Page 1 of 2

Lack of Prosecutions for the Meadows Incident

Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:25 pm
by _moksha
For background, here is a thread where Calmoriah tells lazy Severian why the other culprits of the Meadows Incident were never brought to trial:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=27368&st=40

Here is even further background material by trial attorney Robert D. Crockett:
http://farms.BYU.edu/pdf.php?filename=ODg4NTEzNDM1LTE1LTIucGRm&type=cmV2aWV3


Severian had said:
Since the Meadows Incident occurred during the period when the Saints were for Blood Atonement as an answer to murder, did they regard the deaths of these 120 men, women and children as something other than murder?

Here is what I thought: That upon committing a capital crime, the Saint took upon himself a sin that could only be redeemed by the spilling of his own blood, resulting in his death. In this Meadows incident, was the shedding of John D. Lee's blood sufficient to wipe clean the other murderer's slates - as in John D. Lee died for their sins ? Or. did the Saints not view the executions of these men, women and children as truly being murder, and thus no sin was committed on their part. If the latter was the case, does this mean John D. Lee was the sacrificial lamb? I see today's Church as taking a much more active role in disciplining someone who has murdered a bunch of people. I think they would be excommunicated or at least disfellowshipped. Sounds like Brigham Young was playing a cat and mouse game with the truth - this might be presentism talking, but I think an ethical position would have been to assist the system of justice to apprehend the murderers without being prodded or dissuaded.

I do no know if any investigation was conducted. I am not even sure they had Courts of Love back then. I do know that Brigham Young was held in higher regard by his followers than the God Emperor of Dune, and that as such he could have easily gotten to the bottom line in such an inquiry.


What are your thoughts?

.

Re: Lack of Prosecutions for the Meadows Incident

Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:10 pm
by _harmony
moksha wrote:For background, here is a thread where Calmoriah tells lazy Severian why the other culprits of the Meadows Incident were never brought to trial:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=27368&st=40


ACCESS DENIED. If you want comments from those of us who cannot access the MAD website, please post the entire post, not just the url. Otherwise, several of us cannot participate.

Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:06 pm
by _moksha
From Calmoriah:

From American Moses: Brigham Young by Leonard Arrington, page 281, a response written to someone who "wrote that the deed 'rests with a heavy weight upon my mind'":
QUOTE
There are courts of law and officers in the Terriotry. Appeal to them. They would be happy to attend to your case. If you are innocent you give yourself a great deal of foolish trouble...Why do not all the Latter-day Saints feel as you do? Simply because it does not concern them. As to your faith being shaken, if the Gospel was true befoe the Mountain Meadow Massacre, neither that nor any other event that may transpire can make it false.

When Gov. Cumming was here, I pledged mysel to lend him every assistance in my power, in men and means to throughly investigate that matter, but he declined to take any action. This offer I have made time and again, but it has never been accepted. Yet I have neither doubt nor fear on my mind but the perpetrators of that tragedy will meet their reward. God will judge this matter and on that assurance I rest perfectly satisfied.

If you are innocent, you may safely do the same; if you are guilty, better try the remedy.
The remedy referring to his comment "If you want a remedy, a rope around the neck taken with a jerk would be very salutary."

Seems to me he viewed the deaths as murder.

And how would you suggest that he go that when his offers of assistance to those who have the power to enforce justice were refused?

Have you read about any of the investigation that was done by the church leadership?

Really. I suggest you do some decent research before making...well, rather idiotic comments like this. One of the problems with being 'held in high regard' is that some people lie to you so that you won't think less of them. That on top of they are risking being prosecuted if they confess...I think there's a lot of motivation here for them to keep silent.

He sent George A. Smith down to do an investigation and lo and behold everyone involved claimed that Indians did it.

I think you overestimate the ability for him to put aside their self-preservation instinct.

Even so he was not satisfied and attempted another investigation. He offered time and time again to assist the federal officers in doing an investigation.

He told the individuals who were confessing to him to turn themselves in...what more did you want him to do? Drag them in there himself?

People complain about it being a theocracy with BY having total power and how horrible that he should have such...yet they complain when he doesn't exercise this alleged power by instituting an illegal investigation and illegally arresting people and possibly even executing them for the crime of murder. I can just imagine what would happen to their criticism if he actually did just that though.

You do know what vigilantism is and about duly appointed legal representives are? You know, federal investigators and marshals...not the bishops, high priests or even any GA.

