Randy wrote:Red Davis replied:
>> Gee, Red, I didn't see any comments from you about Brigham Young's letter
>> September 7, 1857 (four days before the MMM) in your above response.
>Oh, you mean the letter carried by dispatcher from Brigham Young toNo, deceitful Mormon, I'm referring to the letter to U. S. Army Captain Stewart
>the people in the Mountain Meadows area?
>The one that arrived inI'm 100 times more familiar with the *entire* contents of Young's letter to
>Cedar City, Utah *after* most of the Fancher party were killed?
Isaac Haight, and its context, than you ever will be, Red.
>AndDeceitful Mormon, you are once again ignoring the context behind Young's
>what did this letter say?
>It said, "In regard to the emigration trains passing through our
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
Young's intention was for only the Indians to attack and rob the emigrants,
*THAT* was the point at which Haight sent a rider (James Haslam) to SLC to ask
Haight's letter to Young has "conveniently" disappeared, so we don't know
Of course, Young was smart enough not to write anything in his response to
That is further made obvious by the *VERY NEXT SENTENCE* from Young's
"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
Young's above remark makes it obvious that he knew that the Baker/Fancher train
>Gosh, that must be secret pseudo-code Mormon encryption where BrighamRed, I've documented the evidence for you several times, and you have yet to
>Young, to quote you "ordered" the MMM.
honestly deal with it.
> The only problem is -- theWhether the messenger (Haslam) returned before or after the massacre was
>messenger arrived after the fact either way.
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:
"[Young's] answer to Haight is direct: 'In regard to the emigrant trains
>Oh, you are talking about the one to U. S. Army Captain Stewart vanAbsolute moron. Young's letter to van Vliet clearly shows that:
>Vliet, which has no relationship whatsoever to the MMM incident.
A) Young had the Indians under his control
B) Young's referral to "emigration across the continent", when he knew
C) The fact that *THE VERY DAY* of Young's letter to van Vliet, the same
As I've cited for you before (which you have yet to respond to):
"This policy of robbing the passing emigrant was clearly a part of the general
>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 -- thereLiar. The documentation of the September 1 war council clearly shows that
>is not one single bit of evidence that Brigham Young did anything
>1. Warn all that he could that trouble was brewing
Young was behind the crime.
>2. Order all under his control to stand by and let emmigrants passLiar. 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 onlyRed, these ignorant assertions tells us that you still have not bothered to
>capable of persuasion -- not control.
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
All you are doing here is blowing smoke. You are trying to make your fellow
>Are you completely incapable of raitional and objective thought onSeeing 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 onRed, you are as usual, deceitfully misstating the facts in order to minimize
>cattle herd conversation counsel given by another man far removed from
>the MMM events,
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
"A Pah-Ute chief, of the Santa Clara band, named 'Jackson,' who was one of the
Now Red, see if you can show us some honesty for a change, and actually address
>to stating a letter directed to an Army Captain was,Idiot, Young's letter to van Vliet was not an "order to the Indians"; it was
>"matter-of-fact" an order to the Indians to execute the MMM.
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, inImbecile, that letter was not addressed to the Indians, and they couldn't read
>*fact* the letter has no such order, and the Indians never saw or read
>the letter to the Army Captain.
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 ofNo, Red, I have provided the evidence numerous times from multiple sources.
>> 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.
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 theoryYour apparent inability to understand Huntington's journal remarks does not
>about Mormon encryption and pseudo-coded orders sent to third parties
>located far away from the events at hand,
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<chuckle> You just couldn't end a post without mentioning Quinn, could you
>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).
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 theGee, Red, do you not have any ad hominems you can direct towards Juanita
>biggest idiot I have ever seen, as are your two history heros, Baggers
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
Should we lump Juanita Brooks in with all those other idiots like Bagley,
>OK, I love to deliver the news to you:.....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
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.