BY and the MMM
Kevin Zoellner
BY ordered the MMM.
"The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
safety""
From the Confessions of John D. Lee
--
Kevin
United States Marine Corps, When it absolutely, positively has to be
destroyed
overnight!
Duwayne Anderson
> I found this interesting, considering the argument about whether or not
> BY ordered the MMM.
>
>
> "The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
> for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
> or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
> of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
> me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
> Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
> safety""
>
> From the Confessions of John D. Lee
The really interesting thing about this is the apparent *real
consideration* that the Saints in Southern Utah gave to the idea that
Brigham Young might *NOT* want the emigrants to pass in safety, and so
necessitated sending a messenger to Salt Lake City to find out.
It's sort of like a trial of the Mob, where the guy on the witness
stand says:
"We asked'd boss if he wanted us to waste'd guy, and'd boss said no."
See what I mean? If you have to ask the president of the Church
whether or not you should murder a wagon train full of emigrants, then
there must be some expectation that, in some circumstances, the
president might say YES. So the next obvious question is:
"Why might the Saints in Southern Utah have considered the possibility
that Brigham Young did not want the emigrants to pass safely? What
historical context within the LDS Church might have led those LDS to
think that murdering the emigrants should even be CONSIDERED?"
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
Innovators_Dilemma
> BY ordered the MMM.
>
>
> "The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
> for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
> or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
> of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
> me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
> Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
> safety""
>
> From the Confessions of John D. Lee
>
Good post Kevin. From the posts on ARM, one would have believed that John
D. Lee had accused Brigham Young of ordering the massacre. That is not what
Mr. Lee ever said, and this proves it.
Innovators_Dilemma
"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a42139e3.01120...@posting.google.com...
> Kevin Zoellner <zoell...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<3C0EEF0F...@attbi.com>...
> > I found this interesting, considering the argument about whether or not
> > BY ordered the MMM.
> >
> >
> > "The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
> > for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
> > or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
> > of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
> > me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
> > Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
> > safety""
> >
> > From the Confessions of John D. Lee
>
> The really interesting thing about this is the apparent *real
> consideration* that the Saints in Southern Utah gave to the idea that
> Brigham Young might *NOT* want the emigrants to pass in safety, and so
> necessitated sending a messenger to Salt Lake City to find out.>
I don't think the state of mind of frontier settlers is really pertinent.
The reality is that BY never ordered the massacre and the locals obviously
acted on their own. To state otherwise is reckless, inflammatory and
libelous.
Moreover, you insinuate that a decesion by BY not to let the emigrants pass
through Utah territory is tantemount to an order to massacre them, when the
more reasonable view would be simply to have them pass through a different
route.
<snip to end>
Clovis Lark
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a42139e3.01120...@posting.google.com...
>> Kevin Zoellner <zoell...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:<3C0EEF0F...@attbi.com>...
>> > I found this interesting, considering the argument about whether or not
>> > BY ordered the MMM.
>> >
>> >
>> > "The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
>> > for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
>> > or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
>> > of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
>> > me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
>> > Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
>> > safety""
>> >
>> > From the Confessions of John D. Lee
>>
>> The really interesting thing about this is the apparent *real
>> consideration* that the Saints in Southern Utah gave to the idea that
>> Brigham Young might *NOT* want the emigrants to pass in safety, and so
>> necessitated sending a messenger to Salt Lake City to find out.>
> I don't think the state of mind of frontier settlers is really pertinent.
In light of the ongoing Mormon Reformation and its effects upon the
population, it is really pertinent. Motivations for the murder of William
Laney need to be addressed.
> The reality is that BY never ordered the massacre and the locals obviously
> acted on their own. To state otherwise is reckless, inflammatory and
> libelous.
It isn't obvious at all.
> Moreover, you insinuate that a decesion by BY not to let the emigrants pass
> through Utah territory is tantemount to an order to massacre them, when the
> more reasonable view would be simply to have them pass through a different
> route.
And what route might that be out of SLC?
> <snip to end>
Clovis Lark
"Brigham Young honored me in many ways after the affair at Mountain
Meadows was fully reported to him by me." Lee suggesting that BY was an
accessory after the fact. Not to be forgotten is BY's Mormon Reformation
and the violent zealotry that followed. People like Isaac C. Haight
operated with impunity and deadly results in this environment.
Innovators_Dilemma
"Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:9uogaq$ct2$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
Why? I see no connection.
> Motivations for the murder of William Laney need to be addressed.>
Well John D. Lee said BY ordered them to let the settlers pass in peace.
Whatever motivated the locals to kill, it wasn't due to orders from Salt
Lake. You can't say BY was a dictator in one breath, and then pretend some
other higher up in Salt Lake gave the order in direct contradiction to BY's
order.
>
> > The reality is that BY never ordered the massacre and the locals
obviously
> > acted on their own. To state otherwise is reckless, inflammatory and
> > libelous.
>
> It isn't obvious at all.>
It is from the best evidence we have, which is the testimony of John D. Lee.
>
> > Moreover, you insinuate that a decesion by BY not to let the emigrants
pass
> > through Utah territory is tantemount to an order to massacre them, when
the
> > more reasonable view would be simply to have them pass through a
different
> > route.
>
> And what route might that be out of SLC?>
Were they in SLC?
>
> > <snip to end>
>
>
Innovators_Dilemma
> Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Kevin Zoellner" <zoell...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C0EEF0F...@attbi.com...
> >> I found this interesting, considering the argument about whether or not
> >> BY ordered the MMM.
> >>
> >>
> >> "The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
> >> for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was
three
> >> or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
> >> of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk
with
> >> me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
> >> Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
> >> safety""
> >>
> >> From the Confessions of John D. Lee
> >>
>
> > Good post Kevin. From the posts on ARM, one would have believed that
John
> > D. Lee had accused Brigham Young of ordering the massacre. That is not
what
> > Mr. Lee ever said, and this proves it.
>
> "Brigham Young honored me in many ways after the affair at Mountain
> Meadows was fully reported to him by me." Lee suggesting that BY was an
> accessory after the fact.>
Do you even know what "an accessory after the fact" is? Is a group giving
an award to a criminal always an "accessory after the fact"? If so, all
groups better watch who they honor.
> Not to be forgotten is BY's Mormon Reformation
> and the violent zealotry that followed. People like Isaac C. Haight
> operated with impunity and deadly results in this environment.>
Call for references, not naked assertion.
Clovis Lark
Clovis Lark
Do some checking on the Mormon Reformation which occurred from 1856-58.
the general descriptions are of popular paranoia and of serious violence
toward "apostates", outsiders, etc.
>> Motivations for the murder of William Laney need to be addressed.>
> Well John D. Lee said BY ordered them to let the settlers pass in peace.
> Whatever motivated the locals to kill, it wasn't due to orders from Salt
> Lake. You can't say BY was a dictator in one breath, and then pretend some
> other higher up in Salt Lake gave the order in direct contradiction to BY's
> order.
If the Joseph Morris case is any indication, BY had his "man" on site and
was appraised of details after the fact. Hickman, Lee, Haight, Burton, et
al. all knew this process.
>>
>> > The reality is that BY never ordered the massacre and the locals
> obviously
>> > acted on their own. To state otherwise is reckless, inflammatory and
>> > libelous.
>>
>> It isn't obvious at all.>
> It is from the best evidence we have, which is the testimony of John D. Lee.
And he names BY accessorary after the fact.
>>
>> > Moreover, you insinuate that a decesion by BY not to let the emigrants
> pass
>> > through Utah territory is tantemount to an order to massacre them, when
> the
>> > more reasonable view would be simply to have them pass through a
> different
>> > route.
>>
>> And what route might that be out of SLC?>
> Were they in SLC?
Aug. 10 1857
>>
>> > <snip to end>
>>
>>
Innovators_Dilemma
Such as...
>
> >> Motivations for the murder of William Laney need to be addressed.>
>
> > Well John D. Lee said BY ordered them to let the settlers pass in peace.
> > Whatever motivated the locals to kill, it wasn't due to orders from Salt
> > Lake. You can't say BY was a dictator in one breath, and then pretend
some
> > other higher up in Salt Lake gave the order in direct contradiction to
BY's
> > order.
>
> If the Joseph Morris case is any indication, BY had his "man" on site and
> was appraised of details after the fact. Hickman, Lee, Haight, Burton, et
> al. all knew this process.>
Then why didn't Lee, during his tell all testimony after being jerked around
by the church, mention this or implicate BY?
>
> >>
> >> > The reality is that BY never ordered the massacre and the locals
> > obviously
> >> > acted on their own. To state otherwise is reckless, inflammatory and
> >> > libelous.
> >>
> >> It isn't obvious at all.>
>
> > It is from the best evidence we have, which is the testimony of John D.
Lee.
>
> And he names BY accessorary after the fact.>
Not so. The above quote expressly states BY never ordered anything. You'll
have to do a little more research on crimes of complicity before alleging
that BY was a criminal accessory.
>
> >>
> >> > Moreover, you insinuate that a decesion by BY not to let the
emigrants
> > pass
> >> > through Utah territory is tantemount to an order to massacre them,
when
> > the
> >> > more reasonable view would be simply to have them pass through a
> > different
> >> > route.
