Can Political Statements Disqualify for Callings?

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There were other options, including whether or not to sell them food or other supplies, allow them to camp in nicer places that might ruin resources for the settlers, arrest any who mouthed off, etc.

Here is the testimony given by Haslam (the messenger).  According to him there was nothing in the message about selling food or the options of where to allow the emigrants to camp:

"State now, as nearly as you can, considering the state and circumstances leading to Mr. Haight giving that dispatch and with orders to convey it there.

Word came up to Mr. Haight from John D. Lee, stating that the Indians had got the emigrants corralled on the Mountain Meadows, and wanted to know what he should do.

Who brought that word?

I don't know, I did not see the man who brought the word to Haight.

What did Mr. Haight tell you in relation to the matter at that time?

He sent for me. He had a message written to send up to Brigham Young, and he wished to get a man to take it up. He had not found one when I went down there to his house, and he asked me if I would take it. I told him I would if it was possible to take it.

Did he then state the nature of that message that he wanted you to carry and deliver?

He gave me the message to read.

Did you read it?

Yes, sir.

State the contents of it as near as you possibly can.

The same as I stated before: that the Indians had got the emigrants corralled at the Mountain Meadows, and Lee wanted to know what should be done. Lee at this time was major of what was called the Post, and he was the Indian agent."

http://mountainmeadows.unl.edu/archive/mmm.lds.haslam.1885.html

 

Do you have a reference stating what you claim the message contained?  

If you study the timeline for when the message was sent to BY, the attack was already underway, it was well past wondering where they should allow the emigrants to camp or what supplies to sell them (they were already under strict orders not to do that). The emigrants didn't even have access to fresh water at this point. 

So why the need to ask BY what to do with this group? Why didn't they know not to harm them?  

Again, these were mostly women and children.  

Edited February 13, 2017 by JulieM

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

in line with or in opposition with mine own, there is so much good I see in them in the gospel and I know there is much I can learn from them.

For many years Harry Reid has been hated amongst members in my neck of the woods. Discussions of politics would inevitably decline into conversations about Reid and how he shouldn't be allowed to hold a temple recommend or even be a member of the church. Those on the right were judging Reid on his leftist ideology. But people on the left judge people on the right in similar ways. Sometimes a Democrat will judge an outspoken Republican about their stance on immigration and how it doesn't match the church's position. The political rancor intersects religion regularly and the harshness of the judgments get really tired.

I admit that...but...

Last night I was reading a Facebook post from a prominent member in my area. This person referenced a Tennessee law that removes civil liability for a motorist who hits a protestor in a street. This person called it a "Proud moment that allows someone to run over another person for blocking the road in protest". This mindset absolutely disgusts me and I am shocked that anyone, let alone a church leader, would voice approval of running protestors down.

At the risk of being a hypocrite, because I hate judging people's worthiness on their politics, I find myself really focused on whether or not I can sustain a person in leadership, or any calling, who would advocate this kind of violent behavior.

http://wearechange.org/tennessee-passes-controversial-law-allowing-drivers-injure-protesters/

Are there legitimate reasons to judge a person based on their politics and oppose them in a calling?

I think the standard is that any member of the Church may voice any political position he or she is inclined to support or oppose. Each and every member is 100% free to support or oppose any political position including political parties / organizations ranging in beliefs as expressed by Black Lives Matter to the KKK; from Nazism to Anarchy; from Democrats to Republicans, Communists, Anarchists, etc. The can also be "pro life" or "pro abortion". They may support or oppose gay marriage and none of this in and of itself will affect one's standing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, it is important not to bring in politics into the gospel in any official setting. I joke and tease politics in church once and a while but I really do not care who opposes or  supports my views so far as their being a member stands. They are all my brothers and sisters in  Christ in the gospel.

 

So, for me, as long as members of the Church keep politics out of Church, especially in callings where one teaches, so as Gospel Doctrine or Essentials, Primary, Young Men or Young Women instructors, or from positions of authority such as a Bishop or Relief Society President, I'm 100% OK them serving in the Church. I think the only time I would oppose another member of the Church on politics is if he or she uses them in Church. In that case I can see my opposing their calling and bringing up said matters to the correct authority.

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for the thought about judging by actions instead of by words. There's a lot to think about.

But isn't there some level of responsibility for a person who advocates violent action even if they don't personally engage in it?

