Trib article today on MMM
FAWNSCRIBE
Boggle your eyes at the apologies AGAIN
Fawn
Clifford D. Statum
While this is no means justifies MMM, has anyone
every apologized for the Haun's Mill Massacre ?
I didn't think so.
R. L. Measures
fawns...@aol.com (FAWNSCRIBE) wrote:
€ the apologies were lame from the church that is undoubtedly to blame.
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures
R. L. Measures
(Clifford D. Statum) wrote:
€ The Haun's Mill Massacre was not committed by a corporation.
Bryce
"Clifford D. Statum" wrote:
If it's any help, Missouri did recently apologize for Governor Boggs'
extermination order.
Posted from NetWORLD Connections, Inc.
Bryce
FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
"[The massacre] is what it is. In the war atmosphere in which the
tragedy occurred, the people involved, emigrants, militiamen,
Indians,
were what they were -- flawed, fragile and fearful," [Robert Briggs]
said.
Interesting quote, if you recall who was responsible for the "war
atmosphere." Brigham's "conquer or die" mentality simply wouldn't let
him relinquish power to the newly appointed government officials.
CommUnitarian
>While this is no means justifies MMM, has anyone
>every apologized for the Haun's Mill Massacre ?
>I didn't think so.
>
When one has control of media on a national basis, rather than merely
statewide, one can make a massacre disappear. Then one doesn't have to
apologize for it.
Raleigh
Do you see persons wise in their own eyes?
There is more hope for fools than for them.
--Proverbs 26:12 NRSV
CommUnitarian
Measures) writes:
>€ The Haun's Mill Massacre was not committed by a corporation.
Careful, Rich. Do you know when the Corporation of the President was first
incorporated? Hint. Utah was not part of the U.S. and not officially subject to
U.S. law governing formation of corporations in the 1840's.
Prior to incorporation, the prophet's family held title to church property as
trustees. Incorporation appears to have been a step away from cult status, and
from monarchy to oligarchy.
TheJordan6
>Date: 5/19/2001 10:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3b0689e4...@news.netdoor.com>
The man who was responsible for the Haun's Mill massacre was killed on June 27,
1844.
Randy J.
R. L. Measures
grale...@cs.comRLDS (CommUnitarian) wrote:
> In article <2-1905010...@port76.dial.vcnet.com>, 2...@vc.net (R. L.
> Measures) writes:
>
> >€ The Haun's Mill Massacre was not committed by a corporation.
>
> Careful, Rich. Do you know when the Corporation of the President was first
> incorporated? Hint. Utah was not part of the U.S. and not officially
subject to
> U.S. law governing formation of corporations in the 1840's.
>
> Prior to incorporation, the prophet's family held title to church property as
> trustees. Incorporation appears to have been a step away from cult status, and
> from monarchy to oligarchy.
>
€ thanks, Raleigh. I should have said 'by an organized religion'.
cheers
R. L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
€ Randy J. scores one bull's eye.
Darrick Evenson
as the Missouri Wildcats apologize for killing Indian children (which is the
ultimate cause). Oops,forgot, the Missouri Wildcats were dead!
Darrick
fawns...@aol.com (FAWNSCRIBE) wrote in message news:<20010519093551...@ng-xc1.aol.com>...
Glenn Thigpen
> In article <3b0689e4...@news.netdoor.com>, clif...@netdoor.com
> (Clifford D. Statum) wrote:
>
> > On 19 May 2001 13:35:51 GMT, fawns...@aol.com (FAWNSCRIBE) wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.sltrib.com/05192001/utah/98518.htm
> > >
> > >Boggle your eyes at the apologies AGAIN
> > >Fawn
> >
> > While this is no means justifies MMM, has anyone
> > every apologized for the Haun's Mill Massacre ?
> > I didn't think so.
>
> ? The Haun's Mill Massacre was not committed by a corporation.
>
Neither was the MMM.
Glenn
CharlesSWaters
FAWNSCRIBE <fawns...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010519093551...@ng-xc1.aol.com...
Couple of things. I myself don't believe that the Paiutes were involved in
the killings.
On the other hand, the state of Utah did not exist at the time and hence
calls for the state to apologize are useless.
I would like to see the evidence exhumed and reexamined without coercion to
reach some predetermined conclusion.
Anyway, the excuse that this wagon train(s) was guilty of doing in PPP is
garbage, and anyone who was involved in persecuting Saints in Missouri would
have to be at least about 20 years old to have even been breathing at the
time, so killing anyone between 8 and 20 was pure murder.
The advancing US army was not a positive event.
Cheers,
Charles
CharlesSWaters
Clifford D. Statum <clif...@netdoor.com> wrote in message
news:3b0689e4...@news.netdoor.com...
Bulls**t response. The murderous God of the Old Testament who became the
Loving God of the New Testament (after enduring what men endure) would not
have approved the murder of people who aren't even alive for Haun's Mill (or
were children then) - that includes most of the wagon party.
Cheers,
Charles
CharlesSWaters
TheJordan6 <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010519202416...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
Actually this 'man' sent a message to the leader of Haun's Mill to gather
with the rest of the saints. If that leader had obeyed that 'man', there
would have been no Haun's Mill massacre.
Cheers,
Charles
M Empey
Executive Order Number 44, aka the "extermination order", was formally
rescinded by governor Christopher Bond of Missouri on June 25,
1976....
John Manning
The Mountain Meadows Massacre is just one of the lovely examples of the
'God's one true church'.
'FINAL' Doctrine about Black persons ala Brigham Young, aka, "Prophet of
God".
Polygamy.
False prophesies.
Masonic rituals in the name of Christ.
'Special' underwear.
Danite murders and terrorism.
Adultery by Joseph Smith.
Changes in doctrine (on-going).
'Corrections' to the Bible.
Lying about polygamy by the "Prophet of God", Joseph Smith.
Money requirements for attendance in "God's temple" AND TO GET TO
HEAVEN!?!.
Non existent elephants in the Book of Mormon. (Steel swords, chariots,
wheels, silk, horses [according to the book, in the millions], etc. -
also nonexistent.)
No Hebrew DNA in American Indians (as claimed in BOM times).
Book of Abraham absurdly illegitimate.
---
Please add to the list.
---
The arrogance and smug self-assuredness of this group is truly a sight
to see. Thought control works for these suckers.
John Manning
P.S. I was criticized for referring to the LDS Church as being like the
Nazis. The Nazis were more obvious in their open statements about others
(Jews, etc.). The LDS Church reaches early, the minds of children; the
family unit - and perpetuates a program of continuous on-going social,
'spiritual', political and economic indoctrination in the name of Jesus
Christ.
All you need to do is to read the hundreds of statements of LDS members
who have left and survived. Their horror is expressed in their own
words. There are numerous places. One of them is http:www\exmormon.org
Bryce
CommUnitarian wrote:
> In article <3b0689e4...@news.netdoor.com>, clif...@netdoor.com (Clifford
> D. Statum) writes:
>
> >While this is no means justifies MMM, has anyone
> >every apologized for the Haun's Mill Massacre ?
> >I didn't think so.
> >
>
> When one has control of media on a national basis, rather than merely
> statewide, one can make a massacre disappear. Then one doesn't have to
> apologize for it.
Whatever feeds your persecution complex, Comm. BTW, would you please be so kind
as to tell the group just who this sinister man was who had control of each of
America's hundreds of independent newspapers?
I'll bet you five hundred ARM points that, if we consulted the record, Haun's
Mill was widely reported by most of the newspapers in Missouri. Double or nothing
says that at least three-fourths of the editorials categorically condemned the
massacre.
We do have ARM points, don't we?
John Manning
John Manning
R. L. Measures
darrick...@yahoo.com (Darrick Evenson) wrote:
> The Mormon Church should apologize for the Mountain Meadows Massacre as soon
> as the Missouri Wildcats apologize for killing Indian children (which is the
> ultimate cause). Oops,forgot, the Missouri Wildcats were dead!
> Darrick
>
€ now there's a new one.
R. L. Measures
<glen...@beaufortco.com> wrote:
€ thanks, Glenn. The Corporation of the FP came later. I should have
said '... by an organized religion'.
cheers
> Glenn
R. L. Measures
<joh...@cableone.net> wrote:
> FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
> >
> > http://www.sltrib.com/05192001/utah/98518.htm
> >
> > Boggle your eyes at the apologies AGAIN
> > Fawn
>
> The Mountain Meadows Massacre is just one of the lovely examples of the
> 'God's one true church'.
>
> 'FINAL' Doctrine about Black persons ala Brigham Young, aka, "Prophet of
> God".
>
> Polygamy.
>
> False prophesies.
>
> Masonic rituals in the name of Christ.
>
> 'Special' underwear.
>
> Danite murders and terrorism.
>
> Adultery by Joseph Smith.
€ I have never seen any evidence that Joseph Smith, Junior's father was
a womanizer.
> ...
cheers
Tyler Waite
> I would like to see the evidence exhumed and reexamined without coercion to
> reach some predetermined conclusion.
what would be the point of reexamining the evidence if the conclusions to come out of the reexamination were predetermined?
Do you mean establishing the goals of the research ahead of time?
FAWNSCRIBE
Message-id: <3b0689e4...@news.netdoor.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let the one TRUE church then lead the way in how to do the honorable thing
correct?
The church claims to be true and then will not apologize for zip...even I was
raised to say "I'm sorry " if I accidentally bumped an old lady in the street
for Petes sake...If I bumped her and she fell and it was her FAULT for getting
in my way I would still say"I am so sorry..I didn't mean to hurt you..Let me
help you up"
This is sad and outrageous.
There have been countless massacres of folks ( especially Indians ) where
apologies were few and far between....but then again, ANYONE who would do such
things should apologize..but most WON'T if their PR image is more important
than decency
Fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
Date: 5/19/2001 6:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <4ac0bf57.01051...@posting.google.com>
The Mormon Church should apologize for the Mountain Meadows Massacre as soon
as the Missouri Wildcats apologize for killing Indian children (which is the
ultimate cause). Oops,forgot, the Missouri Wildcats were dead!
Darrick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Have the Missouri wildcats ever claimed to be the one TRUE church and lead the
way spiritually?
Fawn
Glenn Thigpen
> In article <3B074134...@beaufortco.com>, Glenn Thigpen
> <glen...@beaufortco.com> wrote:
>
> > "R. L. Measures" wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3b0689e4...@news.netdoor.com>, clif...@netdoor.com
> > > (Clifford D. Statum) wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 19 May 2001 13:35:51 GMT, fawns...@aol.com (FAWNSCRIBE) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >http://www.sltrib.com/05192001/utah/98518.htm
> > > > >
> > > > >Boggle your eyes at the apologies AGAIN
> > > > >Fawn
> > > >
> > > > While this is no means justifies MMM, has anyone
> > > > every apologized for the Haun's Mill Massacre ?
> > > > I didn't think so.
> > >
> > > ? The Haun's Mill Massacre was not committed by a corporation.
> > >
> >
> > Neither was the MMM.
> >
> ? thanks, Glenn. The Corporation of the FP came later. I should have
> said '... by an organized religion'.
>
Now if you change that to read "by some members of an organized religion"
plus a few Indians, you will be pretty much on the money.
Glenn
FAWNSCRIBE
Date: 5/20/2001 6:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <3B087069...@beaufortco.com>
"R. L. Measures" wrote:
Glenn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have had MORE than enough evidence as to where the road leads Glenn..and
the LDS church has tiptoed around this just enough to let any reasonable
person see there is something wrong with the whole presnetation of this.
You make this out to be like these were a few lone rangers out there who were
bad boys.
Does the LDS church make speeches at monument sites and do major refutations
when a few lone ranger LDS TODAY get into some scrapes with the law?
This is a BIG stink..and Randy has shonw enough evidence that can hammer the
last nail..but you wont buy it because your faith in the church is stronger
than your desire to trust honesty
Fawn
R. L. Measures
<glen...@beaufortco.com> wrote:
€ true enough provided:
1. you don't leave out that the killers were only following orders from
higher up.
2. the Paiutes were paid according to their contract with Brigham.
TheJordan6
>Date: 5/19/2001 9:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9e7ck...@enews2.newsguy.com>
Jacob Haun had entered into a mutual agreement with local non-Mormons to live
peacefully with each other. Therefore, Haun had no reason to fear. But what
Haun didn't know is that Smith and Rigdon had ordered out the "Danites" to burn
and pillage "Gentile" towns of MIllport and Gallatin, and to "consecrate" the
plunder to the "bishop's storehouse" in Far West.
If the Haun's Mill settlers had removed to Far West, they might have been
killed in the expected battle there. Smith and the "Danites" had retreated
into the town, and fortified it in anticipation of a battle "to the death."
It was only the coolheaded thinking of Mormon militia leader George Hinkle, and
the sensible negotiations by John Corrill and Redd Peck, that prevented a much
larger and devastating battle in Far West. If not for those men, whom Mormon
apologists now describe as "apostates," Joseph Smith and about 800 other
Mormons could have met their doom that day.
The reason that the (unauthorized, renegade) band of Missourians attacked the
Haun's Mill settlement was retaliation for the "Danite" raids. It was in
effect, a vigilante action. Obviously, the murder of innocents is tragic, and
cannot be excused; but the Missourians were motivated by the fact that the
Mormon population had burgeoned from 1,500 to about 12,000 during the year;
Mormons bloc voted in the August elections, in order to control all local
legislative and judicial seats, which would have eventually resulted in the
Missouri settlers being forced to leave the area; and the Mormons had boasted
since 1833 that the entire state of Missouri was to become their "New
Jerusalem," and that all non-believers must leave. The "Danite" burnings and
lootings drove the Missourians over the edge.
They had had enough of the Mormons' arrogant boasts, threats, and stealing, and
they treated the Haun's Mill Mormons as if they had been Smith or Rigdon
themselves.
(It's relevant to know that official state militiamen happened upon the scene
the day after the massacre, and they cared for the survivors, catching and
killing a hog for their use.)
It was Joseph Smith's promise of a "war of blood and gore from the Rocky
Mountains to the Atlantic," and Sidney Rigdon's threat of a "war of
extermination," that riled the Missourians to the point of committing the
massacre. Smith and Rigdon wanted a war, and they got one. Therefore, if you
want to blame anyone for the incident, blame the people who prosecuted the war.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>last nail..but you wont buy it because your faith in the church is stronger
>than your desire to trust honesty
>Fawn
Don't confuse "faith" with "brainwashing," Fawn.
Randy J.
Glenn Thigpen
>
> You have had MORE than enough evidence as to where the road leads Glenn..and
> the LDS church has tiptoed around this just enough to let any reasonable
> person see there is something wrong with the whole presnetation of this.
> You make this out to be like these were a few lone rangers out there who were
> bad boys.
> Does the LDS church make speeches at monument sites and do major refutations
> when a few lone ranger LDS TODAY get into some scrapes with the law?
> This is a BIG stink..and Randy has shonw enough evidence that can hammer the
> last nail..but you wont buy it because your faith in the church is stronger
> than your desire to trust honesty
> Fawn
Where is the honesty to trust, Fawn? Randy showed no evidence. His only
witness was John D. Lee, but Randy himself said that you could not trust the
testimony of someone who is guilty. (Even Lee did not say that Brigham Young was
the mastermind of the affair, he only stated it as his opinion.) For you, or
anyone else to buy into Randy's version of the truth, you have to accept as
gospel anything said against Brigham Young and totally ignore anything he or
anyone else says in his behalf. You also have to misread what Brigham was saying
in his journal about he Indians he met with in the first part of September.
And you also have to paint Brigham Young as an incredibly stupid man (which
he was most definitely not) to perpretrate something like the MMM when he knew
that an American calvalry detachment was already on the way for what purpose
Brigham did not know at the time, but felt that it was an invasion.
I would only hope that you are never before a jury that would be willing to
condemn you on such flimsy evidence, and flimsy it is.
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
It also happens in the reverse, Randy.
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
> ? true enough provided:
> 1. you don't leave out that the killers were only following orders from
> higher up.
> 2. the Paiutes were paid according to their contract with Brigham.
>
Orders from higher up? By whose word do we know this?
What contract and what evidence do you have of a contract and the payment
thereof?
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
> >From: "CharlesSWaters" cswater...@newsguy.com
> >Date: 5/19/2001 9:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <9e7ck...@enews2.newsguy.com>
> >
> >
> >TheJordan6 <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20010519202416...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
> >> >From: clif...@netdoor.com (Clifford D. Statum)
> >> >Date: 5/19/2001 10:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >> >Message-id: <3b0689e4...@news.netdoor.com>
> >> >
> >> >On 19 May 2001 13:35:51 GMT, fawns...@aol.com (FAWNSCRIBE) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>http://www.sltrib.com/05192001/utah/98518.htm
> >> >>
> >> >>Boggle your eyes at the apologies AGAIN
> >> >>Fawn
> >> >
> >> >While this is no means justifies MMM, has anyone
> >> >every apologized for the Haun's Mill Massacre ?
> >> >I didn't think so.
> >>
> >> The man who was responsible for the Haun's Mill massacre was killed on
> >June 27,
> >> 1844.
> >
> >Actually this 'man' sent a message to the leader of Haun's Mill to gather
> >with the rest of the saints. If that leader had obeyed that 'man', there
> >would have been no Haun's Mill massacre.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Charles
>
>
> Randy J.
>
<snip all Randy;s fiction. woops, there's nothing left, except his name )
Glenn
FAWNSCRIBE
Message-id: <3B09AC8D...@beaufortco.com>
FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
Glenn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Circumstantial evidence can be FAR more damning that eyewitness evidence and i
HAVE sat on jury trials and the evidence offered about where this rigamarole of
a cover up leads is plain to those who have no vested INTEREST in anything but
the truth.
Trust misplaced is no virtue Glenn.
I didnt buy into Randys VERSION of truth..the material on the MMM is quite
extensive..and damning enough to have the LDS Church hierarchy give little
shivers of nervousness.
I dont thibk BY was stupid at all..I think he was crafty, cunning and a pompous
blowhard who would as soon as wipe out those he didnt like as whistle Dixie.
The evidence is FAR from flimsy but I think ( and i do like you..you are one of
my faves on ARM)...that short of Brigham saying in a journal
"I DID it!.And I'd do it again".you wouldnt believe it..and then if that WAS
penned in his journal..you'd say evil people with evil designs on truth set
the poor man up.
If you substituted ANYONES name BUT Brighams in this whole scenaario you'd be
crying for the FBI to investigate
Fawn
Hertzdonut
"R. L. Measures" wrote:
> In article <4ac0bf57.01051...@posting.google.com>,
> darrick...@yahoo.com (Darrick Evenson) wrote:
>
> > The Mormon Church should apologize for the Mountain Meadows Massacre as soon
> > as the Missouri Wildcats apologize for killing Indian children (which is the
> > ultimate cause). Oops,forgot, the Missouri Wildcats were dead!
> > Darrick
> >
> € now there's a new one.
>
Oh yeah? And what about Ted Bundy? How can you expect the Mormon Church to
apologize if he doesn't.
