Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Brigham Young and the Mountain Meadows Massacre

118 views

Skip to first unread message

TheJordan6

unread,

May 23, 2003, 3:21:48 PM5/23/03

Readers,

From time to time, various Mormons on this forum will assert that Brigham Young
bore no responsibility for the tragedy known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
Typically, Mormons will cite a single sentence from Young's September 10, 1857
letter to Cedar Stake president Isaac Haight to attempt to show that Young was
against the attack.

Ove the last several years, I have written hundreds of posts on this subject,
and documented numerous items of historical data which clearly shows that the
teachings, policies, and orders of Brigham Young were the direct cause of the
MMM, as well as other similar acts of violence of the time.

The latest Mormon to assert Young's innocence on ARM is Kevin (Red) Davis. I
responded to Red's typically ignorant, ad hominem-and-polemics-laden posts with
documentation of the facts from historical sources. I want to make sure that
everyone who is interested in this subject knows the facts, so I am re-posting
five posts from me to Red for the benefit of readers who may have missed them.
I'll list them as parts 1 through 5.

In addition, I will forward several other posts from people on other internet
forums on the subject, with my responses to them, which contain more supporting
information. Hopefully, ARMekites in general will become more educated than
they were about the subject as a result.

Part 1

Red Davis wrote:

>>>The Lord never commanded any person to kill any member of the party at
>>Mountain Meadows. That is an excellent case where people took it upon
>>themselves and committed heinous crimes. However, that does not mean
>>the Lord did not command the Israelites to slay the Amulekites and all
>>their animals in the Old Testament.
>>
>>Additionally, there is no credible evidence that Brigham Young
>>commanded people to do that either. Indeed, just the opposite is true
>>-- he had dispatched a messenger to tell the people down there to let
>>the party pass through without harm. The only evidence to the
>>contrary is from a man who has been proven to have lied about anything
>>and everything. We went over this subject several years ago -- and the
>>evidence supports the fact that those who attacked the wagon train
>>acted alone.

Randy replied:

>>Dear readers: These comments from Red Davis reflect the mindset of a
veritable "poster boy" for Mormon Ignorance.

>>Over the last three years, I have written probably close to 200 posts
documenting the facts of the MMM, including the evidence which clearly shows
that Brigham Young planned and approved the attack on the Fancher party.

>May I ask a very telling question: If you have posted *documented*
"facts of the MMM, including evidence which *clearly* shows that
Brigham Young *planned* and *approved* the attack on the Fancher
party" (emphasis mine), why is it that you apparently don't believe
your own statement as just quoted?
>So, if *you* don't believe your own statement that summarizes the
*facts* of your posts, why should I, or any other person?
>Why do I claim that you don't believe your own statement? Simple,
your own words from this very post I am responding to.
>You said that the facts "clearly shows that Brigham Young planned and
approved the attack", yet -- you dispute your own statement with the
following statement just a few sentences later:
>Said TheJordan6 contradicting TheJordan6:
>"Red Davis *STILL* operates under the mistaken impression that Young
did not approve or allow the attack."
>Now, which is it? Did Brigham Young "allow" the attack, or did he
"approve" the attack.
>"Allow" means "to permit", wherein "approve" means to "confirm,
sanction, consent to officially". The former implies that Brigham
Young simply stood by and didn't stop the MMM, while the latter
implies that he actively took part in it.
>Which is it? Did Brigham Young specifically plan and order the MMM,
or did he just sit idly by? You contradict yourself. So, if you
can't get your "facts" straight so that you believe yourself, you
condemn us because we don't believe you either?

Ignoramus, the answer is "all of the above." Young planned the attack, Young
allowed the attack, Young approved the attack, and Young ordered the attack.
If you had bothered to read a few of my posts on the subject to which I
referred, you could have saved yourself the time you wasted writing you remarks
above.

>>Interested parties can read my dozens of posts on the subject by going to
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&num=25&hl=en&group=alt.religion.mormon
&start=25 and typing in a couple of keywords, such as "Randy J. Mountain
Meadows," and
study the exhaustive documentation which reveals Young's part in the crime.
>>But after all these years, and all of the documentation, Red Davis *STILL*
operates under the mistaken impression that Young did not approve or allow the
attack.
>>Red still believes that the "only" evidence for Young's culpability came from
John D. Lee----when I have pointed readers to the personal journal of Dimick
Huntington, Young's brother-in-law and Indian interpreter, which
matter-of-factly documents Young's bequeathing of the Fancher party's cattle
to
the Indians, during a war council held in SLC merely ten days before the
massacre, which can be read at

>This journal entry "matter-of-factly document's Young's bequeathing of
the Fancher party's cattle to the Indians"?
>Well, I'll be a tick on a dog's tail! Where does it say that?

You've quoted part of it, ass-tick. But in typical Mopologist fashion, you
have omitted portions which tell the whole story.

>The entry from September 1 states, "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".
>You do grasp the English vernacular of the 19th century, correct? How
about the 20th Century? The 21st Century? How about formal English
diction from any century?
>The entry states that three distinct, explicit, and enumerated people
gave "all the cattle that had gone to Cal. the south rout".

You are misquoting Huntington's words in order to misinterpret their meaning.
It wasn't the Indians who gave anyone any cattle; Huntington wrote that *I*,
meaning himself (speaking as Young's interpreter), gave those Indians from
southern Utah the cattle which had "gone to Cal. [via] the south route."

>Who are the three people named?
1. "Tutuseygubbit" -- a Piede Chief
2. "Youngwuols" - another Piede (I believe the name here is better
spelled "Young Wolves".
3. "& I" - Dimmick Huntington
>There is *absolutely* no mention here of Brigham Young approving
*anything*, much less any mention of the Fancher party.
>No wonder you don't beleive yourself! You are simply unbelievable!!

Deceitful Mormon, you left off this part of Huntington's journal entry which
tells the rest of the story:

"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 soldiers."

"B" refers to Brigham Young, and "D" refers to Dimick Huntington. The chiefs
of those tribes came all the way from southwestern Utah, near the area of the
Mountain Meadows, to council with Young and Huntington about the "soldiers"
(actually, civilian emigrants with some 400 head of cattle) who were passing
through their area.

>This entry, bookended about Indians stealing from Indians, Indians
stealing from white men

Note Huntington's entry of August 30, two days prior:

"We met Bishop C. West from Ogden with 4 waggon loads of corn & mellons for the
Indians. We gave them 4 beef cattle & stayed all night & never saw so good a
spirit before. I told them that the Lord had come out of his hiding place &
they had to commence their work. I gave them all the beef cattle & horses that
was on the road to Calafornia, the North rout, that they must put them 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. They said it was
some thing new. They wanted to council & think of it."

Now, Red, since you're completely ignorant of Mormon history, and in denial of
what the Mormons were doing, I'll explain what was going on here:

Brigham Young and his lieutenants were using local Indians as "the battle-axe
of the Lord," to use their own words. They were having Indians attack and
plunder "Gentile" emigrant trains on all trails. The "north route to
California" refers to the northern trail that went north of SLC, and followed
the Humboldt River and over Donner Pass to San Francisco.

The Mormons induced northern Indians to attack a train on that trail, and
"Bishop C. West from Ogden" paid them off with "4 waggon loads of corn & melons
and four beef cattle." Huntington then ordered the Indians to drive the stolen
cattle into the mountains (away from prying eyes), and only eat the old ones,
to preserve the majority of the herd for future use.

>(please note the absence of "murdering white men from the Fancher party
and taking their cattle),

The stealing of the southern route emigrants' cattle was specifically discussed
in that council of September 1 at which Brigham Young was present:

"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."

Now, Red, since you have displayed an inability to comprehend the context of
those remarks, I'll once again condescend and spell things out for you:

The "south route to California" was the route which passed through SLC, and
then southwest through Provo, St.George and on through Nevada.

Alexander Fancher, who had made two prior journeys from Arkansas to California,
chose the southern route for this 1857 final journey with his family and other
emigrants because the route was less strenuous and offered better grasslands
for their 400 head of cattle.

Since the Baker-Fancher and Dukes emigrant trains were the only ones traveling
the south route during that timeframe---and the Mormons in cahoots with Indians
attacked and plundered both trains (although not massacring the Dukes train
because the Mormons believed they were not spotted by the victims)---
then it is obvious that the "cattle that had gone to Cal. the south route" that
Young "gave" to the Indians in that meeting ten days before the attack were the
cattle which belonged to the Baker/Fancher and Dukes trains.

"The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve
good feelings with them. There are no other trains going south that I know
of." (Brigham Young letter to Isaac Haight, September 10, 1857.)

Note Huntington's remark that the Indian chiefs were surprised at Brigham
Young's reversal of his previous orders to not steal ("This made them open
their eyes.") Young "justified" that reversal by deceitfully making the
Indians fear that non-Mormon whites would kill both them and all the Mormons.

Huntington's entry makes it obvious that stealing of cattle by Indians from
emigrants traveling on the south route to California was the crime being
planned, and it is equally obvious that Young planned and approved of that
crime.

As far as "murdering white men"---as I wrote previously, Young's intention was
for the Indians to attack the train, with the local Mormon leaders supervising
out-of-sight, to avoid being implicated in the future. As Indian agent, Young
knew that after the crime, he could simply tell federal officials that the
Indian perpetrators could not be identified, or he could have Indian chiefs
"sacrifice" a few old, sick "braves" to pin the crime on, and thus end any
possible investigation.

In other words, Young never intended for Mormons to take part in the actual
attack or potential violence. But Young couldn't foresee the Fancher party's
fierce defense of their lives and property upon the initial attack, which
forced the local Mormons to concoct their plan to deceive the emigrants into
giving up their arms and then massacring them with the aid of the Indians.

As John D. Lee wrote, "We knew that the original plan was for the Indians to do
all the work, and the whites to do nothing, only to stay back and plan for
them, and encourage them to do the work. Now we knew the Indians could not do
the work, and we were in a sad fix."

However, even if no Mormons had participated first-hand in the crime, Brigham
Young was still guilty of conspiracy to commit murder via his part in planning
and approving the attack. As I've written before, Young's guilt is analogous
to White Aryan Resistance founder Tom Metzger's act of inciting acts of
violence commited by his disciples upon minorities. And just as Metzger was
found culpable on civil charges for his teachings which led to violent crimes,
so too was Brigham Young guilty---except, of course, no one would testify
against Young or other Mormon leaders, so their crimes went unpunished. Young
"sacrificed" John D. Lee to prevent further prosecutions, including his own.

>soldiers marching on Utah,

The only U. S. soldiers anywhere near Utah at that time was Johnson's Army,
which on September 11 was near Fort Bridger, Wyoming----some 400 miles away
from the MMM site. All of the Indian chiefs who met with Young in SLC on
September 1 were from southwestern Utah, and Johnson's Army was nowhere near
them, and was no threat whatsoever to them.

Thus, the only "soldiers" Huntington could have been referring to was the
emigrant trains, and he simply deceived the Indians into believing that the
trains were "soldiers" who would kill them if they were not attacked first.

>and a general reference to the very, very busy southern Utah pass -- is
"matter-of-fact" evidence that Brigham Young ordered the
murder of the Fancher Party!

I didn't write that Young ordered the murders; I wrote that he ordered the
*attack.* The massacre was the unfortunate, yet likely outcome of his criminal
order. (But nevertheless, Young's threat to Captain Van Vliet, which I quote
below, uses the
word "kill".)

The fact that ten days after that council, those same Indian chiefs were
leading their tribes in the attack on the emigrant trains who were driving
hundreds of cattle "on the south route to California", leaves no doubt as to
what was planned and approved in that council.

>Where is my idiot bell when I need it?

I would suggest that you wear one around your neck at all times.

>You are an idiot.

You say that, but I am the one quoting from the historical sources, and you are
the one who is blathering and blowing your ignorance all over ARM.

>The biggest one I have ever seen.

Do you not have a mirror in your house?

>Do you even have a brain?

Yes, I do, Red. Having a brain is why I am no longer a Mormon.

>>http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/Depo%20and%20Journals/Dimick/Dimick-2.htm

>>I have posted LDS historian Juanita Brooks' comments concerning Young's
journal
entry regarding that same war council probably 25 times on ARM:

>>"Recently I was given access to an electrostatic copy of the daily journal of
Brigham Young. Under date of September 1, 1857, the entry reads: 'Kanosh the
Pavaunt chief with several of his band visited me gave me some council and
presents. A spirit seems to be takeing possession of the Indians to assist
Israel. I can hardly restrain them from exterminating the Americans.'

>So, Brigham did *not* "bequeath" the cattle to the Indians according to
his entry.

<groan> And O. J. didn't mention stabbing Nicole and Ron in his diary either,
dumb ass. Young was very careful not to record his criminal instructions to
the Indians in the "Journal History of the Church"; however, his interpreter
Huntington was not as careful in his remarks in his own personal journal.
Young's remark is valuable in that it supports Huntington's, and reveals
Young's state of mind.

>Additionally, it specifically states that he "can hardly
restrain them from exterminating the Americans" -- strongly indicating
that he made his best effort to restrain them.
In a court of law --this entry is called "exculpatory evidence" - meaning its
reading
clears Brigham Young of blame.

No, you are misinterpreting Young's attitude because of your ignorance of the
context of the events. Young's statement was an expression of gleefulness that
"cousin Lemuel" (the Indians) were so willing to aid the Mormons in making war
upon the "Mericats." That is obvious from Young's and other Mormon leaders'
statements of the times:

"Continue your conciliatory policy towards the Indians.....for they must learn
that they have their got to help us or the United States will kill us both."
(Brigham Young letter to Santa Clara mission president Jacob Hamblin, August 4,
1857. Four weeks later, Hamblin escorted those southern Indian chiefs to SLC
to meet with Young and plan the attacks.)

"If the government dare to force the issue, I shall not hold the Indians by the
wrist any longer. If the issue comes, you may tell the government to stop all
emigration across the continent, for the Indians will kill all who attempt it."
(Brigham Young letter to U. S. Army Captain Stewart van Vliet, September 7,
1857---four days before the massacre. Young's own words clearly indicate that
he controlled the Indians and threatened to use them to kill all emigrants he
so desired, who dared to commit the "crime" of simply passing through Utah to
get to California.)

Since Young had undoubtedly heard the report of the successful Indian raid on
an emigrant train north of SLC of which Huntington wrote on August 30, Young's
remark that he "could hardly restrain the Indians from exterminating the
Americans" was obviously an expression of satisfaction that the Indians were
willing to obey his orders, and that the southern Indian chiefs of whom he was
referring in that remark would carry out the attack on the "south route cattle"
which Huntington referred to.

"This policy of robbing the passing emigrant was clearly a part of the general
war tactics, since, for the time being, all 'Mericats' [Americans] were
considered enemies."
"As president of the Southern Indian Mission, [Jacob Hamblin] was responsible
for the conduct of Indian affairs; as military commander of the area, Haight
had sent these men to work with the natives in carrying out the war policies.
With Zion standing against the world, and with the Indians as allies, they were
prepared to prey upon every passing emigrant company as part of the
contribution to the war."
(Juanita Brooks, "Mountain Meadows Massacre," p. 122, 131.)

>Yes, it is true, sadly, TheJordan6 has no brain.

Tell you what, Red. Let's let the readers of this thread decide that issue.

I suggest that you respond to the documentation with some refuting
documentation of your own----instead of your Brison-like blowing and
blathering---and we'll let the readers decide which one of us has the "brain."

>>"This seems very significant. The 'Journal History of the Church' under this
same date tells of the visit of Jacob Hamblin and twelve Indian chiefs from
the
south. President Young talked with them all, but it seems that Kanosh was
given private audience. He was the chief who had killed Captain John W.
Gunnison and several of his men as they were camped on the Sevier River on
October 28, 1853. Whether or not Kanosh and his band were at the Mountain
Meadows we do not know, but we can now be certain that the Mormon war strategy
was to use the natives as 'the battle-ax of the Lord,' as some of the early
missionaries had stated." ("Mountain Meadows Massacre," Juanita Brooks, p.
xiii.)

>So, here we have a statement that there is *no evidence* that "Kanosh
and his band were at the Mountain Meadows"

Brooks didn't write that there is "no evidence" that Kanosh and his band were
at the Mountain Meadows. She wrote that we cannot know, meaning that we can't
know for certain. However, since Kanosh was the chief of the Pavants, and
Kanosh was at the September 1 council with Young in SLC, it is highly likely
that he and his tribe were amongst the perpetrators.

"The Indians must have started back home [from SLC] immediately, for in seven
days they were harassing the emigrants at Mountain Meadows, and in ten days
they participated in the massacre of the company." (Brooks, p. 42.)

>but, hey, what the hell,
let's throw in an inflammatory account of an Indian "who had killed
Captain John W. Gunnison" to take the reader's eye off the fact that
there is *no* evidence of Brigham Young having "planned", "ordered",
or even "allowed" the MMM.

I've documented the evidence for Young's complicity in the MMM above. I
suggest that you deal with the facts.

>>I have also posted the comments of LDS historian David Bigler regarding that
event:

>>"Hamblin and some twelve Indian chiefs on September first met with Brigham
Young and his most trusted interpreter, 49-year-old Dimick 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: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West,"
David
Bigler, pp. 167-168.)

>What a hoot! "The chiefs knew what cattle he was giving them. They
belonged to the Baker-Fancher train."
>Sloppy-Agape lives!

Wrong, ignoramus. Bigler made his obvious conclusions based on the historical
evidence, which I have documented above.

>I heard a dog bark. I ran outside. I saw a cat. A skunk was runover
in the road. 24 Hours was on TV. Thus, we must conclude: "The dog
saw the nuclear bomb go off on the TV during the 24 Hours episode, and
he ran outside to avoid being burned. He barked to warn me to get
outside too - but that scared the cat who was running from the skunk,
and the driver of the car knew the skunk was going to spray the cat so
it ran him over."

Did your animals leave a journal which spoke of crimes that were planned to be
committed mere days in the future, like Dimick Huntington did?

>Why, it must be true, it was written by "LDS Historian David Bigler"!
Well, actually, that is not true. David Bigler is a *former* LDS
member.

The fact that Bigler had enough sense to abandon the LDS church does not make
him any less an LDS historian, nor does it diminish his qualifications or
credibility one whit. In fact, any Mormon who seriously studies Mormon history
and remains a Mormon has less credibility and integrity than one who leaves
Mormonism.

Here are Bigler's credentials:

"David L. Bigler is a native of Provo, Utah, a naval veteran of World War ll
and Korea, and a graduate of the University of Utah, where he earned a B.A.
degree in journalism in 1950. He received an honorary Doctor of Letters degree
in 1979 from Southern Utah State College, now Southern Utah University, at
Cedar City. He is the retired director of public affairs for U. S. Steel, now
USX Corp. Since 1986 he has devoted full time to the study of Utah and western
American history.
Bigler is past president of the Oregon-California Trails Association; a founder
and first president, Utah Westerners; former member, Utah Board of State
History; former member, Friends of University of Utah Libraries; and member,
Utah State Historical Society, Gold Discovery Park Association, and Sacramento
Westerners. He is also a former officer or director, Utah Manufacturers
Association, Utah Mining Association, and Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce.
He is editor of 'The Gold Discovery of Azariah Smith', recently reissued by
Utah State University Press, and author of articles and reviews on Utah,
Mormon, and western American history for the 'Salt Lake Tribune,' 'Utah
Historical Quarterly,' 'Overland Journal', and other publications. His spring
1994 paper, 'Garland Hurt, the American Friend of the Utahs', won the Utah
State Historical Society's Dale L. Morgan Award for best scholarly article
published that year by its quarterly journal."

>Oooh. Ahhh. Let's not let facts and the axe grinding of an ex-member get in
the way of the best sloppy-agape this side of the
Pecos!

Red, your accusation of "axe-grinding" is nothing more than your typical
amateurish ad hominem attack. You are long on juvenile ad hominem attacks,
and short on refuting documentation. Everyone here on ARM knows that your
debating tactics consist of little more than blowing, blathering, and
obfuscation. That is why numerous ARM posters, including several Mormon ones,
have such a low opinion of your writings.

Now, if you have some actual facts with which to refute Bigler's statements,
please post them. If not, save your blowing and blathering for yelling at
wrestling referees on TV.

>>I have also posted the web address which contains LDS historian Will Bagley's
speech concerning the 2002 publication of his book, which is the most
up-to-date comprehensive treatment of the MMM, at
>>http://www.salamandersociety.org/snapshots/bagley/

>And who is this "LDS historian Will Bagley"? I'll let him tell it
himself:

>"But I'd also like to address the charges that I'm an anti-Mormon.
They're preposterous, because I am still a Mormon. I'm a heritage
Mormon, and I have a great-great-grandfather, grandfathers and
grandmothers on all sides, who crossed the plains, most of them before
the railroad, and I'm very proud of that heritage, and very proud of
the Mormon people."
(http://www.salamandersociety.org/snapshots/bagley/)

Red, I commend you for doing such a fine job of cutting-and-pasting from a
speech which I transcribed from the original video, and which I provided you
the link to. You can thank me for doing your work for you.

>Now, folks, how many times have I told you that the first thing a
person does who is an anti-Mormon, and who has an axe to grind, and
who is so biased that it is just plain written all over their face, is
that they tell us all about the fact that they are the fourth or fifth
generation Mormon?

Readers, I assume you all can see that Red's response to my citation of
Bagley's speech is more ad hominem, with no addressing of the historical facts.
It's obvious that Red only read the first few lines of Bagley's
speech----enough, in Red's tiny mind, to launch an accusation of "axe-grinding"
against Bagley.

I'm quite sure that Red didn't read into Bagley's remarks enough to study any
of the exhaustive documentation he has done on the MMM, or the many citations
of minutes of meetings, personal journals, newspaper articles, etc., which
Bagley used to compile his 500-page book.

Red, if you wish to attempt to "discredit" Bagley, then you need to read his
remarks and his book, compare his research against that of other scholars, and
then post your own views on the subject using scholarly sources, just as Bagley
did.

Simply dismissing Bagley as "an anti-Mormon with an axe to grind," without
addressing the facts under discussion, is grade-school-level tactics.

Readers, I also hope you noticed how Red attacked Bigler's credibility by
calling him a "former Mormon"; but then he called Bagley an "anti-Mormon with
an axe to grind," even though Bagley is a Mormon, not to mention being a Mormon
who is an eminent historian, and a respected columnist with the Salt Lake
Tribune.

Red uses no standards of consistency in his ad hominem attacks; if you're a
historian who is a former Mormon (like Bigler), Red will attack you; and if you
are a historian who is a current Mormon (like Bagley), Red will also attack
you.

Readers will remember how Red has attacked Grant Palmer's credibility, even
though Palmer is a 30-year instructor with CES, and last I heard, was still the
high priests group instructor in his ward in Sandy, Utah.

It is obvious that the standard that Red uses to judge historians'
credibility is not their research, position, qualifications, or credentials,
but rather whether their writings agrees with what Red chooses to believe. But
I don't see Red going out and doing any research in Mormon history himself; all
I see is him doing is criticising those who have.

Randy J.

TheJordan6

unread,

May 23, 2003, 3:27:13 PM5/23/03

Part 2

Red Davis wrote:

>OK, so now we have Will Bagley's number one qualification: he was
born.

Readers, this is more of Red's typical ad hominem attacks.

>Oh, and let's not forget the fact that he is a columnist for the Salt
Lake Tribune.

As well as being the author of numerous other books and articles on Mormon and
western history. At present, he is under contract to write and publish the
documentary history of the western United States.

Red, do you have a degree in history? What are your qualifications to write or
comment on matters of Mormon history? What books or articles have you written
or published on Mormon history?

>Wow. My Daddy told me, "Son, the reason a man majors
in journalism is one or two reasons: 1) he is a liberal with an axe
to grind with society, 2) he flunked out of engineering school and
ain't the brightest bulb on the block." My Daddy was a smart man.

My daddy had a saying too, Red: "I'd like to buy you for what you're worth,
and sell you for what you THINK you're worth." I think my daddy was thinking
of people like you, Red.

>So, let's get to the most significant statement of the quote from Will
Bagley's bag book: "The chiefs knew what cattle he was giving them.
They belonged to the Baker-Fancher train." Whose words are these?

Hmmmm, since you apparently use perceived intelligence to judge people's
qualifications to comment on such subjects, perhaps this would be a good place
to inform you that the quote you repeat above is not from Bagley's book; it's
from Bigler's. So, I guess that according to your high scholarly standards,
that error of yours renders you unqualified to comment any further on this
subject, and thus you have lost the debate at this point.

But I'll continue responding nonetheless, for the benefit of other ARM readers
who aren't as stupid as you are.

>Brigham Youngs? Nope. The Indian's? Nope. Dimmick Huntington's?
Nope.

As I documented in my previous post, the Indians knew that the cattle Young was
giving them belonged to the Baker-Fancher train because that was the only train
heading "to California via the south route" which had a large herd of cattle.

>Whose words are they? Why, my gosh, oh my gosh, they are the words of
one Will Bagley!

Damn, Red, you did it again. You called Bigler "Bagley." Hey, that reminds me
of the way you tried to discredit Grant Palmer's entire book because a web
article about it said "Mark Herrmann" instead of "Mark Hoffman."

Gee, I guess that means we can now discredit every single word you have ever
written, or will ever write in the future, because you have made the same type
of trivial mistake that you totally reject Palmer's book for. Looks like what
we have here is two discredited Mormons----Grant Palmer and Red Davis.

Red, tell the crowd---how does it feel for you to be down there amongst all
those other, how did you put it---"not the brightest bulbs on the block"?

>And on what basis of fact does he form his synthesis that he is able to read
the minds of the Indians some 150 years after the fact?

I've documented the facts, Red. When you're ready to shut up your blowing and
blathering, and deal with the facts, let us know.

>Answer: the basis of no facts whatsoever. He makes his conclusion out
of thin, jaded, air. Can we say, "Doh!"

I've documented the facts, Red. When you're ready to shut up your blowing and
blathering and deal with the facts, let us know.

>Why, this man must be a distinguished graduate from the D. Michael
Queen School of Ginsu History. He can slice it, he can dice it, he
can even carve an orange out of an apple, and footnote the fact that
apples grow on trees as evidence that there is, indeed, a new fruit
called an orple!

I am quite certain that you have never so much as cracked any of Quinn's
excellent, well-documented works on Mormon history, because if you had, you
could not possibly write what you have above.

Red, if you were to study primary sources of Mormon history for 16 hours a day,
every day for the next 40 years, your knowledge will never amount to a pimple
on the butt of either Quinn, Bigler, or Bagley.

>Hey, I challenge Will Bagley to come onto ARM so that he can face Red
Davis in a debate. I have already had my Baer limit, now I am ready
to Bag some more!

Having spent some time with Bagley, I feel certain that if he were to be
exposed to a few of your posts, he would dismiss you as an insane fanatic whom
he wouldn't waste his time with.
But in light of your pathetic responses to little old amateur me on this
subject, I don't think you want to be inviting a debate with Bagley.

>> (I am certain that Red Davis' response to this documentation will be to
attempt to malign the character or qualifications of the above scholars.
"Shooting
the messenger" is the basic knee-jerk tactic of Mopologists who cannot
intelligently refute the facts.)

>Nah, I shot the message down, and displayed the bias of the messenger.

No, you haven't. You have not refuted a single item of fact in the quotes I
posted. Your entire response has consisted of ad hominem attacks and silly
remarks springing from your utter ignorance of the subject at hand.

You assert that you "display the bias of the messenger," when it is obvious
that your own biases causes you to robot-like reject all sources which disagree
with your preconceived notions, rather than by the merits of their messages.

