"Vengeance is Mine" - Book by Richard E. Turley and Barbara Jones Brown

[Hamilton Porter]

I understand I have a minority view among Latter-day Saints.

[Kenngo1969]

On 5/20/2023 at 9:19 AM, Navidad said:

...  I have done firesides for the Jones' clan here, wasting their evenings with all of my stories. ... 

I doubt that, seriously.  (That you and your stories ever have wasted anyone's time, I mean ... not that you give the firesides.*  I'm sure you do!  I would love to be in attendance! )  This is apropos of nothing, but I can't resist bringing it up.  In one of the Jason Bourne movies, he is talking on the phone with the corrupt CIA operative Noah Vosen as he ransacks Vosen's office looking for evidence of what he, Bourne, has done with the agency.  He asks Vosen, "Where are you now?"  Vosen, who is out combing the city looking for Bourne, lies, "I'm in my office."  Bourne says, "Oh, I doubt that."  And in reply, Vosen asks, "And why would you doubt that?"  Bourne replies, "Because if you were in your office, we would be having this conversation face-to-face."  [Click!]

  

________________

*You're welcome to "waste my time" with your stories and firesides any time you want to.  Would that I were in your neck of the woods.  If you need a "guinea pig" to try material out on, I'll help you with that.  

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I doubt that, seriously.  (That you and your stories ever have wasted anyone's time, I mean ... not that you give the firesides.*  I'm sure you do!  I would love to be in attendance! )  This is apropos of nothing, but I can't resist bringing it up.  In one of the Jason Bourne movies, he is talking on the phone with the corrupt CIA operative Noah Vosen as he ransacks Vosen's office looking for evidence of what he, Bourne, has done with the agency.  He asks Vosen, "Where are you now?"  Vosen, who is out combing the city looking for Bourne, lies, "I'm in my office."  Bourne says, "Oh, I doubt that."  And in reply, Vosen asks, "And why would you doubt that?"  Bourne replies, "Because if you were in your office, we would be having this conversation face-to-face."  [Click!]

  

________________

*You're welcome to "waste my time" with your stories and firesides any time you want to.  Would that I were in your neck of the woods.  If you need a "guinea pig" to try material out on, I'll help you with that.  

Thanks my friend. I would like that! You are always welcome down here in the colonies!

[Teancum]

On 5/17/2023 at 9:53 AM, smac97 said:

Tribune: 

I'll be curious as to what they have to say about what Brigham Young knew and when.

Thanks,

-Smac

Looks like it may be a good book to read.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I think the coverup is worse than the massacre. The massacre was necessary as a deterrent to the USA from harassing Deseret (or whatever it's called).

You can't be serious.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I feel bad for the victims. But I think it was critical for Deseret to send a signal to the United States, which was constantly breathing down its neck, that it will take action against intruders.

I think that is a pretty disgusting position to take.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I understand I have a minority view among Latter-day Saints.

I am thinking you have a lot of such minority views.

[CA Steve]

17 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

But I think it was critical for Deseret to send a signal to the United States, which was constantly breathing down its neck, that it will take action against intruders.

What moral system can justify bashing children's heads in to send a signal?

[jkwilliams]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am thinking you have a lot of such minority views.

I keep getting the feeling we're being trolled. It's like a less-vacuous version of Ahab.

[Hamilton Porter]

4 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

What moral system can justify bashing children's heads in to send a signal?

To avoid a full-scale war, the human costs of which far exceed those of the massacre, you need to make your signal credible. Latter-day Saints are just too soft and charitable.

[Teancum]

38 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I keep getting the feeling we're being trolled. It's like a less-vacuous version of Ahab.

Seems like it.

