Can Political Statements Disqualify for Callings?

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Okay, do have Book, but revised edition...

am reading now

The one I read from on Amazon is revised and I just read in the preface that he did revise the MMM section.  So maybe Darren's copy was the original unrevised edition?

Edited February 14, 2017 by JulieM

[BlueDreams]

36 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437694/black-lives-matter-hypocrisy-cheering-violence

To be sure, Black Lives Matter, collectively, do denounce violence, which is good, but they base their grievences on the falsehood of there being a systematic events of cops shooting blacks. In other words, sytematic racism. That's untrue. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-the-black-lives-matter-movement-changed-america-one-year-later/

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

 

No, it's not. The DoJ found just that, though not specific to the Brown case. From the same site:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-findings-two-civil-rights-investigations-ferguson-missouri

Quote

The department found a pattern or practice of racial bias in both the FPD and municipal court:

• The harms of Ferguson’s police and court practices are borne disproportionately by African Americans and that this disproportionate impact is avoidable.

• Ferguson’s harmful court and police practices are due, at least in part, to intentional discrimination, as demonstrated by direct evidence of racial bias and stereotyping about African Americans by certain Ferguson police and municipal court officials.

It's not a falsehood. Systematic racism is still a thing. Ferguson isn't a fluke:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/01/13/feds-release-scathing-report-chicago-police/nUSspFYZ1Ee8qxiCtxooAN/story.html

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-findings-investigation-chicago-police-department

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-findings-investigation-baltimore-police-department

 

But either way, comparing them to the KKK, an arguably domestic terrorist group, is insane. Particularly with the ONE point of evidence for violence was a fringe nut who didn't have real association with BLM and runs counter to their actual message and movement v. systematic violence and terrorizing by KKK members which was a major part of their organization's existence.

 

With luv,

BD

[Darren10]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In a nutshell, my understanding is that the Mormons put them up to it. The Indians were allied with the Mormons because of the threats from the US Government. You know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, kind of philosophy. The atmosphere in Utah at the time would have been extremely hostile and paranoid of any outsiders. Utah had been a supply hub for many emigrants but BY had ordered the members to cease trading with the gentiles. Rumors of an army invasion must have been frightening. News of the Parley Pratt Murder had just reached Utah a week before the Fancher party arrived from the same general area of the country. The Mormons were scared. Leaders enflamed the paranoia with harsh rhetoric and so they enlisted the Indians to help them with the dirty work as their part in the anti-government alliance.

There were Paiutes at a meeting in Cedar City where Mormons gathered to decide what to do concerning the party. The Paiutes were already ready to attack the Baker-Fancher train. What Mormon or which Mormons "put them up to it"?

[Darren10]

20 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Not in that book.  He says he did revise the book (I think this is the 3rd edition).  Maybe he learned some facts and removed some accusations?  I don't know...

Perhaps. I read it in the 90s. But, the revision may be a better, more accurate source so perhaps that was a prevailing thought but n longer is based on new evidence. Also, I may be conflating stealing horses from the book's account with something Professor Alexander said in class and/or with the rumor that the party poisoned a well.

[Darren10]

8 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

No, it's not. The DoJ found just that, though not specific to the Brown case. From the same site:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-findings-two-civil-rights-investigations-ferguson-missouri

It's not a falsehood. Systematic racism is still a thing. Ferguson isn't a fluke:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/01/13/feds-release-scathing-report-chicago-police/nUSspFYZ1Ee8qxiCtxooAN/story.html

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-findings-investigation-chicago-police-department

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-findings-investigation-baltimore-police-department

 

But either way, comparing them to the KKK, an arguably domestic terrorist group, is insane. Particularly with the ONE point of evidence for violence was a fringe nut who didn't have real association with BLM and runs counter to their actual message and movement v. systematic violence and terrorizing by KKK members which was a major part of their organization's existence.

 

With luv,

BD

Racism exists, yes. No doubt. but to the point of cops shooting blacks? no, it does not and that was my point though not explicitly stated.

Quote

To be sure, Black Lives Matter, collectively, do denounce violence, which is good, but they base their grievences on the falsehood of there being a systematic events of cops shooting blacks. In other words, sytematic racism. That's untrue. 