Indeed a lot to think about. If a person were to just run over another person simply because that other person was on the road protesting, then that's questionable. However, what if there were a medical emergency involved with the driver? What if the driver felt physically threatened as there have been cases of people dragged out of their cars and beaten? Here in Houston we have "Critical Mass" showings were a massive amount of people take to their bicycles and ride the streets. They block the roads, run through red lights. There are times, and not just a few, that they ride their bicycles towards you the vehicle driver in that driver's lane. I drive for Uber in Houston and during these critical mass demonstrations there are many times my riders need to spend much longer times in the vehicle than they would normally. Furthermore, I get paid much more by the mile than by the minute so essentially I am losing money be prolonging a drop off and picking up somebody else. While I do not find this a reason to run these bicyclists over, I cannot begin to tell you how angry I get with them.

 

Just some things to consider as per your acquaintance's remark.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Darren10

[HappyJackWagon]

46 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Which would be murder.  Are you sure that this "prominent member" in your area was advocating this?  Is there anymore to the quote you shared?  Or was it just the one line? 

The original post had this statement "How unfortunate that this kind of legislation is needed. Civility is no longer practiced and common decency lacking in many who put their demands above the rights of others!" linked to an article entitled "Tennessee Passes Bill Allowing People to Hit Protesters Blocking Roads".

After someone commented about how this is extreme, the poster doubled down by saying "Proud moment that allows someone to run over another person for blocking the road in protest."

This is the picture linked to the post. I guess you'll just have to believe me that this person made the comment with the worst possible interpretation of the story, yet condoned it.

  

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I think the standard is that any member of the Church may voice any political position he or she is inclined to support or oppose. Each and every member is 100% free to support or oppose any political position including political parties / organizations ranging in beliefs as expressed by Black Lives Matter to the KKK; from Nazism to Anarchy; from Democrats to Republicans, Communists, Anarchists, etc. The can also be "pro life" or "pro abortion". They may support or oppose gay marriage and none of this in and of itself will affect one's standing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, it is important not to bring in politics into the gospel in any official setting. I joke and tease politics in church once and a while but I really do not care who opposes or  supports my views so far as their being a member stands. They are all my brothers and sisters in  Christ in the gospel.

 

So, for me, as long as members of the Church keep politics out of Church, especially in callings where one teaches, so as Gospel Doctrine or Essentials, Primary, Young Men or Young Women instructors, or from positions of authority such as a Bishop or Relief Society President, I'm 100% OK them serving in the Church. I think the only time I would oppose another member of the Church on politics is if he or she uses them in Church. In that case I can see my opposing their calling and bringing up said matters to the correct authority.

So if a member of your ward actively advocated racial supremacy and was an avowed member of the KKK, you wouldn't have any problem sustaining them to serve as a bishop, relief society president etc, so long as they didn't teach it in church?

[Darren10]

56 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Here is the testimony given by Haslam (the messenger).  According to him there was nothing in the message about selling food or the options of where to allow the emigrants to camp:

"State now, as nearly as you can, considering the state and circumstances leading to Mr. Haight giving that dispatch and with orders to convey it there.

Word came up to Mr. Haight from John D. Lee, stating that the Indians had got the emigrants corralled on the Mountain Meadows, and wanted to know what he should do.

Who brought that word?

I don't know, I did not see the man who brought the word to Haight.

What did Mr. Haight tell you in relation to the matter at that time?

He sent for me. He had a message written to send up to Brigham Young, and he wished to get a man to take it up. He had not found one when I went down there to his house, and he asked me if I would take it. I told him I would if it was possible to take it.

Did he then state the nature of that message that he wanted you to carry and deliver?

He gave me the message to read.

Did you read it?

Yes, sir.

State the contents of it as near as you possibly can.

The same as I stated before: that the Indians had got the emigrants corralled at the Mountain Meadows, and Lee wanted to know what should be done. Lee at this time was major of what was called the Post, and he was the Indian agent."

http://mountainmeadows.unl.edu/archive/mmm.lds.haslam.1885.html

 

Do you have a reference stating what you claim the message contained?  

If you study the timeline for when the message was sent to BY, the attack was already underway, it was well past wondering where they should allow the emigrants to camp or what supplies to sell them (they were already under strict orders not to do that). The emigrants didn't even have access to fresh water at this point. 