[pogi]

On 5/19/2023 at 8:01 PM, Navidad said:

This is quite consistent with the story I was told! The only difference is I was told that his body lay unclaimed in a casket in the basement of the old county courthouse in Thatcher and that children were afraid to go there because of it, except on Halloween! The account I was told was very similar from the time he was here under a pseudonym. I can't wait to see what sources or citations they use for this account of his life in Mexico and from here to Thatcher. George Calvin Williams ended up leaving the church and being divorced by his wife. I have a wonderful photo of them in my book. He then went to live near modern day Benson and Mescal, AZ. He is buried there in the smallest registered cemetery in Arizona along with two or three children. The land was set for development for homes and moving the bodies a few years ago. I am not sure whatever became of that situation. His grave is about 500 yards south of I-10. I have been there a number of times! Unfriendly rattlers there! Thanks for posting this further information.

Is it just me or is she subtly giving us all the bird?  Ha ha! 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

To avoid a full-scale war, the human costs of which far exceed those of the massacre, you need to make your signal credible. Latter-day Saints are just too soft and charitable.

Are you suggesting that a war was averted by the massacre? 

Killing travelers, including innocent women and children, is not a good way to calm prevailing tensions to prevent war - that is how you start a war! 

If killing a bunch of innocent women and children, then diverting accountability and blaming it on the natives (pretty weak and pathetic signal that I wouldn't call "credible") didn't trigger war, it is unlikely anything else we were doing would have. 

[Hamilton Porter]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that a war was averted by the massacre? 

Killing travelers, including innocent women and children, is not a good way to calm prevailing tensions to prevent war - that is how you start a war! 

If killing a bunch of innocent women and children, then diverting accountability and blaming it on the natives (pretty weak and pathetic signal that I wouldn't call "credible") didn't trigger war, it is unlikely anything else we were doing would have. 

Yeah, like I said, the coverup is worse. But thus far there's no analysis of the massacre from a political science/international relations perspective. That's sorely lacking.

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Yeah, like I said, the coverup is worse. But thus far there's no analysis of the massacre from a political science/international relations perspective. That's sorely lacking.

Then I would suggest that it is not wise to put forth highly troubling theories which spin mass murder of whole families in a positive light - especially without any data or info to back it up.

Even if you are right about a likely imminent war that this prevented (I don’t buy it), you are wrong to seemingly justify what happened and thus morally condone mass murder as a moral way to flex our muscles and intimidate our enemies.  Calling out other Mormons for being “too soft” for thinking that this is unacceptable is just wrong.  Like I said, immoral mass murder of innocent families of your enemies to intimidate them is how you start war, not prevent it.

[Hamilton Porter]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

Like I said, immoral mass murder of innocent families of your enemies to intimidate them is how you start war, not prevent it.

The signal would not be to the enemies but to the US government. The USA was the threat to the Utah territory. Parley P. Pratt's murderer stalked him across the country, and the federal government willing aided and abetted him. The signal would be to the USA that it would be too costly to invade Utah.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

The signal would not be to the enemies but to the US government. The USA was the threat to the Utah territory. Parley P. Pratt's murderer stalked him across the country, and the federal government willing aided and abetted him. The signal would be to the USA that it would be too costly to invade Utah.

I give you credit for a novel approach. Justifying the Mountain Meadows Massacre might be the holy grail of Mormon apologetics. JFC

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, pogi said:

Like I said, immoral mass murder of innocent families of your enemies to intimidate them is how you start war, not prevent it.

Especially if they view you as a limited group of settlers likely dependent on them in the long run for essential supplies, including guns and ammo, while they have a large military and if pissed off may be willing to go to extremes to cut off the settlement.  Would have been relatively easy to cut down sources of immigrants traveling to Deseret for example and to promote an even worst portrayal in the media than was done.

As far as I am aware, vicious behavior by Native American groups did not deter Army intrusions and actually brought on nasty retaliations.  The US was willing to send 5000 soldiers in order to subdue 70 Apaches led by Geronimo, I believe, for example.  I don’t see why similar behaviour by groups of whites wouldn’t result in the same thing.

