Redux on Randy
Glenn Thigpen
Randy Jordan's reporting accuracy, credibility, etc. I am not going to
engage in a debate on this matter, but will post my observations with
supporting documentation and let those who read this article make up
their own minds, although I think that most minds are already made up.
Randy has a self proclaimed "vast knowledge" of LDS history, which
should encompass facts/knowledge presenting both sides of an issue. I
invite any perusers of this article to examine Randy's past posts on
anything LDS and ascertain if he presents an impartial point of view. He
claims to be presenting the plain and unvarnished truth.
My first example wll be concerning the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It
is Randy;s contention that Brigham Young had foreknowledge of the
Mountain Meadows Massacre, and actually was the planner of the deed. One
of the references that he uses is David Bigler's "Forgotten Kingdom".
This is what Bigler had to say on the subject:
"Hamblin and some twelve Indian chiefs . . .met with Brigham Young and
his
most trusted interpreter, 49-year-old Dimick B. Huntington, at Great
Salt
Lake. Taking part in this pow-wow were Kanosh, the Mormon chief of the
Pahvants; Ammon, half-brother of Walker; Tutsegabit, head chief of the
Piedes; Youngwuds, another Piede chieftain, and other leaders of desert
bands along the Santa Clara and Virgin rivers. Little was known of
what
they talked about until recently when it came to light that Huntington
(apparently speaking for Young) told the chiefs that he "gave them all
the
cattle that had god 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."
(Bigler, Forgotten Kingdom, 168)
Bigler apparently got his information from Dimick Huntington's diary.
Here is the excerpt.
Tuesday Ist Sept.57. Konosh the Pahvant Chief, Ammon & wife (Walker's
brother) & 11 Pahvants CAME IN TO SEE B & D & FIND OUT ABOUT THE
SOLDIERS. Tutseygubbit, a Piede Chief over 6 Piedes bands, Youngwuols
[?] another Piede & I gave them all the cattle that had gone to Cal. the
south rout It made them open their eyes. They sayed that you have told
us not to steal. So I have, but now they have come to fight us & you,
for when they kill us then they will kill you. They sayed the[y] was
afraid to fight the Americans & so would raise grain and we might fight.
The purpose of this meeting as stated, was to find out about the
soldiers that were on their way to Utah at the time. But that part of
the excerpt is left out of Bigler's book. Excerpts from Dimmick's diary
are available for those who would like to get a clearer, contempoaneous
picture of what was the primary concern at the time.
Another source that Randy uses is Hans P. Freece:
Former Mormon Hans B. Freece, in 1907, offered:
"The murdered emigrants were of the Methodist faith and were on their
way to
California to seek new homes. The chief cause of the massacre was a
desire on
the part of the Mormons to come into possession of the new wagons, fine
horses
and all the abundant farming implements which the emigrants had; all
valued at about $300,000
How credible is Freece? How well did Randy check his sources? His
information would seem to have come from "Letters of an Apostate Mormon
to His Son", by Hans B. Freece, 1907. If that is Randy's source, he did
not read very much of it, because Hans himself tells us, in an indirect
way, that he was not in Utah at the time of the Mountain Meadows
Massacre. In a letter dated April of 1907, he tells of his early
experiences in Utah. Upon first arriving in Utah, he did not speak or
understand English very well, but was able to find a fellow countryman
(Denmark) who had been in Utah a while and was able to guide and
interpret for him. I will quote directly from the copy I have of the
letter.
" During our journey to San Pete County, this newly found friend told me
of his early experiences. He had been a tailor in a large city in
Denmark. He had come to Utah just before Johnston was ordered to march
here with his regiment. He had been sent with others to oppose
Johnston's entrance to Salt
Lake Valley."
Hans does not give many dates or names in his letters, but from his
own narrative he tacitly acknowledges that he was not in Utah when the
Mountain Meadows massacre occurred. Randy does not seem to know this
(which someone with a vast knowledge of LDS history should), or if he
did, he did not point it out in his post. He just presented the excerpt
as an authoritative reference.
Another aspect of Randy's investigative reporting is a seeming
blanket belief in any negative reports against concerning the LDS,
especially if they come from oficial sources. Let us take the case of
Judge W. W. Drummond, for example.
Randy reports:
In 1855, one of the succeeding associate justices, William W. Drummond,
tendered his resignation, and included among his reasons:
"That Brigham Young is the head of the Mormon Church; and, as such head,
the
Mormons look to him, and to him alone, for the law by which they are to
be
governed; therefore no law of congress is by them considered binding in
any
matter; that he [Drummond] knew that a secret, oath-bound organization
existed
among all the male members of the Church to resist the laws of the
country, and
to acknowledge no law save the law of the priesthood, which came to the
people
through Brigham Young; that there were a number of men 'set apart by
special
order of the Church', to take both the lives and property of any person
who may
question the authority of the Church." [Drummond was undoubtedly
referring to
Young's "Avenging Angels" such as Porter Rockwell and "Wild Bill"
Hickman.]
"That the records, papers, etc., of the supreme court have been
destroyed by
order of the Church, with the direct knowledge and approbation of
Governor
Young, and the federal officers grossly insulted for presuming to raise
a
single question about the treasonable act. That the federal officers of
the
territory are constantly insulted, harassed, and annoyed by the Mormons,
and
for these insults there is no redress. That the federal officers are
daily
compelled to hear the form of American government traduced, the chief
executives of the Nation, both living and dead, slandered and abused
from the
masses as well as from all the leading members of the Church. The judge
also
charged discrimination in the administration of the laws as against
Mormon and
Gentile; that Captain John W. Gunnison and his party were murdered by
Indians,
but under the orders, advice and direction of the Mormons; that the
Mormons
poisoned Judge Leonidas Shaver, Drummond's predecessor; that Almon W. ,
secretary of the Territory, had been killed on the plains by a band of
Mormon
marauders, who were 'sent from Salt Lake City for that purpose, and that
only';
under direct orders of the presidency of the Church of the Latter-Day
Saints,
and that Babbitt was not killed by Indians, as reported from Utah."
Randy does not tell you that Judge Drummond had abandoned his wife
and family upon his appointment as a Utah Territorial Judge and brought
with him a prostitute whom he passed off as his wife (CHC Vol 4-Chapter
CIII with quotes from H. H. Bancroft and Jules Remy). Even LDS critic
William A. Linn noted Drummond's complete lack of fitness for the
position.
Randy does not tell you that Judge Drummond had a Fillmore merchant,
Isaac Abrhams, horsewhipped for publicly speaking out against this
charade. It apparently was the heat from the disclosure of his perfidy
and the horse whipping incident which were the motivating factors in
Judge Drummond leaving Fillmore for Carson County and then for
California where he began his editorial tirades against the Mormons (CHC
Vol 4-Chapter CIII)
Randy also does not tell you that the allegations raised by Judge
Drummond concerning the records and papers of the Supreme Court were
refuted by the incoming Governor Cumming in his investigation.
Randy does not tell you that : "died in Great Salt Lake City in June
1855 of an inflammation of the inner ear (compounded by the jurist's use
of opium)".(Harold Schindler, Salt Lake tribune article "Saints Invited
to Flock to Zion").
Concerning the death of Almon Babbitt, Randy does not tell you that
no credible report report, in any way implicates any whites, LDS or
not. But in fact the reports of Indian agent Thomas Twiss (Nebraska
Historical Society Vol 18, page 199), his brother-in-law, and his wife
affirm that it was the Cheyenne Indians who perpetrated this act. (CHC
Vol. 4, Chapter CIII)
Of course, one of Randy's athoritative sources (although he did not
quote her on this one), Ann Eliza Young (Wife Number Nineteen) states
that Almon Babbitt was murdered by the Mormons because he was an
apostate fleeing to the East. However every other source that I have
offered on Babbitt aver that he was heading East to pick up the mail (he
was a mail carrier), when he was killed. Check it out. But it says much
about her credibility.
And finally, on the Danite question, Randy does not understand why
and how the following list of names effectively refute his (and that of
many others) writings on the Danite question.
Philastus Hurlbut
John C. Bennett
William Law
Wilson Law
Thomas B. Marsh
Orson Hyde
Sampson Avard
Hans B. Freece
Charles Ivins
Charles Foster
Robert Foster
Francis Higbee
Chauncey Higbee
J. H. Beadle
William "Wild Bill" Hickman
Warren Parrish
W.W. Phelps
David Whitmer
William McLellin
Burr Riggs
If any of you do not know, do a little research and the light might
dawn.
Glenn
Guy R. Briggs
>
> Randy has a self proclaimed "vast knowledge" of LDS history,
> of an issue.
>
But he only presents one side. Which makes his knowledge of LdS
history only half-vast.
<ducking>
bestRegards, Guy.
Woody Brison
>
> Randy does not tell you that Judge Drummond had abandoned his wife
> and family upon his appointment as a Utah Territorial Judge and brought
> with him a prostitute whom he passed off as his wife (CHC Vol 4-Chapter
> CIII with quotes from H. H. Bancroft and Jules Remy).
Drummond used to lecture the Latter-day Saints on morals from
the bench when he handed down sentences. Sometimes he had his
hooker sit next to him while he did this.
> Of course, one of Randy's athoritative sources (although he did not
> quote her on this one), Ann Eliza Young (Wife Number Nineteen) states
> that Almon Babbitt was murdered by the Mormons because he was an
> apostate fleeing to the East.
