Massacre At Mountain Meadows Review

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_dblagent007
_Emeritus
Posts: 1068
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Massacre At Mountain Meadows Review

Post by _dblagent007 »

This may be going nowhere, but let me back up and take another stab at it.

Ardis highlighted one of Bagley's internal inconsistencies as follows. Bagley's position is that "Mountain Meadows was ordered by Brigham Young to threaten the United States by demonstrating his power to close transcontinental travel." However, Ardis stated that she struggled to reconcile "the contradictory ideas of massacre-as-demonstration-of-power with massacre-must-be-concealed."

You ridiculed this assertion ("you must be kidding," etc.). Here is what you said:

Young never intended the threat to be "Mormons will attack and kill emigrant trains". The threat was that INDIANS would attack and kill emigrant trains. And that was never covered up - in fact, that was trumpeted as THE cause of MMM. What was covered up was Mormon involvement, and that was never in BY's interest to promote.


What you seem to be saying is that there is no inconsistency because the massacre demonstrated BY's power and the attempts to conceal it were only attempts to conceal the Mormons involvement. This only seems to make sense if BY "trumpeted" the massacre by the Indians, while simultanesouly concealing Mormon involvement. However, there seems to be no evidence of this. Instead, it seems that the Mormons did not trumpet the massacre in any way. They tried to blame the Indians in an exculpatory way.

Let me try and illustrate the inconsistency for you. Bagley is essentially saying this is how it all went down.

BY to U.S. government: don't mess with me or I will show my power by unleashing the Indians on you.
BY: Orders massacre to show government his power.
BY immediately after massacre: oh crap, now that I have shown the government my power, I must hide all evidence that I or any Mormons had anything to do with showing the government my power.
_rcrocket

Re: Massacre At Mountain Meadows Review

Post by _rcrocket »

beastie wrote:He knew that this would likely result in violence. Bagley’s book provides evidence, from page 9, from Wilford Woodruff’s journal:

Even as he unleashed a new level of violence on the overland trail. Young understood the consequences of his new Indian policy. The United States was driving the Mormons to war too quickly, he told Wilford Woodruff at the end of August. The Saints had not had time to teach the Indians to not to kill women and children and “those who ought not to be killed.” Responsibility for such innocent victims would fall to American politicians, not on Mormon prophets. “The nation is determined to make us free. They are determined to drive us to defend ourselves & become independent,” he said. “[The Lord] will fight our battles & we will become an independent kingdom.” For Brigham Young, it was now the Kingdom of God or nothing.


Can you please provide page cites? And no, "I am not kidding" by asking such a simple request.

George A Smith was in the area shortly before the massacre, whether the date was exactly September 1 or not.


That was his area of responsibility for Church affairs. He was supposed to be there. What evidence to you have, other than Lee's statement, that he communicated instructions to kill the train?”

It is beyond dispute that:


3. Brigham Young knew that Indians would likely harm women and children (along with men, who apparently don’t matter).


Your best source?

4. Smith visited the region at the direction of Brigham Young.


That had been his area of responsibility for years.

5. Smith had a conversation with Lee in which he asked about the locals stopping “threatening” companies from passing.


Your source for this is what?

6. Smith later met up with the Fancher party and predicted some evil would befall them. Smith made no effort to contact Lee and tell him to let the train pass.

Why should Smith have to give such a response? My bishop doesn't tell my neighbor down the street to let me pass; it is assumed that I will. I mean, do you have any source to show that Smith told Lee not to let the train pass?

7. Brigham Young’s letter sent via Haslam specifically stated to let the Indians do as they wanted. Brigham Young had already encouraged the Indians to attack trains by telling them to take all the cattle they wanted. Brigham Young knew this would result in harm and likely loss of life.


No, the letter didn't say, "let the Indians do as they wanted." It said, "The Indians we expect will do as they please, but you should try and preserve good feelings with them." Young didn't "let" anybody do anything.

Your best cite for likely loss of life of emigrant train members? (As opposed to cattle.)

According to you, these facts do NOT add up to being able to accurately state that Brigham Young had to instruct loyal, faithful, obedient Mormons NOT to kill the emigrants.


Where have I said that these "facts" do not add up to, etc. Your facts are wrong.

Frankly, that sounds about as logical and believable as your insistence you won’t engage my points because you dislike my “turgid prose”.


How logical is it to mix a perceived slight against you with a discussion about the quality of Bagley's evidence? I don't get it. Your statements like "you've got to be kidding" and this one demonstrat an inability for dispassionate discourse about historical facts, wouldn't you agree? Are you going to get all upset again and threaten once again to expose personal facts about my family?

Do you remember when you said this to me:
I'm making a formal announcement: this guy is a misogynist arsehole and from now on I will treat him even worse than our roughest posters ever dreamed of. Hey, bob, it's a miracle you have seven kids. I guess that means your wife laid back and thought of England seven times. God knows I'd never let a misogynist touch me.


