Bloody Brigham

[paulpatter]

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

It depends on for what they are being judged. Civilized nations have always viewed murder, for example, as a capital crime--in the past and in the present. Nothing problematic about that.

: Kansas Death Penalty: An Overview of the Prosecution of Capital Litigation and Homicide Cases. Office of the District Attorney, Sedgewick County

One could compare Brigham's statement on thievery with this:

"Sentenced to the punishment of death": Pre-Furman capital crimes and executions in Shelby County, Tennessee

University of Memphis Law Review, The, Summer 2001 by Vandiver, Margaret, Coconis, Michel

Your comparison is a stretch because a judicial process was involved in the executions cited in the U. of Memphis Law Review. BY encouraged members to act independently of any judicial process--as zealot-vigilantes in effect.

: Do you have any evidence that Brigham ever executed anyone for any reason with or without due process?

He condoned the cowardly murder of 123 men, women, and children; and then frustrated every attempt to bring the killers to justice. Eventually, he made John Lee the scapegoat. In effect, he drove the get-away coach.

: Do you know of any thieves who were lined up in front of the largest canon loaded with chain shot and sent to hell across lots?

No, but there are cases in which thieves were killed by zealots probably because of BY's Reformation movement and blood atonement doctrine. Like it or not, BY set the stage for wholesale blood-letting.

: Do you know of any adulterers who were pierced with javelins?

In BY's own words: "I could refer you to plenty of instances [underlining added] where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins" (Deseret News, Feb. 18, 1857). Were javelins used? I don't know and neither do you. Were the men just as dead whether or not javelins were used? Obviously. Some respondents on this thread think the reference to javelins was simply a rhetorical "flourish"; no it wasn't, as BY makes clear in the cited statement.

: Why do you think the rhetoric was so strong against thievery, even if the threats were not carried out?

How do you know that at least some of the threats were not carried out? You make an unsupportable supposition. Sinners and people not friendly to the Church had a way of disappearing under BY's "administration."

: What was the usual penalty for stealing a horse in the US at that time?

Why is that relevant?

: Does BY's confession mean anything to you:

Not much; he said a lot of things.

: Can you give the name of any man who came forward? How about any man who was killed for this reason?

Indeed I can. I will give his name and the circumstances in my next post (my wife needs to use the computer right now). I will also respond to the remaining items in your post.

[LifeOnaPlate]

He condoned the cowardly murder of 123 men, women, and children; and then frustrated every attempt to bring the killers to justice. Eventually, he made John Lee the scapegoat. In effect, he drove the get-away coach.

A remarkably over-confident reduction of motive, feeling, action, and circumstance. Tell me how things are going over in the Enquirer newsroom.

[paulpatter]

A remarkably over-confident reduction of motive, feeling, action, and circumstance. Tell me how things are going over in the Enquirer newsroom.

Perhaps you can explain, then, what BY meant when--in viewing the horrific carnage at MM--he said "Vengeance is mine, and I HAVE repaid" (a statement recorded in Wilford Woodruff's journal, though the wording my vary somewhat).

Unless we as Latter-day Saints are willing to face up to the errors in our history (and not assume that every criticism is invalid or ill-intentioned or the work of mudslinging journalists), we are vulnerable to repeating them in one way or another. Typically, those who are weak in the faith are unable to handle the truth about certain parts of LDS historicity (I'm not accusing you of that; I'm simply making a statement that I have found--over my long lifetime--to ring true). I am not afraid of the truth. In fact, it strengthens my testimony because the Church is administered by fallible men. It is inevitable that they will make mistakes, just as Joseph Smith said he did.

Brigham Young was dead wrong in advocating the blood atonement doctrine, just as he was dead wrong in claiming the curse placed on Cain applied to dark-skinned people, thereby denying them the priesthood.

[Smith]

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

I suppose you don't like the Saviours description of the pharisees in Matt 23 either? Probably not politically correct enough for you, or maybe not tolerant enough? If a spade is a spade it should be called a spade, not some politically correct bs.