Wasn't this the gal that escaped BY's harem by leaping from an
upper window of the Salt Lake Temple into the Salt Lake?
Wood
TheJordan6
Glenn Thigpen wrote:
<There have been some who have asked just what problems I find with
Randy Jordan's reporting accuracy, credibility, etc. I am not going to
engage in a debate on this matter,
That's a wise decision, considering what happened the last time you attempted
to.
>but will post my observations with supporting documentation and let those who
read this article make up their own minds, although I think that most minds are
already made up.
Translation: "I'll post my material and run away, because I don't want to deal
with Randy's rebuttal."
>Randy has a self proclaimed "vast knowledge" of LDS history,
Compared to yours, that's an accurate assessment, which I believe that the vast
majority of readers would agree with.
>which should encompass facts/knowledge presenting both sides of an issue.
I am quite conversant on both sides of the issues, as is obvious from the
material I presented to you months ago. You seem to forget that I was a Mormon
for the first 42 years of my life, and that I heard the Mormon "side of the
issues" constantly during that time.
>I invite any perusers of this article to examine Randy's past posts on
anything LDS and ascertain if he presents an impartial point of view.
I'm not here to set out to "present an impartial point of view." Most ARM
readers are familiar with the Mormon "point of view," and I find it unnecessary
to rehash what readers here have been taught all their lives. My agenda is to
inform interested readers of the "side of the issues" that the LDS Church fails
to disclose.
>He claims to be presenting the plain and unvarnished truth.
I present material from documented historical sources, and draw logical
conclusions from them. The conclusion drawn from pro-Mormon sources are
illogical, unforthcoming, and are clearly designed for purposes of propaganda,
rather than education.
>My first example wll be concerning the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It is
Randy's contention that Brigham Young had foreknowledge of the Mountain Meadows
Massacre, and actually was the planner of the deed.
That's correct, as made obvious by the numerous items of information I
presented. The MMM was merely one criminal act among many that Mormons engaged
in, upon the orders and policies of their leaders Joseph Smith and Brigham
Young, from 1838 to 1877.
>One of the references that he uses is David Bigler's "Forgotten Kingdom".
This is what Bigler had to say on the subject:
> "Hamblin and some twelve Indian chiefs . . .met with Brigham Young and his
most trusted interpreter, 49-year-old Dimick B. Huntington, at GreatSalt Lake.
As I made it perfectly clear via numerous documented sources, your idea that
this meeting in question was concerning the soldiers of Johnson's army is
invalid, because the particular Indians in attendance at that meeting lived in
Southern Utah, right on the trail that the Fancher party took, and some 300
miles southeast of where Johnson's Army was at the time. Johnson's Army had no
intention of going any further west or south than Salt Lake City, and was no
threat to southern Indians in the least.
The thing that you cannot get through your thick skull is that Brigham Young
deceived the naive, trusting Indians into believing that the Fancher party were
ALSO soldiers, and thus the "enemies" of both the Mormons and the Indians. It
was only Young's casting of the Fancher party as a threat that incited the
Indians to attack them.
The idea that Indian chiefs from Southern Utah, 200 miles south of SLC, would
be concerned about what Johnson's Army, 300 miles to the northeast was doing,
is preposterous. The meeting with Young, (Indian agent) Hamblin, Huntington,
etc., served to incite the Indians to attack the Fancher party, and that is
exactly what they did.
>Excerpts from Dimmick's diary are available for those who would like to get a
clearer, contempoaneous picture of what was the primary concern at the time.
You already quoted the excerpts from Huntingdon's diary months ago. I wrote a
two-part response to it. I will re-post them under the title "Dimick
Huntington and the MMM." Hopefully, you won't ignore them this time.
For another source that sheds more light on the situation, Juanita Brooks
wrote:
"Jacob Hamblin, faced with his new responsibility for the Indians and concerned
about making them understand their part in the approaching war, decided to take
a group of the chiefs to Great Salt Lake City for an interview with the great
Mormon chief, Brigham Young. His handwritten diary, as yet unpublished, says:
'I started for Great Salt Lake City in company with Thales Haskell and
Tutsegabit [the Yannawant chief.] He had felt anxiousfor a long time to visit
Brigham Young. We fell in company with George A. Smith. Conosh [the Puavant
chief] joined us. Other Indian chiefs also joined our company. When we
arrived in the City there were ten of them went up to see Brigham Young, the
Great Mormon chief. We encamped on Corn Creek on our way up; near a company of
Emigrants from Arkansas, on the-----'
"Here the account stops abruptly, for the next leaf is torn out." ("Mountain
Meadows Massacre," Juanita Brooks, pp. 40-41.)
Now, the inquisitive reader would naturally ask, "Why was the next page in
Hamblin's diary torn out?" Considering the fact that the prior entry mentioned
the "company of Emigrants from Arkansas," it doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to
answer that question. Undoubtedly, either Hamblin, or some later Mormon,
ripped out whatever followed that entry, most likely to destroy the "paper
trail" of Hamblin's activities and Mormon involvement in the MMM following the
meeting with the Indians.
As Brooks continues: "The previous Mormon policy had been to keep the natives
from stealing and plundering and to teach them the peaceful pursuits of farming
and cattle raising, but now Brigham Young seemed determined that he would no
longer 'hold them by the wrist,' as he told Captain van Vliet a few days later.
The Indians must have started back immediately, for in seven days they were
harassing the emigrants at Mountain Meadows, and in ten days they participated
in the massacre of the company."
(ibid., pp. 41-42.)
If we believed Glenn Thigpen's line of apologetics, the southern Indians, after
meeting with Young, should have prepared to travel 300 miles northeast to
Wyoming and aid the Mormons in engaging Johnson's Army. But to the contrary,
those Indians went right back to their land in southern Utah, and attacked the
Fancher party. That again makes it obvious that the "cattle that had gone to
California by the south route", which Dimick Huntington wrote of, was the
cattle that belonged to the Fancher train, or perhaps of the Duke party which
followed.
Glenn, this is your first response to this issue in several months. You might
one day realize that it would have been better for you to just remain silent.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
Glenn Thigpen wrote:
It should be obvious to those of normal intelligence that Freece's account,
written in 1907, was secondhand. That does not render it unauthoritative.
MANY dissident Mormons related accounts of secret, criminal acts of Mormonism
to friends, relatives, investigators, reporters, etc. I only quoted from the
Freece account as supportive material, to give an idea of the wealth of the
Fancher party, and the financial motive for them to be attacked. Your attempt
to discredit Freece's account is invalidated by the fact that other people also
gave details of the wealth of the Fancher party. In my original post from
which you gleaned this snippet from Freece, I also quoted historian David
Bigler's remarks on the Fancher train's wealth. I see that you declined to
comment on it. Could that be because it corroborated Freece's remarks? For
those interested, here is Bigler's comment:
"The Arkansas company was relatively affluent. Most of its wealth took the
form of a large herd of cattle, estimated by various observers to number from
three hundred to a thousand head, not including other animals, work oxen,
horses, or mules. ... John W. Baker later placed the value of property his
father took on the journey at 'the full sum of ten thousand dollars.' Besides
animals, some thirty or forty wagons and equipment, members also carried
varying amounts of cash..." ("Forgotten Kingdom", p. 160.)
Glenn's tactic here is typical dishonest Mormon apologetics. He tries to
discredit Freece's comments---which I only included as supplemental
information---on the basis that they were "secondhand." But Glenn snips the
quote from Bigler without comment---which had appeared in my post immediately
before the Freece remarks---even though it was another source which gave
information as to the wealth of the Fancher train. Thus, Glenn's attempt to
discredit the Freece quote is nullified by the fact that it is corroborated by
others. Several other accounts, including John D. Lee's, detail the divvying
up of the Fancher party's large amount of cattle and goods among local Indians
and Mormons.
>Another aspect of Randy's investigative reporting is a seeming blanket belief
in any negative reports against concerning the LDS, especially if they come
from official sources. Let us take the case of Judge W. W. Drummond, for
example.
> Randy reports:
Hmmm, that reminds me of the way Brigham Young abandoned his wife and children
on the frozen plains of Iowa in 1847, and made the journey to Utah in the
company of his 19-year-old "plural wife" Clara Decker. Gee, I wonder why Young
didn't take one of his 50-year-old "wives" instead of a 19-year-old? And this
tidbit of information about Drummond does not negate the issue of Mormon
atrocities in the least.
> and brought with him a prostitute whom he passed off as his wife
Hmmm, that reminds me of the 50+ women that comprised Brigham Young's harem,
whom he passed off as "wives." And this tidbit of information about Drummond
does not refute the issue of Mormon atrocities in the least.
> (CHC Vol 4-Chapter CIII with quotes from H. H. Bancroft and Jules Remy). Even
LDS critic William A. Linn noted Drummond's complete lack of fitness for the
position.
Under Brigham Young's dictatorial rule, no outsider was "fit" to be a federal
overseer. And that tidbit of information about Drummond does not negate the
issue of Mormon atrocities in the least.
>Randy does not tell you that Judge Drummond had a Fillmore merchant, Isaac
Abrhams, horsewhipped for publicly speaking out against this charade.
Hmmm, that reminds me of Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's sermons advocating
that people should be beaten, whipped, or killed for various offenses. And
that tidbit of information about Drummond does not negate the issue of Mormon
atrocities in the least.
