Justification For The Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[Scott Lloyd]

Huh? That wasn't the point at all. That is what is called a straw man.

Let me spell it out for you. The question I asked is whether the attack (not the massacre) was carried out with the express or implicit consent of BY.

My point was that if the underlying attack was carried out with Young's consent, then it absolutely makes perfect sense that, when things get sticky (siege), that some would want Young's further input on how to proceed. It makes less sense, if the attack was a rogue operation.

Trouble is, the scenario you've devised (Brigham Young ordering the attack, things getting "sticky," further instructions being sought) is not supported by the historical record. What is supported — and what makes every bit as much sense as your imagined scenario — is that the Iron County residents were caught up in wartime hysteria, things were rapidly getting out of hand, some of the residents were uncomfortable and insisted on seeking Brigham Young's input on the matter, but the express rider sent to bring back word returned too late to avert the tragedy.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[frankenstein]

Martin was wheedling Joseph, and Joseph was passing on the wheedling. The cases are not parallel.

yes move the goal post if you need, but you wont be able to budge them, lets analyze, Joseph sought further instruction for himself and on behalf of another.

It would seem that those possing the "further instruction" have indicated that there was dispute as to what to do, so whoever allegedly asked for further instruction, was infact and exactly similarly to Joseph Smith and Martin Harris, seeking further instruction on behalf of himself and others.

It's not "hubris" to mention that one has published something. Evidently you are unable to answer the evidence Rob put forward, hence the cheap shot.

Regards,

Pahoran

Of course it was hubris, rob was seeking only to brag and pat himself on the back, that he has published anything was irrelevant. Especially since he was not even addressing my comment, but was seeking a soap box from which to make his post. And since his post was completely off topic to my response to you, there is no need to address his post.

[Zakuska]

I was prepared to believe the innuendo about Brigham Young wasn't true- but then the History Channel put spooky music in the background of their MMM special.

The spooky music convinced me.

(sarc)

But you need to add the wide eyed guy with the crazy hair do narrating the story as well. To give it the most negative impact possible.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Zakuska

[Jaybear]

Trouble is, the scenario you've devised (Brigham Young ordering the attack, things getting "sticky," further instructions being sought) is not supported by the historical record.

The question I raised is whether Young expressly or implicitly authorized the attack.

Do you understand that there is a difference between that phrase and the phrase "ordering the attack."

This "scenario" is only trouble, if the historical records precludes such a scenario.

What is supported — and what makes every bit as much sense as your imagined scenario — is that the Iron County residents were caught up in a siege mentality, things were rapidly getting out of hand, some of the residents were uncomfortable and insisted on seeking Brigham Young's input on the matter, but the express rider sent to bring back word returned too late to avert the tragedy.

What are the names of the Mormons who refused to participate, out of a firm conviction that Young would never sanction such a murderous attack?

[Thinking]

Having visited Mountain Meadows at least twice, this subject always peaks my interest. I think that John D. Lee panicked. The Fancher party was moving farther and farther away. Mountain Meadows is about 50 miles west & south of Cedar City. Since he acted before receiving the message from Brigham Young, I think it's possible that Lee thought that BY's answer might be an aggressive one and if he had let them escape, he might face discipline from BY.

[Scott Lloyd]

The question I raised is whether Young expressly or implicitly authorized the attack.

Do you understand that there is a difference between that phrase and the phrase "ordering the attack."

This "scenario" is only trouble, if the historical records precludes such a scenario.

Can you produce for us a document showing the Brigham Young "implicitly ... authorized the attack"? A document that, if it exists, would directly contradict the direction he sent back to back to Ceder City via the express rider.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it's possible that Lee thought that BY's answer might be an aggressive one and if he had let them escape, he might face discipline from BY.

Do you have any evidence that might support such a notion, or is it, like much of this thread, merely rank speculation?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Having visited Mountain Meadows at least twice, this subject always peaks my interest. I think that John D. Lee panicked. The Fancher party was moving farther and farther away. Mountain Meadows is about 50 miles west & south of Cedar City. Since he acted before receiving the message from Brigham Young, I think it's possible that Lee thought that BY's answer might be an aggressive one and if he had let them escape, he might face discipline from BY.

Lol wishful thinking "Thinking".

Try again.