This is called reducto ad absurdum-- taking the structure of someone's argument
and showing that it can produce absurd conclusions.
R. L. Measures
<glen...@beaufortco.com> wrote:
> "R. L. Measures" wrote:
>
> > ? true enough provided:
> > 1. you don't leave out that the killers were only following orders from
> > higher up.
> > 2. the Paiutes were paid according to their contract with Brigham.
> >
>
> Orders from higher up? By whose word do we know this?
€ We know this by knowing that the organization has a military-type chain
of command. I.E., - the commander-in-chief controls all. John D. Lee
said the orders came from higher ups. Juanita Brooks said that the orders
had to have come from higher ups. If there had been a faction of
mormonite renegades who killed 120 men, women and children on their own
volition, Brigham would have excommunicated them ASAP.
> What contract and what evidence do you have of a contract and the payment
> thereof?
>
€ After the massacre, the Paiutes reportedly received payment in
livestock and $3500 worth of goods from the injun agent -- Brigham.
cheers, Glenn
R. L. Measures
<glen...@beaufortco.com> wrote:
€ The painful truth.
Clovis Lark
Had Brigham been blessed with the same prosecution that finished John
Gotti's career, he'd have entered the clink forthwith. It would not have
taken a very savvy man to have ferretted out the fact that no significant
armed action took place in the Ootah territory without BY's approval. It
would have taken little effort to show the behavior of BY up to a year
after the event, a period in which he gladly took full possession of all
the cattle and other booty gleaned from the massacre and which concluded
with his personally supervised vandalizing of the memorial. Make no
mistake about it, BY was every bit the gangster.
> Glenn
CharlesSWaters
Glenn Thigpen <glen...@beaufortco.com> wrote in message
news:3B09ADEF...@beaufortco.com...
It's not all *fiction*. Read the book, "The 1838 Missouri War".
Cheers,
Charles
TheJordan6
>Date: Mon, May 21, 2001 20:08 EDT
>Message-id: <3B09ADEF...@beaufortco.com>
For those who aren't mind-numbed Mobots like Glenn---You can find the
documentation on every point in my post from the following sources:
"The Restored Church," by William R. Berrett
"The Papers of Joseph Smith," edited by Dean Jessee
"Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God, Son of Thunder," by Harold Schindler
"Senate Document 189---Testimony Given Before the Judge of the Fifth Judicial
Circuit of the State of Missouri, On the Trial of Joseph Smith, Jr., and
Others, For High Treason, and Other Crimes Against That State"
"The Reed Peck Manuscript"
"History of the Church of Jesus Christ," by Bishop John Corrill"
"History of the Church," by John Whitmer
"An Address To All Believers in Christ," by David Whitmer
"The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri," by Stephen C. LeSueur
"A History of the Latter-Day Saints in Northern Missouri from 1836 to 1839," by
Leland Gentry
"The Gathering of Zion," by Wallace Stegner
"Kingdom of the Saints," by Ray B. West
"No Man Knows My History," by Fawn M. Brodie
"The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power," by Michael Quinn
"The Story of the Latter-Day Saints," by James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard
for starters.
Or, you can remain brainwashed like Glenn.
Randy J.
Clifford D. Statum
Here's a little problem I have with the MMM affair.
Assuming that BY did have nothing to do with
planning the massacre, why is it that only John D.
Lee was executed ? You would think that BY
would have taken some measures against the
participants, excommunication if not arrest for
murder.
R. L. Measures
<hertz...@nomail.ooo> wrote:
> "R. L. Measures" wrote:
>
> > In article <4ac0bf57.01051...@posting.google.com>,
> > darrick...@yahoo.com (Darrick Evenson) wrote:
> >
> > > The Mormon Church should apologize for the Mountain Meadows Massacre
as soon
> > > as the Missouri Wildcats apologize for killing Indian children
(which is the
> > > ultimate cause). Oops,forgot, the Missouri Wildcats were dead!
> > > Darrick
> > >
> > € now there's a new one.
> >
>
> Oh yeah? And what about Ted Bundy?
€ Ted was toasted in Florida's electric chair.
>How can you expect the Mormon Church to
> apologize if he doesn't.
>
€ The lds church still exists. Ted was burnt to a crisp.
cheers, Mr/Mrs/Miss H.
> This is called reducto ad absurdum-- taking the structure of someone's
argument
> and showing that it can produce absurd conclusions.
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures
M Empey
It is amusing to watch the wrangling over how the facts relative to
the MMM should be interpreted, because neither side wants to
acknowledge the whole truth. Here it is per J Brooks:
FACT: Brigham Young and George A Smith did not specifically order the
masssacre.
FACT: Church leaders fanned the flames of war hysteria which made the
massacre possible.
FACT: The Fancher Party was most unfortunate in passing through when
war hysteria was at its height.
FACT: The Fancher Party's own attitude, temperament, and reckless acts
fanned the frenzy and helped provoke the violence against them.
FACT: Brigham Young did not order the massacre and would have
prevented it if he could.
FACT: Brigham Young was accessory after the fact in that he knew what
had happened and how.
FACT: Church leaders made Lee a token sacrifice when they realized
that they could not acquit him without taking some responsibility
themselves.
It's time for both sides to stop being so selective about the truth in
this matter, and stop using it to further their own agendas. It's
only fair to all those involved....
R. L. Measures
<cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
€ Well put, Clovis. To me, the most hilarious thing about this
megalomaniac-murderer is that he supposedly has to approve each person
before he/she is allowed to enter heaven -- no foolin'.
Glenn Thigpen
My point was not whether you have sat on jury trials as a jurist. I was making
the statement that I hope that you never face a jury, as a defendant. that would
be as willing to convict on such flimsy evidence as has been posted against
Brigham Young and the MMM. Agreed that circumstantial evidence can be damning, but
you cannot show me anyone here on this newsgroup that has no bias in this
situation.
>
> Trust misplaced is no virtue Glenn.
And where are you placing your trust in this situation?
>
> I didnt buy into Randys VERSION of truth..the material on the MMM is quite
> extensive..and damning enough to have the LDS Church hierarchy give little
> shivers of nervousness.
The material on the MMM is quite extensive, but the actual facts that anyone
has in their possession are very meager. We know that the MMM happened, and we
know some of the participants in the affair. But you have nothing beyond that
except speculation.
>
> I dont thibk BY was stupid at all..I think he was crafty, cunning and a pompous
> blowhard who would as soon as wipe out those he didnt like as whistle Dixie.
> The evidence is FAR from flimsy
Fawn, please give me your evidence. I mean real facts.
> but I think ( and i do like you..you are one of
> my faves on ARM)...that short of Brigham saying in a journal
> "I DID it!.And I'd do it again".you wouldnt believe it..and then if that WAS
> penned in his journal..you'd say evil people with evil designs on truth set
> the poor man up.
Fawn, you are entitled to your opinion about Brigham Young. But how much of
your opinion is based upon real facts? How much of the writings of Brigham Young
have you actually read? Is your opinion based upon a balanced information
retrieval?
>
> If you substituted ANYONES name BUT Brighams in this whole scenaario you'd be
> crying for the FBI to investigate
> Fawn
Fawn, I am more interested in facts than opinions. As I noted before, for your
sceanario of the MMM with Brigham Young as the mastermind is based upon a worst
case assessment of Brigham Young's character and motives. It ignores any
exculpatory information that has been presented and accepts as fact a fictional
scenario. If I err, I would rather err on the side which says "judge ye not that
ye be not judged".
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
>
> Here's a little problem I have with the MMM affair.
> Assuming that BY did have nothing to do with
> planning the massacre, why is it that only John D.
> Lee was executed ? You would think that BY
> would have taken some measures against the
> participants, excommunication if not arrest for
> murder.
It is my understanding that John D. Lee WAS excommunicated. From what I have been
able to ascertain, there were others who were being sought that went into hiding.
Brigham Young was replaced as governor of the Utah territory shortly thereafter and
had no control over any investigation.
There are many more questions than for which we have the answers. Everyone here
on a.r.m. likes to roll their own.
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
> In article <3B09AD67...@beaufortco.com>, Glenn Thigpen
> <glen...@beaufortco.com> wrote:
>
> > "R. L. Measures" wrote:
> >
> > > ? true enough provided:
> > > 1. you don't leave out that the killers were only following orders from
> > > higher up.
> > > 2. the Paiutes were paid according to their contract with Brigham.
> > >
> >
> > Orders from higher up? By whose word do we know this?
>
> ? We know this by knowing that the organization has a military-type chain
> of command. I.E., - the commander-in-chief controls all. John D. Lee
> said the orders came from higher ups.
I've been in the military Rich, and the church organization is not a
military chain-of-command style of organization nor authoritarian in nature. But
thanks for cluing me into your thought processes.
> Juanita Brooks said that the orders
> had to have come from higher ups.
However she was stating her opinion, which still does not equal fact. Even in
the military, I have personally known of acts which were carried out without
orders from higher up and subsequent investigations by the higher ups were
unable to crack the code of silence to find the ringleaders. Then there have
been instances where actions have been taken where the higher ups actually
caused the action to take place but denied doing so, leaving the subordinates to
take the blame. The first point here is that higher ups in a military
organization do not rigid control over their organization. The larger the
organization and more widely dispersed, the less actual control is maintained by
any central authority, especially when the communications take days to be
effected. The second point here is that when a local action takes place, it is
not a given that the central authority has cognizance or control of it.
> If there had been a faction of
> mormonite renegades who killed 120 men, women and children on their own
> volition, Brigham would have excommunicated them ASAP.
Some of them were excommunicated. But the names of a the majority are not
known to this day, only surmised. I do not think Brigham wanted to learn the
full truth here. That is what he stated in his deposition. He did not want to
know any of the details. The governor that was appointed to replace Brigham
Young and the territorial federal judges were the ones responsible for the
criminal investigation.
>
>
> > What contract and what evidence do you have of a contract and the payment
> > thereof?
> >
> ? After the massacre, the Paiutes reportedly received payment in
> livestock and $3500 worth of goods from the injun agent -- Brigham.
>
> cheers, Glenn
I take your "reportedly" under advisement.
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
> ? The painful truth.
Does Randy's name hurt him?
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
> > <snip all Randy;s fiction. woops, there's nothing left, except his name )
> >
> > Glenn
Then
CharlesSWaters wrote:
>
>
> It's not all *fiction*. Read the book, "The 1838 Missouri War".
>
> Cheers,
> Charles
Who wrote the book?
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
Ad hominem now. When maladroit reason fails.
Glenn
CharlesSWaters
I've heard or read that he was reinstated posthumously.
Cheers,
Charles
CharlesSWaters
> Glenn woops it up:
>
> > > <snip all Randy;s fiction. woops, there's nothing left, except his
name )
> > >
> > > Glenn
>
> Then
> CharlesSWaters wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > It's not all *fiction*. Read the book, "The 1838 Missouri War".
> Who wrote the book?
The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri
by Stephen C. Lesueur
University of Missouri Press; ISBN: 0826207294
There is also a BYU studies article on this, but it preceded the Lesueur
book by several years and consequently had less material to work with.
Cheers,
Charles
R. L. Measures
<glen...@beaufortco.com> wrote:
> "R. L. Measures" wrote:
>
> > In article <3B09AD67...@beaufortco.com>, Glenn Thigpen
> > <glen...@beaufortco.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "R. L. Measures" wrote:
> > >
> > > > ? true enough provided:
> > > > 1. you don't leave out that the killers were only following
orders from
> > > > higher up.
> > > > 2. the Paiutes were paid according to their contract with Brigham.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Orders from higher up? By whose word do we know this?
> >
> > ? We know this by knowing that the organization has a military-type chain
> > of command. I.E., - the commander-in-chief controls all. John D. Lee
> > said the orders came from higher ups.
>
> I've been in the military Rich, and the church organization is not a
> military chain-of-command style of organization nor authoritarian in nature.
€ So the LDS church President really and truly does not control the
organization.?
>But thanks for cluing me into your thought processes.
>
€ yeah, right.
> > Juanita Brooks said that the orders
> > had to have come from higher ups.
>
> However she was stating her opinion, which still does not equal fact. ...
>
€ If the murderers at MM had been renegades, Brigham would have ex'ed the lot.
Obviously, he did not. Haight was temporarily ex'ed.
> Some of them were excommunicated.
€ two
But the names of a the majority are not
> known to this day, only surmised. I do not think Brigham wanted to learn the
> full truth here. That is what he stated in his deposition. He did not want to
> know any of the details. The governor that was appointed to replace Brigham
> Young and the territorial federal judges were the ones responsible for the
> criminal investigation.
>
€ Brigham was somewhat less than truthful in the 'Deseret Times' newspaper.
> >
> > > What contract and what evidence do you have of a contract and the
payment
> > > thereof?
> > >
> > ? After the massacre, the Paiutes reportedly received payment in
> > livestock and $3500 worth of goods from the injun agent -- Brigham.
> >
> > cheers, Glenn
>
> I take your "reportedly" under advisement.
>
> Glenn
€/chortle/
Clovis Lark
We know about forensics done on the remains of children. We know about
BY's taking of the spoils and payment with these spoils to certain
parties. We know about the manner of dealing with things BY didn't stand
for as dictated by Hickman. We know BY's insistance on being informed of
all significant doings in the territory. We know BY didn't think much of a
memorial to the slain nor of the federal troops' oath to avenge these
deaths. We know BY, as ultimate authority in the state, did not make any
effort to uncover the individuals who did the killings (nnot one
excommunication, only one charged--20 years after the fact). We know about
the slandering of the Paiute Nation. Don't leave these things out, eh?
Clovis Lark
HE did sport the St. Peter-built beard...
TheJordan6
>Date: Tue, May 22, 2001 21:44 EDT
>Message-id: <3B0B1615...@beaufortco.com>
Let's recap:
I wrote a post detailing the causes for, and results of, the Haun's Mill
massacre. I glean my knowledge of such events from numerous historical
sources, including testimonies of first-hand witnesses and participants, and
scholarly works of LDS historians.
The sum total of your response to my post is "snip all Randy's fiction. woops
there's nothing left except his name."
Your assertion that my post was "fiction" is the product of your abject
ignorance of Mormon history.
Therefore, your inappropriate, inapplicable opinion of my post's content was an
"ad hominem" against me.
I provided a list of 15 published works wherein you, or anyone else interested
in this subject, can go and learn the information for themselves. I gave you
the option of learning it for yourself, so that you won't appear so ignorant
here on ARM, or not learning it, so that you can remain an ignorant,
brainwashed fool. You have obviously chosen the latter option.
You do not hesitate to direct an ad hominem directed at me---an inapplicable
one, at that---but when I return your "favor" by responding with an entirely
appropriate ad hominem (considering your abject ignorance), you act as though
your feelings are hurt. It appears that you can dish it out, but you cannot
take it.
Randy J.
R. L. Measures
<cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
€ aren't beards 'verboten' in the true church?
Bill Williams
"R. L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
news:2-2305011...@port65.dial.vcnet.com...
> > > megalomaniac-murderer is that he supposedly has to approve each person
> > > before he/she is allowed to enter heaven -- no foolin'.
> >
> > HE did sport the St. Peter-built beard...
> >
At least for temple workers. The home teacher that comes to our house (a
fine fellow, BTW) also works in the Detroit temple, which is right next to
the church (and considerably smaller). He had to cut off his beard, which he
really liked, and wasn't too happy about it.
Bill Williams
> - Rich... 805.386.3734.
> www.vcnet.com/measures
Glenn Thigpen
Thanks.
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
>
> Let's recap:
>
> I wrote a post detailing the causes for, and results of, the Haun's Mill
> massacre. I glean my knowledge of such events from numerous historical
> sources, including testimonies of first-hand witnesses and participants, and
> scholarly works of LDS historians.
>
> The sum total of your response to my post is "snip all Randy's fiction. woops
> there's nothing left except his name."
>
>
> Your assertion that my post was "fiction" is the product of your abject
> ignorance of Mormon history.
My assertation that your post was fiction is because you did not give any
references for any of your ramblings for anyone to check your sources.
>
> Therefore, your inappropriate, inapplicable opinion of my post's content was an
> "ad hominem" against me.
Wrong, for the reason I have just given.
>
>
> I provided a list of 15 published works wherein you, or anyone else interested
> in this subject, can go and learn the information for themselves. I gave you
> the option of learning it for yourself, so that you won't appear so ignorant
> here on ARM, or not learning it, so that you can remain an ignorant,
> brainwashed fool. You have obviously chosen the latter option.
I don't care a twit if you listed a thousand different sources for your
information. That is completely useless if you do not give specific references
when you make a post.
>
>
> You do not hesitate to direct an ad hominem directed at me---an inapplicable
> one, at that---but when I return your "favor" by responding with an entirely
> appropriate ad hominem (considering your abject ignorance), you act as though
> your feelings are hurt. It appears that you can dish it out, but you cannot
> take it.
I have never called you brainwashed or anything of the sort. I have pointed out
to you your total lack of references in your posts before. Saying that "I have
read these (insert a number) from which I base my opinions/remarks" is useless in
a post because there is no way that anyone can ascertain anything whether positive
or negative concerning your statements. Until you give specific references for
your assertations, then they are no better than fiction.
Your posts are like me saying the following:
Begin fiction:
"The real stroke of genius that no one to this day credits to O. J. Simpson is
the glove incident. It is also the most damning, because it shows that the murder
of at least his former wife was not a heat of the moment thing, but a planned,
cold-blooded affair. For O. J. to buy a pair of gloves similiar to ones he had
been known to wear, but to buy them too small to fit his hands, then leave one at
the crime scene to be found by the police investigators was a fiendish, but well
conceived idea, which was the springboard to his acquittal. O. J. had no qualms
about trying on that glove, because he knew that it would not fit his hand. And
the prosecution never saw it coming!"
End Fiction:
I don't have a problem with your opinions. I have had some problems in the past
with some of your posts because of just the problem I have indicated in this post.
For instance there was one some time back concerning supposed children of Joseph
Smith by women other than Emma Smith. You said, without references, that Mary
Elizabeth Lightner had confirmed that Joseph indeed had fathered children by other
women. The sum total of your information that you offered to support this was that
Mary had lived at Nauvoo during that period and would have been in a position to
know of such things.
I offered a reference to a piece by one of Brigham Young's daughters having
been taught by her father that members of the quorum of the twelve had taken the
wives that had been sealed to Joseph and fathered children by them, which would be
accounted as Joseph's by the Lord, because he (Joseph) died without issue in the
church. This you dismissed lightly but still accepted as gospel the still
unproduced statement by Mary Lightener that Joseph had fathered children.
I am not debating that issue here. It is irreleveant to my point, which has
already been made.
Glenn
R. L. Measures
<will...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> "R. L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:2-2305011...@port65.dial.vcnet.com...
> > In article <9egnd1$hlr$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
> > <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote:
> > > > In article <9ecnio$u9a$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
> > > > <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>....
> > > > ? Well put, Clovis. To me, the most hilarious thing about this
> > > > megalomaniac-murderer is that he supposedly has to approve each person
> > > > before he/she is allowed to enter heaven -- no foolin'.
