Mountain Meadows Massacre

[Rain]

The only reason this even came up is that one of the emigrants in the Fancher train boasted of having the gun that killed Joseph Smith.

This is more contriving and reaching on the part of Analytics.

Was that (having the gun) possible to know at the time? I don't know how many guns were going off, time frame and about bullet forensics etc. at the time.

[Scott Lloyd]

Was that (having the gun) possible to know at the time? I don't know how many guns were going off, time frame and about bullet forensics etc. at the time.

In a conversation I had with Rick Turley, he speculated that the owner could have purchased it from someone who told him, "This is the gun that killed Joe Smith." If the owner then boasted of that in Utah territory, it could have been misinterpreted to mean that the owner actually took part in the murder.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott is the one who thinks the historical record should be rewritten to remove this phrase. If you don't think it's significant one way or the other, take it up with him for wanting to rewrite history. For my part, I think it is important to know what was said.

It was you who brought it up in the first place -- in a sanctimonious bid to "corroborate" your contention that Mormon belief drove these mass murders. What I did was to point out that this is a tenuous thing to present as corroboration.

If you knew the veracity of it was in dispute, intellectual honesty would require that you acknowledge that fact -- or not raise it as "corroboration" in the first place.

[Tacenda]

No ERayR, BY taught the principle of blood atonement, I guess those men misunderstood the extent. ETA: JoD Vol. 4 pgs. 215-221.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

No ERayR, BY taught the principle of blood atonement, I guess those men misunderstood the extent. ETA: JoD Vol. 4 pgs. 215-221.

CFR that blood atonement had anything to do with the massacre.

In concept, blood atonement does not apply to people who aren't Church members anyway.

Mountain Meadows massacre is bad enough as it is. Don't cloud the matter with irrelevancies.

[Tacenda]

CFR that blood atonement had anything to do with the massacre.

In concept, blood atonement does not apply to people who aren't Church members anyway.

Mountain Meadows massacre is bad enough as it is. Don't cloud the matter with irrelevancies.

It's my opinion, did I neglect to put that in?

And it can be for the gentiles, if you'll read the JoD, it is vague but comes through to me.

There have to be variables put in place for something of that magnitude to have occurred. That's a lot of men to have suddenly become evil.

These men were leaders in the church with various callings, they were family men, and probably very good men.

There's no other explanation, IMO other then what led up to it and teachings whether it be the temple oath, avenge the blood of the prophets (look on Wiki), which has been discarded, or blood atonement, IMO.

Men run the church, and some of them get it wrong.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Tacenda

[why me]

There's no other explanation, IMO other then what led up to it and teachings whether it be the temple oath, avenge the blood of the prophets (look on Wiki), which has been discarded, or blood atonement, IMO.

Men run the church, and some of them get it wrong.

Actually, one can find other explanations. Fear. The army is threatening to come. Some californians want to come to exterminate the mormons....and still hostility from the gentiles. I do think  that some members were shell shocked from the traumas over the years. We need to use our imaginations: how would we feel watching our homes burned in Missouri? And then moving to nauvoo and yet, still being threatened by the gentile press? And feeling insecure and feeling fear for our children? And then, seeing Joseph come home in a wooden casket with his brother hyrum? Would we be nexted? Then we leave for the west, and experience hardship, seeing our friends die and or their children. Finally we reach the distination and yet, now it is the federal government marching toward us.

 

I do believe that many saints were psychologically damaged at this time. And for some the mind did not heal.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's my opinion, did I neglect to put that in?

And it can be for the gentiles, if you'll read the JoD, it is vague but comes through to me.

There have to be variables put in place for something of that magnitude to have occurred. That's a lot of men to have suddenly become evil.

These men were leaders in the church with various callings, they were family men, and probably very good men.

There's no other explanation, IMO other then what led up to it and teachings whether it be the temple oath, avenge the blood of the prophets (look on Wiki), which has been discarded, or blood atonement, IMO.

Men run the church, and some of them get it wrong.

Tacenda, Have you read <Massacre at Mountain Meadows> by Turley, Walker and Leonard? If not, you would benefit from it, especially if you think there is "no other explanation" than the guesses you've made here. Edited September 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

Tacenda, Have you read <Massacre at Mountain Meadows> by Turley, Walker and Leonard? If not, you would benefit from it, especially if you think there is "no other explanation" than the guesses you've made here.

I read Juanita's book, but it was several years ago, and I've forgotten a lot.