[Bob Crockett]

The problem, I see Paul, is that while you champion the truth you trample on the facts of the MMM and thus speak something other than the truth. I've posed a number of questions to you to challenge your statements and you've just ignored me.

When was there ever an instance where the criminals responsible for the massacre were sitting on juries, much less sitting on juries adjudicating the perpetrators. You said there were such cases. When?

I've also asked you to identify the single most significant fact to support the claim that Brigham Young was an accessory after the fact.

I'm curious as to why you keep hurling these accusations out about Brigham Young, but there isn't anything to back it up?

Is it really that hard to see that Will Bagley's rhetoric is empty? Or have you put too much faith in him and it is hard to admit error?

[Pahoran]

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

Said one of the fellows trying to run the "Blood atonement" libel in this thread.

Who said anything about irony?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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.

No, the point is that you are taking Brigham's words as a substitute for any actual deeds.

Packing the territorial courts with Mormons, some of whom were themselves criminals, was an "evil deed."

Making -- or repeating -- that particular false accusation is certainly 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."

So it was evil of Brigham not to personally tote his shovel 300 miles in order to bury the dead?

Really?

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."

Vengeance is whose, Paul?

He repeatedly acted as an accessory after the fact.

So when Bagley squeaks, your thinking has been done; is that it?

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

Actually there is no "misdeed" for which Brigham needs to be absolved. You have, in the most ignoble anti-Mormon tradition, laboured to parlay Brigham's words into evidence of actual deeds. When confronted with Brigham's well-known and non-controversial tendency to hyperbole, so that you can no longer pretend to be ignorant of it, you attempt to dismiss it with a flippant remark.

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

Only in the minds of those who think Bagley's highly tendentious, paid-for-in-advance conclusions represent actual information about any subject.

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?

Ah. The good old "damnation by association" schtick. All the cheapest demagogues use it, so why not you?

This is of course, as you intended, an apples-and-oranges comparison. You cannot deal with the fact that Brigham used that kind of rhetoric only during a limited period -- a fact that destroys your false claims of an "obsession" -- and so you are more or less forced to resort to standard smokescreen techniques.

No, as your brother in the the gospel

I'm sorry, are you trying to work up a Tui Billboard here?

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.

Well here we are then, Paul: what cannot be denied by Latter-day Saints, however discomforting it may be, is that Brigham was a better man than you are. Indeed, even if he had really been the monster you are so diligently trying to misrepresent him as -- which he most certainly was not -- he would still have been a better man than you are.

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

That's right, Paul. It was done with a bowie knife, just as literally as Brigham intended.

I'm sorry you are so woefully uneducated as to be ignorant of what a metaphor is; but Brigham, despite the gaps in his formal schooling, was not.

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

Actually -- yes, I do know it to be false.

End of part 1.

[Pahoran]

Post part 2.

1) You don't know whether he did or he didn't.

Irrelevant; the burden of proof lies with the accuser. That's you, Paul.

However, your claim is irrelevant. He could have referred to the use of a spear, or a sword, or--yes--his bowie knife.

Well no he couldn't have, because Phineas didn't use a bowie knife; he used a javelin. The talk was a commentary on a story in the Bible, as everyone less ignorant than you knows.

I do, however, give you credit for rank speculation.

I'm sorry, but I really have to yield the laurels to you on that point.

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?

All of them, of course.

Many of his listeners took it exactly that way.

Really? How many, and who were they?

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).

As I pointed earlier, it matters very much if some scoundrel wants to argue that Brigham's statement is to be taken literally. The inability of accusers such as yourself to produce as much as a shred of evidence that he owned such a thing is fatal to your insistence that he wanted such statements to be taken literally. And if indeed there was anyone who was such a fool as to do so, (and anyone who does so would have to be a very great fool) that might explain why he dropped the use of such rhetoric after this particular period.

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

Not enough to work myself into a piously zealous rage over it.

But please note, yet again: it is entirely possible to use such "references to the shedding of blood" without any actual violence being contemplated by anyone. Except, perhaps, some egregious idiots somewhere.