From your statement: "which was a major part of their organization's existence" - Exactly. It was a major point of their existence but I do not hear of any significant KKK organization calling to violence today. People associated with Black Lives Matter do call for violence and based on an untruth. Michael Brown was no "gentle giant". furthermore, blacks are not shot by cops because they are black.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because Lee persuaded them they could take the cattle and perhaps other stuff?  

I might even have it, will go check right now so if I don't post In 20 minutes I don't have it.

There is a good chance for books like yours someone at FM has it and could provide the quote.  Use the Questions option on the contact us page if you want.   gives you more time to look, though you could always give one of them as a gift if you find the first.

Possibly but who did Lee speak to?

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

There were Paiutes at a meeting in Cedar City where Mormons gathered to decide what to do concerning the party. The Paiutes were already ready to attack the Baker-Fancher train. What Mormon or which Mormons "put them up to it"?

George A Smith, Lee, Haight?

[Calm]

Revised version 2003

There is also a first revision in 1996, original is 1995

pg 130 talks about confrontations over grazing the very large (for a wagon train) herd of cattle on crop lands and public herd grounds, lands the Mormon were looking to for their own survival at that time.

Alexander talks about "engendering antipathy" in the towns.  Fancher and Baker both had violence in their backgrounds...Fancher had engaged in a militia war against other EuroAmericans (immigrants?) and Baker had apparently killed "a few of his neighbors."

No evidence beyond later stories the Paiutes suffered abuse when they were following the settlers, possibly in hopes of taking some cattle.

BTW, Higbee (the more reliable reporter in my view) reports that Dame ordered that the women and children be saved.  Lee, the who apparently pushed for the massacre from the beginning, claims he ordered all killed.  Given the men were separated from the women and children, even if Lee (or his ghost writer) wasn't totally self serving in his reports as it appears to me, it pushes the evidence to Dame ordering to save the women and children imo.  Unfortunately this is not how they were implemented.

Alexander discusses probable behaviour and suggests likely given Baker's violent history, he and others became angry and abusive when attempts were made to prevent grazing off the herd grounds.  Outrage likely occurred when supplies were refused to be sold.

Done...

[Darren10]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Revised version 2003

There is also a first revision in 1996, original is 1995

pg 130 talks about confrontations over grazing the very large (for a wagon train) herd of cattle on crop lands and public herd grounds, lands the Mormon were looking to for their own survival at that time.

Alexander talks about "engendering antipathy" in the towns.  Fancher and Baker both had violence in their backgrounds...Fancher had engaged in a militia war against other EuroAmericans (immigrants?) and Baker had apparently killed "a few of his neighbors."

No evidence beyond later stories the Paiutes suffered abuse when they were following the settlers, possibly in hopes of taking some cattle.

BTW, Higbee (the more reliable reporter in my view) reports that Dame ordered that the women and children be saved.  Lee, the who apparently pushed for the massacre from the beginning, claims he ordered all killed.  Given the men were separated from the women and children, even if Lee (or his ghost writer) wasn't totally self serving in his reports as it appears to me, it pushes the evidence to Dame ordering to save the women and children imo.  Unfortunately this is not how they were implemented.

Alexander discusses probable behaviour and suggests likely given Baker's violent history, he and others became angry and abusive when attempts were made to prevent grazing off the herd grounds.  Outrage likely occurred when supplies were refused to be sold.

Done...

I think mine was the '96 edition. 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Possibly but who did Lee speak to?

Lee was an Indian agent.  The Paiutes were already following the train.  Lee was ordered on the 6th to "come to manage the Paiutes" according to Alexander (page 130) by the Council apparently in hopes of containing violence until they heard back from .Young.  Lee apparently instead of keeping things calm, pushed the Paiutes to attack on the 7th (according to Alexander probably as a result of Haight's order), resulting in both Paiutes and emigrants' deaths.  

There had been a few (at least) meetings with various Indian groups telling them all cattle in the south route was theirs.  One of the leaders of the Paiutes, Tutsegabit, was at the Sept 1 meeting with Huntington.  He was also one of the leaders of the Sept 7 attack.  Lee probably dealt with at least him.

add on:  last paragraph is incorrect info, corrected by new documents indicating these leaders were still north at time of massacre  see my later posts about Walker, Turley, and Leonard's MatMM book.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Calm

[Darren10]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Lee was an Indian agent.  The Paiutes were already following the train.  Lee was ordered on the 6th to "come to manage the Paiutes" according to Alexander (page 130) by the Council apparently in hopes of containing violence until they heard back from .Young.  Lee apparently instead of keeping things calm, pushed the Paiutes to attack on the 7th (according to Alexander probably as a result of Haight's order), resulting in both Paiutes and emigrants' deaths.  