[Rain]

In a conversation I had with Rick Turley, he speculated that the owner could have purchased it from someone who told him, "This is the gun that killed Joe Smith." If the owner then boasted of that in Utah territory, it could have been misinterpreted to mean that the owner actually took part in the murder.

I get that idea. What I am asking is if there were few enough bullets flying that the shooter would know it was himself.

[Rivers]

The Walker, Turley, Leonard book is an excellent resource on the MMM.  According the them, Isaac C. Haight is the one mostly responsible for the Massacre.

[why me]

The Walker, Turley, Leonard book is an excellent resource on the MMM.  According the them, Isaac C. Haight is the one mostly responsible for the Massacre.

We can take it further. Responsibilty also rests with those Americans who persecuted the mormons for 3 decades before MMM. The real culprit was the destruction of the psyche that many saints most likely experienced by the persecution over the years. And continued to experience in Utah. The mormons should have been left in peace from the very beginning. But intolerance caused destruction.

[Scott Lloyd]

I get that idea. What I am asking is if there were few enough bullets flying that the shooter would know it was himself.

I'm guessing there were a lot of people at the time making the same claim. That's how it is with hateful bluster and braggadocio.

[Analytics]

This "Halt" vs. "Do your duty" thing is interesting. "Lee's Last Confession" appears to be the source for "do your duty" as the signal, but Lee wasn't within earshot of Higbee's order when it was given. Higbee himself (writing under the pseudonym "Bull Valley Snort") said "the word halt  . . . was the signal for guns to fire." Ellott Willden, who was present, confirmed that "Halt" was the signal, not "Do your duty" (see, e.g., Andrew Jenson's "Bancroft Corrections" field notes in BYU Studies 47, no. 3 [2008]: 61, 63: "Higbee disobeyed orders in not giving the signal 'halt,' which (instead of the word 'Do your duty') was the signal . . .  Higbee was there did this in hope of a last chance to receive orders countermanding the fatal order. Lee afterwards scolded Higbee for this delay, After the company had passed about 1/4 of a mile further th[an] the point agreed upon Higbee reluctantly almost terrored gave the fatal order 'halt'").

 

Excellent post Nevo.  Are there any sources other than Lee that say Higbee said the words "do your duty" (without regards to whether the actual signal was "halt").  Will Bagley said that that "most accounts" claim that he said "do your duty."  Clearly, most second-hand accounts say "do your duty," but I assumed that Bagley meant most primary sources say that as well.  I'd be disappointed if he was referring to second-hand accounts.

[Analytics]

CFR that blood atonement had anything to do with the massacre.

In concept, blood atonement does not apply to people who aren't Church members anyway.

Mountain Meadows massacre is bad enough as it is. Don't cloud the matter with irrelevancies.

 

The authors of your preferred source thought it was quite relevant to understanding the mindset of the participants:

 

These earlier revivals became patterns for the famed Mormon Reformation of 1856–57. “There are sins that men commit,” Young preached at the beginning, “for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins.”34 Sometimes the reformation sermons about “blood atonement” threatened more than “peals of thunder.” “The time has been in Israel under the law of God,” Young said, “that if a man was found guilty of adultery, he must have his blood shed, and that [time] is near at hand.”35

 

The reform shook mightily. For a time, church leaders suspended the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and Young remained in seclusion—signs that it was no longer business as usual in Utah. “Teachers” were dispatched into homes to “catechize” members about their sins, and in one part of southern Utah, local church authorities told the teachers to search church members’ private boxes and drawers to “see that every thing is clean and pure.”36 One member remembered that the teachers’ intrusion could be a “fearful ordeal,” resulting in embarrassment and false confessions.37

 

As the enthusiasm grew, the language of some church leaders became especially harsh, particularly beyond Salt Lake City where distance seemed to magnify the revival. In several  communities, gangs of zealots—usually young men led both by a spirit of adventure and religious excess—engaged in acts of intimidation: “hellish murderous conduct,” said one victim.38 Their assaults were aimed at those considered of weak faith or apostate, or even those who might speak against their activity.39 In Cedar City in the southern part of the territory, church leaders spoke of clear lines of judgment—of “blood sucking gentiles,” pruning the “bitter branches” of disbelief, and the need to obey strictly “those who are over us.”40

 

Perhaps a majority of the Saints, believing themselves in spiritual jeopardy, searched their souls and bettered their lives. Church meetings became more frequent and better attended. Items previously taken “in hours of darkness” were returned.41 Tithing and other church donations increased, as did polygamous marriages, another measure of Mormon observance at the time. Every Saint wishing to be considered a Saint received the sin-washing ordinance of rebaptism, part of the reformation’s mercy when Young and the church seemed willing to forgive the gravest sin if only men and women would try to do right.42

 

The reformation was extraordinary, and nothing in Mormon history had been like it—or would be. From Young’s perspective, the reformation accomplished a great deal of good, though the tough talk about blood atonement and dissenters must have helped create a climate of violence in the territory, especially among those who chose to take license from it.