>It apparently was the heat from the disclosure of his perfidy and the horse
whipping incident which were the motivating factors in Judge Drummond leaving
Fillmore for Carson County and then for California where he began his editorial
tirades against the Mormons (CHC Vol 4-Chapter CIII)
Well, you have done an excellent job of quoting from the "Comprehensive History
of the Church." Unfortunately, what you don't seem to understand is that the
"Comprehensive History of the Church" isn't "history," but is instead
propaganda, designed to make LDS Church history more palatable to the "flock."
Our hats off to Glenn for once again demonstrating Mopologists' tactic of
"discredit the message by destroying the messenger." The basic activity of
Mopologists is to identify scapegoats on which they can blame the dubious
incidents in Mormon history. Glenn's characterization of Drummond is a classic
example of this tactic---trashing the character, reputation, or motives, of
those who criticize Mormonism, to attempt to negate their criticism.
Unfortunately for Glenn, his attempted "discreditation" of Drummond is
invalidated by two simple facts:
First, Drummond's reports of the Mormons' alliances with the Indians, and
predictions of atrocities that they were likely to commit, became tragically
true in horrifying detail, in the incident of the MMM itself, mere weeks after
Rep. Stephen A. Douglas repeated them in a speech on June 11, 1857. Thus, far
from being 'lies' spun by the supposedly 'disreputable' Drummond, his
prophetic report was dead on the money; and that being true, Glenn's attempt to
discredit Drummond's report by discrediting his character are futile.
Secondly, Drummond was not the only, nor the first, federal official to
experience the totalitarian rule of Brigham Young, or to make reports
concerning it. I explained all of this to Glenn in my 15 posts to him on the
MMM several months ago, but it's obvious that his Mormon brainwashing prevents
him from intelligently analyzing such information, and correctly concluding
that Drummond was not the originator of the reports. Since Glenn obviously
ignored my prior remarks on this issue, I'll repeat it:
Brigham Young chose to move his cult to Utah because in 1847, it was Mexican
territory, and no other non-Indians wanted the place. The area became U. S.
territory in 1848 as a result of the Mexican War. President Fillmore appointed
Young as governor in 1850 because practically all the non-Indian inhabitants
were Mormons. Young declared that the area would be governed by the "Law of
God," (meaning Young's own dictates), rather than by the United States.
Young's ultimate objective was to make the area his own "kingdom," and to "cut
the threads" that bound the Mormons to the U. S. :
"President B. Young in his sermon declared that the thread was cut between us
and the U. S. and that the Almighty recognized us as a free and independent
people and that no officer appointed by the government should come and rule
over us from this time forth." (Diary of Hosea Stout, September 6, 1857.)
"It was now established, on sufficient evidence, that the Mormons refused
obedience to gentile law, that federal officials had been virtually driven from
Utah, that one, at least, of the federal judges had been threatened with
violence while his court was in session, and that the records of the court had
been destroyed or concealed. With the advice of his cabinet, therefore, and
yielding perhaps not unwilingly to the outcry of the republican party,
President Buchanan determined that Brigham should be superseded as governor,
and that a force should be sent to the territory, ostensibly as a posse
comitatus, to sustain the authority of his successor." (History of Utah,
Hubert Bancroft, p. 495.)
"Difficulties arose when the first appointments were made by President Fillmore
to federal offices in the territory. Scarcely had these appointees taken their
oath of office when three of them: Chief Justice Brandenberry, Associate
Justice Brocchus and the Territorial Secretary, Broughton D. Harris, refused to
stay longer in the Territory and returned to the Eastern States. There they
spread the report that first, they had been compelled to leave Utah because of
the lawless and seditious acts of Governor Young; second, that Governor Young
was wasting federal funds allotted to the Territory; third, that the Saints
were immoral, and were practicing polygamy." ("The Restored Church," William
R. Berrett, p.321.)
"Judge Stiles forwarded an affidavit affirming much of Drummond's charges.
These charges were further substantiated by a letter to President Buchanan,
written by Mr. W. F. Magraw.....'In relation to the present social and
political condition of the territory of Utah.....There is no disguising the
fact that there is no vestige of law and order, no protection for life or
property; the civil laws of the territory are overshadowed and neutralized by a
so-styled ecclesiastical organization, as despotic, dangerous, and damnable, as
has ever been known to exist in any country, and which is ruining, not only
those who do not subscribe to their religious code, but is driving the Mormon
community to desperation." (Berrett, p. 322-23.)
As Berrett alluded to, in 1851, Utah Supreme Court Justice Broughton D. Harris
fled Utah Territory because of the unlawful and dangerous activities the
Mormons were engaging in. "Joining him in flight were Chief Justice
Brandebury, Associate Justice Brocchus, and U. S. Indian Agent Henry Day. They
were the first of at least sixteen federal officers who would abandon their
posts in Utah out of fright, frustration, or both, over the next dozen years.
In addition to Harris, Brandebury, Broccus, and Day in 1851, they included
Indian Agent Stephen B. Rose, also 1851; Secretary Benjamin G. Ferris and
Indian Agent Jacob Holeman, 1853; Surveyor General David H. Burr, Indian Agent
Garland Hurt, and Associate Justices George P. Stiles and W. W. Drummond, 1857;
Chief Justice Delano R. Eckles, 1858; Governor John W. Dawson, 1861; associate
justices H. R. Crosby and R. P. Flenniken and Indian Agent Henry Martin, 1862.
Three others, Chief Justice Lazarus Reid, Associate Justice Lenodias Shaver,
and Indian Agent Edward A. Bedell, died in office during this period."
("Forgotten Kingdom," David A. Bigler, p. 59.)
(It's noteworthy to mention that Shaver, whom Drummond replaced, died suddenly
and mysteriously just before he took office in 1855. He was suspected of
having been poisoned by the Mormons to prevent his taking office. This further
illustrates the conditions in Utah upon Drummond's arrival.)
Glenn, these quotes are only a sampling of Mormon atrocities that forced
President Buchanan to send Johnson's Army. For a thorough treatment of the
period, I recommend you read Bigler's "Forgotten Kingdom." That means READ IT,
Glenn, the actual book, not just snippets you find on the internet. You might
also want to browse Berrett's "The Restored Church" and Arrington's "Great
Basin Kingdom." Although written by pro-Mormons, they do come closer to the
truth than does the "Comprehensive History of the Church."
In lieu of actually reading the material, you can instead begin trumping up
character assassinations against the other fifteen federal officials that fled
Utah besides Drummond, so that you find a reason, in your mind, to disbelieve
their reports as you do Drummond's.
>Randy also does not tell you that the allegations raised by Judge Drummond
concerning the records and papers of the Supreme Court were refuted by the
incoming Governor Cumming in his investigation.
"Justice Stiles reported that he was intimidated in his own court, and his
official records were stolen and burned. Justice Drummond also returned to
Washington, D. C., and in a long letter accompanying his grievances, among them
the charge that the court records had been destroyed with the knowledge and
approval of Brigham Young, and that the officers of the government were
constantly insulted and harassed. He insisted that affairs in Utah were in a
treasonable and disgraceful state. Mormon protestations that affairs had been
misrepresented had been ignored; proof that the records were safe did not
change the fact that they had been taken without sanction from the office of
the judge." (Brooks, "Mountain Meadows Massacre," p. 13.)
"A purposeful mob on December 29 [1856] broke into the law offices of
Associate Supreme Court Justice George P. Stiles and looted the federal
appointee's papers and library. The raiders pretended to dump his books and
court records into a nearby privy and set them on fire. An outspoken defender
of the primacy of the district courts, Stiles was so upset by the apparent
burning of government property and so fearful for his own safety that he soon
after fled the territory." (Bigler, p. 130.)
IOW, it was Stiles, not Drummond, who swore an affidavit that his records were
stolen and burned. Drummond merely reported Stiles' testimony to Washington.
For all they knew, the records were burned, but the Mormons re-produced them
when Cumming took office and worked out the arrangement to pardon Young & Co.
on their treason charges. Having
gained pardons, the Mormons had no reason to further conceal Stiles' records,
so they returned them. That's why Cumming "refuted" Drummond's report. And
thus, another Glenn Thigpen argument goes down in flames. Big surprise.
As to Cumming's own assessment of the Mormons, after having served as
territorial governor for three years:
"When Sir Richard Burton came to Great Salt Lake in 1860, the English explorer
and writer found Governor Cumming disheartened because his 'scrupulous and
conscientious impartiality' had only served to alienate other federal
officials, who considered him to be a pacifist and had won no acceptance of him
from the people. Still firmly in command was the territory's true governor,
Brigham Young, while other federal officials, civil and military, had either
quit in disgust or were getting ready to go. That year, Cumming reported that
Utah was 'bordering on anarchy'.....Deeply disillusioned, the federal
bureaucrat later reported his labors had been 'onerous and embarrassing' and
asked for a leave of absence until a new appointee 'shall have arrived and
qualified.' When asked how a successor wold get along, he replied, 'Get along?
well enough, if he will do nothing. There is nothing to do. Alfred Cumming is
Governor of the Territory, but Brigham Young is Governor of the people.' "
(Bigler, p. 197-98.)
Thus we see that even Cumming, who had worked for peace among the Mormons,
became disgusted enough over their blind obedience to Brigham Young, that he
resigned after only four years. And that further invalidates Glenn's ignorant
depiction of Drummond as 'the bad guy who made up all those lies against the
Mormons'.
