Massacre At Mountain Meadows Review

[_dblagent007]

The most egregious problem is the one that has been thoroughly aired in published reviews. Will’s most powerful “proof” of Brigham Young’s direction of the massacre – a proof that was championed last night by Judith Freeman – is Dimick Huntington’s journal, supposedly showing that Brigham Young “encouraged his Indian allies to attack the Fancher Party to make clear to the nation the cost of war with the Mormons.” Forget that nothing in the relevant Huntington entry speaks of killing people, only of taking cattle. Forget that Huntington doesn’t mention either the Fancher train or any other company as brought to the attention of the Indians (yet the Fancher train, according to Will, is specifically targeted because of the presence of Arkansans who had been accused, Will claims, by Parley P. Pratt’s widow of PPP’s assassination). Forget all those gaps in the chain, and realize only that Will misread – unintentionally, I have no doubt, and caused only because he saw what he expected to see rather than what was actually there – the entry in Dimick Huntington’s journal. Instead of the Indians agreeing to go and “raise [allies]” as Will printed it, Huntington writes that the Indians stated they were going to “raise grain.” Far from agreeing to attack the emigrants, as Will needs the entry to say in order to support his claim, the Indians refuse to participate in any trouble, and instead proclaim that they are going home to watch the grass grow. [Later printings correct “allies” to “grain” but the brackets are inexplicably retained.]

I see. So BY gave the cattle to the Indians, while threatening the feds that if he no longer restrained the Indians, they would start attacking trains...and we're supposed to imagine Young had some nonviolent method in mind for the Indians to obtain that cattle?

BY only said he wouldn't restrain the Indians from taking the cattle. How the Indians would actually obtain the cattle was not stated. There are lots of ways the Indians could have rustled them without mass murder.

Besides, the Indians said they would go raise "grain," not "allies," which shows the Indians had no interest in this whatsoever.

Remember another citation omitted from Massacre:

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.

So BY thought that war with the U.S. might result in violence?

[_beastie]

BY only said he wouldn't restrain the Indians from taking the cattle. How the Indians would actually obtain the cattle was not stated. There are lots of ways the Indians could have rustled them without mass murder.

Besides, the Indians said they would go raise "grain," not "allies," which shows the Indians had no interest in this whatsoever.

So no Indians showed an interest in attacking trains, eh?

So BY thought that war with the U.S. might result in violence?

The quote demonstrates that BY realized that encouraging the Indians to attack trains would result in the loss of innocent lives. He credited this to the fact "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.”

[_dblagent007]

Okay, don't take it seriously. But, please help me understand how you dismiss it so quickly.

The Indians were initially blamed, but it seems more in an exculpatory way than in a chest beating "don't mess with BY or we will stop transcontinental travel" way. By the way, did BY or the church actively publicize MMM in a way that supports your thesis?

Did BY or the church need to publicize MMM?

You aren't denying that BY used the threat of Indian violence to pressure the feds, are you?

Well, you are the one that said the Indians involvement was "trumpeted" as the cause of MMM. I took that to mean that you had some evidence that BY had actively publicized or used the event itself to threaten the U.S. government and overland travel as claimed by Bagley. Do you have such evidence?

The evidence seems to me that the Mormons tried to blame the Indians in a "hey, they did it not us" type of way, which seems inconsistent with Bagley's claim that BY ordered the massacre to threaten the U.S. and overland travel. On the other hand, if you could provide some evidence that BY used the massacre as a threat (e.g., that he publicized it, told the government that they would meet the same fate if they came into Utah, etc.) then Bagley's assertion seems plausible.

[_dblagent007]

BY only said he wouldn't restrain the Indians from taking the cattle. How the Indians would actually obtain the cattle was not stated. There are lots of ways the Indians could have rustled them without mass murder.

Besides, the Indians said they would go raise "grain," not "allies," which shows the Indians had no interest in this whatsoever.

So no Indians showed an interest in attacking trains, eh?

According to Huntington's journal, which is Bagley's key piece of evidence, the answer is no.

So BY thought that war with the U.S. might result in violence?

The quote demonstrates that BY realized that encouraging the Indians to attack trains would result in the loss of innocent lives. He credited this to the fact "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.”

Ardis's original point that you dismissed out of hand was that she "struggled to reconcile the contradictory ideas of massacre-as-demonstration-of-power with massacre-must-be-concealed." How does this quote assist you in dismissing her criticism?

[_beastie]

Well, you are the one that said the Indians involvement was "trumpeted" as the cause of MMM. I took that to mean that you had some evidence that BY had actively publicized or used the event itself to threaten the U.S. government and overland travel as claimed by Bagley. Do you have such evidence?

Oh, for heaven’s sake.

The Mormons blamed the Indians for the attack. Period. Over and over. BY warned the feds that if they didn’t back off, he would no longer be able to restrain the Indians, and they would attack.