 

Walker, Ronald W.; Turley, Richard E.; Leonard, Glen M. (2008-07-22). Massacre at Mountain Meadows (pp. 24-26). Oxford University Press

[Scott Lloyd]

Excellent post Nevo.  Are there any sources other than Lee that say Higbee said the words "do your duty" (without regards to whether the actual signal was "halt").  Will Bagley said that that "most accounts" claim that he said "do your duty."  Clearly, most second-hand accounts say "do your duty," but I assumed that Bagley meant most primary sources say that as well.  I'd be disappointed if he was referring to second-hand accounts.

I agree it's an excellent post.

 

And it makes it easy to see why authors Turley, Walker and Leonard, in their more recent, better and more thoroughly researched history of the massacre have corrected the historical record to the effect that the agreed upon signal was "Halt!" not "Do your duty."

 

Furthermore, it's telling that the initial source of the "do your duty" thing is Lee's purported "confessions" that were published by his attorney, who some scholars suspect of having doctored them up and made them more lurid to sell more books. Lee gave him the rights of publication in lieu of a fee for his services in the trial, so it was in his interest to sell as many copies as possible. "Do your duty" seems like just the sort of melodramatic element someone might add who was in that sort of mindset and who was anxious to make the public think Mormon doctrine was corrupt enough to cause the massacre. It apparently worked in your case.

 

It seems apparent at this point that Bagley was referring to second-hand accounts when he used the phrase "most sources." I assume you have his book there at hand. Did he cite or document those sources? Turley, Walker and Leonard, in the chapter note you dismissively referred to as "gibberish" and "the entirety of their argument" provide specific citations to documents that can be accessed right now at the Church History Library in Salt Lake City.

 

Bagley did not have all the documentation available to him that Turley et al had until after their book was published, when they made it all accessible at the Church History Library (and even published Andrew Jenson's notes of interviews he did with Cedar City residents who were there at the time of the massacre). I'm wondering if Bagley was trying to save face for having earlier claimed that the signal was "Do your duty" and for being obliged now to concede (albeit grudgingly and quietly) that this might not be accurate, due to the newer and better research of authors Turley, Walker and Leonard.

 

It matters not how many sources there are that say a thing if they all stem from the same erroneous or suspect derivation -- such as Lee's "confessions." That's the nature of rumor, gossip and folklore. And that's why it's good, from time to time, to revisit with new research what people think they know about a historical event.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

The Church still officially teaches Blood Atonement. The one that happened 2000 years ago was the only one necessary.

[Scott Lloyd]

The authors of your preferred source thought it was quite relevant to understanding the mindset of the participants:

 

 

 

 

Walker, Ronald W.; Turley, Richard E.; Leonard, Glen M. (2008-07-22). Massacre at Mountain Meadows (pp. 24-26). Oxford University Press

I still think it would be a long stretch to "take license from it" in the case of Mountain Meadows, when, in theory, it applies only to people who are not only members of the Church but who have received temple blessings. Moreover, they must voluntarily submit to having their blood shed.

Seems like this excludes the Mountain Meadows victims in every relevant respect.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

I still think it would be a long stretch to "take license from it" in the case of Mountain Meadows, when, in theory, it applies only to people who are not only members of the Church but who have received temple blessings.

Seriously Scott.....did you know this was in the book by Walker, Turley and Leonard the whole time you were questioning my posts?  And you really believe that it was possible that those men didn't know about the preaching of BY?  And even if they didn't, the leaders who gave the go ahead definitely fit the criteria:

 

  

John Doyle Lee was born September 12, 1812, at Kaskaskia, Illinois, and baptized on June 17, 1838. He served numerous missions for the Church and eventually moved to southern Utah in 1850 or 1851. At the time of the massacre he was a major in the Iron County militia, and commander of its Fourth Battalion. Lee was the only person ever brought to trial for his involvement in the massacre.

William H. Dame was, at the time of the massacre, the commander of the Iron Military District with the militia rank of colonel. He was also serving as a bishop in the Mormon Church at that time. He did not participate personally in the massacre, but was, by the standards of military justice applicable both then and now, administratively responsible for the actions of officers and soldiers under his command.