Regards,

Pahoran

[paulpatter]

The problem, I see Paul, is that while you champion the truth you trample on the facts of the MMM and thus speak something other than the truth. I've posed a number of questions to you to challenge your statements and you've just ignored me.

OK, consider yourself "unignored." I will respond in separate (individual) posts.

First, I said in my initial post on this thread that while I do not believe BY was an accessory before the fact, I do believe he helped to set the stage for what happened at MM. I have also said he was less than cooperative (to put it mildly) with federal investigators who were trying to get at the truth.

The Reformation was, unquestionably, a factor. Young appointed as his "hammer" Jedediah Grant--and a "hammer" he was. In hell-and-damination sermons, he demanded that the Saints purify themselves. . ."to be baptized and washed clean from your sins, from your backslidings, from your apostacies, from your filthiness, from your lying, from your swearing, from your lusts, and from every thing that is evil" (Sessions, Mormon Thunder, 203-04, 209, 212). Hannah King wrote, "and he rose up and lashed the people as a cat-o-nine tails. The people shrunk, wept, groaned like whipped children. . .the whole people seemed to mourn for all more or less came 'under the rod'" (same source as cited above). Grant claimed the Saints had a "right to kill a sinner to save him, when he commits those crimes that can only be atoned for by the shedding of his blood. . . . We would not kill a man, of course, unless we killed him to save him. . . . We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their blood shed. . ." [emphasis added] (Grant sermons of 12 March, 1854 and 21 September, 1856, Sessions, Mormon Thunder, 127, 211).

Note that in a ceremony, Mormons took an Oath of Vengeance against the murderers of the prophets (Joseph and Hyrum Smith, Patten, and Pratt) (Diary of Heber C. Kimball, 21 December, 1845; George Q. Cannon [Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, 6 December, 1889, p. 205]; and others). Wikipedia, citing the diary of Daniel Davis, 8 July, 1849, states: "The sermons, blessings, and private counsel by Mormon leaders just prior to the MMM can be understood as encouraging private individuals to execute God's judgement against the wicked." Morris Shirts and Allen Kent, in "Mountain Meadows Massacre," Utah History Encyclopedia, 1994, state: "There is consensus among historians that Brigham Young played a role in provoking the massacre, at least unwittingly, and in concealing evidence after the fact" [emphasis added].

That is almost exactly what I said in my initial post on this thread. Now, you tell me where I have "trampl[ed] on the facts to this point? If you don't want to accept the documentation I have provided, please supply some of your own.

(More to follow.)

[Bob Crockett]

OK, consider yourself "unignored." I will respond in separate (individual) posts.

Focus on my challenge instead of going into different topics. My posts did not challenge you about what happened before, but what happened after.

You said that the Mormons stacked the juries with criminals, the perps themselves. When and where did this happen?

You also said that Young was an accessory after the fact. What is the single most significant episode which establishes that?

I can't understand why you just ignore these issues. Do you abandon your claims? What kind or argument is that, to make a claim and then not provide evidence?

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

The quotes about Blood Atonement by Brigham Young only concerned people guilty of murder. Other quotes mistakenly considered being about Blood Atonement are usually by other leaders mentioning penalties for covenant breakers, and has to do with their oaths, nothing about Blood Atonement.

There are only two thing at MMM that Brigham factored in. United States troops was marching westward toward Utah Territory. Anticipating an attack, the territory was under martial law and ordered "[t]hat all the forces in said Territory hold themselves in readiness to March, at a moment's notice, to repel any and all such threatened invasion" (Arrington, p. 254). Thus, leading to John D Lee being put in charge in Ceder City.

Secondly, Utah was allied with the local Paiutes Indians, and because of the invasion, they had revoked their protection of non-Utahns from the Indians. Which gave the Paiutes freedom to attack the herds of the trains as they passed. It was the Paiutes that started the blood shed, cause they saw the train that John D Lee had being help up, and attacked some of the train's herds.

However, it turns out John D Lee was acting against orders killing the train, since Brigham had sent a letter back to Ceder City ordering them [not] to meddle with the emigrants, "In regards to immigrant wagon trains passing through our settlements, you must not meddle with them. If those who are there will leave, just let them go in peace." The letter was found in Brigham's 1857 letterpress copybook that was made available to the prosecution in the trial that led to John D. Lee's conviction and subsequent execution.