All because you didn't like a point I was making? My little seven year old needed a lot of comforting when he saw that.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: Massacre At Mountain Meadows Review

Post by _beastie »

What you seem to be saying is that there is no inconsistency because the massacre demonstrated BY's power and the attempts to conceal it were only attempts to conceal the Mormons involvement. This only seems to make sense if BY "trumpeted" the massacre by the Indians, while simultanesouly concealing Mormon involvement. However, there seems to be no evidence of this. Instead, it seems that the Mormons did not trumpet the massacre in any way. They tried to blame the Indians in an exculpatory way.

Let me try and illustrate the inconsistency for you. Bagley is essentially saying this is how it all went down.

BY to U.S. government: don't mess with me or I will show my power by unleashing the Indians on you.
BY: Orders massacre to show government his power.
BY immediately after massacre: oh crap, now that I have shown the government my power, I must hide all evidence that I or any Mormons had anything to do with showing the government my power.


Brigham Young’s threat was not intended to convey “I, Brigham Young, am going to get involved behind the scenes with Indians and encourage them to attack trains.” His threat was: “I, Brigham Young, am going to stop actively restraining the Indians from attacking trains.”

MMM went wrong. It did not go as planned. Mormons, not Indians, ended up being the primary perpetrators. Mormons were also automatically suspected as being the primary perpetrators. This was not what the local planners nor BY ever intended.

Yet, according to your logic, BY should have loudly advertised the fact that he “had something to do” with MMM.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: Massacre At Mountain Meadows Review

Post by _beastie »

Can you please provide page cites? And no, "I am not kidding" by asking such a simple request.


I provided the Bagley page cite right in the citation you quoted. I do not have a page cite for Wilford Woodruff’s journal.

That was his area of responsibility for Church affairs. He was supposed to be there. What evidence to you have, other than Lee's statement, that he communicated instructions to kill the train?”


I have offered this evidence several times. According to the Massacre authors, GA Smith verified in his journal that he said “something” to Lee that encouraged Mormons to attack “threatening” trains.

3. Brigham Young knew that Indians would likely harm women and children (along with men, who apparently don’t matter).


Wilford Woodruff’s journal. See above.

5. Smith had a conversation with Lee in which he asked about the locals stopping “threatening” companies from passing.


Your source for this is what?


According to Massacre authors, Smith’s own journal.

6. Smith later met up with the Fancher party and predicted some evil would befall them. Smith made no effort to contact Lee and tell him to let the train pass.

Why should Smith have to give such a response? My bishop doesn't tell my neighbor down the street to let me pass; it is assumed that I will. I mean, do you have any source to show that Smith told Lee not to let the train pass?


See above. Smith’s own journal verifies that he said something to Lee about attacking threatening trains. He then predicted “evil would befall” the Fanchers.

No, the letter didn't say, "let the Indians do as they wanted." It said, "The Indians we expect will do as they please, but you should try and preserve good feelings with them." Young didn't "let" anybody do anything.

Your best cite for likely loss of life of emigrant train members? (As opposed to cattle.)


Wilford Woodruff’s journal. See above.

Where have I said that these "facts" do not add up to, etc. Your facts are wrong.


Prove it.


How logical is it to mix a perceived slight against you with a discussion about the quality of Bagley's evidence? I don't get it. Your statements like "you've got to be kidding" and this one demonstrat an inability for dispassionate discourse about historical facts, wouldn't you agree? Are you going to get all upset again and threaten once again to expose personal facts about my family?


I never threatened to expose personal facts about your family. You have repeatedly lied about this event, and I have demonstrated that you have lied about this event, and yet you continue to lie about this event. I made a joke, which you quoted below, and you have pretended that joke constituted threats against your family. That pretension is deliberate, and is a lie.


Do you remember when you said this to me:
Quote:
I'm making a formal announcement: this guy is a misogynist arsehole and from now on I will treat him even worse than our roughest posters ever dreamed of. Hey, bob, it's a miracle you have seven kids. I guess that means your wife laid back and thought of England seven times. God knows I'd never let a misogynist touch me.


All because you didn't like a point I was making? My little seven year old needed a lot of comforting when he saw that.


It is extraordinarily disturbing that you allow your seven year old to read this board.

Your “point” was to repeatedly insult Scratch by calling him “Ms. Scratch.” So, in fact, my calling you a misogynist was directly related to the "point" you were making.

Now drop the diversions and stick to the topic.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_TAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1555
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:47 pm

Re: Massacre At Mountain Meadows Review

Post by _TAK »

Beastie
Now drop the diversions and stick to the topic.