The simple fact of the matter is that Brigham Young wanted to rule Utah
Territory as a theocratic dictator, with no interference or oversight from
federal officials; he and his minions harassed, intimitated, threatened, and/or
perhaps murdered numerous federal appointees, to the point where they could not
effectively do their jobs, and most of them returned east fearing for their
lives. These activities occurred from Young's appointment as Governor in 1850
to his forced ouster in 1858, and constituted the reasons for his removal.
>Randy does not tell you that : "died in Great Salt Lake City in June 1855 of
an inflammation of the inner ear (compounded by the jurist's use of
opium)".(Harold Schindler, Salt Lake tribune article "Saints Invited to Flock
to Zion").
Are you asserting that Drummond died in June 1855? If so, that was a true
miracle in Mormon history, because he resigned as Associate Utah Supreme Court
Justice on March 30, 1857. Knowing Harold Schindler to be a good historian, I
find it hard to believe he wrote what you cited. I suggest you check your
sources. Could it be that you found that bit of information secondhand in a
"faith-promoting" pro-Mormon book, and you naively assumed it was the gospel
truth?
Randy J.
TheJordan6
Glenn Thigpen wrote:
< Concerning the death of Almon Babbitt, Randy does not tell you that no
credible report report, in any way implicates any whites, LDS or not.
You still cannot get it through your head that the modus operandi of the Mormon
Danites of the day was to commit crimes while disguised as Indians, so that
they could blame such atrocities on the Indians. To repeat, from Josiah Gibbs,
speaking of ten-year-old MMM survivor Charley Fancher:
" It was from the lips of Charley Fancher, soon after his arrival from the
vicinity of the tragedy, that I heard the first story of the massacre. In his
childish way he said that "some of the Indians, after the slaughter, went to
the little creek, and that after washing their faces they were white men."
(Josiah Gibbs, "The Mountain Meadows Massacre.")
Also, from Juanita Brooks, concerning the Duke train, which was attacked and
pillaged shortly after the Fancher train:
"[S. B.] Honea of Franklin County, Arkansas.....said that he passed through
Great Salt Lake City on August 17, that he was everywhere preparations for war,
that the company were harassed by Indians all the way, that in southern Utah
they hired Mormon guides and interpreters to the sum of $1,810, and then were
robbed on the Muddy of 375 head of cattle. Davis described the Indians who
stole the cattle as having among them some with light, fine hair and blue eyes,
and light streaks where they had not used sufficient paint." (Brooks,
"Mountain Meadows Massacre," pp. 125-126.)
>But in fact the reports of Indian agent Thomas Twiss (Nebraska Historical
Society Vol 18, page 199), his brother-in-law, and his wife affirm that it was
the Cheyenne Indians who perpetrated this act. (CHC Vol. 4, Chapter CIII)
For all Twiss knew, that was the truth. However, the fact that Mormons
committed crimes while disguised as Indians makes Twiss' comments irrelevant.
Of course, there is no way to determine today who killed Babbitt; but we can
certainly examine conditions of the times, and the motives and operations of
the Mormons, and arrive at a more believable presumption than Babbitt's death
being a random murder by Cheyennes. For starters, why would "Cheyennes" kill
this one single Mormon official, when the Mormons had made it a point to
befriend, feed, and make alliances with all local Indians? If Cheyennes would
kill Babbitt, then why not numerous other Mormons over the years, as well? It
simply doesn't add up. What DOES add up is that a) Babbitt had quarreled with
Brigham Young for years over numerous issues and b) at the time of his death,
Babbitt was carrying the payroll of Utah Territorial officials from Washington.
Now, would "Cheyennes" be interested in obtaining any U. S. currency? Of
course not. Then who WOULD? Obviously, someone who needed U. S. currency.
Who, in the area, needed U. S. currency in 1856? Obviously, a group of people
who were in the process of financing a war against the U. S.
Government---Brigham Young and his Mormons.
"Babbitt had been in and out of favor with the authorities of the church many
times, beginning as early as the Kirtland days. Shortly after his death the
rumor was started in the East, and given prominent space in the Eastern press,
that he had quarreled with Brigham Young and that Brigham Young had ordered his
death. It was also rumored in the East that Capatin Gunnison, a surveyor
originally with the Stansbury expedition, who had been killed by Indians on the
Sevier River in 1853, had really been put to death on orders of Brigham Young."
("Kingdom of the Saints," Ray B. West, p. 249.)
"During all the period from 1852 to 1856 numerous 'Gladdenites' and other
apostate and recusant Mormons were frequently slipping away and crossing to
California and Oregon; and many of these parties, as well as trains of Gentile
emigrants, were harassed in various ways which could hardly be accounted for by
Indian hostility. Almon W. Babbitt, having quarreled with Brigham, started
across the plains in 1855 and was murdered 'by Indians who spoke good English;'
and of this case Brigham said, 'He lived a fool and died like a fool. When
officers undertake to interefere with affairs that do not concern them, I will
not be far off. He undertook to quarrel with me and soon after was killed by
the Indians.' In 1852 Lieutenant Gunnison, M. Creuzfelt, the botanist, and
eight of their party were massacred near Sevier Lake, as then reported; but,
soon after escaped apostates stated that it was done by 'painted Mormons.' "
("Life in Utah, or the Mysteries and Crimes of Mormonism", J. H. Beadle.)
And from Pulitzer-prize winning historian Wallace Stegner:
"Whether or not Almon Babbitt, while bringing the pay of the territorial
officials back from Washington in the fall of 1856, was ambushed and killed
near Fort Kearney by Indians or, as the Gentiles said, 'by Indians who spoke
good English'---that is, by Porter Rockwell---is a troubling but insoluble
question. Whether the many men who were "saved" by Rockwell, Hickman, Hanks,
and others were really rubbed out on Brigham Young's orders, or for purposes of
robbery, or while 'resisting arrest' like young Lot Huntington---these are
matters for several careful books of the kind that Juanita Brooks has written
about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and they will not be written by tomorrow.
One thing is certain: it was a time of much killing, when the streets of Zion
were hardly safer, at least for certain kinds of people, than the streets of
the wildest mining camp. And a fair share of the killing was done by men of
God." ("The Gathering of Zion---The Story of the Mormon Trail," p. 277.)
To repeat---We cannot, in 2001, determine if Babbit was killed by Cheyennes, or
by his fellow Mormons, who were Danites acting on Brigham Young's orders. But
we CAN examine the conditions of the day and determine the most LIKELY
perpetrators. Seeing as how Danites of the day took secret oaths of loyalty
to each other, and of unquestioning obedience to Brigham Young, it's lucky that
we have any information on those mysterious deaths at all. It's only through
courageous dissidents such as Ann Eliza Webb and John D. Lee that we can
understand what Mormonism under Brigham Young was truly like. Most other
Mormons were afraid to tell anything.
>Of course, one of Randy's authoritative sources (although he did not
quote her on this one), Ann Eliza Young (Wife Number Nineteen)
To the contrary, I SPECIFICALLY cited Ann Eliza Webb as the source in my
original series of posts to you last June. To repeat:
In her "Wife No. 19", Ann Eliza Webb concurred with those statements concerning
the state of affairs in the territory:
"When a man left home and failed to return, the general
verdict, as a matter of course, was, "killed by the Indians." Did an exploring
party visit the Territory, and fail to leave it again, their fate, if it was
ever alluded to at all, was regarded as "massacred by Indians."
It is a significant fact that most of the persons who thus perished were
Gentiles, apostates, or people who, for some reason or other, were suspected
by, or disagreeable to, Brigham Young; and it came presently to be noticed
that if anyone became tired of Mormonism, or impatient of the increasing
despotism of the leader, and returned to the East, or started to do so, he
invariably was met by the Indians and killed before he had gone very far.
The effect was to discourage apostasy, and there was no one but knew that
the moment he announced his intention of leaving Zion and returning to
"Babylon," he pronounced his death sentence. He was never discouraged from his
plans, nor was any disapprobation of his course expressed. The faces were as
friendly that he met every day, the voices just as kind; his hand was shaken
at parting, and there was not a touch either of warning or sarcasm in the "God
speed" and bon voyage. But he knew he was a lucky man if, in less than
twenty-four hours after leaving Salt Lake City, he was not lying face downward
on the cold earth, shot to death by an unerring rifle ball, while the stars
looked sorrowfully down, silent witnesses, on this deed of inhuman butchery,
and a man rode swiftly cityward, carrying the news of the midnight murder to
his master, who had commanded him in the name of his religion to commit this
deed, and send an innocent soul before its Maker. "Ah, poor fellow; killed by
the Indians," said all his friends; but Brigham Young and Bill Hickman or
"Port" Rockwell knew better."
As you can read, Webb did not mention the Babbitt case here; therefore, your
mentioning of Webb's account is irrelevant concerning the Babbitt incident.
>states that Almon Babbitt was murdered by the Mormons because he was an
apostate fleeing to the East. However every other source that I have offered on
Babbitt aver that he was heading East to pick up the mail (he was a mail
carrier), when he was killed. Check it out.
Since Babbitt was carrying a government payroll, that was obviously a prime
reason for his murder.
>But it says much about her credibility.