>You know, if a person were to publish a study that smoking is not
harmful - and it turned out that not only that person smoked, but
their whole life's savings was in tobacco stock, and RJ Reynolds
funded the study, well -- is it wrong to suspect bias and
subjectivity?
>Here, we have this Bagley guy who just makes stuff up out of thin,
jaded, air.
>Wow, he should take that act to Vegas.

You are once again blowing and blathering. You have not demonstrated that
Bagley, Bigler, Brooks, me, or anyone else has made up anything on this subject
out of thin air. All you have done is launched ad hominen attacks and
displayed your utter ignorance of the subject under discussion.

You might think that your juvenile tactics are impressing a few of these
dumbass Mobots on ARM, but you aren't fooling any of us who have working
bullshit meters.

>> As concerning Red's mention of Young's message to "tell the people down
there to let the party pass without harm," I have pointed out numerous times
that
Mormon apologists frequently quote that statement in the mistaken belief that
it absolved Young-----but Mormon apologists *NEVER* quote the *NEXT* sentence
from Young's message which stated:

>> "The Indians, I expect, will DO AS THEY PLEASE."

>I'm sorry, I missed the part where President Young was a tribal leader
of the Indian Nations -- or where the Indians lived by his leave, or
where they were bound to do as he asked. The Indians will do as they
please!

"Continue your conciliatory policy towards the Indians.....for they must learn

that they have got to help us or the United States will kill us both."

(Brigham Young letter to Santa Clara mission president Jacob Hamblin, August 4,
1857. Four weeks later, Hamblin escorted those southern Indian chiefs to SLC
to meet with Young and plan the attacks.)

"September 13, 1857: 'At ten o'clock a.m. meeting opened by singing. Patriarch
Elisha H. Groves spoke upon the principles of the gospel, and of the Lamanites
being the battle-axe of the Lord, and of our faithfulness to the gospel. 2 p.m.
meeting opened by singing, prayer by I. C. Haight. Haight spoke upon the spirit
of the times, and of cousin Lemuel being fired up with the spirit of their
fathers. Singing, benediction by P. K. Smith.' " (Cedar Stake journal
minutes---Cedar Stake was the area in which the MMM occurred two days before
this meeting; Stake President Isaac Haight and Bishop Philip Klingensmith
participated in the massacre.)

(Brooks, p. 122, 131.)

"The inhabitants, whether native or alien born, known as Mormons
(and they constitute the whole people of the territory) are bound by horrible
oaths, and terrible penalties, to recognize and maintain the authority of
Brigham Young, and the government of which he is head, as paramount to that of
the United States, in civil as well as in religious affairs; and they will in
due time, and under the direction of their leaders, use all the means in their
power to subvert the government of the United States and resist its authority.
Third, that the Mormon government, with Brigham Young at its head, is now
forming alliance with Indian tribes in Utah and adjoining
territories---stimulating the Indians to acts of hostility---and organizing
bands of his own system of robbery and murders upon American citizens who
support the authority of the United States, and denounce the infamous and
disgusting practices and institutions of the Mormon government."
(Speech of Stephen A. Douglas before Congress in Washington, published on June
18, 1857---twelve weeks *before* the MMM occurred.)

"Whether the hot blood which must now be seething and boiling in the veins of
Brigham Young and his satellites in Salt Lake is to be cooled by the murder of
Gentiles who pass through their territory, whether the destroying angels of
Mormondom are to be brought into requisition to make reprisals upon travelers,
whether, as has been done before, saints disguised as Indians are to constitute
themselves the supposed ministers of God's vengeance in this case, we are not
informed, but have no doubt that such intentions are prevalent among those
saintly villains, adulterers, and seducers of Salt Lake."
("Alta California" newspaper, July 9, 1857---nine weeks *before* the MMM
occurred.)

The historical documentation shows that newspapers from California
to Washington DC had published the reports that Brigham Young and the Mormons
were "forming alliances with the Indians" to carry out his "system of robbery
and murders upon American citizens," *weeks before* such attacks were
perpetrated by Indians who were being supervised by Mormons, by Indians being
paid off by
Mormons, and by Mormons disguised as Indians working alongside real Indians.

Those widespread reports also refute your ignorant assertion that "the evidence
supports the fact that those who attacked the wagon train acted alone"; if the
MMM had been an impulsive act planned and committed solely by the isolated
Mormons of southern Utah, rather than being planned by church leaders in SLC,
then faraway newspapers could not possibly have been able to foretell with such
detail and accuracy the crimes which were to occur in the near future.

>That surely means Brigham Young is a *MURDERER*!

That's the first correct thing you've written, Red.

>Can we say, Wake-up, McFly!

Deal with the documentation, Red.

> >Young, of course, knew exactly what the Indians "pleased"----they "pleased"
to attack the Fancher party and steal their cattle and property, just as Young
had directed them to in the war council of September 1.

>Do you read palms, also?

Deal with the documentation, Red.

> >What Young did *NOT* want was for Mormons to aid in the attack, for fear
that they might someday be implicated in the crime, and that the trail of
responsibility would lead ultimately back to Young---which it does.

>He did, ehh? Why, certainly you have his journal entry stating that,
don't you? Oh, you don't? You just made it up?

No, Red. I didn't make it up. It is the obvious conclusion reached by
examining all the evidence.

"[Young's] answer to Haight is direct: 'In regard to the emigrant trains
passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are
first told to keep away. You must not meddle with them.'
"Yet, in almost the same breath, he suggests that should the Indians annoy the
emigrants or prey upon them, he would assume no responsibility---but the people
of the south must keep the good will of the natives: 'The Indians we expect

will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with

them.'
"This sounds as though he might not condemn an Indian massacre."
(Brooks, pp. 64-65.)

In his letter to Haight, Young was very careful not to put anything on paper
that could tie him to the attack in any potential future investigations;
however, since Young "gave the cattle" to the Indians in his September 1
council with them, his remarks to Haight were obviously a warning to keep the
Mormons away from the Fancher train and let "cousin Lemuel do their duty"
without Mormons being directly involved in the actual deed.

> >*THAT* is why Young ordered the local Mormon leaders to let the Fancher
party pass----not because Young was a great peace-loving, violence-abhorring
humanitarian----but because he had already made the deal with the Indians to
do the "dirty work."

>Uh, Sherlock. No where does anyone even remotely post any evidence
that Young "ordered" anyone to kill people during the MMM. No where.

1857.)

Young's remark about "holding the Indians by the wrist" clearly indicates that
the Indians were under his control, and would kill if Young so ordered it; and
the southern Utah Indians, whom Young had met with on September 1, were helping
Mormons to kill 100+ "emigrants across the continent" four days after Young's
letter to Van Vliet.

Now see if you can draw any conclusions from those facts, Watson.

Another source which supports and fleshes out Huntington's journal entry, and
indicts Young more directly, was from the 1859 report of the investigation
into the MMM written by U. S. Army Major J. H. Carleton:

"May 25, 1859
"A Pah-Ute chief, of the Santa Clara band, named 'Jackson,' who was one of the
attacking party, and had a brother slain by the emigrants from their corral by
the spring, says that orders came down in a letter from Brigham Young that the
emigrants were to be killed; and a chief of the Pah-Utes named Touche, now
living on the Virgin River, told me that a letter from Brigham Young to the
same effect was brought down to the Virgin River band by a young man named
Huntingdon who, I learn, is an Indian Interpreter and lives at present at Salt
Lake City."

>> Unfortunately, the Indians were unable to exterminate the emigrants, so the
Mormons were forced to deceive the party and complete the mass murder
themselves. The Mormons killed every man, woman, and child who they believed
could implicate any Mormons in the crime.

>The MMM was a horrible event. No excuses -- but to sit there and hang
this around Brigham Young's neck due to some Indians stealing cattle
is a bunch of hogwash.

"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 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. " (Dimick Huntington journal, September 1, 1857.)

Red, you got any "excuses" as to why Brigham Young met with twelve Indian
chiefs on September 1 and "gave them all the cattle that had gone to Cal the
south rout," and then ten days later, those same Indians, along with Mormons in
southwestern Utah, were attacking and murdering an emigrant train which had 400
head of cattle traveling "on the south rout to Cal"?

> >And even with all this evidence, Red Davis still has the gall to write:
> >"We went over this subject several years ago -- and the
> >evidence supports the fact that those who attacked the wagon train
> >acted alone."

>> Comments like this serve to demonstrate why Mormons like Red Davis are
incorrigible brainwashed fanatics: No matter how much

>Yep. I am an "incorrigible brainwashed fanatic" given your
"well-researched-and-documented evidence" of.....of.....of.... cattle
stealing Indians.

That's right, Red. You are a hopelessly brainwashed, completely mind-numbed
religious cult fanatic. You are only a few short steps behind the People's
Templers, the Branch Davidians, and the Heaven's Gaters.

Huntington's journal entries tell much more than just "cattle stealing
Indians." They
also tell us who told the Indians to steal those cattle---Brigham Young.

Another bit of evidence which indicts Young is a single sentence in a letter
from him to Jacob Hamblin dated March 5, 1858---six months after the MMM:

"In regard to the cattle you should control them and use them for the best
interest of both the missionaries and the Indians."

>What a hoot!
>Can we say, "TheJordan6 is an idiot"? I think we can.

Well, Red, *YOU* can say that all you want, but why don't we let the *FACTS*
decide the issue?

>> well-researched-and-documented evidence, from any number of legitimate,
historical sources, is presented which refutes their pre-determined
conclusions, they will not budge one millimeter from their pre-determined,
incorrect conclusions.
>> Such behavior is the very essence of cultic mind-control.

>Yea. We Mormon cultists, we demand hard facts. You know -- like
*actual* evidence that Brigham Young "ordered" the MMM.

>-Red Davis

I've furnished ample evidence above, and you can read more than 1000 pages more
by studying Brooks, Bagley, and Bigler's works, among many others.

But unfortunately, you are so hopelessly brainwashed that you "discredit" via
ad hominem the very historians from whom you could learn the facts. And that
tells us that you are not interested in the facts; you are only interested in
"shooting the messengers" who bring you any facts which challenge your
pre-determined conclusions---and since your pre-determined conclusions are the
product of your own ignorance and obstinance, you're pretty much a hopeless
case.

Fortunately, I do not write for the benefit of hopeless cases such as yourself;
I write for the benefit of those readers who still have an ounce of independent
thinking capacity.

Randy J.

TheJordan6

unread,

May 23, 2003, 3:29:58 PM5/23/03

Part 3

Randy wrote:

>> I've documented the evidence for Brigham Young's complicity in the MMM. I
>> suggest that you address the data, and leave your juvenile remarks for the
>> schoolyard.

Red Davis replied:

>Yes, you have "documented the evidence for Brigham Young's complicity
>in the MMM". That is -- you have thoroughly demonstrated that there
>is *no* evidence to document.

Red, I provided ample documentation to support the fact of Young's complicity
in the MMM in two posts addressed to you on April 27. I suggest that you deal
with the actual facts documented in those posts, rather than continuing your
juvenile blowing, blathering, and refusal to honestly address the issue.

>You said you had "matter-of-fact evidence". Where is it? Was that
>hootin' and hollerin' about cows and Indians what you call
>"matter-of-fact evidence"?

I detailed all of that in my two posts of April 27.

>OK. Let's go one step further - let's try Brigham Young for murder
>based on your "documented" "matter-of-fact" evidence:

>"Your Honor, I am the prosecutor in this case, TheJordan6. The
>charges against Brigham Young are the murders committed at the MMM."
>
>"Proceed", sez the Judge.

Your sophomoric Hugh Nibley/Jack West-style "mock trial" tactic is not an
honest or intelligent way to deal with the facts.

>"Your Honor, a man recorded in his diary that the cattle from the
>northern rout be given to the Indians.

"A man" who happened to be Brigham Young's interpreter and liaison with Utah
Indian chiefs. And that diary entry record those Indians being paid off in
cattle, corn, and melons by a Mormon bishop in Ogden for their part in a raid
on an emigrant train.
And one day later, that same man was in a council with Brigham Young and
twelve other Indian chiefs discussing what to do with cattle that was heading
through southern Utah on its way to California.

>He also said, in Mormon
>pseudo-code,

No "pseudo-code," just the relating of daily events by a semi-literate
19th-century man.

>that the cattle from the southern rout be given to the
>Indians. [audience shreaks in outrage]. It is obvious, Your Honor,
>that what was meant by this Mormon Vermon was that all the people of
>the Southern rout should be massacred, and their cattle taken by the
>Indians. [the horror of it all]"

Note, readers, how the Mormon apologist Red Davis re-states Dimick Huntington's
remarks in his own words, in a deliberate effort to obfuscate or omit the fact
of Young's bestowal of stolen cattle to those Indians. Here are Huntington's
ACTUAL remarks:

"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."

It is obvious from Huntington's statement that in that council, Brigham Young
gave those Indians the "cattle that had gone to Cal. the south rout"; those
Indians were surprised by Young's bestowal of those cattle to them, because
Young had previously told them not to steal; but Young convinced those Indians
that stealing those cattle was proper and justified because the owners of the
cattle were intending to kill both the Mormons and the Indians.

Now, since the emigrant train heading to California on the south route was no
threat to the Indians, Young's remarks to the Indians that they should in
effect, "kill or be killed," was not only unjustified and deceitful, but
also revealed Young's presumption that when the Indians raided the train in
order to steal the cattle as planned, there would likely be killing involved.

Now, Red, I have provided you with Brigham Young's own statement of September
7, 1857----six days after this council with those Indians, and four days before
those Indians aided in killing those emigrants----to U. S. Army Captain Stewart
van Vliet:

I have also provided you with LDS historian Juanita Brooks' comment that having
those Indians attack that train and steal those cattle was perfectly in keeping
with Young's policy:

(Juanita Brooks, "Mountain Meadows Massacre," p. 122, 131.)

Now, Red, I suggest that you deal with this actual evidence, instead of
continuing to blow, blather, and obfuscate the facts.

>"Furthermore, this man, who knew Brigham Young

Far from merely "knowing" Brigham Young, Huntington was his brother-in-law, his
trusted Indian interpreter and liaison, and a member of Young's inner circle of
most loyal followers.

>[shouts of 'lynch him'
>are heard] recorded in his diary that the Indians should not kill the
>cows nor the young newborn cattle -- just the old ones...clear
>evidence of a Mormon plot in Mormon pseudocode to kill all the men,
>women, and children of the Fancher party."

You are hopelessly confusing the facts. The cattle you are referring to in
your drivel above were the ones stolen from an emigrant train on the "northern
route," north of SLC, as made obvious by the fact that "Bishop West of Ogden"
was in charge of paying off the Indians for their part in the attack.

However, Huntington's recording of that incident is relevant to the attack on
the Fancher train because it shows that attacking and robbing emigrant trains
traveling on both "north" and "south" routes to California was the policy of
church leaders in SLC, rather than being the work of local, unauthorized
Mormons acting on their own, as you have ignorantly asserted.

>"Your honor, I rest my case. This evidence is documented
>matter-of-fact".

Note, readers, how Red has his "mock prosecutor" "rest his case", when the
"case" Red has presented is nothing more than a juvenile exercise in
obfuscating, misstating, or omitting the vast majority of the facts.

Red, as I wrote you earlier, your tactics might work on some of these Mormons
around here who are as stupid as you are, but you aren't fooling anybody who
has
half a brain.

Until you deal honestly and intelligently with the facts, you are---how do they
say it in Texas---"pissing into the wind."

>"The defense can now present their case." sez the Judge.
>
>"Your honor, we motion that the case be dismissed with prejudice as
>there are no facts in evidence supporting a charge, much less a
>conviction, of Brigham Young of any charges of conspiracy or murder."
>
>"I hereby order the case be dismissed with prejudice. What idiot
>brought murder charges against a man based on cattle dealings via a
>third party?" sez the Judge.
>
>"May I be recognized by the court, Your Honor?"
>
>Said the Judge, "You bet, Red."
>
>"The idiot that brought the charges was Randy J., a man who has no
>understanding of the ideas and concepts of "evidence", "burden of
>proof", "prima facie", "beyond a reasonable doubt", "innocent until
>proven guilty in a court of law", "judicial temperance", or "hearsay".
> He simply has a rope he has been trying to tie around a Mormon's neck
>so he can fully demonstrate his hatred and bigotry against a religious
>institution."

Red, as opposed to your juvenile, concocted "mock trial," I have documented the
actual evidence for Young's complicity in the MMM, and I can provide 100 times
more than that.

You have yet to deal with that evidence, and as long as you fail to deal with
the
evidence, every reader on ARM knows exactly which one of us is the "idiot."

>"I remember having a couple of those guys in front of me three decades
>ago." The Judge continued, "Red, does this guy still have his white
>sheet, his cross all covered with fuel ready to burn, and his 'Stars
>and Bars' tattooed to his arm?"
>
>"Why, in a manner of speaking, yes, he does. Only his white sheet is
>on the inside, his mind is what is covered with fuel, and it is his
>heart that has the tattoo -- but his actions and methods are just as
>bigoted and evil as the KKK."

Note, readers, how the Mormon apologist Red Davis attempts to obfuscate the
facts in the MMM case by comparing me, the provider of the facts, to a member
of the KKK.

Red's tactic here is a demonstration of the classic Mormon "persecution
complex"; in the Mormon fanatic's mind, Brigham Young cannot possibly be
guilty, so the evidence presented against him must be "religious persecution"
and "bigotry."

>The Judge sez, "Red, your Daddy was a fine man, he practiced law
>before me for 40 years. He taught you well." Red concludes, "Yes, my
>daddy was a smart man, he taught me to recognize true hatred and
>bigotry -- especially when it is all dressed up in sophistry."
>
>-Red Davis

Tell you what, Red:

If you are being honest when you assert that your daddy practiced law for 40
years, I recommend that you print out my two posts to you dated April 27, which
contain more documentation for Brigham Young's part in the MMM.

Have your daddy read over the evidence, and then have him write a summary of
his opinion of the case. Then post your daddy's opinion here on ARM. Then
we'll discuss the issue further.

Randy J.

TheJordan6

unread,

May 23, 2003, 3:32:37 PM5/23/03

Part 4

Randy wrote:

>> Gee, Red, I didn't see any comments from you about Brigham Young's letter
>of
>> September 7, 1857 (four days before the MMM) in your above response.

Red Davis replied:

>Oh, you mean the letter carried by dispatcher from Brigham Young to
>the people in the Mountain Meadows area?

No, deceitful Mormon, I'm referring to the letter to U. S. Army Captain Stewart
van Vliet.

>The one that arrived in
>Cedar City, Utah *after* most of the Fancher party were killed?

I'm 100 times more familiar with the *entire* contents of Young's letter to
Isaac Haight, and its context, than you ever will be, Red.

>And
>what did this letter say?
>
>It said, "In regard to the emigration trains passing through our

>settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are first

>notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we

>expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good

>feelings with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but

>you should try and preserve good feelings with them."

Deceitful Mormon, you are once again ignoring the context behind Young's
remarks, even though I have thoroughly detailed it for you. Since you're in
intellectual denial of the facts, I'll repeat them:

As documented in Young's entries in the "Journal History of the Church" and
Dimick Huntington's personal journal, Brigham Young bestowed the cattle
belonging to emgrant trains heading to California on the south route to
southern Utah Indian tribes (chiefly Pahvants and Paiutes), in a council with
them held in SLC on September 1 (six days before the initial attack on the
Fancher train.)

Young's intention was for only the Indians to attack and rob the emigrants,
with the local Mormons hiding out of sight to supervise the crime and
distribute the plunder. But the Fancher party fought off the initial attack
and fortified themselves, foiling the original plan.

*THAT* was the point at which Haight sent a rider (James Haslam) to SLC to ask
for Young's further instructions. But Haight and other Mormons realized that
some of the emigrants had already recognized that some of the attackers were
Mormons clumsily disguised as Indians, so that is why the Mormons voted to go
ahead and kill all the emigrants they thought might be able to testify against
them at some future point, without waiting for Young's response.

Haight's letter to Young has "conveniently" disappeared, so we don't know
exactly what Haight asked him. Regardless, it is apparent from Young's
response that Young did not realize that the Indians had failed in their
mission. Therefore, his response which you quote in part above merely
reiterated the plan in the September 1 council to have the Mormons "stay
away" from the emigrants, and let "the Indians....do as they please."

Of course, Young was smart enough not to write anything in his response to
Haight that would directly incriminate him or any Mormons; however, his remark
"the Indians we expect will do as they please" was a veiled reiteration of what
he had planned and agreed to with the Indian chiefs in that September 1 council
in SLC---to steal the cattle of the emigrants which were heading to California
on the south route.

That is further made obvious by the *VERY NEXT SENTENCE* from Young's
instructions to Haight (which deceitful Mormon apologists never quote):

"There are no other [emigrant] trains going south that I know of."

You see, ignoramus Red, the Baker/Fancher train had passed through SLC a few
weeks earlier, and Young and other Mormon leaders had seen its herd of 400
cattle.

Young's above remark makes it obvious that he knew that the Baker/Fancher train
(which Haight was asking Young for instructions about) was the last one heading
south from SLC that fall; and it is equally obvious that Dimick Huntington's
statement that the cattle which Young had allowed the southern Utah Indian
chiefs to "steal" was the cattle belonging to the Baker/Fancher train.

>Gosh, that must be secret pseudo-code Mormon encryption where Brigham
>Young, to quote you "ordered" the MMM.

Red, I've documented the evidence for you several times, and you have yet to
honestly deal with it.

> The only problem is -- the
>messenger arrived after the fact either way.

Whether the messenger (Haslam) returned before or after the massacre was
irrelevant. Your problem is that you think that Young's response meant that he
didn't want the attack to occur AT ALL, but that isn't the case; since Young
had already approved the attack on September 1, his response to Haight was
merely his reiteration that he didn't want the Mormons to take direct part in
it. To repeat:

>Oh, you are talking about the one to U. S. Army Captain Stewart van
>Vliet, which has no relationship whatsoever to the MMM incident.

Absolute moron. Young's letter to van Vliet clearly shows that:

A) Young had the Indians under his control

B) Young's referral to "emigration across the continent", when he knew
perfectly well that the Baker/Fancher train was the last one to leave SLC
heading south, ties his threat to that specific train

C) The fact that *THE VERY DAY* of Young's letter to van Vliet, the same
southern Indian chiefs with whom he had met on September 1 attacked and began
killing the Fancher party, and along with the Mormons, massacred about 120 of
them on September 11.

As I've cited for you before (which you have yet to respond to):

>Can you say, "Red Herring"? "Straw Man"? "Sophomoric reasoning"?

Sure we can, if we're talking about your pathetic posts.

>Even when the text of the non-related Stewart van Vliet letter -- there
>is not one single bit of evidence that Brigham Young did anything
>other than:
>
>1. Warn all that he could that trouble was brewing

Liar. The documentation of the September 1 war council clearly shows that
Young was behind the crime.

>2. Order all under his control to stand by and let emmigrants pass
>through peacefully

Liar. The Indians were some of those who were "under his control"; he
threatened to "turn them loose" on any emigrants passing through; and in the
council of September 1, he agreed and approved the attack and robbing of the
Fancher train's cattle.

>3. Keep the Indians at bay as long as he could as a third party only
>capable of persuasion -- not control.

Red, these ignorant assertions tells us that you still have not bothered to
address the documentation in my two posts to you of April 27, nor have you
studied Will Bagley's exhaustive remarks on the subject to which I referred
you.

All you are doing here is blowing smoke. You are trying to make your fellow
Mobots, who are even stupider than you, think that you are actually refuting my
documentation, when all you are doing is ignoring the data and continuing to
throw up your tiresome smoke screens.

>Are you completely incapable of raitional and objective thought on
>this matter?

Seeing as how it's obvious that I know a thousand times more about the MMM and
19th-century Mormon history in general than you could ever dream of, that
makes it obvious that I am the one who is rational and objective here. I can
also spell "rational."

>You go from accusing Brigham Young on murder based on
>cattle herd conversation counsel given by another man far removed from
>the MMM events,

Red, you are as usual, deceitfully misstating the facts in order to minimize
Young's culpability. The "cattle herd conversation counsel" was recorded by
Brigham Young's loyal, trusted aide and Indian interpreter. It was his
first-hand, contemporaneously-written account of what was planned and agreed
upon in that council. Huntington's remark that the Indians were surprised at
Young's order to steal the cattle, and Young's "justification" of that theft to
those Indians, is all the evidence needed to convince rational, sane people
that Brigham Young was at the head of a criminal conspiracy.

As for your dishonest assertion that Huntington was "far removed from MMM
events," I repeat Major J. H. Carleton's comment from his 1859 investigation:

"A Pah-Ute chief, of the Santa Clara band, named 'Jackson,' who was one of the
attacking party, and had a brother slain by the emigrants from their corral by
the spring, says that orders came down in a letter from Brigham Young that the
emigrants were to be killed; and a chief of the Pah-Utes named Touche, now
living on the Virgin River, told me that a letter from Brigham Young to the
same effect was brought down to the Virgin River band by a young man named
Huntingdon who, I learn, is an Indian Interpreter and lives at present at Salt
Lake City."

Now Red, see if you can show us some honesty for a change, and actually address
the evidence.

>to stating a letter directed to an Army Captain was,
>"matter-of-fact" an order to the Indians to execute the MMM.

Idiot, Young's letter to van Vliet was not an "order to the Indians"; it was
Young's *THREAT* to van Vliet that he had the Indians under his
control, and that the Indians would kill emigrants if Young so order them to.

>When, in
>*fact* the letter has no such order, and the Indians never saw or read
>the letter to the Army Captain.

Imbecile, that letter was not addressed to the Indians, and they couldn't read
it if it was. The Indians who attacked the Fancher train didn't have to read
any letter from Young; they got their orders directly from him in that meeting
on September 1, as Dimick Huntington recorded.

>> Readers, do any of you see any comments from Red about this statement of
>> Brigham Young's? Or did I just overlook it?

>So far, you have claimed on numerous ocassions that you have
>"matter-of-fact" evidence that "Brigham Young ordered the MMM". We
>have yet to see even a hint or a suggestion that Brigham Yound did
>such a thing, and in fact, everything you have posted demonstrates
>just the opposite.

No, Red, I have provided the evidence numerous times from multiple sources.
You are simply in intellectual denial of the facts. Of course, denying facts
is the basic activity of religious fanatics.

>I think you are overlooking reality in favor of your conspiracy theory
>about Mormon encryption and pseudo-coded orders sent to third parties
>located far away from the events at hand,

Your apparent inability to understand Huntington's journal remarks does not
make them "Mormon encryption and pseudo-coded orders." It simply means that
you are a brainwashed fanatic who is unwilling to honestly face the facts.

>but somehow these orders
>encrypted to such magnitude that not even the complete computing power
>of the world can decrypt them, are miraculously re-directed to the
>involved parties and decrypted by mystical means (no doubt, by some
>Salamander invented by Mark Hofmann or D. Michael Queen).

<chuckle> You just couldn't end a post without mentioning Quinn, could you
Red? Gee, you mention Quinn so often, you must have some sort of unnatural
fixation on the man.

>Sorry, Randy J., hate to deliver the bad news to you: you're the
>biggest idiot I have ever seen, as are your two history heros, Baggers
>and Biggers.

Gee, Red, do you not have any ad hominems you can direct towards Juanita
Brooks, seeing as how I quote her book as well, and her conclusions were as
damning to Young as are Bagley's and Bigler's?