> > >
> > > HE did sport the St. Peter-built beard...
> > >
> > ? aren't beards 'verboten' in the true church?
>
> At least for temple workers. The home teacher that comes to our house (a
> fine fellow, BTW) also works in the Detroit temple, which is right next to
> the church (and considerably smaller). He had to cut off his beard, which he
> really liked, and wasn't too happy about it.
>
> Bill Williams
>
€ For me, this would have been walk time.
Lee Paulson
"Bill Williams" <will...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>"R. L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
>news:2-2305011...@port65.dial.vcnet.com...
>> In article <9egnd1$hlr$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
>> <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote:
>> > > In article <9ecnio$u9a$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
>> > > <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> Glenn Thigpen <glen...@beaufortco.com> wrote:
>> > >> > FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >>
>> >
>> ? aren't beards 'verboten' in the true church?
>
>At least for temple workers. The home teacher that comes to our house (a
>fine fellow, BTW) also works in the Detroit temple, which is right next to
>the church (and considerably smaller). He had to cut off his beard, which he
>really liked, and wasn't too happy about it.
>
>Bill Williams
>
Indeed, Bill. I have a friend who is active LDS in Idaho and a
temple worker who just shaved off his beard as well. We had
quite a discussion (actually, he did all the talking; I sort of
uh uh'ed and nodded a lot) the other day about the need to
shave and the implications of that. I truly wouldn't have
thought it such a big deal to this particular person, but for
him it set up some fairly serious questions about the church
leadership. I felt quite bad for him.
Regards,
Lee
Posted from NetWORLD Connections, Inc.
TheJordan6
>Date: 5/23/2001 8:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B0C559A...@beaufortco.com>
>
>TheJordan6 wrote:
>
>>
>> Let's recap:
>>
>> I wrote a post detailing the causes for, and results of, the Haun's Mill
>> massacre. I glean my knowledge of such events from numerous historical
>> sources, including testimonies of first-hand witnesses and participants,
>and
>> scholarly works of LDS historians.
>>
>> The sum total of your response to my post is "snip all Randy's fiction.
>woops
>> there's nothing left except his name."
>> Your assertion that my post was "fiction" is the product of your abject
>> ignorance of Mormon history.
> My assertation that your post was fiction is because you did not give any
>references for any of your ramblings for anyone to check your sources.
Number one: You did not ASK for any references. You simply asserted that my
post was 100% "fiction."
I posted my remarks to Charles Waters in a conversational style, not in
textbook-with-footnotes form.
Notice that Charles Waters didn't ask me for any references, nor did he
challenge my information. The reason he did not is because he is conversant in
Mormon history. The reason YOU challenged my information is because you are
abjectly ignorant on Mormon history.
Anyone who would declare that someone's information is "fiction," without first
researching the material for himself, is an imbecile.
>> Therefore, your inappropriate, inapplicable opinion of my post's content
>was an
>> "ad hominem" against me.
> Wrong, for the reason I have just given.
Your assertion that my post was "fiction" is an ad hominem that questions my
education and/or integrity. It's obvious from reading your posts over the
years that you know very little about Mormon history; therefore, your assertion
that my post was "fiction" is based upon nothing more than your own ignorance.
>> I provided a list of 15 published works wherein you, or anyone else
>interested
>> in this subject, can go and learn the information for themselves. I gave
>you
>> the option of learning it for yourself, so that you won't appear so
>ignorant
>> here on ARM, or not learning it, so that you can remain an ignorant,
>> brainwashed fool. You have obviously chosen the latter option.
>I don't care a twit if you listed a thousand different sources for your
>information.
Of course not! God FORBID that you should actually crack a book, and learn
something for yourself! It might actually cause you to THINK, which is
verboten for Mormons.
>That is completely useless if you do not give specific
>references
>when you make a post.
Neither YOU, nor ANYONE ELSE asked for any references, SPECIFIC OR OTHERWISE,
and you STILL have not. You simply declared that my information was "fiction,"
from your position of total ignorance.
I have given you a list of 15 works that you can read at your leisure, and
determine the accuracy of my post. At least two of them, John Corrill's
history and Reed Peck's manuscript, are on Bill Williams' website. Have at it.
>> You do not hesitate to direct an ad hominem directed at me---an
>inapplicable
>> one, at that---but when I return your "favor" by responding with an
>entirely
>> appropriate ad hominem (considering your abject ignorance), you act as
>though
>> your feelings are hurt. It appears that you can dish it out, but you
>cannot
>> take it.
> I have never called you brainwashed or anything of the sort.
That's good, because if you did, it would be an ad hominem. Ad hominems are
only inappropriate if they are untruthful. That's why I don't hesitate to call
you a brainwashed fanatic.
>I have
>pointed out
>to you your total lack of references in your posts before. Saying that "I
>have
>read these (insert a number) from which I base my opinions/remarks" is
>useless in
>a post because there is no way that anyone can ascertain anything whether
>positive
>or negative concerning your statements.
But there IS a way, Glenn! You can actually READ THEM FOR YOURSELF!
>Until you give specific references
>for
>your assertations, then they are no better than fiction.
One more time: You have not asked for references. The fact that I wrote a
post in a conversational style, based upon my vast knowledge of Mormon history,
off the top of my head, rather than writing in a textbook style (which I
sometimes do,) does not make the information in my post fiction. When YOU call
my post "fiction," without knowing anything about the subject yourself, all
you're doing is showing us that you're a dumbass.
> Your posts are like me saying the following:
> Begin fiction:
> "The real stroke of genius that no one to this day credits to O. J.
>Simpson is
>the glove incident. It is also the most damning, because it shows that the
>murder
>of at least his former wife was not a heat of the moment thing, but a
>planned,
>cold-blooded affair. For O. J. to buy a pair of gloves similiar to ones he
>had
>been known to wear, but to buy them too small to fit his hands, then leave
>one at
>the crime scene to be found by the police investigators was a fiendish, but
>well
>conceived idea, which was the springboard to his acquittal. O. J. had no
>qualms
>about trying on that glove, because he knew that it would not fit his hand.
>And
>the prosecution never saw it coming!"
> End Fiction:
I seen no relevance to this whatsoever.
> I don't have a problem with your opinions. I have had some problems in the
>past
>with some of your posts because of just the problem I have indicated in this
>post.
Perhaps if you'd ask me for references, rather than simply declaring my words
"fiction," you could solve your "problem."
However, past experience shows that when I, or any other rational posters on
ARM provide exhaustive references on a subject, the knee-jerk response from
Mobots such as yourself is to simply question the motives or credibility of the
source. You and your ilk simply discard any source, regardless if it's
pro-Mormon, anti-Mormon, or neutral, if it disagrees with your predetermined
position. And that is what makes you a brainwashed fanatic.
>For instance there was one some time back concerning supposed children of
>Joseph
>Smith by women other than Emma Smith.
Yes, I've written numerous posts on that subject.
>You said, without references, that Mary
>Elizabeth Lightner had confirmed that Joseph indeed had fathered children by
>other
>women.
With that, you have made a liar out of yourself, because I have provided both
the text and the reference to Lightner's remarks many times.
If you wish to challenge that, I'll dig the posts out of my file cabinet where
I documented it for "Brickwall" Guy Briggs. If you don't want me to do that,
here's the text once again:
Joseph came up the next Sabbath. He said, "Have you had a witness yet?" "No."
"Well," said he, "the angel expressly told me you should have." Said I, "I have
not had a witness, but I have seen something I have never seen before. I saw an
angel and I was frightened almost to death. I did not speak." He studied a
while and put his elbows on his knees and his face in his hands. He looked up
and said, "How could you have been such a coward?" Said I, "I was weak." "Did
you think to say, `Father, help me?'" "No." "Well, if you had just said that,
your mouth would have been opened for that was an angel of the living God. He
came to you with more knowledge, intelligence, and light than I have ever dared
to reveal." I said, "If that was an angel of light, why did he not speak to
me?" "You covered your face and for this reason the angel was insulted." Said
I, "Will it ever come again?" He thought a moment and then said, "No, not the
same one, but if you are faithful you shall see greater things than that." And
then he gave me three signs of what would take place in my own family, although
my husband was far away from me at the time. Every work came true. I went
forward and was sealed to him. Brigham Young performed the sealing, and Heber
C. Kimball the blessing. I know he had six wives and I have known some of them
from childhood up. I knew he had three children. They told me. I think two are
living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names.
End quote.
Here, once again, is where you can read Lightner's complete address on the web:
http://www.math.byu.edu/~smithw/Lds/LDS/Early-Saints/MLightner.html
(At this point, if we go by your past history, you will declare Mary Lightner
to be an "anti-Mormon", and declare BYU's website to be an "anti-Mormon"
source, because that's what you do with any source that disagrees with your
predetermined conclusions. That's what makes you a brainwashed fanatic.)
>The sum total of your information that you offered to support this was
>that
>Mary had lived at Nauvoo during that period and would have been in a position
>to
>know of such things.
I don't recall writing that at all. Perhaps you have me confused with some
other poster who is not as knowledgeable as myself.
However, seeing as how Lightner was one of Joseph Smith's "plural wives," and
was in the "inner circle" of his private life in Nauvoo, that's reason enough
to trust her credibility. If you want to know more about Lightner than you do
at present (which is practically nil), then you can study the 22 pages Todd
Compton spends on her life in his "In Sacred Loneliness."
> I offered a reference to a piece by one of Brigham Young's daughters
>having
>been taught by her father that members of the quorum of the twelve had taken
>the
>wives that had been sealed to Joseph and fathered children by them, which
>would be
>accounted as Joseph's by the Lord, because he (Joseph) died without issue in
>the
>church.
Funny, I've posted the same reference, from Susa Young Gates.
>This you dismissed lightly
Talk about "fiction!" I did no such thing. You either have a piss-poor
memory, or you're an unabashed liar. Guy Briggs engaged in a months-long rant,
trying to challenge the issue of Smith's siring of extra-marital children, and
I quoted Susa Young Gates' remarks to show Guy that reproduction was a regular,
normal part of Smith's "plural marriage" system. Guy doesn't wish to believe
that Smith had sex with anyone other than Emma.
Compton quotes Gates' remarks on page 661 of "In Sacred Loneliness."
>but still accepted as gospel the still
>unproduced statement by Mary Lightner that Joseph had fathered children.
Seeing as how I've quoted Lightner's statement several times, and given the
reference for it several times, (and I have just done it again), your assertion
that it is an "unproduced statement" on my part is utterly false.
Now Glenn, do you wish to accuse anyone else of writing "fiction?" 'Cause it
sounds as though you need to take a look at your OWN honesty before you take it
upon yourself to question anyone else's.
> I am not debating that issue here. It is irrelevant to my point, which
>has
>already been made.
>
>Glenn
NO, no relevancy AT ALL!!!
First, you bring up a charge against me that is totally false; and then, you
declare that it's "irrelevant!"
It looks as though the only "point" you've proven here, Glenn, is that you have
no credibility.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Here's a little problem I have with the MMM affair.
>Assuming that BY did have nothing to do with
>planning the massacre, why is it that only John D.
>Lee was executed ?
Young took his cue from the BOM verse "It is better for one man to perish" yada
yada.
"R. N. Baskin and other non-Mormons insisted that the leaders of the Mormon
Church had entered into an agreement with District Attorney Howard whereby Lee
might be convicted and pay the death penalty if the charges against all other
suspected persons might be withdrawn. This was to be done by a jury composed
only of Mormons, who would bring in a verdict of guilty if names of other
participants were left out of the discussions."
(Brooks, Mountain Meadows Massacre, p. 195.)
The jury in Lee's first trial included eight Mormons and four non-Mormons. All
four non-Mormons voted to convict, and all eight Mormons voted to acquit. This
illustrates the secret Mormon "Oath of Loyalty," wherein no Mormon would
testify against a fellow "Saint."
The all-Mormon second trial jury took all of 3.5 hours to convict Lee. The
fact that the all-Mormon jury voted guilty, exactly opposite of the Mormon vote
in the first trial, demonstrates that the second jury was rigged---and the
people most motivated to rig a jury was Mormon leaders, who were still subject
to prosecution. The leaders obviously told the jury to convict Lee, so that
the leaders and the church could be "saved."
"The church decided to sacrifice Lee only when they could see that it would be
impossible to acquit him without assuming a part of the responsibility
themselves.....To air the whole story would have done injury to the church,
both among its members and in the eyes of the world, and this token sacrifice
had to be made. Hence the farce which was the second trial of Lee. The
leaders evidently felt that by placing all the responsibility squarely upon him
already doomed, they could lift the stigma from the church as a whole."
(Brooks, p. 219-220.)
Of course, obtaining Lee's conviction necessitated jury tampering by Mormon
leaders, so we can add that to the charges.
>You would think that BY
>would have taken some measures against the
>participants, excommunication if not arrest for
>murder.
He did not do so, because he had taken the same Masonic-style "Oath of
Loyalty" in the temple which they had. Young's 20-year cover-up of the
massacre, and his subordinates' willingness to aid in that cover-up,
illustrates the effectiveness of the "Oath of Loyalty." The only Mormon who
came close to telling the truth in his testimony, Bishop Phillip Klingensmith,
was found in a prospector's hole with his throat cut in "Danite" fashion.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 5/21/2001 8:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B09AD67...@beaufortco.com>
>
>"R. L. Measures" wrote:
>
>> ? true enough provided:
>> 1. you don't leave out that the killers were only following orders from
>> higher up.
>> 2. the Paiutes were paid according to their contract with Brigham.
>>
>
> Orders from higher up? By whose word do we know this?
>thereof?
>
"...Hamblin and some twelve Indian chiefs on September first met with
Brigham Young and his most trusted interpreter, 49-year-old Dimick B.
Huntington, at Great Salt Lake. Taking part in this pow-wow were Kanosh, the
Mormon chief of the Pahvants; Ammon, half-brother of Walker; Tutsegabit, head
chief of the Piedes; Youngwuds, another Piede chieftain, and other leaders of
desert bands along the Santa Clara and Virgin rivers.
"Little was known of what they talked about until recently when it came to
light that Huntington (apparently speaking for Young) told the chiefs that he
'gave them all the cattle that had gone to Cal[ifornia by] the south rout[e].'
The gift 'made them open their eyes,' he said. But 'you have told us not to
steal,' the Indians replied. 'So I have,' Huntington said, 'but now they have
come to fight us & you for when they kill us they will kill you.' The chiefs
knew what cattle he was giving them. They belonged to the Baker-Fancher train."
("Forgotten Kingdom", David Bigler, p. 167-168)
Randy J.
Glenn Thigpen
Randy,
Thank you for providing the reference. However there is more to it than this
little bit. There is an excerpt from Dimick
Huntington's diary of a visit to an Indian camp in the Weber Valley. There
Huntington told those Indians that they could have all of the cattle and horses on
the road to California, the north route.
The visit by Kanosh and other Indians on September the first was to inquire
about the soldiers that were heading their way. That seems to be the the main
concern of Huntington in these excerpts, the impending arrival of the American
soldiers. He seemed to be expecting an assault from those soldiers when they
arrived and was attempting to enlist the aid of the Indians. Bigler seems to think
that that the reference to the southern route meant only the Fancher party, but
that is something that is not clear. It would seem more likely that Dimick was
referring to any cattle by emigrants taking the southern route for Kanosh and the
others who met on September the first and all cattle by emigrants taking the
northern route to the Indians in the Weber Valley. The talk of possible fighting
seems to be concerning the soldiers, not emigrants.
The excerpts can be found at this url:
http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/Depo%20and%20Journals/Dimick/Dimick-2.htm
I would like to get the full version of this diary to see what other information
could be gleaned from this.
Glenn
TheJordan6
>Date: 5/23/2001 7:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B0C4C2E...@beaufortco.com>
>> > Who wrote the book?
>Thanks.
>
>Glenn
Dang, Charles! Glenn was hoping you'd say that Gerald Tanner or Ed Decker
wrote it, so that he could discredit it as being an "anti-Mormon" source.
But now, Glenn will have to go out and find some other reason to discredit
LeSueur. Maybe he can dig up some dirt on him.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 5/19/2001 9:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9e7c8...@enews2.newsguy.com>
>
>
>FAWNSCRIBE <fawns...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20010519093551...@ng-xc1.aol.com...
>> http://www.sltrib.com/05192001/utah/98518.htm
>>
>> Boggle your eyes at the apologies AGAIN
>> Fawn
>
>the killings.
I do, based on the evidence and testimony. But some Mormons also attempted to
disguise themselves as Indians while carrying out the massacre.
>On the other hand, the state of Utah did not exist at the time and hence
>calls for the state to apologize are useless.
I don't know that anyone's calling for the state to apologize. If anyone
should apologize, it should be the institutional LDS church. But they won't do
that, for two reasons: they would be subject to lawsuits, and they would be
admitting that their placing blame on the "local Mormons" all these years has
been a lie.
>I would like to see the evidence exhumed and reexamined without coercion to
>reach some predetermined conclusion.
As long as Mormons control the land and the political offices, you will never
see those bones again.
>Anyway, the excuse that this wagon train(s) was guilty of doing in PPP is
>garbage,
That's all it WAS---an "excuse." Pratt was killed in Arkansas, and the Fancher
train happened to be from Arkansas. Pratt was killed mere weeks before the
MMM, while the Fancher train was probably already headed west.
It was common knowledge that Hector McLean killed Pratt, for "plural marrying"
his wife Eleanor. Young and his subordinates merely used the Pratt murder to
inflame the murderers to commit the deed.
>and anyone who was involved in persecuting Saints in Missouri would
>have to be at least about 20 years old to have even been breathing at the
>time, so killing anyone between 8 and 20 was pure murder.
It's also unlikely that anyone who had actually participated in the Missouri
War in 1838 would be emigrating to California in 1857, or that they would be
stupid enough to travel amongst Mormons. And, as you cite, the fact that the
Mormons killed innocent children as well as adults negates the idea that they
were killed because they were among those who had killed the Smiths. The only
real reason those women and children were killed is because they could talk.
>The advancing US army was not a positive event.
>
>Cheers,
>Charles
If Brigham Young had obeyed the laws of the U. S., the army would never had set
out to Utah.
Randy J.
Glenn Thigpen
> >From: Glenn Thigpen glen...@beaufortco.com
> <snip for brevity>
>
> > My assertation that your post was fiction is because you did not give any
> >references for any of your ramblings for anyone to check your sources.
>
> Number one: You did not ASK for any references. You simply asserted that my
> post was 100% "fiction."
Randy, I always ask for references. Just about every time I have replied to any of
your material, I have asked for references. That is the one way that anyone can
tell if you know what you are talking about.
>
>
> I posted my remarks to Charles Waters in a conversational style, not in
> textbook-with-footnotes form.
> Notice that Charles Waters didn't ask me for any references, nor did he
> challenge my information. The reason he did not is because he is conversant in
> Mormon history. The reason YOU challenged my information is because you are
> abjectly ignorant on Mormon history.