[Bob Crockett]

Of course it was hubris, rob was seeking only to brag and pat himself on the back, that he has published anything was irrelevant.

It was only to offer the fact that my research had survived peer review. Peer review that took almost a year.

I have other papers on the topic I've self-published in the internet but I would never think to claim those as "published" in any discussion on the topic or in any sense of the word.

Or at least in the case of Young, they spoke with violent rhetoric without actually being responsible for direct murderous acts.

Having recently read Chernow's biographies of Washington and Hamilton, I can see how hyperbole was a standard rhetorical device used by pulpit pounders in the early 18th century.

Having said that, it is quite true that Pres. Young's statements were, at least in my belief, one of the reasons President Buchanan ordered the army west.

So, it has commonly been said that Young was wrong with his rhetoric and to that I would agree.

Could that cause people to commit mass murder? Perhaps it could grease the wheels a tiny bit. But I think that if the Saints didn't have the avaricious and essentially evil John D. Lee working with them, none of this would have happened.

Did Brigham Young intend his remarks to lead to murder of innocent children? Nope; no evidence of that.

[Jaybear]

Can you produce for us a document showing the Brigham Young "implicitly ... authorized the attack"?

Do you understand the word "implicit" means implied rather than expressly stated?

Do you understand also that when you attempt to a coverup, the goal is to destroy incriminating evidence while saving or creating exculpatory evidence?

BTW, I didn't say Young expressly or implicitly authorized the attack. I don't know whether he did or did not.

You are the one expressing certainty. What document do you have that proves that Young did not expressly or implicitly authorize the attack.

A document that, if it exists, would directly contradict the direction he sent back to back to Ceder City via the express rider.

No it wouldn't. He could have authorized the attack, but then when it led to a protracted siege, and he was presented with a request for further instruction, ordered that they be allowed to pass.

[Bob Crockett]

Do you understand also that when you attempt to a coverup, the goal is to destroy incriminating evidence while saving or creating exculpatory evidence?

I particularly enjoy this specific rejoinder in Massacre literature. Mr. Bagley uses it. Basically, the argument is that the best evidence of a cover-up is that there are no documents around to prove it. [For those fans of De Mille's "Ten Commandments," there is a great scene where Pharaoh commands that all evidence of the Jews be removed from the record books, in apparent anticipation of the classical argument that there is no evidence of Goshen. That is Jaybear's argument.]

I know that in the law this argument is attempted in conspiracy cases and routinely rejected. in conspiracy cases, evidence which supports both a benign explanation and a malignant one is irrelevant to prove the malignant. Here, you advance the notion that there is no evidence at all. It is fascinating that smart people swallow this, but I see this kind of argument about aliens on TV all the time. "Because the Air Force isn't responding to inquiries, it must be covering something up, and that cover-up must be about aliens."

The essential problem with a cover-up involving a large number of people, game theorists and economists teach, is that there are huge incentives for a breach in the wall of deceit. If the cover-up is of sufficient magnitude, and historians or scholars or news reporters are greatly interested in the crime, then somewhere, somehow, somebody will fess up.

An example is Bagley's charge the the Church "got" to the jurors to convict John D. Lee. Several of them did not remain faithful in the church. Some of them lived another 50 years. You'd think that after 50 years, with reporters asking a lot of questions, one of them would break.

So, back to the Brigham Young cover-up. Absence of evidence is, indeed, evidence of absence. That might not help the argument that horses might be found in pre-Columbia America, but it does apply to the massacre in spades.

Edited October 25, 2011 by rcrocket

[stevedallas]

Only once we accept that Brigham didn't order it at all. At that point, you are right; how he didn't do it is entirely irrelevant.

But those who want to make this terrible accusation stick are going to have to show the vertebrae to stand behind it.

You are not going to get away with trying to convict Brigham by sly innuendo. Sorry.

Regards,

Pahoran

I have not tried to get away with anything. I do not know if BY ordered it. No one can prove it one way or the other. Did his fiery speeches of vengeance and blood cause those who committed the act to feel it was ok? Dunno. Since we can;t ask those who did it, we can only guess. My point is, and has always been, it does not matter. My further point is that any non LDS Christian who tries to chastize LDS for this event need to look in their own closets for those hidden skeletons.