Surely a man of your abilities can throw out a charge that Juanita Brooks was
biased against Mormonism----or perhaps calling her a closet lesbian would be
more in your line of ahem, "reasoning."

Should we lump Juanita Brooks in with all those other idiots like Bagley,
Bigler, and me, Red?

>OK, I love to deliver the news to you:.....
>
>-Red Davis

Red, you haven't delivered one iota of news to me about the MMM, nor can you
now, or EVER, seeing as how I am a thousand times more educated on the subject
than you could ever hope to be, if you lived to be 100.

All you're doing here is continuing to display your ignorance and hopeless
fanaticism.

Randy J.

TheJordan6

unread,

May 23, 2003, 3:33:38 PM5/23/03

Part 5

Randy wrote:

>>>>Gee, Red, I didn't see any comments from you about Brigham Young's letter
of September 7, 1857 (four days before the MMM) in your above response.

Red Davis wrote:

>>>Oh, you mean the letter carried by dispatcher from Brigham Young to the
people in the Mountain Meadows area?

>>No, deceitful Mormon, I'm referring to the letter to U. S. Army Captain
Stewart

van Vliet, which readers who aren't dishonest obfuscators can see still appears
above.

>>>The one that arrived in
Cedar City, Utah *after* most of the Fancher party were killed?

>>I'm 100 times more familiar with the *entire* contents of Young's letter to
Isaac Haight, and its context, than you ever will be, Red.

>>>And what did this letter say?

>>>It said, "In regard to the emigration trains passing through our
settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are first notified to
keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we
expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good
feelings with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but
you should try and preserve good feelings with them."

>>Deceitful Mormon, you are once again ignoring the context behind Young's
remarks, even though I have thoroughly detailed it for you. Since you're in
intellectual denial of the facts, I'll repeat them:

>>As documented in Young's entries in the "Journal History of the Church" and
Dimick Huntington's personal journal, Brigham Young bestowed the cattle
belonging to emgrant trains heading to California on the south route to
southern Utah Indian tribes (chiefly Pahvants and Paiutes), in a council with
them held in SLC on September 1 (six days before the initial attack on the
Fancher train.)

>Really, really? The diary says "Brigham Young bestowed the cattle
belonging to the emigrant trains...." No, it did not, you lousy excuse
for a human being.

Yes, it does, you---you---you---Mormon. Your ignorance of Mormon history,
combined with your blind fanaticism, prevents you from seeing the obvious.

>The Huntington entry said *nothing* about Brigham Young --

Yes, it most certainly does, Red. Your ignorance of Mormon history, combined
with your blind fanaticism, prevents you from seeing the obvious.

Since you've repeatedly demonstrated your inability or unwillingness to
intelligently comprehend the issues, I'll provide more of the context:

LDS historian Juanita Brooks wrote of Jacob Hamblin's activities as the
newly-appointed president of the Santa Clara River Mission in southwestern
Utah:

"Jacob Hamblin, faced with his new responsibility for the Indians and concerned
about making them understand their part in the approaching war, decided to take
a group of the chiefs to Great Salt Lake City for an interview with the great
Mormon chief, Brigham Young. His handwritten diary, as yet unpublished, says:

'I started for Great Salt Lake City in company with Thales Haskell and
Tutsegabit [the Yannawant chief.] He had felt anxious for a long time to visit
Brigham Young. We fell in company with George A. Smith. Conosh [Kanosh, the
Puavant chief] joined us. Other Indian chiefs also joined our company. When
we
arrived in the City there were ten of them went up to see Brigham Young, the
Great Mormon chief. We encamped on Corn Creek on our way up; near a company of
Emigrants from Arkansas, on the-----'

"Here the account stops abruptly, for the next leaf is torn out." ("Mountain
Meadows Massacre," Juanita Brooks, pp. 40-41.)

Now, one might ask, "Why was the next page in
Hamblin's diary torn out?" Considering the fact that the prior entry mentioned
the "company of Emigrants from Arkansas," it doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to
answer that question. Undoubtedly, either Hamblin, or some other Mormon later,
ripped out whatever followed that entry, most likely to destroy the "paper
trail" of Hamblin's account of the war council involving him, Brigham Young,
Dimick Huntington, and the southern Indian chiefs.
This was only one of many examples of documentation concerning the MMM being
edited, removed and/or destroyed by participants or later apologists (Will
Bagley mentions several other examples, and Juanita Brooks even admitted to
burning some records because "they were just too incriminating" of church
leaders.)

Brooks continued:

"The doings of the chiefs are indicated, however, by this entry in the 'Journal
History of the Church,' under date of September 1, 1857:

'Bro Jacob Hamblin arrived in G.S.L. City from the Santa Clara Mission with 12
Indian chiefs who had come to see Pres. Young. One of them was the head chief;
his name was Tutsigabot. There was also a chief of the Piedes and of the
Deserts and Santa Clara and Rio Virgin and of Harmony; Also Kanosh chief of the
Pavants and Ammon, Walker's brother were in the company. Pres. Young had an
interview for about one hour with the Indians.' "

Thus we see that the official entry in the 'Journal History of the Church'
corroborates Brigham Young's own scribbled account of that September 1 council,
which I have previously quoted:

"Kanosh the Pavaunt chief with several of his band visited me gave me some
council and presents. A spirit seems to be takeing possession of the Indians
to assist
Israel. I can hardly restrain them from exterminating the Americans."

Brooks continues: "What Brigham Young told the chiefs in that hour was not
recorded, but we might hazard an opinion that it was not out of harmony with
his written instructions that 'they must learn that they have either got to
help us or the United States will kill us both' " [quoting Young's letter to
Hamblin of August 4, 1857---five weeks before the September 1 council with the
Indians in SLC.]

Brooks was not aware that what Young told the Indians in that council WAS
recorded---by Dimick Huntington in his personal journal. As Will Bagley and
David Bigler point out, Huntington's journal, although being in LDS archives,
was not examined and read until after Brooks published her version of the MMM
incident. Nevertheless, Brooks pieced together enough of the evidence of the
conversation in that council to comment:

"The previous Mormon policy had been to keep the natives from stealing and
plundering and to teach them the peaceful pursuits of farming and cattle
raising, but now Brigham Young seemed determined that he would no longer 'hold
them by the wrist,' as he told Captain van Vliet a few days later. The Indians
must have started back immediately, for in seven days they were harassing the

emigrants at Mountain Meadows, and in ten days they participated in the
massacre of the company."

(Brooks, pp. 41-42.)

Thus, we have four independent sources----Hamblin's journal, Young's journal,
the "Journal History of the Church," and Dimick Huntington's journal-----which
combine to document the meeting involving 10-12 Indian chiefs, all from
southern Utah (in the MMM area) Brigham Young, and Huntington, in SLC on
September 1, 1857-----six days before those same Indians made their first
attack on the Baker/Fancher train.

Thus, contrary to your ignorant assertion that "Huntington's journal says
nothing about Brigham Young", it is obvious from the combined records that the
"B" in Huntington's journal account of that September 1 council refers to
Brigham Young, and the "D" refers to Dimick Huntington, Young's trusted aide
and interpreter----seeing as how both men were present in that council.

>and did not mention cattle that specifically belonged to any "emigrant" [sic]
trains.

Once again, Red, it certainly does; you're just too biased and obtuse to
perceive the obvious. To repeat: Young knew that the Baker/Fancher train had
been the last one to leave SLC heading south towards the MM area, as evidenced
from his own letter to Cedar City stake president Isaac Haight of September 10:

"There are no other [emigrant] trains going south that I know of."

Seeing as how Young was responding to Haight's inquiry of what to do with the
emigrant train which was passing through the MM area at that time, it is
obvious that Young was referring to the Baker/Fancher train in his letter.

And seeing as how the Baker/Fancher train was known to have a herd of 400+
cattle, that makes it obvious that the cattle Huntington recorded which Young
was allowing the Indians to "steal" had to have been the cattle which belonged
to the Baker/Fancher train.

And since those same Indians were leading their tribes in attacking the
Baker/Fancher train and stealing their cattle six days after that council in
SLC-----well Red, surely even someone as dense as you can deduce that Brigham
Young allowed those Indians to make that attack, exactly as Huntington's
journal records.

>A third person, not Brigham Young, is the person who says that the
cattle of the south rout should be given to the Indians,

No, Red, your ignorance and your bias still prevents you from seeing the
obvious, so I'll provide more background info:

As evidenced from four different sources, Brigham Young presided over that
September 1 council. Hamblin had brought the Indian chiefs to meet with Young
specifically to discuss their part in the impending war against the "Gentiles."
Young knew that in order to maintain the Indians' loyalty to the Mormons, he
had to offer rewards----in this case, the reward was the "cattle that had gone
to California by the south route," as Huntington recorded.

It is obvious that it was Young---not some mysterious "third person", as you
ignorantly allege---who bestowed the cattle, by the Indian chiefs' reaction:

"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."

Now Red, Brigham Young did not speak the Indians' language; his interpreter,
Dimick Huntington, relayed Young's instruction to the Indians. When the
Mormons had settled in Utah Territory, Young had taught them not to steal from
each other or from the Mormons. Young wanted the primitive Indians to learn
how to farm and preserve crops, and he sent "missionaries" such as Hamblin and
John D. Lee to teach them how. You've surely heard Young's oft-quoted
statement that "It is cheaper to feed the Indians than to fight them."

That was Young's standing policy until the Mormon Rebellion of 1857 began to
unfold. Young knew that 2500 U. S. Army troops were heading to SLC to unseat
him as territorial governor. He knew that he needed the Indians' help if he
hoped to maintain his power and preserve the "Mormon kingdom." He knew that
any supplies or goods that he could obtain from civilian emigrants would aid
the Mormons in their war effort. As territorial Indian agent, he also knew
that if any Indians attacked and robbed emigrant trains, he could file bogus
reports to federal officials claiming that the perpetrators couldn't be
identified or caught.

So, when Young informed the Indian chiefs (through his interpreter,
Huntington,) that they could steal the cattle which were heading south, the
Indians were naturally taken aback, because they knew that Young was
contradicting his former instructions *NOT* to steal.

Thus, the person noted as "I" in Huntington's journal therefore had to have
been Brigham Young, because he was the man who presided in that council, and
who was reversing his prior instructions that the Indians should not steal.
Being Young's interpreter, Huntington recorded his instructions in the "first
person," as though speaking for Young, similarly to the way William Clayton
recorded Joseph Smith's statements as though they were spoken or written by
Smith himself.

The fact that the "I" in Huntington's journal refers to Young is further
reinforced by Young's own account of that meeting which stated that "I gave
them [the Indians] some counsel and presents." Obviously, Hamblin wouldn't
bring those Indian chiefs 250 miles so Dimick Huntington or some mysterious
"third person" other than Brigham Young could give them some "counsel." That
makes it obvious that Huntington's remarks about having the Indians steal the
cattle that had gone to California by the south route was the "counsel" given
by Brigham Young.

And of course, the fact that Huntington used the specific word "steal" to
describe what Young was telling the Indians to do indicates Young's awareness
and approval that a crime was being planned. And Young "justified" his policy
reversal by telling the Indians "So I have, but now they have come to fight us

& you, for when they kill us then they will kill you."

Now Red, if Brigham Young, who presided over that council, was against the idea
of stealing those cattle (and the potential "killing" of their owners), then
Huntington would have obviously recorded Young's disagreement with such a plan
in his journal. But he didn't. Huntington's account of that council clearly
shows that Young was wholeheartedly in favor of the stealing, and even
"justified" it by telling the naive Indians that it was a "kill or be killed"
situation. IOW, Brigham Young *invented* a motive for the Indians to kill the
emigrants who owned those cattle, and six days later, those same Indians were
killing those emigrants and stealing their cattle.

And of course, Young's many other statements, independent of Huntington's
journal, wherein he expressed satisfaction at the willingness of the Indians to
"assist Israel," and his blatant threats to use the Indians to attack emigrant
trains, make the meaning of Huntington's journal remarks more clear.

>*BUT* it also said that the cattle of the north rout should be given to them
also.

Reddie can't read! Huntington's noting of the "north route" cattle was from
his journal entry of August 30 (the day before the war council with the
southern chiefs) and referred to the raid by Shoshones (and at least one
"Delaware") on an emigrant train traveling on the "north route"---not the
Baker/Fancher train's cattle which was some 250 miles south of SLC on that
date.

As I've explained to your dumb ass before, the "north route" to California went
through southern Idaho (Shoshone territory) and over Donner pass to northern
California.

I've pointed you to Huntington's journal on the web. You could save yourself
a lot of public embarrassment if you would read his entries from August 11
onwards which recorded how the northern Utah Mormons worked in cahoots with the
Shoshones to attack and rob emigrant trains on the "north route," just as the
southern Utah chiefs aided in attacking and and robbing emigrant trains on the
"south route." As Juanita Brooks stated, having the Indians attack and rob
passing emigrant trains was part of the Mormons' "war plan."

>Cattle have been known to go astray, and I don't think a wagon train
is going to stay put and look for 10-20 head of missing stray cattle
-- instead of push forward for California.

Hopeless fanatic, Huntington's journal entries didn't refer to any "stray
cattle." It is obvious that the "north route" cattle were stolen from
emigrants by the fact that Bishop Chauncey West from Ogden paid off the Indians
for the raid with "4 waggon loads of corn & mellons" and "4 beef cattle", and
instructed the Indians to drive the remainder of the stolen herd into the
mountains to graze, out of sight of suspicious eyes.

Your ignorant idea that the cattle were "strays" is rendered further idiotic by
the fact that Brigham Young clearly told the Indians to *STEAL* cattle that was
headed to California on the south route.

Tell us, O Brain-Dedd Redd----why would 12 Indian chiefs from southwestern Utah
travel 250 miles to SLC to ask Brigham Young about a few "stray cattle?"

And if Huntington was merely referring to "stray cattle", then why were those
same Indian chiefs attacking the Baker/Fancher train and *STEALING* their 400
head of cattle SIX DAYS AFTER THEIR MEETING WITH BRIGHAM YOUNG?????????????

Can your tiny brain come up with some logical answers to those questions?

>So, you just made all that carp up and falsely attributed it to the
Huntington diary, and to Brigham Young. Liar, liar, pants on fire.

I haven't made up a thing, Red. I've only posted the facts from the documented
historical sources, and provided supporting comments from respected historians
on the subject. Thus, your false assertion that I am a liar makes you a liar.
Not that we didn't already know you're a liar 100 times over.

>>Young's intention was for only the Indians to attack and rob the emigrants,

>That is your pure BS speculation.

No, that is exactly what John D. Lee stated, and Juanita Brooks and other
historians concur with it. The fact that some of the Mormons clumsily
disguised themselves as Indians before the attacks on the Dukes and
Baker/Fancher trains makes it obvious that they wanted their victims to believe
that only Indians were attacking them.

Since Young had approved the raid in the September 1 council, his September 11
instructions to Haight to "not meddle with the emigrants" and let "the Indians
do what they pleased" makes it obvious that Young did not want any Mormons to
be directly implicated in the crime, IOW they could "plausibly deny"
involvement later, and blame it entirely on the Indians.

>Did Indians attack and rob any emigrants on the "north rout"? Nope. Never
did.

Yes they did, insufferable twit. Your ignorance and fanaticism prevents you
from perceiving the obvious. Read Huntington's journal remarks again, very
slowly. And I once again quote Juanita Brooks:

Ever since the MMM occurred, Mormon participants and apologists to this day
have falsely claimed that members of the Fancher party either insulted Mormons
or committed various atrocities which enraged the local southern Mormons to the
point of massacring them---and that the MMM was the doing of local Mormons,
rather than being the policy of church leaders in SLC. In your original post
on this
subject, you repeated that falsehood:

>"the evidence supports the fact that those who attacked the wagon train acted
alone.

But the fact that Mormons in cahoots with Indians attacked and plundered
passing emigrant trains from extreme northern Utah to the southwestern border,
some 400 miles apart, indicates that the MMM was not a local event, but was in
fact part of the Mormon "war policy," as Brooks correctly stated.

Southern Utah Mormons in cahoots with Indians also attacked the Dukes train,
which had preceded the Baker/Fancher train through southwestern Utah. A member
of the Dukes train, S. B. Honea, stated "that he passed through Great Salt Lake
City on August 17, that he saw everywhere preparations for war, that the
company were harassed by Indians all the way, that in southern Utah they hired
Mormon guides and interpreters to the sum of $1,810, and then were robbed on
the Muddy [River] of 375 head of cattle. [George B.] Davis described the
Indians who stole the cattle as having among them some with light, fine hair
and blue eyes, and light streaks where they had not used sufficient paint. He
gave the number of cattle taken as 326 head.....On October 17, the first
members of the Duke train of emigrants arrived half-starved at San Bernardino
with the Mormon theft of their cattle to add to the tale of the massacre."
(Brooks, pp. 125, 126, 146.)

Since some of the MMM survivors also testified that some of the Mormons who
attacked them also disguised themselves as Indians, it is obvious that the MMM
was not the result of any alleged insults or atrocities committed by members of
the Fancher party as the Mormons claimed, but was in actuality just one of
several similar crimes committed by Mormons, using similar tactics, and acting
under orders from church leaders, as part of Brigham Young's "war" against the
United States and its citizens.

And, as further evidence that the MMM was the result of institutional church
policy, rather than being an act planned and committed by local Mormons, I
repeat quotes from two newspaper articles published *MONTHS BEFORE THE MMM
OCCURRED,* which warned of exactly what the Mormons would do if the government
didn't send army troops to stop them:

Referring to the murder of Parley P. Pratt in Arkansas in June: "Whether the

hot blood which must now be seething and boiling in the veins of
Brigham Young and his satellites in Salt Lake is to be cooled by the murder of
Gentiles who pass through their territory, whether the destroying angels of
Mormondom are to be brought into requisition to make reprisals upon travelers,
whether, as has been done before, saints disguised as Indians are to constitute
themselves the supposed ministers of God's vengeance in this case, we are not
informed, but have no doubt that such intentions are prevalent among those
saintly villains, adulterers, and seducers of Salt Lake."
("Alta California" newspaper, July 9, 1857---nine weeks *before* the MMM
occurred.)

Red, would your tiny brain like to offer an opinion on the following:

If the MMM was solely the product of local Mormons retaliating for actrocities
of
members of the Fancher party, then how could publications from Washington to
California warn so accurately that Mormons were "forming alliances with Indian
tribes.....stimulating the Indians to acts of hostility" to commit "robberies
and muders upon American citizens", and "make reprisals upon....Gentiles who
pass through their territory"------

When at the time these newspaper articles published these warnings, THE FANCHER
TRAIN HAD NOT EVEN LEFT SALT LAKE CITY HEADING SOUTH TO MEET THEIR
DOOM?????????????????????????????

>You sir, are a rediculous liar.

You, lad, need to show where I've lied. You also need to learn how to spell
"ridiculous."

> I have addressed each and every one
of these points previously

Red, there is a difference between "addressing" the issues and "rebutting" the
issues. You have not rebutted a single item of my documentation. You have
merely replied with comments and opinions which display your utter ignorance of
the subject, your misunderstanding of statements from historical sources, and
demonstrated your blind fanatical allegiance to the Mormon cult. You have
offered lame, unbelievable interpretations of Dimick Huntington's journal
remarks, while dishonestly ignoring the supporting documentation I have
provided which further proves Young's guilt in the MMM as being part of the
overall Mormon war policy of the times.

>and you have chosen to simply ignore your ignorance and utter bigotry and
hatred for the Mormon people.

Red, please show us where any of my documentation demonstrates my "utter
bigotry and hatred for the Mormon people." Please show us where a single item
of my documentation is untrue or unsupported.

>I now, dismiss you out of hand as the blathering idiot you are.

>-Red Davis

<chortle> Red, you can "dismiss" me all you wish, but that ain't gonna make the
facts of history magically disappear.

When you're ready to deal with the facts with some intellectual honesty and
integrity, be sure to respond. If you're unwilling or unable to do so, I would
suggest that you never mention another word about the MMM on this forum.

Randy

TheJordan6

unread,

May 23, 2003, 3:41:08 PM5/23/03

Readers,

The post below is from a black Ex-Mormon who read my posts to Red Davis on the
MMM. He asked that I forward it to ARM.

Hello:
Dear Randy, I just wanted to thank you again for letting us in on your
informative posts with this fellow called "Red Davis". It does seem to me that
he is evading the direct evidence you are offering up. This is often the case
with people who have their "sacred cows" violated. The position that the
Mormon church is in seems to be a very tenuous one and quite unenviable because
there is no room for objective study or reasoning, scrutiny of the facts. I
would not be going out on a limb by asserting that when you, Randy, find
objective, physical evidence you examine its merits and investigate to see if
it holds up to scrutiny because you are seeking truth and clarity. Might I
suggest that Red Davis does not do the same thing because I notice in his
"rebuttals" that all he does is equate your offerings with that of a KKK
member( which is really ironic considering how little respect the organisation
has for blacks).

Now, having said all of this, in you could somehow forward this to "Red", I
would like to ask him why he continues to not at least EXAMINE what you
presented in your previous APRIL posting. He does not seem to even be
interested in showing you HOW the documentation you presented could be
misconstrued or flawed. Mr Davis seems to be taking the position that "if I
can make Mr. Jordan seem foolish enough, then people will not think him very
credible, and any or all physical evidence will just disappear or it will seem
irrelevant." This seems to be popular in these forums, but compromises common
rules of logic. This fellow can believe whatever he pleases, but since Randy
has repeatedly shown documentation to support his argument and Mr.Davis has
not, it appears that he is only content believing what HE wishes to see and not
what is THERE.

So, my invite to you "Red", with all due respect is show the board some of your
findings? In a court of law Brigham Young could be linked with this in the
opinion of a jury of his peers based on what was presented. Not to make an
invalid comparison here but if I have my facts straight Charles Manson did not
actually carry out physical murders himself, but rather was linked to them,
guilt by association. And you still have not filled in the gap as to why a
band of Native Americans would just randomly go after a passing car, if there
was not some sort of directive involved? You can argue the semantics as much
as you wish, but the underlying weight of these documents seem to implicate
Bringham Young in these attacks.

If I may draw another comparison? There is not a glaring obvious piece of
evidence that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were linked or networked in
the attacks of September 11th, but after American intelligence did more
searching there were documents surfacing that linked the two entities sharing a
common interest. Now, Mr, Davis, are you going to intellectually honestly
going to dismiss the existence of those papers and pretend it was a mere "red
herring"? Or would you at least consider that physical evidence can speak
volumes?

So in the final analysis, truth through logic and reason will always win out
because reality cannot be faked. So if you have no counter argument, Mr.
Davis, could you save yourself a bit of dignity? Randy has cited sources
repeatedly that we all can go to and verify for ourselves. You sir, on the
other hand just reject them, and act as if him leaving your church alters the
stand alone evidence. You see, Mr Davis, I have evolved enough to see that
whether David Duke cites an FBI crime statistic regarding black crime in the
United States or Jesse Jackson, it is immaterial, because those numbers remain.
Yes, there is a difference in interpretation and spin, but the central theme of
the DATA remains.

Do you honestly think because people leave your organisation that there is some
deep-seated hatred toward your Mormon heritage? Or are people just now better
to sift through and discern truths? I for one did not know that the Mormon
Church banned black males from holding your"priesthood ordination" until 1978
until I did research. And I was willing to hear both sides of the issue, but
simply weighed out the evidence and determined that the decision to lift the
ban was not a "revelation" at all, but rather a confluence of economics and
potential growth abilities. The church even today rather than admit that
judging a person by their skin was indeed racist in nature-will just simply say
it was a decision from "god". This is a shame; and such tortured logic that I
left with the clearest of conscience.

Sorry to digress, but the central point is that you do not seem to want to
grapple with the unpleasant aspects of your "history". You have great
techniques for evading and dodging what is real, but why not use that energy to
truly examine your church?

Regards,

PAUL HOLLY

TheJordan6

unread,

May 23, 2003, 3:45:51 PM5/23/03

Randy wrote:

>Juanita Brooks even admitted to
>burning some records because "they were just too incriminating" of church
>leaders.)

Ex-Mormon Sue Emmet wrote:

Randy,
You've printed this before, of course, but I am struck this time with the
incongruity of Brooks doing this, considering the fact that she was a
respected historian. How could any professional historian let themselves do
this - it DOES impact her professional reputation, and I'm wondering why she
was so highly thought of in professional circles if she, in fact, did this.
It certainly impacts my view of her ability to write un-biased history. Any
insight on this?

Sue

Randy replied:

Brooks' motivation for burning incriminating records was that her grandfather,
Dudley Leavitt, was a participant in the MMM. Like most pioneer-stock Mormons,
she wanted to project the image of her forefathers as being holy and heroic, at
least as much as possible. So, in the tradition of many other Mormon
historians and apologists, she likely "cleaned up" the history as much as she
thought she could before publishing her book. Remember also that Brooks
didn't want to be excommunicated, so that would have been another motivation
for her to shade the facts.

But even with Brooks' suppression and omission of certain evidence, she still
told enough of the story to show that the MMM was the product of the
institutional church policies, rather than an act of revenge planned and
committed by local Mormons. For that, her book is valuable, even though
Bagley, of course, adds much more detail in his new book.

As far as her suppression of evidence affecting her credibility, we must
realize that the average Mormon apologist who is at all schooled on the MMM
treats Brooks as "the final authority" on the subject. Mobots like Brooks
because of her single comment that Brigham Young would have prevented the
massacre if he could have done so in time. Mobots believe that that means that
Brooks absolved Young of guilt. But people like myself, who have studied the
issue closely, realize that you have to read between the lines to get the
meaning of Brooks' statement. What she actually meant was that Young would
have stopped *the Mormons* from doing the killing, not the Indians, because
Young never intended for the Mormons to help in the killing to begin with.

Those Mobots who like to quote that single statement from Brooks ignore her
other comment that Young was still guilty of at least being an accessory after
the fact, for covering up the incident and preventing the prosecution of
Mormons for the crime.

If you paid close attention to these posts from ARM, you probably noticed how
Red Davis's imediate knee-jerk reaction to my quotes from Bigler and Bagley was
to launch his typical ad hominem attack against their character, scholarship,
and alleged "anti-Mormon" bias (none of which are valid.) Such attacks are why
I like to quote Brooks, because most Mobots tend to rely on Brooks because she
went easier on Young than have other historians.

If you noticed, where Red Davis had many negative things to say about Bigler
and Bagley, not once in five posts did he offer a comment on Brooks, nor did he
even acknowledge that I quoted from her book. He consciously avoided
acknowledging my quotes from Brooks because she is the "star witness" for
Mopologists on the MMM. If Red trashes her character as he does Bigler and
Bagley, he has no other scholars on the "Mormon side" to rely on.

Of course, I'm quite sure that Red, like most other cyber-Mobots, has never
even read Brooks. Mental midgets like Red base their opinions on a few
snippets or quotes from other Mormon apologists, and trust in them completely,
rather than doing their own research first-hand. That's why they're so easy to
refute in debates. It's like shooting ducks in a pond, for anyone who has even
a cursory knowledge of the facts.

Randy

TheJordan6

unread,

May 23, 2003, 3:51:32 PM5/23/03

Ex-Mormon Bryce Anderson wrote:

>I've been following this thread (and others like it)
for years. Just out of curiosity, which pieces of
evidence do you think most strongly indicate that
Brigham Young ordered the massacre of the Fancher
Party, rather than simply ordering the theft of the
cattle, fully aware that the raid might result in
casualties to either side.