Isaac C. Haight was the commander of the Second Battalion in the Iron County militia with the rank of major, and Colonel Dame's second-in-command. His ecclesiastical position was stake president. Haight's role in the massacre was a complex one; he was involved in its planning, but also made some efforts to stop or at least delay the actions against the emigrants. Efforts to bring Haight and others to justice after the massacre proved to be fruitless.

Philip Klingensmith was a bishop in Cedar City and an officer in the Iron County militia. In this latter role, he carried orders and other messages between various militia officers. He was present at the massacre and subsequently turned state's evidence, but his testimony was of no real help to the authorities.

embers who attended the temple if they were Stake Presidents etc. 

 

And it feels that some on this board are doing this...

 

recognizes it as the most difficult of all the many subjects with which he has to deal in this History. Difficult because it is well-nigh impossible to sift out the absolute truth of the matter from the mass of conflicting statements made by witnesses and near witnesses of the affair; and equally difficult to reconcile the differences of contending partisans. Anti-"Mormon" writers have been determined to fasten the crime upon the Church of the Latter-day Saints, or at least upon her leaders; and also, as a rule, holding that in some way "Mormon" doctrine and "Mormon" church polity was responsible for the crime. On the other hand, church people who in all good conscience, and justly, resent this imputation against their church and its leaders, have been naturally slow to admit all the facts that history may insist upon as inevitable. [B.H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, Volume 4 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, XXXX), 139.]

[Bob Crockett]

 

 

David Bigler adds:

One of Young's escort lassoed the cross [on the burial site] with a rope, turned his horse, and pulled it down. Brigham Young "didn't say another word," recalled Dudley Leavitt. "He didn't give an order. He just lifted his right arm to the square [a temple gesture], and in five minutes there wasn't one stone left upon another. He didn't have to tell us what he wanted done. We understood." (Forgotten Kingdom, p.178)

___

While Brigham Young and George A. Smith, the church authorities chiefly responsible, did not specifically order the massacre, they did preach sermons and set up social conditions which made it possible.... Brigham Young was accessory after the fact, in that he knew what had happened, and how and why it happened. Evidence of this is abundant and unmistakable, and from the most impeccable Mormon sources.

 

_____

Knowing then, why did not President Young take action against these men?... He did have the men chiefly responsible released from their offices in the church following a private church investigation, but since he understood well that their acts had grown out of loyalty to him and his cause, he would not betray them into the hands of their common "enemy."...Someone assuredly warned all the participants, so that for many years they were all able to evade arrest.

______

The church leaders decided to sacrifice Lee only when they could see that it would be impossible to acquit him without assuming a part of the responsibility themselves.... this token sacrifice had to be made. Hence the farce which was the second trial of [John D.] Lee. The leaders evidently felt that by placing all the responsibility squarely upon him, already doomed, they could lift the stigma from the church as a whole. (The Mountain Meadows Massacre, p. 219-220)

 

I don't believe Dudley Leavitt's account of the desecration the rock cairn.  Wilford Woodruff was there and he doesn't mention it.  Dudley Leavitt was one of the chief conspirators and mass-murderers, a fact Brigham Young probably did not know at the time.  Naturally, one must assume that a murderer like Leavitt is looking for some evidence of divine approval, and so he saw and heard what he wanted.

 

As I point out in my paper some time ago, neither Brooks nor Leavitt have a clue as to what it means to be an accessory after the fact.  It does not mean that one is an accessory if one knows what happened and why it happened.  That does not confer accessory after the fact status; if that were the case, then Salt Lake Tribune reporters would be accessories after the fact.

 

It appears that Brigham Young did not have a full understanding of what happened (he had long suspected John D. Lee and Haight) until Erastus Snow moved to St. George and began an informal investigation which then led to Haight, Higbee and Lee's excommunication.  [Many more might have been cut off; we only have record of the general conference cutting off the the three.]  Young also tried to release William Dame from his calling but his stake refused to accept a successor.   It isn't true that Brigham Young took no action against the men.  One thing that really convinced me that Brigham Young lacked the full story until Erastus Snow's investigation is that in Lee's diaries, when he learned he was excommunicated without a trial and thereafter his plural wives left him, he angrily went to Salt Lake to meet Brigham Young.   Lee recounts how he complained to Young about having taken so long to take action against him.  Young responded (in Lee's diary) that Young hadn't been apprised of the critical facts until recently.   Lee does nothing in his diary to refute that, even though he was a prolific diarist and had lots to say about how he was being made a scapegoat.