Not ignorant. I just do not agree with your version of it. There is quite a bit
of diference.
>
>
> Anyone who would declare that someone's information is "fiction," without first
> researching the material for himself, is an imbecile.
Since you did not give me any reference to research......
>
>
> >> Therefore, your inappropriate, inapplicable opinion of my post's content
> >was an
> >> "ad hominem" against me.
>
> > Wrong, for the reason I have just given.
>
> Your assertion that my post was "fiction" is an ad hominem that questions my
> education and/or integrity. It's obvious from reading your posts over the
> years that you know very little about Mormon history; therefore, your assertion
> that my post was "fiction" is based upon nothing more than your own ignorance.
The only thing obvious is that I disagree with your take on Mormon history.
When you provide references, then I can show you just where we disagree, and have
done so in the past.
>
>
> >> I provided a list of 15 published works wherein you, or anyone else
> >interested
> >> in this subject, can go and learn the information for themselves. I gave
> >you
> >> the option of learning it for yourself, so that you won't appear so
> >ignorant
> >> here on ARM, or not learning it, so that you can remain an ignorant,
> >> brainwashed fool. You have obviously chosen the latter option.
>
> >I don't care a twit if you listed a thousand different sources for your
> >information.
>
> Of course not! God FORBID that you should actually crack a book, and learn
> something for yourself! It might actually cause you to THINK, which is
> verboten for Mormons.
I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or do not have a clue as to
the point, which is, where in those fifteen references do I find the applicable
material? That is what references are for. If you want to write in a
conversational style which is defamatory to other people and other beliefs you can
logically expect to be called on it. That is not ad hominem. And I actually do
think. That is why I want references when you make your assertations.
>
>
> >That is completely useless if you do not give specific
> >references
> >when you make a post.
>
> Neither YOU, nor ANYONE ELSE asked for any references, SPECIFIC OR OTHERWISE,
> and you STILL have not. You simply declared that my information was "fiction,"
> from your position of total ignorance.
>
It is still fiction unless you can back it up.
>
> I have given you a list of 15 works that you can read at your leisure, and
> determine the accuracy of my post. At least two of them, John Corrill's
> history and Reed Peck's manuscript, are on Bill Williams' website. Have at it.
>
Absurd. Which of the fifteen works to I go to to find information about your
conversational article which leaves everyone else without a clue.
>
> >> You do not hesitate to direct an ad hominem directed at me---an
> >inapplicable
> >> one, at that---but when I return your "favor" by responding with an
> >entirely
> >> appropriate ad hominem (considering your abject ignorance), you act as
> >though
> >> your feelings are hurt. It appears that you can dish it out, but you
> >cannot
> >> take it.
>
> > I have never called you brainwashed or anything of the sort.
>
> That's good, because if you did, it would be an ad hominem. Ad hominems are
> only inappropriate if they are untruthful. That's why I don't hesitate to call
> you a brainwashed fanatic.
>
You are making my point in your subtle little way.
>
> >I have
> >pointed out
> >to you your total lack of references in your posts before. Saying that "I
> >have
> >read these (insert a number) from which I base my opinions/remarks" is
> >useless in
> >a post because there is no way that anyone can ascertain anything whether
> >positive
> >or negative concerning your statements.
>
> But there IS a way, Glenn! You can actually READ THEM FOR YOURSELF!
>
For the umpteenth time, which one do I read for this post or that post.
> >Until you give specific references
> >for
> >your assertations, then they are no better than fiction.
>
> One more time: You have not asked for references. The fact that I wrote a
> post in a conversational style, based upon my vast knowledge of Mormon history,
> off the top of my head, rather than writing in a textbook style (which I
> sometimes do,) does not make the information in my post fiction. When YOU call
> my post "fiction," without knowing anything about the subject yourself, all
> you're doing is showing us that you're a dumbass.
I love the nuances of your prose.
>
>
> > Your posts are like me saying the following:
> > Begin fiction:
> > "The real stroke of genius that no one to this day credits to O. J.
> >Simpson is
> >the glove incident. It is also the most damning, because it shows that the
> >murder
> >of at least his former wife was not a heat of the moment thing, but a
> >planned,
> >cold-blooded affair. For O. J. to buy a pair of gloves similiar to ones he
> >had
> >been known to wear, but to buy them too small to fit his hands, then leave
> >one at
> >the crime scene to be found by the police investigators was a fiendish, but
> >well
> >conceived idea, which was the springboard to his acquittal. O. J. had no
> >qualms
> >about trying on that glove, because he knew that it would not fit his hand.
> >And
> >the prosecution never saw it coming!"
> > End Fiction:
>
> I seen no relevance to this whatsoever.
>
Which is what I expected.
>
> > I don't have a problem with your opinions. I have had some problems in the
> >past
> >with some of your posts because of just the problem I have indicated in this
> >post.
>
> Perhaps if you'd ask me for references, rather than simply declaring my words
> "fiction," you could solve your "problem."
I actually shouldnt't have to.
>
>
> However, past experience shows that when I, or any other rational posters on
> ARM provide exhaustive references on a subject, the knee-jerk response from
> Mobots such as yourself is to simply question the motives or credibility of the
> source. You and your ilk simply discard any source, regardless if it's
> pro-Mormon, anti-Mormon, or neutral, if it disagrees with your predetermined
> position. And that is what makes you a brainwashed fanatic.
I do not seem to be the one jerking.
>
>
> >For instance there was one some time back concerning supposed children of
> >Joseph
> >Smith by women other than Emma Smith.
>
> Yes, I've written numerous posts on that subject.
>
> >You said, without references, that Mary
> >Elizabeth Lightner had confirmed that Joseph indeed had fathered children by
> >other
> >women.
>
> With that, you have made a liar out of yourself, because I have provided both
> the text and the reference to Lightner's remarks many times.
> If you wish to challenge that, I'll dig the posts out of my file cabinet where
> I documented it for "Brickwall" Guy Briggs. If you don't want me to do that,
> here's the text once again:
My name is not "Brickwall" Guy Briggs. This is an exchange between you and me.
>
>
> Joseph came up the next Sabbath. He said, "Have you had a witness yet?" "No."
> "Well," said he, "the angel expressly told me you should have." Said I, "I have
> not had a witness, but I have seen something I have never seen before. I saw an
> angel and I was frightened almost to death. I did not speak." He studied a
> while and put his elbows on his knees and his face in his hands. He looked up
> and said, "How could you have been such a coward?" Said I, "I was weak." "Did
> you think to say, `Father, help me?'" "No." "Well, if you had just said that,
> your mouth would have been opened for that was an angel of the living God. He
> came to you with more knowledge, intelligence, and light than I have ever dared
> to reveal." I said, "If that was an angel of light, why did he not speak to
> me?" "You covered your face and for this reason the angel was insulted." Said
> I, "Will it ever come again?" He thought a moment and then said, "No, not the
> same one, but if you are faithful you shall see greater things than that." And
> then he gave me three signs of what would take place in my own family, although
> my husband was far away from me at the time. Every work came true. I went
> forward and was sealed to him. Brigham Young performed the sealing, and Heber
> C. Kimball the blessing. I know he had six wives and I have known some of them
> from childhood up. I knew he had three children. They told me. I think two are
> living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names.
>
> End quote.
>
> Here, once again, is where you can read Lightner's complete address on the web:
>
> http://www.math.byu.edu/~smithw/Lds/LDS/Early-Saints/MLightner.html
I have done that long ago. In fact that was the one that I was expecting/hoping
that you would reference in our exchange.
>
>
> (At this point, if we go by your past history, you will declare Mary Lightner
> to be an "anti-Mormon", and declare BYU's website to be an "anti-Mormon"
> source, because that's what you do with any source that disagrees with your
> predetermined conclusions. That's what makes you a brainwashed fanatic.)
Which goes to show how wrong you are. Mary Lightner lived many years as a
faithful LDS. And I do not think that the BYU website is anti-mormon. In fact, I
do not think that you will be able to find any post of mine where I have ever
labelled anyone anti-mormon, not even you.
>
>
> >The sum total of your information that you offered to support this was
> >that
> >Mary had lived at Nauvoo during that period and would have been in a position
> >to
> >know of such things.
>
> I don't recall writing that at all. Perhaps you have me confused with some
> other poster who is not as knowledgeable as myself.
> However, seeing as how Lightner was one of Joseph Smith's "plural wives," and
> was in the "inner circle" of his private life in Nauvoo, that's reason enough
> to trust her credibility. If you want to know more about Lightner than you do
> at present (which is practically nil), then you can study the 22 pages Todd
> Compton spends on her life in his "In Sacred Loneliness."
Randy, you do not know anything about my state of knowledge, about Mary Lightner,
or anything else. You may not recall that exchange, because I pointed out in it
that Mary Lightner and her husband did not live in Nauvoo for any great length of
time, I think less than six months. This came from her diaries. If you like, I
will provide you with the particular reference. Her diaries actually show that
during this period, she was not part of that "inner circle" and seemed to have had
little social contact with the other LDS sisters.
As to her credibility, do you accept her assertation that she saw an angel?
That she had a witness that she was supposed to sealed to Joseph?
Your reference does not do for you what you say it does. It does not show that
Mary Lightner knew that Joseph Smith had children by other women.
>
>
> > I offered a reference to a piece by one of Brigham Young's daughters
> >having
> >been taught by her father that members of the quorum of the twelve had taken
> >the
> >wives that had been sealed to Joseph and fathered children by them, which
> >would be
> >accounted as Joseph's by the Lord, because he (Joseph) died without issue in
> >the
> >church.
>
> Funny, I've posted the same reference, from Susa Young Gates.
Yes you did. It was that reference to which I was referring.
>
>
> >This you dismissed lightly
>
> Talk about "fiction!" I did no such thing. You either have a piss-poor
> memory, or you're an unabashed liar. Guy Briggs engaged in a months-long rant,
> trying to challenge the issue of Smith's siring of extra-marital children, and
> I quoted Susa Young Gates' remarks to show Guy that reproduction was a regular,
> normal part of Smith's "plural marriage" system. Guy doesn't wish to believe
> that Smith had sex with anyone other than Emma.
> Compton quotes Gates' remarks on page 661 of "In Sacred Loneliness."
I haven't the greatest memory in the world, but it is not exactly poor, nor am
I an unabashed liar. And you did use this reference to try to show that Joseph
Smith did have sex with his plural wives, although it says much more about a lack
of sexual activity on Joseph's part with any of his plural wives.
Here is your reference on 1999/09/03
"Emily Partridge and the other bereaved young plural widows were approached by
Pres. Young and the Twelve after the Martyrdom with an offer of their shelter
and sustenance, "for time only," of these brave brave girls who had dared
ridicule and even mobs and death to enter into that order...Father and the
Twelve Apostles felt the death of the Prophet far more keenly than did the
people; and as we believe that children are a part of the glory we inherit
hereafter, it seemed a cruel thing that the beloved leader and Prophet should
be stircken down in the prime of his life, AND BE LEFT WITHOUT ISSUE IN THE
CHURCH...Father went to those noble women who had accepted the principle of
celestial marriage with the Prophet as her husband, and he told them that he
and his brethren stood ready to offer themselves as husbands FOR TIME, and the
widows might choose for themselves. Four of these young widows chose father,
and he accepted the charge thus laid upon him. He felt the grand old Hebrew
impulse (an erection? RJ), to be himself the instrument BY WHICH POSTERITY FOR
HIS DEAD BROTHER MIGHT BE BORN IN THIS LIFE. All honor to the great men who
could make and carry out such splendid tributes to the dead leader and friend."
(Susa Young Gates papers, Utah State Historical Society.)
Here is what I mean by you taking something lightly on 1999/09/06 concerning Susa
Young Gates' statement:
"It isn't surprising that Susa believed that JS had no "issue" before he died;
her father probably told her that as part of his justification for impregnating
JS' "plural widows." Susa's statement does not negate Mary Lightner's."
You accept what you wish from from "friendly sources" and dismiss what does not
agree with your postulation.
>
> >but still accepted as gospel the still
> >unproduced statement by Mary Lightner that Joseph had fathered children.
>
> Seeing as how I've quoted Lightner's statement several times, and given the
> reference for it several times, (and I have just done it again), your assertion
> that it is an "unproduced statement" on my part is utterly false.
Not to me. Not in this thread "Joseph Smith supposedly marrying other men's
wives".
>
>
> Now Glenn, do you wish to accuse anyone else of writing "fiction?" 'Cause it
> sounds as though you need to take a look at your OWN honesty before you take it
> upon yourself to question anyone else's.
I have done so. Check it out.
>
>
> > I am not debating that issue here. It is irrelevant to my point, which
> >has
> >already been made.
> >
> >Glenn
>
> NO, no relevancy AT ALL!!!
>
> First, you bring up a charge against me that is totally false; and then, you
> declare that it's "irrelevant!"
Randy, your references or lack of them was the point. The subject of Joseph
Smith's wives, sexual relations. etc. IS irrelevant to whether or not you posted
references. My contention was that you did not post your reference to Mary
Lightner in the thread in which we were discussing Joseph Smith's alleged sexual
relations with his plural wives. You call me a liar and say that you have posted
that reference in a thread with Guy R. Briggs, which also is irrelevant because
Guy R. Briggs was not participating in this thread, although Woody Brison was,
among others.
>
>
> It looks as though the only "point" you've proven here, Glenn, is that you have
> no credibility.
Anyone can do a google search on the the thread I am referencing and find out if I
have any credibility. They will also see in what manner you respond to those who
have a different opinion from yours.
Glenn
John Manning
Glenn Thigpen wrote:
>
> TheJordan6 wrote:
>
> > >From: Glenn Thigpen glen...@beaufortco.com
> > <snip for brevity>
> >
> > > My assertation that your post was fiction is because you did not give any
> > >references for any of your ramblings for anyone to check your sources.
> >
> > Number one: You did not ASK for any references. You simply asserted that my
> > post was 100% "fiction."
>
> Randy, I always ask for references. Just about every time I have replied to any of
> your material, I have asked for references. That is the one way that anyone can
> tell if you know what you are talking about.
>
> >
> >
> > I posted my remarks to Charles Waters in a conversational style, not in
> > textbook-with-footnotes form.
> > Notice that Charles Waters didn't ask me for any references, nor did he
> > challenge my information. The reason he did not is because he is conversant in
> > Mormon history. The reason YOU challenged my information is because you are
> > abjectly ignorant on Mormon history.
>
> Not ignorant. I just do not agree with your version of it. There is quite a bit
> of diference.
Spelling - "difference'.
>
> >
> >
> > Anyone who would declare that someone's information is "fiction," without first
> > researching the material for himself, is an imbecile.
>
> Since you did not give me any reference to research......
There probably isn't ANYONE that has provided more references than RJ,
over and over again.
>
> >
> >
> > >> Therefore, your inappropriate, inapplicable opinion of my post's content
> > >was an
> > >> "ad hominem" against me.
> >
> > > Wrong, for the reason I have just given.
Your reason is not justified.
> >
> > Your assertion that my post was "fiction" is an ad hominem that questions my
> > education and/or integrity. It's obvious from reading your posts over the
> > years that you know very little about Mormon history; therefore, your assertion
> > that my post was "fiction" is based upon nothing more than your own ignorance.
>
> The only thing obvious is that I disagree with your take on Mormon history.
You always will with your current mentality.
> When you provide references, then I can show you just where we disagree, and have
> done so in the past.
Talking to a turnip is usually unproductive. Fortunately there are
others who read these posts.
> >
> >
> > >> I provided a list of 15 published works wherein you, or anyone else
> > >interested
> > >> in this subject, can go and learn the information for themselves. I gave
> > >you
> > >> the option of learning it for yourself, so that you won't appear so
> > >ignorant
> > >> here on ARM, or not learning it, so that you can remain an ignorant,
> > >> brainwashed fool. You have obviously chosen the latter option.
> >
> > >I don't care a twit if you listed a thousand different sources for your
> > >information.
"THE THINKING HAS BEEN DONE". (LDS quote and reference upon request.)
> >
> > Of course not! God FORBID that you should actually crack a book, and learn
> > something for yourself! It might actually cause you to THINK, which is
> > verboten for Mormons.
>
> I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or do not have a clue as to
> the point, which is, where in those fifteen references do I find the applicable
> material?
Thought controlled people are not capable of seeing ANY references OR
their implications. The 15 references were enough for those who still
have the mental capability of objectivity.
That is what references are for. If you want to write in a
> conversational style which is defamatory to other people and other beliefs you can
> logically expect to be called on it. That is not ad hominem. And I actually do
> think.
Really?
That is why I want references when you make your assertations.
Hmmm... 15 or 15 million would not change the mind of a thought
controlled cretin.
>
> >
> >
> > >That is completely useless if you do not give specific
> > >references
> > >when you make a post.
> >
> > Neither YOU, nor ANYONE ELSE asked for any references, SPECIFIC OR OTHERWISE,
> > and you STILL have not. You simply declared that my information was "fiction,"
> > from your position of total ignorance.
> >
>
> It is still fiction unless you can back it up.
Someone that believes the Mormon stuff, is REALLY in fantasy land. Most
of those people are incapable of seeing objective truth if it conflicts
with their fantasyland. Documentation is irrelevant to them.
>
> >
> > I have given you a list of 15 works that you can read at your leisure, and
> > determine the accuracy of my post. At least two of them, John Corrill's
> > history and Reed Peck's manuscript, are on Bill Williams' website. Have at it.
> >
>
> Absurd. Which of the fifteen works to I go to to find information about your
> conversational article which leaves everyone else without a clue.
You ask for documentation. It is presented to you. Your response is
expected nonsense.
>
> >
> > >> You do not hesitate to direct an ad hominem directed at me---an
> > >inapplicable
> > >> one, at that---but when I return your "favor" by responding with an
> > >entirely
> > >> appropriate ad hominem (considering your abject ignorance), you act as
> > >though
> > >> your feelings are hurt. It appears that you can dish it out, but you
> > >cannot
> > >> take it.
Now comes the accusations of persecution and insult. (Instead of
addressing the issues at hand.)
> >
> > > I have never called you brainwashed or anything of the sort.
> >
> > That's good, because if you did, it would be an ad hominem. Ad hominems are
> > only inappropriate if they are untruthful. That's why I don't hesitate to call
> > you a brainwashed fanatic.
A representative of the 'one true church' speaks.
You are making my point in your subtle little way.
>
> >
> > >I have
> > >pointed out
> > >to you your total lack of references in your posts before. Saying that "I
> > >have
> > >read these (insert a number) from which I base my opinions/remarks" is
> > >useless in
> > >a post because there is no way that anyone can ascertain anything whether
> > >positive
> > >or negative concerning your statements.
Did any of you meet a guy like this Glenn when you were a child?
Apparently Glenn is still around.
> >
> > But there IS a way, Glenn! You can actually READ THEM FOR YOURSELF!
> >
>
> For the umpteenth time, which one do I read for this post or that post.
Hmmm... Representative of Christ - representative of the 'one true
church'? Glenn Thigpen?