Randy replied:

Bryce, Here are the points of evidence in a nutshell:

*The 'blood atonement' doctrine which was formulated and instituted by Joseph
Smith and Sidney Rigdon at Far West, Missouri, in 1838. That doctrine called
for the death of dissenters or opponents of the church, or to wreak vengeance
upon those who persecuted or killed church leaders.

*The 'blood atonement' doctrine was later formally included by Brigham Young
into the temple endowment ceremony in Utah, with initiates being required to
swear oaths to obey church leaders' orders over and above the laws of the
United States, and to avenge the death of the prophets upon their killers'
progeny. These were the "horrible oaths" Stephen A. Douglas warned of in his
speech in Washington in July of 1857.

(Some of the Mormons went so far as to invent tales that members of the
Baker/Fancher train had been among the mobbers at Haun's Mill in 1838, or among
the murderers of Joseph and Hyrum Smith in 1844. Such tales were concocted to
provide further excuse to invoke "blood atonement" upon the emigrants.)

*After Parley P. Pratt was murdered in Arkansas by his "plural wife" Eleanor
McLean's estranged husband Hector, Eleanor was rushed to Utah by Porter
Rockwell and others. They arrived in Utah while the Mormons were gathered for
a picnic in the mountains to celebrate the tenth anniversary of their arrival
in Utah (July 24, 1857.) After Young was informed of Pratt's murder, he spoke
to the crowd and announced that that act, along with the fact that 2500 U. S.
Army troops were heading towards Utah to unseat him as territorial governor,
"cut the thread" between the Mormons and the United States. He declared the
Mormons' "independence" from the nation, and declared war against the U. S. and
its citizens at that time.

*As part of his declaration of war, Young illegally declared a state of martial
law, and ordered that all emigrants traveling through the territory must obtain
a "pass" to do so. The illegal "pass" requirement gave the Mormons gave the
Mormons a flimsy excuse to arrest any travelers who did not have one. Since
that had no basis in law, the Baker/Fancher train refused to apply for such a
"pass." Local Mormons had first attempted to arrest leaders of the train at
Cedar City because they had no "pass"; the train leaders' refusal to submit to
that illegal arrest gave the Mormons another flimsy excuse to attack them.

*As I have documented in this thread, Brigham Young used the word "kill" in
several statements and orders prior to the MMM, in relation to U. S. citizens,
soldiers, and/or passing emigrants. Young told Jacob Hamblin to teach the
southwestern Indians that they must side with the Mormons or the "Mericats"
would "kill us both."

In his own journal, Young expressed satisfaction that he could hardly restrain
the Indians from "exterminating the Americans." Since that statement was in
context of his meeting with the southern Indian chiefs that very day, it's
obvious that those "Americans" were the emigrants passing through southern Utah
at that very moment.

Young repeated his "you must kill or be killed" warning to the 12 Indian chiefs
in that September 1 council. Since the chiefs at that meeting were all from
southern Utah, and the discussion centered around the emigrant train passing
through their territory at the time, and Young specifically bestowed the "south
route" cattle to those Indians, and the specific word "steal" was used in
relation to those cattle, then it is obvious that Young didn't mind if the
Indians killed the emigrants while stealing their cattle.

On September 7, the very day of the initial attack on the Baker/Fancher train,
Young wrote Army captain van Vliet: "If the government dare to force the

issue, I shall not hold the Indians by the wrist any longer. If the issue
comes, you may tell the government to stop all emigration across the continent,
for the Indians will kill all who attempt it."

This is specific damning evidence from Young's own hand that he controlled the
Indians, and would not hesitate to have them kill innocent American citizens
for the "crime" of simply traveling through Utah Territory.

There is more supporting evidence, but this is more than enough to show that
Brigham Young had the killing of emigrants on his mind and in his plans before
the MMM occurred.

As to the part of your question about why Young didn't simply order the theft
of the cattle, fearing that a battle would result in casualties on both sides:
Simply put, the emigrant train was too well-armed, and their valuable herd of
cattle too well-guarded for the Mormons to engage in all-out battle. The
Mormons first tried to starve out the train by refusing to sell them any food
or supplies; then they tried to arrest them for lack of a "pass." The Mormons
finally had the Indians make a surprise attack on the train at dawn, hoping for
quick success with few casualties, but the emigrants fortified themselves and
killed several Indians, causing them to abandon the attack.

So then the Mormons came up with the plan to draw out the emigrants under a
flag of truce, give up their arms, and have a Mormon man walk alongside each
emigrant man to "safety." When the signal "Do your duty to God!" was shouted,
the Mormon men shot the emigrant man beside them. Other Mormons and Indians
came out from hiding to kill the women and children walking or in wagons
behind.

IOW, the Mormons planned events very carefully in order to keep their own
casualties to a minimum. And I repeat that Brigham Young never intended for
any Mormons to take part in the actual attack in the first place, nor suffer
any Mormon casualties. The plan was for the Indians to do all the work,
although some of the Mormons clumsily disguised themselves as Indians during at
least some parts of the attack, to avoid having the emigrants see that white
men were among their attackers.

Nevertheless, even though Young did not intend for Mormons to actually take
part in the attack, his policies, statements, and orders before the MMM and
other crimes of the period clearly point to him as being the mastermind of the
affair.

>It's good to see you still working at this. Though
don't you ever ask yourself, "Hey, where's the
challenge?" :)

New people sign onto internet forums every day, so my "challenge" is to simply
get the facts out before the public. Irrational, brainwashed Mobots like Red
Davis merely serve as patsies which I use to get the information out to sane,
rational people who haven't studied the MMM, and who want to hear the facts
from credible historical sources. The Red Davises of Mormonism unwittingly
provide a valuable service for the Ex-Mormon movement. They illustrate to
rational, inquisitive Mormon readers the effects of cultic mind-control.

Randy J.

KDavis

unread,

May 24, 2003, 1:39:38 PM5/24/03

thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message news:<20030523152148...@mb-m06.aol.com>...
> Readers,
[blah-blah-blah]

>
> Ove the last several years, I have written hundreds of posts on this subject,
> and documented numerous items of historical data which clearly shows that the
> teachings, policies, and orders of Brigham Young were the direct cause of the
> MMM, as well as other similar acts of violence of the time.
>

Well, there you go again. You post a long and rambling article where
you make straw man arguments, toss in red herrings, engage in mental
gymnastics and circular reasoning, and assert wild claims of proof,
evidence, and facts.

Let's just get down to the issue:

You claim that Brigham Young "planned", "approved", and "ordered" the
Mountain Meadows Massacre. Yet, in your long, incoherent, rambling
post - you failed to provide a any evidence whatsoever to support your
wild claim.

Where is your evidence?

"Hundreds of posts" full of manure is called a mound of manure.

Now, either put up some real evidence or shut up.

-Red Davis

KDavis

unread,

May 24, 2003, 2:04:41 PM5/24/03

thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message news:<20030523152148...@mb-m06.aol.com>...
> Readers,
>>

> Ove the last several years, I have written hundreds of posts on this subject,
> and documented numerous items of historical data which clearly shows that the
> teachings, policies, and orders of Brigham Young were the direct cause of the
> MMM, as well as other similar acts of violence of the time.

Yada, yada, yada. As I just posted - you are quite talented at straw
man arguments and incoherent text.

Here is an example from your most recent post:

In an earlier post Jordan 6 said:
>>>This journal entry "matter-of-factly document's Young's bequeathing
of
>>>the Fancher party's cattle to the Indians"?

I responded:

>>Well, I'll be a tick on a dog's tail! Where does it say that?

Jorda6 feigns back:

>You've quoted part of it, ass-tick. But in typical Mopologist
fashion,
>you have omitted portions which tell the whole story.

Reality: Jordan6 is the one who only quoted part of the journal
entry. He did so in order to slice and dice the text into some
conspiracy of Brigham Young ordering the Indians to specifically
attack the Fancher party using secret encryptions and encoder rings
about cows. The Fancher party is not mentioned in this journal entry.
I simply point out that Brigham Young is *not* mentioned in the
entry, either explicitly or implicitly, and in fact, the Indians have
agreed among themselves as to the disposition of any cattle that is
found along the south rout (they have also discussed such cattle along
the north rout). These facts completely invalidate Jordan6's "point".
So much so, he doesn't even attempt to defend it here -- instead --
he attacks the messenger.

Pointing out the logical fallacy and false accusation, Red Davis
responded:

>>The entry from September 1 states, "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".
>>You do grasp the English vernacular of the 19th century, correct?
>>How about the 20th Century? The 21st Century? How about formal
>>English diction from any century? The entry states that three
distinct,
>>explicit, and enumerated people gave "all the cattle that had gone
to Cal.
>>the south rout".

Jordan6 responded:

>You are misquoting Huntington's words in order to misinterpret their
meaning.
>It wasn't the Indians who gave anyone any cattle; Huntington wrote
that *I*,
>meaning himself (speaking as Young's interpreter), gave those Indians
from
>southern Utah the cattle which had "gone to Cal. [via] the south
route."

Is that true? Nope. Again, the entry explicitly states that three
people decided what would happen to the cattle. These three people
are explicitly named: "Tutseygubbit", "Youngwuols", and "I"
[Huntington] "gave them all the cattle that had gone to Cal. the south
rout."

Where is the name, "Brigham Young", or "Brigham", or "BY", or "Mormon
prophet"?

What stretch (if not boundless leap) of logic translates three people
deciding what to do with cattle on the south route (verses the earlier
discussion and decision on the cattle on the north route) into
evidence that Brigham Young ordered the MMM is beyond understanding.

Jordan6 is making his argument thusly, "I see fat people eating
yogurt. Yogurt makes people fat. The person eating yogurt was ran
over by a car three days later. The person who made the yogurt
ordered the driver to run over the fat yogurt eater."

All I can say to such a crushing display of mental tenacity is:

Har-de-har-har-har! Stop it! My side is hurting I am laughing so
hard!! Please, get a job as a comedian in a night club for
liberals!!! Keep it one syllable conversation so you will not lose
yourself!!!!

Hey, Jordan6, do you sell propane and propange accessories?

-Red Davis

greg randall

unread,

May 25, 2003, 12:35:55 AM5/25/03

TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030523152148...@mb-m06.aol.com
<Snip>

The latest Mormon to assert Young's innocence on ARM is Kevin (Red) Davis.
I
> responded to Red's typically ignorant, ad hominem-and-polemics-laden posts
with
> documentation of the facts from historical sources.

Im not too familiar with Reds posts, but ive heard plenty of references to
them ( Putting your Topic aside for the moment) Your comments seems strange
to me in that you immediatly accuse him of Ad Hominem , yet the only Ad
Hominum, personal attacks in part 1 of this post that I can see are yours,
it seems later on Red resorts to the same tactics after having copped quite
a bit from you. Seems Hypocritical to me. ( or am I mis understanding ?)

Just a few of Your Quotes, are they not ?
"Red's typically ignorant"

"These comments from Red Davis reflect the mindset of a veritable "poster
boy" for Mormon Ignorance."

"Ignoramus, the answer is "all of the above" Young planned the attack

"You've quoted part of it, ass-tick. But in typical Mopologist fashion"

" You are simply unbelievable"

" Now, Red, since you're completely ignorant of Mormon history"

Greg

"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030523152148...@mb-m06.aol.com...

TheJordan6

unread,

May 25, 2003, 2:40:42 PM5/25/03

>From: kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis)
>Date: 5/24/2003 12:39 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <fe6e030e.03052...@posting.google.com>

>
>thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message
>news:<20030523152148...@mb-m06.aol.com>...
>> Readers,

>[blah-blah-blah]

>> Over the last several years, I have written hundreds of posts on this

>subject,
>> and documented numerous items of historical data which clearly shows that
>the
>> teachings, policies, and orders of Brigham Young were the direct cause of
>the
>> MMM, as well as other similar acts of violence of the time.

>Well, there you go again. You post a long and rambling article where
>you make straw man arguments, toss in red herrings, engage in mental
>gymnastics and circular reasoning, and assert wild claims of proof,
>evidence, and facts.

Note, readers, how Red Davis describes my documentation of the facts about the
MMM from credible, legitimate historical sources.

Red Davis' attitude is a classic example of the "Mormon Denial Mechanism":
When facts are presented which refute a Mormon apologist's position, the Mormon
apologist simply refuses to accept them.

Red's behavior demonstrates the self-delusion that Mormon apologists must
employ in order to maintain their "faith" in the Mormon cult. That behavior is
similar to that of say, members of the Flat Earth Society, who blindly insist
on maintaining their position despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Rational, reasonable people can examine the evidence I have presented and
easily conclude that the MMM was the product of Brigham Young's teachings,
policies, and orders.

If Brigham Young had been any other figure of American history, but had not
been a Mormon church leader, Red Davis would surely agree that the evidence I
have presented clearly points to Young's teachings, policies, and orders as
being the impetus for the MMM.

But Red's refusal to accept the clear evidence of Young's complicity, simply
because Young was a Mormon church leader, only serves to demonstrate that
religious fanatics like Red Davis are not rational or reasonable people.

>Let's just get down to the issue:
>
>You claim that Brigham Young "planned", "approved", and "ordered" the
>Mountain Meadows Massacre. Yet, in your long, incoherent, rambling

>post - you failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to support your
>wild claim.

You are only lying to yourself, Red. I have posted many items of specific,
direct evidence which shows Young's foreknowledge and complicity in the MMM and
other similar attacks. I have re-posted the evidence in these five posts.

You have yet to honestly and intelligently address the evidence. The fact that
you choose to ignore, reject, or misinterpret the evidence does not mean that I
have not presented the evidence; it simply means that you are mentally and
emotionally unwilling or unable to accept the obvious.

You are more concerned with maintaining your image of Brigham Young and your
"faith" in Mormonism, than you are in honestly dealing with the issues.

>Where is your evidence?

I have posted it, and you and everybody else on ARM has been here to read it.
I have also forwarded comments from other readers who have concluded that the
evidence clearly shows Young's guilt. The fact that you don't "get" what other
readers easily can only demonstrates your blind fanaticism.

>"Hundreds of posts" full of manure is called a mound of manure.

Red, please list any specific items in my hundreds of posts on the MMM which
you believe to be "manure."

If you can find anything I have written which is incorrect, I will gladly
retract it. However, if you list anything I've written which you *believe* to
be incorrect because of your personal ignorance of the subject, I will try to
provide additional data in an attempt to correct your ignorance.

>Now, either put up some real evidence or shut up.
>
>-Red Davis

I've already listed the main points of evidence many times, Red, and you have
yet to honestly or intelligently deal with it.

You will apparently settle for nothing less than a signed confession in Brigham
Young's handwriting before you accept his guilt. (And even if such a thing
existed, you would probably argue that it's a forgery, because that is the kind
of knee-jerk reaction that brainwashed fanatics make.)

Unfortunately, very few criminals confess to their deeds, either written or
spoken. In lieu of such specific confessions, we must piece together the items
of evidence to built the case against the suspect-----we examine his
statements, orders, teachings, policies, letters, journal entries, etc., as
well as those of his accomplices and his opponents. That is the scholarly
historical method of making determinations, and that is exactly what scholars
like Juanita Brooks, David Bigler, Will Bagley, and other historians have done,
Red.

They have spent YEARS examining all the evidence, and researched THOUSANDS of
historical documents. To the contrary, your posts on this subject demonstrate
that you know absolutely NOTHING on this subject----not even enough to even
offer any intelligent comment whatsoever.

Randy J.

TheJordan6

unread,

May 25, 2003, 4:30:13 PM5/25/03

>From: kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis)
>Date: 5/24/2003 1:04 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <fe6e030e.0305...@posting.google.com>

>
>thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message
>news:<20030523152148...@mb-m06.aol.com>...
>> Readers,
>>>

>> Over the last several years, I have written hundreds of posts on this

>Yada, yada, yada. As I just posted - you are quite talented at straw
>man arguments and incoherent text.

That is merely your opinion, Red. In my posts, I cite the documentation from
legitimate historical sources.

>Here is an example from your most recent post:

>In an earlier post Jordan 6 said:
>>>>This journal entry "matter-of-factly document's Young's bequeathing
>of
>>>>the Fancher party's cattle to the Indians"?

>I responded:
>>>Well, I'll be a tick on a dog's tail! Where does it say that?
>
>Jorda6 feigns back:
>>You've quoted part of it, ass-tick. But in typical Mopologist
>fashion,
>>you have omitted portions which tell the whole story.

>Reality: Jordan6 is the one who only quoted part of the journal
>entry.

Readers, I'll point out that Red Davis is lying here. Those who have followed
this thread know very well that *I* provided the web link to Dimick
Huntington's journal, on the Mountain Meadows Assocation official website:

http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/DepoJournals/Dimick/Dimick-2.htm

Until I posted that link, Red Davis was unaware that that journal even existed.
So Red's assertion that I "only posted part of the journal entry" is a lie.

I have not only posted the link, I have fully explained the meaning of
Huntington's remarks in context with other contemporary documents.

>He did so in order to slice and dice the text into some
>conspiracy of Brigham Young ordering the Indians to specifically
>attack the Fancher party using secret encryptions and encoder rings
>about cows.

No, Red, I have explained the obvious meaning of Huntington's scribbled,
abbreviated remarks by citing numerous other items of documentation which
combine with Huntington's journal remarks to show Young's complicity.

>The Fancher party is not mentioned in this journal entry.

<groan> Imbecile, are you under the impression that emigrant wagon trains
normally flew banners identifying them by a particular title?

I have provided to you *SEVERAL TIMES* the evidence which clearly shows that
the "cattle" on the "south route" which was discussed in that September 1
council between Brigham Young and 12 southern Indian chiefs *HAD* to have been
the cattle which belonged to either the Baker/Fancher or the Dukes emigrant
train.

It's called "LOGICAL DEDUCTION,* Red. Why don't you have your lawyer daddy
explain to you how that process works?

> I simply point out that Brigham Young is *not* mentioned in the
>entry, either explicitly or implicitly,

Wrong again, Red. As I have explained to you ***SEVERAL TIMES***:

Brigham Young instructed the southern Indian mission president, Jacob Hamblin,
in a letter on August 4, to teach the Indians in his area that they must unite
with the Mormons against the Americans to "kill or be killed."

Jacob Hamblin brought 12 of those southern Indian chiefs to SLC on September 1
to discuss their expected part in the upcoming war between the Mormons and the
Americans with Brigham Young, and to specifically discuss what do do with the
emigrant trains which were at the very moment heading towards those Indians'
territory in southwestern Utah.

Young noted that war council in his journal:

These remarks of Young's, in the context of his council with 12 Indian chiefs
from

***SOUTHERN UTAH***,

which took place

***SIX DAYS BEFORE THOSE INDIANS ATTACKED THE BAKER/FANCHER TRAIN IN SOUTHERN
UTAH***,

make it obvious that the "Americans" which the Indians were so eager to
"exterminate" were the emigrants which were at that very moment heading toward
those Indian chiefs' territory in southern Utah.

Dimick Huntington was Young's Indian interpreter, and thus his job was to relay
Young's wishes and orders to those chiefs in that council. That makes it
obvious that the "B" in Huntington's journal entry, recording his account of
that same September 1 council, refers to Brigham Young, and the "D" refers to
Dimick Huntington.

Since it was Huntington's personal journal, he obviously just scribbled their
initials down in haste, which is a common routine when people write in personal
journals. Nevertheless, the identities of the "B" and "D" in Huntington's
journal are confirmed by the other accounts of who was in that meeting, and who
was giving the orders.

>and in fact, the Indians have
>agreed among themselves as to the disposition of any cattle that is
>found along the south rout (they have also discussed such cattle along
>the north rout). These facts completely invalidate Jordan6's "point".

Red, you're lying to yourself again. The Indians weren't "agreeing amongst
themselves as to the disposition of any cattle" in that council.

Huntington's remarks make it clear that the cattle heading on the "south route"
were to be *****STOLEN***** from their owners. It is lunacy for you to posit
that those 12 Indian chiefs traveled 250 miles to talk with Brigham Young about
a few stray cattle that Young had no knowledge of.

Huntington's remarks also make it clear that the Indian chiefs were taken aback
by the order given to them to steal the cattle, because they had previously
been taught *NOT* to steal.

Now Red, please tell the forum:

Who was it that had previously taught the Indians not to steal?

Therefore, who was it, in that September 1 council, that was reversing his
previous teaching, and was now informing the Indians that they could have "all
the cattle that had gone to Cal. the south rout"?

> So much so, he doesn't even attempt to defend it here -- instead --
>he attacks the messenger.

Red, I have attacked and refuted your horribly incorrect and naive assertions
by citing the evidence from the actual participants and related witnesses, as
well as the findings of respected historians of the subject.

>Pointing out the logical fallacy and false accusation, Red Davis
>responded:

You have not pointed out any logical fallacies or false accusations on my part.
Rather, you have merely demonstrated your obstinate refusal to accept the
obvious conclusions which ordinary, sane, rational people can easily deduce.

>>>The entry from September 1 states, "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".
>>>You do grasp the English vernacular of the 19th century, correct?
>>>How about the 20th Century? The 21st Century? How about formal
>>>English diction from any century? The entry states that three
>distinct,
>>>explicit, and enumerated people gave "all the cattle that had gone
>to Cal.
>>>the south rout".

>Jordan6 responded:
>>You are misquoting Huntington's words in order to misinterpret their
>meaning.
>>It wasn't the Indians who gave anyone any cattle; Huntington wrote
>that *I*,
>>meaning himself (speaking as Young's interpreter), gave those Indians
>from
>>southern Utah the cattle which had "gone to Cal. [via] the south
>route."

>Is that true? Nope.

<groan> Yes it is, Red, as I have explained numerous times, by putting
Huntington's journal remarks in context with other documents concerning the
events.

>Again, the entry explicitly states that three
>people decided what would happen to the cattle.

No, it ***DOESN'T***, stupid man.

Where Huntington wrote "*I* gave [the Indians] the cattle", the *I* was
***OBVIOUSLY*** referring to Brigham Young, because Brigham Young was giving
the orders in that meeting, and Brigham Young was the one who was reversing his
prior teachings that the Indians should not steal (which the Indians expressed
surprise at.)

You are insanely positing that instead of recording Young's instructions and
orders to the Indians in that council, Huntington, for some unknown reason,
recorded some irrelevant side conversation between three Indians.

Huntington scribbled his notes, using abbrevations, and you are simply reading
them wrong, and coming up with a ridiculous interpretation as a result. If
Huntington had taken the time to be more clear, and had used proper grammar,
his entry would have read:

"Tuesday Ist Sept. 1857. Konosh the Pahvant Chief, Ammon & wife (Walker's
brother) & 11 Pahvants came in to see Brigham & Dimick, & find out about the
soldiers.
Also, Tutseygubbit, a Piede Chief over 6 Piedes bands, Youngwuols, another
Piede, & Brigham gave them all the cattle that had gone to California by the
south route.
It made them open their eyes. They said 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."

>>These three people

>are explicitly named: "Tutseygubbit", "Youngwuols", and "I"
>[Huntington] "gave them all the cattle that had gone to Cal. the south
>rout."

>Where is the name, "Brigham Young", or "Brigham", or "BY", or "Mormon
>prophet"?

One more time, idiot:

The Indians came to SLC specifically to meet with Young.

Young presided over that meeting, and gave the orders.

Huntington was Young's interpreter, and recorded Young's conversation with the
Indians. Thus, Huntington's remark "I gave them the cattle" refers to Brigham
Young. Seeing as how the Indians expressed surprise at being told they could
steal cattle that were at that time heading to California on the south route,
it is obvious that the man in that meeting who told those Indians that they
could steal the cattle was Brigham Young.

And anybody with half a brain can deduce that since those same Indians were
attacking the Baker/Fancher train and stealing their cattle ***SIX DAYS AFTER
THAT COUNCIL WITH BRIGHAM YOUNG***, that the identity of the person in that
council who told them they could steal those cattle was Brigham Young.

>What stretch (if not boundless leap) of logic translates three people

>deciding what to do with cattle on the south route (versus the earlier

>discussion and decision on the cattle on the north route) into
>evidence that Brigham Young ordered the MMM is beyond understanding.

It's not a stretch or leap of logic in the least. It is simply the logical
deduction based on the accumulated evidence.

Red, you are pretending that the Huntington journal exists in a vacuum, that it
is the only item of evidence which shows Young's guilt, and you are attempting
to prove Young's innocence by your naive misinterpretation of Huntington's
remarks.

I have provided much more evidence of Young's guilt than merely Huntington's
remarks. You have failed to even acknowledge, let alone address, hardly any of
the other substantial amount of evidence.

For instance, you have not addressed the item in Major J. H. Carleton's 1859
report which dovetails with Huntington's jurnal entry:

"May 25, 1859

Now Red, since Major Carleton couldn't possibly have access to either
Hamblin's, Young's, or Huntington's personal journals in 1859---
and yet, a southern Utah Indian informant admitted to Carleton his knowledge
that the order to kill the emigrants had come from Brigham Young via Dimick
Huntington---
then the fact that the Indian informant's
testimony corroborated and expanded on Huntington's journal remarks concerning
Young's orders, and yet the two sources were completely independent of each
other---
makes it a certainty that Brigham Young specifically ordered the attack.

You have also failed to acknowledge Juanita Brooks' remarks concerning that
September 1 council, which I have posted several times now:

"What Brigham Young told the chiefs in that hour was not
recorded, but we might hazard an opinion that it was not out of harmony with

his written instructions that 'they must learn that they have either got to
help us or the United States will kill us both.....'

The previous Mormon policy had been to keep the natives from stealing and
plundering and to teach them the peaceful pursuits of farming and cattle
raising, but now Brigham Young seemed determined that he would no longer 'hold

them by the wrist,' as he told Captain van Vliet a few days later. The Indians
must have started back immediately, for in seven days they were harassing the

emigrants at Mountain Meadows, and in ten days they participated in the
massacre of the company."

(Brooks "Mountain Meadows Massacre," pp. 41-42.)

Red, everybody on ARM knows that you have failed to address such corroborating
evidence and comments I have provided from respected historians like these.

Your tactic of restricting your arguments to a ridiculous misinterpretation of
Huntington's journal entries, while failing to address other evidence which
combines to show Young's guilt, demonstrates cowardice and intellectual
hishonesty on your part.

>Jordan6 is making his argument thusly, "I see fat people eating
>yogurt. Yogurt makes people fat. The person eating yogurt was ran
>over by a car three days later. The person who made the yogurt
>ordered the driver to run over the fat yogurt eater."

Red, try losing your silly analogies, and start honestly addressing the actual
facts.

>All I can say to such a crushing display of mental tenacity is:
>
>Har-de-har-har-har! Stop it! My side is hurting I am laughing so
>hard!! Please, get a job as a comedian in a night club for
>liberals!!! Keep it one syllable conversation so you will not lose
>yourself!!!!
>

>Hey, Jordan6, do you sell propane and propane accessories?
>
>-Red Davis

Red, when you're ready to honestly and intellectually address the facts,
instead of continually trying to obfuscate the issues with your pompous blowing
and blathering, let us know.

Randy J.

KDavis

unread,

May 25, 2003, 4:37:54 PM5/25/03

thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message news:<20030525144042...@mb-m22.aol.com>...

