“The Mormon Rebellion: America'S First Civil War, 1857-1858” By David L. Bigler And Will Bagley

[Pahoran]

You are a very rational, coherent person. All I have based my understanding of the MMM on is the seminal books treating it: especially Brooks' and Bagley's. That they got some things wrong is a given. I accepted and expected this going in. What exactly they got wrong I did not know. But as you are also apparently an authority on this subject, I will accept your claim that the best interpretation of the evidence indicates that the "guilty" verdict of the second trial can be explained by the change in prosecutors and the better evidence presented. I am not a fan of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" when forming a working hypothesis. And if you say that there is no evidence of a coverup or a deal or an arrangement with the Fed, then I will go with that. If no one can bring forth such evidence (and surely Bagley would have done if there is any, since he dislikes B. Young so much), then I'm willing to accept your theory over my previous assumptions....

QB,

I have read a number of things that Rob has written, including one fairly detailed essay discussing the two trials. In the first, the prosecution literally led no evidence against Lee. Instead, they used the trial as a pulpit from which to preach against the depravity of Mormonism in general and Brigham Young in particular. AFAICT, the jury in that trial had no choice but to acquit, since there was no evidence against the accused.

In the second trial, the prosecution introduced actual -- and ample -- evidence against Lee. The jury were thus able to convict because they could see that he was guilty. There is simply no need for any conspiracy theory; the difference in the cases presented is entirely sufficient to explain the different outcomes.

The notion of Lee as a "scapegoat" is a romantic one, but the facts don't allow it. Granted, Lee was not the only guilty party; but as the man who recruited the Indians for the initial attack, and personally led them, and was the only white man on the scene for the first part of the attack, and personally approached the emigrants and lured them from their camp to their deaths, and personally killed five people (and said that he would have killed more had his gun not jammed) he was certainly the guiltiest of the lot.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Crockett]

Amen to that.

[Kevin Christensen]

Also worth reading, BYU Studies v47 n 3, on Mountain Meadows Massacre Documents, besides many documents, a valuable essay by Turley on "Problems with Mountain Meadows Massacre Sources." This includes the results of their re-examination of the short-hand trial transcripts, and four enlightening pages on Lee's confessions, using Lee's journals, among other things, for casting light on the extent and nature of Bishop's embellishments on the print versions.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[MelvinCJohnson]

Also worth reading, BYU Studies v47 n 3, on Mountain Meadows Massacre Documents, besides many documents, a valuable essay by Turley on "Problems with Mountain Meadows Massacre Sources." This includes the results of their re-examination of the short-hand trial transcripts, and four enlightening pages on Lee's confessions, using Lee's journals, among other things, for casting light on the extent and nature of Bishop's embellishments on the print versions.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Nonsense, guys. Refuted and refuted. The mopologists ride on. You are fun to watch in action.

[Calm]

Refuted and refuted.

CFR on refutations, please.

[Jeff K.]

He won't provide them.

[Calm]

He won't provide them.

That would be unfortunate.

[Pahoran]

CFR on refutations, please.

I second that CFR.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Nathair/|\]

CFR on refutations, please.

I second that CFR.

Regards,

Pahoran

All in favor?

[Pahoran]

All in favor?

Aye!

So how about it, Mel? References, please?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Aye!

So how about it, Mel? References, please?

Regards,

Pahoran

Surely you have seen a pattern here by Mr. Johnson. What a total bummer too.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Nonsense, guys. Refuted and refuted. The mopologists ride on. You are fun to watch in action.

Stop pulling a Melvin and please site the source.

[ELF1024]

Stop pulling a Melvin and please site the source.

**Gasp** You mean it's not refuted just because he says so?!?!?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

**Gasp** You mean it's not refuted just because he says so?!?!?

Only in his mind is it refuted. I suspect that is the whole reason he keeps doing what he is doing. A lot like Winnie the Pooh, full of fluff and stuff.

[Pahoran]

Bump for Melvin. We are still waiting with bated breath -- some of us, with baited breath -- for a reference to this powerful refutation.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Crockett]

Now you're picking on him. I would be curious to know how that material about the trial transcripts and embellishment has been refuted; I know those transcripts pretty well.

[Pahoran]

Now you're picking on him.

Perhaps I am.

But it seems to me that strutting in here and pronouncing us all ignorant rubes for not agreeing with him rather begs to be picked on, don't you think?

Had he said something like, "I've read that material and I don't agree with Turley's conclusions," he might reasonably expect a more irenic reception. However, it seems to me that when he poses as Melvin the Mighty, sneering and jeering his way across the forum, it then becomes entirely reasonable for us to ask him to support some of his dogmatic pontifications.

I would be curious to know how that material about the trial transcripts and embellishment has been refuted; I know those transcripts pretty well.

I'd be interested to see him make the effort to back up any of his disputed assertions.

Regards,

Pahoran