> >>
> >> And what route might that be out of SLC?>
>
> > Were they in SLC?
>
> Aug. 10 1857>
Gee, if BY wanted them dead, he could have sent them to the salt flats.
>
> >>
> >> > <snip to end>
> >>
> >>
>
>
Innovators_Dilemma
Post what they have to say.
Clovis Lark
> Such as...
Come on, John. I know your interest is peaked. Read some books on it.
It is documented in the archives of the Utah Historical Society. I'm sure
you have access. This will help save time until someone has the time to
post a scan novel of all the details.
Here is what Lee says in his confession. Note he refers to the
reformation and its implications upon behavior:
I said I thought they would attack any train that would come in their
way. Then the General was in a deep study for some time, when he said,
"Suppose an emigrant train should come along through this southern
country, making threats against our people and bragging of the part they
took in helping kill our Prophets, what do you think the brethren would do
with them? Would they be permitted to go their way, or would the brethren
pitch into them and give them a good drubbing?"
I reflected a few moments, and then said,
"You know the brethren are now under the influence of the late
reformation, and are still red-hot for the gospel. The brethren believe
the government wishes to destroy them. I really believe that any train of
emigrants that may come through here will be attacked, and. probably all
destroyed. I am sure they would be wiped out if they had been making
threats again our people. Unless emigrants have a pass from Brigham Young,
or some one in authority, they will certainly never get safely through
this country."
My reply pleased him very much, and he laughed heartily, and then
said,
"Do you really believe the brethren would make it lively for such a
train?"
I said, "Yes, sir, I know they will, unless they are protected by a
pass, and I wish to inform you that unless you want every train captured
that comes through here, you must inform Governor Young that if he wants
emigrants to pass, without being molested, he must send orders to that
effect to Colonel Wm. H. Dame or Major Isaac C. Haight, so that they can
give passes to the emigrants, for their passes will insure safety, but
nothing else will, except the positive orders of Governor Young, as the
people are all bitter against the Gentiles, and full of religious zeal,
and anxious to avenge the blood of the Prophets."
AGAIN LEE MENTIONS THE REFORMATION:
I repeated my views to him, but at much greater length, giving my reasons
in full for thinking that Governor Young should give orders to protect all
the emigrants that he did not wish destroyed. I went into a full statement
of the wrongs of our people, and told him that the people were under the
blaze of the reformation, full of wild fire and fanaticism, and that to
shed the blood of those who would dare to speak against the Mormon Church
or its leaders, they would consider doing the will of God, and that the
people would do it as willingly and cheerfully as they would any other
duty. That the apostle Paul, when he started forth to persecute the
followers of Christ, was not any more sincere than every Mormon was then,
who lived in Southern Utah.
>>
>> >> Motivations for the murder of William Laney need to be addressed.>
>>
>> > Well John D. Lee said BY ordered them to let the settlers pass in peace.
>> > Whatever motivated the locals to kill, it wasn't due to orders from Salt
>> > Lake. You can't say BY was a dictator in one breath, and then pretend
> some
>> > other higher up in Salt Lake gave the order in direct contradiction to
> BY's
>> > order.
>>
>> If the Joseph Morris case is any indication, BY had his "man" on site and
>> was appraised of details after the fact. Hickman, Lee, Haight, Burton, et
>> al. all knew this process.>
> Then why didn't Lee, during his tell all testimony after being jerked around
> by the church, mention this or implicate BY?
He did implicate him:
"I have always believed, since that day, that General George A. Smith was
then visiting Southern Utah to prepare the people for the work of
exterminating Captain Fancher's train of emigrants, and I now believe that
he was sent for that purpose by the direct command of Brigham Young. "
"Sidney Littlefield, of Panguitch, has told me that he was knowing to the
fact of Colonel Wm. H. Dame sending orders from Parowan to Maj. Haight, at
Cedar City, to exterminate the Fancher outfit, and to kill every emigrant
without fail. Littlefield then lived at Parowan, and Dame was the
Presiding Bishop. Dame still has all the wives he wants, and is a great
friend of Brigham Young.
"The knowledge of how George A. Smith felt toward the emigrants, and
his telling me that he had a long talk with Haight on the subject, made me
certain that it was the wish of the Church authorities that Francher and
his train should be wiped out, and knowing all this, I did not doubt then,
and I do not doubt it now, either, that Haight was acting by full
authority from the Church leaders, and that the orders he gave to me were
just the orders that he had been directed to give, when he ordered me to
raise the Indians and have them attack the emigrants."
>>
>> >>
>> >> > The reality is that BY never ordered the massacre and the locals
>> > obviously
>> >> > acted on their own. To state otherwise is reckless, inflammatory and
>> >> > libelous.
>> >>
>> >> It isn't obvious at all.>
>>
>> > It is from the best evidence we have, which is the testimony of John D.
> Lee.
>>
>> And he names BY accessorary after the fact.>
> Not so. The above quote expressly states BY never ordered anything. You'll
> have to do a little more research on crimes of complicity before alleging
> that BY was a criminal accessory.
Brigham then said:
"Isaac (referring to Haight) has sent me word that if they had killed
every man, woman and child in the outfit, there would not have been a drop
of innocent blood shed by the brethren: for they were a set of murderers,
robbers and thieves."
While I was still talking with him, some men came into his house to
see him, so he requested me to keep quiet until they left. I did as he
directed.
As soon as the men went out, I continued my recital. I gave him the
names of every man that had been present at the massacre. I told him who
killed various ones. In fact I gave him all the information there was to
give.
When I finished talking about the matter, he said:
"This is the most unfortunate affair that ever befell the Church. I am
afraid of treachery among the brethren that were there. If any one tells
this thing so that it will become public, it will work us great injury. I
want you to understand now, that you are never to tell this again, not
even to Heber C. Kimball. It must be kept a secret among ourselves. When
you get home, I want you to sit down and write a long letter, and give me
an account of the affair, charging it to the Indians. You sign the letter
as Farmer to the Indians, and direct it to me as Indian Agent. I can then
make use of such a letter to keep off all damaging and troublesome
enquiries."
I told him that I would write the letter. (I kept my word; but, as an
evidence of his treachery, that same letter that he ordered me to write,
he has given to Attorney Howard, and he has introduced it in evidence
against me on my trial.)
Brigham Young knew when he got that letter just as well as I did, that
it was not a true letter, and that it was only written according to his
orders to throw the public off of the right trail. He knew that it was
written simply to cast all the blame on the Indians, and to protect the
brethren. In writing that letter I was still obeying my orders and earning
that Celestial reward that had been promised to me.
He then said, "If only men had been killed, I would not have cared so
much; but the killing of the women and children is the sin of it. I
suppose the men were a hard set, but it is hard to kill women and children
for the sins of the men. This whole thing stands before me like a horrid
vision. I must have time to reflect upon it."
He then told me to withdraw and call next day, and he would give me an
answer. I said to him,
"President Young, the people all felt, and I know that I believed I
was obeying orders, and acting for the good of the Church, and in strict
conformity with the oaths that we have all taken to avenge the blood of
the Prophets. You must either sustain the people for what they have done,
or you most release us from the oaths and obligations that we have taken."
The only reply he made was,
"Go now, and come in the morning, and I will give you an answer."
I went to see him again in the morning. When I went in, he seemed
quite cheerful. He said,
"I have made that matter a subject of prayer. I went right to God with
it, and asked Him to take the horrid vision from my sight, if it was a
righteous thingthat my people had done in killing those people at the
Mountain Meadows. God answered me, and at once the vision was removed. I
have evidence from God that He has overruled it all for good, and the
action was a righteous one and well intended.
"The brethren acted from pure motives. The only trouble is they acted
a little prematurely; they were a little ahead of time. I sustain you and
all of the brethren for what they did. All that I fear is treachery on the
part of some one who took a with you, but we will look to that."
[I think you'd have a pretty hard time in court with this]
>>
>> >>
>> >> > Moreover, you insinuate that a decesion by BY not to let the
> emigrants
>> > pass
>> >> > through Utah territory is tantemount to an order to massacre them,
> when
>> > the
>> >> > more reasonable view would be simply to have them pass through a
>> > different
>> >> > route.
>> >>
>> >> And what route might that be out of SLC?>
>>
>> > Were they in SLC?
>>
>> Aug. 10 1857>
> Gee, if BY wanted them dead, he could have sent them to the salt flats.
And lost all the booty?
>>
>> >>
>> >> > <snip to end>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
Clovis Lark
"To whatever extent the preaching on blood atonement may have influenced
action, it would have been in relation to Mormon disciplinary action among
its own members. In point would be a verbally reported case of a Mr.
Johnson in Cedar City who was found guilty of adultery with his
stepdaughter by a bishop's court and sentenced to death for atonement of
his sin. According to the report of reputable eyewitnesses, judgment was
executed with consent of the offender who went to his unconsecrated grave
in full confidence of salvation through the shedding of his blood. Such a
case, however primitive, is understandable within the meaning of the
doctrine and the emotional extremes of the Reformation." (Utah
Historical Quarterly, January, 1958, page 62)
Innovators_Dilemma
That's all interesting and all, but I don't see how it connects BY with the
massacre.
That's odd considering BY's direct order to the contrary. I guess we're
supposed to read between the lines.