My understanding is that the Paiutes were ready to fight the train party. Either before actually attacking the party or right about the time their attack upon the party began, they sent for Lee, a person they could trust. Your reference makes it appear that Lee initially tried to keep them calm, is that correct? If so, what incited them to violence in the first place? To get rich off the emigrants? Rumors?

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Revised version 2003

There is also a first revision in 1996, original is 1995

pg 130 talks about confrontations over grazing the very large (for a wagon train) herd of cattle on crop lands and public herd grounds, lands the Mormon were looking to for their own survival at that time.

Alexander talks about "engendering antipathy" in the towns.  Fancher and Baker both had violence in their backgrounds...Fancher had engaged in a militia war against other EuroAmericans (immigrants?) and Baker had apparently killed "a few of his neighbors."

No evidence beyond later stories the Paiutes suffered abuse when they were following the settlers, possibly in hopes of taking some cattle.

BTW, Higbee (the more reliable reporter in my view) reports that Dame ordered that the women and children be saved.  Lee, the who apparently pushed for the massacre from the beginning, claims he ordered all killed.  Given the men were separated from the women and children, even if Lee (or his ghost writer) wasn't totally self serving in his reports as it appears to me, it pushes the evidence to Dame ordering to save the women and children imo.  Unfortunately this is not how they were implemented.

Alexander discusses probable behaviour and suggests likely given Baker's violent history, he and others became angry and abusive when attempts were made to prevent grazing off the herd grounds.  Outrage likely occurred when supplies were refused to be sold.

Done...

Thanks for the research Calm.

If I remember correctly, the range war/grazing conflicts were exacerbated because there were no lines of demarcation of lands between the Indians, Mormons, and any others who may have purchased land from Mexico after US government surveyors were murdered. So any emigrants passing through with large herds would have inevitably run into some conflicts with locals who were trying to defend their grazing pastures from others, let alone emigrants passing through.

Also, there would naturally have been friction between anyone passing through and the Mormons after BY declared martial law and restricted entry into the territory.

Quote

The Mormons considered the emigrants of an alien status because of Brigham Young's war time orders forbidding travel through Utah without a required pass – which the Fancher–Baker party did not have.^[10] However, Captains Baker and Fancher would not have been aware of Young's martial law order since it was not made public until September 15, 1857

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker–Fancher_party

Of course Mountain Meadows happened on September 11, so martial law wasn't even publicized until afterwards, even though it had been declared in mid-August.

[Calm]

Darren  (responding to post above above post),

Paiutes and other NA groups usually did hit and run tactics and rarely did sieges contrary to folklore.  It is unlikely on their own they would have gone for a full out attack according to Alexander.  Alexander believes they were following the group looking for opportunities to run off with the cattle they had been 'given' by Huntington.

Lee was with them before the first attack.

He was ordered by the Council to keep them calm on the 6th.  He apparently (if I am reading it correctly) got different orders (the next day?) from Haight to push the Paiutes to attack.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

Got to go walk.  Will check Turley's book after to see if timeline has more details.

[JulieM]

22 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

My understanding is that the Paiutes were ready to fight the train party. Either before actually attacking the party or right about the time their attack upon the party began, they sent for Lee, a person they could trust. Your reference makes it appear that Lee initially tried to keep them calm, is that correct? If so, what incited them to violence in the first place? To get rich off the emigrants? Rumors?

Maybe do some reading about what happened (as close as can be pieced together from statements and witnesses and evidence).  The Indians were really not the initiators here (but were blamed afterwards). Most was done by members dressed up as Indians or Indians ordered to help.

Even if you just start with Wikipedia for some basics and go from there:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

But do your own research too!  It's an interesting topic and I'm still learning about it (thanks for all the info, Calm!)

Edited February 14, 2017 by JulieM

[Darren10]

Quote

Beyond this, the Paiutes represented a complicating factor in the Mountain Meadow Massacre. It will never be known what the extent of the abuse was that they suffered at the hands of the Fancher party. To attribute their attacks on the Arkansans to John D. Lee's enticements ignores the fact that the Paiutes were a majority in southern Utah and were intelligent human beings with separate, well defined interests and cultural attitudes that neither the Mormons nor the Arkansans shared. The Fanchers had mistreated them, and so the Paiutes dogged the party south of Fillmore, seeking a chance for retribution. After their first assault failed, the Paiutes expected their allies, the Mormon settlers. In part, the Utah militiamen massacred to help their allies and to avoid retaliation from them.  