So why the need to ask BY what to do with this group? Why didn't they know not to harm them?  

Again, these were mostly women and children.  

I can get exact quotes later but you are not portraying the Baker–Fancher party accurately. It is factually correct that they were mostly women and children but none-the-less, that party swore that they were going to use violence against the Mormons including getting federal forces in a force of arms against the Mormons. This at a time when that was a big taboo among the Mormons settling in Utah. Yes, this stemmed from the Mormons not selling any goods to outside parties passing through and that was done for reasons Calm outlined. But the Baker–Fancher Party was unrurly and even stole horses from a local native Indian tribe (I think the Utes) which meant death to the entire Indian village as horses were the primary means to gather resources including food for the tribe. This is what riled the Mormons and Indians up against the party, not that they were mostly women and children, implying "harmless". The local Mormon leaders wanted to know what to do militarily against the Baker–Fancher Party for their crimes, not for being harmless and perhaps being "a bit rude", if you will.

This can be corroborated by leading historians of Utah history.

[Darren10]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So if a member of your ward actively advocated racial supremacy and was an avowed member of the KKK, you wouldn't have any problem sustaining them to serve as a bishop, relief society president etc, so long as they didn't teach it in church?

Correct. This is especially true if I actually saw them serving others of all races equally. Though, I strongly suspect that their racial supremacy advocacy in and of itself would hinder their effectiveness as a leader.

Now, likewise, if someone in your ward belonged to Black Lives Matter, would you sustain them as a bishop? I would if he were called to be one and served and loved all others equally.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Darren10

[stemelbow]

I always figured if I wasn't wanting a calling I'd make a few political statements advocating for the left.  "that ought to shut him up." 

[Darren10]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I always figured if I wasn't wanting a calling I'd make a few political statements advocating for the left.  "that ought to shut him up." 

Heh!!!

[bsjkki]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The original post had this statement "How unfortunate that this kind of legislation is needed. Civility is no longer practiced and common decency lacking in many who put their demands above the rights of others!" linked to an article entitled "Tennessee Passes Bill Allowing People to Hit Protesters Blocking Roads".

After someone commented about how this is extreme, the poster doubled down by saying "Proud moment that allows someone to run over another person for blocking the road in protest."

This is the picture linked to the post. I guess you'll just have to believe me that this person made the comment with the worst possible interpretation of the story, yet condoned it.

  

That picture in no way represents the situation the bill was aimed at. Running over these people would be murder. The authorities should be the ones removing these protestors because even these peaceful actions threaten life. This political season has ruined civility. My bishopric member made a comment condoning the assasination of then candidate Trump. We live in sad days.

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, emeliza said:

I try to judge by actions, not words.  I had friends seriously tell me they wished people coming into the US would die of thirst or starvation in the deserts trying to get here.  They thought this was a good and legitimate punishments for crossing the border illegally.  I was appalled, but I have never witnessed an action by these ladies that indicates they would truly let someone starve. They were called to RS and Primary Presidencies and I substained them.  I am still friends with them, although that conversation has always left a negative impression on me.

Substaining (I believe) isn't a vote, but more of you backing the person up in their calling.  So I was able to put aside their comments because I guess I decided maybe they didn't mean them. 

If you feel this person would seriously run over protestors, that is a good reason to not substain them.  If you think they were just talking big, but that isn't really who they are, substain them.

As someone who has received messages from other ward members calling my TR into question, I have made it a decision to never do the same.  

Oh, dear...no words. 

[JulieM]

40 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I can get exact quotes later but you are not portraying the Baker–Fancher party accurately. It is factually correct that they were mostly women and children but none-the-less, that party swore that they were going to use violence against the Mormons including getting federal forces in a force of arms against the Mormons. This at a time when that was a big taboo among the Mormons settling in Utah. Yes, this stemmed from the Mormons not selling any goods to outside parties passing through and that was done for reasons Calm outlined. But the Baker–Fancher Party was unrurly and even stole horses from a local native Indian tribe (I think the Utes) which meant death to the entire Indian village as horses were the primary means to gather resources including food for the tribe. This is what riled the Mormons and Indians up against the party, not that they were mostly women and children, implying "harmless".

CFR for documentation on the statements made by the emigrants of sworn violence towards Mormons  (I would like to read what you have as this is a topic that interests me.) If you have references, were these statement made before the beginning of the attack or after it began (it lasted for days and ended in the murders).