> >From: kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis)
> >Date: 5/24/2003 12:39 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <fe6e030e.03052...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message
> >news:<20030523152148...@mb-m06.aol.com>...
> >> Readers,
>
> >[blah-blah-blah]
>
> >> Over the last several years, I have written hundreds of posts on this
> subject,
> >> and documented numerous items of historical data which clearly shows that
> the
> >> teachings, policies, and orders of Brigham Young were the direct cause of
> the
> >> MMM, as well as other similar acts of violence of the time.
>
> >Well, there you go again. You post a long and rambling article where
> >you make straw man arguments, toss in red herrings, engage in mental
> >gymnastics and circular reasoning, and assert wild claims of proof,
> >evidence, and facts.
>
> Note, readers, how Red Davis describes my documentation of the facts about the
> MMM from credible, legitimate historical sources.

Well, let's do it again:

In the journal entries from Huntington, there is mention of cattle on
the north route, cattle on the south route, Indians, and what should
be done about the cattle. There is *no* mention of the Fancher party,
Brigham Young, or any planning and orderinf of the MMM.

In one of your earlier posts, you tried to twist a journal entry where
the Indians were told not to kill milk cows and young cows -- just the
older male cows as some secret message that another group of Indians
was ordered by Brigham Young to kill the Fancher party.

You know -- all the ranchers/dairy farmers here in Texas sell the
older male cows to slaughter -- they keep the milk cows and young cows
because that's how you grow a herd of cattle.

>
> Red Davis' attitude is a classic example of the "Mormon Denial Mechanism":
> When facts are presented which refute a Mormon apologist's position, the Mormon
> apologist simply refuses to accept them.

Yep. That's me: MDM

Mormon Denial Mechanism

That's when a Mormon, Denies a logical Mechanism that turns milk cows
on the north route into the Fancher party, and which places the name,
"Brigham Young" in journal entries where it was not written.

You know, Jordan6, I was born at night - but it wasn't last night.

>
> Red's behavior demonstrates the self-delusion that Mormon apologists must
> employ in order to maintain their "faith" in the Mormon cult. That behavior is
> similar to that of say, members of the Flat Earth Society, who blindly insist
> on maintaining their position despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Really? Well, given I am a convert to the LDS Church and met severe
opposition from friends and family when I left my Protestant faith --
I guess I have a clear track record of blindly following my religious
leaders. No, Red Davis has never bolted a religion he thought was in
error!

I guess my professional training of engineering prejudices me to
ignoring "overwhelming evidence to the contrary"?

Or, could it be -- I have been underwhelmed by your "evidence" of milk
cows and Indians?

>
> Rational, reasonable people can examine the evidence I have presented and
> easily conclude that the MMM was the product of Brigham Young's teachings,
> policies, and orders.

Well, there you have contradicited yourself again. You claimed tha
there is "direct" and "matter-of-fact evidence" that *proves* Brigham
Young "ordered", "planned", and "approved" the MMM.

Yet, you have to throw in there "teachings" and "policies".

Why must you throw in tertuary material if there is primary material?
That is, you said you have the smoking gun where Brigham Young
"ordered" the MMM. "Matter-of-fact evidence".

Where is this primary evidence, the actual "order" Brigham Young gave?

You have posted a lot of words - yet not a single word that is an
"order" from Brigham Young on the MMM.

Let's make this simple on a simple hick like myself. Here is some
white space below. When you respond to this post, past in the white
space the specific "order" where Brigham Young ordered the MMM.

White Space for Jordan6 to paste in Brigham Young's order:
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

You need not post anything else. Just a single credible primary
reference where Brigham Young ordered the MMM. You say you have it, I
say I keep missing it - even though I have read every word of your
belabored posts.

Now, don't post *anything* else but BY's order.

If you post this order, from a credible primary source, I will do the
following:

1. I will post in resposne that there is believable evidence that BY
ordered the MMM.
2. I will leave the LDS Church
3. I will influence my wife and children to do the same.

I do not, I cannot, nor will I believe that a prophet of God could
ever order the murder of the Fancher party. Thus, if Brigham Young
gave such an order -- I would not believe the man to be a prophet.

Now, hunker up to the table, and let's see who blinks first.

-Red Davis

TheJordan6

unread,

May 25, 2003, 5:10:43 PM5/25/03

>From: "greg randall" gran...@dnet.aunz.com
>Date: 5/24/2003 11:35 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <newscache$j5effh$a12$1...@mars.dataline.net.au>

>
>TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030523152148...@mb-m06.aol.com
><Snip>
>The latest Mormon to assert Young's innocence on ARM is Kevin (Red) Davis.
>I
>> responded to Red's typically ignorant, ad hominem-and-polemics-laden posts
>with
>> documentation of the facts from historical sources.
>
>
>Im not too familiar with Reds posts, but ive heard plenty of references to
>them ( Putting your Topic aside for the moment) Your comments seems strange
>to me in that you immediatly accuse him of Ad Hominem , yet the only Ad
>Hominum, personal attacks in part 1 of this post that I can see are yours,
>it seems later on Red resorts to the same tactics after having copped quite
>a bit from you. Seems Hypocritical to me. ( or am I mis understanding ?)

Greg,

I am not "immediately accusing Red of ad hominem." Long-time posters to ARM
like myself know very well that Red's basic debating tactic is nothing more
than ad hominem and polemics.

When anyone quotes material which refutes Red's positions, Red's first response
is to attack the bias, integrity, credibility, or scholarship of the source.

If you have been following this thread, you may have noticed how Red attacked
well-respected Utah historians David Bigler and Will Bagley as being
"anti-Mormons"----even though Red didn't cite anything those men have said or
written to support his accusation, nor shown where those men have written
anything which is untrue.

By contrast, when I call someone a name, it is based on what they themselves
have actually written. For instance, the word "ignorant" implies someone who
lacks knowledge on a particular subject. Red's original assertiion on this
subject was:

"The Lord never commanded any person to kill any member of the party at
Mountain Meadows. That is an excellent case where people took it upon

themselves and committed heinous crimes.....Additionally, there is no credible

evidence that Brigham Young commanded people to do that either. Indeed, just
the opposite is true
-- he had dispatched a messenger to tell the people down there to let the party
pass through without harm. The only evidence to the contrary is from a man who
has been proven to have lied about anything
and everything. We went over this subject several years ago -- and the evidence
supports the fact that those who attacked the wagon train acted alone."

That assertion from Red told me that he is completely ignorant of the
circumstances of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I can state that because I
have studied the MMM to an extensive degree. I also know that practically ALL
"true believing Mormons" are just as ignorant of the facts of the MMM as Red
is.

For instance, a long-time Mormon poster to ARM, Diana Newman, just yesterday,
has just repeated the same assertion Red had----that there is no evidence that
Brigham Young played any part in the MMM. And Diana made that assertion, in
spite of the fact that posters such as myself and Clovis Lark have provided
ample documentation of Young's complicity in the crime over the last few years.

The reason that Mormons like Red and Diana constantly repeat their assertions
that Young played no part in the MMM is because that is what they have been
repeatedly told by LDS church leaders and apologists. Rank-and-file Mormons
have been taught to trust their leaders and teachers implicitly, and that those
people would never lie to them.

Mormon leaders and apologists effectually use Joseph Goebbel's "big lie"
technique, where if you tell a lie loud enough and often enough, it can become
the "truth" in the minds of your intended listeners. IOW, it's propaganda.

Mormon leaders and apologists indoctrinate their followers with the idea that
anything said or written which casts a negative light on church leaders or
historical events has been invented by "anti-Mormons."

Having been so indoctrinated, the Reds and the Dianas of the world then
knee-jerk reject any and all documentation, from whatever source, which
demonstrates such things as Young's guilt in the MMM. And regardless of how
much credible, legitimate evidence you can give them to the contrary, they will
cling to their false position like a lemming going over a cliff.

In short, Greg, the difference between my ad hominems and Red Davis' ad
hominems is that mine are based on the actual facts and statements concerning
the issues; whereas Red uses ad hominems specifically to cloud or avoid the
issues.

>Just a few of Your Quotes, are they not ?
>"Red's typically ignorant"
>"These comments from Red Davis reflect the mindset of a veritable "poster
>boy" for Mormon Ignorance."
>"Ignoramus, the answer is "all of the above" Young planned the attack
>"You've quoted part of it, ass-tick. But in typical Mopologist fashion"
>" You are simply unbelievable"
>" Now, Red, since you're completely ignorant of Mormon history"
>
>Greg

Yep, I wrote all of those.

Are any of them untrue?

Randy J.

greg randall

unread,

May 26, 2003, 6:04:52 AM5/26/03

TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20030525171043...@mb-m22.aol.com...> >From: "greg randall"
gran...@dnet.aunz.com

I am not "immediately accusing Red of ad hominem." Long-time posters to
ARM
> like myself know very well that Red's basic debating tactic is nothing
more
> than ad hominem and polemics.

<snip>

Fair enough thanks.
Nothing wrong with a bit of Ad hominem, it certainly spices up some
otherwise plain discussion and brings out the personality of the poster. (
And Ive been know to indulge in some of it myself ) . In fact some of the
"choice" and funniest statments in some posts are along those lines. As long
as we admit we do it and dont go over the top, all's the more fun.
Ps. Ill repent later ( :
Greg

TheJordan6

unread,

May 26, 2003, 9:59:27 AM5/26/03

>From: kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis)
>Date: 5/25/2003 3:37 PM Central Daylight Time

Fine by me, Red. Mentally deficient people often have to have information
repeated to them over and over befure they can grasp it.

>In the journal entries from Huntington, there is mention of cattle on
>the north route,

Right. That mention refers to an Indian raid on an emigrant party north of
Ogden, supervised by Mormon bishop Chauncey West, who paid the Indians off in
cattle, corn, and melons. Bishop West reported the successful raid to Brigham
Young's intrepreter and liaison Dimick Huntington, who noted the event in his
journal.

>cattle on the south route, Indians, and what should
>be done about the cattle.

Right. And as I have documented for you ***THREE TIMES***, Brigham Young's
September 10 letter to Isaac Haight makes it clear that Young knew that the
Fancher train (which Haight was asking instructions about) was the LAST
emigrant train which had left SLC heading down the south route to California.

>There is *no* mention of the Fancher party,

It doesn't matter that the specific term "Fancher party" wasn't used in the
relevant orders and correspondence. It is ***OBVIOUS*** that Huntington's
journal entry refers to either the Fancher or Dukes train because, to repeat
for the umpteenth time:

*The 12 Indian chiefs whom Jacob Hamblin brought to SLC to council with Young
on September 1 were all from the southwestern Utah area (Hamblin's
jurisdiction), and Hamblin brought those chiefs to SLC specifically to get
orders from Young as to their part in the impending war against the Americans.

*Because the Fancher party had been the last emigrant train to leave SLC
heading south before Brigham Young illegally declared martial law and closed
the trails, Huntington's journal remarks about the "cattle along the south
route to California" could not be referring to any cattle except those
belonging to the Fancher or Dukes trains.

*The Mormons knew very well that the Fancher party had a herd of some 400
cattle, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in money and property.
Thus, Huntingon's journal entry stating that Brigham Young "gave" the Indians
"all the cattle that had gone to California by the south route", and the
Indians' surprise upon being told that they could "steal" (Huntington's word)
those cattle, make it doubly obvious that the cattle that Young was "giving"
those southern Indian chiefs were the cattle which belonged to the emigrants
heading through those chiefs' territory at that very moment.

>Brigham Young, or any planning and ordering of the MMM.

Yes it does, Red; you are simply unwilling to admit it, because doing so would
force you to re-think your allegiance to Mormonism.

>In one of your earlier posts, you tried to twist a journal entry

I haven't "twisted" any journal entries, Red. I have merely explained their
meaning by providing supporting documentation from other sources which puts
them into their proper context and tells the complete story. And my
interpretation of the events is confirmed by reputable historians which I have
quoted many times, such as Juanita Brooks, David Bigler, and Will Bagley.

>where
>the Indians were told not to kill milk cows and young cows -- just the
>older male cows as some secret message that another group of Indians
>was ordered by Brigham Young to kill the Fancher party.

One more time, Forrest: The event that you are unsuccessfully attempting to
relate involved a raid on the "north route" to California----north of Ogden.
Huntington made mention of that raid on August 30---the day BEFORE the council
with the 12 southern Indian chiefs in SLC.

Huntington recorded the instructions given to the Indians to keep only a few of
the stolen cattle, and to drive the rest of the herd into the mountains to

graze, out of sight of suspicious eyes.

Huntington's recording of that "north route" raid is relevant to the MMM
because it reveals, as Juanita Brooks wrote, that the attack on the Fancher
train was not an anamoly, but was rather part of the Mormons' "war plan":

Red, I have quoted this statement from LDS historian Juanita Brooks four times
now, and you have yet to acknowledge it.

>You know -- all the ranchers/dairy farmers here in Texas sell the
>older male cows to slaughter -- they keep the milk cows and young cows
>because that's how you grow a herd of cattle.

Irrelevant drivel. We're talking about Mormon church leaders instructing
Indians to drive stolen cattle into the mountains, out of sight, and keeping
only a few for immediate needs.

>> Red Davis' attitude is a classic example of the "Mormon Denial Mechanism":
>> When facts are presented which refute a Mormon apologist's position, the
>Mormon
>> apologist simply refuses to accept them.

>Yep. That's me: MDM
>
>Mormon Denial Mechanism

Admitting one's problem is the first step towards recovery, Red.

>That's when a Mormon, Denies a logical Mechanism that turns milk cows
>on the north route into the Fancher party,

Who has turned Huntington's mention of the "north route" raid into the "Fancher
party?" Certainly not me.

The "north route" raid occurred a day or two before Huntington received the
report of it from Ogden Bishop Chauncey West. Huntington made note of West's
report in his journal entry of August 30.

The war council with the 12 southern Indian chiefs took place on September 1,
and as Huntington's entries make clear, that meeting concerned the emigrants
and cattle which were traveling on the "south route" to California---the route
which went through the Mountain Meadows area, where those same Indians attacked
the Fancher party six days later.

>and which places the name,
>"Brigham Young" in journal entries where it was not written.

One more time, Einstein:

The name abbreivated as "B" in Huntington's journal entry of September 1
referred to Brigham Young, because

a) Hamblin's and Young's journals make it clear that the Indians came to SLC to
meet with Young that day

b) Young's journal entry which stated that he (Young) gave those Indian chiefs
"some counsel and presents" in that meeting

c) Thus, Huntington's account makes it obvious that "B" was Brigham Young, and
his "counsel" to those Indians was to attack the emigrant train on the "south
route" and "steal" (Huntington's word) their cattle.

>You know, Jordan6, I was born at night - but it wasn't last night.

Well, it's obvious that you're still "in the dark."

>> Red's behavior demonstrates the self-delusion that Mormon apologists must
>> employ in order to maintain their "faith" in the Mormon cult. That
>behavior is
>> similar to that of say, members of the Flat Earth Society, who blindly
>insist
>> on maintaining their position despite overwhelming evidence to the
>contrary.

>Really? Well, given I am a convert to the LDS Church and met severe
>opposition from friends and family when I left my Protestant faith --
>I guess I have a clear track record of blindly following my religious
>leaders.

Mormonism isn't like most other Protestant religions, Red. Mormonism is a
mind-controlling cult whose leaders and apologists disseminate misinformation
about its history in order to maintain the allegiance of dupes like you.

And your responses on this subject are "exhibit A" that you blindly follow your
religious leaders.

>No, Red Davis has never bolted a religion he thought was in
>error!

I have.

>I guess my professional training of engineering prejudices me to
>ignoring "overwhelming evidence to the contrary"?

No, your religious fanaticism prevents you from examing Mormonism with the same
standard of intellectual honesty and proof which you employ in your profession.

People from all walks of life, from all sorts of professions, can be fanatical
adherents in all sorts of religions. An otherwise respected lawyer can be a
Scientologist. A seemingly normal computer programmer can be a Heaven's Gater.
An ordinary carpenter can be a Branch Davidian.

The bottom line being that religious fanaticism knows no boundaries, and a
fanatical adherence to Mormonism, in the fact of overwleming evidence of its
dubious past and fraudulence, is no different from a fanatical adherence to the
similar belief systems I mentioned above.

>Or, could it be -- I have been underwhelmed by your "evidence" of milk
>cows and Indians?

Red, my agenda is not to "overwhelm" YOU. My agenda is to publish the facts
about the MMM, from legitimate historical sources and credible historians, and
let readers decide for themselves if that information casts doubt on
Mormonism's claims.

Since you have shown here on ARM for years that you are an incorrigible
fanatic, my posts to you are intended not to "convert" you, but rather to
illustrate to other readers what can happen when the human mind gives itself
over completely to a mind-controlling religious cult.

>> Rational, reasonable people can examine the evidence I have presented and
>> easily conclude that the MMM was the product of Brigham Young's teachings,
>> policies, and orders.

>Well, there you have contradicited yourself again. You claimed that
>there is "direct" and "matter-of-fact evidence" that *proves* Brigham
>Young "ordered", "planned", and "approved" the MMM.

That's right. And I stated that rational, reasonable people can easily
conclude that.

Red, do you want to be thought of as being rational and reasonable?

>Yet, you have to throw in there "teachings" and "policies".
>Why must you throw in tertuary material if there is primary material?

As Kevin Thurston has told you, the word is "tertiary." And Brigham Young's
teachings and policies, as well as his direct orders, are the very reasons the
MMM and many other crimes of the period occurred.

>That is, you said you have the smoking gun where Brigham Young
>"ordered" the MMM. "Matter-of-fact evidence".

That's right. Before Huntington's journal was discovered in LDS archves and
published, historians like Juanita Brooks could only guess, from the other
known records, at what was discussed in that September 1 council:

"What Brigham Young told the chiefs in that hour was not recorded, but we might
hazard an opinion that it was not out of harmony with his written instructions
that 'they must learn that they have either got to help us or the United States

will kill us both' ".

But Huntington's journal entries which recorded Young's bestowal of the "south
route" cattle to those southern chiefs, including specific words like "steal"
and "kill", make Huntington's journal the "smoking gun"----IOW, the direct
evidence from a "pro-Mormon" source----that Young planned and approved the
attacks on emigrant trains.

>Where is this primary evidence, the actual "order" Brigham Young gave?

It's in Huntington's journal, Mr. Educated Highly-Paid Professional Engineer.

Try using your allegedly gigantic brain to figure it out.

>You have posted a lot of words - yet not a single word that is an
>"order" from Brigham Young on the MMM.

"If the government dare to force the issue, I shall not hold the Indians by the

wrist any longer. If the issue comes, you may tell the government to stop all
emigration across the continent, for the Indians will kill all who attempt it."
(Brigham Young letter to U. S. Army Captain Stewart van Vliet, September 7,

1857---four days before the Mountain Meadows Massacre.)

"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
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."

(Dimick Huntington journal entry, September 1, 1857---six days before those
same Indians attacked the Fancher party.)

Red, did you notice the words "steal" and "kill" in Huntington's remarks
concerning that September 1 council involving Brigham Young and 12 Indian
chiefs?

What do the words "steal" and "kill" mean to you, Red?

What do you think those Indians were being told to "steal"?

Whom do you think those Indians were being told to "kill"?

Where did the Indians who were present at that council live, Red?

Where was the Fancher train attacked, Red?

Red, have you ever heard of the term "logical deduction"?

>Let's make this simple on a simple hick like myself. Here is some
>white space below. When you respond to this post, past in the white
>space the specific "order" where Brigham Young ordered the MMM.
>
>White Space for Jordan6 to paste in Brigham Young's order:

No need, I already wrote the evidence above, as well as in six previous posts
to you. Someday, you might actually deal with the evidence.

>]
>]
>]
>]
>]
>]
>]
>]
>]
>]
>]
>
>You need not post anything else. Just a single credible primary
>reference where Brigham Young ordered the MMM.

It's all there above, Red. It may not be in the exact words you demand, but
the statements and orders from the various historical sources combine to make
Young's desires clear.

OF COURSE we're not likely to find any more documentation which demonstrates
Young's orders more clearly than what we already have.
As I've stated earlier, many documents which could have contained more detailed
information about the MMM have been destroyed by either the participants or
Mormon apologists. The pages from Jacob Hamblin's journal which recorded the
September 1 meeting was torn out. Brigham Young claimed that he "lost" Isaac
Haight's letter of September 8 which asked him what to do about the emigrants.
Church historian Andrew Jenson burned numerous records in the 1890s. Even
Juanita Brooks admitted burning some records that were "just too incriminating"
of church leaders and policies of the times.

>You say you have it, I
>say I keep missing it - even though I have read every word of your
>belabored posts.

You claim to have read all of my posts, but incredibly, you have addressed only
a tiny portion of it. For instance, you have not offered a single comment on
the following:

"[Young's] answer to Haight is direct: 'In regard to the emigrant trains

passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are

first told to keep away. You must not meddle with them.'
"Yet, in almost the same breath, he suggests that should the Indians annoy the
emigrants or prey upon them, he would assume no responsibility---but the people

of the south must keep the good will of the natives: 'The Indians we expect

will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with

them.'
"This sounds as though he might not condemn an Indian massacre."
(Brooks, pp. 64-65.)

>Now, don't post *anything* else but BY's order.

I've done so above, Red, just as I have done so in my previous posts.

>If you post this order, from a credible primary source, I will do the
>following:
>

>1. I will post in response that there is believable evidence that BY
>ordered the MMM.

No, you won't. You will claim that the evidence I have posted isn't
believable, or doesn't show that BY ordered the MMM.

>2. I will leave the LDS Church
>3. I will influence my wife and children to do the same.

No, you won't. You will remain in the LDS Church and continue to assert that
the evidence doesn't show that Brigham Young was the mastermind behind the MMM
and similar attacks upon emigrants and other American citizens.

>I do not, I cannot, nor will I believe that a prophet of God could
>ever order the murder of the Fancher party. Thus, if Brigham Young
>gave such an order -- I would not believe the man to be a prophet.

Well, since the evidence clearly shows that Brigham Young presided at a war
council in SLC on September 1, 1857, with 12 southern Indian chiefs, and that
"stealing" of cattle heading down the south route to California was discussed,
as well as the "killing" of the common enemy of the Mormons and their allies,
the Indians-----and six days later, thsoe Indians were attacking the Fancher
party and stealing their cattle---
then the logical deduction is that Brigham Young planned/approved/ordered that
attack in that September 1 council.

>Now, hunker up to the table, and let's see who blinks first.
>
>-Red Davis

The evidence is the same it's been since I first posted it for you over a month
ago, Red. The evidence hasn't changed or disappeared.

"Hamblin and some twelve Indian chiefs . . .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: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847-1896".
Utah State University Press David L. Bigler, p. 168)

Randy J.

€R.L. Measures

unread,

May 26, 2003, 11:30:02 AM5/26/03

In article <newscache$e1ohfh$k93$1...@mars.dataline.net.au>, "greg randall"
<gran...@dnet.aunz.com> wrote:

> TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030525171043...@mb-m22.aol.com...> >From: "greg randall"
> gran...@dnet.aunz.com
>
> I am not "immediately accusing Red of ad hominem." Long-time posters to
> ARM
> > like myself know very well that Red's basic debating tactic is nothing
> more
> > than ad hominem and polemics.
> <snip>
>
> Fair enough thanks.

> Nothing wrong with a bit of Ad hominem,...

€ firing off ad hominems can be compared to firing a mortar straight up..

--
Rich, AG6K, 805 386 3734, www.vcnet.com/measures
remove ^ from e-mail address

Clovis Lark

unread,

May 26, 2003, 11:51:39 AM5/26/03

Red should read the account of the whacking of Yates in East Canyon and
what BY said when the news was brought to him. He might read what
happened to Yates' possessions when the prophet was asked about their
disposition. After reading that, he might then apply that information to
these "sticky" details regarding the MMM and see what the collation leads
him to conclude. The first name that comes to my mind is: John Gotti.

KDavis

unread,

May 26, 2003, 2:54:19 PM5/26/03

thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message news:<20030526095927...@mb-m12.aol.com>...
> >From: kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis)

> >Date: 5/25/2003 3:37 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <fe6e030e.03052...@posting.google.com>
> >

[snip another fillibuster section by the Jordan6]

> >Well, let's do it again:
>
> Fine by me, Red. Mentally deficient people often have to have information
> repeated to them over and over befure they can grasp it.
>
>
> >In the journal entries from Huntington, there is mention of cattle on
> >the north route,
>
> Right. That mention refers to an Indian raid on an emigrant party north of
> Ogden, supervised by Mormon bishop Chauncey West, who paid the Indians off in
> cattle, corn, and melons. Bishop West reported the successful raid to Brigham
> Young's intrepreter and liaison Dimick Huntington, who noted the event in his
> journal.

There you go again -- putting text into journal entries that just
isn't there.

Here are the journal entries:
"whare we found one hundred & twenty lodges & about one thousand men,
women and children. We met Bishop C. West from Ogden with 4 waggon

loads of corn & mellons for the Indians. We gave them 4 beef cattle &
stayed all night & never saw so good a spirit before. I told them
that
the Lord had come out of his hiding place & they had to commence their
work.
I gave them all the beef cattle & horses that was on the road to

Calafornia, the North rout, that they must put them..."

".... 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. They said it was some thing new. They wanted to council

& think of it. Ben Simons, a Delaware Indian was thare. I told him
all a bout the Book of Mormon & he said his father had told him about
the same thing that they
would have to rise up & fight but he did ......."

Where is the supposed reference to "an Indian raid on a emigrant party
north of Ogden"? No where in the Huntington entries. Where is a
reference to the Fancher party? Again -- no where.

You are all smoke and mirrors.

>
> >cattle on the south route, Indians, and what should
> >be done about the cattle.
>
> Right. And as I have documented for you ***THREE TIMES***, Brigham Young's
> September 10 letter to Isaac Haight makes it clear that Young knew that the
> Fancher train (which Haight was asking instructions about) was the LAST
> emigrant train which had left SLC heading down the south route to California.

Let's go over reality again:
1. James Haslam rides at all speed from Cedar City to inform Brigham
Young that a group of emigrants from Arkansas had been surrounded by
Indians at Mountain Meadows.
2. In *all* haste, Brigham Young writes a letter to Isaac Haight
telling him:
"In regard to the emigration passing through our settlements, we must
not interfere with them, until they are first notified to keep away.
You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they
please, but you should try to preserve good feelings with them. There
are no other trains going south that I know of. If those who are there
will leave, let them go in peace."

Brigham ordered Haslam to ride the 270 mile trip back thusly:
"Go with all speed, spare no horse flesh. The emigrants must not be
meddled with, if it takes all Iron county to prevent it. They must go
free and unmolested."

So, Brigham Young was informed by Haslam as to the presence of the
Arkansas party (the Fancher party) and that it was surrounded, and he
immediately ordered that they pass with no harm.

Funny thing -- in your "***THREE TIMES***" of documenting the letter
from Brigham Young to Haight -- the only mention you give of this
extremely compelling exculpatory evidence is that we Mormons quote a
"single sentence"
in some delusioned attempt to defend Brigham Young.

Said you on 23 May 2003:

"Mormons will cite a single sentence from Young's September 10, 1857
letter to Cedar Stake president Isaac Haight to attempt to show that
Young was
against the attack."

A few words about your unwillingness to be objective and recognize
stunning exculpatory evidence:
1. I have quoted (and so do most other LDS apologist) *five*
sentences from Brigham Young's letter. All five are very compelling as
to the fact that Brigham Young was decidedly against the attack on the
Fancher party. Your misrepresentation of the facts demonstrates your
inability to be objective.
2. Also quoted is the fact that Brigham Young ordered the rider to go
with all haste - sparing no time. The rider rested for 4 hours before
he made the return trip to Cedar City. That's 3 more sentences of
excupaltory evidence.
Thus, we have you misrepresent these 8 sentences of exculpatory
evidence (not the mention the fact the rider made the trip back in
record time) as "a single sentence".
3. This letter to Haight, in and of itself, is enough primary
evidence to demonstrate convincingly, in the absence of any other
evidence to the contrary, that Brigham Young had nothing to do with
planning or ordering the attack.