>
> > >Until you give specific references
> > >for
> > >your assertations, then they are no better than fiction.
15 legitimate references to Glenn that disagree with his thought control
are like a personal assault on his 'teddy bear'.
> >
> > One more time: You have not asked for references. The fact that I wrote a
> > post in a conversational style, based upon my vast knowledge of Mormon history,
> > off the top of my head, rather than writing in a textbook style (which I
> > sometimes do,) does not make the information in my post fiction. When YOU call
> > my post "fiction," without knowing anything about the subject yourself, all
> > you're doing is showing us that you're a dumbass.
It's actually worse than 'dumbass' Randy.
> I love the nuances of your prose.
Just the word 'thigpen' gives me nuances.
>
> >
> >
> > > Your posts are like me saying the following:
> > > Begin fiction:
> > > "The real stroke of genius that no one to this day credits to O. J.
> > >Simpson is
> > >the glove incident. It is also the most damning, because it shows that the
> > >murder
> > >of at least his former wife was not a heat of the moment thing, but a
> > >planned,
> > >cold-blooded affair. For O. J. to buy a pair of gloves similiar to ones he
> > >had
> > >been known to wear, but to buy them too small to fit his hands, then leave
> > >one at
> > >the crime scene to be found by the police investigators was a fiendish, but
> > >well
> > >conceived idea, which was the springboard to his acquittal. O. J. had no
> > >qualms
> > >about trying on that glove, because he knew that it would not fit his hand.
> > >And
> > >the prosecution never saw it coming!"
> > > End Fiction:
Glenn likes to strut. It may be a preparation for the 'Celestial
copulatorium'.
> >
> > I seen no relevance to this whatsoever.
Glenn is thinking with his programmed 'mammon' capability.
> >
>
> Which is what I expected.
Justifiably.
>
> >
> > > I don't have a problem with your opinions. I have had some problems in the
> > >past
> > >with some of your posts because of just the problem I have indicated in this
> > >post.
That explains your blindness???
> >
> > Perhaps if you'd ask me for references, rather than simply declaring my words
> > "fiction," you could solve your "problem."
>
> I actually shouldnt't have to.
Indeed. The arrogance, blindness and obtuseness of such as Glenn, is a
beacon of revelation as to the results of Mormonism.
>
> >
> >
> > However, past experience shows that when I, or any other rational posters on
> > ARM provide exhaustive references on a subject, the knee-jerk response from
> > Mobots such as yourself is to simply question the motives or credibility of the
> > source. You and your ilk simply discard any source, regardless if it's
> > pro-Mormon, anti-Mormon, or neutral, if it disagrees with your predetermined
> > position. And that is what makes you a brainwashed fanatic.
This guy is TOO far gone Randy.
>
> I do not seem to be the one jerking.
No. You are the thought-controlled, sick blind person that claims to
speak for Christ.
>
> >
> >
> > >For instance there was one some time back concerning supposed children of
> > >Joseph
> > >Smith by women other than Emma Smith.
Could not happen in Glenn's world.
> >
> > Yes, I've written numerous posts on that subject.
> >
> > >You said, without references, that Mary
> > >Elizabeth Lightner had confirmed that Joseph indeed had fathered children by
> > >other
> > >women.
> >
> > With that, you have made a liar out of yourself, because I have provided both
> > the text and the reference to Lightner's remarks many times.
> > If you wish to challenge that, I'll dig the posts out of my file cabinet where
> > I documented it for "Brickwall" Guy Briggs. If you don't want me to do that,
> > here's the text once again:
Extraneous obfuscation to dodge the obvious.
Randy, are you getting that people like this Glenn are ''inspired' by
other than Christ?
> >
> >
> > (At this point, if we go by your past history, you will declare Mary Lightner
> > to be an "anti-Mormon", and declare BYU's website to be an "anti-Mormon"
> > source, because that's what you do with any source that disagrees with your
> > predetermined conclusions. That's what makes you a brainwashed fanatic.)
>
> Which goes to show how wrong you are. Mary Lightner lived many years as a
> faithful LDS. And I do not think that the BYU website is anti-mormon. In fact, I
> do not think that you will be able to find any post of mine where I have ever
> labelled anyone anti-mormon, not even you.
Randy's point is not to be 'anti-Mormon'. It is to express the truth.
Your bizarre and illogical words here, only confirm his position.
> > >The sum total of your information that you offered to support this was
> > >that
> > >Mary had lived at Nauvoo during that period and would have been in a position
> > >to
> > >know of such things.
> >
> > I don't recall writing that at all. Perhaps you have me confused with some
> > other poster who is not as knowledgeable as myself.
> > However, seeing as how Lightner was one of Joseph Smith's "plural wives," and
> > was in the "inner circle" of his private life in Nauvoo, that's reason enough
> > to trust her credibility. If you want to know more about Lightner than you do
> > at present (which is practically nil), then you can study the 22 pages Todd
> > Compton spends on her life in his "In Sacred Loneliness."
Glenn will NEVER look at any facts that might upset his fantasy world.
He is too self-assured and, frankly, stupid.
>
> Randy, you do not know anything about my state of knowledge, about Mary Lightner,
> or anything else. You may not recall that exchange, because I pointed out in it
> that Mary Lightner and her husband did not live in Nauvoo for any great length of
> time, I think less than six months. This came from her diaries. If you like, I
> will provide you with the particular reference. Her diaries actually show that
> during this period, she was not part of that "inner circle" and seemed to have had
> little social contact with the other LDS sisters.
> As to her credibility, do you accept her assertation that she saw an angel?
> That she had a witness that she was supposed to sealed to Joseph?
> Your reference does not do for you what you say it does. It does not show that
> Mary Lightner knew that Joseph Smith had children by other women.
>
> >
> >
> > > I offered a reference to a piece by one of Brigham Young's daughters
> > >having
> > >been taught by her father that members of the quorum of the twelve had taken
> > >the
> > >wives that had been sealed to Joseph and fathered children by them, which
> > >would be
> > >accounted as Joseph's by the Lord, because he (Joseph) died without issue in
> > >the
> > >church.
> >
> > Funny, I've posted the same reference, from Susa Young Gates.
>
> Yes you did. It was that reference to which I was referring.
Glenn could NOT get the meaning or the truth of it.
Glenn is a 'fancy dancer'.
>
> Not to me. Not in this thread "Joseph Smith supposedly marrying other men's
> wives".
>
> >
> >
> > Now Glenn, do you wish to accuse anyone else of writing "fiction?" 'Cause it
> > sounds as though you need to take a look at your OWN honesty before you take it
> > upon yourself to question anyone else's.
>
> I have done so. Check it out.
>
> >
> >
> > > I am not debating that issue here. It is irrelevant to my point, which
> > >has
> > >already been made.
> > >
> > >Glenn
> >
> > NO, no relevancy AT ALL!!!
> >
> > First, you bring up a charge against me that is totally false; and then, you
> > declare that it's "irrelevant!"
>
> Randy, your references or lack of them was the point. The subject of Joseph
> Smith's wives, sexual relations. etc. IS irrelevant to whether or not you posted
> references. My contention was that you did not post your reference to Mary
> Lightner in the thread in which we were discussing Joseph Smith's alleged sexual
> relations with his plural wives. You call me a liar and say that you have posted
> that reference in a thread with Guy R. Briggs, which also is irrelevant because
> Guy R. Briggs was not participating in this thread, although Woody Brison was,
> among others.
>
> >
> >
> > It looks as though the only "point" you've proven here, Glenn, is that you have
> > no credibility.
I really think that Glenn does not care if he is truthful or not as long
as he supports his 'church'. Primarily his intentions do not seem to
extend beyond such. Clearly his intellectual capacity and debating
skills reflect it. It's actually quite frightening if you think about
it. There are a few million of these freaks. Some of them are in
positions of power.
> Anyone can do a google search on the the thread I am referencing and find out if I
> have any credibility.
A 'google search' will determine *your* credibility??? Your own
mentality and the words issued thereof, posted here, are sufficient for
me.
They will also see in what manner you respond to those who
> have a different opinion from yours.
A true member of the 'one true church' speaks.
> Glenn
John Manning
Glenn Thigpen
Randy,
I do not try to discredit anyone. They do it to themselves.
Glenn
TheJordan6
>Date: 5/25/2001 7:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B0EE881...@beaufortco.com>
Yes, you do.
Read the book, and maybe you can gain an ounce of credibility.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 5/24/2001 11:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B0DCCD4...@beaufortco.com>
You're welcome. I often supply references, if I'm asked nicely.
>However there is more to it than
>this
>little bit.
Indeed there is. Brigham Young's journal entry of September 1, 1857, for
instance.
>There is an excerpt from Dimick
>Huntington's diary of a visit to an Indian camp in the Weber Valley. There
>Huntington told those Indians that they could have all of the cattle and
>horses on
>the road to California, the north route.
So, what you're saying is that Huntington---a "Danite" and Young's Indian
interpreter---gave certain Indians a "territory" in which to plunder "Gentile"
cattle and horses?
That some Indians were given the "northern route" (apparently referring to the
route through the Humboldt Mountains to Carson City and Sacramento), and other
Indians were given the "southern route", which passed through Mountain Meadows?
Sounds like you've laid out the plans of an organized crime gang, Glenn.
Funny, that scenario is exactly what Stephen A. Douglas warned of ins his
speech the previous June. How ironic that it should come true.
>The visit by Kanosh and other Indians on September the first was to
>inquire
>about the soldiers that were heading their way.
WHAT soldiers? If you're referring to Johnston's army, they never came within
400 miles of Kanosh's area (south of Manti), and they never intended to. The
only reason the chiefs went to SLC was to conspire with Young to commit
depradations against "Gentiles," one of which was the MMM.
Neither Kanosh, nor any other Indians, knew about Johnston's Army. The only
place the Indians could have gotten information about Johnston's Army was from
the Mormons. Young incited the Indians to violence by deceitfully telling them
that the soldiers were coming to kill the Mormons and the Indians. The meeting
on September 1 was obviously a "war council."
Note that other chiefs who met with Young were from the "Santa Clara and Virgin
River" areas, which is in the heart of the MMM scene.
>That seems to be the the main
>concern of Huntington in these excerpts, the impending arrival of the
>American
>soldiers.
Huntingdon's only one source among many. He didn't know the whole story.
>He seemed to be expecting an assault from those soldiers when they
>arrived and was attempting to enlist the aid of the Indians.
The only reason Huntington expected such an attack is because Brigham Young
fanned the flames.
>Bigler seems to
>think
>that that the reference to the southern route meant only the Fancher party,
>but
>that is something that is not clear.
What OTHER parties were taking the 'southern route' that month? That it
referred to the Fancher party is obvious from what happened to the Fancher
party.
> It would seem more likely that Dimick
>was
>referring to any cattle by emigrants taking the southern route for Kanosh and
>the
>others who met on September the first and all cattle by emigrants taking the
>northern route to the Indians in the Weber Valley.
Yep. Splitting up territory, like criminal gangs do.
>The talk of possible
>fighting
>seems to be concerning the soldiers, not emigrants.
Maybe Huntingdon wasn't expecting the Fancher party to fight back so hard.
Maybe he thought Kanosh's tribe would make short work of them.
> The excerpts can be found at this url:
>
>http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/Depo%20and%20Journals/Dimick/Dimick-2.htm
>
>I would like to get the full version of this diary to see what other
>information
>could be gleaned from this.
>
>Glenn
I don't see your point in studying any of this, Glenn. You'll simply discard
the sources that don't depict Young and his church as perfectly innocent.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>> Number one: You did not ASK for any references. You simply asserted that
>my
>> post was 100% "fiction."
Glenn wrote:
>Randy, I always ask for references. Just about every time I have replied to
>any of
>your material, I have asked for references. That is the one way that anyone
>can
>tell if you know what you are talking about.
How interesting that you claim that you 'always ask me for references,' when
the very reason for this protracted discussion is that you did not ask me for
any references, but intstead merely declared that my entire post was "fiction."
As for who knows or does not not know what they are talking about, I don't have
to ask you for any references to know that you don't know what you are talking
about. It's obvious from what you write.
>> I posted my remarks to Charles Waters in a conversational style, not in
>> textbook-with-footnotes form.
>> Notice that Charles Waters didn't ask me for any references, nor did he
>> challenge my information. The reason he did not is because he is
>conversant in
>> Mormon history. The reason YOU challenged my information is because you
>are
>> abjectly ignorant on Mormon history.
> Not ignorant.
Yes, utterly, hopelessly, ignorant.
> I just do not agree with your version of it. There is quite
>a bit
>of diference.
I don't have a "version" of history. History is history. It cannot be
changed. It can be spin-doctored, censored, suppressed, and revised, but it
cannot be changed.
The reason I write what I do is because the LDS church tells ONLY the parts of
its history that favors it. I am supplying the parts that the church leaves
out, so that readers can get the full picture, and make informed decisions.
>> Anyone who would declare that someone's information is "fiction," without
>first
>> researching the material for himself, is an imbecile.
>
> Since you did not give me any reference to research......
I gave you a list of 15 published works so that you can research it on your
own. I don't have time nor the inclination to cite every factoid, when you can
study it on your own time---especially when you didn't ask me for any
references to begin with.
>> Your assertion that my post was "fiction" is an ad hominem that questions
>my
>> education and/or integrity. It's obvious from reading your posts over the
>> years that you know very little about Mormon history; therefore, your
>assertion
>> that my post was "fiction" is based upon nothing more than your own
>ignorance.
> The only thing obvious is that I disagree with your take on Mormon
>history.
Then I suggest that you study the works I referred you to, and get back with me
when you've finished.
>When you provide references, then I can show you just where we disagree, and
>have
>done so in the past.
You still haven't asked me for any. You simply declared my post "fiction" from
the outset.
>> >> I provided a list of 15 published works wherein you, or anyone else
>> >interested
>> >> in this subject, can go and learn the information for themselves. I
>gave
>> >you
>> >> the option of learning it for yourself, so that you won't appear so
>> >ignorant
>> >> here on ARM, or not learning it, so that you can remain an ignorant,
>> >> brainwashed fool. You have obviously chosen the latter option.
>>
>> >I don't care a twit if you listed a thousand different sources for your
>> >information.
>>
>> Of course not! God FORBID that you should actually crack a book, and learn
>> something for yourself! It might actually cause you to THINK, which is
>> verboten for Mormons.
>
> I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or do not have a clue as
to
>the point, which is, where in those fifteen references do I find the
>applicable
>material?
You're asking me to hold you by the hand, like a little child, and do your
homework for you. Sorry! If you're interested in this subject, do your own
homework. If you want some basic advice on how to research the works I
referred you to for specific information, I suggest you learn the purpose of an
"index" or figure out how to do a "word search." Or get a grownup to help you.
> That is what references are for. If you want to write in a
>conversational style which is defamatory to other people and other beliefs
>you can
>logically expect to be called on it.
It wasn't "defamatory." It was FACTS. Cite from my post what you feel to be
"defamatory," and I'll cite you the documentation that supports my information.
>That is not ad hominem. And I actually
>do
>think.
Yes, you think "How can I discredit this source so that I can keep faith in
Mormonism?"
>That is why I want references when you make your assertations.
Then try asking for them before you declare my post to be "fiction."
> It is still fiction unless you can back it up.
You're a hoot. It is no such thing. You only believe it's "fiction" because
of your own ignorance of the subject.
> Absurd. Which of the fifteen works to I go to to find information about
>your
>conversational article which leaves everyone else without a clue.
All of them. Funny, you're the only person on ARM who's opining that my post
was "fiction," and demanding references. Could it be that you're the only
person on ARM who is "without a clue?"
>> >For instance there was one some time back concerning supposed children of
>> >Joseph
>> >Smith by women other than Emma Smith.
>> Yes, I've written numerous posts on that subject.
>> >You said, without references, that Mary
>> >Elizabeth Lightner had confirmed that Joseph indeed had fathered children
>by
>> >other
>> >women.
>> With that, you have made a liar out of yourself, because I have provided
>both
>> the text and the reference to Lightner's remarks many times.
>> If you wish to challenge that, I'll dig the posts out of my file cabinet
>where
>> I documented it for "Brickwall" Guy Briggs. If you don't want me to do
>that,
>> here's the text once again:
> My name is not "Brickwall" Guy Briggs.
True, but you share certain traits.
>This is an exchange between you and
>me.
Guy is the guy who went on and on about this a couple of years ago.
http://www.math.byu.edu/~smithw/Lds/LDS/Early-Saints/MLightner.html
ARMekites, did you catch that? Above, Glenn wrote that I cited Lightner's
remarks "without references," as though I made it up; but here, he admits that
he himself read it "long ago," and hoped that I would "reference it in our
exchange."
Pray tell, Glenn, how on earth can you assert that my citing of Lightner's
remarks was "without references," and then admit that you HAVE READ IT
YOURSELF "long ago?"
If you read it long ago, then WHY ON EARTH DO YOU NEED ME TO CITE THE
REFERENCE FOR IT?????????
>> (At this point, if we go by your past history, you will declare Mary
>Lightner
>> to be an "anti-Mormon", and declare BYU's website to be an "anti-Mormon"
>> source, because that's what you do with any source that disagrees with your
>> predetermined conclusions. That's what makes you a brainwashed fanatic.)
> Which goes to show how wrong you are.
Your primary purpose in these exchanges is to attempt to put sources in
black-or-white categories of "pro-Mormon" or "anti-Mormon." If you dispute
that, I suggest you re-read your remarks from a couple of years back concerning
Fawn Brodie, Michael Quinn, etc.
>Mary Lightner lived many years as a
>faithful LDS.
I know her history far better than you.
>And I do not think that the BYU website is anti-mormon.
And yet, you claimed that my citing of her remarks was "without references," as
though it were fiction, when in fact, her journal is on BYU's website.
> In
>fact, I
>do not think that you will be able to find any post of mine where I have ever
>labelled anyone anti-mormon, not even you.
Perhaps not in so many words, but your implication is clear.
>> >The sum total of your information that you offered to support this was
>> >that
>> >Mary had lived at Nauvoo during that period and would have been in a
>position
>> >to
>> >know of such things.
>> I don't recall writing that at all. Perhaps you have me confused with some
>> other poster who is not as knowledgeable as myself.
>> However, seeing as how Lightner was one of Joseph Smith's "plural wives,"
>and
>> was in the "inner circle" of his private life in Nauvoo, that's reason
>enough
>> to trust her credibility. If you want to know more about Lightner than you
>do
>> at present (which is practically nil), then you can study the 22 pages Todd
>> Compton spends on her life in his "In Sacred Loneliness."
>Randy, you do not know anything about my state of knowledge, about Mary
>Lightner,
>or anything else.
To the contrary, I think you give us daily displays of the state of your
knowledge.
>You may not recall that exchange, because I pointed out in
>it
>that Mary Lightner and her husband did not live in Nauvoo for any great
>length of
>time, I think less than six months. This came from her diaries. If you like,
>I
>will provide you with the particular reference.
Uh.....no need to, Glenn. It's the same reference I already gave---BYU's
website.
