'Barbarism' of the emigrants murdered at Mountain Meadows?

[_moksha]

Perhaps the author was referring to the wagon party's habits of chewing, spitting, drinking tea out of a coffee mug and wearing white after Labor Day.

[_rcrocket]

These Los Angeles press accounts in October 1857 were not from "the Church." They were reports provided by non-member emigrants who passed through Cedar City on the way to Los Angeles right after the massacre. Of course, they were recounting what the locals were telling them.

Stop the press here. . . do you honestly believe that the locals were telling non-Mormons about the massacre??

It is not what I believe. It is what was reported.

The Oct. 12, 1957 Daily Alta California (San Francisco) reported from Los Angeles, on the basis of "the mail rider, and also by some gentlemen who saw the bodies lying on the ground" who "charge the Mormons with the crime, or at least instigating it" the following details:

"The last report states that these immigrants were all from Arkansas and Missouri. They had been troubled by the Indians, who frequented their camp in great numbers; and they resolved to get rid of them. An ox was killed and strychnine put into the meat, which was left where the Indians would find it. It is also said that they poisoned the water, and that several Indians, among them several chiefs, died from teh effects of the poison."

Further: "[T]his account is derived from the Indians themselves, who reported the reason for the slaughter, on their arrival at the settlements. [Paragraph] This is the Mormon account of the horrible butchery."

The article says that the mail rider claimed to be a Mormon to escape death from the Indians who "are instructed to kill all who oppose the church."

See the article here, but reading it it appears to me that I failed to copy the bottom of the article.

http://s285.photobucket.com/albums/ll41/rcrocket54/


So, anyways, there it is.

[_rcrocket]

These Los Angeles press accounts in October 1857 were not from "the Church." They were reports provided by non-member emigrants who passed through Cedar City on the way to Los Angeles right after the massacre. Of course, they were recounting what the locals were telling them.

Stop the press here. . . do you honestly believe that the locals were telling non-Mormons about the massacre??

I get the sense that Bob is dishonestly conflating unrelated pieces of data. But, then again, we already know that he dishonestly manipulates MMM data.

Pretty courageous slander to offer anonymously.

I deny it.

[_rcrocket]

These Los Angeles press accounts in October 1857 were not from "the Church." They were reports provided by non-member emigrants who passed through Cedar City on the way to Los Angeles right after the massacre. Of course, they were recounting what the locals were telling them.

Stop the press here. . . do you honestly believe that the locals were telling non-Mormons about the massacre??

It is not what I believe. It is what was reported.

The Oct. 12, 1957 Daily Alta California (San Francisco) reported from Los Angeles, on the basis of "the mail rider, and also by some gentlemen who saw the bodies lying on the ground" who "charge the Mormons with the crime, or at least instigating it" the following details:

"The last report states that these immigrants were all from Arkansas and Missouri. They had been troubled by the Indians, who frequented their camp in great numbers; and they resolved to get rid of them. An ox was killed and strychnine put into the meat, which was left where the Indians would find it. It is also said that they poisoned the water, and that several Indians, among them several chiefs, died from the effects of the poison."

Further: "[T]his account is derived from the Indians themselves, who reported the reason for the slaughter, on their arrival at the settlements. [Paragraph] This is the Mormon account of the horrible butchery."

The article says that the mail rider claimed to be a Mormon to escape death from the Indians who "are instructed to kill all who oppose the church."

Bagley's book says that these provocation stories were made up years after the fact, but this Alta newspaper articles proves that they were in currency almost immediately. Whether they were true or not remains a matter of substantial dispute, because we'd have to accept the word of accomplices to mass murder, on the one hand, or virulent anti-Mormons, on the other.

See the article here, but reading it it appears to me that I failed to copy the bottom of the article.

http://s285.photobucket.com/albums/ll41/rcrocket54/


So, anyways, there it is.

[_Dr. Shades]

The article says that the mail rider claimed to be a Mormon to escape death from the Indians who "are instructed to kill all who oppose the church."

Who, in your opinion, was the one who instructed the Indians to kill all those who oppose the church?

[_rcrocket]

To answer that question I would have to accept the premise of what was reported in the press.

That's the problem with anti-Mormonism. Adherents to it, whatever "it" is, accept without discrimination any claim as the truth if it disparages the Church. Your question is proof positive.

Having said that, I believe that John D. Lee, with the approval of Isaac Haight, put the murderous scheme into place. However, following the Fanchers, many hundreds and thousands of non-Mormon travelers made it to California in the next six months without difficulty.

[_antishock8]

Did the Mormon church leadership excommunicate all those involved with these murders, and assist the US government in bringing them to justice?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Turley is a historian, although more of an achivist -- branch of the study of history. He hasn't practiced law for many years.

Nonetheless, it is ironic that the Church Historian (Marlin Jenson) and the Assistant Church Historian (Turley) are trained lawyers, not historians.

Well, feel free to dismiss them entirely because they are "lawyers." They haven't practiced law for years and decades, and both serve on national committees for archival preservation.

I don't "dismiss" them. I'm simply pointing out they are not trained historians (and their current positions are actually ecclesiastical callings). Let's face it, neither one is a Len Arrington.

Quinn may be trained, but he has one less book published by an academic peer reviewed press (unless you count the queer studies book) than Turley.

Each has one book published by a university press (Quinn has the same-sex attraction book, and Turley has the pro-Church Mark Hofmann book). With the new MMM book, Turley will take a 2-1 lead (although as a co-author). Nevertheless, of the two, Quinn remains the sole trained historian.

[_Mister Scratch]

It is not what I believe. It is what was reported.

The Oct. 12, 1957 Daily Alta California (San Francisco) reported from Los Angeles, on the basis of "the mail rider, and also by some gentlemen who saw the bodies lying on the ground" who "charge the Mormons with the crime, or at least instigating it" the following details:

"The last report states that these immigrants were all from Arkansas and Missouri. They had been troubled by the Indians, who frequented their camp in great numbers; and they resolved to get rid of them. An ox was killed and strychnine put into the meat, which was left where the Indians would find it. It is also said that they poisoned the water, and that several Indians, among them several chiefs, died from the effects of the poison."

Further: "[T]his account is derived from the Indians themselves, who reported the reason for the slaughter, on their arrival at the settlements. [Paragraph] This is the Mormon account of the horrible butchery."

The article says that the mail rider claimed to be a Mormon to escape death from the Indians who "are instructed to kill all who oppose the church."

Bagley's book says that these provocation stories were made up years after the fact, but this Alta newspaper articles proves that they were in currency almost immediately. Whether they were true or not remains a matter of substantial dispute, because we'd have to accept the word of accomplices to mass murder, on the one hand, or virulent anti-Mormons, on the other.

See the article here, but reading it it appears to me that I failed to copy the bottom of the article.

http://s285.photobucket.com/albums/ll41/rcrocket54/


So, anyways, there it is.

As I suspected, you are conflating data. Bagley's "years after the fact" comments refer to the "barbarism" of the emigrants---namely, that they were "profane" and boasting about having been involved in the murder of Joseph Smith. The "poisoning of the Indians" stories are another matter entirely. Obviously, you are trying to lump everything under the same rubric of "barbarism". Thus, your criticism of Bagley is completely misguided and unmerited. You ought to apologize.