And, CFR for documentation that the emigrants stole horses from the Indians too.  Thanks!

 

Edited February 13, 2017 by JulieM

[rongo]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe. But when hyperbolic rhetoric by individuals, especially church leaders, becomes violent, I think they share responsibility when perpetrators actually listen and act on the hyperbolic rhetoric. There are many examples of blood atonement being carried out. While BY could claim he never intended for anyone to actually act on his words, I think it is disingenuous to feign surprise that members would listen to their priesthood leader. The words people use are often internalized by themselves and others. They are stoking the flames of violence.

This illustrates the disconnect between people a) trying to link violence in Utah Territory with rhetoric from the Brethren, and b) calling it "blood atonement."

There are very, very few examples of blood atonement being carried out. I remember questions about the Payson murders, Dr. Robinson's murder, etc. during the Q&A of my FAIR Conference presentation, and none of those (and other examples of violence) represent "blood atonement." The examples that are given are alleged (or sometimes real) instances of Mormons killing people, but that is simply somewhere on the spectrum between murder and justifiable homicide/self-defense. "Blood atonement" has to involve ecclesiastically-ordered killings for purposes of repentance or covenant-breaking. And by definition, if a Mormon hypothetically murders a Gentile, that is not "blood atonement." 

My favorite example of this is the alleged instance where Bishop Snow is said to have had a boy castrated because he wanted to marry a girl Bishop Snow wanted to marry. If true, how is this an example of "blood atonement?" 

Ditto for MMM. Sorting through the documents is a chore, and largely is a mirror of the person's own Stimmung, but even if Brigham Young ordered the Fancher party slaughtered, how does that equate with "blood atonement?" I also don't personally find the argument convincing that rhetoric from the Brethren led to the MMM and other examples of violence, but that interpretation largely depends on where the interpreter already is. 

The examples of "blood atonement" I've seen come from awful sources, like John D. Lee's autobiography (ghost written by his attorney William Bishop, a bitter anti-Mormon with an agenda). 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Word came up to Mr. Haight from John D. Lee, stating that the Indians had got the emigrants corralled on the Mountain Meadows, and wanted to know what he should do....

So why the need to ask BY what to do with this group? Why didn't they know not to harm them?  

I wasn't making claims about what the message said.  The message is vague, just asking what should be done.  I was pointing options they could be talking about besides whether or not to kill them.

However, I didn't review the article down to where the message was sent and I had forgotten that Haight had presented his plan to the council and this is what prompted the letter, I was confused with the 'dispatch' that had been sent earlier to Dame.

As to not knowing not to harm them, the leaders were fearful that at least some of the men would be joining and pushing federal troops to come back and wipe them out.  Apparently for most of the leaders, they thought they could be in an 'us or them' situation, though initially it appears most thought a show of force would be enough or perhaps they figured they would be able to take out the aggressive ones and leave those they need not fear unharmed:

"Weeks of frustration boiled over, and in the rising tension one emigrant man reportedly claimed he had a gun that killed Joseph Smith. Others threatened to join the incoming federal troops against the Saints. Alexander Fancher, captain of the emigrant train, rebuked these men on the spot.

The men’s statements were most likely idle threats made in the heat of the moment, but in the charged environment of 1857, Cedar City’s leaders took the men at their word. The town marshal tried to arrest some of the emigrants on charges of public intoxication and blasphemy but was forced to back down. The wagon company made its way out of town after only about an hour, but the agitated Cedar City leaders were not willing to let the matter go. Instead they planned to call out the local militia to pursue and arrest the offending men and probably fine them some cattle."

Even when they got to the point of intending to kill some ofthe men, it appears they were not thinking it through and addressing the women and children.  It was Lee who pushed Haight and then Haight who pushed the others...unsuccessfully...to consider wiping them all out (not saying some didn't agree with him, but enough didn't to create a stalemate).  Thus the letter was sent:

"On Sunday, September 6, Haight presented the plan to a council of local leaders who held Church, civic, and military positions. The plan was met with stunned resistance by those hearing it for the first time, sparking heated debate.  Finally, council members asked Haight if he had consulted with President Young about the matter. Saying he hadn’t, Haight agreed to send an express rider to Salt Lake City with a letter explaining the situation and asking what should be done."