> Her diaries actually show
>that
>during this period, she was not part of that "inner circle" and seemed to
>have had
>little social contact with the other LDS sisters.
Mary and her husband Adam moved to Nauvoo in November of 1840. She was "plural
married" to Smith in February of 1842, 15 months later. That was more than
enough time for Smith to teach her about the "principle" and get her to "marry"
him. She and Adam later moved to Pontoosuc, 15 miles from Nauvoo. After
Smith's death, "On January 30, 1845, at Parley P. Pratt's home, she received
her endowment, thus joining the elite group of the Holy Order. As a widow of
Joseph Smith, she would have enjoyed some prestige, and this led to her next
marital union. In the fall of 1844 Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball offered
themselves to Smith's widows as proxy husbands and Mary accepted Young's
proposal." (Compton, p. 214.)
(Mary's "sealing" to Young contradicts the traditional apologetic view that
Young and Co. "took in" Smith's "widows" to "care for them," because Mary
already had a healthy, working, legal husband, Adam.)
Mary was one of only a few dozen people who were "in the know" about Smith's
Nauvoo polygamy, both as a "plural wife" and a member of the highly exclusive
"Holy Order" (or "Anointed Quorum.") After she moved to Utah, she was the RS
president in Minersville for many years; she participated in female "blessing
meetings" with other elite women, consisting mainly of Smith and Young's
"plural wives," wherein they prayed and "spoke in tongues"; as one of Smith's
"plural widows," she met with others every December 23rd for years, to note
Smith's birthday.
The point being---Mary was close confidantes with many of Smith's other "plural
wives" for decades, including Eliza R. Snow, Zina Jacobs, Eliza and Emily
Partridge, Prescindia Buell (Zina's sister,) Sylvia Sessions (mother of Smith's
child Josephine), and others.
Therefore, Mary was in a position to know women who claimed to have born
children by Smith. At the time she gave her remarks, Utah Mormons like her
were giving testimony and swearing affidavits to their first-hand knowledge
that Smith had originated and practiced polygamy, as opposed to Young, because
the "Reorganite" president, Joseph Smith lll, was attempting to deny that his
father began polygamy. Thus, Mary's testimony that Smith had fathered at least
three children by "plural wives" was designed to support the Utah church. But
here in 2001, you, a Utah Mormon, because of modern policital correctness, seek
to dispute what Smith's intimate followers and "plural wives" testified to.
> As to her credibility, do you accept her assertation that she saw an
>angel?
Of course not. She was a deluded fanatic. Fanatics "see" what they want to
see. People who believe in UFO's will sit outside and peer at the night sky
until they "see" one, and people who want to "see" an angel will eventually
"see" one, too. Just ask Martin Harris.
But this has nothing to do with her personal knowledge that Smith fathered
children by his "plural wives."
>That she had a witness that she was supposed to sealed to Joseph?
Dittos.
> Your reference does not do for you what you say it does. It does not show
>that
>Mary Lightner knew that Joseph Smith had children by other women.
Glenny can't read! It says EXACTLY that! "I knew that he had three children.
They told me." And Lightner wasn't the only one who testified to that, Glenn.
>> >This you dismissed lightly
You're obviously one or the other.
>And you did use this reference to try to show that
>Joseph
>Smith did have sex with his plural wives, although it says much more about a
>lack
>of sexual activity on Joseph's part with any of his plural wives.
To the contrary, it demonstrates that reproduction was an accepted, expected,
aspect of Smith's "plural marriage" practice. The reason I quoted it was
because Guy repeatedly asserted (from ignorance) that reproduction wasn't the
purpose for polygamy.
Absolute nonsense. Glenn, get a clue. YOU accept Susa's remarks, but you
dispute Mary's, and you lie about what Mary said to try to force your view into
being the "correct" one.
When Smith was alive, Susa was a youngster, and she knew nothing about his
secret polygamy practice. Therefore, whatever she knew about it came from
Brigham.
Her view couldn't possibly override Lightners', or Smith's other women, who
were adults and had first-hand experience with him.
Also, you must understand that even Brigham didn't know all of Smith's women or
which of them he was "doing." Even the Partridge sisters didn't know that each
other had been secretly "sealed" to Smith. It was all very hush-hush. Smith's
"plural widows" didn't "come out" and begin telling of their sexual
relationships until they were safely in Utah, far away from critiicsm or
prosecution.
The only reason there is little documentation on Smith's siring of children is
because he was killed early in his practice of it. Also, the Bennett explosion
slowed him down somewhat, as did Emma's rejection of polygamy, and the High
Council's refusal to sustain the "revelation." But the issue of how many
"spiritual children" Smith fathered is secondary to the issue that polygamy
involved sex, and the sexual aspect is well-established. The only reason that
people like you, Guy, Woody, etc., wish to disbelieve that Smith had sex with
his "plural wives" is because it makes him appear less godlike in your eyes.
You want to see Smith preaching the word and blessing the sick, instead of
meeting Fannie in the barn or Sarah down by the riverbank. IOW, you worship
Joseph Smith.
>> >but still accepted as gospel the still
>> >unproduced statement by Mary Lightner that Joseph had fathered children.
>> Seeing as how I've quoted Lightner's statement several times, and given the
>> reference for it several times, (and I have just done it again), your
>assertion
>> that it is an "unproduced statement" on my part is utterly false.
> Not to me. Not in this thread "Joseph Smith supposedly marrying other
>men's
>wives".
I've quoted Lightner's remarks, and the reference for it, in several posts.
The possibility that I may not have cited it in a particular post to you does
not negate that.
You are bringing this up purely to "make a case" that I don't cite references,
but I HAVE cited the references on this subject several times, so your "case"
isn't worth a fart in a whirlwind.
>> Now Glenn, do you wish to accuse anyone else of writing "fiction?" 'Cause
>it
>> sounds as though you need to take a look at your OWN honesty before you
>take it
>> upon yourself to question anyone else's.
>
> I have done so. Check it out.
Done so.
>> > I am not debating that issue here. It is irrelevant to my point, which
>> >has
>> >already been made.
>> >
>> >Glenn
>> NO, no relevancy AT ALL!!!
>>
>> First, you bring up a charge against me that is totally false; and then,
>you
>> declare that it's "irrelevant!"
>Randy, your references or lack of them was the point. The subject of Joseph
>Smith's wives, sexual relations. etc. IS irrelevant to whether or not you
>posted
>references.
It's COMPLETELY relevant, because you attempted to use the Lightner issue to
"prove" that I don't give references, but now you say that the Lightner issue
is "irrelevant!" First, you build a strawman argument; and then, you tear it
down yourself! You're some piece of work, Glenn.
>My contention was that you did not post your reference to Mary
>Lightner in the thread in which we were discussing Joseph Smith's alleged
>sexual
>relations with his plural wives.
Does the fact that I didn't post references (according to you) make Lightner's
remarks "fiction?"
> You call me a liar and say that you have
>posted
>that reference in a thread with Guy R. Briggs, which also is irrelevant
>because
>Guy R. Briggs was not participating in this thread, although Woody Brison
>was,
>among others.
It doesn't matter WHO was involved in the thread. Your entire bitching and
moaning on this issue is that I didn't provide references for the Lightner
remarks, but you concede that the Lightner remarks are authentic. Thus, all
your whining on this issue is pointless.
>> It looks as though the only "point" you've proven here, Glenn, is that you
>have
>> no credibility.
>Anyone can do a google search on the the thread I am referencing and find out
>if I
>have any credibility.
Indeed.
>They will also see in what manner you respond to those
>who
>have a different opinion from yours.
>
>Glenn
Sorta like your discarding Lightners' first-hand remarks in favor of Susa's
second-hand remarks?
I'd rather go by facts than opinions. And your prime modus operandi is to
knee-jerkedly discredit sources that challenge Mormon claims, so all you're
doing here is pot-kettle-black.
Randy J.
R. L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> >From: Glenn Thigpen glen...@beaufortco.com
> >Date: 5/24/2001 11:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <3B0DCCD4...@beaufortco.com>
> >
> >TheJordan6 wrote:
> >
> ...
> > The excerpts can be found at this url:
> >
> >http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/Depo%20and%20Journals/Dimick/Dimick-2.htm
> >
> >I would like to get the full version of this diary to see what other
> >information
> >could be gleaned from this.
> >
> >Glenn
>
> I don't see your point in studying any of this, Glenn. You'll simply discard
> the sources that don't depict Young and his church as perfectly innocent.
>
> Randy J.
€ the lure of a seraglio of perfect babes and godhood is hard to resist
-- for some guys.
cheers, Randy.
Glenn Thigpen
This was in response to what was thought to be an invasion by the U.S. troops
already known by Brigham Young and the Indians to be on the way. Brigham was the
federally appointed governor at the time and had not been given any notice as to
the what's, where's, or why's of that contingent.
From Dimick Huntington's journal:
I gave them all the beef cattle & horses that was on the road to Calafornia,
the North rout, that they must put them...p. I I .... into the mountains & not
kill any thing as long as they could help it, but when they do kill, take the old
ones & not kill the cows or young ones.
>
>
> >The visit by Kanosh and other Indians on September the first was to
> >inquire
> >about the soldiers that were heading their way.
>
> WHAT soldiers? If you're referring to Johnston's army, they never came within
> 400 miles of Kanosh's area (south of Manti), and they never intended to. The
> only reason the chiefs went to SLC was to conspire with Young to commit
> depradations against "Gentiles," one of which was the MMM.
From Dimick Huntington's journal:
P. I
August 10/57 "Went to East Webber to visit Little Soldier & Bam[?]. Found him much
excited in consequence of
an emigrant going from California to the States, who told the Indians that Brigham
was a going to cut all the
men's throats and take their women to wife. I told Soldier to be Baptised and
then he could tell when the
gentiles told him a lie. He said Tom had been Baptised and lied all the time. He
said that Brigham wanted to
kill him.
p.2 ...
..... when he took their guns away from them in 53, but durst not. I told him
that B[righarnl] foresaw that
the time was near when the guns would be since & a famine was coming & he wanted
them to learn to farm it as
the Mormons did, gave them good homes but they set down on their but[t]s, howel
like so many woolves until he
saw it was of no use & told me to go & give up your guns again.
I asked him if he knew that the U.S. troops were a coming. He said yes, but he
was afraid of them & he would
go a way off into the mountains & wait & see how the Mormons come out. I told him
that was right for the
troops would kill them as quick as they would us. I told him to gather all the
berrys that they could & then
glean all the wheat they could & prepare for 7 years seage for B said so. & he
said it was good & he would do
it.
[August] 16. Antero Weyeahoo(?] & wife and 8 more Yumpah Ut[e]s came to see
Brigham & have a talk. Exprest
great fears about the troops. Said he would go to the mountains & wait & see how
we got along through the
fight. I told him that was good for did not want any help with these, we could
get along with them, but he
might look out when the troops killed us....
Tuesday Ist Sept.57. Konosh the Pahvant Chief, Ammon & wife (Walker's brother) &
11 Pahvants came in to see B
& D &find out about the .....
p. 13 ..... soldiers. Tutseygubbit, a Piede Chief over 6 Piedes bands, Youngwuols
[?] another Piede & I gave
them all the cattle that had gone to Cal. the south rout It made them open their
eyes. They sayed that you
have told us not to steal. So I have, but now they have come to fight us & you,
for when they kill us then
they will kill you. They sayed the[y] was afraid to fight the Americans & so
would raise grain and we might
fight.
Those journal entries were contemporary and from a person directly involved
with the Indians in and around the Salt Lake Valley and shows (1) the reason for
the visit to Brigham Young (which had nothing to do with the Fancher Party) and
that there was no talk of killing any emigrants. We know now for why the troops
were being sent to Utah, but neither Brigham Young nor the Indians had been
informed.
>
>
> Neither Kanosh, nor any other Indians, knew about Johnston's Army. The only
> place the Indians could have gotten information about Johnston's Army was from
> the Mormons. Young incited the Indians to violence by deceitfully telling them
> that the soldiers were coming to kill the Mormons and the Indians. The meeting
> on September 1 was obviously a "war council."
>
> Note that other chiefs who met with Young were from the "Santa Clara and Virgin
> River" areas, which is in the heart of the MMM scene.
>
> >That seems to be the the main
> >concern of Huntington in these excerpts, the impending arrival of the
> >American
> >soldiers.
>
> Huntingdon's only one source among many. He didn't know the whole story.
He was in the middle of the story. His is a direct, eyewitness of the events
that transpired with Brigham Young, written as those events unfolded. And, as
David Bigler stated, he seems to have been an interpreter for Brigham Young.
Anything that the Indians were told, seemingly would have to have gone through
him.
>
>
> >He seemed to be expecting an assault from those soldiers when they
> >arrived and was attempting to enlist the aid of the Indians.
>
> The only reason Huntington expected such an attack is because Brigham Young
> fanned the flames.
You are a mind reader now?
>
>
> >Bigler seems to
> >think
> >that that the reference to the southern route meant only the Fancher party,
> >but
> >that is something that is not clear.
>
> What OTHER parties were taking the 'southern route' that month? That it
> referred to the Fancher party is obvious from what happened to the Fancher
> party.
We don't know what other parties had taken that route, or would have taken that
route. We only know of the Fancher party because of the MMM. And yes, it is
obvious what happened to the Fancher Party. But there is no mention of the Fancher
emigrant party or of killing any emigrants in Huntington's.
>
>
> > It would seem more likely that Dimick
> >was
> >referring to any cattle by emigrants taking the southern route for Kanosh and
> >the
> >others who met on September the first and all cattle by emigrants taking the
> >northern route to the Indians in the Weber Valley.
>
> Yep. Splitting up territory, like criminal gangs do.
>
> >The talk of possible
> >fighting
> >seems to be concerning the soldiers, not emigrants.
>
> Maybe Huntingdon wasn't expecting the Fancher party to fight back so hard.
> Maybe he thought Kanosh's tribe would make short work of them.
The Fancher party was not an American troop contingent.
>
>
> > The excerpts can be found at this url:
> >
> >http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/Depo%20and%20Journals/Dimick/Dimick-2.htm
> >
> >I would like to get the full version of this diary to see what other
> >information
> >could be gleaned from this.
> >
> >Glenn
>
> I don't see your point in studying any of this, Glenn. You'll simply discard
> the sources that don't depict Young and his church as perfectly innocent.
I do not simply discard them. I just did a little checking on the source that
you gave me "Forgotten Kingdom" by David Bigler. I went to the source that he used
to draw a conclusion and found that he excluded much material which had a direct
bearing on the situation which brings one to a very different conclusion.
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
>
> >
> > I don't see your point in studying any of this, Glenn. You'll simply discard
> > the sources that don't depict Young and his church as perfectly innocent.
> >
> > Randy J.
>
> ? the lure of a seraglio of perfect babes and godhood is hard to resist
> -- for some guys.
>
> cheers, Randy.
Of course, you may go to the below url and check it out for yourself:
http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/Depo%20and%20Journals/Dimick/Dimick-2.htm
Glenn
TheJordan6
>>My contention was that you did not post your reference to Mary
>>Lightner in the thread in which we were discussing Joseph Smith's alleged
>>sexual
>>relations with his plural wives.
This thread is already long and repetitive, but I felt I should make an
addendum here. Glenn has asserted that in a previous dialogue on this subject,
that I quoted Mary Lightner's remarks without giving a reference for it. He's
using this to attempt to make a case that I don't provide references, so that
he can treat my posts as though they were "fiction." I went through my files
and found my original post to Glenn on this subject. Here is the relevant
portion, which I wrote to Glenn on 8/24/99:
One of JS' plural wives, Mary Rollins Lightner, gave a speech to the graduating
class of BYU on April 14th, 1905. Mary was baptized by Parley P. Pratt in
November, 1830, and her dedication to Mormonism, and therefore, her testimony
of the details of polygamy are highly credible. In her speech, she spoke of JS,
"I know that he had six wives and I have known them from childhood up. I know
he had three children. They told me. I think two of them are living today,
they are not known as his children as they go by other names."
Note that I wrote that Lightner made her remarks in a speech to the graduating
class of BYU in 1905. THAT is the reference. Therefore, Glenn's example that
he used to attempt to show that I do not provide references is invalid. I now
proclaim Glenn the "ARM King of Strawmen."
Randy J.
R. L. Measures
<glen...@beaufortco.com> wrote:
€ a wild goose chase.
Bryce
Glenn Thigpen wrote:
> "Clifford D. Statum" wrote:
>
> >
> > Here's a little problem I have with the MMM affair.
> > Assuming that BY did have nothing to do with
> > planning the massacre, why is it that only John D.
> > Lee was executed ? You would think that BY
> > would have taken some measures against the
> > participants, excommunication if not arrest for
> > murder.
>
> It is my understanding that John D. Lee WAS excommunicated. From what I have been
> able to ascertain, there were others who were being sought that went into hiding.
> Brigham Young was replaced as governor of the Utah territory shortly thereafter and
> had no control over any investigation.
> There are many more questions than for which we have the answers. Everyone here
> on a.r.m. likes to roll their own.
>
> Glenn
Think about it, Glenn. Brigham Young was no longer the Governor of Utah, but he was
still President of the Church. Not only did that make him more powerful than the new
governor of the state (whom nobody took seriously), but it left him free to pursue his
own ecclesiastical investigation, had he so desired. Claiming that Young didn't
investigate because he was unable is foolishness.
Glenn Thigpen
> Randy wrote:
>
> >> Number one: You did not ASK for any references. You simply asserted that
> >my
> >> post was 100% "fiction."
>
> Glenn wrote:
>
> >Randy, I always ask for references. Just about every time I have replied to
> >any of
> >your material, I have asked for references. That is the one way that anyone
> >can
> >tell if you know what you are talking about.
>
> How interesting that you claim that you 'always ask me for references,' when
> the very reason for this protracted discussion is that you did not ask me for
> any references, but intstead merely declared that my entire post was "fiction."
I did what I intended to do with that.
>
>
> As for who knows or does not not know what they are talking about, I don't have
> to ask you for any references to know that you don't know what you are talking
> about. It's obvious from what you write.
References please!
>
>
> >> I posted my remarks to Charles Waters in a conversational style, not in
> >> textbook-with-footnotes form.
> >> Notice that Charles Waters didn't ask me for any references, nor did he
> >> challenge my information. The reason he did not is because he is
> >conversant in
> >> Mormon history. The reason YOU challenged my information is because you
> >are
> >> abjectly ignorant on Mormon history.
>
> > Not ignorant.
>
> Yes, utterly, hopelessly, ignorant.
You have an opinion.
>
>
> > I just do not agree with your version of it. There is quite
> >a bit
> >of diference.
>
> I don't have a "version" of history. History is history. It cannot be
> changed. It can be spin-doctored, censored, suppressed, and revised, but it
> cannot be changed.
Which produces diffferent versions. It can also be distorted.
>
>
> The reason I write what I do is because the LDS church tells ONLY the parts of
> its history that favors it. I am supplying the parts that the church leaves
> out, so that readers can get the full picture, and make informed decisions.