Since Webb did not mention Babbitt, this says nothing about her credibility,
but it says much about yours. Not that we didn't already know you have no
credibility concerning Mormon history.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
Glenn Thigpen wrote:
For those new to ARM, this is the second time Glenn has thrown out this list of
names. I asked him previously to provide us with specific information as to
how these names relate to the origins of the Mormon Danite band, or how those
names refute the documentation I provided on the subject. He has not done so.
Instead, what Glenn is doing here is typical Mormon apologetic tactics: He
thinks that by simply throwing out a list of characters from the annals of
Mormon history---some of whom abandoned Mormonism and exposed its secret,
criminal activities---that that will somehow, magically make readers believe he
knows what he is talking about. Unfortunately, what Glenn doesn't realize is
that his tactic works only on dull-minded TBMs (two of whom have responded to
this thread with their typical ignorant comments). But it doesn't work on
rational, independent thinkers.
Also, Glenn doesn't tell us---because he doesn't know---that the testimonies of
those dissident Mormons who told of Danite activities in Missouri in 1838 were
corroborated by other Mormons who remained active and faithful in the church.
For instance, Glenn includes Burr Riggs in his magic list; but Glenn has no
clue that Riggs' testimony of events is identical on many points to that of W.
W. Phelps, who remained a Mormon, and is a highly regarded figure in Mormon
history. Glenn also doesn't list David Whitmer or John Whitmer (two of the
"Book of Mormon witnesses"), who also recounted the activities of the Missouri
Danite band; nor does Glenn list Bishop John Corrill, Reed Peck, George M.
Hinkle, Ebenezer Robinson, John D. Lee, or John Cleminson, all of whom figured
prominently in the early days of the Danite band, and who provided rich
testimony about Danite activities which led to the Mormons' expulsion from
Missouri.
Amusingly, Glenn includes Philastus Hurlbut in his magic list; however, Glenn
is too ignorant to understand that Hurlbut joined and left the Mormonite
movement in 1833, five years before the Danite band was even instituted.
Hurlbut knew nothing about the Danites, and he wrote nothing about the Danites.
Glenn just included Hurlbut in his list because he thought he could fool some
dull-minded readers into believing Hurlbut had some relevance to the subject.
In my original series of posts to Glenn on the MMM, I documented the facts
surrounding the founding of the Danite band, including Smith's and Rigdon's
parts in it. Since Glenn has provided nothing in rebuttal to contradict my
documentation, I'll merely re-post it below for new readers. Also, as Glenn has
included Thomas B. Marsh in his magical list of names---I recently wrote some
material on Marsh's activities in Missouri, which I will re-post in a separate
post entitled "Tom Marsh and the milk strippings."
Origin of the Danites
Randy wrote:
The secret teachings and practices that ultimately caused the MMM were
instituted by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon in Missouri in 1838. They started
the Danite band, which called for vengeance against dissenters and "Gentiles";
that same period also brought the Mormon culture of "theocratic ethics," which
held that it was proper for Mormons to "consecrate" (steal) goods from
"Gentiles". Those practices were the main causes of the Mormons being driven
from Missouri and Illinois. The Mormon depradations against the Aiken and
Fancher parties were merely a repetition of those earlier practices.
Glenn wrote:
>You are again making assertations without documentation.
Nonsense. I've written dozens of posts to ARM documenting the facts. The
possibility that you haven't read them, or that you are in intellectual denial
of them, does not make them "assertions without documentation."
>Stating opinions as facts.
Nonsense. I have researched and posted documented the FACTS from numerous
historians, including LDS ones.
>It is pretty much established that there was a group that called themselves
"Danites". That is an entirely different subject and deserves a better
treatment
than we have the space for.
To the contrary, the institution of the Mormon "Danites", and their activities,
is not a different subject from the MMM, but instead, the MMM was the natural
product of the Danite organization. The causes for the MMM cannot be
understood without having a working knowledge of the "Danites," and their
origin, activities, and leadership.
I'll assume that you, like most other brainwashed Mormons on ARM, believe that
the "Danites" were an unauthorized band, founded and led by Sampson Avard; and
that as soon as Joseph Smith discovered that they were committing crimes, he
ordered them to stop, and he excommunicated Avard. That is the line of lies
that has been spread by Mormon apologists since 1838, beginning with Smith
himself. Some time ago, I wrote of the origin of the "Danites":
To understand the root causes of the MMM, one must examine LDS teachings and
policies that were enacted in 1838, 19 years before the massacre. In the
spring of 1838, LDS leaders Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, having been run out
of Ohio because of the failure of their 'Anti-Banking Safety Society' and their
'United Order' communitarian system, escaped to the only other significant
group of Mormons, in western Missouri. Upon arriving, they immediately
attempted to institute a new version of a communistic system among their
Missouri disciples. Many of those disciples had been settled in Clay County,
after having been driven from Jackson County in 1834, and had bought land and
begun farms. Several of them, including leaders such as David Whitmer, W. W.
Phelps, John Whitmer (who were the Missouri stake presidency), Oliver Cowdery,
Lyman Johnson and others, were not interested in joining another communitarian
plan, perceiving that it would produce the same failures and financial disaster
that plagued the Kirtland attempt. Smith and Rigdon realized that if they
failed to gain full cooperation from them, that their dream of building their
"New Jerusalem", with them at the head of both 'spiritual' and 'temporal'
affairs of a hoped-for financial empire, would be dashed.
To prevent the same failures and apostasy that had plagued the Kirtland plan,
Smith and Rigdon implemented policies that called for unquestioning obedience
to leaders. Those who dissented from orders of superiors would be punished by
being driven from the area and/or "cut off" from the church.
In his "Brief History of the Church," former Mormon bishop John Corrill
recounted the situation:
"The Church in Caldwell had been doing well, with the exception of these
little difficulties among themselves, until the First Presidency came to
the Far West, and began to move things to their own notions. Many of the
Church had settled in Davies [Daviess] County, and to all appearance,
lived as peaceably with their neighbors as people generally do; but not
long after Smith and Rigden [Rigdon] arrived in Far West, they went to
Davies [Daviess] County and pitched upon a place to build a town.
L.[Lyman] Wight was already on the ground with his family. They laid out
a town and began to settle it pretty rapidly; Smith gave it the name of
Adamondiaman [Adam-ondi-Ahman], which he said was formerly given to a
certain valley, where Adam, previous to his death, called his children
together and blessed them. The interpretation in English is, "The valley
of God, in which Adam blessed his children." Many of the Church became
elated with the idea of settling in and round about the new town,
especially those who had come from Kirtland, as it was designed more
particularly for them. This stirred up the people of Davies [Daviess] in
some degree; they saw that if this town was built up rapidly it would
injure Gallatin, their county seat, and also that the Mormons would soon
overrun Davies [Daviess], and rule the county, and they did not like to
live under the laws and administration of "Joe Smith." Lyman Wight also
would frequently boast in his discourses of what they would do if the
mob did not let them alone,--they would fight, and they would die upon
the ground, and they would not give up their rights, etc.; when, as yet,
there was no mob. But this preaching inspired the Mormons with a
fighting spirit, and some of the other citizens began to be stirred up
to anger."
On Sunday, June 17, Sidney Rigdon delivered what has become known as his
infamous "Salt Sermon": "He mounted the speaker's stand in the town square and
exhorted his listeners to crush dissension and apostasy with cruel
determination....Selecting for his oration the theme, 'Ye are the salt of the
earth,' Rigdon, in a thinly-veiled threat to the dissenters, warned: 'if the
salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth
good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under the foot of
men.'...[Reed] Peck fills in the details of Rigdon's rhetoric: 'From this
scripture (Rigdon) undertook to prove that when men embrace the gospel and
afterwards lose their faith, it is the duty of the Saints to trample them under
their feet that have dissented from the church and were doing all in their
power to destroy the presidency...(he) called on the people to rise en masse
and rid the country of such a nuisance He said it is the duty of this people to
trample them into the earth and if the county cannot be freed from them any
other way I will assist to trample them down or to erect a gallows on the
square of Far West and hang them up---and it would be an act at which the
angels would smile with approbation.' ('Reed Peck Manuscript', pp. 24-25.)
"John Corrill sought out John Whitmer and warned him that trouble was in the
air. But the former church historian, unconvinced the Saints would turn on
him, refused to flee Far West...The following day the dissenters were handed an
ultimatum, drafted by Rigdon, demanding they pack and leave Far West."
("Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God, Son of Thunder," Harold Schindler, pp.
38-39.)
Rigdon then persuaded some 84 loyal Mormons to affix their signatures to a
"Warning Against Dissenters," which read in part:
"To Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, John Whitmer, William W. Phelps, and Lyman
E. Johnson, greeting: Out of the county you shall go, and no power shall save
you. And you shall have three days after you receive this communication...for
you to depart with your families peaceably;...and unless you heed us,...there
shall be no escape; for there is but one decree for you, which is depart,
depart, or a more fatal calamity shall befall you...we will put you from the
county of Caldwell: so help us God."
"The document was signed by 84 men, more or less prominent in the
church....those 84 citizens of Caldwell County were not justified in taking the
law into their own hands and under threats of vengeance driving these
dissenters from Far West..." (B. H. Roberts, "Comprehensive History of the
Church," vol. 1, 439.)
"In all probability, the eighty-three signers of the ultimatum comprised the
charter members of the Danite Society which grew to include an estimated four
hundred men. Ebenezer Robinson, a close associate of Joseph's during these
troubled times, said, 'The above manifesto was signed by 83 determined men.
