Mormon Richard Turley: Brigham did not order MMM

[_moksha]

If one were charged with inciting a riot, but not directly taking part in the riot, what conditions would first have to be met?

[_TAK]

If one were charged with inciting a riot, but not directly taking part in the riot, what conditions would first have to be met?

I would imagine you need to show a connection and demonstrate a communication from one to another.

In this instances Brigham Young sent Geo. A Smith south to incite members against the US troops and Americans in general.

Gene Sessions: "The only other piece of the story that might suggest that he did is that just before the massacre happened, George A. Smith was sent on a long speech-making trip through Southern Utah. We don't know a lot of what he said in his speeches. We know about some of what he said but they were tough speeches about standing up to the army and the Americans and it was incendiary. And so, there are those who think that Smith was sent down there with that kind of invective and then when he got done with his speech, he'd pull a stake president or a few bishops aside and say, 'And by the way don't hesitate to kill anybody you can.' But that's all speculation."

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences ... sacre.html

Its good speculation because there needs to be a motive as to why those in Southern Utah did what they did, believing their actions would be supported by Church leaders in SLC.

[_TAK]

So if I get carjacked and then murdered, the person driving around in my car is not involved? uhhhuh. sure.

Young was seen driving around in one of the Fanchers shiny new wagons.

What is your reference?

You have never heard this before?
I believe it was in Bagley’s book.. Do you dispute that much of the plunder from the Fancher train was deposited in the Cedar City Tithing Room?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

"Here the account stops abruptly, for the next leaf is torn out.....What Brigham Young told the chiefs in that hour was not recorded, but we might hazard an opinion that it was not out of harmony with his written instructions that 'they must learn that they have got to help us or the United States will kill us both.'.....At that time Brigham Young had to be sure of his allies, for he was conducting a war against tremendous odds. The previous Mormon policy had been to keep the natives from stealing and plundering and to teach them the peaceful pursuits of farming and cattle raising, but now Brigham Young seemed determined that he would no longer "hold them by the wrist," as he told Captain Van Vliet a few days later. The Indians must have started back home immediately, for in seven days they were harassing the emigrants at Mountain Meadows, and in ten days they participated in the massacre of the company." (Brooks, pp. 40-42.)

Bagley also notes in a footnote in Blood of the Prophets that Dale Morgan (who also had a copy of Hamblin's original journal) noted that pages relating to the meeting and that time period appeared to have removed.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I guess we'd want to know what the Indians at the meeting with BY did during the MMM. (According to one source, they were nowhere near the MMM).

Uhh, no.

"Here the account stops abruptly, for the next leaf is torn out.....What Brigham Young told the chiefs in that hour was not recorded, but we might hazard an opinion that it was not out of harmony with his written instructions that 'they must learn that they have got to help us or the United States will kill us both.'.....At that time Brigham Young had to be sure of his allies, for he was conducting a war against tremendous odds. The previous Mormon policy had been to keep the natives from stealing and plundering and to teach them the peaceful pursuits of farming and cattle raising, but now Brigham Young seemed determined that he would no longer "hold them by the wrist," as he told Captain Van Vliet a few days later. The Indians must have started back home immediately, for in seven days they were harassing the emigrants at Mountain Meadows, and in ten days they participated in the massacre of the company." (Brooks, pp. 40-42.)

See the recent article by Turley in the Des News If I recall correctly.

I'm waiting for the source on BY riding in a Fancher carriage. I'm not accusing you of making it up, I am simply asking for a source. So, again, bump.

[_TAK]

I'm waiting for the source on BY riding in a Fancher carriage. I'm not accusing you of making it up, I am simply asking for a source. So, again, bump.

How will it change anything in your viewpoint if it can be shown that he was?

Go read Bagley if you have not already..

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I'm waiting for the source on BY riding in a Fancher carriage. I'm not accusing you of making it up, I am simply asking for a source. So, again, bump.

How will it change anything in your viewpoint if it can be shown that he was?

Go read Bagley if you have not already..

I've read Bagley. I skimmed it again but couldn't find the reference to BY riding in a Fancher carriage. Hence my asking where it is found. Who said anything about changing viewpoints? I'm asking for a simple source.

[_Mercury]

I'm waiting for the source on BY riding in a Fancher carriage. I'm not accusing you of making it up, I am simply asking for a source. So, again, bump.

How will it change anything in your viewpoint if it can be shown that he was?

Go read Bagley if you have not already..