[Bob Crockett]

I do not know if BY ordered it. No one can prove it one way or the other.

Proof is one thing. You really can't "prove" to everybody's satisfaction that men landed on the moon. However, there is overwhelming "evidence" that they did.

Similarly, there is overwhelming evidence that Young did not order the massacre. Brooks summarizes that evidence and she, no fan of Young, concludes that he didn't order it.

On the hand, there is not a shred of real evidence that Young ordered it. Bagley tries to string together lots of innuendo and anonymous sources. But he really fails. Otherwise, you and others on this board would have pointed to the single most significant proof that he did it.

In discussions with Bagley, when he is pushed to cite the singular proof, he cites to the "vengeance is mine" incident at the rock cairn. The problems with this are legion. This occurred after the fact and is not an admission that Brigham Young was the instrument of God's vengeance.

Moreover, the more salacious details of that incident come from the pen of Dudley Leavitt (Brooks' grandfather), who was there, who was also -- unknown to Young -- one of the chief massacre participants. Of course Leavitt is going to want to hear what he wants to hear from Young to salve his aching conscience. I trust Woodruff's account of the event.

Edited October 25, 2011 by rcrocket

[why me]

There can be no justification for MMM. However, we also need to look at the context. Between the antimormonism in california and the threats coming from antimormon mobs in that state plus, the problems with the federal government, I do believe that certain mormons were shell shocked. What the mormons wanted was to live in peace and practice their religion. But it seems that it was impossible for them to do because of outside interference.

Being shell shocked and psychologically damaged was probably the condidtion of many mormons who experienced Missiouri and Nauvoo. and in MMM a certain amount of them acted out their fear and murdered innocent people.

But if it weren't for the federal government and antimormons threatening the lds at that time, the party would have been allowed to move forward to where they wanted to go.

[Jaybear]

Similarly, there is overwhelming evidence that Young did not order the massacre. Brooks summarizes that evidence and she, no fan of Young, concludes that he didn't order it.

On the hand, there is not a shred of real evidence that Young ordered it. Bagley tries to string together lots of innuendo and anonymous sources. But he really fails. Otherwise, you and others on this board would have pointed to the single most significant proof that he did it.

I think you are misreading the board. I personally don't believe that Young ordered the massacre. I don't know if anyone here does.

I do question whether he authorized implicitly or expressly the attack which lead to the siege, which lead to the massacre.

I also believe that if Young authorized the attack, with the inherent risk of life involved in such an attack, that he bears culpability for the murders.

Having not read Bagley, I have to wonder if you are mischaracterizing what he claims the evidence supports. I have noticed that many here find it easier to criticize imagined claims.

[stevedallas]

No one can really understand the feelings felt by those early Mormons. They had been chased from their homes, losing everything, in New York, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. They had lost friends, family, and possessions. There had to be a "circle-the-wagons" mentality.

[Zakuska]

I think you are misreading the board. I personally don't believe that Young ordered the massacre. I don't know if anyone here does.

I do question whether he authorized implicitly or expressly the attack which lead to the siege, which lead to the massacre.

I also believe that if Young authorized the attack, with the inherent risk of life involved in such an attack, that he bears culpability for the murders.

Having not read Bagley, I have to wonder if you are mischaracterizing what he claims the evidence supports. I have noticed that many here find it easier to criticize imagined claims.

Oh but Bagley claimed he had the smoking gun that proved once and for all. Then come to find out he misread "allies" for grain.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Zakuska

[Scott Lloyd]

Do you understand the word "implicit" means implied rather than expressly stated?

I was wondering what document you could bring to the fore that even "implicitly" ordered the attack. As I suspected, you have nothing.

Do you understand also that when you attempt to a coverup, the goal is to destroy incriminating evidence while saving or creating exculpatory evidence?

rcrockett answered this one quite handily.

BTW, I didn't say Young expressly or implicitly authorized the attack. I don't know whether he did or did not.

You are the one expressing certainty. What document do you have that proves that Young did not expressly or implicitly authorize the attack.

You are the one spewing the innuendo hinting at wrongdoing; you bear the burden and have now tacitly admitted you can't meet it.

No it wouldn't. He could have authorized the attack, but then when it led to a protracted siege, and he was presented with a request for further instruction, ordered that they be allowed to pass.