MMM caused an outrage and was publicized all on its own. There was absolutely no need for BY or the church to highlight what had happened.

This is just plain silly.

The evidence seems to me that the Mormons tried to blame the Indians in a "hey, they did it not us" type of way, which seems inconsistent with Bagley's claim that BY ordered the massacre to threaten the U.S. and overland travel. On the other hand, if you could provide some evidence that BY used the massacre as a threat (e.g., that he publicized it, told the government that they would meet the same fate if they came into Utah, etc.) then Bagley's assertion seems plausible.

So let me get this straight. BY tells the feds the Indians, unrestrained by Mormons, will start attacking trains. BY sends GA Smith to Cedar City to engage in what Smith admitted was mainly beating the war drum. GA Smith records something in his journal verifying that he had a discussion with Lee in which he encouraged the locals to attack threatening trains. GA Smith meets the Fanchers on the way back and predicts evil will befall them. Later, BY says the massacre was the Lord’s vengeance.

And you are asserting that, despite all these undisputed facts, the only way Bagley’s theory would be plausible is if BY made a big deal of MMM and connected it directly to his previous threats??

[_beastie]

According to Huntington's journal, which is Bagley's key piece of evidence, the answer is no.

I don’t know how to break this to you, but Indians did participate in MMM, as well as other train attacks during the same time period.

Ardis's original point that you dismissed out of hand was that she "struggled to reconcile the contradictory ideas of massacre-as-demonstration-of-power with massacre-must-be-concealed." How does this quote assist you in dismissing her criticism?

I will try again.

BY concealed one thing – the involvement of Mormons. He never threatened that Mormons would attack trains. He threatened that Indians would attack trains. He, or the church, never concealed that Indians were involved in MMM, and LDS were the main source of the erroneous conclusion that Indians were the main perpetrators.

I provided the section of BY’s quote showing he realized that encouraging Indians to attack trains would result in harm to human beings because you acted as if the quote just meant he thought war would result in harm to human beings. You act as if

1- no Indians were interested in attacking trains
2- BY had no reason to believe human beings would be attacked if Indians attacked the trains

Both are pretty silly assertions, to be frank.

[_Mister Scratch]

"Background experience" has never been a pre-requisite for publication in the FARMS Review. Just ask Gary Novak and Russell McGregor. The only real "background" necessary is being friends with DCP.

You poor, pathetic, obsessive, malevolent nutcase. You simply have to make this about me.

It isn't "about" you at all, beyond the fact that knowing you seems to be a criteria for getting published in the Review. Rather, this is about FARMS Review's standards. No need to get all bent out of shape, Professor P.

Many if not most of those who've written for the FARMS Review -- two or three hundred of them, by now -- are people I've never so much as met.

Kind of beside the point, isn't it? The point is that no "background experience" seems to be necessary for publication in FARMS Review. This is something Kevin Graham pointed out back when you were thieving quotes for your "Witchcraft Paradigm" editorial. Or are you going to explain how and why the likes of Novak and McGregor actually have the kind of "background experience" we've been discussing?

[_Daniel Peterson]

The following is a standard response:

Master Scartch has devoted himself since at least 2006 to publicly defaming me while maintaining his anonymity. A particular focus of his hatred is the FARMS Review, which I founded and edit.

The FARMS Review has been appearing, now, for very nearly twenty years. The entirety of every issue of the Review is available on line, at

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/

Anyone interested in inspecting the FARMS Review for himself or herself, without Scartch’s defamatory spin, without Scartch’s hostile selection and editing, without looking through the distorting Scartchian lens, is entirely welcome to do so.

I regard Master Scartch as an obsessive and malevolent loon, and have decided to refrain from further gratifying his weird fixation on me and those connected with me. Attempting conversation with him over the past many months has accomplished precisely nothing, and is, plainly, a complete waste of my time -- especially given the fact that it's his self-described "mission" and "amusement" to be "perceived" by "Mopologists" as "full of hate." (Scartch, MDB, 1 October 2008)




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

[_Mister Scratch]

[b]The following is a standard response:

Come now, Professor P. It would be much better if you simply admitted that the "background experience" criteria at the Review is very minor. Failure to do so just shows how right Beastie has been in her criticism of you.

[_antishock8]

Fatman McFatbastardpants has never added anything, ever, of substance to this forum. Never. Not once. He won't engage you in decent conversation now. Nor will he ever. He saves his self-congratulatory gookie-cookies-a-la-Will Schryver-backpatting-fests for the Mo's.

And that's that.

This place? It's just a sort of one-handed typing thing for him. It's his deal. Who can blame him? I can't. I'm here for purely sociological reasons. I'm doing a study on Mormon behavior as it relates to the Internet, and this is excellent source material.

Allons, Professor. Allons.