Among the names we recognize some of the members of the high council, and
others holding high positions in the church, including that of Hyrum Smith, one
of the First Presidency.' Robinson himself was one of the letter's
signatories." (Schindler, p. 39.)
David Whitmer added his own account of those times:
"In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members
had gone deep into error and blindness. I had been striving with them
for a long time to show them the errors into which they were drifting,
and for my labors I received only persecutions. In June, 1838, a secret
organization was formed, Doctor Avard being put in as the leader of the
band; a certain oath was to be administered to all the brethren to bind
them to support the heads of the church in every thing they should
teach. All who refused to take this oath were considered dissenters from
the church, and certain things were to be done concerning these
dissenters, by Dr. Avard's secret band."
David's brother and counselor John, who was also the official church historian,
concurred with David's account:
"Joseph Smith, Jr., S. Rigdon and Hyrum Smith moved their families to
this place, Far West, in the spring of 1838. As soon as they came here,
they began to enforce their new organized plan, which caused dissensions
and difficulties, threatenings and even murders. Smith called a council
of the leaders together, in which council he stated that any person who
said a word against the heads of the Church, should be driven over these
prairies as a chased deer by a pack of hounds, having an illusion to the
Gidionites, as they were termed, to justify themselves in their wicked
designs. Thus on the 19th of June, 1838, they preached a sermon called
the salt sermon, in which these Gideonites understood that they should
drive the dissenters, as they termed those who believed not in their
secret bands, in fornication, adultery or midnight machinations."
After the end of the Missouri conflict, several former Danites revealed the
wording of the secret initiation oath to which David Whitmer referred:
"In the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, I now promise and swear, truly,
faithfully, and without reserve, that I will serve the Lord with a perfect
heart and a willing mind, dedicating myself, wholly, and unreservedly, in my
person and effects, to the upbuilding of His kingdom on earth, according to His
revealed will. I furthermore promise and swear that I will regard THE FIRST
PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, as the SUPREME
HEAD OF THE CHURCH on earth, and OBEY HIM the same as the Supreme God, IN ALL
WRITTEN REVELATIONS given under the solemnities of a 'Thus saith the Lord,' and
that I WILL ALWAYS UPHOLD THE PRESIDENCY, RIGHT OR WRONG. I furthermore
promise and swear that I will never touch a daughter of Adam, unless she is
given me of the Lord. I furthermore swear that no Gentile shall ever be
admitted to the secrets of this HOLY INSTITUTION or participate in its
blessings. I furthermore promise and swear that I will assist the Daughter of
Zion [Sons of Dan] in the utter destruction of apostates, and that I will
assist in setting up the kingdom of Daniel in these last days, by the power of
the Highest and the sword of His might. I furthermore promise and swear that I
will never communicate the secrets of this degree to any person in the known
world, except it be to a true and lawful brother, binding myself UNDER NO LESS
PENALTY THAN TO HAVE MY BLOOD SHED. So help me God and keep me faithful."
(Schindler, pp. 46-47.)
Upon Smith's arrest and incarceration in Liberty Jail, he claimed in his legal
defense that Sampson Avard, not himself or Rigdon, was the instigator of the
Danite band and its violent acts. While in jail, Smith wrote a letter in which
he purported to disavow "secret combinations":
"I would further suggest the impropriety of the organization of bands or
companies, by COVENANT OR OATH, by PENALTIES OR SECRECIES; but let the time
past of our experience and sufferings by the wickedness of Doctor Avard suffice
and let our covenant be that of the Everlasting Covenant, as contained in the
Holy Writ and the things that God hath revealed to us. Pure friendship always
becomes weakened the very moment you undertake to make it stronger by PENAL
OATHS AND SECRECY." ("Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 146.)
Careful research reveals that Smith's denial of responsibility for the Danites
was an outright falsehood, designed purely to shift blame for his insurrection
in Missouri onto the subordinate Avard. Note that in his defense, Smith
purportedly disavowed "covenants or oaths....penal oaths and secrecy," while to
the contrary, those familiar with Mormon culture are well aware that Smith's
temple endowment ceremony, which he introduced a mere three years later in
1842, included what he had publicly purported to discourage---"penal oaths and
secrecy." Also, the Danite initiation oath quoted above reveals similiarities
to wording, concepts, and oaths in Smith's later temple ceremony, which further
indicates that the two oaths originated in the same mind--Joseph Smith's.
In addition, Smith's own journal reveals that he spoke approvingly of the
"Danites," from his entry of
"27 July 1838--Friday--Some time past the brethren or saints have come up day
after day to consecrate, and to bring their offerings into the store house of
the lord, to prove him now herewith and see if he will not pour us out a
blessing that there will not be room enough to contain it, They have come up
hither (p. 60) Thus far, according to the (Revelater) [revelation] order of
the Danites, we
have a company of Danites in these times, to put right physically that which is
not right, and to cleanse the Church of very great evils which hath hitherto
existed among us inasmuch as they cannot be put right by teachings and
persuasions, This company or a part of them exhibited on the fourth of July
They come up to consecrate, by companies of tens, commanded by their captain
over ten."
("The Papers of Joseph Smith," vol. 2, p. 262, Deseret Book, 1992, ed. by Dean
Jessee.)
LDS historian Jessee's footnote to this entry reads:
"The part of this entry following 'p. 60' has been crossed out in the original
manuscript, evidently by a later hand."
The crossing out of Smith's favorable reference to the "company of the Danites"
is proof positive that someone---likely Smith himself---did so to eliminate
evidence of Smith's involvement with the criminal band. Fortunately, Dean
Jessee has restored the entry to its original, so we can see that Smith lied in
Liberty Jail when he attempted to cast Avard as the founder of the Danites.
A lifelong faithful Mormon, Allen Stout, told of the founding and purpose of
the Danites in his journal:
"The Church was organized under captains tens, fifties, one hundreds, and one
thousands. This made the inhabitants mad to see us making ready to defend
ourselves. They called our organization the Danite band. I belonged to the
third fifty led by Reynolds Cahoon. On the 4th of July [1838], Sidney Rigdon
delivered his declaration of independence, which enraged the mob worse than
ever, so that by fall the whole country was under arms."
Note Stout's confirmation that "the Church" itself organized the Danites,
rather than the alleged "renegade" Avard. The organization into "tens,
fifties, one hundreds, and one thousands," is the same setup that the Mormon
military units continued into Illinois and then Utah, and was still in force
during the Utah War, and the MMM. IOW, "Danites" was really just the Missouri
period secret name for the military arm of Smith's organization. LDS historian
Leland Gentry wrote that some members of the "Danite" band also served in the
state-run militia:
"The so-called 'Armies of Israel' created at Far West and Adam-ondi-Ahman by
order of General Alexander Doniphan were later confused with the Danites. The
confusion was natural, since both groups were broken down into smaller units
and since many Danites also belonged to the legitimte militia." ("A History of
the Latter-Day Saints in Northern Missouri," p. 362.)
Thus, while some Mormon men served in the official state militia, they
simultaneously and surreptitiously held membership in the underground
"Danites," who swore complete obedience to the "First Presidency of the
Church." The "Danites" were in effect, Joseph Smith's private army. It was
those "Danites" who brought out oaken clubs during the August 8 election in
Gallatin, beating "Gentiles" senseless; it was "Danites" who burned and looted
"Gentile" towns of Millport and Gallatin that fall; and it was "Danites," led
by Mormon apostles David Patten, Lyman Wight, and Parley P. Pratt, who attacked
state militiamen at Crooked River, which spurred Governor Boggs to issue his
"Extermination Order." Apostle Patten was mortally wounded in the battle, and
as he lay dying on October 28, he was treated by none other than Dr. Sampson
Avard---with Joseph Smith standing by his side. That fact further makes
Smith's later assertion that he excommunicated Avard as soon as he found out
what the "Danites" were doing a complete lie. Smith and his top leaders were
arrested on October 31, and Avard was still treating wounds from the "Danite"
battle of October 28, just three days earlier. That makes it obvious that
Smith concocted the idea to blame the "Danites" on Avard only after he had been
arrested and was facing charges of treason and murder.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
Glenn Thigpen wrote:
>>>There is an excerpt from Dimick Huntington's diary of a visit to an Indian
camp in the Weber Valley. There Huntington told those Indians that they could
have all of the cattle and horses on the road to California, the north route.
Randy wrote:
>>So, what you're saying is that Huntington---a "Danite" and Young's Indian
interpreter---gave certain Indians a "territory" in which to plunder "Gentile"
cattle and horses? That some Indians were given the "northern route"
(apparently referring to the route through the Humboldt Mountains to Carson
City and Sacramento), and other Indians were given the "southern route", which
passed through Mountain Meadows? Sounds like you've laid out the plans of an
organized crime gang, Glenn. Funny, that scenario is exactly what Stephen A.
Douglas warned of in his speech the previous June. How ironic that it should
come true.
>This was in response to what was thought to be an invasion by the U.S. troops
already known by Brigham Young and the Indians to be on the way.
The "northern route" to California was some 300 miles west of where Johnston's
Army was, and Johnston's Army had no intentions of going any further west than
SLC. Huntingdon could not have been referring to Johnston's Army, because
"General" Lot Smith was assigned by "Secretary of War" Daniel H. Wells to
engage Johnston's Army in Wyoming. Therefore, the only people Huntington could
have been referring to was citizen emigrant trains heading to California. If
the Indians had the mistaken impression that citizen emigrants were "soldiers",
it was only because they were deceived by the Mormons into believing so.