Brigham didn't hinder the investigation. John D Lee reported to Brigham that it was all the Indians' doing. Brigham had a lot on his plate at the time, with a hostile army about to invade. And few months after MMM, he had been replaced as governor. He told the new governor, Albert Cumming from Tennessee, that he wasn't satisfied with what he'd been told and that the affair should be investigated. Cumming responded that he thought it would be covered by the Utah War amnesty. Others, including I think the NY Times, concurred with that view. It wasn't until some time later that both public and legal opinion started to weigh in favor of a criminal investigation. And after that Lee himself successfully eluded enforcement officers for years.

Mean while the early MMM investigations, like every other attempted investigation of every crime committed in the territory, were run as part of a general campaign of legal persecution against the Church. The MMM investigation was no different. Of course the general population of Utah were not enthusiastic to help the feds. Judge Cradlebaugh in particular hindered the investigative efforts with his own mix of vicious anti-Mormonism and high-handed judicial interference.

And then the Civil War really held things up; for some reason, some people seemed to think it was more important at the time. So it wasn't until a lot later that Utah had officers in whom the Saints could have some confidence, which reopened the investigation, which started to make some headway as the population were willing to co-operate with the authorities.

[Zakuska]

OK, consider yourself "unignored." I will respond in separate (individual) posts.

First, I said in my initial post on this thread that while I do not believe BY was an accessory before the fact, I do believe he helped to set the stage for what happened at MM. I have also said he was less than cooperative (to put it mildly) with federal investigators who were trying to get at the truth.

Huh?!

JD 10:108 - p.109, Brigham Young, March 8, 1863

In 1857 it is estimated that eleven thousand troops were ordered here; some seven thousand stared for this place, with several thousand hangers on. They came into this Territory when a company of emigrants were traveling on the south route to California. Nearly all of that company were destroyed by the Indians. That unfortunate affair has been laid to the charge of the whites. A certain judge that was then in this Territory wanted the whole army to accompany him to Iron county to try the whites for the murder of that company of emigrants. I told Governor Cumming that if he would take an unprejudiced judge into the district where that horrid affair occurred, I would pledge myself that every man in the regions round about should be forthcoming when called for, to be condemned or acquitted as an impartial, unprejudiced judge and jury should decide; and I pledged him that the court should be protected from any violence or hindrance in the prosecution of the laws; and if any were guilty of the blood of those who suffered in the Mountain Meadow massacre, let them suffer the penalty of the law; but to this day they have not touched the matter, for fear the Mormons would be acquitted from the charge of having any hand in it, and our enemies would thus be deprived of a favorite topic to talk about, when urging hostility against us. "The Mountain Meadow massacre! Only think of the Mountain Meadow massacre!!" is their cry from one end of the land to the other.

Pledging aid with the investigation by providing armed escorts etc. etc. is some how equated to " less than cooperative (to put it mildly) with federal investigators"? Do you live in opposite land or something?

[paulpatter]

Whoa, two lengthy posts addressed to little old me. Am I flattered, or what! It turns out, though, that they bear a close resemblance to drivel. So let's take a look.

: No, the point is that you are taking Brigham's words as a substitute for any actual deeds.

In Post 87 and in other posts, I describe BY's deeds, from his justifying the atrocity at MM, to his initiation of the Reformation with the ruthless Jedediah Grant as its enforcer (an action that did much to set the stage for the massacre), to his use of goods looted from the wagon train, to his refusal to cooperate with federal officials who were trying to get at the truth, to his making a scapegoat of John Lee--the list goes on. And oh, here's another "evil deed": As superintendent of Indian affairs in the territory, Young was required to file a report--including a financial statement--with the federal government. In a blatant act of fraud, he billed Uncle Sam $2,200 for items looted from the Fancher train (Brooks and Cleland, eds., Mormon Chronicle, 1:318n8; Smith, Accounts of Brigham Young, Serial 1128, 96-102).

