Page 1 of 1

Playing With Shadows

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:21 pm
by _Joe Geisner
A few weeks ago, I posted about Mike Marquardt's "The Coming Storm" which was a keepsake for the Arthur H. Clark publishing companies "Playing With Shadows." This book is a part of the multi-volume Kingdom In The West, edited by Will Bagley.

I think this may be the best volume in KITW. I have always been partial to "Gold Rush Saints" and "At Swords Point," but this book is a fun to read and covers a neglected subject. The trio of Bagley, Aird, and Nichols have produced a ground breaking book and a must read for any student of the American West. I particularly liked Polly Aird's chapter on George Armstrong Hicks. Her writing is top notch. She is not only a scholar, but she is sympathetic to her subject and clear in her details.

Polly's work on Hicks is particularly important for many reasons. This is a man whose history has disturbed Mormon apologist, even to the point of having Davis Bitton write a smear piece that was published in UHQ.

I first learned of Hick's when I read Will's "Blood of the Prophets" where he details Hick's feelings toward the people involved in the massacre at Mountain Meadows and Young's relationship with them. Hick's was troubled by people claiming that Young was supportive of those involved in the massacre. Hick's could not believe that Young, a Prophet of God, could be so evil. Young seemed to ease Hick's fears when he spoke in December 1866 saying: “If any man, woman or child that ever lived has said that Brigham Young ever counseled them to commit crime of any description, they are liars in the face of heaven.” Hick's even carried the newspaper clipping of the talk with him wherever he went and quoted from it to people who claimed Young had not stopped supporting the murderers. Because of Hick's belief in Young's words, many people in Southern Utah started claiming it was Hick's who was the problem, even claiming he was a traitor to Mormonism. Hick's had enough and wrote a letter to Brigham Young detailing his concern that people claimed Young was supportive of the murderers and that Young's words given in December 1866 were "to blind the eyes of the gentiles and to satisfy a few individuals like myself." Eighteen days later, Young responded to Hick's, concerns, telling him "if you want a remedy—rope round the neck taken with a jerk would be very salutary." Hick's was shocked by Young's response, and from this point on, never trusted Young again.

As Polly points out, Hick's "manuscript [that Polly reproduces in the volume, fully edited] is 167 pages long, plus an extra page of journal notations from 1879, which he must have kept earlier and enabled him to be so exact in regard to names, dates, and events in his autobiography." This is an autobiography that can be trusted for accuracy, which is not usually the case.

To give you a taste of Hick's engaging writing, I found his description of John D. Lee and his household to be the most revealing.

"I have been told that Lee would go to where men were assembled and play the evesdroper [eavesdropper] and in a day or two would make known what he had heard and say the Lord had revealed it to him. I myself have heard [him] say that he has seen holy angels and conversed with them. Lee was a swindler in dealing, a liar in conversation, and a low sensual brute of a man. He has been the husband of 19 wives, although he had but eight when I knew him. He was undoubtedly a hypocrite in religion. His house was a great stoping place for “Gentile” strag[g]lers, and if rumer [rumor] is to [be] credited, his house was but little better than a house of ill fame. His wives were in the habbit to twitting each other of their little foibles and once while I lived at Harmony, his wives made general confession to Lee and to each other for having had sexual intercourse with Richard Darling (Rattle-snake Dick, as he was called). This man was a deserter from Camp Douglass. Lee preached Mormonism to [him]. He was baptized into the church and married one of Lee’s daughters, lived with her for six months, then stol[e] a horse, a revolver, and a suit of clothes, and then ran away while Lee was gone to S. L. City to have more wives sealed to him. I well remember Lee came home without getting the wives. He seemed much depres[s]ed, for he had prophecied that Darling would become a great man in the Kingdom of God."

Polly's incredible researching skills found in her footnotes point out that Hick's account can be verified through other sources.

I love how Hick's then points out why he was giving this detail in his autobiography about Lee. Hick's explains:

"My reasons for being so particular in describing Lee and his family are these: I wish to show the kind of society that was good enough for our Prophet, Seer, and Revelator to honor (!) with his company when making his ann[u]al tours through his kingdom."

Re: Playing With Shadows

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:42 pm
by _Yahoo Bot
Joe Geisner wrote:I love how Hick's then points out why he was giving this detail in his autobiography about Lee. Hick's explains:


Somebody's apostrophe challenged.

An apostrophe is used to denote a possessive ("this is Hick's gun") or a contraction with the word "is", although it is usually poor form with a name ("Hick's going to town"), but never to denote a plural. Even so, an "s" on the end of somebody's name is not a plural. Joe, yer quite an erudite scholar.

have always been partial to "Gold Rush Saints" and "At Swords Point," but this book is a fun to read and covers a neglected subject.


Here, an apostrophe is appropriate, "At Sword's Point," not "At Swords Point", because it denotes a possessive. I very much loved that book.

Good for Hic'ks to pester Lee as he did. He and other southern Utahns brought Erastus Snow to St. George to investigate the matter which led to Lees's' excommunication.

Lets's' make sure we have Brigham Young's full reply to Hicks.


If you want a remedy, a rope around the neck taken with a jerk would be very salutary. . . .

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 myself 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.