Hardly surprising though that he didn't go so far as to help them convict himself...did you know that federal prosecutors offered Lee--pretty much the one guy they knew was guilty--not only freedom, but money for implicating Young? So much for caring about justice for the victims.... (Arrington, American Moses, pg 384)

If you are so concerned about the innocent, I suggest you actually do some research before making accusations as that tends to tar the innocent as much, if not more, than the guilty.

Severian, I'm not going to bother typing out several pages of material on investigations and what BY knew and when and his reactions when you should be getting off your bum and doing the research for yourself, but I'll at least go this far:
QUOTE
Dr. Alexander discussed five investigations that Brigham Young and the Twelve conducted. He presents them as receiving mixed information about the massacre especially as to whether it was done just by Indians or to what extent Mormons were involved. He compares versions of John D. Lee's initial report given through his attorney named W.W. Bishop to that of Wilford Woodruff’s contemporary diary. After careful source weighing he came out on the side of Woodruff, showing that Lee downplayed and lied about the Mormon role in the massacre instead of being forthcoming like he later claimed. Dr. Alexander also produced part of Lee’s diary on his slides. During a later period of investigation conducted by some members of the Twelve, it looks like Lee tampered with his diary, recording a meeting on the wrong day and writing in a smaller print to cram the text in available space.

Soon after the massacre Brigham realizes that justice needed to sought after in court. However, Alexander discussed the problems the Mormons had with the "ultras" or the radical anti-mormon element that included Judge Cradlebaugh, who was abusive in holding court in Provo. A more moderate wing included Gov. Cummings who would often counter reports to the government that the Mormons were out of control. However the ultra-wing refused to hire a Mormon marshall and complained about not having sufficient funds despite a sizeable amount ($1500 -- which Dr. Alexander explained was equivalent to the governor’s yearly salary back then) being offered as a donation. They wanted to go after Brigham Young and George A. Smith. Dr. Alexander observed that many Mormons were indignant about the crime and wanted to see justice done. Brigham Young offered to go to southern Utah and help prosecute the perpetrators three times, but no one took him up on it.

Dr. Alexander compared how the Twelve's investigations came to nearly the same conclusion as Forney's, a moderate governmental investigator. However he questioned whether it influenced Brigham Young, who seems to have independently realized the facts gradually over time and through his five investigations. Like later prosecutors he was willing to forgive the rank and file (while going after the leaders) members of the Iron County militia because they were acting under duress both from military superiors and church superiors. Most of these men were tricked to go to the scene of the massacre under the guise they were going to bury the dead left from an already concluded Indian massacre or some such pretense.

He detailed how the Church engaged in some disciplinary counsels, reformed the local leadership with non-participants, and how ticked off Brigham was at John D. Lee. He read some correspondence where Brigham told Lee, in effect, to do all the good he could, but he would never dwell where God and his Son do. Haight's supporters misled Brigham towards thinking Haight was less responsible. Haight would have been prosecuted but he was not caught, which Dr. Alexander attributes to the vastness of the open range of southern Utah and further south.


http://www.millennialstar.org/index.php ... 9/23/p1797 (and thank you to Clark Goble and David Keller for the summary)

Found another relevant quote in the blog:
QUOTE
I will tell the Latter-day Saints that there are some things which transpire that I cannot think about. There are transactions that are too horrible for me to contemplate.

The massacre at Haun's mill, and that of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and the Mountain Meadow's massacre and the murder of Dr. Robinson are of this character. I cannot think that there are beings upon the earth who have any claim to the sentiments and feelings which dwell in the breasts of civilized men who could be guilty of such atrocities; and it is hard to suppose that even savages would be capable of performing such inhuman acts.
see the blog for the references please

And another:
QUOTE
Alexander also explained that the people of Utah were not all followers of Brigham Young and that Young did not, as many assume, have absolute power.

"We should understand, also, something about the LDS leadership in the 19th century. For some reason, some historians have concluded that Utah was a totalitarian dictatorship under Brigham Young," Alexander said. "Utah was, in fact, a theodemocracy. Brigham Young could propose things to people in Utah, but they didn't always do what he wanted."
http://nn.BYU.edu/story.cfm/63076

Also from above:
QUOTE
Oscar Jesperson, a professor of history at UVSC, discussed the hatred of federal officials that led to the lack of investigation.

Jesperson said he had learned things about the names of individuals, the sequence of events that occurred and the investigation that was conducted by church leadership independent of an investigation that, supposedly, was going to be conducted by the federal officials.

"To learn that these federal officials had thwarted an investigation which had anything to do with church leadership simply demonstrated in my mind what I had thought was happening all along," Jesperson said. "There was so much hatred in a lot of federal officials for the Mormons."