Worthless innuendo is quite often marked by the phrase "could have."

Edited October 25, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Jaybear]

No one can really understand the feelings felt by those early Mormons. They had been chased from their homes, losing everything, in New York, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. They had lost friends, family, and possessions. There had to be a "circle-the-wagons" mentality.

Don't care. They lined up and shot innocent and unarmed women and children.

They deserved to be executed for their heinous crimes, not protected behind a veil of secrecy.

[stevedallas]

Don't care. They lined up and shot innocent and unarmed women and children.

They deserved to be executed for their heinous crimes, not protected behind a veil of secrecy.

Not disagreeing. Understanding and approving are two different things.

[Jaybear]

I was wondering what document you could bring to the fore that even "implicitly" ordered the attack. As I suspected, you have nothing.

Like I said, I never accused him of authorizing the attacks. As Young was the authoritarian moral leader of the men who carried out the crime, its hardly unreasonable to ask the question I asked. I don't expect a clear answer either way.

[Bob Crockett]

I think you are misreading the board. I personally don't believe that Young ordered the massacre. I don't know if anyone here does.

I do question whether he authorized implicitly or expressly the attack which lead to the siege, which lead to the massacre.

I also believe that if Young authorized the attack, with the inherent risk of life involved in such an attack, that he bears culpability for the murders.

Having not read Bagley, I have to wonder if you are mischaracterizing what he claims the evidence supports. I have noticed that many here find it easier to criticize imagined claims.

It is hard to have a discussion with somebody who couches his statements with "whether" and "if," and who hasn't read the key sources.

"If" Joseph Smith never had the gold plates, I'd have a problem with that and my faith would suffer.

[Pahoran]

It's not cynical.

Oh yes it was.

I remind you of what you wrote:

Young was not, for example, a Nephi. Isaac Haight and John D. Lee, on the other hand, were.

Brigham had a whole lot more in common with Nephi than a pair of mass murderers did. That kind of smarmy pseudo-compliment, wherein you pretend to be saying something nice about Brigham but were really sticking the knife into Nephi (and by extension, the Book of Mormon) might fool some people, but it doesn't fool anyone who knows what an anti-Mormon is and does.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Huh? That wasn't the point at all. That is what is called a straw man.

Let me spell it out for you. The question I asked is whether the attack (not the massacre) was carried out with the express or implicit consent of BY.

My point was that if the underlying attack was carried out with Young's consent, then it absolutely makes perfect sense that, when things get sticky (siege), that some would want Young's further input on how to proceed. It makes less sense, if the attack was a rogue operation.

I remind you of what you said:

There is nothing "untoward" about their need to ask BY what do about the settlers they had under siege, IF the initial attack was done with the blessings, express of implicit of BY.

It only become an odd request, if one assume that the participation by the LDS in the initial attack leading to the siege was an operation carried out by rogue Mormons.

As you perfectly well know and fully intended, anyone fool enough to be deceived by your claim is going to assume that there are only two possibilities in view -- namely, either they had "express or implicit" instructions from Brigham, or it was a "rogue operation."

Accepting that intentionally false dilemma, they are then supposed to accept that capitalised "IF" and conclude that requesting instructions is evidence that Brigham had already given them something "express or implicit" to that effect.

This is, of course, false. You have thus succeeded in your attempt to make a false argument.

Where you failed was in failing to fool anybody with any intelligence. As is rather well known -- to anybody who actually wants to be informed -- Haight, Lee et al weren't "rogue Mormons." They were simply isolated people a very long way from SLC, feeling increasingly panicked by rapidly developing events and the lack of up-to-date information.

Thus, their request for instructions from Brigham, in the absence of anything "express or implicit" that might cover the situation they found themselves in, makes perfect sense.

Just like the collective "Oops" and the orchestrated cover-up by the perpetrators, which included concealing the truth from Brigham, after receiving Brigham's actual, authentic instructions also makes sense.

I notice that further on you admitted that you don't really care whether Brigham ordered the MMM or not. Thank you for that refreshing moment of honesty. So, IOW, you are merely throwing hypothetical mud in the hope that some of it may stick.

Got it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

But you need to add the wide eyed guy with the crazy hair do narrating the story as well. To give it the most negative impact possible.

Needs a beard.