Part 4

Red Davis replied:

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

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.

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.

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

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:

"[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.)

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):

"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.)

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

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

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.  

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

<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.

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?

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.