: Making -- or repeating -- that particular false accusation is certainly an "evil deed."

Sorry, BY did, indeed, pack the territorial courts with Mormons. In one case, some prospective witnesses who had knowledge of crimes committed by LDS authorities considered their "lives and property in imminent peril from the Mormon communists" (Letter from Provo City, U.T.," San Francisco Bulletin, 19 April, 1859, 3/3-4; Valley Tan, 5 April, 1859, 3/1).

: So it was evil of Brigham not to personally tote his shovel 300 miles in order to bury the dead?

You are, of course, being silly. All BY needed to do was to direct LDS leaders in S. Utah to go to the site and properly bury the victims. By failing to do that, he showed coarse, crass disregard for the murdered men, women, and children. One is tempted to conclude that he simply didn't care; after all, BY believed they had it "coming to them."

: Vengeance is whose, Paul?

Those who subscribed to the Oath of Vengeance, including, of course, Brigham Young.

: So when Bagley squeaks, your thinking has been done; is that it?

You are unable to abide information from virtually any source that is not LDS. So, when LDS publications "squeak," your thinking has been done; is that it? Early on in this thread, I made the error of citing Bagley rather than his sources. I subsequently corrected that error. BTW, is it your position that the "official" Church account of the atrocity is free of bias? Really? You know, of course, that its publication was repeatedly delayed. I wonder why.

: Actually there is no "misdeed" for which Brigham needs to be absolved.

You're right; there are numerous misdeeds/crimes for which BY needs to be absolved, some of which I have identified and documented in this thread.

(I'm afraid the moderator's clock is going to cut me off; I'll resume on my next post.)

[paulpatter]

Only in the minds of those who think Bagley's highly tendentious, paid-for-in-advance conclusions represent actual information about any subject.

(This is a continuation of my comments on Part I of your post.)

You have an unfortunate, unscholarly habit of summarily dismissing any and all information that comes from non-LDS sources. Although I note, not without amusement, that Bagley's bibliography in Blood of the Prophets includes Tom Alexander, James Allen, Leonard Arrington, George Q. Cannon, Peter Crawley, Susa Young Gates, Dean C. Jessee, Daniel Ludlow, Bruce R. McConkie, Parley Pratt, Brigham Roberts, and Joseph Fielding Smith (among many others). Bagley lists 4.5 pages of articles, many by Latter-day Saints (Alexander, Allen, Arrington, etc.). Consequently, you unwittingly denigrate some of the very sources you cite--in other contexts--in your writings.

: Ah. The good old "damnation by association" schtick.

Perhaps you don't recall what you actually wrote, or maybe you were just having a bad day. In any event, you actually argued that Brigham Young's harsh "rhetoric" (about which more later) was excusable because he used it for only a short time. My allusion to Richard Nixon and Watergate was smack-on in my critique of that farcical argument. Hmmm. . .let's see, what evil things can happen in only a short time? Well, how about murder. . .a plane crash. . . rape. . .robbery. . .spouse abuse. . .a roadside bomb killing a GI in Iraq. . .the wanton, cowardly murders of 123 men, women, and children. . .and--yes--the assassination of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

: All the cheapest demagogues use it, so why not you?

Yes, it does eventually come to this with some folks: ad hominem attacks.

: This is of course, as you intended, an apples-and-oranges comparison. You cannot deal with the fact that Brigham used that kind of rhetoric only during a limited period -- a fact that destroys your false claims of an "obsession" -- and so you are more or less forced to resort to standard smokescreen techniques.

I can deal with it perfectly well. In fact, I enjoy dealing with it because it exposes--with high hilarity--the weakness of your position; i.e., DEFENSE ATTORNEY SPEAKING TO JURY: "You must acquit my client because he molested his grandchild for only a short time." That's how much sense your lame argument makes.

. . .

: Well here we are then, Paul: what cannot be denied by Latter-day Saints, however discomforting it may be, is that Brigham was a better man than you are. Indeed, even if he had really been the monster you are so diligently trying to misrepresent him as -- which he most certainly was not -- he would still have been a better man than you are.