So, your bias, subjectivity, and lack of reasoning is obvious. The
questions is -- do you have any other evidence to offer demonstrating
convincingly that Brigham Young ordered the MMM?

Well, let's weed through yet another fillibuster post (If Jordan6
can't baffle them with BS - he will bury them in smoke) for such
evidence. Pardon me, while I cutout all non relevant text:

> >There is *no* mention of the Fancher party,
>
> It doesn't matter that the specific term "Fancher party" wasn't used in the
> relevant orders and correspondence. It is ***OBVIOUS*** that Huntington's
> journal entry refers to either the Fancher or Dukes train because, to repeat
> for the umpteenth time:

My daddy always told me, "Son, a man doesn't have to state, restate,
and force something that is obvious. It should be obvious it is
obvious". My daddy was a smart man.

In reality, we have a general reference in the Huntington entry where
the Indians were to gather cattle along the north and south routes.
Also mentioned is the fact that the Indians were stealing cattle from
each other. No mention is made of attacking wagon trains, or killing
people. Such is just your biased attempt to make wood out of hay.

>
> *The 12 Indian chiefs whom Jacob Hamblin brought to SLC to council with Young
> on September 1 were all from the southwestern Utah area (Hamblin's
> jurisdiction), and Hamblin brought those chiefs to SLC specifically to get
> orders from Young as to their part in the impending war against the Americans.

A war which never broke out, correct? The issue being discussed was
the march of US Troops into Utah, and how they would deal with an
invading Army, correct?
Sloppy-agape if there ever was such logic.

>
> *Because the Fancher party had been the last emigrant train to leave SLC
> heading south before Brigham Young illegally declared martial law and closed
> the trails, Huntington's journal remarks about the "cattle along the south
> route to California" could not be referring to any cattle except those
> belonging to the Fancher or Dukes trains.

Really? Well, click your heels together three times and make it so.
If the journal remarks could not be about *anything* other than a
specific reference to the "Fancher or Dukes" trains -- why didn't
Huntington *name* them specifically? You just said that Huntington
knew the Fancher party would be on the south route, and the entry
could only be about them. Given that Hungtington was a plain spoken
man who wrote direct comments, it would seem to this simple hick that
he would have written "the cattle belongin to the Arkansas party" or
"Fancher party".

What is even more unremarkable about your chare -- is that the Fancher
party had one of the largest cattle herds ever driven West during this
time frame. I believe it was 700 head of cattle. Seven hundred head
of cattle would certainly be noted in a journal entry -- verses the
typical wagon train which would drive 100-300 head of cattle.

Again, you have read your own bias and prejudice into events in order
to twist them into something they are not.

But, even if you are right in your synthesis - that the moon is made
of cheese, and that the earth is flat, and that gravity is a myth --
you still do not have *any* evidence that Brigham Young ordered the
MMM.

> *The Mormons knew very well that the Fancher party had a herd of some 400
> cattle, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in money and property.

Uh, McFly -- you need to study more. The herd was over 700 head of
cattle.
The reason you attempt to cut the size of the herd in half -- is that
you recognize that 700 head of cattle would have caused quite a stir
and explicit reference -- if, indeed, it were the target of the
Huntington entries.

Indeed, some have said the herd size was almost 900 head of cattle.

> Thus, Huntingon's journal entry stating that Brigham Young "gave" the Indians
> "all the cattle that had gone to California by the south route", and the
> Indians' surprise upon being told that they could "steal" (Huntington's word)
> those cattle, make it doubly obvious that the cattle that Young was "giving"
> those southern Indian chiefs were the cattle which belonged to the emigrants
> heading through those chiefs' territory at that very moment.

Let's go back to reality. Where in Huntington's entry does it "state
[sic] that Brigham Young 'gave' the Indians....all the cattle that had
gone to California by the south route"?

Again, Brigham Young's name is not mentioned. You are willfully
misrepresenting the journal entry, and I must classify such willfull
misrepresentation as a lie.

We have been over this three times already: three people gave the
Indians the cattle along the south route - as these three people *are*
explicitly mentione din the journal entry: 2 Indian chiefs and
Huntington made the decision. Brigham Young is not mentioned
implicilty or explicitly.

You sir, are lying. I must ask -- if your evidence is so compelling,
so "matter-of-fact" and so "obvious" that Brigham Young "ordered the
MMM" - why must you:
1. Lie about the exculpatory content of the letter Brigham Young
wrote to Haight
2. Lie about the number of cattle the Fancher party had
3. Lie about Brigham Young's name being mentioned in the Huntington
journal entry?

Liar, liar, liar -- pants on fire.

>
> >Brigham Young, or any planning and ordering of the MMM.
>
> Yes it does, Red; you are simply unwilling to admit it, because doing so would
> force you to re-think your allegiance to Mormonism.

We are at this point in your post, and quite frankly, your straw house
has yet to stand the force of even a mild review by a simple hick from
Texas.

>
> >In one of your earlier posts, you tried to twist a journal entry
>
> I haven't "twisted" any journal entries, Red. I have merely explained their
> meaning by providing supporting documentation from other sources which puts
> them into their proper context and tells the complete story. And my
> interpretation of the events is confirmed by reputable historians which I have
> quoted many times, such as Juanita Brooks, David Bigler, and Will Bagley.

There you go again. "reputable" by whose standard? Bigler and Bagley
are two bag men who have an axe to grind with the LDS Church. Juanita
Brooks? You have got to be kidding!

They do have a repuation of being anti-Mormons. Hardly the objective
sources for accurate synthesis of LDS history.

I think I have demonstrated to this point in your post - that your
"supporting documentation" offers *no* support whatsoever to your wild
and baseless claims.
You have yet to offer evidence that mitigates Brigham Young's letter
to Haight.
You have yet to offer a *single* piece of evidence showing that

Brigham Young ordered the MMM.

> >where
> >the Indians were told not to kill milk cows and young cows -- just the
> >older male cows as some secret message that another group of Indians
> >was ordered by Brigham Young to kill the Fancher party.
>
> One more time, Forrest: The event that you are unsuccessfully attempting to
> relate involved a raid on the "north route" to California----north of Ogden.
> Huntington made mention of that raid on August 30---the day BEFORE the council
> with the 12 southern Indian chiefs in SLC.

It is? Gosh, shucks. Let's read the primary journal entry and see if
that is true:

"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. They said it was some thing new. They wanted to council &

think of it. Ben Simons, a Delaware Indian was thare. I told him all
a bout the Book
of Mormon & he said his father had told him about the same thing that
they
would have to rise up & fight but he did ......."

The Indians were counseled as to the taking of cattle on the north
route:
1. "not kill any thing as long as they could help it"
2. "but when they do kill, take the old ones & not kill the cows or
young ones"

Question: If the Indians were being told to kill people at will, why
were they counseled to "not kill any thing as long as they could"?

Again, there is no mention of a raid near Ogden, no plans to kill
people, no mention of "August 30". Tell us, Oh Mighty False Accusor,
what is the date of this journal entry?

Answer: Duh.

>
> Huntington recorded the instructions given to the Indians to keep only a few of
> the stolen cattle, and to drive the rest of the herd into the mountains to
> graze, out of sight of suspicious eyes.
>
> Huntington's recording of that "north route" raid is relevant to the MMM
> because it reveals, as Juanita Brooks wrote, that the attack on the Fancher
> train was not an anamoly, but was rather part of the Mormons' "war plan":

I'm sorry, where is this mythical account of 'that "north route"
raid'? There is no mention of a raid, or a wagon train, or an
emigrant party in the journal entry. All that is mentioned is a bunch
of hungry Indians (who are stealing cattle from each other, from
emigrants, and from Mormons) and who are trying to determine what is
to be done with stray cattle that are peppered along the wagon trails
north and south. My understanding from Texas cattle drives - that it
is not unusual to lose 10-15% of a herd on a cattle drive as strays
wonder off. Given the north and soute routes were the main highways
between the East and West -- I would imagine there would be a
significant number of cattle along those paths from all of the passing
wagon trains.

The fact is this, Jordan6, there is no mention in any of the journal
entries as to the source of the cattle. Period. My conjecture is
more valid than yours becuase the actual journal entries support my
conjecture -- while they are silent on yours.

Did Indians attack white settlers as they moved across the Indian
lands? According to the Jordan6 -- only when ordered by Brigham Young.

So, Jordan6, did Brigham Young order the Indians to counter-attack at
Little Bighorn? Did Brigham Young order the 7th Calvary's demise?

>
> "This policy of robbing the passing emigrant was clearly a part of the general
> war tactics, since, for the time being, all 'Mericats' [Americans] were
> considered enemies."

The policy of robbing passing emigrant trains was a long standing
Indian method of protecting their lands and living on the spoils of
battle. I do believe such a practice began long before Brigham Young
and the Mormons entered Utah.

Can you say, "I'm such a smuck for falsely accusing Brigham Young"?

> "As president of the Southern Indian Mission, [Jacob Hamblin] was responsible
> for the conduct of Indian affairs; as military commander of the area, Haight
> had sent these men to work with the natives in carrying out the war policies.
> With Zion standing against the world, and with the Indians as allies, they were
> prepared to prey upon every passing emigrant company as part of the
> contribution to the war."
> (Juanita Brooks, "Mountain Meadows Massacre," p. 122, 131.)

What you have just quoted is a tertuary source far removed from the
facts of the day. This is Juanita Brooks synthesis created by her
willful ignorance of facts that contradict her synthesis.

You will gain no ground by quoting the words of Brooks or Bagley or
Bigler. They are not objective individuals.

Make your case with the actual history as recorded the weeks or months
before of after the MMM. Not some anti-Mormons ramblings some 150
years later.

>
> Red, I have quoted this statement from LDS historian Juanita Brooks four times
> now, and you have yet to acknowledge it.

Juanita Brooks is not respected by other historians, and indeed, many
of her peers have noted that she has obvious hostility toward Brigham
Young and such hostility and subjectivity infects her every synthesis
on the man.

Again -- you claimed you had primary evidence that proves Brigham
Young ordered the MMM. If you do, why must you rely upon tertuary
ramblings by known Brigham Young haters like Brooks?

>
> >You know -- all the ranchers/dairy farmers here in Texas sell the
> >older male cows to slaughter -- they keep the milk cows and young cows
> >because that's how you grow a herd of cattle.
>
> Irrelevant drivel. We're talking about Mormon church leaders instructing
> Indians to drive stolen cattle into the mountains, out of sight, and keeping
> only a few for immediate needs.

Really? You still have not established that the Indians were
instructed to steal antying. It just isn't in the historical record.
Thus, you must rely upon synthesis written by Brigham Young haters
some 150 years after the fact -- and quote their words -- instead of
the actual words of the people invovled in the events.

Surely, you must be a graduate of the D. Michael Quinn School of Ginsu
History -- where you slice and dice history in order misrepresent the
past.

>
> >> Red Davis' attitude is a classic example of the "Mormon Denial Mechanism":
> >> When facts are presented which refute a Mormon apologist's position, the
> Mormon
> >> apologist simply refuses to accept them.
>
> >Yep. That's me: MDM
> >
> >Mormon Denial Mechanism
>
> Admitting one's problem is the first step towards recovery, Red.
>
>
> >That's when a Mormon, Denies a logical Mechanism that turns milk cows
> >on the north route into the Fancher party,
>
> Who has turned Huntington's mention of the "north route" raid into the "Fancher
> party?" Certainly not me.

Oh, quite surely you have. The cattle on the north route discussion
in the Huntington journal demonstrates convincingly that the
discussion of the cattle on the south route had nothing do do with the
MMM.

>
> The "north route" raid occurred a day or two before Huntington received the
> report of it from Ogden Bishop Chauncey West. Huntington made note of West's
> report in his journal entry of August 30.

He did? You know, I still can't find mention of a single "raid" in the
Huntington journal as you have decribed.

[snip]

>
> >Let's make this simple on a simple hick like myself. Here is some
> >white space below. When you respond to this post, past in the white
> >space the specific "order" where Brigham Young ordered the MMM.
> >
> >White Space for Jordan6 to paste in Brigham Young's order:
>
> No need, I already wrote the evidence above, as well as in six previous posts
> to you. Someday, you might actually deal with the evidence.

Just as I thought: No evidence.

>
>
> >]
> >]
> >]
> >]
> >]
> >]
> >]
> >]
> >]
> >]
> >]
> >
> >You need not post anything else. Just a single credible primary
> >reference where Brigham Young ordered the MMM.
>

So, I guess that's all folks. Randy has no evidence that Brigham
Young ordered the MMM. All he has are the words of Brigham Young
haters writing in the 20th and 21st century -- without any evidence
whatsoever from the 19th century.

Case closed. I'm still a dedicated Mormon. I knew there would be no
evidence, because Brigham Young did not order, plan, or approve the
MMM.

-Red Davis

KDavis

unread,

May 26, 2003, 3:09:09 PM5/26/03

thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message news:<20030525171043...@mb-m22.aol.com>...

> >From: "greg randall" gran...@dnet.aunz.com
> >Date: 5/24/2003 11:35 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <newscache$j5effh$a12$1...@mars.dataline.net.au>
> >
> >TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20030523152148...@mb-m06.aol.com
> ><Snip>
> >The latest Mormon to assert Young's innocence on ARM is Kevin (Red) Davis.
> >I
> >> responded to Red's typically ignorant, ad hominem-and-polemics-laden posts
> with
> >> documentation of the facts from historical sources.
> >
> >
> >Im not too familiar with Reds posts, but ive heard plenty of references to
> >them ( Putting your Topic aside for the moment) Your comments seems strange
> >to me in that you immediatly accuse him of Ad Hominem , yet the only Ad
> >Hominum, personal attacks in part 1 of this post that I can see are yours,
> >it seems later on Red resorts to the same tactics after having copped quite
> >a bit from you. Seems Hypocritical to me. ( or am I mis understanding ?)
>
> Greg,
>
> I am not "immediately accusing Red of ad hominem." Long-time posters to ARM
> like myself know very well that Red's basic debating tactic is nothing more
> than ad hominem and polemics.

My debating style is to demonstrate with facts you are an idiot, then
to explicitly state, "you are an idiot".

>
> When anyone quotes material which refutes Red's positions, Red's first response
> is to attack the bias, integrity, credibility, or scholarship of the source.

Oh, you mean like when I pointed out that D. Michael Quinn cropped
that picture? Or Ed Decker made up that Joseph Smith qoute? Or
Walter Martin lied about having a Ph.D from NYU? Or Dick Baer lied
about being a psychologist?

I think when people lie - that such lies directly address their lack
of integrity and credibility, don't you?

>
> If you have been following this thread, you may have noticed how Red attacked
> well-respected Utah historians David Bigler and Will Bagley as being
> "anti-Mormons"----even though Red didn't cite anything those men have said or
> written to support his accusation, nor shown where those men have written
> anything which is untrue.

Other than the fact that one has been excommunicated, and the other is
threatening to sue the LDS Church if he is excommunicated. Other than
the fact that I posted a talk given by one of them where he goes
through the typical anti-Mormon disclaimer act of being a third or
fourth generation Mormon.

>
> By contrast, when I call someone a name, it is based on what they themselves
> have actually written. For instance, the word "ignorant" implies someone who
> lacks knowledge on a particular subject. Red's original assertiion on this
> subject was:

Oh, yes, by contrast....

>
> "The Lord never commanded any person to kill any member of the party at
> Mountain Meadows. That is an excellent case where people took it upon
> themselves and committed heinous crimes.....Additionally, there is no credible
> evidence that Brigham Young commanded people to do that either. Indeed, just
> the opposite is true
> -- he had dispatched a messenger to tell the people down there to let the party
> pass through without harm. The only evidence to the contrary is from a man who
> has been proven to have lied about anything
> and everything. We went over this subject several years ago -- and the evidence
> supports the fact that those who attacked the wagon train acted alone."
>
> That assertion from Red told me that he is completely ignorant of the
> circumstances of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I can state that because I
> have studied the MMM to an extensive degree. I also know that practically ALL
> "true believing Mormons" are just as ignorant of the facts of the MMM as Red
> is.

Except -- my synthesis is based on the actual historical data and
record - -where yours is based on words written 150 years after the
fact.

I have studied the MMM to a degree more extensive than you have. I
have studied every single available historical reference from the time
of the actual events. From that data - there is not a single piece of
evidence that Brigham Young ordered the MMM.

The fact that you have not, cannot, cite such a piece of evidence is
telling.

Instead of citing such a fact, you quote ramblings from people
describing what others may have decribed about others possibly stating
what others may have said about yet some other person, place, or
thing. Hardly convincing.

>
> For instance, a long-time Mormon poster to ARM, Diana Newman, just yesterday,
> has just repeated the same assertion Red had----that there is no evidence that
> Brigham Young played any part in the MMM. And Diana made that assertion, in
> spite of the fact that posters such as myself and Clovis Lark have provided
> ample documentation of Young's complicity in the crime over the last few years.

Again: provide the evidence. You have written thousands of words --
yet not one piece of evidence proving Brigham Young ordered the MMM.

In Texas, we call the end result when a person who shovels 1,000
shovels of manure into a pile - a pile of manure. While it may be big
and grandiose -- it still is a stinking pile of manure.

So, here again is some white space, post the evidence where Brigham
Young ordered the MMM.

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

-Red Davis

Kevin Thurston

unread,

May 26, 2003, 11:38:36 PM5/26/03

"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20030526095927...@mb-m12.aol.com...
<snip>

> >Yet, you have to throw in there "teachings" and "policies".
> >Why must you throw in tertuary material if there is primary material?
>
> As Kevin Thurston has told you, the word is "tertiary

Red would rather continue to be wrong than admit being wrong and be
corrected. So he will continue to use "tertuary", "then" when he should use
"than", "there" when it should be "their" (as above) and his irrational
belief in the innocence of BY in the MMM.

This is the true mark of a superior intellect, at least by Red's standards.

Kevin Thurston
"When will people learn!!?!? Democracy just doesn't work!"... Homer Simpson
(actually that one was for John Manning)

€R.L. Measures

unread,

May 27, 2003, 8:52:16 AM5/27/03

In article <baumjs$f...@dispatch.concentric.net>, "Kevin Thurston"
<akth...@concentric.net> wrote:

> "TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030526095927...@mb-m12.aol.com...
> <snip>
> > >Yet, you have to throw in there "teachings" and "policies".
> > >Why must you throw in tertuary material if there is primary material?
> >
> > As Kevin Thurston has told you, the word is "tertiary
>
> Red would rather continue to be wrong than admit being wrong and be

> corrected. So he will continue to use "tertuary", ... ....

** in Utah, either spelling is 100% correct.

Kevin Thurston

unread,

May 27, 2003, 11:06:08 AM5/27/03

"€R.L. Measures" <^2...@vc.net> wrote in message
news:^2-2705030...@192.168.1.200...

> In article <baumjs$f...@dispatch.concentric.net>, "Kevin Thurston"
> <akth...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> > "TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20030526095927...@mb-m12.aol.com...
> > <snip>
> > > >Yet, you have to throw in there "teachings" and "policies".
> > > >Why must you throw in tertuary material if there is primary material?
> > >
> > > As Kevin Thurston has told you, the word is "tertiary
> >
> > Red would rather continue to be wrong than admit being wrong and be
> > corrected. So he will continue to use "tertuary", ... ....
>
> ** in Utah, either spelling is 100% correct.

Red's a Texican, so what's his excuse? Oh wait, maybe that is his excuse.

Kevin Thurston
--
"Forty Seconds!?!?! But I want it now!"... Homer Simpson

€R.L. Measures

unread,

May 27, 2003, 4:30:04 PM5/27/03

In article <bavut0$f...@dispatch.concentric.net>, "Kevin Thurston"
<akth...@concentric.net> wrote:

> "€R.L. Measures" <^2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:^2-2705030...@192.168.1.200...
> > In article <baumjs$f...@dispatch.concentric.net>, "Kevin Thurston"
> > <akth...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:20030526095927...@mb-m12.aol.com...
> > > <snip>
> > > > >Yet, you have to throw in there "teachings" and "policies".
> > > > >Why must you throw in tertuary material if there is primary material?
> > > >
> > > > As Kevin Thurston has told you, the word is "tertiary
> > >
> > > Red would rather continue to be wrong than admit being wrong and be
> > > corrected. So he will continue to use "tertuary", ... ....
> >
> > ** in Utah, either spelling is 100% correct.
>
> Red's a Texican, so what's his excuse?

€ he's under the control of Utah.

TheJordan6

unread,

Jun 21, 2003, 1:18:42 AM6/21/03

Readers, I am responding to this particular post of Red Davis' in four parts.

Part one

Red Davis wrote:

>>>In the journal entries from Huntington, there is mention of cattle on
the north route,

Randy wrote:

>>Right. That mention refers to an Indian raid on an emigrant party north of
Ogden, supervised by Mormon bishop Chauncey West, who paid the Indians off in
cattle, corn, and melons. Bishop West reported the successful raid to Brigham

Young's interpreter and liaison Dimick Huntington, who noted the event in his
journal.

>There you go again -- putting text into journal entries that just
isn't there.
>Here are the journal entries:

>"whare we found one hundred &twenty lodges &about one thousand men,

women and children. We met Bishop C. West from Ogden with 4 waggon loads of

corn &mellons for the Indians. We gave them 4 beef cattle &stayed all night
&never saw so good a spirit before. I told them that the Lord had come out of
his hiding place &they had to commence their work.
I gave them all the beef cattle &horses that was on the road to Calafornia, the
North rout, that they must put them 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. They said it was some thing new. They wanted to

council &think of it. Ben Simons, a Delaware Indian was thare. I told him all
about the Book of Mormon &he said his father had told him about the same thing
that they
would have to rise up &fight but he did ......."

>Where is the supposed reference to "an Indian raid on an emigrant party

north of Ogden"? No where in the Huntington entries.

Red, you're ignorantly assuming that Huntington's journal entries are the only
source of information on this issue. It isn't. Huntington's journal is merely
a first-hand "pro-Mormon" source which helps to tie statements and events
together to tell the whole story.
The Indian chief Ben Simons, who Huntington noted meeting, related his dealings
with the Mormons to Federal Indian Agent Garland Hurt. As Will Bagley
explains:

"Young had to choose between his fidelity to the U. S. government and what he
saw as his duty as a prophet of God and his loyalty to the Mormon people. The
superintendent of Indian affairs for Utah Territory was charged with protecting
overland emigrants from Indian attacks, and on August 16 Superintendent Young
had declared that he would abandon that responsibility if the army came to
Utah. Now Young explicitly violated his sworn duty and sent agents to
encourage Indian attacks on wagon trains, dispatching Huntington north to the
camp of some one thousand Shoshonis near Farmington. Huntington and a local
bishop gave them four cows and four wagonloads of corn and melons. He told the
Indians 'the Lord had come out of his hiding place &they had to commence their
work.' Huntington then 'gave them all the Beef Cattle &horses that was on the
road to California [by] the North Rout,' instructing the Shoshonis to hide the
captured animals in the mountains. That the leading emissary of the Indian
superintendent would encourage them to attack emigrant trains astonished the
chiefs: this was 'something new.' They 'wanted to Council &think of it.'
"At the Shoshoni camp Huntington spoke with Ben Simons, a mixed-blood Indian
who had operated a ranch on the Weber River since 1854. As a leader in Little
Soldier's band, like many Indians Simons played each end of the white world
against the other. After Huntington told him about the 'Book of Mormon,'
Simons 'said his Father had told him about the same thing that they would have
to rise up to fight but he did not think it was so near.' He wanted Huntington
to advise Brigham Young he could depend on his Indian allies. But Simons was
nobody's fool. He immediately reported to Indian agent [Garland] Hurt that
Huntington had 'told the Indians that Brigham wanted them to run off the
emigrants' cattle, and if they would do so they might have them for their own.'
Simons assured Hurt he had advised the Snake chiefs to have nothing to do with
the cattle. He implied that the Mormons had hired Little Soldier to seize
about four hundred animals from a Missouri emigrant named Squires." ("Blood of
the Prophets", pp. 92-93.)

>Where is reference to the Fancher party? Again -- no where.

>You are all smoke and mirrors.

<groan> I'm going to have to start calling you Remedial Red, 'cause I have to
repeat everything four or five times before you 'get it.'

One more time, Remedial Red: Huntington's journal entry of August 30 referred
to the Shoshone raid on the Squires train, north of Ogden----not to the Fancher
party, which was at that time some 300 milkes south, near Cedar City.

It was Huntington's journal entry of the *NEXT DAY*-----September 1-----wherein
he recorded details of the council between Young, himself, and the 12 southern
Indian chiefs in SLC, in which they discussed the cattle to be stolen on the
"south route."

To repeat: Huntington's comments about the "north route" raid are relevant to
the MMM because it shows that having Indians raid emigrant trains was part of
the Mormons' modus operandi, rather than the MMM being an anomaly.

Note that the Shoshoni chiefs' reaction to Huntington's instructions concerning
the "north route" stolen cattle was similar to the reaction of the 12 southern
chiefs who met with Young and Huntington the next day in discussions of the
"south route" cattle: Both groups were expressing surprise that the Mormon
leaders were reversing their prior teachings to not steal. Even those
primitive Indians recognized that that reversal of policy was immoral and
hypocritical, as evidenced by the southern chiefs' reaction to Young's bestowal
of the "south route" cattle to them ("It made them open their eyes. But you
have told us not to steal.")
That's why the chiefs wanted to "think of it," IOW, discuss it amongst
themselves and decide whether they should go along with it.

>>>cattle on the south route, Indians, and what should
be done about the cattle.

>>Right. And as I have documented for you ***THREE TIMES***, Brigham Young's
September 10 letter to Isaac Haight makes it clear that Young knew that the

Fancher train (which Haight was asking instructions about) was the LAST train

which had left SLC heading down the south route to California.

>Let's go over reality again:
>1. James Haslam rides at all speed from Cedar City to inform Brigham Young
that a group of emigrants from Arkansas had been surrounded by Indians at
Mountain Meadows.

It is true that Haslam made that ride, but your words "surrounded by Indians"
is an assumption on your part. Since Young claimed that he "lost" Haight's
letter to him which Haslam delivered, we don't know that Haight told Young that
the emigrants were "surrounded by Indians." However, the fact that Young
"lost" Haight's letter----when Mormon leaders ordinarily preserved all
correspondence, no matter how trivial----hints that Haight's letter probably
contained more details about Mormon involvement in the attack than Brigham
Young wanted investigators of the crime to see.

The fact is that Mormon leaders induced the Indians to surround and attack the
Fancher party, bringing together several tribes as far as 80 miles away to aid
in the attack. Mormon leaders supervised the Indians in the attack, and some
Mormons disguised themselves as Indians during the attack, meaning that Mormons
were involved from the beginning.

And of course, your above remarks do not address Young's comment to Haight that
he believed the Fancher train, which Haight was asking about, was the last
train which had left SLC on the "south route." Since Young had approved the
Indian raid on the "cattle that had gone to California by the south route" in
the September 1 council, Young's comment to Haight ties the Fancher and Dukes
trains directly to the cattle being discussed in the September 1 council.

>2. In *all* haste, Brigham Young writes a letter to Isaac Haight
telling him:
"In regard to the emigration passing through our settlements, we must
not interfere with them, until they are first notified to keep away.
You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they
please, but you should try to preserve good feelings with them. There
are no other trains going south that I know of. If those who are there
will leave, let them go in peace."