As to the timing of the message, the article isn't clear and it has been too long since I read the book, but it appears that Haight might only have known Lee had the group in his control, not that the killing had already started.  The message may have been sent just to persuade the other leaders though that he was considering all options ad it never occurred to him that BY would veto the attack.  Otoh, perhaps he was still uncertain himself if a massacre was necessary to protect and avenge the community.  If he had been certain, then the instructions from BY received too late wouldn't have caused him such heartache, imo.

I may still have some confusion over points, but I have to go do their things and the conversation will likely be past this, so please if you point out stuff I need correcting, assume I accept it if I don't say anything.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Calm

[JulieM]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wasn't making claims about what the message said.  The message is vague, just asking what should be done.  I was pointing options they could be talking about besides whether or not to kill them.

However, I didn't review the article down to where the message was sent and I had forgotten that Haight had presented his plan to the council and this is what prompted the letter, I was confused with the 'dispatch' that had been sent earlier to Dame.

As to not knowing not to harm them, the leaders were fearful that at least some of the men would be joining and pushing federal troops to come back and wipe them out.  Apparently for most of the leaders, they thought they could be in an 'us or them' situation, though initially it appears most thought a show of force would be enough or perhaps they figured they would be able to take out the aggressive ones and leave those they need not fear unharmed:

"Weeks of frustration boiled over, and in the rising tension one emigrant man reportedly claimed he had a gun that killed Joseph Smith. Others threatened to join the incoming federal troops against the Saints. Alexander Fancher, captain of the emigrant train, rebuked these men on the spot.

The men’s statements were most likely idle threats made in the heat of the moment, but in the charged environment of 1857, Cedar City’s leaders took the men at their word. The town marshal tried to arrest some of the emigrants on charges of public intoxication and blasphemy but was forced to back down. The wagon company made its way out of town after only about an hour, but the agitated Cedar City leaders were not willing to let the matter go. Instead they planned to call out the local militia to pursue and arrest the offending men and probably fine them some cattle."

Even when they got to the point of intending to kill some ofthe men, it appears they were not thinking it through and addressing the women and children.  It was Lee who pushed Haight and then Haight who pushed the others...unsuccessfully...to consider wiping them all out (not saying some didn't agree with him, but enough didn't to create a stalemate).  Thus the letter was sent:

"On Sunday, September 6, Haight presented the plan to a council of local leaders who held Church, civic, and military positions. The plan was met with stunned resistance by those hearing it for the first time, sparking heated debate.  Finally, council members asked Haight if he had consulted with President Young about the matter. Saying he hadn’t, Haight agreed to send an express rider to Salt Lake City with a letter explaining the situation and asking what should be done."

As to the timing of the message, the article isn't clear and it has been too long since I read the book, but it appears that Haight might only have known Lee had the group in his control, not that the killing had already started.  The message may have been sent just to persuade the other leaders though that he was considering all options ad it never occurred to him that BY would veto the attack.  Otoh, perhaps he was still uncertain himself if a massacre was necessary to protect and avenge the community.  If he had been certain, then the instructions from BY received too late wouldn't have caused him such heartache, imo.

I may still have some confusion over points, but I have to go do their things and the conversation will likely be past this, so please if you point out stuff I need correcting, assume I accept it if I don't say anything.

Thanks, Calm.  I'll review this topic some more.

I'm interested in what Darren has regarding the CFRs as I've read the accusations against the emigrants were just mainly false rumors (including them claiming they had the gun that killed Joseph but I need to look that up again) used afterwards to try and justify the murders.

I just believe that if the men in the party did say they were sending Federal troops back (or authorities to deal with the Mormons), one has to wonder why.  If they'd been allowed to pass through peacefully why make that kind of threat?

The numbers I've read are that 40 women were murdered and over 50 children.  I don't care what the men in the group did, nothing justifies that. 

Thanks again for the help!

 

Edited February 13, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, JulieM said:

The numbers I've read are that 40 women were murdered and over 50 children.  I don't care what the men in the group did, nothing justifies that. 

 

Since none of the men had killed anyone at that time, nothing justifies their murder either.

Trying to understand why someone did something and get details right in no way means justification.  I don't remember anyone on the board (save trolls pretending to be bizarre TBMs) claiming the militia was justified in killing anyone.

Man, I just lost another hour...urg...