>
> "Sidney Littlefield, of Panguitch, has told me that he was knowing to the
> fact of Colonel Wm. H. Dame sending orders from Parowan to Maj. Haight, at
> Cedar City, to exterminate the Fancher outfit, and to kill every emigrant
> without fail. Littlefield then lived at Parowan, and Dame was the
> Presiding Bishop. Dame still has all the wives he wants, and is a great
> friend of Brigham Young.
>
> "The knowledge of how George A. Smith felt toward the emigrants, and
> his telling me that he had a long talk with Haight on the subject, made me
> certain that it was the wish of the Church authorities that Francher and
> his train should be wiped out, and knowing all this, I did not doubt then,
> and I do not doubt it now, either, that Haight was acting by full
> authority from the Church leaders, and that the orders he gave to me were
> just the orders that he had been directed to give, when he ordered me to
> raise the Indians and have them attack the emigrants.">
I still don't see any evidence connecting BY and the massacre.
>
>
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > The reality is that BY never ordered the massacre and the locals
> >> > obviously
> >> >> > acted on their own. To state otherwise is reckless, inflammatory
and
> >> >> > libelous.
> >> >>
> >> >> It isn't obvious at all.>
> >>
> >> > It is from the best evidence we have, which is the testimony of John
D.
> > Lee.
> >>
> >> And he names BY accessorary after the fact.>
>
> > Not so. The above quote expressly states BY never ordered anything.
You'll
> > have to do a little more research on crimes of complicity before
alleging
> > that BY was a criminal accessory.
>
> Brigham then said:
>
> "Isaac (referring to Haight) has sent me word that if they had killed
> every man, woman and child in the outfit, there would not have been a drop
> of innocent blood shed by the brethren: for they were a set of murderers,
> robbers and thieves."
So, BY was repeating what Isaac Haight said? And this is supposed to
indicate what BY actually thought? Ever heard of the hearsay rule? In this
case, it's double hearsay! Ever wonder such evidence is usually not
considered to be reliable in a court of law and is normally excluded?
>
> While I was still talking with him, some men came into his house to
> see him, so he requested me to keep quiet until they left. I did as he
> directed.
>
> As soon as the men went out, I continued my recital. I gave him the
> names of every man that had been present at the massacre. I told him who
> killed various ones. In fact I gave him all the information there was to
> give.
>
> When I finished talking about the matter, he said:
>
> "This is the most unfortunate affair that ever befell the Church. I am
> afraid of treachery among the brethren that were there. If any one tells
> this thing so that it will become public, it will work us great injury. I
> want you to understand now, that you are never to tell this again, not
> even to Heber C. Kimball. It must be kept a secret among ourselves. When
> you get home, I want you to sit down and write a long letter, and give me
> an account of the affair, charging it to the Indians. You sign the letter
> as Farmer to the Indians, and direct it to me as Indian Agent. I can then
> make use of such a letter to keep off all damaging and troublesome
> enquiries."
Hearsay.
>
> I told him that I would write the letter. (I kept my word; but, as an
> evidence of his treachery, that same letter that he ordered me to write,
> he has given to Attorney Howard, and he has introduced it in evidence
> against me on my trial.) >
And I'm sure John D. Lee at this point had no motivation to lie to save his
bacon..
>
> Brigham Young knew when he got that letter just as well as I did, that
> it was not a true letter, and that it was only written according to his
> orders to throw the public off of the right trail. He knew that it was
> written simply to cast all the blame on the Indians, and to protect the
> brethren. In writing that letter I was still obeying my orders and earning
> that Celestial reward that had been promised to me.
>
> He then said, "If only men had been killed, I would not have cared so
> much; but the killing of the women and children is the sin of it. I
> suppose the men were a hard set, but it is hard to kill women and children
> for the sins of the men. This whole thing stands before me like a horrid
> vision. I must have time to reflect upon it." >
There you have it. Even if true (but it's hearsay) BY was against killing
the women and children, only the men who bragged to have had a hand in
killing Mormons. What more do you want?
>
> He then told me to withdraw and call next day, and he would give me an
> answer. I said to him,
>
> "President Young, the people all felt, and I know that I believed I
> was obeying orders, and acting for the good of the Church, and in strict
> conformity with the oaths that we have all taken to avenge the blood of
> the Prophets. You must either sustain the people for what they have done,
> or you most release us from the oaths and obligations that we have taken."
>
> The only reply he made was,
>
> "Go now, and come in the morning, and I will give you an answer."
>
> I went to see him again in the morning. When I went in, he seemed
> quite cheerful. He said,
>
> "I have made that matter a subject of prayer. I went right to God with
> it, and asked Him to take the horrid vision from my sight, if it was a
> righteous thingthat my people had done in killing those people at the
> Mountain Meadows. God answered me, and at once the vision was removed. I
> have evidence from God that He has overruled it all for good, and the
> action was a righteous one and well intended.
>
> "The brethren acted from pure motives. The only trouble is they acted
> a little prematurely; they were a little ahead of time. I sustain you and
> all of the brethren for what they did. All that I fear is treachery on the
> part of some one who took a with you, but we will look to that."
>
> [I think you'd have a pretty hard time in court with this]>
Yeh, I think the entire line of hearsay testimony would make it mighty hard
to convict anyone.
Duwayne Anderson
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a42139e3.01120...@posting.google.com...
> > Kevin Zoellner <zoell...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:<3C0EEF0F...@attbi.com>...
> > > I found this interesting, considering the argument about whether or not
> > > BY ordered the MMM.
> > >
> > >
> > > "The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
> > > for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
> > > or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
> > > of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
> > > me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
> > > Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
> > > safety""
> > >
> > > From the Confessions of John D. Lee
> >
> > The really interesting thing about this is the apparent *real
> > consideration* that the Saints in Southern Utah gave to the idea that
> > Brigham Young might *NOT* want the emigrants to pass in safety, and so
> > necessitated sending a messenger to Salt Lake City to find out.>
>
> I don't think the state of mind of frontier settlers is really pertinent.
Nobody is trying to determine anyone's state of mind.
The point I was making is that the situation was such that anyone
would even *THINK* to ask Brigham Young if they should kill the
emigrants. I mean, why would LDS members in southern Utah think they
needed to ask Brigham Young if they should let the emigrants pass, if
it wasn't at least a possibility in their mind that, perhaps, Brigham
Young wanted them murdered?
The asking of a question often carries with it implications.
In this case, the asking of the question "Do you want us to kill the
emigrants" implies that the answer *MIGHT* be yes. After all, if the
answer is always "no" then there is no need to ask the question,
because you already know the answer.
So, my point is, the fact the Mormon settlers would even bother to ask
Brigham Young what to do with the emigrants means that they had some
expectation or reason to believe that Brigham Young might want them to
do something at all.
> The reality is that BY never ordered the massacre and the locals obviously
> acted on their own.
Well, you don't really know that. First of all, this is just one
historical opinion. Secondly, there is nothing in any of this to
suggest that Brigham Young didn't order the massacre, and then retract
it.
In fact, the idea that Brigham Young first ordered the massacre, and
later retracted the order fits the facts of the story better. After
all, that would explain why the settlers would have sent a deligation
to Brigham Young asking what to do about the emigrants. One could
easily understand them questioning such an order, and asking for
clarification.
> To state otherwise is reckless, inflammatory and
> libelous.
Bunk. There is abundant evidence that the LDS were up to their necks
in MMM, and to suggest that in a tight-knit organization like fronteir
Mormonism the leaders -- who managed things VERY tightly -- didn't
know anything about it is a leap of faith.
> Moreover, you insinuate that a decesion by BY not to let the emigrants pass
> through Utah territory is tantemount to an order to massacre them, when the
> more reasonable view would be simply to have them pass through a different
> route.
Wrong. I'm not insinuating anything. I'm saying, point blank, that
decent people don't have to be told not to murder other folks. The
fact that the LDS would send a group to ask Brigham Young if they
should murder the emigrants is incriminating in its own right, and
suggests that this sort of thing was happening in Utah.
Clovis Lark
"I have always believed, since that day, that General George A. Smith was
Do you know how they convicted John Gotti? Had they today's system and
had they placed Haight, Lee, Young, Smith, Dame, et al. on trial as a
group, similar to RICO proceedure, they qould have made the case. The
above would have been allowed. They would also had to take the
disposition of the Fancher possessions into the proceedings. They would
have been able to show the lines of connection from the top down.
>>
>> While I was still talking with him, some men came into his house to
>> see him, so he requested me to keep quiet until they left. I did as he
>> directed.
>>
>> As soon as the men went out, I continued my recital. I gave him the
>> names of every man that had been present at the massacre. I told him who
>> killed various ones. In fact I gave him all the information there was to
>> give.
>>
>> When I finished talking about the matter, he said:
>>
>> "This is the most unfortunate affair that ever befell the Church. I am
>> afraid of treachery among the brethren that were there. If any one tells
>> this thing so that it will become public, it will work us great injury. I
>> want you to understand now, that you are never to tell this again, not
>> even to Heber C. Kimball. It must be kept a secret among ourselves. When
>> you get home, I want you to sit down and write a long letter, and give me
>> an account of the affair, charging it to the Indians. You sign the letter
>> as Farmer to the Indians, and direct it to me as Indian Agent. I can then
>> make use of such a letter to keep off all damaging and troublesome
>> enquiries."