Right. As I've explained to you several times now, Remedial Red, Young's plan
was for only the Indians to do the actual attacking, so no Mormons could be
implicated in the crime in the future. Blaming all such attacks on "the
Indians" was part of Young's modus operandi.
Since Young had approved the attack on the "south route" trains in his war
council of September 1 with 12 chiefs, he assumed that their combined tribes
were a large enough force to handle the Baker/Fancher train. But Young
couldn't foresee the emigrants' strong resistance: When the Indians attacked
at dawn on September 7, seven of their braves were killed, and they retreated
while the emigrants fortified themselves. The Indians' Mormon supervisors had
promised them an easy victory, but when they were repulsed, the Indians
threatened to turn on the Mormons if the Mormons did not pitch in and help them
finish the job.

It was at *THAT* point that Haight sent Haslam to ask Young for instructions.
If we could see Haight's "lost" letter, it probably read something like this:

"Dear Bro. Brigham: Cousin Lemuel has failed in his mission and is threatening
to turn on us if we don't help them put away the Gentiles. The emigrants have
fortified themselves and we have them tied down. Should we help the Indians
fill their mission or let the emigrants go?"

Upon reading Haight's letter, Young likely muttered something like "Oh shit, I
only intended for the Indians to do the stealing and killing." So he had no
choice but to order Haight to keep the Mormons from further involvement, both
to prevent them from being implicated in the crime, and to prevent possible
Mormon casualties.
But Young's inclusion of the sentence "The Indians I expect will do as they
please," was a veiled acknowledgment of the plans made in his council with them
on September 1. That sentence is also telling in that Young, as Superintendent
of Indian Affairs, was responsible for keeping the Indians in check. He had
the power and ability to order Haight to tell the Indians to cease the attack
immediately, and let the emigrants go. But instead, Young cavalierly opined
that the "Indians will do as they please," in effect washing his hands of
responsibility in the matter.

Unfortunately, when some of the beseiged emigrants realized that Mormons were
among their attackers, Haight &Co. knew they must kill all who were old enough
to testify to that. So Haight & Co. concocted the plan to kill them without

waiting for Young's response.

And of course, the very fact that Haight sent a message asking for Young's
instructions as to whether to let the emigrants go or not reveals the
possibility that Young might have instructed Haight to exterminate the
emigrants. Haight's letter reveals that he knew that Young held the power of
life or death over the emigrants. If robbing and possibly killing passing
emigrants was not an institutional Mormon policy, then Haight would not have
asked Young for instructions.

Also, Young's remarks after the massacre that the victims "deserved their fate"
indicates that he was not opposed to their deaths; Young viewed the massacre as
an act of "vengeance" against Gentiles, which was part of Mormon doctrine and
policy.

As Will Bagley notes:

"For the prophet's defenders, this letter is proof he did not order the
massacre.....yet.....The letter begs several questions: Why did Superintendent
of Indian Affairs Brigham Young have to send orders to the south not to
'interfere' with the emigrants? Why did he later deny knowing anything about
the massacre until weeks after it happened? As [Western historian] David White
concluded, Young's shrewd reply seems calculated to correct a policy gone wrong
if it arrived in time and to cover his tracks if received too late. Whatever
the letter's intent, it carried a hidden but clear message for Isaac Haight:
make sure the Mormons could blame whatever happened on the Paiutes." ("Blood
of the Prophets," pp. 136-137.)

>Brigham ordered Haslam to ride the 270 mile trip back thusly:
"Go with all speed, spare no horse flesh. The emigrants must not be
meddled with, if it takes all Iron county to prevent it. They must go
free and unmolested."

We don't know that Young actually said those words. They were first uttered by
James Haslam in his testimony at John D. Lee's trial nearly 20 years after the
fact, when Haslam had a motive to make Young look as good as possible.

But if Young actually said something like that, it hints that Young realized
that since the planned Indian-only attack had failed----with seven braves being
killed----that continuing an ongoing seige against the emigrants was not wise,
because

a) Many Mormons and Indians might be killed
b) If more Indians were killed, they might turn on the Mormons and precipitate
a major Indian war
c) The longer the seige raged, the greater the chance that passers-by or
federal officials might learn of it, and implicate the Mormons
d) The emigrants might turn the tide and win the battle.

It's likely that Young hoped that the emigrants still thought that their
attackers were only Indians. So his order to Haight to let them go free was
probably a desperate attempt to call off the raid so that Mormons couldn't be
implicated in the crime. But still, since Young had approved the raid in his
council of September 1, he couldn't "unring the bell." That's why he
resigningly told Haight that "the Indians I expect will do what they please."
Since Young had been telling the Indians for weeks that they must join with the
Mormons to "kill or be killed" by the "Mericats," and promised them rewards for
their assistance, he couldn't very well reverse his policy in the midst of a
raid 300 miles away from him.

>So, Brigham Young was informed by Haslam as to the presence of the
Arkansas party (the Fancher party) and that it was surrounded, and he
immediately ordered that they pass with no harm.

Yes, at that point, Young likely perceived the error of his policy of having
the Indians attack emigrant trains, and he was simply doing what little he
could to reverse his policy and prevent Mormons, including himself, from being
implicated.

>Funny thing -- in your "***THREE TIMES***" of documenting the letter
from Brigham Young to Haight -- the only mention you give of this
extremely compelling exculpatory evidence is that we Mormons quote a
"single sentence"
in some delusioned attempt to defend Brigham Young.

Young's letter to Haight is not "exculpatory" in the least. Since Young had
planned and approved the raids on "south route" emigrant trains in his war
council with southern Indian chiefs on September 1, his instructions to Haight
do not negate his guilt in the crime. Those southern Indians would never have
attacked the Fancher or Dukes trains if not for the instructions and assurances
they received from Brigham Young in that September 1 council. Young's letter
to Haight was merely a desperate attempt to "unring the bell" that he himself
had rung ten days prior.

>Said you on 23 May 2003:
"Mormons will cite a single sentence from Young's September 10, 1857
letter to Cedar Stake president Isaac Haight to attempt to show that
Young was
against the attack."

>A few words about your unwillingness to be objective and recognize
stunning exculpatory evidence:

Young's letter to Haight is not "stunning exculpatory evidence" of Young's
innocence. It was merely Young's desperate attempt to reverse his own unwise
orders and policies which he had delivered a mere ten days earlier.

Red, let's say that Al Capone meets with ten enforcers wherein Capone tells
them to whack members of a rival gang. The enforcers set out on their mission.
But just as the enforcers are about to kill the rivals, Capone gets a call
from the opposing godfather who tells him he wants to call a truce. So Capone
sends somebody to tell the enforcers to call off the whacking. But the
enforcers have just completed the whacking.

Tell us, Red: Would Capone's too-late message to call off the whacking be
"exculpatory evidence" that he didn't plan and order the whacking to begin
with?

>1. I have quoted (and so do most other LDS apologists) *five*

sentences from Brigham Young's letter. All five are very compelling as
to the fact that Brigham Young was decidedly against the attack on the
Fancher party. Your misrepresentation of the facts demonstrates your
inability to be objective.

No, we know full well that Young was "in favor" of the attack on the Fancher
party by the fact that he planned and approved it with the Indian attackers
themselves on September 1. Young's desperate attempt to prevent Mormons from
being directly involved in mass murder does not negate the fact that he planned
and approved the attack and others like it, with Indians doing the actual
deeds. The evidence for that is voluminous and clear, including the attacks on
the Squires train north of Ogden, and the Dukes train, southwest of the
Mountain Meadows site.

>2. Also quoted is the fact that Brigham Young ordered the rider to go
with all haste - sparing no time. The rider rested for 4 hours before
he made the return trip to Cedar City. That's 3 more sentences of
excupaltory evidence.
Thus, we have you misrepresent these 8 sentences of exculpatory
evidence (not the mention the fact the rider made the trip back in
record time) as "a single sentence".

As I wrote above, the "go with all haste" comment originated years after the
facts.

"[Haslam's] ride was hardly the hell-bent-for-leather exploit often described.
He picked up a fresh mount at Beaver and arrived in Fillmore before daylight,
where he waited most of the day for the bishop (probably Seymour Brunson) to
return from a hunt. Haslam then rode ten miles to Holden but was forced to
wait until 3:00 a.m. to send back to Fillmore for a better horse. Early on
September 9 Haslam reached Nephi, pausing only long enough to eat breakfast.
He stopped again at Payson, Provo, and American Fork to change mounts."
("Blood of the Prophets," p. 127.)

Red, even if Young did tell Haslam to get the message back to Haight quickly,
please tell us how that negates the fact that he planned and approved the
attack in that war council of September 1.
Also, please tell us why Young spoke approvingly of the massacre after it
occurred.

>3. This letter to Haight, in and of itself, is enough primary
evidence to demonstrate convincingly, in the absence of any other
evidence to the contrary, that Brigham Young had nothing to do with
planning or ordering the attack.

<chuckle> You've inserted a helluva qualifier there, Red: "in the absence of
any other evidence to the contrary."

The "evidence to the contrary" which demonstrates Young's foreknowledge and
approval of the attack, and others like it, is the evidence which I have laid
in out great detail in my posts.

Randy J.

TheJordan6

unread,

Jun 21, 2003, 1:27:11 AM6/21/03

Part two

Red Davis wrote:

>Well, let's weed through yet another fillibuster post (If Jordan6
can't baffle them with BS - he will bury them in smoke) for such
evidence. Pardon me, while I cutout all non relevant text:

>>>There is *no* mention of the Fancher party,

Randy wrote:

>It doesn't matter that the specific term "Fancher party" wasn't used in the
>relevant orders and correspondence. It is ***OBVIOUS*** that Huntington's
>journal entry refers to either the Fancher or Dukes train because, to repeat
>for the umpteenth time:

My daddy always told me, "Son, a man doesn't have to state, restate,
and force something that is obvious. It should be obvious it is
obvious". My daddy was a smart man.

<chuckle> How many times did your daddy have to repeat that until you
understood him, Remedial Red? 100? 200? 300?

Some people have to have things repeated to them over and over because they are
mentally or emotionally incapable or unwilling to understand it the first time.

You are a Mormon zealot who denies negative facts concerning Mormonism on a
regular basis. Your numerous assertions that GBH didn't lie in his public
remarks about the "God is an exalted man" doctrine is ample evidence of that.
Such behavior shows us that you aren't interested in learning facts; you are
only interested in maintaining your "faith" in Mormonism in spite of the facts.
And that behavior makes you an incorrigible brainwashed fanatic.

>In reality, we have a general reference in the Huntington entry where
the Indians were to gather cattle along the north and south routes.

See, there's an example of your denial of facts. Once again, Remedial Red, the
discussion wasn't about the mere "gathering" of cattle; it was about the
***STEALING*** of cattle which belonged to people who were herding them towards
California, and the possible ***KILLING*** of the cattle's owners.

>Also mentioned is the fact that the Indians were stealing cattle from
each other.

Wrong again, Remedial Red. One more time: The Indians' expression of surprise
that they were being allowed to steal cattle, contrary to prior instructions
they had received NOT to steal, makes it obvious that it was Brigham
Young---the man who had previously taught the Indians not to steal---who was
reversing his policy to now let those Indians raid and steal cattle "on the
south route."
And again, Huntington's remarks that the stealing was "justified" because "they
have come to fight us & you for when they kill us they will killl you"
obviously referred to the Mormons' expected war against the United States Army.
That makes it further obvious that the stealing of cattle and killing being
spoken of was not between two groups of Indians, but rather between the Mormons
and U. S. soldiers or citizens.

And since those Indians who were being given those instructions in that council
all lived in southern Utah, and were among the very Indians who attacked the
Fancher and Dukes trains mere days later, it is obvious that the cattle the
Indians were told they could steal on the "south route" were those belonging to
the only emigrant trains traveling on the south route with large herds of
cattle---the Fancher and Dukes trains.

Your silly theory that the cattle being discussed were "strays" is further
dashed by Huntington's clear statement that the cattle were traveling "on the
south route to California"---meaning that the cattle were not strays, but were
being herded by persons on a specific road, towards a specific destination.

>No mention is made of attacking wagon trains, or killing people. Such is
just your biased attempt to make wood out of hay.

Remedial Red, the actual words "steal" and "kill" were used by Brigham Young in
his directions to the Indians in that council, as recorded by Young's
interpreter Dimick Huntington.

Since using the Indians to attack and rob wagon trains was part of the Mormons'
war tactics----and since Young had instructed Jacob Hamblin to inform the
southern Indians to prepare to join with the Mormons to "kill or be killed" by
the Americans---and since Brigham Young had demonstrated his control over the
Indians by his threat to van Vliet that he would not 'hold the Indians by the
wrist any longer,' and the Indians would ***KILL*** all emigrants passing
through Utah Territory-----then Huntington's journal entries which recorded
Young's first-hand instructions to those Indians was merely a reiteration of
Young's statements and policies.

And since those same Indians who had met with Young on September 1 were
attacking the Fancher and Dukes trains mere days later, that leaves no doubt as
to the meaning of Huntington's journal entry.

>>*The 12 Indian chiefs whom Jacob Hamblin brought to SLC to council with Young
>on September 1 were all from the southwestern Utah area (Hamblin's
>jurisdiction), and Hamblin brought those chiefs to SLC specifically to get
>orders from Young as to their part in the impending war against the Americans.

>A war which never broke out, correct?

<groan> Remedial Red, you're revealing incredible amounts of ignorance with
each new post. The war was called the "Utah War," also known as the "Mormon
Rebellion." Go and read some history books. The MMM was one incident within
the Utah War.

>The issue being discussed was
the march of US Troops into Utah, and how they would deal with an invading
Army, correct?
Sloppy-agape if there ever was such logic.

One more time, Remedial Red: Johnson's Army was marching from Wyoming towards
SLC. That army had no plans to travel beyond SLC. The Indians whom Young met
with on September 1 were all from southern Utah, some 400 miles southwest of
where Johnson's Army was at the time. Thus, Johnson's Army posed no threat
whatsoever to those southern Indians.
However, Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders used the threat of the
approaching army to induce the southern Indians to join with them to wage war
against ALL non-Mormons, whether they be soldiers or civilians. The Mormons
deceived those Indians into believing that passing emigrants who got to
California would bring back U. S. soldiers to kill the Mormons and their
allies, the Indians.
That's how Young got the Indians to agree to attack the Fancher and Dukes
trains---he made them believe that there was no difference between Army
soldiers and non-Mormon citizens, and that they all posed a threat to both the
Mormons and Indians.

>>*Because the Fancher party had been the last emigrant train to leave SLC
>heading south before Brigham Young illegally declared martial law and closed
>the trails, Huntington's journal remarks about the "cattle along the south
>route to California" could not be referring to any cattle except those
>belonging to the Fancher or Dukes trains.

<groan> Remedial Red, Huntington wasn't writing a legal deposition; he was
scribbling notes in his personal journal. As I wrote you earlier, emigrant
wagon trains didn't normally fly banners identifying them. Nevertheless, the
combined evidence of Huntington's journal entries, Young's statements and
policies, and the actual attacks themselves make it obvious that the cattle
being discussed in that council which were "on the south route to California"
belonged to the Fancher and Dukes trains---because they were the only two
trains traveling that very route at that moment who had sizable herds of
cattle.

>You just said that Huntington
knew the Fancher party would be on the south route, and the entry could only be

about them. Given that Huntington was a plain spoken

man who wrote direct comments, it would seem to this simple hick that
he would have written "the cattle belongin to the Arkansas party" or
"Fancher party".

Simple hick, since Huntington was writing in his personal journal, and he knew
very well that cattle belonging to emigrant trains were being discussed in that
council, he merely referred to the cattle as those which were currently
traveling on the south route to California.

One more time, Remedial Red: The fact that the Indians in that council were
attacking the Fancher and Dukes trains mere days after that council makes it
obvious that it was the Fancher and Dukes trains which were being discussed in
that council. Now, simple hick, if you can't understand that, could you
perhaps get your smart daddy to explain it to you?

>What is even more unremarkable about your chare -- is that the Fancher
party had one of the largest cattle herds ever driven West during this
time frame. I believe it was 700 head of cattle. Seven hundred head
of cattle would certainly be noted in a journal entry -- verses the
typical wagon train which would drive 100-300 head of cattle.

Eyewitnesses along the route estimated the herd to be 300-400. There were so
many because the train was several families traveling together for safety.
Your silly opinion that Huntington should have noted the number of cattle in
his journal is a non-issue, seeing as how the Indians present in that council
were attacking the train which included the "cattle that had gone to California
by the south route" mere days after that council.

>Again, you have read your own bias and prejudice into events in order
to twist them into something they are not.

Please cite examples of where I have done that.

>But, even if you are right in your synthesis - that the moon is made
of cheese, and that the earth is flat, and that gravity is a myth --
you still do not have *any* evidence that Brigham Young ordered the
MMM.

I've posted the evidence numerous times, and there is much more supporting
evidence that I have yet to post.

>>*The Mormons knew very well that the Fancher party had a herd of some 400
>cattle, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in money and property.

<sigh> Red, no one knows the exact number of cattle, because the party's
records were destroyed by the Mormons, at least 60-70 cattle were killed in the
massacre, and many more ran off to become strays. Affidavits of property
stolen filed by the massacre victims' relatives total just under 300 cattle.
Simon Wood of Provo estimated the herd at 400. Jacob Hamblin estimated the
herd to be 400-500 by the time it reached Corn Creek. I use the number 400
because it is a conservative estimate based on those eyewitness reports.

The Dukes party had a reported 375 head of cattle. It may be that some reports
which estimated the Fancher party herd at 700-900 combined the total of both
parties, since they were both attacked and stolen by Mormons and Indians within
days and a few dozen miles of each other.

The fact that Huntington did not note the estimated number of cattle does not
negate the material evidence in the case. It is just one of your stupid
arguments you throw up in an attempt to obfuscate the facts.
In fact, the larger the herd, the greater motive the Mormons would have had to
possess them, moron.

>>Thus, Huntingon's journal entry stating that Brigham Young "gave" the Indians
>"all the cattle that had gone to California by the south route", and the
>Indians' surprise upon being told that they could "steal" (Huntington's word)
>those cattle, make it doubly obvious that the cattle that Young was "giving"
>those southern Indian chiefs were the cattle which belonged to the emigrants
>heading through those chiefs' territory at that very moment.

>Let's go back to reality. Where in Huntington's entry does it "state
[sic] that Brigham Young 'gave' the Indians....all the cattle that had
gone to California by the south route"?

That is the logical deduction based on the facts that

a) The Indians had come to SLC specifically to meet with Young
b) Young noted in his journal that in that meeting, he gave the Indians "some
counsel and presents"
c)Huntington was Young's interpreter, therefore the remarks in his journal
entry were recording the "counsel and presents" Young gave the Indians
d) Those Indians attacked and robbed the Fancher and Dukes trains mere days
after that council
e)After the massacre, the Mormons split the cattle and the property of the
victims with their Indian allies.

>Again, Brigham Young's name is not mentioned. You are willfully
misrepresenting the journal entry, and I must classify such willfull
misrepresentation as a lie.

<groan> Red, the person whose name Huntington abbreviated as "B" in his journal
is obviously Brigham Young, because

a)The Indians had come to SLC to meet with Young on September 1
b)The names of the Indians who met with Young, and are recorded in the "Journal
History of the Church," are among those Huntington recorded as being in that
same council in his journal entry of September 1.
Thus, it is obvious that Huntington's journal entry dealt with that September 1
council, and the man who presided at that meeting and gave orders, "B", was
Brigham Young.
As Will Bagley explains:

"The language of Huntington's journal entry is archaic, but its meaning is
clear. Even a devout Mormon historian has identified the 'I' in this entry as
Brigham Young. (See "The Baker-Fancher Train," 14, by Lawrence G. Coates,
professor of history at BYU-Idaho.)
"The Pauite leaders had camped with the Fancher party only a week earlier at
Corn Creek, so Young did not have to paint a picture for the chiefs to know
whose cattle he was giving them. The donation of the cattle to the Pauites was
not a direct order to massacre every Mericat in southern Utah, but Indian
Superintendent Young had told the apostles, 'The Gentile emigrants [will] shoot
the indians wharever they meet with them & the Indians now retaliate & will
kill innocent people.' he understood that it was likely that innocent women
and children would die in the Indian attacks he tacitly authorized.
"Frontiersman James Gemmell had just returned from a mission in Texas and
Indian Territory.....Gemmell claimed he was in Young's office when Hamblin
arrived and reported that the Arkansas train was near Cedar City. If he were
in command of the Nauvoo Legion, Governor Young said, he 'would wipe them out.'
"
("Blood of the Prophets", p. 114.)

Randy J.

TheJordan6

unread,

Jun 21, 2003, 1:35:58 AM6/21/03

Part three

Red Davis wrote:

>We have been over this three times already: three people gave the
Indians the cattle along the south route - as these three people *are*

explicitly mentioned in the journal entry: 2 Indian chiefs and
Huntington made the decision.

Red, you're simply wrong. The Indians came to SLC to meet with Young; Young
gave them "some counsel and presents"; Huntingon, Young's interpreter and
liaison, merely recorded the "counsel and presents" Young gave the Indians in
that meeting.

I have quoted three different historians who concur with that interpretation.
If you believe that your interpretation of the events is correct, then kindly
cite any historians who agree with you.

>Brigham Young is not mentioned
implicilty or explicitly.

One more time, Remedial Red:

A) The Indians came to SLC to meet with Young on September 1
B) The "Journal History of the Church" records the names of the Indians who met
with Young
C) Young's own journal states that in that meeting, he gave the Indians "some
counsel and presents"
D) The names of the Indians in Huntington's record of that meeting are among
those Indians listed as meeting with Young on that same day in the "Journal
History of the Church"
e) Six days after that meeting, those same Indian chiefs were leading their
tribes in attacks on the Fancher and Dukes trains, who both possessed "cattle
that had gone To California on the south route," exactly as Huntington
recorded.

Thus, the "B" in Huntington's journal had to refer to Brigham Young, and when
Huntington wrote "I gave them all the cattle that had gone to California the
south route," being Young's interpreter, he was recording Young's orders to the
Indians.

>You sir, are lying.

I've quoted three historians who agree with me. Quote some historians who
agree with your opinions.

>I must ask -- if your evidence is so compelling, so "matter-of-fact" and so
"obvious" that Brigham Young "ordered the
MMM" - why must you:
1. Lie about the exculpatory content of the letter Brigham Young
wrote to Haight

I haven't lied about that letter. I have cited supporting evidence which
explains Young's remarks, and I have cited three historians who agree with me.
Now cite some historians who agree with you.

>2. Lie about the number of cattle the Fancher party had

I haven't lied about the number of cattle. No one knows the exact number, and
eyewitness reports estimate the number between 300-900. I merely use an
estimate of 400 because it is an estimate frequently cited by historians.

>3. Lie about Brigham Young's name being mentioned in the Huntington
journal entry?
Liar, liar, liar -- pants on fire.

I haven't lied about Young's name being mentioned in the Huntington journal.
It is obvious that the "B" in Huntington's journal is Brigham Young from the
evidence I list above, which I have listed numerous times before. And three
different historians agree with me. Now quote some historians who agree with
you.

>>>Brigham Young, or any planning and ordering of the MMM.

>>Yes it does, Red; you are simply unwilling to admit it, because doing so
would
>force you to re-think your allegiance to Mormonism.

>We are at this point in your post, and quite frankly, your straw house
has yet to stand the force of even a mild review by a simple hick from
Texas.

A simple hick who is also a hopeless fanatic, who has demonstrated abject
ignorance and an attitude of denial of numerous historical facts concerning a
multitude of events in Mormon history.

>>>In one of your earlier posts, you tried to twist a journal entry

>>I haven't "twisted" any journal entries, Red. I have merely explained their
>meaning by providing supporting documentation from other sources which puts
>them into their proper context and tells the complete story. And my
>interpretation of the events is confirmed by reputable historians which I have
>quoted many times, such as Juanita Brooks, David Bigler, and Will Bagley.

>There you go again. "reputable" by whose standard? Bigler and Bagley
are two bag men who have an axe to grind with the LDS Church.

Prove it, Red. Cite any reputable scholars who agree with your ad hominems.
Back up your assertions with some demonstrable facts. Show us exactly where
and how Bigler or Bagley have misrepresented or mischaracterized any facts.

>Juanita
Brooks? You have got to be kidding! They do have a reputation of being

anti-Mormons. Hardly the objective sources for accurate synthesis of LDS
history.

And here, you exhibit the level of your ignorance and your tactic of launching
ad hominem attacks against whomever contradicts your positions, regardless of
the actual merits of their work.

For your information, Juanita Brooks is one of the most eminent historians of
Mormonism. She was born and bred in the area near the MMM, was a lifelong
active Mormon, and was the granddaughter of Dudley Leavitt, one of the MMM
participants. She spent literally decades researching the MMM and related
19th-century Mormon history.

As Mormon-friendly sociologist Jan Shipps wrote in the foreword to the final
edition of Brooks' book:

"Juanita Brooks, sometime college English teacher, fulltime Mormon wife and
mother, and lifelong resident of Saint George in Utah's southernmost region,
its Dixie, began more than fifty years ago to work on the project that led to
the writing of 'Mountain Meadows Massacre.' .....
Establishing herself as a free-lance writer in the 1920, Brooks built a
reputation with articles based on pioneer diaries. This led to a position with
the Historical Records Survey during the Great Depression and, later, to a
position as a collector of pioneer diaries for the Huntington library. Both
positions gave her access to a great body of primary source material that would
prove invaluable when she began systematic research on the lamentable affair at
Mountain Meadows.
Recognizing that Mormons as well as Indians were involved, Brooks worked during
the years of the Second World War to create a clear chronology of the
massacre.....
Juanita Brooks' research made enough facts available to the First Presidency
and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of the LDS Church for them to act on
April 20, 1961, to authorize John D. Lee's 'reinstatement to membership and
former blessings,' a consummation that had been devoutly wished by his family
and descendants since his disgrace nearly a century before.....
When the Mormon History Association met on the campus of Dixie College in Saint
George in 1978, Juanita Brooks was presented with a special award for her
lifetime of research and writing about the Latter-Day Saint past.....Without
any question, this award was also a direct reflection of the collective
appreciation of a new generation of Mormon historians just then beginning to
understand what implications follow for themselves and their church when all
the evidence found in the documentary record of the LDS experience is faced
head on."

Brooks herself wrote:

"At the outset, let me make myself clear. I am a member of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints, commonly called Mormon; I was born into the church
and have been raised in it. Anyone who is interested enough to look up my
history will find that I am, and have always been, a loyal and active member.
I am interested in the reputation of my church. When one has served in and
sacrificed for a cause over a long period of years, that cause becomes dear,
more dear, perhaps, than it is to those who draw their livelihood from it.
Hence, in trying to present this subject with a desire only to tell the truth,
I believe that I am doing my church a service.....
This study is not designed either to smear or to clear any individual; its
purpose is to present the truth. I feel sure than nothing but the truth can be
good enough for the church to which I belong."

In other words, Red, far from your ignorant opinion that Brooks was an
"anti-Mormon" and "Hardly an objective
source for accurate synthesis of LDS history," she was eminently qualified,
being a loyal, active Mormon, to research and publish an objective treatise on
the MMM.