 

As my paper also demonstrates, the sacrificial lamb story is one invented by Lee's defense attorney and one that Juanita Brooks ran with because she was sympathetic to the position of her grandfather, Dudley Leavitt.   In truth, the government had William Dame in incarceration on the first day of the first Lee trial and then let him go.  The government had indictments and warrants against three or four other men but Congress wouldn't allocate money for their arrest.   But, for ten years government files showed continuing efforts to pin Brigham Young to the crime as well as arrest and bring to trial other participants.  As my paper points out, however, several of the fugitives were at the same time on the federal payroll as guides to the Powell expedition, a fact very well known to the government  surveyors who would often play jokes on the fugitives and claim that the Marshal was just over the hill.  

 

So the "sacrifice" story is just Lee's defense, and one Brooks loved as somehow it seemed to exculpate her grandfather.  As further refutation of the sacrifice story, the Tribune ridiculed the prosecutor for not trying more people thatn Lee, and they bought into Lee's defense theory.   Brooks and Bagley both miss the correspondence between the prosecutor and the U.S. Attorney General where the prosecutor denies any deal with the Church to make Lee a scapegoat.  The prosecutor said that the Church was helpful in the prosecutorial effort.  The prosecutor said he didn't have enough evidence to bring others, particularly Brigham Young, to justice.  But in successive years the correspondence revealed efforts by the prosecutor to pin Brigham Young to the massacre and collateral issues.

 

Keep also in mind that President Buchanan granted a general amnesty to all Utah War participants.  Both the New York Herald and the local federal prosecutor took the position that that amnesty was intended to cover all MMM participants.  

Edited September 15, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

Seriously Scott.....did you know this was in the book by Walker, Turley and Leonard the whole time you were questioning my posts?  And you really believe that it was possible that those men didn't know about the preaching of BY?  And even if they didn't, the leaders who gave the go ahead definitely fit the criteria:

 

I've read the book; I know what's in it.

 

I didn't deny that they knew about Brigham Young's preaching.

 

I stand by what I posted, which is:

 

I still think it would be a long stretch to "take license from it" in the case of Mountain Meadows, when, in theory, it applies only to people who are not only members of the Church but who have received temple blessings.

 

 

 

And I still take strong exception to your assertion that "there's no other explanation" than Mormon teaching for what drove the massacre. That's why I suggested you read the book by Turley and co-authors. One certainly doesn't draw that conclusion from their book.

 

Briefly stated, it can be explained in terms of war-time hysteria engendered by the approach of Johnston's army; escalating tensions between residents of the territory and traveling emigrants; confrontations in Cedar City when emigrants came into town for supplies but were rebuffed because the townsfolk were conserving supplies for what they expected was impending war; a chain of increasingly bad decisions, each one leading to the next; and, not insignificantly, the psychology of group violence.

 

On the latter (the psychology of group violence), see this FAIR Conference address given by Turley back in 2007.

 

It is overly simplistic in the extreme to blame the whole thing on Mormon preaching, even if one accepts the idea that the Reformation contributed to a climate of violence in the territory at that time.

 

 

And it feels that some on this board are doing this...

 

recognizes it as the most difficult of all the many subjects with which he has to deal in this History. Difficult because it is well-nigh impossible to sift out the absolute truth of the matter from the mass of conflicting statements made by witnesses and near witnesses of the affair; and equally difficult to reconcile the differences of contending partisans. Anti-"Mormon" writers have been determined to fasten the crime upon the Church of the Latter-day Saints, or at least upon her leaders; and also, as a rule, holding that in some way "Mormon" doctrine and "Mormon" church polity was responsible for the crime. On the other hand, church people who in all good conscience, and justly, resent this imputation against their church and its leaders, have been naturally slow to admit all the facts that history may insist upon as inevitable. [B.H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, Volume 4 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, XXXX), 139.]

 

 

I agree that some on this board -- and this thread in particular -- seem "determined to fasten the crime upon the Church ... or at least upon their leaders ... holding that in some way 'Mormon' doctrine and 'Mormon' church polity was responsible for the crime."

 

On the other hand, A Comprehensive History was published back in the 1930s. A lot has happened since then, primarily the publication Massacre at Mountain Meadows by Turley, Walker and Leonard, which acknowledges all that could reasonably be expected to be acknowledged about the causes and contributing factors of the massacre.

 

And I don't see anyone on this thread disputing the conclusions in that book.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

I've read the book; I know what's in it.