Re: Playing With Shadows

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:48 pm
by _Runtu
Yahoo Bot wrote:Lets's' make sure we have Brigham Young's full reply to Hicks.


Actually, you left off the beginning, in which Brigham said that Hicks had been so concerned about the MMM that people might think "you yourself must have been a participator in the horrible deed… In such a case, if you want a remedy – rope round the neck taken with a jerk would be very salutary."

Re: Playing With Shadows

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:21 pm
by _Joe Geisner
Yahoo Bot wrote:
Somebody's apostrophe challenged.


Thank you Bott for the apostrophe lesson. I am in complete agreement, I have a horrible habit with this challenge. I apologize to all who have to wade through my stupidity.

But as usual Bott, you seem to miss the forest for the trees. You consistently try to protect Young and his crimes through half truths and diversions. This is what you did in your review (I am being generous in calling it a review) on "Blood of the Prophets." You never deal with the evidence. You can never looked at anything clearly and honestly. The Bishop letter and the Paiute photo are cases in point.

I know being a "lawyer to the stars" and being a part of the one percent, you have no interest in the rest of us 99 percent who can actually read a document or letter and understand what is being said. All without playing your lawyer games.

Oh, Bott, do you still think Paiutes are subhuman? As you point out in the other post, God is a racist.

Re: Playing With Shadows

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:32 pm
by _Yahoo Bot
I protect nor defend no one associated with the massacre, nor do I think Pauites are subhumans.

Bagley is a good researcher but a horrible analyst. Brooks was a lesser researcher, a much better writer and a somewhat better analyst. Denton is a lousy researcher, a much much better writer and a poor analyst. But, she's made more money off the massacre than the others combined. You're a terrible writer, unless you have a good editor.

By the way, I laffed out loud several times reading your Sunstone article. Really well done; neutral and non-judgmental. I didn't know you had it in you. You usually come across on the private list as being a grump and of very limited critical ability, a sycophant.

Am I part of the one percent? Somebody needs to tell my stake president that so I don't have to slog it out with seminary every morning.

"You never deal with the evidence."


Right. Sounds like my kids -- "You never take us to Magic Mountain." [Ignoring the fact that, at times, we've had season passes.]

Re: Playing With Shadows

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:59 pm
by _DarkHelmet
Yahoo Bot wrote:
Joe Geisner wrote:I love how Hick's then points out why he was giving this detail in his autobiography about Lee. Hick's explains:


Somebody's apostrophe challenged.

An apostrophe is used to denote a possessive ("this is Hick's gun") or a contraction with the word "is", although it is usually poor form with a name ("Hick's going to town"), but never to denote a plural. Even so, an "s" on the end of somebody's name is not a plural. Joe, yer quite an erudite scholar.

have always been partial to "Gold Rush Saints" and "At Swords Point," but this book is a fun to read and covers a neglected subject.


Here, an apostrophe is appropriate, "At Sword's Point," not "At Swords Point", because it denotes a possessive. I very much loved that book.

Good for Hic'ks to pester Lee as he did. He and other southern Utahns brought Erastus Snow to St. George to investigate the matter which led to Lees's' excommunication.

Lets's' make sure we have Brigham Young's full reply to Hicks.


If you want a remedy, a rope around the neck taken with a jerk would be very salutary. . . .

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 myself 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.



http://derailingfordummies.com/

It's also really awesome to utilise the tactic of correcting grammar and/or spelling mistakes and criticising comments on form rather than content to further distract from the issues.

Re: Playing With Shadows

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:01 pm
by _Two of Three
Yahoo Bot wrote: You usually come across on the private list as being a grump and of very limited critical ability, a sycophant.


People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw Urim and Thummim.

You need to fire your editor, by the way.

Re: Playing With Shadows

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:11 pm
by _Buffalo
Yahoo Bot wrote:
Joe Geisner wrote:I love how Hick's then points out why he was giving this detail in his autobiography about Lee. Hick's explains:


Somebody's apostrophe challenged.

An apostrophe is used to denote a possessive ("this is Hick's gun") or a contraction with the word "is", although it is usually poor form with a name ("Hick's going to town"), but never to denote a plural. Even so, an "s" on the end of somebody's name is not a plural. Joe, yer quite an erudite scholar.

have always been partial to "Gold Rush Saints" and "At Swords Point," but this book is a fun to read and covers a neglected subject.


Here, an apostrophe is appropriate, "At Sword's Point," not "At Swords Point", because it denotes a possessive. I very much loved that book.

Good for Hic'ks to pester Lee as he did. He and other southern Utahns brought Erastus Snow to St. George to investigate the matter which led to Lees's' excommunication.

Lets's' make sure we have Brigham Young's full reply to Hicks.


If you want a remedy, a rope around the neck taken with a jerk would be very salutary. . . .

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 myself 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.


Translation: hey, look over there!

Re: Playing With Shadows

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:14 pm
by _Yahoo Bot
Just don't look in Geisner's direction. He don't know a thing. Bagley's mouth opens, Joe's lips move in silence. He don't know a thing.

Re: Playing With Shadows

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:51 am
by _Dr. Shades
Yahoo Bot does have a point. Let's face it: That whole "Hick's" thing, over and over, was a bit obnoxious.