Madsen Pirie, an authority on logic and argumentation, writes: "If you cannot attack the argument, attack the arguer. While an insult itself is not fallacious, it is if made in a way calculated to undermine an opponent's argument, and to encourage an audience to give it less weight than it merits. When this is done, the famous argumentum ad hominem abusive is committed" (How to Win Every Argument, p. 88).

You wouldn't be guilty of anything like that would you, Pahoran? Of course not.

: That's right, Paul. It was done with a bowie knife, just as literally as Brigham intended.

"Literally" or otherwise, BY helped to set the stage--in multiple ways--for MMM. Mature, thinking, testimony-secure Latter-day Saints are able to accept that.

: I'm sorry you are so woefully uneducated as to be ignorant of what a metaphor is; but Brigham, despite the gaps in his formal schooling, was not.

I'm delighted you mentioned this (fun ahead!). Stay tuned.

: End of part 1.

[paulpatter]

. . . I'm sorry you are so woefully uneducated as to be ignorant of what a metaphor is; but Brigham, despite the gaps in his formal schooling, was not.

(This is a continuation of my Post 114 based on Pahoran's Post 107.)

Yet another ad hominem attack aside, you incriminate yourself--document the ignorance of which you accuse me--by claiming that Brigham was using a metaphor when he spoke of putting a javelin through a wife and her partner he caught in the act of adultery. (Yes, I concede that he was referencing Numbers 25--if that makes you feel better [and, yes, he probably didn't own a javelin].)

For your enlightenment, however, be advised that a metaphor is: "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase denoting one kind of object or action is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in the ship plows the seas or in a volley of oaths); an implied comparison (as in a marble brow) in contrast to the explicit comparison of the similie [another figure of speech you probably don't understand] (as in a brow white as marble)." Source: Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged, Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2002, p. 1,420.)

Hence, Young's statement that "I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart. . . ." is in no way, shape, or form a metaphor. Specifically, he doesn't use "one kind of object or action in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them." He uses the same object and action.

Still don't get it? I understand. Find yourself a 5th grade English grammar book.

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

Perhaps you can explain, then, what BY meant when--in viewing the horrific carnage at MM--he said "Vengeance is mine, and I HAVE repaid" (a statement recorded in Wilford Woodruff's journal, though the wording my vary somewhat).

Unless we as Latter-day Saints are willing to face up to the errors in our history (and not assume that every criticism is invalid or ill-intentioned or the work of mudslinging journalists), we are vulnerable to repeating them in one way or another. Typically, those who are weak in the faith are unable to handle the truth about certain parts of LDS historicity (I'm not accusing you of that; I'm simply making a statement that I have found--over my long lifetime--to ring true). I am not afraid of the truth. In fact, it strengthens my testimony because the Church is administered by fallible men. It is inevitable that they will make mistakes, just as Joseph Smith said he did.

I understand, never say never. Under certain conditions, we don't really know what even a prophet is capable of. There was obviously a series of events (and persecutions) that may have motivated what seemed to be otherwise wonderful people to do such a heinous thing. I just question the packaging of these histories; they are sometimes not forthright and at other times not straight forward.

"Vengeance is mine, and I HAVE repaid" How Brigham's statement is to be understood, I can't say. Was he saying that he had taken vengeance against those who had perpetrated the MMM? Did he speak for God, and meant God has taken vengeance? I don't know of anything in recorded history that indicates, definitively, that Brigham felt the Mountain Meadows victims got what they deserved. Especially, since what recorded history I do know of is the evidence submitted to the trial which proved he told them to leave the train alone.

[Pahoran]

A useful litmus test

Whoa, two lengthy posts addressed to little old me. Am I flattered, or what! It turns out, though, that they bear a close resemblance to drivel. So let's take a look.

The portions that I quoted from you certainly do.

You previously wrote:

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."

To which I responded:

Vengeance is whose, Paul?

And now you very obligingly reply:

Those who subscribed to the Oath of Vengeance, including, of course, Brigham Young.

Thank you for being so forthright in your falsehoods. This is but one of many brazenly false accusations you have made in this thread; but it is one of those the falsity of which can be most readily demonstrated.