 

I didn't deny that they knew about Brigham Young's preaching.

 

I stand by what I posted, which is:

 

 

And I still take strong exception to your assertion that "there's no other explanation" than Mormon teaching for what drove the massacre. That's why I suggested you read the book by Turley and co-authors. One certainly doesn't draw that conclusion from their book.

 

Briefly stated, it can be explained in terms of war-time hysteria engendered by the approach of Johnston's army; escalating tensions between residents of the territory and traveling emigrants; confrontations in Cedar City when emigrants came into town for supplies but were rebuffed because the townsfolk were conserving supplies for what they expected was impending war; a chain of increasingly bad decisions, each one leading to the next; and, not insignificantly, the psychology of group violence.

 

On the latter (the psychology of group violence), see this FAIR Conference address given by Turley back in 2007.

 

It is overly simplistic in the extreme to blame the whole thing on Mormon preaching, even if one accepts the idea that the Reformation contributed to a climate of violence in the territory at that time.

 

 

I agree that some on this board -- and this thread in particular -- seem "determined to fasten the crime upon the Church ... or at least upon their leaders ... holding that in some way 'Mormon' doctrine and 'Mormon' church polity was responsible for the crime."

 

On the other hand, A Comprehensive History was published back in the 1930s. A lot has happened since then, primarily the publication Massacre at Mountain Meadows by Turley, Walker and Leonard, which acknowledges all that could reasonably be expected to be acknowledged about the causes and contributing factors of the massacre.

 

And I don't see anyone on this thread disputing the conclusions in that book.

Ok, I understand that there are other variables to the massacre having happened besides Mormon preaching, and that there is more to explain it besides BY's sermon about Blood Atonement and the past temple oath.  Hopefully I'll get more understanding as I search. 

 

Right now I'm listening to a podcast with Van Hale on his Mormon Miscellaneous World Talk Show.  He said he's going to be speaking with our own Bob Crockett!  Here is the link if anyone's interested.  http://mormonmisc.podbean.com/e/mountain-meadows-massacre-2-the-aftermath/  So Bob I guess, has written extensively about this.  I'm dealing with a lot more knowledgeable people than myself, and I can't believe I keep talking on this board sometimes. 

Edited September 15, 2014 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

I find it curious that two weeks ago, Nevo apparently deleted all his posts from this thread.

 

There seems to be not much point in doing so, as in pretty much every case, the content of his posts was etched in stone, as it were, when they were quoted in response posts.

 

The act, then, could be hardly more than a symbolic statement, although the message eludes me. Even though I disagreed with some of the posts, I found them all to be insightful and informative.

[Nevo]

It wasn't just this thread. I deleted most of my posts for the past year at the same time. I planned to delete all of my posts from the board but there were too many and I eventually tired of it. It was a feeble act of protest against the board's obnoxious and intrusive Initial-Caps-On-Every-Word setting on thread titles, something I had long assumed was simply a software glitch. I learned that day that it was actually imposed at the arbitrary whim of the board admin "Nemesis." I know that sounds like a dumb thing to get worked up about but it really riled me. Like any self-respecting Chicago Manual of Style devotee denied the aesthetic pleasure of seeing proper headline style with lowercase articles and prepositions thanks to a high-handed board admin, I resolved to quit the board then and there and take my posts with me. But, pathetically, I was soon back—my principled stand temporarily abandoned.

 

(Seriously, that's the reason I deleted those posts.)

Edited October 22, 2014 by Nevo

[Scott Lloyd]

It wasn't just this thread. I deleted most of my posts for the past year at the same time. I planned to delete all of my posts from the board but there were too many and I eventually tired of it. It was a feeble act of protest against the board's obnoxious and intrusive Initial-Caps-On-Every-Word setting on thread titles, something I had long assumed was simply a software glitch. I learned that day that it was actually imposed at the arbitrary whim of the board admin, "Nemesis." I know that sounds like a dumb thing to get worked up about but it really riled me. Like any self-respecting Chicago Manual of Style devotee denied the aesthetic pleasure of seeing proper headline style with lowercase articles and prepositions thanks to a high-handed board admin, I resolved to quit the board then and there and take my posts with me. But, pathetically, I was soon back—my principled stand temporarily abandoned.

 

(Seriously, that's the reason I deleted those posts.)

And I thought I was ****-retentive.

 

You'd probably hate working for the Deseret News, as we have an all-down style in headlines.

 

Then again, technically speaking, headlines are not titles, though some people erroneously refer to them as such.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd