his story on whims, hearsay and supposition. Will's training is as a journalist, and not one who was required to comply with the rigors of writing papers for supervising professors of history. His book is written the way the New York Post would write an article.

I'm still waiting for a response to my challenge that you point to the very best evidence you have that Brigham Young as an accessory after the fact. Saying that the Fanchers got what they deserved, although insensitive and wrong-headed, does not grant accessory status. Otherwise, all those who agreed with Tim McVeigh would be accessories.

Some interesting facts Bagley minimized or missed entirely.

1. Brigham Young was indicted on the strength of Hickman's statements. The Supreme Court threw it out on a technicality. The U.S. Attorney could have, but didn't, rebring the indictment.

2 Both the U.S. Attorney General and the local U.S. Attorney told federal judge Cradlebaugh that there wasn't enough evidence to convene a grand jury against Brigham Young.

3. Your quote about putting the criminals themselves on the juries to protect Brigham Young is about as false a statement as was ever made. Look, I've done a detailed study of this. What jury was empaneled where a single massacre participant was asked to decide the fate of another massacre participant? Bagley is so full of horse puckey on this -- his book is a tissue of fabrication and exaggeration. I could go on and on.

I should point out that I participated on an internet list with Will years ago and called him out on a lot of this. He refused to respond to a single one of my points. (Unlike Will, I had hired an archivist to go into the National Archives and find DoJ and BIA and DoW files, and found them -- files Bagley has never seen and didn't care to get.) Like Will, I am a Huntington Library scholar and called him out on the fact that there is a letter in Boreman's files which reveal the strong possibilty that Lee's confessions were doctored. (Lee's lawyer said that he was going to doctor the confession; doesn't mean that he did.) Will response? "You're a hack."

So, back to my challenge. What is the single most important event to you which indicates that Brigham Young was an accessory after the fact?

[Why would Young have the obligation to bury the dead? He was hundreds of miles away. Why wouldn't the local stake president, who did the foul deed, have that rsponsibility?]

[paulpatter]

And in how many cases did he take them up on it?

The point is that at least some members believed that the blood atonement doctrine was in force; either that, or they were on the threshhold of translation.

: Again, and again, and again, you make my point: you have no evil deeds to accuse Brigham of -- much as you wish you did -- so you have to spin his words to the utmost.

Packing the territorial courts with Mormons, some of whom were themselves criminals, was an "evil deed." (See my previous post.) Leaving the victims to rot in the sun and be eaten by wild animals was an "evil deed." And approving of the horrific actions of the S. Utah zealots by declaring "Vengeance is mine" when he visited the site and saw the carnage was an "evil deed."

: You hope, given that Brigham never acted in a way that would support your claim.

He repeatedly acted as an accessory after the fact.

: As I mentioned above: Sir Richard Burton, the English explorer, personally met Brigham in 1860, and made this observation:

"He often reproves his erring followers in purposely violent language, making the terrors of a scolding the punishment in lieu of hanging for a stolen horse or cow." (Burton, The City of the Saints, Page 239.)

Therefore, any honest comment upon Brigham's discourse, if such we are ever to see provided by one of the Church's critics, will most scrupulously take this habit of his into account.

Ah, yes, that absolves Brigham Young of any misdeed. You overreach here.

. . .

As I note above, his actions ('evil deeds") are well documented.

: Here's a suggestion: if you want to be honest about it, you could refer to Brigham's "occasional use of bloodshed rhetoric during a limited period of his presidency."

Oh, I see. Presidential historians should re-examine their evaluation of Richard Nixon because Watergate happened only "during a limited period of his presidency." Is that your position?

: But only if you want to be honest about it.

No, as your brother in the the gospel my sole motive isn't to be dishonest. I haven't accused you of dishonesty. I have tried to put some light on what cannot be denied by Latter-day Saints, discomforting though it may be.

: For the which malicious misrepresentation, Bernard has handed you your head.

Was that done with a bowie knife--the kind Brigham vowed to use? More blood, eh?

. . .

: On the contrary, a speaker or writer is perfectly entitled to use such imagery.

Gee, thanks.

: The error arises when someone purporting to explain said speaker or writer's meaning tries to create the impression -- knowing it to be false -- that the metaphor is to be taken literally.

You don't know it to be false, especially in the context of Brigham Young's strident, repeated statements in support of blood atonement.