> Hearsay.
See above.
>>
>> I told him that I would write the letter. (I kept my word; but, as an
>> evidence of his treachery, that same letter that he ordered me to write,
>> he has given to Attorney Howard, and he has introduced it in evidence
>> against me on my trial.) >
> And I'm sure John D. Lee at this point had no motivation to lie to save his
> bacon..
He knew he was dead man and nothing he could do would save him. Even if
they let him out, he was a dead man walking.
See above.
Innovators_Dilemma
Thanks.
Innovators_Dilemma
Then Lee equivocates. Whatever insinuation you might find from the above
quote is expressly refuted in the following statement that began the thread:
"The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
safety"
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> > supposed to read between the lines. To wit:
"The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
safety"
>
> >>
> >> "Sidney Littlefield, of Panguitch, has told me that he was knowing to
the
> >> fact of Colonel Wm. H. Dame sending orders from Parowan to Maj. Haight,
at
> >> Cedar City, to exterminate the Fancher outfit, and to kill every
emigrant
> >> without fail. Littlefield then lived at Parowan, and Dame was the
> >> Presiding Bishop. Dame still has all the wives he wants, and is a great
> >> friend of Brigham Young.
> >>
> >> "The knowledge of how George A. Smith felt toward the emigrants, and
> >> his telling me that he had a long talk with Haight on the subject, made
me
> >> certain that it was the wish of the Church authorities that Francher
and
> >> his train should be wiped out, and knowing all this, I did not doubt
then,
> >> and I do not doubt it now, either, that Haight was acting by full
> >> authority from the Church leaders, and that the orders he gave to me
were
> >> just the orders that he had been directed to give, when he ordered me
to
> >> raise the Indians and have them attack the emigrants.">
>
> > I still don't see any evidence connecting BY and the massacre.
Particularly in light of the following:
"The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
safety"
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
How would the prosecutors have handled the following unumbiguous statement:
"The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
safety"
>
> >>
Yeh, see above.
>
> >>
> >> I told him that I would write the letter. (I kept my word; but, as
an
> >> evidence of his treachery, that same letter that he ordered me to
write,
> >> he has given to Attorney Howard, and he has introduced it in evidence
> >> against me on my trial.) >
>
> > And I'm sure John D. Lee at this point had no motivation to lie to save
his
> > bacon..
>
> He knew he was dead man and nothing he could do would save him. Even if
> they let him out, he was a dead man walking.>
Well now, that's quite odd. When you ask an anti what he thinks about the
motivation of a guy who supposedly took the fall for the whole church, he
must be believed. However, when the 3 witnesses, all of whom were rudely
excommunicated at various times by JS, all maintained their testimonies in
the BoM up to their dying breaths, the anti's clammer that they had every
motivation to continue lying. Simply fascinating!
Yes indeed.
Clovis Lark
Oddly, the message is to arrive after the fact...
After the fact.
After the fact.
They'd have field day. It would start with, why did this take a month when
you knew the situation on 10 Aug.? And then it would continue,
culminating with the obstruction of justice reported by Lee.
> Yeh, see above.
One involves corpses and really truly human beings. The other conjures up
angels and spooks with magic powers. You're an officer of the court,
suppose you tell us?
Duwayne Anderson
> "Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:9uopav$eho$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
<snip>
> > AGAIN LEE MENTIONS THE REFORMATION:
> >
> > I repeated my views to him, but at much greater length, giving my reasons
> > in full for thinking that Governor Young should give orders to protect all
> > the emigrants that he did not wish destroyed. I went into a full statement
> > of the wrongs of our people, and told him that the people were under the
> > blaze of the reformation, full of wild fire and fanaticism, and that to
> > shed the blood of those who would dare to speak against the Mormon Church
> > or its leaders, they would consider doing the will of God, and that the
> > people would do it as willingly and cheerfully as they would any other
> > duty. That the apostle Paul, when he started forth to persecute the
> > followers of Christ, was not any more sincere than every Mormon was then,
> > who lived in Southern Utah. >
>
> That's all interesting and all, but I don't see how it connects BY with the
> massacre.
I thought it was pretty clear. First of all, Lee specifically
mentions the roll that the "reformation" had. Saying that it filled
the Saints with "wile fire and fanaticism, and that to shed the blood
of those who would dare to speak against the Mormon Church or its
leaders, they would consider doing the will of God..."
As prophet of the LDS Church, Brigham Young was responsible for the
reformation. The wild and irresponsible acts of murder that were
inspired by the climate he inspired rest squarely at his feet.
<snip to end>
Innovators_Dilemma
You think? And, coincidentally, it's the only message from BY.
You think?
Like all of Lee's "testimony"..
What do you suggest they do to make the message go faster? Send an email?
Call on the telephone? Telegraph? How, exactly, would they have speeded up
the message? Do you know?
> And then it would continue,
> culminating with the obstruction of justice reported by Lee.>
You mean, the unbiased, good citizen Lee who committed murder?
I don't think you have a case. After all, all your presented thus far is
the fact of deaths and the hearsay testimony of one, Mr. Lee, a convicted
murderer on death row...
Clovis Lark
And John, as a lawyer, should be able to see how today's Federal
prosecutors would be able to successfully implicate BY on this basis. The
repeated theft of wagon trains by caucasian "indians" of mormon faith in
both the north and south during this time would also play heavily in such
a case, perhaps under racketeering.
Innovators_Dilemma
"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a42139e3.01120...@posting.google.com...
Oh. Is that like the dems contention that Gingrich's conservative rhetoric
was the direct cause of the Oklahoma bombing? I see. I guess one's own
actions can be explained away as "society's" fault. Liberals love to shift
blame.
<snip to end>
Innovators_Dilemma
No doubt. So why bother bringing it up?
>
> The point I was making is that the situation was such that anyone
> would even *THINK* to ask Brigham Young if they should kill the
> emigrants.>
You haven't shown that anyone asked any such question. Specifically the
word "kill".
> I mean, why would LDS members in southern Utah think they
> needed to ask Brigham Young if they should let the emigrants pass, >
As opposed to making them take a different route? Yeh, that's murder all
right.
Clovis Lark
> You think?
10 Aug. was a month before MMM. the distance is 250 miles. it is easily
traversed in several days on horseback and certainly far faster than by
slow moving wagon train.
>> And then it would continue,
>> culminating with the obstruction of justice reported by Lee.>
> You mean, the unbiased, good citizen Lee who committed murder?
Just like Joe Valacchi, whose testimony put so many away.
Joe Valacchi put away far more powerful names. If you brought charges
against Haight, Lee, Dane, Smith, Young, etc. you could easily cull enough
witnesses in exchange for reduced sentences. John, you are a lawyer. I
can't believe you aren't privy to this knowledge.
Clovis Lark
Innovators_Dilemma
Oh I am. The accusation here is that there was an ambience of violence due
to some "reformation".
Duwayne Anderson
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<snip>
> > Nobody is trying to determine anyone's state of mind.>
>
> No doubt. So why bother bringing it up?
I didn't. That was your strawman argument.
What I described was an apparent state of mentality in Utah. A mental
state in which LDS Saints were asking the President of the LDS Church
if they should let emigrants pass safely.
My point is that the question makes no sense if the Saints were
law-abiding pacifists. But it makes plenty of sense if Brigham Young
was in the habit of telling the Saints to attack emigrants.
> > The point I was making is that the situation was such that anyone
> > would even *THINK* to ask Brigham Young if they should kill the
> > emigrants.>
>
> You haven't shown that anyone asked any such question. Specifically the
> word "kill".
Well, it's a fact that Mormons were complicit in the murdered over 140
emigrants. The question is whether they had direction/encouragement
from Brigham Young. One could, for example, look to the temple
endowment, which, at the time, included an oath to avenge the prophet
Joseph Smith.
> > I mean, why would LDS members in southern Utah think they
> > needed to ask Brigham Young if they should let the emigrants pass, >
>
> As opposed to making them take a different route? Yeh, that's murder all
> right.
Not sure what you mean with this last sentence. Makes no sense.
Duwayne Anderson
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<snip>
> > I thought it was pretty clear. First of all, Lee specifically
> > mentions the roll that the "reformation" had.>
>
> Oh. Is that like the dems contention that Gingrich's conservative rhetoric
> was the direct cause of the Oklahoma bombing?
What? Where did you get this? Stick to the subject.
> I see. I guess one's own
> actions can be explained away as "society's" fault. Liberals love to shift
> blame.
The only person "shifting blame," Mr. Dilemma, is you and your defense
of acts of violence by the LDS Church.
The fact that the Saints in Southern Utah would ask Brigham Young's
permission to let a train of emigrants pass safely implicates Brigham
Young in the same way that such a request might implicate a crime boss
or other terrorist.
Suppose that the government intercepted a message that said: "Osama,
this is Ben. Just wondering what you think we should do with flight
625. Should we let it land in peace?"
That would be a pretty incriminating question, and it would NOT lend
credibility to the notion that Osama or Ben were peace-loving
individuals. In fact, I'd hope that the government would want to talk
to the rascals that were involved in such communication.