Harmony, I hope that helps.

Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:40 pm
by _karl61
since I've reading about early church history, the one thing that leaps out at me is how local law enforcement tried to get evidence so that due process can go forward. I am actually amazed at how civil they were at trying to get the evidence. At the same time it is starting to be clear to me that from 1830 to 1910 the church didn't have to obey the federal law. The "obeying, honoring and sustaining the law" thing didn't apply to latter-day saints who believed the millenium would take place in the near future. God's law took priority over gentile law.

but as to the MMM - since the early church thought it was not part of the nation, was hostile at the time, it would likely be a dangerous place for anyone outside the LDS community to travel. Utah didn't even want statehood when it took place. BY did not like the Federal Government. When Lincoln outlawed bigamy in 1862 it looks like the church just said "big deal" as they thought they would take over once the north and south killed each other.

My guess is that John Lee was the only one that was excommunicated. Like I said on a previous thread: It looks like John Lee was a mean, lean, killing machine. He killed one hundred and twenty people in just a few minutes. I have not read about hundreds of church courts due to the massacre. If there was and people can point me to the books or links I would greatly appreciate it.

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:25 am
by _Polygamy Porter
thestyleguy wrote:since I've reading about early church history, the one thing that leaps out at me is how local law enforcement tried to get evidence so that due process can go forward. I am actually amazed at how civil they were at trying to get the evidence. At the same time it is starting to be clear to me that from 1830 to 1910 the church didn't have to obey the federal law. The "obeying, honoring and sustaining the law" thing didn't apply to latter-day saints who believed the millenium would take place in the near future. God's law took priority over gentile law.

but as to the MMM - since the early church thought it was not part of the nation, was hostile at the time, it would likely be a dangerous place for anyone outside the LDS community to travel. Utah didn't even want statehood when it took place. BY did not like the Federal Government. When Lincoln outlawed bigamy in 1862 it looks like the church just said "big deal" as they thought they would take over once the north and south killed each other.

My guess is that John Lee was the only one that was excommunicated. Like I said on a previous thread: It looks like John Lee was a mean, lean, killing machine. He killed one hundred and twenty people in just a few minutes. I have not read about hundreds of church courts due to the massacre. If there was and people can point me to the books or links I would greatly appreciate it.
Good perspective.

Since they soon would be the new lawmakers of the land with Jesus H. Christ, the Mormons believed that they were above the laws of the land, as they were about to become obsolete.

However, modern Mormonism would like the mainstream media to believe that Mormons have always been US patriots and great citizens. Until the late 1800s most Mormons believed what they were told, that the US would one day become the Mormon capitol of the world.

Just look at the feelings that the current FLDS have about the US government to understand how the early Mormons felt about the US of A.

With that among other things, in my view, the FLDS are the true followers of Mormonism and the FLDS are the apostates.

I do not agree with either.

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:13 am
by _moksha
I suppose with a crime of such enormity, that the prosecution might forgo seeking out the trigger pullers and seek out the leaders instead. However they settled solely upon John D. Lee, which makes it seem like he as the designated scapegoat.

Even if the formal legal system fell down on this one as the BYU professor says, despite Brigham Young's many offers to help, why was no Church discipline meted out for mass murderers?

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:58 pm
by _rcrocket
moksha wrote:I suppose with a crime of such enormity, that the prosecution might forgo seeking out the trigger pullers and seek out the leaders instead. However they settled solely upon John D. Lee, which makes it seem like he as the designated scapegoat.

Even if the formal legal system fell down on this one as the BYU professor says, despite Brigham Young's many offers to help, why was no Church discipline meted out for mass murderers?


Higbee, Haight and Lee were ex'd, at least that we know. The Church's files could contain other excommunications (Klingensmith is probably an example; he says he was ex'd but there was no formal church announcement) which were not public knowledge. Higbee, Haight and Lee were unusual in that they were general conference annoucements. The other key participant was William Dame, a stake president. There is a master's thesis which is quite a spirited defense of Dame. Seems that Dame clalims to have not been there. Dame was never ex'd and retained his church position and, indeed, was called to a second term as stake president after BY tried to release him over the MMM incident and the local stake refused to sustain Dame's successor (that is a whole 'nother story.)

There were numerous arrests and indictments, but the feds dismissed them all except for Lee and released everybody else. The prosecutor didn't have enough funds and didn't want jeopardy to attach, so he dismissed in the hope of further prosecution.