In fact, as I wrote you earlier, Brooks was so "pro-Mormon" that she even
burned certain records that were "too incriminating" of her pioneer
forefathers. A 'Salt Lake Tribune' article in 1999 reported:

"Dudley Leavitt also was the grandfather of Juanita Brooks, whose 1950
benchmark book on the atrocity was the first attempt at exposing the covered-up
details. Yet Brooks, who three months ago was selected as one of the 20 most
influential Utahns of the 20th century, also was conflicted by her convictions
to her LDS faith and family in learning the awful truth.
In a letter to her sister while she was compiling research, Brooks related
that Dudley Leavitt apparently rode picket duty as the surrendering emigrants
were being marched away from the valley. That would make him responsible for
preventing anyone from escaping once the executions began. Brooks said her
father "cautioned his children not to marry Higbees or Haights or Dames or
Klingonsmiths because he believed the sins of the fathers would be visited upon
the heads of the children until the third or fourth generations."
Brooks once told a friend in St. George, current Washington County medical
examiner Bart Anderson, that she even burned several important historical
documents regarding Mountain Meadows. The flames in her fireplace, related
Brooks, turned an eerie blue as she placed the old papers in the fire.
"I asked her why she would ever burn such important documents," Anderson
told reporter Smith recently. "And she told me, 'Bart, they were just too
incriminating.' "

Now, Red, since you have called Juanita Brooks "anti-Mormon" and "hardly
objective," it is incumbent upon you to provide examples of your assertions.
You need to give us some instances where Brooks deliberately slanted or altered
material in order to damage the church or its leaders. You need to show us
where any of Brooks' comments or conclusions, some of which I have quoted, are
not supported by the historical data. And you need to list your education,
your research, and your background in history that make you believe that you
are qualified to criticize Brooks, Bigler, Bagley, or any of their comments and
conclusions.

You want me to leave you some white space to list all that, Red?
[
[
[
[
[
[
[

>I think I have demonstrated to this point in your post - that your
"supporting documentation" offers *no* support whatsoever to your wild
and baseless claims.

<groan> Remedial Red, you are SUCH a poor liar. I have provided NUMEROUS items
of supporting evidence which shows Young's guilt, including:

*His letter to Jacob Hamblin of August 4, instructing Hamblin to teach local
Indians that "they have either got to help us or the United States will kill us
both."

*Young's own journal entry regarding his council with those southern Indian
chiefs, wherein he wrote: "Kanosh the Pavaunt chief with several of his band
visited me gave them some council and presents. A spirit seems to be takeing

possession of the Indians to assist Israel. I can hardly restrain them from

exterminating the Americans." (Since all of the Indian chiefs at that council
were from southern Utah, and were among those who attacked the emigrant trains
mere days after that council---it is obvious that the "Americans" Young was
referring to were the emigrants whom those Indians attacked.)

*Young's blatant threat to Army Captain van Vliet of September 7 (six days
after that council with the Indians, and the very day the Indians attacked the
Fancher party):

*Army investigator J. H. Carleton's 1859 report that an Indian participant in
the massacre admitted that it was ordered by Brigham Young via Dimick
Huntington:
" 'A Pah Ute chief of the Santa Clara band, named Jackson, who was one of

the attacking party, and had a brother slain by the emigrants from their corral

by the spring, says that orders came down in a letter from Brigham Young that
the emigrants were to be killed; and a chief of the Pah Utes, named Touche, new

living on the Virgin River, told me that a letter from Brigham Young to the

same effect was brought down to the Virgin River band by a man named
Huntingdon.' A copy of the major's despatch will be found in the Hand-book of
Mormonism, 67-9. Cradlebaugh says that after the attack had been made, one of
the Indians declared that a white man came to their camp with written orders
from Brigham to 'go and help to whip the emigrants.' " (as quoted in
Bancroft's "History of Utah."

These are only a few of the items which directly link Young to the attack. I
have not even begun to cite numerous supporting items.

>You have yet to offer evidence that mitigates Brigham Young's letter
to Haight.

I have fully explained, several times, using citations from legitimate,
respected, qualified historians of the subject, exactly what Young's letter to
Haight meant, in context of his other statements and orders.

>You have yet to offer a *single* piece of evidence showing that
Brigham Young ordered the MMM.

I've done so numerous times, and I repeat them above. The fact that you choose
to remain in denial of the evidence, or misinterpret it so you can pretend it
does not mean what it says, does not mean that I have not provided it.

>>>where
>>the Indians were told not to kill milk cows and young cows -- just the
>>older male cows as some secret message that another group of Indians
>>was ordered by Brigham Young to kill the Fancher party.

>>One more time, Forrest: The event that you are unsuccessfully attempting to
>relate involved a raid on the "north route" to California----north of Ogden.
>Huntington made mention of that raid on August 30---the day BEFORE the council
>with the 12 southern Indian chiefs in SLC.

>It is? Gosh, shucks. Let's read the primary journal entry and see if
that is true:

"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. They said it was some thing new. They wanted to council &
think of it. Ben Simons, a Delaware Indian was thare. I told him all
a bout the Book

of Mormon &he said his father had told him about the same thing that
they

would have to rise up &fight but he did ......."

I've provided the context and the explanation of these events in another post.
Ben Simons related the Mormons' dealings with him to Indian Agent Garland Hurt,
who reported them.

>The Indians were counseled as to the taking of cattle on the north
route:
1. "not kill any thing as long as they could help it"

2. "but when they do kill, take the old ones &not kill the cows or
young ones"

>Question: If the Indians were being told to kill people at will, why
were they counseled to "not kill any thing as long as they could"?

Idiot, the counsel to "not kill anything as long as they could help it" was
referring to the cattle, not to any people. Are you as stupid in real life as
you are on ARM?

And I have never claimed that Mormons ordered any Indians to "kill people at
will." However, Young's threat to van Vliet that "the Indians will kill all
emigrants who attempt to cross the continent" speaks for itself.

>Again, there is no mention of a raid near Ogden, no plans to kill
people, no mention of "August 30". Tell us, Oh Mighty False Accusor,
what is the date of this journal entry?

>Answer: Duh.

Remedial Red, I have provided you with the link to Huntington's journal several
times during this discussion. Here it is one more time:

http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/DepoJournals/Dimick/Dimick-2.htm

Now use that gigantic brain of yours to scroll up above the portion of
Huntington's journal you quote above to see that it is dated "August 30."
(Huntington mistakenly wrote "Sept. 30," but the sequence of the journal shows
that it was actually August 30.)

The fact that Huntington's entry of August 30 dealt with a raid near Ogden is
shown by the fact that "Bishop C. West from Ogden" was the man who was paying
the Indians off with food and cattle for their help in the raid.

Randy J.

TheJordan6

unread,

Jun 21, 2003, 1:56:12 AM6/21/03

Part four

Randy wrote:

>>Huntington recorded the instructions given to the Indians to keep only a few
of
>the stolen cattle, and to drive the rest of the herd into the mountains to
>graze, out of sight of suspicious eyes.
>
>>Huntington's recording of that "north route" raid is relevant to the MMM
>because it reveals, as Juanita Brooks wrote, that the attack on the Fancher
>train was not an anamoly, but was rather part of the Mormons' "war plan":

>I'm sorry, where is this mythical account of 'that "north route"
raid'? There is no mention of a raid, or a wagon train, or an
emigrant party in the journal entry. All that is mentioned is a bunch
of hungry Indians (who are stealing cattle from each other, from
emigrants, and from Mormons) and who are trying to determine what is
to be done with stray cattle that are peppered along the wagon trails
north and south.

I've explained all of that in another post.

>My understanding from Texas cattle drives - that it is not unusual to lose
10-15% of a herd on a cattle drive as strays
wonder off. Given the north and soute routes were the main highways
between the East and West -- I would imagine there would be a
significant number of cattle along those paths from all of the passing
wagon trains.

The "north route" cattle weren't strays, Remedial Red; they were stolen from
the Squires emigrant train by Indians as directed by Mormons, as Ben Simons
informed Garland Hurt.

>The fact is this, Jordan6, there is no mention in any of the journal
entries as to the source of the cattle. Period.

Ben Simons' remarks to Garland Hurt tells where the "north route" cattle came
from.
And Dimick Huntington's remark that the cattle were those which "had gone to
Cal the south route" make it obvious that they belonged to emigrants which were
traveling to California on that route.

>My conjecture is more valid than yours becuase the actual journal entries
support my conjecture -- while they are silent on yours.

I'm not employing any "conjecture" whatsoever. You're assuming that
Huntington's journal is the only source of info on that raid. You do so
because of your ignorance of the subject.

>Did Indians attack white settlers as they moved across the Indian
lands? According to the Jordan6 -- only when ordered by Brigham Young.

Strawman. I've never asserted such a thing. However, the tactic of having
Indians attack non-Mormons---or Mormons disguising themselves as Indians during
raids to make the victims believe that their attackers were Indians---is
documented in numerous incidents during Brigham Young's administration, and
particularly in the 1850s:

"Huntington's mission to the Shoshonis exacerbated the violence that had
already set the northern road to California ablaze from City of Rocks to the
Humboldt River. By early September horrific accounts 'of the almost total
destruction of an immigrant train, by the Indians,' filled California's
newspapers. Indians had attacked a small train at Stony Point, a black man
named Scott reported, and killed five men and a child. A woman was 'shot in
several places, scalped, and left for dead.' Remarkably, she had survived, and
her head almost healed.
Emigrants had no doubt as to who was behind these assaults. On reaching
California, overlanders recounted 'many sad evidences of outrage and murder'
that they swore implicated the Saints. For three hundred miles emigrants had
to run 'the gauntlet of Indian attacks and Mormon treachery,' Richeson Abbott
complained. His party was ambushed at City of Rocks, and he was 'satisfied the
attack was led by Mormons, as he had heard them cursing in regular Mormon
slang, and calling out to them to get out of the country, as they had no
business there.' The Saints boasted they would kill them all.
Panicked reports claimed hundreds of emigrants had been killed. For the press
in California, it was 'an undoubted fact that the Mormons were at the head of
most of [the] outrages, and instigated the Indians to commit the murders.'
Louis Fine said white men supposed to be Mormons led an Indian attack on Samuel
Beller and B. Redman of Arkansas near City of Rocks. For the next three
hundred miles they were fired on or attacked almost every day. The emigrants
'all appeared to have more fear of the Mormons than of the Indians.' Their
general feeling was that 'the Mormons led the Indians in their attacks and
murders.'
Angus McLeod of Arkansas left Salt Lake on September 4 with Louis Fine's train.
He was attacked fifty miles from town by ten or twelve men mounted on newly
shod horses. McLeod believed they were white men or Mormons. His party was
assaulted again near City of Rocks, where forty or fifty Indians killed Oliver
Bailey and drove off some seventy head of cattle. At Salt Lake, a man named
Pierce heard 'vague declarations of a threatening character' that 'next year
the overland emigrants must look out'; and it was intimated that the last
trains this year might be destroyed.'
A woman with the eastbound Mormon wagons evacuating Carson Valley warned, 'The
last trains of this year would not get through, for they were to be cut off.' "
("Blood of the Prophets," p. 93.)

In addition to these reports, I've already cited how the Dukes train was
attacked and robbed by Indians in cahoots with Mormons disguised as Indians:

"A member
of the Dukes train, S. B. Honea, stated 'that he passed through Great Salt Lake
City on August 17, that he saw everywhere preparations for war, that the
company were harassed by Indians all the way, that in southern Utah they hired
Mormon guides and interpreters to the sum of $1,810, and then were robbed on
the Muddy [River] of 375 head of cattle.' [George B.] Davis described the
Indians who stole the cattle as having among them some with light, fine hair
and blue eyes, and light streaks where they had not used sufficient paint. He
gave the number of cattle taken as 326 head.....On October 17, the first
members of the Duke train of emigrants arrived half-starved at San Bernardino
with the Mormon theft of their cattle to add to the tale of the massacre."
(Brooks, pp. 125, 126, 146.)

A child who survived the MMM also recalled that after the violence had ended,
he realized that some of the "Indians" who attacked them were white men who had
painted their faces:
"It was from the lips of Charley Fancher, soon after his arrival from the
vicinity of the tragedy, that I heard the first story of the massacre. In his
childish way he said that "some of the Indians, after the slaughter, went to
the little creek, and that after washing their faces they were white men."
(Josiah Gibbs, "The Mountain Meadows Massacre.")

The tactic of using "Lamanites" as "the battle-ax of the Lord" to assist
Mormons in robbing non-Mormons and exacting "vengeance" upon apostates or
church opponents is found in the writings and sermons of Mormons themselves.
The minutes of the Southern Indian Mission for May 14, 1854, records:

"Bro. Lewis reviewed the principles of the previous speakers, all good and for
good. All the scenes Bro. Lott has recounted I shared in, my brother Benjamin
was killed in Missouri, and I am alive to avenge his blood when the Lord will.
The second time I heard a Mormon preach, he declared holding up a Book of
Mormon that this was a record of the red men, and of God's dealings with their
fathers, and we should one day carry this work to the Indians, and we are now
living among them, and to teach them of this work. We must treat them like
children, by degrees, to quit their savage customs. Shall we have no
opportunities? We shall. No conquest without a struggle, no victory without a
fight. Be diligent, faithful and patient, and the Lord will reward you when
you have been proved. Ephraim is the battle-axe of the Lord. May we not have
been sent to learn how to use this axe, with skill?"

On February 20, 1854, Cedar City Stake Patriarch Elisha Groves spoke the
following words in a patriarchal blessing to Mormon militia colonel William
Dame:

"Thou shalt be called to act at the head of a portion of thy brethren and of
the Lamanites in the redemption of Zion and the avenging of the blood of the
prophets upon them that dwell on the earth. The angel of vengeance will be
with thee, shall nerve and strengthen thee."

And 3.5 years later, on September 7, 1857, William Dame was doing exactly what
his patriarchal blessing foretold: Dame was the military leader in charge at
the Mountain Meadows Massacre, wherein he led his fellow Mormons and
"Lamanites" in exacting "vengeance" upon some 100 American citizens whom the
Mormons asserted were among the murderers of "prophets" Joseph and Hyrum Smith
and Parley P. Pratt.

Will Bagley relates events of August 30, 1857 (the same day Dimick Huntington
noted the "north route" raid in his journal):

"Brigham Young had unleashed the battle-ax of the Lord against emigrants
passing through Utah, Bishop Elias Hicks Blackburn explained to his
congregation that afternoon. He quoted Brother Brigham: 'the enemy is in our
hands if we will do right.' Near Box Elder twenty-five Shosonis had stampeded
six hundred cattle and horses, leaving an emigrant company on foot. ['Brigham
Young has] held the Indians back for 10 years past but shall do it no longer!'
the bishop thundered. 'As soon as this word went out they have commenced upon
our enemies!' "
(Utah Stake minutes, 30 August 1857, quoted in "Blood of the Prophets," pp.
112-113.)

And of course, Brigham Young's threat of September 10, 1857 to Army Captain van
Vliet that he would "not hold the Indians by the wrist any longer," and warning
him to "stop all emigration across the continent, for the Indians will kill all
who attempt it," is evidence from Young's own hand that he controlled the
Indians, and would not hesitate to use them to attack and kill "all" emigrants
who entered the territory.

On September 12, 1857---the day after the MMM---Brigham Young wrote to his
agent in Philadelphia, Jeter Clinton:

"The check rein has broken, and cousin Lemuel is out at large, in fact he has
already been collecting some of his annuities. Day after day I am visited by
their chiefs to know if they may strike while the iron is hot.....the war cry
will resound from the Rio Colorado to the head waters of the Missouri---from
the Black Hills to the Sierra Nevada---travel will be stopped across the
continent---the deserts of Utah become a battle ground for freedom. It is
peace and [Mormons'] rights---or the knife and tomahawk---let Uncle Sam
choose." (Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives, 839-40.)

Mormons sometimes used the term "cousin Lemuel" for the "Lamanites", whom they
taught were their "cousins" in the "house of Israel." That term also appeared
in the minutes of meetings of the Cedar City stake on September 13, 1857:

"At ten o'clock a.m. meeting opened by singing. Patriarch Elisha H. Groves
spoke upon the principles of the gospel, and of the Lamanites being the
battle-axe of the Lord, and of our faithfulness to the gospel. 2 p.m. meeting
opened by singing, prayer by I. C. Haight. Haight spoke upon the spirit of the
times, and of cousin Lemuel being fired up with the spirit of their fathers.
Singing, benediction by P. K. Smith." [Philip Klingensmith.]

Patriarch Elisha Groves was the same man I quoted above, who "blessed" Parowan
Stake President William Dame in 1854 to lead Mormons allied with Indians in
avenging the "blood of the prophets."

I. C. Haight was the Cedar City Stake President who participated in the MMM.

Bishop Philip Klingensmith also participated in the MMM.

The church meeting recorded above took place two days after those pious
gentlemen, in cahoots with Indians, helped to murder 120+ American citizens at
Mountain Meadows. Note how those men spoke approvingly of "cousin Lemuel's"
assistance in recent events, just as Brigham Young had written of "cousin
Lemuel" being "out at large.....collecting some of his annuities," in a letter
written the day before that church meeting in Cedar City.

These references make it obvious that, just as Stephen A. Douglas had warned in
Washington the previous June, that the Mormons were "forming alliances with
Indians.....to commit acts of hostility against American citizens." And it is
also obvious that those alliances were formed by Brigham Young in SLC, rather
than being the efforts of local southern Utah Mormons.

Red, these facts alone are more than enough for any rational, sane person to
acknowledge Brigham Young's guilt in the attack on the Fancher party.

>So, Jordan6, did Brigham Young order the Indians to counter-attack at
Little Bighorn? Did Brigham Young order the 7th Calvary's demise?

Strawman. I've never claimed any of that.

>>"This policy of robbing the passing emigrant was clearly a part of the
general
>war tactics, since, for the time being, all 'Mericats' [Americans] were
>considered enemies."

>The policy of robbing passing emigrant trains was a long standing
Indian method of protecting their lands and living on the spoils of
battle. I do believe such a practice began long before Brigham Young
and the Mormons entered Utah.

We're discussing the specific issue of Indians committing attacks in cahoots
with Mormons here, Remedial Red. Try to stay on topic.

>Can you say, "I'm such a smuck for falsely accusing Brigham Young"?

Can you say "I'm such a smuck for being so ignorant of Mormon history that I
didn't know there was so much evidence that Brigham Young induced the Indians
to commit attacks like the one on the Fancher party and many others of the
period?"

>>"As president of the Southern Indian Mission, [Jacob Hamblin] was responsible
>for the conduct of Indian affairs; as military commander of the area, Haight
>had sent these men to work with the natives in carrying out the war policies.
>With Zion standing against the world, and with the Indians as allies, they
were
>prepared to prey upon every passing emigrant company as part of the
>contribution to the war."
>(Juanita Brooks, "Mountain Meadows Massacre," p. 122, 131.)

>What you have just quoted is a tertuary source far removed from the
facts of the day.

I'm sorry, Red, but the word "tertuary" is not in my Webster's. Care to give
us a definition, or are you making words up as you go along?

>This is Juanita Brooks synthesis created by her willful ignorance of facts
that contradict her synthesis.

No, ignoramus, this is Juanita Brooks' conclusions based on her 40 years of
researching original diaries, journals, official orders and statements,
newspaper articles, court testimony, and similar material. From the 1920s to
the 1990s, Juanita Brooks knew more about the MMM than any other person on
earth.
And even though Brooks was not aware of Huntington's journal entries which told
the specific details of that September 1 council, she was still able to draw
accurate conclusions from other available data.

>You will gain no ground by quoting the words of Brooks or Bagley or
Bigler. They are not objective individuals.

This is merely your opinion. You need to cite some tangible reasons why you
believe those three historians are not "objective" or credible, other than your
opinions. Since you have demonstrated an abject ignorance of the MMM as well
as Mormon history in general over the years, you are not qualified to voice
that opinion, so you need to cite somebody who is more knowledgable than
yourself to support your assertions regarding Brooks, Bagley, and Bigler.
Stimply asserting that they are "not objective" or that they are
"anti-Mormons", without providing some evidence to support your opinion, is
pure ad hominem and juvenile.

>Make your case with the actual history as recorded the weeks or months

before or after the MMM.

I've cited numerous contemporary statements, letters, sermons, orders, etc., in
my posts.

>Not some anti-Mormons ramblings some 150 years later.

You still haven't told us how any of my citations are "anti-Mormon." The fact
that certain information casts the LDS church in a negative light, or upsets
your chosen image of the LDS church, does not make that information
"anti-Mormon" or untrue.

>>Red, I have quoted this statement from LDS historian Juanita Brooks four
times
>now, and you have yet to acknowledge it.

>Juanita Brooks is not respected by other historians, and indeed, many
of her peers have noted that she has obvious hostility toward Brigham
Young and such hostility and subjectivity infects her every synthesis
on the man.

Kindly quote from any of Brooks' "peers" who have stated what you assert. Then
kindly cite us any statements from Brooks which you personally know to be
untrue or unsupported by historical documentation.

>Again -- you claimed you had primary evidence that proves Brigham
Young ordered the MMM. If you do, why must you rely upon tertuary
ramblings by known Brigham Young haters like Brooks?

Kindly explain the meaning of "tertuary." Kindly cite evidence that Juanita
Brooks was a "Brigham Young hater." Kindly cite any material from Brooks which
you personally know to be untrue, which you believe makes her a "Brigham Young
hater."

If by "tertuary," you are attempting to say "second-hand" or "third-hand," I
will remind you that Dimick Huntington was Brigham Young's interpreter and
liaison with the Indians, he was present in that September 1 council with the
Indians, and he recorded Young's gifting of the cattle to the Indians, thus he
was a "primary source."

>>>You know -- all the ranchers/dairy farmers here in Texas sell the
>>older male cows to slaughter -- they keep the milk cows and young cows
>>because that's how you grow a herd of cattle.

>>Irrelevant drivel. We're talking about Mormon church leaders instructing
>Indians to drive stolen cattle into the mountains, out of sight, and keeping
>only a few for immediate needs.

>Really? You still have not established that the Indians were

instructed to steal anything. It just isn't in the historical record.

I have provided the evidence for that numerous times. Huntington's remarks
that the Indians expressed surprise at being told they could steal the cattle,
after having been previously taught not to steal, make it obvious that Brigham
Young instructed the Indians to steal the cattle which "had gone to Cal the
south rout."

The fact that you choose to remain in intellectual denial of the evidence does

not mean that I have not provided it.

>Thus, you must rely upon synthesis written by Brigham Young haters

some 150 years after the fact -- and quote their words -- instead of

the actual words of the people involved in the events.

Red, no matter how many times you repeat your ad hominem "Brigham Young hater,"
it isn't going to become true. ARM isn't like the Mormon church----you can't
get away with the "big lie" technique here.
Brooks and other historians such as Bigler and Bagley draw their conclusions by
researching "the actual words of the people involved in the events."

>Surely, you must be a graduate of the D. Michael Quinn School of Ginsu
History -- where you slice and dice history in order misrepresent the
past.

I just knew you couldn't finish a post without mentioning Quinn. Red, have you
perchance read any of Quinn's books? Have you examined the primary sources in
LDS archives which Quinn researched for ten years? Have you personally
compared Quinn's research and conclusions with that of other Mormon historians?

>>>Yep. That's me: MDM
>>>Mormon Denial Mechanism

>>Admitting one's problem is the first step towards recovery, Red.

>>>That's when a Mormon, Denies a logical Mechanism that turns milk cows
>>on the north route into the Fancher party,

>>Who has turned Huntington's mention of the "north route" raid into the
"Fancher
>party?" Certainly not me.

>Oh, quite surely you have. The cattle on the north route discussion in the
Huntington journal demonstrates convincingly that the discussion of the cattle

on the south route had nothing to do with the MMM.

<groan> Well, perhaps you could answer a few questions for us, then:

Whose cattle were traveling on "the south route to California" at the time of
the council between Brigham Young and 12 Indian chiefs on September 1, 1857?

What emigrant trains did Brigham Young tell Isaac Haight were leaving SLC after
the Fancher train, heading south towards Haight's territory?

Who was the man who had taught the Indians not to steal?

Why were the Indian chiefs in that September 1 meeting with Brigham Young
surprised when someone in that meeting told them that they could have "all the
cattle that had gone to California on the south route?"

Who was the man in that meeting who replied to the Indians, when they reminded
him that he had "told them not to steal", by telling the Indians "So I have,
but now they have come to fight us & you for when they kill kill us they will
kill you."

Who was the man who had instructed Jacob Hamblin on August 4 to tell local
southern Indians that "they have either got to help us or the United States
must kill us both?"

Who was the man who, upon viewing the crude memorial erected to the MMM victims
in 1861, commented "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, and I have taken a
little?"

>>The "north route" raid occurred a day or two before Huntington received the
>report of it from Ogden Bishop Chauncey West. Huntington made note of West's
>report in his journal entry of August 30.

>He did? You know, I still can't find mention of a single "raid" in the

Huntington journal as you have described.

That is because you are ignorant of the context of the period and of
19th-century Mormon history in general.

[snip]

>>>White Space for Jordan6 to paste in Brigham Young's order:

>>No need, I already wrote the evidence above, as well as in six previous posts
>to you. Someday, you might actually deal with the evidence.

>Just as I thought: No evidence.

I have provided a mountain of evidence, and continue to provide more with each
post.
Your juvenile tactic of denying that I have provided the evidence does not mean
that I have not in fact provided the evidence. It only means that you are in
denial.

>
>
>>]
>>]
>>]
>>]
>>]
>>]
>>]
>>]
>>]
>>]
>>]
>>
>>>You need not post anything else. Just a single credible primary
>>reference where Brigham Young ordered the MMM.

>So, I guess that's all folks. Randy has no evidence that Brigham
Young ordered the MMM. All he has are the words of Brigham Young
haters writing in the 20th and 21st century -- without any evidence
whatsoever from the 19th century.

Ignorant liar.

>Case closed. I'm still a dedicated Mormon.

You are still a dedicated Mormon because you obstinately refuse to accept the
facts which refute your positions. You are the very portrait of a brainwashed
religious fanatic.

>I knew there would be no evidence, because Brigham Young did not order, plan,
or approve the MMM.

>-Red Davis

I have provided ample evidence that Brigham Young ordered, planned, and
approved attacks upon emigrant trains as a tactic in his war against the United
States and its citizens. I have provided the evidence, numerous times, that
Brigham Young specifically approved the theft of cattle which were being herded
to California on the south route, which is exactly where the Fancher and Dukes
emigrant trains were attacked and had their cattle and property stolen by
Mormons working in cahoots with Indians.

The fact that you refuse to accept the evidence does not make that evidence
magically disappear; rather, it just makes you an irrational, incorrigible
fanatic, and a laughingstock of ARM.

Randy J.

Dangerous1

unread,

Jun 21, 2003, 2:48:52 AM6/21/03

in article 20030621015612...@mb-m07.aol.com, TheJordan6 at
thejo...@aol.com wrote on 6/20/03 11:56 PM:

> Part four
>
> Randy wrote:
>

KDavis:

>> Surely, you must be a graduate of the D. Michael Quinn School of Ginsu
> History -- where you slice and dice history in order misrepresent the
> past.
>
> I just knew you couldn't finish a post without mentioning Quinn.

better Quinn than ANAL INTERCOURSE!!!!!!
SSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!

(SNIP)

> The fact that you refuse to accept the evidence does not make that evidence
> magically disappear; rather, it just makes you an irrational, incorrigible
> fanatic, and a laughingstock of ARM.

That he is. But he is getting a little competition lately.

--
Cheers,
Don Marchant
dangerous 1
D1 at Dangerous1.com

think global, act loco

0 new messages