Brigham Young had already conceded that Johnston's Army would not even be able
to make it to SLC that year: "We do not expect that any part of the army will
be able to reach here this fall.....They are now at or near Laramie.....They
will not be able to come much if any further on account of their poor stock.
They cannot get here this season without we help them." (Letter of Brigham
Young to Isaac C. Haight, September 10, 1857.)
(How compassionate of Young to note the Army's "poor stock", when in fact, he
had ordered his "General" Lot Smith to drive off the Army's cattle. How
magnanimous of Young to offer to "help" the army get to SLC, when it was his
treasonous orders that prevented their arrival.)
Therefore, the only people Huntingdon could have been referring to taking the
"north route" to California was emigrants, not soldiers.
"This policy of robbing the passing emigrant was clearly a part of the general
war tactics, since, for the time being, all 'Mericats' were considered
enemies." (Juanita Brooks, "Mountain Meadows Massacre," p. 122.)
>Brigham was the federally appointed governor at the time and had not been
given any notice as to the what's, where's, or why's of that contingent.
I've already corrected that lie of yours in another post.
>From Dimick Huntington's journal: I gave them all the beef cattle & horses
that was on the road to Calafornia, the North rout, that they must put
them...p. I I .... into the mountains & not kill any thing as long as they
could help it, but when they do kill, take the old ones & not kill the cows or
young ones.
These cattle "on the road to California" could not possibly have been Army
cattle, because those were 300 miles east in Wyoming. Since it's obvious that
the cattle Huntingdon was divvying up with the Indians belonged to citizen
emigrants, that demonstrates what I've written you over and over----the Mormons
AS AN INSTITUTION were "forming alliances with Indian tribes in Utah and
adjoining territories---stimulating the Indians to acts of hostility.....to
prosecute a system of robbery and murders upon American citizens....."
(Stephen A. Douglas, "Missouri Republican," June 18th, 1857.)
And in citing an example of Mormons engaging in another robbery of emigrant
trains separate from the Fancher party, you have helped my case that the MMM
was not an anamoly, but was in fact part of the Mormons' modus
operandi-----which is exactly what I wrote to begin with. Can you say
"backfire," Glenn?
>>>The visit by Kanosh and other Indians on September the first was to inquire
about the soldiers that were heading their way.
>>WHAT soldiers? If you're referring to Johnston's army, they never came
within 400 miles of Kanosh's area (south of Manti), and they never intended to.
The only reason the chiefs went to SLC was to conspire with Young to commit
depradations against "Gentiles," one of which was the MMM.
>From Dimick Huntington's journal:
>P. I August 10/57 "Went to East Webber to visit Little Soldier & Bam[?].
Found him much
excited in consequence of an emigrant going from California to the States, who
told the Indians that Brigham was a going to cut all the men's throats and take
their women to wife. I told Soldier to be Baptised and then he could tell when
the gentiles told him a lie. He said Tom had been Baptised and lied all the
time. He said that Brigham wanted to kill him.
> p.2 ..... when he took their guns away from them in 53, but durst not. I told
him that B[righarnl] foresaw that the time was near when the guns would be
since & a famine was coming & he wanted them to learn to farm it as the Mormons
did, gave them good homes but they set down on their but[t]s, howel like so
many woolves until he saw it was of no use & told me to go & give up your guns
again. I asked him if he knew that the U.S. troops were a coming. He said yes,
but he was afraid of them & he would go a way off into the mountains & wait &
see how the Mormons come out. I told him that was right for the troops would
kill them as quick as they would us. I told him to gather all the berrys
thathey could & then glean all the wheat they could & prepare for 7 years seage
for B sa
so. & he said it was good & he would do.
>[August] 16. Antero Weyeahoo(?] & wife and 8 more Yumpah Ut[e]s came to see
Brigham & have a talk. Exprest great fears about the troops. Said he would go
to the mountains & wait & see how we got along through the fight. I told him
that was good for did not want any help with these, we could get along with
them, but he might look out when the troops killed us....
>Tuesday Ist Sept.57. Konosh the Pahvant Chief, Ammon & wife (Walker's brother)
&
11 Pahvants came in to see B & D &find out about the .....p. 13 .....
soldiers. Tutseygubbit, a Piede Chief over 6 Piedes bands, Youngwuols[?]
another Piede & I gave
them all the cattle that had gone to Cal. the south rout It made them open
their eyes. They sayed that you have told us not to steal. So I have, but now
they have come to fight us & you, for when they kill us then they will kill
you. They sayed the[y] was afraid to fight the Americans & so would raise
grain and we might fight.
>Those journal entries were contemporary and from a person directly involved
with the Indians in and around the Salt Lake Valley and shows (1) the reason
for the visit to Brigham Young (which had nothing to do with the Fancher Party)
and that there was no talk of killing any emigrants.
Glenny STILL can't read! Your reference from Huntington speaks of "the cattle
that had GONE TO CAL. (via) THE SOUTH ROUTE...." Duhhhh, Glenn, whose
"cattle" do you think Huntington was speaking of? Duhhhh, what emigrant train
with 300 head of cattle was "going to California via the south route" in
September of 1857?
The Indians "opened their eyes" (in obvious surprise) when Young gave them the
"south route" cattle, because the Mormons had previously taught them not to
steal; but here, your reference from Huntington admits that Young was now
allowing them to steal the cattle that was on its way into their territory via
the "south route." Since this meeting occurred on September 1-----and all the
Indian chiefs in the meeting were from the southern regions, nowhere near
Johnston's Army-----and the Fancher party was massacred and their cattle stolen
some ten days later, in those southern regions-----well, that pretty much wraps
up THIS little detective story, doesn't it Glenny boy?
Also, let the record show that in my original post on this issue, I already
quoted the account of this meeting from the daily journal of Brigham Young,
wherein Young stated "A spirit seems to be takeing possession of the Indians to
assist Israel. I can hardly restrain them from exterminating the Americans."
You have provided a quote that shows that Young gave those Indians the "south
route" cattle. I have provided the quote that shows those same Indians (from
the "south route" area) were eager to "exterminate the Americans", with Brigham
Young's apparent approval. And lo and behold, those Americans were
"exterminated" only ten days later. Glenn, can you spell "premeditation?" And
while you're at it, can you add two and two together?
>We know now for why the troops were being sent to Utah, but neither Brigham
Young nor the Indians had been informed.
As I've already documented, Young knew very well that the troops were coming to
escort the newly-appointed governor Cummings. Young induced the ignorant
Indians to conspire against the Americans by deceiving them into believing that
if they didn't, that the "Mericats" would kill all Indians and Mormons. You
assert that in this meeting, "there was no talk of killing emigrants." To the
contrary, Young deceived the Indians into believing that the emigrants and the
Army troops were one in purpose. Where Huntingdon quotes Young as telling the
chiefs "they have come to fight us and you, for when they kill us, then they
will kill you," Young could have ONLY been referring to emigrant citizen
trains, because they were the only people heading anywhere near those chiefs'
territory.
>>Neither Kanosh, nor any other Indians, knew about Johnston's Army. The only
place the Indians could have gotten information about Johnston's Army was from
the Mormons. Young incited the Indians to violence by deceitfully telling them
that the soldiers were coming to kill the Mormons and the Indians. The meeting
on September 1 was obviously a "war council."
>>Note that other chiefs who met with Young were from the "Santa Clara and
Virgin
River" areas, which is in the heart of the MMM scene.
>That seems to be the the main concern of Huntington in these excerpts, the
impending arrival of the American soldiers.
Except that there were no American soldiers going anywhere near those Indians'
lands.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
Randy wrote:
>>Huntingdon's only one source among many. He didn't know the whole story.
Glenn wrote:
>He was in the middle of the story. His is a direct, eyewitness of the events
that transpired with Brigham Young, written as those events unfolded. And, as
David Bigler stated, he seems to have been an interpreter for Brigham Young.
Anything that the Indians were told, seemingly would have to have gone through
him.
Regardless, nothing Huntington wrote absolves Young or the institutional church
of the crime. Hs journal entries only help us to fill in the blanks.
Huntington likely wasn't privy to all the instructions given to George A.
Smith, Hamblin, or Haight, who figured more directly into the MMM than did
Huntington.
>>>He seemed to be expecting an assault from those soldiers when they arrived
and was attempting to enlist the aid of the Indians.
>>The only reason Huntington expected such an attack is because Brigham Young
fanned the flames.
>You are a mind reader now?
No, Glenn, I'm a book reader. You should try it sometime.
>>>Bigler seems to think that the reference to the southern route meant only
the Fancher party, but that is something that is not clear.
>>What OTHER parties were taking the 'southern route' that month? That it
referred to the Fancher party is obvious from what happened to the Fancher
party.
>We don't know what other parties had taken that route, or would have taken
that
route.
The Duke party took the southern route about the same time, and they were also
robbed by "Indians" "with light, fine hair and blue eyes, and light streaks
where they had not used sufficient paint." (Brooks, p. 126.) But the Duke
party weren't "soldiers" any more than the Fancher party was, and there were no
accusations of "Missouri Wildcats" among the Duke party. Their only "crime"
was traveling through Mormon country with 375 head of cattle.