Brigham Young offered to the U.S. government an LDS marshal who could arrest the perps; the U.S. Marshal's office turned him down, saying that the federal marshal could do it. However, Congress wouldn't allocate much funds for the arrest. At the same time, Congress allocated funds for federal surveys and the perps were hired as guides and put on the federal payroll. The federal surveyors used to play jokes and pranks upon the perps over their role in MMM.

Two weeks ago, coincidentally, I located a brief account from the family history of the prosecutor of Lee in a Michigan library. Contrary to what Bagley claims, the Sumner Howard family history maintains that Howard never made a deal to scapegoat Lee and continued to pursue other prosecutions but then lost heart when Brigham Young died.

rcrocket

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:58 pm
by _beastie
Higbee, Haight and Lee were unusual in that they were general conference annoucements.


http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/ ... cences.htm

Even the Deseret News gave a description of the massacre on August 5, 1875. Whitney, by contrast, while agreeing that Colonel Isaac C. Haight had ordered the Mormon militia to march to the massacre site under command of Major John M. Higbee, wrote that it was only "on a mission of mercy to bury the dead and protect the survivors." Supposedly "others came upon the scene," lured to the meadows to bury the dead, "and some of these also took part" in the butchery that followed. Baskin commented that no sensible person could accept such a ridiculously absurd scenario. He countered that besides Lee, those who had actually planned the massacre escaped punishment. Colonel William H. Dame, commander of the Iron County Brigade of the Nauvoo Legion, Haight, and Higbee all retained their militia commands, and Dame remained president of the LDS Parowan Stake until 1880. Higbee and Haight were excommunicated in 1870, together with Lee, but Brigham Young reinstated Haight in 1874. Haight, Higbee, Dame, and Bishop Philip Klingensmith were indicted with Lee, but all of them fled prosecution. Klingensmith eventually surrendered and turned state's evidence at Lee's first trial, but Haight died in exile, still protected by church leaders. Prosecutor Sumner Howard dropped the charges against Dame in 1876, apparently as part of the deal with LDS authorities allowing Howard to convict Lee. A local court dismissed the charges against Higbee after Utah achieved statehood. "None of the other fifty-two Mormon participants were ever disciplined by the church," Baskin observed.



So the three people who were known to be ex'd weren't excommunicated until 1870, and Haight was reinstated four years later.

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:57 pm
by _rcrocket
beastie wrote:
So the three people who were known to be ex'd weren't excommunicated until 1870, and Haight was reinstated four years later.


That doesn't conflict with what I have said. My personal theory as to the delay is that Brigham Young didn't know the full extent of things until after Erastus Snow, who disliked Lee intensely, and who was the resident apostle, made a full report to Brigham Young around 1870.

This is supported by Lee's diaries. After he was ex'd, Young permitted one of Lee's wives to leave Lee (well, not sure she needed Young's permission, but she sought it nonetheless). An angry Lee goes north to confront Young. The interchange between Lee and Young in Lee's diary captures Young's belief that he didn't know the truth until recently (1870). Lee was an outstanding diarist and has almost nothing in his diary about previously explaining everything to Young. He claimed to have told Young everything at general conference in 1857, but his account directly conflicts with Woodruff, who was there, and Klingensmith, who claimed to be there and hear the report, but Lee doesn't mention Klingensmith's presence (nor does Woodruff).

And, again, I don't have any evidence that others were ex'd except for oblique references to the Klingensmith affair. He was a private in the Iron County militia, but a bishop at the time of the massacre.

rcrocket

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:05 pm
by _rcrocket
moksha wrote:I suppose with a crime of such enormity, that the prosecution might forgo seeking out the trigger pullers and seek out the leaders instead. However they settled solely upon John D. Lee, which makes it seem like he as the designated scapegoat.


Designated by whom? The government? DoJ files show another 8 years of attempts to prosecute others.

The Church? Again, DoJ files show offers by the Church to bring the perps to justice with the government rejecting the offers. I mentioned one example above, involving the offer to use an LDS territorial marshal to apprehend the perps. The DoJ rejected the offer. [Bagley does not mention this in his work; neither does Brooks.]

Another example involved lawyers for the indictees offering to surrendering several of the perps on condition of favorable bail (Lee was granted bail, later). The federal judge's reaction to the offer was to commence disbarment proceedings against the lawyers for even making the offer. According to correspondence from Judge Boreman, he also condemned the lawyers for representing Mormons in the first and last place -- the disbarment proceedings were founded in part upon their mere representation of Mormons. So, the offered-up indictees were never surrendered.

rcrocket