In the same way, when the LDS Saints in Southern Utah asked Brigham
Young if they should allow a wagon train to pass in peace, they
implicated Brigham Young with prior acts of violence, and/or previous
instructions for violence.
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> Oh I am. The accusation here is that there was an ambience of violence due
> to some "reformation".
<snip>
What is your opinion of the temple oaths of the time, in which temple
patrons swore to avenge the murder of Joseph Smith? Do you think that
might have contributed to an atmosphere of paranoia, and been partly
responsible for driving the early LDS Saints in Southern Utah to
murder the Francher train?
Clovis Lark
So you deny any knowledge of the Mormon Reformation being an historical
period in Ootah's past?
Clovis Lark
In light that mormons dressed as NA's were attacking wagon trains with
regularity in Shoshonean and Paiute territories at the time, indeed. No
route was safe, unless the Prophet said so.
TheJordan6
>Date: Wed, Dec 5, 2001 23:07 EST
>Message-id: <3C0EEF0F...@attbi.com>
>
>I found this interesting, considering the argument about whether or not
>BY ordered the MMM.
>
>
>"The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
>for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
>or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
>of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
>me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
>Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
>safety""
>
>From the Confessions of John D. Lee
>
>
>Kevin
Kevin, I've explained this numerous times already. Lee made his above
statement soon after the massacre, before he had any inkling of Young's
involvement. If you'll continue to read his "Confessions," you'll discover
that after all the facts became clear to him, he stated:
"I did not know then that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young for
instructions. Haight had not mentioned it to me. I now think that James
Haslem was sent to Brigham Young, as a sharp play on the part of the
authorities to protect themselves, if trouble ever grew out of the matter."
In other words, Young's letter to Haight was a "cover your ass" effort. Young
and Hamblin had met with southern Indian chiefs only days before the massacre,
to plan the attack and the divvying up of the Fancher party's goods. The plan
was for ONLY the Indians to attack the party, with the "brethren" waiting out
of sight, supervising. That way, Young could "plausibly deny" that any Mormons
had taken part in the killing. That plan went awry when the Indians failed in
their initial attack, the Fancher party held out for days, and the Mormons
finally had to lure them out with a promise of protection, whereupon they
massacred them.
Mormons often quote Young's letter to Haight in an effort to show that Young
was against the killings. However, Young's statement following his counsel to
"let the emigrants pass" reveals that he knew exactly what was in the works:
"The Indians, I expect, will do as they please." Considering Young's many
documented threats to use the Indians as the "battle-ax of the Lord" against
any "Mericats" he so deemed to be the Mormons' "enemies," it's obvious that his
meeting with the southern Indian chiefs mere days before the massacre was to
plan the event and have the Indians do the killing. When Young got the news of
the massacre, he wasn't concerned that it happened, but he was upset that
Mormons had had to take part. That is why he began a campaign to cover up the
massacre and protect Mormons from prosecution for 20 years. Young told Lee to
write a report to the government charging the massacre to the Indians, and
Young claimed to have gotten the "word from the Lord" that the massacre was an
"approved" event.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: Thu, Dec 6, 2001 13:07 EST
>Message-id: <9uoc2m$5or$1...@news.aros.net>
>> BY ordered the MMM.
>>
>>
>> "The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
>> for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
>> or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
>> of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
>> me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
>> Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
>> safety""
>>
>> From the Confessions of John D. Lee
>>
>
>D. Lee had accused Brigham Young of ordering the massacre. That is not what
>Mr. Lee ever said, and this proves it.
If you would ever bother to actually READ Lee's "Confessions", you'd learn that
he later stated:
"I did not know then that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young for
instructions. Haight had not mentioned it to me. I now think that James
Haslem was sent to Brigham Young, as a sharp play on the part of the
authorities to protect themselves, if trouble ever grew out of the matter."
Lee further specifically charged Brigham Young with masterminding the entire
affair:
"General George A. Smith held high rank as a military leader. He was one of
the twelve apostles...and as such he was considered by me to be an inspired
man. His orders were to me sacred commands, which I considered it my duty to
obey, without question or hesitation.....The General told me to tell the
Indians that the Mormons were their friends, and that the Americans were their
enemies.....that the Indians must get ready and keep ready for war against all
of the Americans, and keep friendly with the Mormons and obey what the Mormons
told them to do---that this was the will of the Great Spirit; that if the
Indians were true to the Mormons and would help them against their enemies,
then the Mormons would always keep them from want and sickness and give them
guns and ammunition to hunt and kill game with, and would also help the Indians
against their enemies when they went into war.....I have always believed, since
that day, that General George A. Smith was then visiting Southern Utah to
prepare the people for the work of exterminating Captain Fancher's train of
emigrants, and I now believe that he was sent for that purpose by the direct
command of Brigham Young."
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: Thu, Dec 6, 2001 13:10 EST
>Message-id: <9uoc8h$5pb$1...@news.aros.net>>news:a42139e3.01120...@posting.google.com...
>> Kevin Zoellner <zoell...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:<3C0EEF0F...@attbi.com>...
>> > I found this interesting, considering the argument about whether or not
>> > BY ordered the MMM.
>> >
>> >
>> > "The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
>> > for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
>> > or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
>> > of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
>> > me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
>> > Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
>> > safety""
>> >
>> > From the Confessions of John D. Lee
>>
>> consideration* that the Saints in Southern Utah gave to the idea that
>> Brigham Young might *NOT* want the emigrants to pass in safety, and so
>> necessitated sending a messenger to Salt Lake City to find out.>
>
>I don't think the state of mind of frontier settlers is really pertinent.
>acted on their own. To state otherwise is reckless, inflammatory and
>libelous.
Last summer, I sent 18 posts documenting Young's statements and actions which
show that he was responsible for the conditions which led to the MMM, and that
he most likely was intimately involved in planning the specific attack. You
yourself made one sarcastic comment on my documentation, so I assume you read
it; if you read it, then you have seen the evidence that points to Young as the
mastermind.
>Moreover, you insinuate that a decision by BY not to let the emigrants pass
>through Utah territory is tantamount to an order to massacre them,
Read the sentence in Young's letter following the one wherein he advised the
Mormons to let the emigrants pass.
> when the
>more reasonable view would be simply to have them pass through a different
>route.
There was no other route through the south. George A. Smith was sent by Young
to follow the Fancher party, and he advised them on exactly where to camp at
the Mountain Meadows. He chose the most convenient place for the Indians to
attack the party.
Randy J.
Kevin Zoellner
>From: Kevin Zoellner <zoell...@attbi.com>
>Date: Wed, Dec 5, 2001 23:07 EST
>Message-id: <3C0EEF0F...@attbi.com>
>
>I found this interesting, considering the argument about whether or not
>BY ordered the MMM.
>
>
>"The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
>for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
>or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
>of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
>me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
>Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
>safety""
>
>From the Confessions of John D. Lee
>
>
>--
>KevinKevin, I've explained this numerous times already. Lee made his above
statement soon after the massacre, before he had any inkling of Young's
involvement. If you'll continue to read his "Confessions," you'll discover
that after all the facts became clear to him, he stated:"I did not know then that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young for
instructions. Haight had not mentioned it to me. I now think that James
Haslem was sent to Brigham Young, as a sharp play on the part of the
authorities to protect themselves, if trouble ever grew out of the matter."
In other words, Young's letter to Haight was a "cover your ass" effort. Young
and Hamblin had met with southern Indian chiefs only days before the massacre,
to plan the attack and the divvying up of the Fancher party's goods.
The plan
was for ONLY the Indians to attack the party, with the "brethren" waiting out
of sight, supervising. That way, Young could "plausibly deny" that any Mormons
had taken part in the killing. That plan went awry when the Indians failed in
their initial attack, the Fancher party held out for days, and the Mormons
finally had to lure them out with a promise of protection, whereupon they
massacred them.Mormons often quote Young's letter to Haight in an effort to show that Young
was against the killings. However, Young's statement following his counsel to
"let the emigrants pass" reveals that he knew exactly what was in the works:
"The Indians, I expect, will do as they please." Considering Young's many
documented threats to use the Indians as the "battle-ax of the Lord" against
any "Mericats" he so deemed to be the Mormons' "enemies," it's obvious that his
meeting with the southern Indian chiefs mere days before the massacre was to
plan the event and have the Indians do the killing. When Young got the news of
the massacre, he wasn't concerned that it happened, but he was upset that
Mormons had had to take part. That is why he began a campaign to cover up the
massacre and protect Mormons from prosecution for 20 years. Young told Lee to
write a report to the government charging the massacre to the Indians, and
Young claimed to have gotten the "word from the Lord" that the massacre was an
"approved" event.
Pure speculation
I will keep reading, but I do not think the conclusions you arrive at are supported in the book.
Randy J.
-Kevin
United States Marine Corps, When it absolutely, positively has
to be destroyed
overnight!
Kevin Zoellner
First, I must clarify that I do not think BY was innocent in the
affair. How much he knew before hand is debatable. The
cover up and sacrifice of Lee are, however, resolute fact. You will
note, that Lee said here that he "beileved" Smith was sent by BY, that
is not a for certain fact, is it.
Helen
> Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a42139e3.01120...@posting.google.com...
> > news:<3C0EEF0F...@attbi.com>...
