Massacre At Mountain Meadows Review

[_rcrocket]

No insults here. No running except when I have other things to do and get tired of this place. There is no obligation for me to stay here and get the last word in on everything.

I do know the massacre very well, have a large file and such, but at present I weary with Trixie's writing style and don't have much to say.

Her style? Her style??? What the holy Moses does her style have to do with the substance of her thread???

You claim to know the massacre very well, yet you allow an amateur's style to get in the way of doing something more useful with your information than leaving it in a large file?

Good grief, Crock. That's almost as lame as Daniel's hasty retreat for the door.

Sorry.

In terms of "style," I just don't like turgid prose and don't like to read it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I love the idea that I'm too scared to debate.

Good grief. Bill McKeever, William Lane Craig, James White, Robert Spencer (twice, in a sense) . . . people who can be genuinely formidable and who are experienced debaters.

I've debated these people and others on Salt Lake radio, on Los Angeles radio, on national satellite radio, before live audiences in Las Vegas and in Denver, etc.

Yup. I'm just terrified of debating.

Harmony, does it ever occur to you that you ought to know something before you post?

[_harmony]

I love the idea that I'm too scared to debate.

Good grief. Bill McKeever, William Lane Craig, James White, Robert Spencer (twice, in a sense) . . . people who can be genuinely formidable and who are experienced debaters.

I've debated these people and others on Salt Lake radio, on Los Angeles radio, on national satellite radio, before live audiences in Las Vegas and in Denver, etc.

Yup. I'm just terrified of debating.

Harmony, does it ever occur to you that you ought to know something before you post?

You're terrified of debating? Maybe only here.

[_harmony]

Wouldn't it be a coup, if Dr Quinn was asked to write a review, in the FARMS Review? Surely he'd be a qualified expert.

[_Mister Scratch]

Wouldn't it be a coup, if Dr Quinn was asked to write a review, in the FARMS Review? Surely he'd be a qualified expert.

Obviously, FROB could do it. We already know that the bulk of their articles are commissioned.

[_Pokatator]

Why did Brigham Young have to tell loyal, faithful Mormons NOT to murder well over a hundred people?

This reminds me of "A Few Good Men"

Beastie: Brigham Young did you order the Code Red?

BY: You God damn rights I did!!!!

and

Pokatator: RC and DCP you can't handle the truth!

[_TAK]

Crockett:

The interesting thing, however, about the cairn incident is that there were only two written accounts. One was Wilford Woodruff and it didn't say too much, although it recounted Brigham Young's quote. The other's was Dudley Leavitt,[*] a massacre perp, who had every reason to "spin" as you say in a way to make it seem that Brigham Young approved it.

Why would we take Wilford Woodruff ‘s account on anything to be accurate? He was a apostle and Church Historian at the time with a vested interest in protecting the Church and potentially his own involvement in the affair to pit the Indians against the Americans as a war time tactic.

[_TAK]

DCP

To further that, I've recruited two reputable historians myself, to comment on the book for the FARMS Review. (I already have one of those essays in hand, and read it over the weekend down in Arizona.

Why bother?
It’s a 100% probability that the reviewers will applaud the work and repeat several times the “Brigham Young and nothing what so ever to do with the massacre” mantra.

[_rcrocket]

Crockett:

The interesting thing, however, about the cairn incident is that there were only two written accounts. One was Wilford Woodruff and it didn't say too much, although it recounted Brigham Young's quote. The other's was Dudley Leavitt,[*] a massacre perp, who had every reason to "spin" as you say in a way to make it seem that Brigham Young approved it.

Why would we take Wilford Woodruff ‘s account on anything to be accurate? He was a apostle and Church Historian at the time with a vested interest in protecting the Church and potentially his own involvement in the affair to pit the Indians against the Americans as a war time tactic.

Now, this is the kind of post I appreciate.

You are correct, my friend. We must look at every witness for bias, and obviously Woodruff is going to be careful.

But the other witness, Leavitt, wants to make sure he is vindicated. He is probably deeply troubled with what he did, and he wants any possible sign that Pres. Young supported his deed. (At that time, Young did not know of Leavitt's involvement, or so it would seem).

So, we have two witnesses with significant issues each. But, the historian often has to deal with this limitation and make deductions.

The problem with Bagley is that he made many many wrong conclusions by relying upon sources that would only put Young in a bad light.

I find, by the way, a fascinating read McKinnon's book on the Utah War. I recommend it, although Bagley's intro is another thing.

[_Yoda]

Why did Brigham Young have to tell loyal, faithful Mormons NOT to murder well over a hundred people?

This reminds me of "A Few Good Men"

Beastie: Brigham Young did you order the Code Red?

BY: You God damn rights I did!!!!

and

Pokatator: RC and DCP you can't handle the truth!

LOL! That's one of my favorite movies! I can just see Jack Nicholson playing Brigham Young. ;)