I found the 1996 edition on Amazon and did the surprise me thingy again. This was from page 133 of that edition. I bolded the portions relevant to this thread. Red bold is the most pertinent to my own claims.

Clearly, as I recall from my own memories of reading this and listening to Thomas Alexander teach this topic in class, The Fancher Party did *indeed* "mistreat" the Paiutes. No word from these pages of their stealing horse but I am so very certain that was one aspect of the Paiutes being mistreated.

Also, why would a majority nation in Utah bow to the will of the Mormons? If it was to get rich off of the Fancher's stuff, why then did they seek "retribution"? Retribution is a sort of "pay back" for a past sin / grievance. Furthermore, from reading this, I recall Professor Alexander distinctly teaching that it was the Paiutes who pressured the Mormons to join them to attack the Fancher party. Haslam's letter, previously cited here by Julie, did contain words from Brigham young to not only leave the Fancher party alone but to let the Paiutes do as they may, [apparently] including retaliating against the Mormons for not assisting them in their attack against the Fancher train. This letter, of course, did not reach Lee and the Mormon militiamen in time.

I don't know about you all but I feel a bit vindicated. I therefore retract nothing I've said regarding this matter.

https://www.amazon.com/Utah-Right-Place-Official-Centennial/dp/087905767X/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487109893&sr=1-1-fkmr1&keywords=Utah%2C+the+Right+Place+1996+edition#reader_087905767X

Edited to add: The pages jump from 115 to 133 and I feel lucky that this page was one that did show up. i'll have to find my book to be sure was to what it says, or order this one too and make the wife even more angry.  

Edited February 14, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Maybe do some reading about what happened (as close as can be pieced together from statements and witnesses and evidence).  The Indians were really not the initiators here (but were blamed afterwards). Most was done by members dressed up as Indians or Indians ordered to help.

Even if you just start with Wikipedia for some basics and go from there:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

But do your own research too!  It's an interesting topic and I'm still learning about it (thanks for all the info, Calm!)

Yes, I am aware that certain Mormons did try to blame the entire massacre on the Paiutes. 

[Calm]

He apparently changed his mind then by 2005 as he states there is no evidence for abuse save for stories that surfaced later.

I understand there was more documentation ten years later that could have demonstrated the reliability of the later stories to be poor.  He certainly downplayed any idea that the Paiutes were in it for any reason besides taking cattle.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Calm

[JulieM]

22 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I found the 1996 edition on Amazon and did the surprise me thingy again. This was from page 133 of that edition. I bolded the portions relevant to this thread. Red bold is the most pertinent to my own claims.

Clearly, as I recall from my own memories of reading this and listening to Thomas Alexander teach this topic in class, The Fancher Party did *indeed* "mistreat" the Paiutes. No word from these pages of their stealing horse but I am so very certain that was one aspect of the Paiutes being mistreated.

Also, why would a majority nation in Utah bow to the will of the Mormons? If it was to get rich off of the Fancher's stuff, why then did they seek "retribution"? Retribution is a sort of "pay back" for a past sin / grievance. Furthermore, from reading this, I recall Professor Alexander distinctly teaching that it was the Paiutes who pressured the Mormons to join them to attack the Fancher party. Haslam's letter, previously cited here by Julie, did contain words from Brigham young to not only leave the Fancher party alone but to let the Paiutes do as they may, including retaliating against the Mormons for not assisting them in their attack against the Fancher train. This letter, of course, did not reach Lee and the Mormon militiamen in time.

I don't know about you all but I feel a bit vindicated. I therefore retract nothing I've said regarding this matter.

https://www.amazon.com/Utah-Right-Place-Official-Centennial/dp/087905767X/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487109893&sr=1-1-fkmr1&keywords=Utah%2C+the+Right+Place+1996+edition#reader_087905767X

You need to read the revised edition as what you quote above was removed after the author learned more facts.   He changed it to state "At present we have no evidence other than stories that surfaced later to demonstrate that they [Paiutes] suffered at the hands of the Arkansans". 

But even the erroneous first edition doesn't have sources for your original claims (so it doesn't fulfill the CFR asked for).