: I'll explain this to you v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y, so there's a chance you just might be able to keep up:

1. Brigham did not own a javelin.
2. Therefore, when he said he would use one in some circumstance or other, he was not speaking literally.
3. Therefore, those who try to pretend that he was speaking literally, lose all credibility by virtue of that indefensible falsehood.

1) You don't know whether he did or he didn't. However, your claim is irrelevant. He could have referred to the use of a spear, or a sword, or--yes--his bowie knife. I do, however, give you credit for rank speculation.

2) Again, you don't know that. Are you prepared to say that he wasn't speaking literally in his multiple other statements justifying blood atonement? Which ones?

3) Because 1) and 2) are speculative at best, so is this one.

: What is actually "ludicrous" is your attempt to convince the gullible that Brigham's reference to a javelin was meant to be understood as a literal exhortation to murder.

Many of his listeners took it exactly that way.

That claim is a barefaced lie.

In your Mormon-leaders-have-never-done-anything-wrong dreams.

. . .

: The only point that seems to be escaping anyone is the point that, since he didn't own such an object, he could not, in real life, possibly do what Phineas did.

As I note above, it doesn't matter whether he did or didn't own a javelin; he said what he said; he said it with conviction; and many of his listeners took his statement literally (just as they took literally his other statements about blood atonement).

. . .

: Since Rob has handed you your head for your malicious misrepresentations about the MMM, I see no reason to labour that particular point.

Still another reference to the shedding of blood. Do you never tire of it?

: Regards,

Pahoran

[paulpatter]

It was not uncommon in the US and England at the time to make stealing a capital crime.

True, and in some other countries stealing is still a capital offense. It's my understanding, however, that at least in the US and England, due process (judicial) was required. BY, quite obviously, wasn't particularly interested in due process. He subsequently reinforced that position when federal officials tried to investigate and bring to justice the MM murderers.

: Let's look at the context of this "Bloody Brigham" quote [in bold italic]. What precedes it is crucial to understanding it. I have underlined some salient points. You could not be further from the truth.

BY speaks in the present tense, and it's clear that many of his listeners understood the blood atonement policy to be operative in their day. BY admits that men had come forward at that time and asked to have their lives taken based on the blood atonement policy.

On Feb. 5, 1852, BY gave a speech about slavery, blacks, and the priesthood. What should be done, he asks, with a member who mingles his seed with the seed of Cain? I cite this because there is not one word in it that qualifies/mitigates in any way his recommended course of action.

If a man in an unguarded moment should commit such a transgression, if he would walk up and say cut off my head, and kill man woman and child, it would do a great deal towards atoneing [sic] for the sin. Would this be a curse to them? No it would be a blessing to them--it would do them good that they might be saved with their Brethren. A man would shudder should they hear us talk about killing folk, but it is one of the greatest blessings to some to kill them [underlining added].

: In essence, "We have been driven, but we will be driven no more! Leave us alone or pay the consequences!" Hear, hear!

Bernard

Doesn't exactly conform to the Savior's counsel to "turn the other cheek," does it? BTW, how did the Fancher wagon train "drive" the Saints?

[USU78]

'78: "[L]ess than complete" meaning, of course, "doesn't say the bigoted, libelous things I would say."

It is called the Blood Atonement Libel because, PitarPater, it doesn't exist as you understand it and never did.

Find us some objectively verifiable evidence and then maybe we can have a discussion on what motivated the incidents and whether BY approved. Otherwise, I'm not clear exactly what it is you're trying to accomplish with your inappositions like the one I just snipped.

Pitterpatter: What are inappositions? Couldn't find the plural noun form, eh? 'Tis a pity.

I like Braveheart. Especially where Stephen, the insane Irishman, makes his appearance, and says:

Stephen: The Almighty says,

[Bernard Gui]

name='paulpatter' date='27 March 2010 - 06:59 PM' timestamp='1269737970' post='1208826145']

True, and in some other countries stealing is still a capital offense. It's my understanding, however, that at least in the US and England, due process (judicial) was required. BY, quite obviously, wasn't particularly interested in due process. He subsequently reinforced that position when federal officials tried to investigate and bring to justice the MM murderers.

It's problematic to judge people in the past based on what we believe in the present:

From the beginning of the Republic, executions for a variety of capital offenses were established by local, state and federal laws, and individuals have been executed for a variety of crimes including witchcraft, horse stealing, sodomy, theft, forgery, aiding a runaway slave, arson, piracy, robbery, kidnaping, rape, espionage, murder and treason.

Kansas Death Penalty: An Overview of the Prosecution of