> >> > I found this interesting, considering the argument about whether or
not
> >> > BY ordered the MMM.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham
Young
> >> > for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was
three
> >> > or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I
heard
> >> > of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk
with
> >> > me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from
Salt
> >> > Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass
in
> >> > safety""
> >> >
> >> > From the Confessions of John D. Lee
> >>
> >> consideration* that the Saints in Southern Utah gave to the idea that
> >> Brigham Young might *NOT* want the emigrants to pass in safety, and so
> >> necessitated sending a messenger to Salt Lake City to find out.>
>
> > I don't think the state of mind of frontier settlers is really
pertinent.
>
> Laney need to be addressed.
>
obviously
> > acted on their own. To state otherwise is reckless, inflammatory and
> > libelous.
>
>
pass
> > through Utah territory is tantemount to an order to massacre them, when
the
> > more reasonable view would be simply to have them pass through a
different
> > route.
>
>
>
More importantly..why could they not use whatever route they desired????(the
immigrants I mean)
It was s a free country back then.....did the mormons then really think that
they
owned the whole country?
Helen
Does any one know the motives for such
slaying's? What are the details? How many died?
Why were they picked on? Is this documented at all in
US history? (not church history please)
Helen
Clovis Lark
James C. Miller
If memory serves correctly, the hapless Lee (ironically, a
sealed-in-the-temple son of Brigham Young) indicated in his
"Confessions" that Pres. Young had previously sent a message to the
local Saints to massacre the wagon train as revenge, but that this
second message to give them free passage arrived conveniently too
late, AFTER the massacre. That way Pres. Young could escape any
judgment and scapegoat the local Saints. And you'd think the second
message would be a strong indication of Pres. Young's involvement, but
you'd be wrong. Even if there existed a handwritten confession to the
order to massacre the wagon train by Pres. Young, attested to by
handwriting experts and legions of angels with trumpets blaring forth
in the heavens over SLC and admitted on live, prime-time KSL
broadcasts by the LDS 1st Presidency, the True Believers would still
refuse to believe it. Based on behavior here in this NG, the TBs
would claim that (1) handwriting experts could not be believed, (2)
the angels were only speaking for themselves and not in an official
capacity, and (3) that when the First Presidency admitted to the
document's truth, they, too, were not speaking in an official
capacity.
My personal belief, based on what I've read, is that the MMM is
another example of murder justified on religious grounds, just like
Nephi's murder of the unconscious Laban.
Thank heaven the LDS church has progressed beyond Blood Atonement and
now only participates in "Lying for the Lord," and the supression of
historical documents too close to the truth.
James C. Miller
Xan Du
Helen <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c15f834$0$5902$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a42139e3.01120...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> > I'm saying, point blank, that
> > decent people don't have to be told not to murder other folks. The
> > fact that the LDS would send a group to ask Brigham Young if they
> > should murder the emigrants is incriminating in its own right, and
> > suggests that this sort of thing was happening in Utah.
> >
> > Duwayne Anderson
> >
> > American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
>
> Does any one know the motives for such
> slaying's? What are the details? How many died?
> Why were they picked on? Is this documented at all in
> US history? (not church history please)
> Helen
The History Channel aired an hour-long program on the MMM last week, drawing
from both LDS and non-LDS historical sources. This is an indication that
the MMM is becoming more widely-known, and of interest to a broader
audience.
-Xan
Helen
Still gives them little reason to
harm those who come on to their land.
How very uncharitable and unchristian of them.
TheJordan6
>More importantly..why could they not use whatever route they desired????(the
>immigrants I mean)
>It was a free country back then.....did the mormons then really think that
>they
>owned the whole country?
Helen, to understand this very complex issue, one must educate themselves on
the origins and motives of Mormonism, and U. S. history of the period in
general.
The reason Brigham Young settled the Mormons in wild Utah, rather than Texas or
Oregon as they had been advised to go, was because Utah was in Mexican
territory in 1847. (BTW, the area which Young originally wanted for his
kingdom was much larger than present-day Utah.) Young wanted to settle where
the Mormons could establish their own theocratic government, with him as
dictator, where they could make their own laws, including practicing polygamy
legally. (Contrary to most Mormons' impression, polygamy was illegal in
Illinois, and that's one reason why the Mormons had to leave after the Smiths'
murder.)
Unfortunately for Young's plans, Utah became U. S. territory in 1848, because
of the Mexican War. In 1850, Young was named territorial governor by President
Millard Fillmore, because practically every non-Indian in the area was a
Mormon, and they looked to Young as their supreme leader. A Territorial
Supreme Court was established, and other Federal officials were sent to Utah to
oversee the area and administer laws. Young, wishing to establish an
independent government, declared that the Mormons would live under "God's law";
IOW Young's dictates, rather than federal statutes, were to be the "law" in the
territory. Mormons took oaths in the temple to obey Young's orders, above any
secular laws. Among "God's laws" was "blood atonement." Young and his
subordinates harrassed and intimidated (and possibly killed) numerous federal
officials, with the result being that most of them returned to Washington,
complaining that they could not fulfill their dutes because the Mormons obeyed
Young, rather than U. S. laws.
Because of that, the next president, James Buchanan, decided to replace Young
as governor, and he sent an Army contingent of 2500 soliders to escort the
newly-appointed governor, Alfred Cumming, and to quell a possible Mormon
uprising. Young, unwilling to relinquish power, prevented the new governor
and the Army from entering the Salt Lake valley by having his men raid and burn
their wagons and drive off their stock. Because of that, the army was forced
to spend a very rough winter in the wilds of Wyoming.
During that same fall of 1857, several non-Mormon emigrant wagon trains passed
through Utah on their way to settling in California. Young knew that he could
use the cattle and goods of such emigrants to aid in his war effort against the
U. S. Young met with local Indian leaders and reached an agreed to have them
attack the emigrant trains, with their reward being that the Mormons would
divide the cattle and plunder with the poor Indians. Young persuaded the
Indians to go along with the crimes by telling them that the "Mericats"
(Americans) were planning to kill all the Mormon and the Indians, and that the
Indians must fight with the Mormons against all "Gentiles." Young intended for
only the Indians to attack the Fancher train, but the emigrants fortified
themselves and held off the Indians, so the Mormons lurking out of sight were
forced to approach the Fancher party under a flag of truce, promising to save
them. After advising the Fancher men to put down their guns, the Mormons and
Indians massacred them.
Meanwhile, the next spring, the Army contingent entered the Salt Lake valley.
Federal officials indicted Young and 60 of his top subordinates for treason
against the United States government. Young worked out a deal wherein he would
relinquish his governorship if the government promised not to try him for
treason. Government officials agreed to that arrangement because they knew
that 12,000 Mormons viewed Young as their "prophet," so they allowed Young to
remain free to prevent war between U. S. Army forces and the Mormon citizenry.
After the massacre, the Mormons immediately began a campaign to cover up the
crime and blame it entirely on the Indians. Even after it became clear that
Mormons as well as Indians were involved, the Mormons worked to distance church
leaders from the event, placing all responsibility for it on local leaders in
southern Utah. Because, at that time, all Mormons took an "oath of loyalty" in
the endowment ceremony, no Mormon would testify against another. When
prosecutors would go to southern Utah to try to obtain information or make
arrests, the suspects were always warned in advance, and fled the area. After
20 years of denials and cover-ups, Young decided to "sacrifice" one man, Bishop
John D. Lee, for the "sin" of the whole church. Young ordered an all-Mormon
jury to vote to convict him. Even though several other Mormons were just as
guilty as Lee, including some ranking higher than himself, Lee became the
scapegoat, and was the only person ever convicted for the MMM.
The reason little is known about this entire episode generally is because of
the LDS church's efforts over the years to cover up the facts and absolve Young
and other leaders from blame. Those Mormons who believe that the MMM was
perpetrated by "locals" are ignorant of what was happening in Utah during the
period, or are in denial of the facts. Today's Mormons want to view Brigham
Young as a kind, loving, minister of the gospel, rather than as a murderous,
vindictive tyrant; so they go into "denial mode" about what really happened.
However, fortunately, more and more evidence has surfaced over the years that
tells more of the story, and establishes the fact that the massacre was the
product of institutional church teachings, policies, and plans, rather than a
crime committed by a few "local" Mormons acting on their own.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>from both LDS and non-LDS historical sources. This is an indication that
>the MMM is becoming more widely-known, and of interest to a broader
>audience.
>
>-Xan
That program was done several years ago, and has aired many times as part of
Kenny Rogers' series "The Real West." Seeing as how historians Michael Quinn
and Leonard Arrington provided information for the program, it's obvious that
the History Channel is nothing but a bumch of homosekshuls.
At least, according to Red Davis' "logic."
Randy J.
Helen
"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011212153024...@mb-mv.aol.com...
Thank you Randy.
How any regular Latter day Saint could see Brigham Young as
kind and loving is beyond me. I have been a member for
nearly fifteen years and I never have hidden the fact that
Brigham Young was my least liked prophet and I find all
accounts of him to be very unfavourable. People have
not been impressed with my comments so I do keep them to
myself most of the time.