You see Paul, Brigham was not claiming vengeance; he was commenting upon an inscription, which he did not write. Major J. H. Carleton had raised a monument at the massacre site, and had inscribed thereon a passage from Romans 12:9, yet another passage from a book you seem unfamiliar with: "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."

It was in response to this that Brigham, after studying the inscription for a time, said something like: "It ought to say, 'Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little'."

Brigham, you see, had been told that (1) the Paiutes had done it, and (2) the victims were some of the Saints' old persecutors from Missouri. His reaction to the inscription reflects that belief.

It is, of course, orthodox canonical anti-Mormon propaganda to pretend that Brigham was claiming vengeance in his own right; which is sufficient explanation for why you so pretend. But it is utterly false.

Incidentally, Major Carleton was your kind of guy. He proposed an elegantly simple solution to the Mormon problem: give them a year to clear out, said he, and then make them into "Children of the Mist." This is a reference to the dispossession and proscription of the MacGregor Clan in Scotland in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Evidently Brigham was a bad person for not wanting to co-operate with that kind of plan. Bad, bad Brigham!

The claim that Brigham made John D. Lee into a "scapegoat" is, like everything else you have said on this thread, orthodox, canonical anti-Mormon propaganda, and is false. Lee organised the attack, was the only white man on the ground at the start of it, was still there at the end, personally leading the troops, shot several victims with his own gun, and would have killed more had his gun not jammed.

"Scapegoat." Another Tui billboard there.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Nemesis]

(This is a continuation of my Post 114 based on Pahoran's Post 107.)

Yet another ad hominem attack aside, you incriminate yourself--document the ignorance of which you accuse me--by claiming that Brigham was using a metaphor when he spoke of putting a javelin through a wife and her partner he caught in the act of adultery. (Yes, I concede that he was referencing Numbers 25--if that makes you feel better [and, yes, he probably didn't own a javelin].)

For your enlightenment, however, be advised that a metaphor is: "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase denoting one kind of object or action is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in the ship plows the seas or in a volley of oaths); an implied comparison (as in a marble brow) in contrast to the explicit comparison of the similie [another figure of speech you probably don't understand] (as in a brow white as marble)." Source: Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged, Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2002, p. 1,420.)

Hence, Young's statement that "I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart. . . ." is in no way, shape, or form a metaphor. Specifically, he doesn't use "one kind of object or action in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them." He uses the same object and action.

Still don't get it? I understand. Find yourself a 5th grade English grammar book.

Knock it off.

[selek]

Out of all the rancid slime-draughts Patter's been trying to pass off on us (allegedly for our own good), one thing has been preying upon my mind: the allegation that Brigham Young "packed the juries" with Mormons.

While patently, and obviously false, I am curious as to how Patter reconciles the obvious logical problems inherent in the accusation.

While these problems (just as with his other charges are legion), there are two critical questions as to how this might have been accomplished:

First- By what means did Brigham "pack" the juries? At this point in time and history, Young was not the territorial governor. That duty, if I recall correctly, fell to the able Alfred Cummings, the new governor who arrived (either with or just in advance of) the occupying army.

Cummings own statements have indicated that he was received with perfect cordiality and respect, and that he was acknowledged in every instance as the legitimate governor of the territory.

His own correspondence has indicated that rather than impeding him in his duties, Young was completely supportive. He also stated definitively that the vast bulk of the rumor innuendo, and allegation flung against the Saints was false and the product of evil designing men.

The only allegations of this "act" have arisen from a raging incompetent who completely bungled the original prosecutions and has been roundly denounced by every creditable historian familiar with the case as an incompetent and unscrupulous opportunist seeking to cover his own misdeeds.

How then, did the displaced ex-governor (stripped of the official powers attendant to that high office) engineer the heinous crime of "packing the jury"?

Were Cummings and the other territorial officials so derelict, so blind, and so besotted of our man Brigham that they took no notice? Given the rampant hostility of the era, I highly doubt it was the latter.

The second question is something of a sort- with whom (other than Mormons) should the juries have been populated?