I've read Bagley. I skimmed it again but couldn't find the reference to BY riding in a Fancher carriage. Hence my asking where it is found. Who said anything about changing viewpoints? I'm asking for a simple source.

I can't find the source but I do remember it being documented. Like some evidences for or against its heresay. Besides, as TAK has stated we could give evidence that Brigham Young performed acts involving necrophilia on the fancher dead and you still would get off on the Deseret dictator. To you it does not matter, nevermind the other glaring evidences of his direct involvement and Brooks direct destruction of evidence. It is likely you sadly still think that the indians did it and blamed the Mormons or that the disconnected inbred southern utahn's perpetrated the whole thing with BY telling the Cedar city folk to stop what they were doing. Hardly.

The plan was bungled due to the indians botching the massacre, Mormons had to intervene and BY was messaged (the message strangely missing...thanks Juanita?), letting the dictator know that the plan had failed. Whether Lee took matters into his own hands might be up for debate but it is VERY obvious who ordered the operation be performed and brigham young has blood on his hands.

Why would BY state that HE had taken a little vengance. He was gloating over the makeshift monument. In this he shows his true character as a monster.

[_bcspace]

I've read Bagley. I skimmed it again but couldn't find the reference to BY riding in a Fancher carriage. Hence my asking where it is found. Who said anything about changing viewpoints? I'm asking for a simple source.

I can't find the source but I do remember it being documented

Memory and imagination are often confused. CFR.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I can't find the source but I do remember it being documented.

I think it may have been in Sally Denton's American Massacre, but I'm not sure.

To you it does not matter, nevermind the other glaring evidences of his direct involvement and Brooks direct destruction of evidence.

I thought the evidence regarding Juanita Brooks's destruction of evidence was shaky, at best (although I can't remember where I read that -- perhaps it was Denton's MMM article in the American Heritage magazine, but I don't recall if she had a source for the claim).

The plan was bungled due to the indians botching the massacre, Mormons had to intervene and BY was messaged (the message strangely missing...thanks Juanita?), letting the dictator know that the plan had failed. Whether Lee took matters into his own hands might be up for debate but it is VERY obvious who ordered the operation be performed and brigham young has blood on his hands.

Here is my view of this, and I admit it is pure speculation and not worth much. I have never seen enough evidence to convince me that BY planned and/or ordered the massacre. BUT the evidence does convince me that he instructed the Indians to engage the emigrant trains and steal their cattle, and specifically the Fancher party's cattle to the southern Utah Indian leaders he met with on Sept. 1, as part of his overall war strategy to stop all emigrant overland travel through Utah. Thus, per Dimick Huntington, BY instructed the Indians in northern Utah and in southern Utah to take the cattle on those major trails. Moreover, BY did this knowing that encouraging engagement between Indians and emigrants (particularly in the form of theft of cattle) would likely lead to violence and death (he said so to his apostles, recorded Wilford Woodruff, at the end of August 1857). BY may not have known that entire parties would be murdered, but he certainly knew that his plan for the Indians to steal cattle on the trail was highly explosive and would likely lead to murder by Indians of emigrants. BY also knew that the Fancher party was on the trail (and he later admitted the ONLY train on the trail) at the time of his Sept. 1 meeting with southern Utah Indian leaders. I sincerely believe that the initial attack, and then seige, of the Fancher party came about due to the direct orders of BY (and even if those particular Indians leaders at the Sept. 1 meeting couldn't rush back to the massacre scene in time, which I think they could, I believe that GAS took gave similar instructions on his tour of southern Utah in August 1857). I think the plan for massacre only came about after local Mormons shot the three men who had snuck away from the Fancher seige to seek help, and the resultant massacre was essentially a cover-up: i.e., the murder of everyone who could identify Mormon involvement in the Indian attacks on emigrant trains. At the same time I think the locals justified the slaughter, at least in part, on the 'oath of vengeance' covenant in the temple (as an aside, Dimick Huntington, in the presence of BY, raised this very argument during a Sept. 20 with Indian leader Arapeen, who appears to be the first who brought news of the massacre to BY and was waffling about helping the Mormons further; Dimick said something like, "Joseph's blood must be avenged!"). Of course, BY's later statment at the site about "vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, and I have taken a little" showed how he really felt about the massacre, but, to me, this is insufficient to establish that he ordered it. That all said, I think the evidence establishes BY's culpability, as least for setting the stage that led to massacre. And for this, I believe, the Church should accept responsibility and apologize for BY's actions. Just my $.02.