I ask one question though, if what you say is historically
accurate and that BY and other Mormons were involved, is it not
better for todays members to deny this ever happened than to
accept it. If there are members who fully believe the accounts and
then do not express any grief over this episode, then that is more
of a worry than if they just don't beleive the story.......
Xan Du
> >The History Channel aired an hour-long program on the MMM last week,
drawing
> >from both LDS and non-LDS historical sources. This is an indication that
> >the MMM is becoming more widely-known, and of interest to a broader
> >audience.
> >
> >-Xan
>
> That program was done several years ago, and has aired many times as part
of
> Kenny Rogers' series "The Real West."
Several years ago, I neither had cable television, or any knowledge of the
existence of the MMM. Sorry for being a little slow.
> Seeing as how historians Michael Quinn
> and Leonard Arrington provided information for the program, it's obvious
that
> the History Channel is nothing but a bumch of homosekshuls.
A mass media circle-jerk, of sorts? Look for it on Pay Per View next week.
> At least, according to Red Davis' "logic."
Such falls from grace are almost *always* attributable to some sin or
another.
-Xan
>
> Randy J.
>
TheJordan6
<Thank you Randy.
You're welcome.
> How any regular Latter day Saint could see Brigham Young as
kind and loving is beyond me.
The reasons they can do so are revisionist history and mind control. In the
excellent movie "The Truman Show," the director character Kristoff (played by
Ed Harris) sought to justify his lifelong manipulation of Truman (Jim Carrey)
by offering the excuse that "People accept the reality that is presented to
them." That attitude is exemplified by the handling of Mormon history by its
current leaders and scholars. The Brigham Young with which most Mormons are
familiar is an image created along the lines of an old Hollywood biographical
movie---heroic, wise, honest, etc. , with nearly all negative attributes or
incidents whitewashed or minimized, and all positive ones exaggerated and
repeated over and over until people believe that that is the way the character
really was.
> I have been a member for nearly fifteen years and I never have hidden the
fact that Brigham Young was my least liked prophet and I find all accounts of
him to be very unfavourable.
Perhaps not "all," but enough to grasp the idea that he was no saint. And if
you truly study the life of Joseph Smith, he might inherit the title of your
most "unfavourable prophet."
>People have not been impressed with my comments so I do keep them to myself
most of the time.
'Tis forbidden to speak evil of the "lord's anointed."
> I ask one question though, if what you say is historically accurate and that
BY and other Mormons were involved, is it not better for today's members to
deny this ever happened than to accept it.
Today's Mormons, as you can see by what you read here on ARM, have to deny it,
because to admit it is to question the very foundations and motives of the
church itself. Church leaders can't allow that to happen. Gordon B. Hinckley
remarked a few years ago that church history should be disseminated in such a
manner as to "acknowledge the hand of the Lord in every footstep."
(Paraphrase.) He also offered that "There is nothing embarrassing in the
history of the church, when considered in its proper context." (Also
paraphrased.) Boyd K. Packer warned Church Education Systems and BYU faculty
members to only tell the "faith-promoting" parts of church history, excusing
such a policy on the grounds that otherwise, "a testimony in seedling stage may
be crushed." IOW, church leaders want ONLY the events in church history
related that will serve to engender faith and loyalty in the church as an
institution. That being the case, the church's portrayal of its history is
nothing more than propaganda. Church leaders know that innumerable people have
left the LDS church because they learned its true history, so they have adopted
a "siege mentality" wherein they deny that certain negative events happened, or
they attack the character or motives of those who publish the facts. Whatever
it takes to "save" the "reputation" of the church.
> If there are members who fully believe the accounts and then do not express
any grief over this episode, then that is more of a worry than if they just
don't beleive the story.......
The event is a fact of history. What today's Mormons refuse to believe is
that it was the product of church leaders. In a recent interview, Hinckley
reiterated his opinion that it was perpetrated by "the locals." Rank-and-file
Mormons want to trust in Hinckley (just as they want to trust in Brigham
Young,) so they believe Hinckley, in spite of the documented facts.
Randy J.
Xan Du
> Helen wrote:
<snip>
I know this breaks newsgroup protocol -- damm good post, Randy.
I agree.
-Xan
Xan Du
<snip>
> Gordon B. Hinckley
> remarked a few years ago that church history should be disseminated in
such a
> manner as to "acknowledge the hand of the Lord in every footstep."
> (Paraphrase.) He also offered that "There is nothing embarrassing in the
> history of the church, when considered in its proper context." (Also
> paraphrased.) Boyd K. Packer warned Church Education Systems and BYU
faculty
> members to only tell the "faith-promoting" parts of church history,
excusing
> such a policy on the grounds that otherwise, "a testimony in seedling
stage may
> be crushed."
This from today's news:
--------------------------------------------
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011213/pl/bush_privilege.html
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush invoked executive privilege for the first
time Thursday to keep Congress from seeing documents of prosecutors'
decision-making in cases ranging from a decades-old Boston murder to the
Clinton-era fund-raising probe.
"I believe congressional access to these documents would be contrary to the
national interest," Bush wrote in a memo ordering Attorney General John
Ashcroft to withhold the documents from a House investigative committee that
subpoenaed them.
. . .
Republicans and Democrats alike excoriated the decision, suggesting Bush was
creating a "monarchy" or "imperial" presidency to keep Congress for
overseeing the executive branch and guarding against corruption.
--------------------------------------------
Seems to be the tendency of humans to want to exercise their own agenda, no
matter what the context. Here, we have Dubya realizing that his war on
"terrahh" is more important to his bid for a second term than wasting more
money on raking up more muck on Slick Willie.
-Xan
TheJordan6
> >> "The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
> >> for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
> >> or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
> >> of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
> >> me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
> >> Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
> >> safety""
> >>
> >> From the Confessions of John D. Lee
John Guynn wrote:
> >Good post Kevin. From the posts on ARM, one would have believed that John
> >D. Lee had accused Brigham Young of ordering the massacre. That is not what
> >Mr. Lee ever said, and this proves it.
Randy wrote:
Kevin wrote:
>First, I must clarify that I do not think BY was innocent in the affair. How
much
he knew before hand is debatable.
I documented the evidence for Young's and institutional Mormonism's culpability
in the MMM in a series of 18 posts last summer. The degree of Young's, and the
general church's involvement in the conspiracy can be determined by examining
the following:
*Mormon teachings beginning in Missouri in 1838, including Joseph Smith's
"revelation" that the Mormons should "consecrate" goods from the Gentiles for
the use of the "house of Israel" (which is what got the Mormons driven out of
Missouri)
*The formation and motives of the Danite band, including their oaths of
loyalty, obedience, vengeance, and secrecy
*The temple endowment oaths, which expanded on the Danite oaths, and which
every Mormon swore to in the endowment ceremony during the period of the MMM
*Brigham Young's many statements showing his intention to make Utah Territory
an independent nation, free from U. S. laws
*Young's refusal to recognize the auhority of federal overseers, and the
harassment of them to the point that many of them fled Utah
*Young's many public threats of violence against apostates, Gentiles, etc.,
including his statement that he had "some of the meanest devils on earth"
(Danites) who could carry out his orders
*Young's actions in forming alliances with Indian tribes against the U. S.
government and its citizens, telling them that the Indians must fight with the
Mormons or the Americans would kill them both
*Young's statement to Army Captain van Vliet on September 7 that he "shall not
hold the Indians by the wrist any longer.....tell the government to stop all
emigration across the continent, for the Indians will kill all who attempt it."
*Young's illegal declaration of martial law, stating that the U. S. Army had no
right to invade Utah territory, and his illegal orders that no emigrants could
pass through Utah without having a "pass" from him to do so (The Fancher party
rightfully refused to recognize the legality of such a "pass")
*Young's meeting with Jacob Hamblin, Dimick Huntington, and ten southern Indian
chiefs on September 1, of which Young wrote "A spirit seems to be takeing
possession of the Indians to assist Israel. I can hardly restrain them from
exterminating the Americans"
*Dimick Huntingdon's journal entry concerning that meeting, wherein Young gave
the Indian chiefs "all the cattle that had gone to California by the south
route" (IOW, the route through southwestern Utah. The only people or cattle
traveling through that route during that time were the Fancher and Duke wagon
trains, which were both attacked and robbed.)
*Young's 20-year effort in covering up the affair and protecting any Mormons
from prosecution.
*Young's remarks at the MMM site, wherein he viewed the memorial erected to the
victims, and stated "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, and I have taken a
little", whereupon his men tore down the memorial
>The cover up and sacrifice of Lee are, however, resolute fact. You will note,
that Lee said here that he "believed" Smith was sent by BY, that is not a for
certain fact, is it.
>Kevin
Lee came to believe that over time, when the facts became clearer to him. Lee
wrote of his meeting with Smith:
"In the latter part of the month of August, 1857, about ten days before the
company of Captain Fancher, who met their doom at Mountain Meadows, arrived at
that place, General George A. Smith called on me at one of my homes.....he
said, 'I have been sent down here by the old Boss, Brigham Yong, to instruct
the brethren of the diferent settlements not to sell their grain to our
enemies.....I am also to instruct the brethren to prepare for a BIG FIGHT, for
the enemy is coming in large force to attempt our destruction......Suppose an
emigrant train should come along through this southern country, making threats
against our people and bragging of the part they took in helping kill our
prophets, what do you think the brethren would do with them? Would they be
permitted to go their way, or would the brethren pitch into them and give them
a good drubbing?'.....General Smith did not say one word to me or intimate to
me, that he wished any emigrants to pass in safety through the Territory. But
he led me to believe then, as I believe now, that he did want, and expected
every emigrant to be killed that undertook to pass through the Territory while
we were at war with the government. I thought it was his mission to prepare
the people for that bloody work."