[JulieM]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since none of the men had killed anyone at that time, nothing justifies their murder either.

Trying to understand why someone did something and get details right in no way means justification. 

All very true.  

Edited February 13, 2017 by JulieM

[HappyJackWagon]

17 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Correct. This is especially true if I actually saw them serving others of all races equally. Though, I strongly suspect that their racial supremacy advocacy in and of itself would hinder their effectiveness as a leader.

Now, likewise, if someone in your ward belonged to Black Lives Matter, would you sustain them as a bishop? I would if he were called to be one and served and loved all others equally.

Black Lives Matter is not even in the same realm as the KKK. It's an unfair comparison.

I would absolutely refuse to sustain anyone who was actively avowing the teachings of the KKK just as I would any other racist group promoting violence and racial supremacy. It is antithetical to the gospel.

You also stated...

Quote

But the Baker–Fancher Party was unrurly and even stole horses from a local native Indian tribe (I think the Utes) which meant death to the entire Indian village as horses were the primary means to gather resources including food for the tribe. This is what riled the Mormons and Indians up against the party, not that they were mostly women and children, implying "harmless".

Like JulieM-I call for a CFR on that. I think you've got this backwards. The Baker-Fancher party were actually a more civil and educated group of emigrants than was typical for the time. I'm not aware of any evidence of their wrong doing. I am aware, however, of the false claims that followed and proceeded them all the way through Utah which caused to stir the Mormons to fear and violence.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Black Lives Matter is not even in the same realm as the KKK. It's an unfair comparison.

I would absolutely refuse to sustain anyone who was actively avowing the teachings of the KKK just as I would any other racist group promoting violence and racial supremacy. It is antithetical to the gospel.

You also stated...

Like JulieM-I call for a CFR on that. I think you've got this backwards. The Baker-Fancher party were actually a more civil and educated group of emigrants than was typical for the time. I'm not aware of any evidence of their wrong doing. I am aware, however, of the false claims that followed and proceeded them all the way through Utah which caused to stir the Mormons to fear and violence.

Why is it that the KKK is portrayed as the boogy man, as thry should be, but Black Lives Matter as sime social warriors? 

 

 

 

Quote

The co-founder of the Toronto chapter of the Black Lives Matter protest movement has come under scrutiny in recent days for an old Facebook post that declared white people were genetically inferior to their black peers.

“Whiteness is not humxness,” wrote Yusra Khogali, in a now-deleted post (using gender-neutral alternative spelling). “In fact, white skin is sub-humxn. All phenotypes exist within the black family and white [people] are a genetic defect of blackness.”

http://www.mediaite.com/online/black-lives-matter-leader-white-people-are-sub-human-genetic-defects/

There's lots more out there along these lines. BLM very much uses race to declare inferiority.

 

 

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Black Lives Matter is not even in the same realm as the KKK. It's an unfair comparison.

I would absolutely refuse to sustain anyone who was actively avowing the teachings of the KKK just as I would any other racist group promoting violence and racial supremacy. It is antithetical to the gospel.

You also stated...

Like JulieM-I call for a CFR on that. I think you've got this backwards. The Baker-Fancher party were actually a more civil and educated group of emigrants than was typical for the time. I'm not aware of any evidence of their wrong doing. I am aware, however, of the false claims that followed and proceeded them all the way through Utah which caused to stir the Mormons to fear and violence.

OK, CFR Baker-Francher party being nothing buy civil. 

[Darren10]

Good news and bad news. 

The bad news is that I cannot find my book "Utah the Right Place" by Thomas G. Alexander. What I cited regarding the Baker-Francher party is directly from his book as well as sitting in on his classes at Brigham Young University. 

The good news is that in searching for his book I found where I had placed my copy of John Sorenson's Mormon's Codex.

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

OK, CFR Baker-Francher party being nothing buy civil. 

 [HappyJackWagon] 

Like JulieM-I call for a CFR on that. I think you've got this backwards.

I don't think either of these CFRs are enforceable. There is a lot of opinion and commentary by the historians and analysts (Turley, Brooks, Bagley, et. al.), but there are no concrete smoking guns in the records that definitively favor either viewpoint. Mormons claimed atrocities and bad behavior on the part of the Fancher party, and anti-Mormons (of course) claim that they were the picture of decorum and civility. The truth is probably a bit of both (i.e., between these two viewpoints).