Distorted by selective presentation of their sources, which is something that
David Bigler did in "Forgotten Kingdom" which I pointed out in another post.
>
>
> >> Anyone who would declare that someone's information is "fiction," without
> >first
> >> researching the material for himself, is an imbecile.
> >
> > Since you did not give me any reference to research......
>
> I gave you a list of 15 published works so that you can research it on your
> own. I don't have time nor the inclination to cite every factoid, when you can
> study it on your own time---especially when you didn't ask me for any
> references to begin with.
They are reference materials. An assertation deserves documentation without
which it has no credibility.
>
>
> >> Your assertion that my post was "fiction" is an ad hominem that questions
> >my
> >> education and/or integrity. It's obvious from reading your posts over the
> >> years that you know very little about Mormon history; therefore, your
> >assertion
> >> that my post was "fiction" is based upon nothing more than your own
> >ignorance.
>
> > The only thing obvious is that I disagree with your take on Mormon
> >history.
>
> Then I suggest that you study the works I referred you to, and get back with me
> when you've finished.
Why, when you are unable to back up your assertations but rather engage in
personal attacks on the intelligence and education of anyone who disagree with you
or calls you on your negligence.
No. Just back up what you say. Citing fifteen works, any fourteen which may not
be applicable to any given message is not documentation.
> Sorry! If you're interested in this subject, do your own
> homework. If you want some basic advice on how to research the works I
> referred you to for specific information, I suggest you learn the purpose of an
> "index" or figure out how to do a "word search." Or get a grownup to help you.
It is your homework that I am questioning. How well you have done it and how
well you understand what you say you know. That is how references work.
>
>
> > That is what references are for. If you want to write in a
> >conversational style which is defamatory to other people and other beliefs
> >you can
> >logically expect to be called on it.
>
> It wasn't "defamatory." It was FACTS. Cite from my post what you feel to be
> "defamatory," and I'll cite you the documentation that supports my information.
>
The burden is upon you to prove your assertations by documentation, by
references. Without such, anything you may have to say about your distorted
version of history is incredible.
>
> >That is not ad hominem. And I actually
> >do
> >think.
>
> Yes, you think "How can I discredit this source so that I can keep faith in
> Mormonism?"
I do not expect you to ever have faith in the Church of jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints.
>
>
> >That is why I want references when you make your assertations.
>
> Then try asking for them before you declare my post to be "fiction."
Just try giving them in the first place.
>
>
> > It is still fiction unless you can back it up.
>
> You're a hoot. It is no such thing. You only believe it's "fiction" because
> of your own ignorance of the subject.
Still it has no credibility, except in your own mind.
>
>
> > Absurd. Which of the fifteen works to I go to to find information about
> >your
> >conversational article which leaves everyone else without a clue.
>
> All of them. Funny, you're the only person on ARM who's opining that my post
> was "fiction," and demanding references. Could it be that you're the only
> person on ARM who is "without a clue?"
They have to stop laughing first.
>
>
> >> >For instance there was one some time back concerning supposed children of
> >> >Joseph
> >> >Smith by women other than Emma Smith.
>
> >> Yes, I've written numerous posts on that subject.
>
> >> >You said, without references, that Mary
> >> >Elizabeth Lightner had confirmed that Joseph indeed had fathered children
> >by
> >> >other
> >> >women.
>
> >> With that, you have made a liar out of yourself, because I have provided
> >both
> >> the text and the reference to Lightner's remarks many times.
> >> If you wish to challenge that, I'll dig the posts out of my file cabinet
> >where
> >> I documented it for "Brickwall" Guy Briggs. If you don't want me to do
> >that,
> >> here's the text once again:
>
> > My name is not "Brickwall" Guy Briggs.
>
> True, but you share certain traits.
Although you (probably) did not mean it as such, I take that as a compliment.
>
>
> >This is an exchange between you and
> >me.
>
> Guy is the guy who went on and on about this a couple of years ago.
I understand that. But Guy was NOT a participant in the thread of which I am
speaking.
Because you did not cite ANY reference in that thread. I did not know where you
were getting the information from which you drew your conclusions. I did read up
on Mary Lightner, and we do seem to be using the same references, but there is a
difference between the facts and your conclusions.
>
>
> >> (At this point, if we go by your past history, you will declare Mary
> >Lightner
> >> to be an "anti-Mormon", and declare BYU's website to be an "anti-Mormon"
> >> source, because that's what you do with any source that disagrees with your
> >> predetermined conclusions. That's what makes you a brainwashed fanatic.)
>
> > Which goes to show how wrong you are.
>
> Your primary purpose in these exchanges is to attempt to put sources in
> black-or-white categories of "pro-Mormon" or "anti-Mormon." If you dispute
> that, I suggest you re-read your remarks from a couple of years back concerning
> Fawn Brodie, Michael Quinn, etc.
While I do not remember ever labelling Fawn Brodie or Michael Quinn anti-Mormon, I
do have problems with the way they use and present some of their sources. That
would take up another thread entirely, but some of those problems have been
debated here on a.r.m. before.
>
>
> >Mary Lightner lived many years as a
> >faithful LDS.
>
> I know her history far better than you.
What relevance has that opinion to do with my statement?
>
>
> >And I do not think that the BYU website is anti-mormon.
>
> And yet, you claimed that my citing of her remarks was "without references," as
> though it were fiction, when in fact, her journal is on BYU's website.
When I was able to find it, it still is no better than fiction. And you should
know it.
>
>
> > In
> >fact, I
> >do not think that you will be able to find any post of mine where I have ever
> >labelled anyone anti-mormon, not even you.
>
> Perhaps not in so many words, but your implication is clear.
Because I disagree with someone does not mean or imply that I think that they
are "anti-Mormon". I usually use the phrase "LDS critic" to describe someone who
is.... well critical of the LDS Church.
>
>
> >> >The sum total of your information that you offered to support this was
> >> >that
> >> >Mary had lived at Nauvoo during that period and would have been in a
> >position
> >> >to
> >> >know of such things.
>
> >> I don't recall writing that at all. Perhaps you have me confused with some
> >> other poster who is not as knowledgeable as myself.
> >> However, seeing as how Lightner was one of Joseph Smith's "plural wives,"
> >and
> >> was in the "inner circle" of his private life in Nauvoo, that's reason
> >enough
> >> to trust her credibility. If you want to know more about Lightner than you
> >do
> >> at present (which is practically nil), then you can study the 22 pages Todd
> >> Compton spends on her life in his "In Sacred Loneliness."
>
> >Randy, you do not know anything about my state of knowledge, about Mary
> >Lightner,
> >or anything else.
>
> To the contrary, I think you give us daily displays of the state of your
> knowledge.
There you go thinking again.
>
>
> >You may not recall that exchange, because I pointed out in
> >it
> >that Mary Lightner and her husband did not live in Nauvoo for any great
> >length of
> >time, I think less than six months. This came from her diaries. If you like,
> >I
> >will provide you with the particular reference.
>
> Uh.....no need to, Glenn. It's the same reference I already gave---BYU's
> website.
>
> > Her diaries actually show
> >that
> >during this period, she was not part of that "inner circle" and seemed to
> >have had
> >little social contact with the other LDS sisters.
>
> Mary and her husband Adam moved to Nauvoo in November of 1840.
According to her autobiography they moved to Farmington, Illinois in November
of 1838 where they stayed until January of 1842 when they moved in with her
step-father on his invite because of their bad circumstances. Mary does not
actually give the year in her autobiography, but she goes on to note in the same
paragraph that she was delivered of her third child, George Algernon on March 23rd
and we know that George Algernon was born in 1842.
> She was "plural
> married" to Smith in February of 1842, 15 months later.
That was the next month.
> That was more than
> enough time for Smith to teach her about the "principle" and get her to "marry"
> him. She and Adam later moved to Pontoosuc, 15 miles from Nauvoo.
That would have been in July of 1842, approximately six months or maybe a
little more.
> After
> Smith's death, "On January 30, 1845, at Parley P. Pratt's home, she received
> her endowment, thus joining the elite group of the Holy Order. As a widow of
> Joseph Smith, she would have enjoyed some prestige, and this led to her next
> marital union. In the fall of 1844 Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball offered
> themselves to Smith's widows as proxy husbands and Mary accepted Young's
> proposal." (Compton, p. 214.)
>
> (Mary's "sealing" to Young contradicts the traditional apologetic view that
> Young and Co. "took in" Smith's "widows" to "care for them," because Mary
> already had a healthy, working, legal husband, Adam.)
Whom she lived with until he died.
>
>
> Mary was one of only a few dozen people who were "in the know" about Smith's
> Nauvoo polygamy, both as a "plural wife" and a member of the highly exclusive
> "Holy Order" (or "Anointed Quorum.") After she moved to Utah, she was the RS
> president in Minersville for many years; she participated in female "blessing
> meetings" with other elite women, consisting mainly of Smith and Young's
> "plural wives," wherein they prayed and "spoke in tongues"; as one of Smith's
> "plural widows," she met with others every December 23rd for years, to note
> Smith's birthday.
> The point being---Mary was close confidantes with many of Smith's other "plural
> wives" for decades, including Eliza R. Snow, Zina Jacobs, Eliza and Emily
> Partridge, Prescindia Buell (Zina's sister,) Sylvia Sessions (mother of Smith's
> child Josephine), and others.
>
> Therefore, Mary was in a position to know women who claimed to have born
> children by Smith. At the time she gave her remarks, Utah Mormons like her
> were giving testimony and swearing affidavits to their first-hand knowledge
> that Smith had originated and practiced polygamy, as opposed to Young, because
> the "Reorganite" president, Joseph Smith lll, was attempting to deny that his
> father began polygamy. Thus, Mary's testimony that Smith had fathered at least
> three children by "plural wives" was designed to support the Utah church. But
> here in 2001, you, a Utah Mormon, because of modern policital correctness, seek
> to dispute what Smith's intimate followers and "plural wives" testified to.
But nothing in her remarks in her diaries or her speech even hint at any such
revelations. Just how does she say that she knows that Joseph did sire children by
other women than Emma?
>
>
> > As to her credibility, do you accept her assertation that she saw an
> >angel?
>
> Of course not. She was a deluded fanatic. Fanatics "see" what they want to
> see. People who believe in UFO's will sit outside and peer at the night sky
> until they "see" one, and people who want to "see" an angel will eventually
> "see" one, too. Just ask Martin Harris.
In other words, when you think it fits your agenda, you accept it. When it does
not, you reject it.
>
>
> But this has nothing to do with her personal knowledge that Smith fathered
> children by his "plural wives."
But it has a lot to say about how you use your sources.
>
>
> >That she had a witness that she was supposed to sealed to Joseph?
>
> Dittos.
>
>
> > Your reference does not do for you what you say it does. It does not show
> >that
> >Mary Lightner knew that Joseph Smith had children by other women.
>
> Glenny can't read! It says EXACTLY that! "I knew that he had three children.
> They told me." And Lightner wasn't the only one who testified to that, Glenn.
You should know that remark does not show how Mary KNEW they were Joseph's
children. She only knew that there were three people who told her they were
Joseph's children. She did not name those three. One of your own sources tells us
that Joseph died without issue in the church.
How did those children know that they were sired by Joseph Smith? Someone must
have told them, because I doubt very much that they remembered being sired nor the
siree. Randy, how do you know who your parents are? Because you grew up in their
home and they told you that you were/are their son? Because you have a birth
certificate naming them as your parents? Neither one is proof positive that you
are indeed the biological offspring of the ones you know as your parents. Now,
before you go south, let me aver that I am not even hinting that such is the case,
just that you cannot know anything just because someone says it is so.
If you will recall your church doctrine, you will remember that when a woman is
sealed to a man, if that man dies and the woman remarries, any children that she
may have by the second husband is accounted as the first husband's children.
Whether you believe that to be true is irrelevant. It is what those who married
Joseph's plural wives and the wives themselves believed that are relevant, and
that is what is alluded to by Susa Young Gates.
You are consistent, but nonetheless harmless.
>
>
> >And you did use this reference to try to show that
> >Joseph
> >Smith did have sex with his plural wives, although it says much more about a
> >lack
> >of sexual activity on Joseph's part with any of his plural wives.
>
> To the contrary, it demonstrates that reproduction was an accepted, expected,
> aspect of Smith's "plural marriage" practice. The reason I quoted it was
> because Guy repeatedly asserted (from ignorance) that reproduction wasn't the
> purpose for polygamy.
That reproduction is an accepted part of polygamy is not an issue with me. But
this passage does not imply in any manner that Joseph had sexual relations with
any of his plural wives. I think it was nine times that Emma conceived by him, so
he was hardly sterile, yet again your source says that he died without issue in
the church.
>
>
Surely I accept Susa's remarks. I did not lie about what Mary said. I accept
that she BELIEVED she knew something, because someone had told her. I don't have
to force what she said into any view.
>
>
> When Smith was alive, Susa was a youngster, and she knew nothing about his
> secret polygamy practice. Therefore, whatever she knew about it came from
> Brigham.
Not hardly. If you remember, Brigham had many wives, and some of them were the
former plural wives of Joseph. You don't know just what she may have learned from
them. Even if Brigham was her only source, why would Brigham lie to her about it?
After all, sex was an accepted part of polygamy, and having children by polygamous
wives was also accepted. Brigham did not have to defend himself concerning sexual
relations to his daughter nor the Twelve, because they all believed alike in the
sanctity of the plural marriage doctrine and in marrying the wives of deceased
brethren to raise up seed to them in the church.
>
> Her view couldn't possibly override Lightners', or Smith's other women, who
> were adults and had first-hand experience with him.
Did Mary Lightner ever acknowledge that she had a sexual relationship with
Joseph?
>
> Also, you must understand that even Brigham didn't know all of Smith's women or
> which of them he was "doing." Even the Partridge sisters didn't know that each
> other had been secretly "sealed" to Smith. It was all very hush-hush. Smith's
> "plural widows" didn't "come out" and begin telling of their sexual
> relationships until they were safely in Utah, far away from critiicsm or
> prosecution.
> The only reason there is little documentation on Smith's siring of children is
> because he was killed early in his practice of it. Also, the Bennett explosion
> slowed him down somewhat, as did Emma's rejection of polygamy, and the High
> Council's refusal to sustain the "revelation." But the issue of how many
> "spiritual children" Smith fathered is secondary to the issue that polygamy
> involved sex, and the sexual aspect is well-established. The only reason that
> people like you, Guy, Woody, etc., wish to disbelieve that Smith had sex with
> his "plural wives" is because it makes him appear less godlike in your eyes.
> You want to see Smith preaching the word and blessing the sick, instead of
> meeting Fannie in the barn or Sarah down by the riverbank. IOW, you worship
> Joseph Smith.
Randy, I do not worship Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. I do not know if Joseph
had sexual relations with any of his plural wives. My only point in this thread
that we are discussing now is that the evidence that you have produced does not
prove that Joseph Smith did have sexual relations with any of his plural wives or
that he sired any children by them.
>
>
> >> >but still accepted as gospel the still
> >> >unproduced statement by Mary Lightner that Joseph had fathered children.
>
> >> Seeing as how I've quoted Lightner's statement several times, and given the
> >> reference for it several times, (and I have just done it again), your
> >assertion
> >> that it is an "unproduced statement" on my part is utterly false.
>
> > Not to me. Not in this thread "Joseph Smith supposedly marrying other
> >men's
> >wives".
>
> I've quoted Lightner's remarks, and the reference for it, in several posts.
> The possibility that I may not have cited it in a particular post to you does
> not negate that.
>
> You are bringing this up purely to "make a case" that I don't cite references,
> but I HAVE cited the references on this subject several times, so your "case"
> isn't worth a fart in a whirlwind.
If you wish to stink up the place, it is your space. I have said repeatedly
that I was speaking about this one particular thread as an example. I did not say
that you NEVER cite references but that you often do not do so.
>
>
> >> Now Glenn, do you wish to accuse anyone else of writing "fiction?" 'Cause
> >it
> >> sounds as though you need to take a look at your OWN honesty before you
> >take it
> >> upon yourself to question anyone else's.
> >
> > I have done so. Check it out.
>
> Done so.
>
> >> > I am not debating that issue here. It is irrelevant to my point, which
> >> >has
> >> >already been made.
> >> >
> >> >Glenn
>
> >> NO, no relevancy AT ALL!!!
> >>
> >> First, you bring up a charge against me that is totally false; and then,
> >you
> >> declare that it's "irrelevant!"
>
> >Randy, your references or lack of them was the point. The subject of Joseph
> >Smith's wives, sexual relations. etc. IS irrelevant to whether or not you
> >posted
> >references.
>
> It's COMPLETELY relevant, because you attempted to use the Lightner issue to
> "prove" that I don't give references, but now you say that the Lightner issue
> is "irrelevant!" First, you build a strawman argument; and then, you tear it
> down yourself! You're some piece of work, Glenn.
Did you cite the reference to Mary Lightner in the thread that I referenced?
>
> >My contention was that you did not post your reference to Mary
> >Lightner in the thread in which we were discussing Joseph Smith's alleged
> >sexual
> >relations with his plural wives.
>
> Does the fact that I didn't post references (according to you) make Lightner's
> remarks "fiction?"
No. Your assertation that
Glenn Thigpen
>
> > Of course, you may go to the below url and check it out for yourself:
> > http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/Depo%20and%20Journals/Dimick/Dimick-2.htm
> >
> > Glenn
>
> "R. L. Measures" wrote:
> ? a wild goose chase.
Hmmm, don't understand. That was the reference that Randy's reference was using. A
little more information from a person directly involved with that and other
meetings with the Indians, with contemporaneous journal entries.
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
Randy,
Can you give me the name of the thread? I did a google search and could not
find anything that you posted to me on 24 August, 1999. I did another Google
advanced search search for anything that you posted on Mary Lightner on the 24th
of every month in 1999 and got nothing. I then checked for the 24th of August in
every year from 1996 up to 2000 and got nothing.
I then checked for anything that you had posted on 24 August of 1999 and the
only thread that your name appeared on was a thread about the Negro as descendants
of Cain.
I then did a google search for anything that you posted on the 24th of every
month in 1999 and could not find anything that you had posted about Mary Lightner.
I am not saying that you did not post it. I just am saying that google refuses to
admit that they have it in their archives.
If I had the subject line, maybe I could find it that way.
Glenn
TheJordan6
>Randy,
> Can you give me the name of the thread? I did a google search and could
>not
>find anything that you posted to me on 24 August, 1999. I did another Google
>advanced search search for anything that you posted on Mary Lightner on the
>24th
>of every month in 1999 and got nothing. I then checked for the 24th of August
>in
>every year from 1996 up to 2000 and got nothing.
> I then checked for anything that you had posted on 24 August of 1999 and
>the
>only thread that your name appeared on was a thread about the Negro as
>descendants
>of Cain.
> I then did a google search for anything that you posted on the 24th of
>every
>month in 1999 and could not find anything that you had posted about Mary
>Lightner.
>I am not saying that you did not post it. I just am saying that google
>refuses to
>admit that they have it in their archives.