The Constitution guarantees us a right to a fair trial and impartial jury of our peers. As the territory was ninety percent (or better) Mormon, who then should have been on those juries?

The few non-Mormons in the territory fell into one of several categories (though there were, of course, exceptions).

Would it have been likely, or even possible, to find a fair-and-impartial jury among the surly merchants, political opportunists, or the disaffected and often disease-ridden hangers-on and camp-followers who trailed out with army?

If not the fellow citizens of the territory (them damned, infernal Marminz) who then should have manned these juries and by what proportion?

In modern times (and I doubt the process has changed all that much), both the prosecuting and defense attorneys have the right to challenge the seating of jurors whom they feel are obviously prejudiced.

We know that when the persecution of the Church was at its highest (about a decade and a half later), with members of the Church deprived of thier right to vote, to serve on juries, or in most public offices, that the territory suffered greatly- and that cronyism, and kangaroo courts were rife.

We also know that the post-War South was notorious for the practice of all-white juries convicting and hanging black men on the most spurious of charges.

The Supreme Court and various legislative bodies have all commented upon and condemned this odious practice- so why then does Patter seem to pine for it in the Deseret/Utah Territory?

Other than "Mormons"- the lawful citizens of the territory (and entitled- then and now- to the full protections of the Constitution)- with whom should the juries have been "packed"?

Should we have sent for mail-order jurors from Missouri? Should we have imported them wholesale from Palmyra or Kirtland?

Pray tell, how could one guarantee a fair and impartial jury?

No- the Constitution is clear- a "no-Mormons" rule would have been as egregious and unholy an act as a mandated "all-Mormon" jury would have been.

The simple truth is, that for all of his heated and shrill repetition of the charges, Patter has presented no evidence tying Brigham Young's hand to any crime.

He's repeated his accusations often enough- but has presented not a single shred of evidence. His entire case rests not upon fact or evidence, but upon innuendo and insinuation.

It is also rampantly apparent that Young had not the means to "pack the juries", nor is it at all clear that any such event took place.

I await any evidence he cares to present, but simple repetition of his lurid accusations is not evidence.

[paulpatter]

Out of all the rancid slime-draughts Patter's been trying to pass off on us (allegedly for our own good), one thing has been preying upon my mind: the allegation that Brigham Young "packed the juries" with Mormons.

It's essential for you (and others) to understand that Brigham Young knew about and controlled virtually everything that transpired in the Utah Territory. Bagley notes the irony in that fact in the context of MMM: "The coverup of Young's involvement was a remarkably successful endeavor, for it is hard to find a modern history that fails to absolve the Mormon leader of any responsibility for the massacre. Yet the traditional explanation poses an untenable paradox--that Brigham Young was aware of "every sparrow" that fell in Utah Territory but for more than a dozen years knew nothing of the worse crime to take place during his service as territorial governor, Indian superintendent, and commander in chief of the militia" [emphasis added], (Blood of the Prophets, p. 366). That fact--supported by numerous other sources--must give even some apologists pause. Note, for example, this from historian Howard Lamar, as quoted in Massacre at Mountain Meadows by Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard (p. 23): "What was missing [in the territory] was a single voice of dissent, an opposition, an evidence of popular elections." Walker et al add: "And by 1857, some outsiders thought conditions in Utah were out of control." Again quoting Lamar: "A federal court had been disrupted. . .and public officials could honestly report that they had been unable to perform their duties. Every single function the federal government was responsible for in the territory, outside of tax collection and defense, had been defied" (Lamar, Far Southwest, pp. 308, 320-21, 338). Again from Walker et al.: ". . .official records were rumored to have been seized and burned" (p. 23).

Richard D. Poll, Thomas G. Alexander, Eugene E. Campbell, and David E. Miller, in Utah's History (p. 171), write: "Federal government attempts to apprehend and punish the participants in this bloody deed failed as the tight-knit Mormon society closed ranks and protected its members."

I offer this as a prelude to helping you understand how Brigham Young "packed the juries" with Mormons.

(More to follow.)

[Hestia]

Enough Brigham bashing which is going nowhere.