I doubt any one really wants to defend the book ..
Certainly DCP is only interested in baiting and derailing and Bob just wants to trash Bagley.
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it.
Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010


_________________
_TAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1555
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:47 pm

Re: Massacre At Mountain Meadows Review

Post by _TAK »

Crockett:
What evidence to you have, other than Lee's statement, that he communicated instructions to kill the train?”


After 150 years to hide, destroy and create evidence to produce a version kind o LDS leaders why should there be any statements? To make any statements adverse to LDS leaders would only put the person outside the protection of Brigham Young and subsequent leaders.

I see no reason to reject Lee's last statements.. Lee had time in prison between the first and last trial to contemplate being the sole sacrifice for the massacre. There is no proof that his attorney made things up to sell the book.
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it.
Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010


_________________
_Pokatator
_Emeritus
Posts: 1417
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:38 pm

Re: Massacre At Mountain Meadows Review

Post by _Pokatator »

cry baby crocket who promotes lies wrote:How logical is it to mix a perceived slight against you with a discussion about the quality of Bagley's evidence? I don't get it. Your statements like "you've got to be kidding" and this one demonstrat an inability for dispassionate discourse about historical facts, wouldn't you agree? Are you going to get all upset again and threaten once again to expose personal facts about my family?


I noticed you deleted this from your post. Did you realize how much a liar it makes you? Grow up. Quit playing a victim and stay on topic.
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably.
bcspace
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: Massacre At Mountain Meadows Review

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

rcrocket wrote:
beastie wrote:He knew that this would likely result in violence. Bagley’s book provides evidence, from page 9, from Wilford Woodruff’s journal.

Can you please provide page cites? And no, "I am not kidding" by asking such a simple request.

The entry cited from Wilford Woodruff's was dated August 26, 1857.

George A Smith was in the area shortly before the massacre, whether the date was exactly September 1 or not.

That was his area of responsibility for Church affairs. He was supposed to be there. What evidence to you have, other than Lee's statement, that he communicated instructions to kill the train?”

JDLee's statement is the only evidence in this regard that I know of.

3. Brigham Young knew that Indians would likely harm women and children (along with men, who apparently don’t matter).

Your best source?

WW's Aug. 26, 1857 journal entry.

5. Smith had a conversation with Lee in which he asked about the locals stopping “threatening” companies from passing.

Your source for this is what?

JDLee.

7. Brigham Young’s letter sent via Haslam specifically stated to let the Indians do as they wanted. Brigham Young had already encouraged the Indians to attack trains by telling them to take all the cattle they wanted. Brigham Young knew this would result in harm and likely loss of life.

No, the letter didn't say, "let the Indians do as they wanted." It said, "The Indians we expect will do as they please, but you should try and preserve good feelings with them." Young didn't "let" anybody do anything.

I think we can agree that using language like "The Indians we expect will do as they please" means BY certainly didn't try to prevent what would likely happen.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Massacre At Mountain Meadows Review

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

TAK wrote:I doubt any one really wants to defend the book ..

Has it now been officially declared indefensible?

TAK wrote:Certainly DCP is only interested in baiting and derailing

DCP is interested in not participating.

Why am I even being mentioned?

If Trixie wants her points to be addressed by the authors or comparable Mormon scholars, she should make them in a venue where the authors or comparable Mormon scholars will be aware of them. Whether rcrockett has been sucessful in addressing them, I don't know. I haven't actually been following the thread. Perhaps he has; a failure to convince people here whose default assumption seems to be that Brigham Young was evil and that Mormon scholars are liars (or, at least, fatally biased) doesn't necessarily say much, one way or the other.
_dblagent007
_Emeritus
Posts: 1068
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Massacre At Mountain Meadows Review

Post by _dblagent007 »

beastie wrote:Brigham Young’s threat was not intended to convey “I, Brigham Young, am going to get involved behind the scenes with Indians and encourage them to attack trains.” His threat was: “I, Brigham Young, am going to stop actively restraining the Indians from attacking trains.”

Do you agree with Bagley's assertion that the BY ORDERED the massacre to threaten the U.S. government? If so, how do you reconcile this with BY's threats to only stop restraining the Indians? Also, how do reconcile this with the post-massacre cover-up that seemed to be anything but a demonstration of BY's power?

MMM went wrong. It did not go as planned. Mormons, not Indians, ended up being the primary perpetrators. Mormons were also automatically suspected as being the primary perpetrators. This was not what the local planners nor BY ever intended.

Bagley asserts that BY ordered the massacre. Are you saying something different?

Yet, according to your logic, BY should have loudly advertised the fact that he “had something to do” with MMM.

If Bagley's assertion that the massacre was a demonstration of BY's power is correct, then, yes, I would expect that something would have happened post massacre that is consistent with Bagley's thesis. Instead, a cover up took place, which is inconsistent with Bagley's demonstration of power idea.
Post Reply