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

 

I don't think either of these CFRs are enforceable. There is a lot of opinion and commentary by the historians and analysts (Turley, Brooks, Bagley, et. al.), but there are no concrete smoking guns in the records that definitively favor either viewpoint. Mormons claimed atrocities and bad behavior on the part of the Fancher party, and anti-Mormons (of course) claim that they were the picture of decorum and civility. The truth is probably a bit of both (i.e., between these two viewpoints).

I think the responsibility lies with the person making a claim of wrong-doing. If there was wrong doing there will be evidence. If there is not wrong doing, there will not be evidence.

I've read this in many places, however for ease I'll link to the Wikipedia page for the Baker-Fancher party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker–Fancher_party There are many cited sources you can review as well.

Quote

In addition, William Rogers later related where Shirts related he "saw the emigrants when they entered the valley, and talked with several of the men belonging to it. They appeared perfectly civil and gentlemanly."

Quote

On the way back from a circuit through southern Utah Territory, George A. Smith and his company camped near the Fancher–Baker party, at Corn Creek. Some members of Smith's party later testified that during their encampment they saw the Fancher–Baker party poison a spring and a dead ox, with the expectation that Native Americans would be poisoned.[21] Silas S. Smith, the cousin of George A., testified that the Fancher–Baker party suspiciously asked whether the Native Americans would eat a dead ox.[22] Although the poisoning story supported the old Mormon story that Native Americans had been poisoned and therefore conducted a massacre on their own,[23] modern historians generally discount the testimony and rumors about the poisoned ox and spring as false.[24] Nevertheless, the poisoning story preceded the Fanchers on their trip southward.[25]

Quote

The Fancher–Baker party consisted of several smaller parties that set out separately from the Ozarks in northwestern Arkansas, and then joined up along the way. Many of the families in the group were prosperous farmers and cattlemen with ample financial resources to make the journey west. Some of the groups had family and friends in California awaiting their arrival, as well as many relatives remaining in Arkansas. Among the groups were the Baker train, led by John T. Baker from Carroll County, and the Fancher train, led by seasoned expeditioner Alexander Fancher,[3] which left from Benton County. Other groups included the Huff train, which also left from Benton, the Mitchell, Dunlapp, and Prewitt trains which left from Marion County, and the Poteet–Tackitt–Jones, Cameron, and Miller trains which left from Johnson County. Pleasant Tackitt, from the Poteet–Tackitt–Jones train, was a Methodist minister who led the others in worship and prayer services while on their journey. When the groups left Arkansas in April 1857, the total company numbered more than 200.[4] However, during the journey, some groups split off and others joined. Some of the trains that joined the company may have been from other states, such as Missouri.[5]

The party was well outfitted with wagons, traveling carriages, a large herd of cattle estimated at close to 1,000 head, oxen, as well as numerous horses. They joined the expedition for various reasons; some to settle permanently in California, some to drive cattle west for profit, and some to find California gold.

OK Darren- I'm still waiting on your CFR. If you can't provide one, you can always retract your erroneous statements.

Edited February 14, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[JulieM]

36 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

 

I don't think either of these CFRs are enforceable. There is a lot of opinion and commentary by the historians and analysts (Turley, Brooks, Bagley, et. al.), but there are no concrete smoking guns in the records that definitively favor either viewpoint.

Darren stated that the emigrants stole horses as if that was fact.  He should be able to provide references and document that or withdraw that it is a fact.

From what I've read, most of the accusations against the Baker- Fancher party were rumors started afterwards to justify the murders.  Nothing has been documented (the poisoning of the creek and so on). 

That's why I issued the CFR (because I was interested to see if there was something I hadn't read).

The Baker Fancher group was one of the wealthiest (some state THE wealthiest) group to pass through (first in the Salt Lake area) and then on down south.  The majority were women and children (many young mothers on their way out to join their husbands in California who'd already gone ahead and settled there).  This was not a group of low life rough ins or criminals.  

I'm not saying there may not have been some run ins but who started them?  

So my CFRs stand unless Darren withdraws his statements. 

I can see them threatening to get help from Federal troops, but was that before or after the attack or trouble started?

Edited February 14, 2017 by JulieM

[thesometimesaint]

Darrin:

SEE http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/united-states-and-canada/us-history/ku-klux-klan