It seems like it would have been extremely stupid for Utah leaders to have made this a practice even if it wasn’t morally repulsive.

Edited May 26, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Justifying the Mountain Meadows Massacre might be the holy grail of Mormon apologetics.

Maybe in the past and even now by some uninformed individuals by downplaying the involvement of Saints and turning the settlers into villains, but justifying the reality…I don’t see it as a goal.  This is the first and hopefully only time I see it being tried out.

Edited May 26, 2023 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

Maybe in the past and even by some uninformed individuals by downplaying the involvement of Saints and turning the settlers into villains, but justifying the reality…I don’t see it as a goal.  This is the first and hopefully only time I see it being tried out.

Like I said, I honestly can’t tell if he’s trolling us or not. 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

To avoid a full-scale war, the human costs of which far exceed those of the massacre, you need to make your signal credible. Latter-day Saints are just too soft and charitable.

Too bad the Laban story desensitizes people.

[Calm]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Too bad the Laban story desensitizes people.

I highly doubt that story desensitized too many people to actual violence any more than the much better known David and Goliath story. 
 

Now people being through wars or even skirmishes, seeing family and friends killed, being driven out of their homes multiple times…I suspect there may be desensitization that occurs there.  No doubt there are studies of refugee groups or groups who live in areas that are often involved in armed conflict. 

Edited May 26, 2023 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

I highly doubt that story desensitized too many people to actual violence. 
 

Now people being through wars or even skirmishes, seeing family and friends killed, being driven out of their homes multiple times…I suspect there may be desensitization that occurs there.  No doubt there are studies of refugee groups or groups who live in areas that are often involved in armed conflict. 

This thread really has taken a turn.

[Navidad]

20 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Yeah, like I said, the coverup is worse. But thus far there's no analysis of the massacre from a political science/international relations perspective. That's sorely lacking.

Would you advocate for a similar analysis of the Hawns Mill massacre - based on a political science/international relations perspective? I wouldn't. It was cold-hearted dogma-centric murder. There was simply no virtue in either event. In 1892 a family of innocent Mormons was massacred by thieves in between Cave Valley and Pacheco, about 40 minutes from my house. I can take you to the small hidden cemetery where they are buried - no markers - just piles of rocks. Should those murders be analyzed for their political science/international relations perspective. After all the family was Scandinavian Anglo living in Mexico killed by indigenous natives. Would that qualify too? Not for me. Some things are simply unjustifiable from any perspective. Oh and we can add yesterday - 141 years ago. Two hundred fifty indigenous people mostly women and children were lulled into a trap twenty minutes from my house in a different direction. Six hundred Mexican soldiers descended on them and viciously killed, captured, or wounded many of them. It was a betrayal; a horrible slaughter.  I have deemed it the Betrayal at Bosque de San Diego. It is rarely mentioned in history books. I am not a big fan of an anthropomorphic God, but I think He cried each of those four days.

Edited May 26, 2023 by Navidad

[Hamilton Porter]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Would you advocate for a similar analysis of the Hawns Mill massacre - based on a political science/international relations perspective? I wouldn't. It was cold-hearted dogma-centric murder. There was simply no virtue in either event. In 1892 a family of innocent Mormons was massacred by thieves in between Cave Valley and Pacheco, about 40 minutes from my house. I can take you to the small hidden cemetery where they are buried - no markers - just piles of rocks. Should those murders be analyzed for their political science/international relations perspective. After all the family was Scandinavian Anglo living in Mexico killed by indigenous natives. Would that qualify too? Not for me. Some things are simply unjustifiable from any perspective. I am not a big fan of an anthropomorphic God, but I think He cried each of those days.

I think the Haun's Mill massacre would be a great fit for political analysis.

You have a group of people coming into the state, completely upsetting the political balance, shifting the median voter in a certain direction. The existing population would get anxious and react in certain ways.

International relations, I don't know. It's hard because the Saints weren't a political body at the time. I don't know how you would model that.