So no, you have not met the CFR or vindicated yourself.  Just because you found an old edition that contains false information, that doesn't vindicate you at all.

Read your new edition when you receive it for the corrected version.

Edited February 14, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

Huntington and others in encouraging the tribes to join their efforts apparently repeatedly told them that if the Feds were here to kill the Mormons, they would be killing the tribes as well.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Calm

[rongo]

Darren, the problem with quoting Alexander (instead of primary sources) is the same problem with quoting Bagley or Brooks when they are giving their analysis or opinions. It's their take on the evidence. Often (especially with Quinn, but many others as well), those who take the time to source-check find that they disagree with the authors as to the meaning, significance, and ramifications. This is perhaps worst of all with those trying to portray B.H. Roberts as a closet doubter. They inevitably spend >99% of their time quoting Sterling McMurrin and Brigham Madsen's wishful thinking, not Roberts's own words and actions. 

The same is true, in spades, with unravelling what documents we have about MMM (and the same applies to apologetic spin over the years, too). 

I believe, personally, that the MMM was against Brigham Young's counsel and wishes (i.e., that it was not ordered in any way by Salt Lake, including George A. Smith), and that it was a horrific breakdown at the local level. I also don't believe that rhetoric from the Brethren can be blamed for "causing" MMM. But, the Church is also not without guilt in the ensuing years as it tried to deal with the fallout and mess of MMM. And, some of that involves trying to paint the Fancher train in the worst light possible, and the attackers in the best. 

[Darren10]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

He apparently changed his mind then by 2005 as he states there is no evidence for abuse save for stories that surfaced later.

I understand there was more documentation ten years later that could have demonstrated the reliability of the later stories to be poor.  He certainly downplayed any idea that the Paiutes were in it for any reason besides taking cattle.

That is possible but my claim was based on this edition. When I read the updated edition I'll change it accordingly.

[Darren10]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

Darren, the problem with quoting Alexander (instead of primary sources) is the same problem with quoting Bagley or Brooks when they are giving their analysis or opinions. It's their take on the evidence. Often (especially with Quinn, but many others as well), those who take the time to source-check find that they disagree with the authors as to the meaning, significance, and ramifications. This is perhaps worst of all with those trying to portray B.H. Roberts as a closet doubter. They inevitably spend >99% of their time quoting Sterling McMurrin and Brigham Madsen's wishful thinking, not Roberts's own words and actions. 

The same is true, in spades, with unravelling what documents we have about MMM (and the same applies to apologetic spin over the years, too). 

I believe, personally, that the MMM was against Brigham Young's counsel and wishes (i.e., that it was not ordered in any way by Salt Lake, including George A. Smith), and that it was a horrific breakdown at the local level. I also don't believe that rhetoric from the Brethren can be blamed for "causing" MMM. But, the Church is also not without guilt in the ensuing years as it tried to deal with the fallout and mess of MMM. And, some of that involves trying to paint the Fancher train in the worst light possible, and the attackers in the best. 

"It's their take on the evidence" - Could very well be true in Alexander's case. I cannot say for certain but I have little doubt Alexander looked at the primary sources for his book.

I agree completely on Brigham young being against attacking the Fancher party.

"I also don't believe that rhetoric from the Brethren can be blamed for "causing" MMM" - I also agree.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Darren10

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, Darren10 said:

That is possible but my claim was based on this edition. When I read the updated edition I'll change it accordingly.

So, do you withdraw your statements?  Or do you have sources to fulfill the CFR?

[Darren10]

29 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You need to read the revised edition as what you quote above was removed after the author learned more facts.   He changed it to state "At present we have no evidence other than stories that surfaced later to demonstrate that they [Paiutes] suffered at the hands of the Arkansans". 

But even the erroneous first edition doesn't have sources for your original claims (so it doesn't fulfill the CFR asked for).

So no, you have not met the CFR or vindicated yourself.  Just because you found an old edition that contains false information, that doesn't vindicate you at all.

Read your new edition when you receive it for the corrected version.

As I told Cal, I do plan to read then new edition. I also recall that entire section on the mountain Meadow massacre being footnoted to about 6 different historians. The portion I cited was a summary previous paragraphs.

Also, I said, "a bit" vindicated, deliberately avoiding saying "completely" or even just plain old "vindicated". I stand by my words according to my source and will update accordingly.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Darren10