> If I had the subject line, maybe I could find it that way.
>
>Glenn
I don't recall the subject title. I e-mailed it to myself at the time for
future reference, and that is the date I mailed it. Here is the entire post:
Tyler wrote:
>> Darrick was Henry Jacobs a Jack mormon while he was serving God on his
>> mission?
Glenn wrote:
> Would you please explain what you mean by that statement?
Glenn, Tyler was pointing out that Henry Jacobs wasn't an abusive husband or an
"apostate," but he still lost his wife Zina to BY.
Jacobs served several missions, including going with Apostle Charles C. Rich to
dig gold in California, and he was buried in his temple clothes. JS, then BY,
took his wife Zina because of their teaching that a man of higher priesthood
office could take the wife of an inferior man, which I have already posted the
documentation on.
> I hope you haven't been reading excerpts from "Mormonism Unvailed" or works
>which derive their sources from that work.
"Mormonism Unvailed" was published by E. D. Howe in 1834, long before Henry and
Zina even married. You are apparently confusing Howe's work with John D. Lee's
posthumously published "Confessions."
> There is a statement in there attributed to John D. Lee that Jacobs'
>wife dallied with Joseph while he was on a mission to England and when
>Jacobs returned, she was pregnant by Joseph.
Please furnish us with the quote on that.
My quote from Lee states: "(In) June 1842..I then took a tour down through
Illinois.
H. B. Jacobs acompanied me as a fellow companion of the way. Jacobs was
bragging about his wife and two children, what a true, virtuous, lovely, woman
she was. He almost worshipped her. But little did he think that, in his
absence, she was sealed to the Prophet Joseph, and was his wife." (Confessions
of John D. Lee, p. 132.)
LDS Historian Andrew Jenson listed Zina's plural sealing to JS: "Zina D.
Huntington, afterwards the wife of Pres. Brigham Young, sealed to the Prophet
Oct. 27, 1841, Dimick B. Huntington officiating."
(Historical Record, p. 233.)
>Jacobs never went on a mission to England.
Henry Jacobs was sent on a mission to England by BY, while on the plains of
Iowa, on May 22, 1846. He arrived in England in October, and served as
president of the Preston Conference, which indicates his faithfulness. He
returned to Winter Quarters on November 12, 1847.
>But if you believe the part about the wife getting
>pregnant by Joseph, then do a little research into the times Jacobs was
>on his different missions and the birth dates of any children that they
>had and you will find that statement is totally false. But if you think
>it is, prove it by the dates. They are all available on the net.
>
>Glenn
I know of no claim that Zina had children by Joseph Smith. She bore her legal
husband, Henry, a son, Henry Chariton, on March 22, 1846. After BY sent Henry
away, Zina began living openly as one of BY's plural wives. She bore a
daughter by BY, Zina Prescendia, on April 3, 1850.
The issue with Zina is that both JS, and later BY, took her as a plural wife
while she was the legally, lawfully wedded wife of Henry Jacobs, who was an
active, faithful, Mormon. The claims of Mormons such as Woody, Darrick, and
Frank Carriero that JS did not plural marry the wives of other men is
completely refuted by a mountain of documentation from credible LDS sources.
There are other well-documented claims of JS fathering children by other
married women, such as Prescendia Buell and Sylvia Sessions, and at least one
other, not-so-well-documented, but retold through family tradition, by Clarissa
Reed Hancock.
One of JS' plural wives, Mary Rollins Lightner, gave a speech to the graduating
class of BYU on April 14th, 1905. Mary was baptized by Parley P. Pratt in
November, 1830, and her dedication to Mormonism, and therefore, her testimony
of the details of polygamy are highly credible. In her speech, she spoke of
JS,
"I know that he had six wives and I have known them from childhood up. I know
he had three children. They told me. I think two of them are living today,
they are not known as his children as they go by other names."
The three children Mary knew of were likely Oliver Buell, Josephine Lyon, and
Levison Hancock. A photo of Oliver appears in "No Man Knows My History," and
one of Josephine can be viewed in "In Sacred Loneliness." It is easy to see a
strong resemblance to Joseph Smith and other Smiths in those photos,
particularly the photo of Josephine---her eyes, nose, and mouth are identical
to the one authentic portrait of JS. And it's also highly relevant that she
was named "Josephine."
The point of all this is that the mothers of those three children were legally
married to other Mormon men at the time of their plural sealings to JS.
Josephine's mother, Sylvia, told her that she was the biological child of JS,
and Josephine swore an affidavit to that.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
Glenn Thigpen wrote:
>>>There is an excerpt from Dimick Huntington's diary of a visit to an Indian
camp in the Weber Valley. There Huntington told those Indians that they could
have all of the cattle and horses on the road to California, the north route.
Randy wrote:
>>So, what you're saying is that Huntington---a "Danite" and Young's Indian
interpreter---gave certain Indians a "territory" in which to plunder "Gentile"
cattle and horses? That some Indians were given the "northern route"
(apparently referring to the route through the Humboldt Mountains to Carson
City and Sacramento), and other Indians were given the "southern route", which
passed through Mountain Meadows? Sounds like you've laid out the plans of an
organized crime gang, Glenn. Funny, that scenario is exactly what Stephen A.
Douglas warned of in his speech the previous June. How ironic that it should
come true.
>This was in response to what was thought to be an invasion by the U.S. troops
already known by Brigham Young and the Indians to be on the way.
The "northern route" to California was some 300 miles west of where Johnston's
Army was, and Johnston's Army had no intentions of going any further west than
SLC. Huntingdon could not have been referring to Johnston's Army, because
"General" Lot Smith was assigned by "Secretary of War" Daniel H. Wells to
engage Johnston's Army in Wyoming. Therefore, the only people Huntington could
have been referring to was citizen emigrant trains heading to California. If
the Indians had the mistaken impression that citizen emigrants were "soldiers",
they were deceived by the Mormons into believing so.
Brigham Young had already conceded that Johnston's Army would not even be able
to make it to SLC that year: "We do not expect that any part of the army will
be able to reach here this fall.....They are now at or near Laramie.....They
will not be able to come much if any further on account of their poor stock.
They cannot get here this season without we help them." (Letter of Brigham
Young to Isaac C. Haight, September 10, 1857.)
(How compassionate of Young to note the Army's "poor stock", when in fact, he
had ordered his "General" Lot Smith to drive off the Army's cattle. How
magnanimous of Young to offer to "help" the army get to SLC, when it was his
treasonous orders that prevented their arrival.)
Therefore, the only people Huntingdon could have been referring to taking the
"north route" to California was emigrants, not soldiers.
"This policy of robbing the passing emigrant was clearly a part of the general
war tactics, since, for the time being, all 'Mericats' were considered
enemies." (Juanita Brooks, "Mountain Meadows Massacre," p. 122.)
>Brigham was the federally appointed governor at the time and had not been
given any notice as to the what's, where's, or why's of that contingent.
I've already corrected that lie of yours in another post.
>From Dimick Huntington's journal: I gave them all the beef cattle & horses
that was on the road to Calafornia, the North rout, that they must put
them...p. I I .... into the mountains & not kill any thing as long as they
could help it, but when they do kill, take the old ones & not kill the cows or
young ones.
These cattle "on the road to California" could not possibly have been Army
cattle, because those were 300 miles east in Wyoming. Since it's obvious that
the cattle Huntingdon was divvying up with the Indians belonged to citizen
emigrants, that demonstrates what I've written you over and over----the Mormons
AS AN INSTITUTION were "forming alliances with Indian tribes in Utah and
adjoining territories---stimulating the Indians to acts of hostility.....to
prosecute a system ot robbery and murders upon American citizens....."
(Stephen A. Douglas, "Missouri Republican," June 18th, 1857.)
And in citing an example of Mormons engaging in another robbery of emigrant
trains separate from the Fancher party, you have helped my case that the MMM
was not an anamoly, but was in fact part of the Mormons' modus
operandi-----which is exactly what I wrote to begin with. Can you say
"backfire," Glenn?
>>>The visit by Kanosh and other Indians on September the first was to inquire
about the soldiers that were heading their way.
>>WHAT soldiers? If you're referring to Johnston's army, they never came
within 400 miles of Kanosh's area (south of Manti), and they never intended to.
The only reason the chiefs went to SLC was to conspire with Young to commit
depradations against "Gentiles," one of which was the MMM.
>From Dimick Huntington's journal:
>P. I August 10/57 "Went to East Webber to visit Little Soldier & Bam[?].
Found him much
excited in consequence of an emigrant going from California to the States, who
told the Indians that Brigham was a going to cut all the men's throats and take
their women to wife. I told Soldier to be Baptised and then he could tell when
the gentiles told him a lie. He said Tom had been Baptised and lied all the
time. He said that Brigham wanted to kill him.
> p.2 ..... when he took their guns away from them in 53, but durst not. I told
him that B[righarnl] foresaw that the time was near when the guns would be
since & a famine was coming & he wanted them to learn to farm it as the Mormons
did, gave them good homes but they set down on their but[t]s, howel like so
many woolves until he saw it was of no use & told me to go & give up your guns
again. I asked him if he knew that the U.S. troops were a coming. He said yes,
but he was afraid of them & he would go a way off into the mountains & wait &
see how the Mormons come out. I told him that was right for the troops would
kill them as quick as they would us. I told him to gather all the berrys
thathey could & then glean all the wheat they could & prepare for 7 years seage
for B sa
so. & he said it was good & he would do.
>[August] 16. Antero Weyeahoo(?] & wife and 8 more Yumpah Ut[e]s came to see
Brigham & have a talk. Exprest great fears about the troops. Said he would go
to the mountains & wait & see how we got along through the fight. I told him
that was good for did not want any help with these, we could get along with
them, but he might look out when the troops killed us....
>Tuesday Ist Sept.57. Konosh the Pahvant Chief, Ammon & wife (Walker's brother)
&
11 Pahvants came in to see B & D &find out about the .....p. 13 .....
soldiers. Tutseygubbit, a Piede Chief over 6 Piedes bands, Youngwuols[?]
another Piede & I gave
them all the cattle that had gone to Cal. the south rout It made them open
their eyes. They sayed that you have told us not to steal. So I have, but now
they have come to fight us & you, for when they kill us then they will kill
you. They sayed the[y] was afraid to fight the Americans & so would raise
grain and we might fight.
>Those journal entries were contemporary and from a person directly involved
with the Indians in and around the Salt Lake Valley and shows (1) the reason
for the visit to Brigham Young (which had nothing to do with the Fancher Party)
and that there was no talk of killing any emigrants.
Glenny STILL can't read! Your reference from Huntington speaks of "the cattle
that had GONE TO CAL. (via) THE SOUTH ROUTE...." Duhhhh, Glenn, whose
"cattle" do you think Huntington was speaking of? Duhhhh, what emigrant train
with 300 head of cattle was "going to California via the south route" in
September of 1857?
The Indians "opened their eyes" (in obvious surprise) when Young gave them the
"south route" cattle, because the Mormons had previously taught them not to
steal; but here, your reference from Huntington admits that Young was now
allowing them to steal the cattle that was on its way into their territory via
the "south route." Since this meeting occurred on September 1-----and all the
Indian chiefs in the meeting were from the southern regions, nowhere near
Johnston's Army-----and the Fancher party was massacred and their cattle stolen
some ten days later, in those southern regions-----well, that pretty much wraps
up THIS little detective story, doesn't it Glenny boy?
Also, let the record show that in my original post on this issue, I already
quoted the account of this meeting from the daily journal of Brigham Young,
wherein Young stated "A spirit seems to be takeing possession of the Indians to
assist Israel. I can hardly restrain them from exterminating the Americans."
You have provided a quote that shows that Young gave those Indians the "south
route" cattle. I have provided the quote that shows those same Indians (from
the "south route" area) were eager to "exterminate the Americans", with Brigham
Young's apparent approval. And lo and behold, those Americans were
"exterminated" only ten days later. Glenn, can you spell "premeditation?" And
while you're at it, can you add two plus two together?
>We know now for why the troops were being sent to Utah, but neither Brigham
Young nor the Indians had been informed.
As I've already documented, Young knew very well that the troops were coming to
escort the newly-appointed governor Cummings. Young induced the ignorant
Indians to conspire against the Americans by deceving them into believing that
if they didn't, that the "Mericats" would kill all Indians and Mormons. You
assert that in this meeting, "there was no talk of killing emigrants." To the
contrary, Young deceived the Indians into believing that the emigrants and the
Army troops were one in purpose. Where Huntingdon quotes Young as telling the
chiefs "they have come to fight us and you, for when they kill us, then they
will kill you," Young could have ONLY been referring to emigrant citizen
trains, because they were the only people heading anywhere near those chiefs'
territory.
>>Neither Kanosh, nor any other Indians, knew about Johnston's Army. The only
place the Indians could have gotten information about Johnston's Army was from
the Mormons. Young incited the Indians to violence by deceitfully telling them
that the soldiers were coming to kill the Mormons and the Indians. The meeting
on September 1 was obviously a "war council."
>>Note that other chiefs who met with Young were from the "Santa Clara and
Virgin
River" areas, which is in the heart of the MMM scene.
>That seems to be the the main concern of Huntington in these excerpts, the
impending arrival of the American soldiers.
Except that there were no American soldiers going anywhere near those Indians'
lands.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
Randy wrote:
>>Huntingdon's only one source among many. He didn't know the whole story.
Glenn wrote:
>He was in the middle of the story. His is a direct, eyewitness of the events
that transpired with Brigham Young, written as those events unfolded. And, as
David Bigler stated, he seems to have been an interpreter for Brigham Young.
Anything that the Indians were told, seemingly would have to have gone through
him.
Regardless, nothing Huntington wrote absolves Young or the institutional church
of the crime. Hs journal entries only help us to fill in the blanks.
Huntington likely wasn't privy to all the instructions given to George A.
Smith, Hamblin, or Haight, who figured more directly into the MMM than did
Huntington.
>>>He seemed to be expecting an assault from those soldiers when they arrived
and was attempting to enlist the aid of the Indians.
>>The only reason Huntington expected such an attack is because Brigham Young
fanned the flames.
>You are a mind reader now?
No, Glenn, I'm a book reader. You should try it sometime.
>>>Bigler seems to think that the reference to the southern route meant only
the Fancher party, but that is something that is not clear.
>>What OTHER parties were taking the 'southern route' that month? That it
referred to the Fancher party is obvious from what happened to the Fancher
party.
>We don't know what other parties had taken that route, or would have taken
that
route.
The Duke party took the southern route about the same time, and they were also
robbed by "Indians" "with light, fine hair and blue eyes, and light streaks
where they had not used sufficient paint." (Brooks, p. 126.) But the Duke
party weren't "soldiers" any more than the Fancher party was, and there were no
accusations of "Missouri Wildcats" among the Duke party. Their only "crime"
was traveling through Mormon country with 375 head of cattle.
>We only know of the Fancher party because of the MMM. And yes, it is obvious
what happened to the Fancher Party. But there is no mention of the Fancher
emigrant party or of killing any emigrants in Huntington's.
Huntington's mention of "cattle going to California by the south route" could
have referred to either the Fancher or Duke parties, both of which were robbed
by Mormons and Indians. Huntington's entries do not mention "killing any
emigrants" because those entries were written before the MMM occurred, and
Huntington was not involved in the MMM (at least, no witnesses ever mentioned
his name at the scene, to my knowledge.)
>>>It would seem more likely that Dimick was referring to any cattle by
emigrants taking the southern route for Kanosh and the others who met on
September the first and all cattle by emigrants taking the northern route to
the Indians in the Weber Valley.
>>Yep. Splitting up territory, like criminal gangs do.
>>>The talk of possible fighting seems to be concerning the soldiers, not
emigrants.
>>Maybe Huntingdon wasn't expecting the Fancher party to fight back so hard.
>>Maybe he thought Kanosh's tribe would make short work of them.
>The Fancher party was not an American troop contingent.
The Indians would have thought they were, if the Mormons told them they were.
>>>The excerpts can be found at this url:
http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/Depo%20and%20Journals/Dimick/Dimick-2.htm
>>>I would like to get the full version of this diary to see what other
information could be gleaned from this.
>>>Glenn
>>I don't see your point in studying any of this, Glenn. You'll simply discard
the sources that don't depict Young and his church as perfectly innocent.
>I do not simply discard them.
Yes, you do, Glenn. You dismissed my 15 posts of exhaustive documentation,
from numerous scholarly sources, as "lies" and "fiction." You will dismiss any
sources, or any documentation, that doesn't agree with your position. You've
done it ever since you've been on ARM.
>I just did a little checking on the source that you gave me "Forgotten
Kingdom" by David Bigler. I went to the source that he used to draw a
conclusion and found that he excluded much material which had a direct bearing
on the situation which brings one to a very different conclusion.
>Glenn
I fail to see how your quotes from Huntington's journal show a different
conclusion than the one I've already shown-----that Mormons conspired with
Indians to rob and kill Americans.
Randy J.
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
> Talk about "fiction!" I did no such thing. You either have a
> piss-poor memory, or you're an unabashed liar. Guy Briggs engaged
> in a months-long rant, trying to challenge the issue of Smith's
> siring of extra-marital children, and I quoted Susa Young Gates'
> remarks to show Guy that reproduction was a regular, normal part
> of Smith's "plural marriage" system. Guy doesn't wish to believe
> that Smith had sex with anyone other than Emma.
>
Speaking of "...poor memory" and "unabashed [lies]", I have /never/
claimed that Smith had sex with no one save Emma. What I /have/ claimed
is that if sex and sex alone was the motivation behind the Plural
Marriage system, there would have been far more children produced than
the 5 or 6 hinted at by Lightner and others.
We know that Smith was fecund. We know that most of his wives were,
as well. How is it that he fathered more children with Emma than he did
with his other 43 wives together? And that's giving the benefit of the
doubt that Smith did, in fact, father other children, even though we
don't have names for any of them!
If you're going to hurl ad hominims at me, Randy, at least get your
facts straight.
bestRegards, Guy.
R. L. Measures
/\ Spermacides were widely available in the 1830s. Have you compared the
portrait of Oliver Buell with Joseph Smith III?
cheers, Guy
Guy R. Briggs
>
> /\ Spermacides were widely available in the 1830s. Have
> you compared the portrait of Oliver Buell with Joseph Smith
> III?
>
with that of the child of the prostitute who was claiming paternity.
Neither one convinced me.
bestRegards,
R. L. Measures
net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
/\ It might be a good idea to make an appointment to have your eyes
checked by an eye doctor.
cheers, Guy.
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>> 2...@vc.net (R. L. Measures) wrote:
>>>
>>> Have you compared the portrait of Oliver Buell with Joseph
>>> Smith III?
>>
>> Yes, I saw it in Brodie's book. I've also compared Clinton's
>> photo with that of the child of the prostitute who was claiming
>> paternity. Neither one convinced me.
>
> /\ It might be a good idea to make an appointment to have your
> eyes checked by an eye doctor.
>
of paternity based on resemblance (or lack thereof) to a photo are
completely subjective.
bestRegards, Guy.