We must remember that Lee, although being the "Farmer to the Indians," was a
few notches down the chain of command in the southern Utah Mormon hierarchy.
It appears that George A. Smith was probing him and testing the degree of his
loyalty to the cause, to 'work him up' for the attack that was about to take
place. Smith danced around the specifics of the plan, only hinting to Lee what
would be expected of him, on a "need to know" basis. Lee didn't know that
Smith had already met with Haight and Dame (and possibly Hamblin, Huntington,
and others) to plan the details, because those men were higher than Lee in the
chain of command.
A very good item of evidence that Smith went south on a military mission,
rather than an ecclesiastical one, is Rachel Lee's diary entry of August 17th:
"George A. Smith and company having arrived last evening and this morning the
brethren paraded in order to show the officers of this place how to discipline
their men aright.....President G. A. Smith delivered a discourse on the spirit
that actuated the Unites States towards this people---full of hostility and
virulence, and all felt to rejoice in the Lord God of our fathers."
This entry shows that Smith was there to incite the southern Mormons with the
fervor needed to fight a military battle. Seeing as how Johnston's Army was
some 300 miles to the northeast in Wyoming at the time, and had no intention of
going anywhere near southern Utah, the only non-Mormons near the area to
"fight" were the Fancher and Duke emigrant trains.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>>>I found this interesting, considering the argument about whether or not BY
ordered the MMM.
>>>"The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
> >for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
> >or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
> >of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
> >me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
> >Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
> >safety""
>>>From the Confessions of John D. Lee
Randy wrote:
>>Kevin, I've explained this numerous times already. Lee made his above
statement soon after the massacre, before he had any inkling of Young's
involvement. If you'll continue to read his "Confessions," you'll discover
that after all the facts became clear to him, he stated:
>>"I did not know then that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young for
instructions. Haight had not mentioned it to me. I now think that James
Haslem was sent to Brigham Young, as a sharp play on the part of the
authorities to protect themselves, if trouble ever grew out of the matter."
>Yes, I read that part.
If you read it, it's rather telling that you did not cite it. That makes one
think that you're interested in only citing evidence that absolves Young, and
ignoring any which indicts him.
>>In other words, Young's letter to Haight was a "cover your ass" effort.
Young and Hamblin had met with southern Indian chiefs only days before the
massacre, to plan the attack and the divvying up of the Fancher party's goods.
>Yes, it was a cover your ass attempt by the local authorities,
That view doesn't make any sense. If the local southern Mormon leaders had
wanted to cover their asses, they wouldn't have plotted or carried out the
attack to begin with; and they MOST CERTAINLY wouldn't have sent a messenger to
Young to get his counsel on what action to take, yet then turn around and
massacre the Fancher party without waiting on Haslem to return with Young's
message. Your theory requires Haight to have said something like "Hey guys,
let's send somebody to ask Brigham what to do with these people, and if we
don't hear back from him, let's whack 'em." The local Mormons would not have
made such a decision without getting the okay from above beforehand.
Also, as DuWayne recently pointed out (and as I have pointed out many times in
the past), the very fact that local leaders felt they needed to ask Young's
"counsel" on whether or not to massacre 120+ American citizens demonstrates
that Young's approval of the attack was a possibility. It also demonstrates
Young's absolute power over the life or death of everyone in his domain.
As I've stated many times, Young's letter to Haslem instructed Haight to "let
the emigrants pass in safety," but his next sentence was "The Indians, I
expect, will do as they please." That indicates that Young's intention was for
the Indians to commit the crime, so that the Mormons could "plausibly deny" any
culpability. But Young's plan went awry when the Indians couldn't finish off
the emigrants, and the Mormons had to go in and deceive them into giving up
their arms, and then finish the massacre along with the Indians.
>however nothing I have read yet indicates that Young was anywhere around to
talk to the indians.
Kevin, I've documented this many times, and you've been here on ARM to read
it. I can only assume that you want so strongly to believe that Young's
statements and policies weren't behind the MMM, that you entrance yourself into
a state of intellectual denial of the facts.
ONE MORE TIME:
"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.'
"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.)
"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.)
(The document that Bigler remarked had "recently come to light" was
Huntington's journal in LDS archives. As Juanita Brooks didn't mention it in
her book, I assume that Huntington's journal was exposed to the light of day
during the "golden age" of LDS historians in the 1980's under Leonard
Arrington.)
Utah historian Hubert Bancroft sheds further light on Dimick Huntington's
activities:
"Major Carleton, of the first dragoons. In a despatch to the assistant
adjutant-general at San Francisco, dated Mountain Meadows, May 25, 1859, he
says: '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.' "
("History of Utah," p. 561.)
Juanita Brooks quoted from Young's letter to Jacob Hamblin of August 4, 1857:
"Continue the conciliatory policy towards the Indians.....for they must learn
that they have got to help us or the United States will kill us both......We
have an abundance of 'news.' The government have appointed an entire set of
officials for the Territory. These Gentry are to have a bodyguard of 2500 of
Uncle's [Sam's] regulars."
Of this excerpt, Brooks comments:
"In the version of this letter.....printed in 'Jacob Hamblin, Personal
Narrative,' by James A Little, the phrase 'for they must learn that they have
either got to help us or the United States will kill us both' is not included.
Neither is the entire paragraph which gives the 'abundance of news.' The
reason for this deletion seems clear." (Brooks, p. 35.)
The reason for the deletion of this passage in a pro-Mormon edition of
Hamblin's narrative is INDEED clear: The passage clearly shows that Young
instructed Hamblin to prepare the southern Indians to "help' the Mormons act
against the U. S. government forces. The excerpt also makes clear that,
contrary to some Mormon apologists' assertions that Young had no foreknowledge
of why the Army was marching on SLC, and that therefore 'justified' Young in
prosecuting his guerrilla war against Johnston's Army, Young in fact knew very
well that the army was sent to depose Young as governor and escort the
newly-appointed governor and "an entire set of officials" to replace those who
had fled Utah fearing for their lives. Young's foreknowledge of the army's
mission means that his orders to prevent the army from entering the Salt Lake
Valley constituted an act of treason against the United States, as also did his
illegal declaration of martial law; so that is why Mormon apologists "play
dumb" on this point.
Brooks further offers:
"Jacob Hamblin.....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...He had felt anxious for a
long time to visit Brigham Young. We fell in company with George A. Smith.
Conosh [the Pauvant 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.....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 got to help us or the United States will
kill us both.'.....At that time Brigham Young had to be sure of his allies, for
he was conducting a war against tremendous odds. 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 home 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. 40-42.)
In light of this information, it doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to deduce what
Young told the Indians in that meeting ten days before the MMM. It also
doesn't take a great brain to understand why someone tore the next page out of
Hamblin's diary: it probably gave more details of Young's "counsel" to
Hamblin, Huntingdon, and the Indians as to what to do with the Baker-Fancher
train.
>>The plan was for ONLY the Indians to attack the party, with the "brethren"
waiting out
of sight, supervising. That way, Young could "plausibly deny" that any Mormons
had taken part in the killing. That plan went awry when the Indians failed in
their initial attack, the Fancher party held out for days, and the Mormons
finally had to lure them out with a promise of protection, whereupon they
massacred them.
>>Mormons often quote Young's letter to Haight in an effort to show that Young
was against the killings. However, Young's statement following his counsel to
"let the emigrants pass" reveals that he knew exactly what was in the works:
"The Indians, I expect, will do as they please." Considering Young's many
documented threats to use the Indians as the "battle-ax of the Lord" against
any "Mericats" he so deemed to be the Mormons' "enemies," it's obvious that his
meeting with the southern Indian chiefs mere days before the massacre was to
plan the event and have the Indians do the killing. When Young got the news of
the massacre, he wasn't concerned that it happened, but he was upset that
Mormons had had to take part. That is why he began a campaign to cover up the
massacre and protect Mormons from prosecution for 20 years. Young told Lee to
write a report to the government charging the massacre to the Indians, and
Young claimed to have gotten the "word from the Lord" that the massacre was an
"approved" event.
>Pure speculation
To the contrary, it's exactly what the documented evidence indicates.
>I will keep reading, but I do not think the conclusions you arrive at are
supported
in the book.
Apparently, you're operating under the mistaken impression that Lee's
"Confessions" is the only contemporary source from which to draw conclusions.
As I've stated many times, to arrive at correct conclusions regarding Young's
culpability in the MMM, one must research ALL of the available evidence, and
consider Young's own statements, church teachings and policies, and the
conditions existent in Utah during the period of the MMM. Young's single
statement to "let the emigrants pass in peace" (if even authentic), in light of
a mountain of evidence to the contrary, becomes nothing more than as Lee
opined, "a sharp play on the part of the authorities to protect themselves if
trouble ever grew out of the matter."
Randy J.