>We only know of the Fancher party because of the MMM. And yes, it is obvious
what happened to the Fancher Party. But there is no mention of the Fancher
emigrant party or of killing any emigrants in Huntington's.
Huntington's mention of "cattle going to California by the south route" could
have referred to either the Fancher or Duke parties, both of which were robbed
by Mormons and Indians. Huntington's entries do not mention "killing any
emigrants" because those entries were written before the MMM occurred, and
Huntington was not involved in the MMM (at least, no witnesses ever mentioned
his name at the scene, to my knowledge.)
>>>It would seem more likely that Dimick was referring to any cattle by
emigrants taking the southern route for Kanosh and the others who met on
September the first and all cattle by emigrants taking the northern route to
the Indians in the Weber Valley.
>>Yep. Splitting up territory, like criminal gangs do.
>>>The talk of possible fighting seems to be concerning the soldiers, not
emigrants.
>>Maybe Huntingdon wasn't expecting the Fancher party to fight back so hard.
>>Maybe he thought Kanosh's tribe would make short work of them.
>The Fancher party was not an American troop contingent.
The Indians would have thought they were, if the Mormons told them they were.
>>>The excerpts can be found at this url:
http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/Depo%20and%20Journals/Dimick/Dimick-2.htm
>>>I would like to get the full version of this diary to see what other
information could be gleaned from this.
>>>Glenn
>>I don't see your point in studying any of this, Glenn. You'll simply discard
the sources that don't depict Young and his church as perfectly innocent.
>I do not simply discard them.
Yes, you do, Glenn. You dismissed my 15 posts of exhaustive documentation,
from numerous scholarly sources, as "lies" and "fiction." You will dismiss any
sources, or any documentation, that doesn't agree with your position. You've
done it ever since you've been on ARM.
>I just did a little checking on the source that you gave me "Forgotten
Kingdom" by David Bigler. I went to the source that he used to draw a
conclusion and found that he excluded much material which had a direct bearing
on the situation which brings one to a very different conclusion.
>Glenn
I fail to see how your quotes from Huntington's journal show a different
conclusion than the one I've already shown-----that Mormons conspired with
Indians to rob and kill Americans.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
Randy wrote to Xan Du:
On the Marsh incident, Gordon B. Hinckley offered the following comments in the
April 1984 General Conference:
"According to the account given by George A. Smith, while the Saints were in
Far West, Missouri, 'the wife of Thomas B. Marsh, who was then President of the
Twelve Apostles, and Sister Harris concluded they would exchange milk, in order
to make a little larger cheese than they otherwise could. To be sure to have
justice done, it was agreed that they should not save the strippings (to
themselves), but that the milk and strippings should go all together.....Mrs.
Harris, it appeared, was faithful to the agreement and carried to Mrs. Marsh
the milk and strippings, but Mrs. Marsh, wishing to make some extra good
cheese, saved a pint of strippings from each cow and sent Mrs. Harris the milk
without the strippings. A quarrel arose, and the matter was referred to the
home teachers. They found Mrs. Marsh guilty of failure to keep her agreement.
She and her husband were upset and, 'an appeal was taken from the teacher to
the bishop, and a regular church trial was held. President Marsh did not
consider that the bishop had done him and his lady justice for they (that is,
the bishop's court) decided that the strippings were wrongfully saved, and that
the woman had violated her covenant.
'Marsh immediately took an appeal to the High Council, who investigated the
question with much patience, and,' says George A. Smith, .....'Marsh.....made
a desperate defence, but the High Council finally confirmed the bishop's
decision.....This little affair,' Brother Smith continues, 'kicked up a
considerable breeze, and Thomas B. Marsh then declared that he would sustain
the character of his wife even if he had to go to hell for it. The then
President of the Twelve Apostles, the man who should have been the first to do
justice and cause reparation to be made for wrong.....went before a magistrate
and swore that the 'Mormons' were hostile towards the state of MIssouri. That
affidavit brought from the government of Missouri an exterminating order, which
drove some 15,000 Saints from their homes and habitations.....
What a very small and trivial thing--a little cream over which two women
quarreled. But it led to, or at least was a factor in, Governor Boggs' cruel
exterminating order which drove the Saints from the state of Missouri."
("Ensign" Magazine, May 1984, p. 83.)
Note how Hinckley asserts that the "milk strippings" incident (if it even
occurred at all) was a major factor in Marsh's defection, and the resulting
Extermination Order. But were Hinckley's remarks (via George A. Smith)
anywhere close to the truth? Let's compare Hinckley's assertions to the
documented facts of history:
A "revelation" Smith produced, and published in his 1833 "Book of
Commandments," read as follows:
"For it shall come to pass, that which I spake by the mouths of my prophets
shall be fulfilled; for I will consecrate the riches of the Gentiles, unto my
people which are of the house of Israel." (BOC 44:32.)
In Smith's 1835 revision of the BOC, re-titled the "Doctrine and Covenants,"
Smith altered this verse to read:
"for I will consecrate of the riches of those who embrace my gospel among the
Gentiles unto the poor of my people who are of the house of Israel." (D&C
42:39.)
David Whitmer explained why the original version of this "revelation" had
enraged Missourians against the Mormon immigrants in 1833:
"In the spring of 1832, in Hiram, Ohio, Brothers Joseph and Sidney, and others,
concluded that the revelations should be printed in a book. A few of the
brethren -- including myself --objected to it seriously. We told them that if
the revelations were
published, the world would get the books, and it would not do; that it was not
the will of the Lord that the revelations should be published. But Brothers
Joseph and Sidney would not listen to us, and said they were going to send them
to Independence to be published. I objected to it and withstood Brothers Joseph
and Sidney to the face. Brother Joseph said as follows: "Any man who objects to
having these revelations published, shall have his part taken out of the Tree
of Life and out of the Holy City." The Spirit of God came upon me and I
prophesied to them in the name of the Lord: "That if they sent those
revelations to Independence to be published in a book, the people would come
upon them and tear down the printing press, and the church would be driven out
of Jackson county." Brothers Joseph and Sidney laughed at me. Early in the
spring of 1833, at Independence, Mo., the revelations were printed in the Book
of Commandments. Many of the books were finished and distributed among the
members of the church, and through some of the unwise brethren, the world got
hold of some of them. From that time the ill-feeling toward us began to
increase; and in the summer of 1833 the mob came upon us, tore down the
printing press, and drove the church out of Jackson county." ("An Address to
all Believers in Christ")
It's obvious that Smith altered the verse which called for the "consecration of
the riches of the Gentiles unto the house of Israel" because the publication of
such a policy had gotten the Mormons booted out of Jackson County.
Nonetheless, he and Rigdon secretly continued their advocacy of "consecrating"
the personal property of non-Mormons, as well as those of Mormon dissenters,
into his "kingdom," and that was the ultimate cause of the Mormons' final
expulsion from Missouri in 1838.
To today's Mormons, "consecration" means giving of their money or goods to the
church. In 1838, upon the failure of their Kirtland Bank and "United Order,"
Smith and Rigdon went to Missouri and again tried to institute an economic
commune. The Missouri Mormons, who had been expelled from Jackson County in
1834, were living in relative (albeit temporary) peace in Clay County, buying
land and starting farms. But the arrival of Smith and Rigdon in the spring of
1838 brought an influx of thousands more Mormons from Kirtland as well,
spilling them over into "Gentile" areas, causing new tensions. Mormon
population increased from 1,200 to 15,000 in just a few months. Having been
stung by the Kirtland failure, Smith and Rigdon implemented new policies that
they hoped would make the new commune succeed. The policy mandated that all
Mormons sign their lands over to the church, and then the church
would lease the land back to them as "stewardships." The Mormons who had
bought and developed
their lands and farms balked at the idea---among them being Cowdery, the
Whitmers, Phelps, Lyman Johnson, etc. They correctly perceived that the new
"consecration" policy was nothing more than Smith and Rigdon's latest scheme to
fleece the flock. Their refusal to sign lands over to the church prompted
Rigdon's "Salt Sermon" (which was heartily endorsed by Smith), and Rigdon's
resulting letter informing the dissenters that they must "depart before a more
fatal calamity" befell them. While the dissenters had gone to procure legal
aid to prevent Smith and Rigdon from taking their land (or their lives), the
"Danites" invaded and plundered their homes and property. So, for those
Mormons, "consecration" meant having their goods taken away by force, upon the
order of church leaders.
"A proposition was made and supported by some as being the best policy to kill
these men that they would not be capable of injuring the church. All their
measures were strenuously opposed by John Corrill and T. B. Marsh one of the
twelve apostles of the church and in consequence nothing could be effected
until the matter was taken up publicly BY THE PRESIDENCY the following (June
17th) in a large congregation..." ("Reed Peck Manuscript")
Thus, according to Peck, Marsh was already opposing Smith's and Rigdon's
heinous policies as early as June 17----four months before Marsh swore his
affidavit. That fact alone destroys the "milk strippings" business.
As many witnesses (including Thomas B. Marsh) testified in court, Smith's
intention was to "take this State,...the United States and ultimately the whole
world" for his theocratic empire. The swelling Mormon population disturbed
the non-Mormons, who had heard that the "Gentiles" were to be evicted and the
land become the Mormons' "New Jerusalem." One Missourian, William Peniston,
remarked in August that the Mormons "are a set of horse thieves, liars, and
counterfeiters. They'll swear a false oath on any occasion to save another
Mormon....no property is safe in Daviess County if they continue to pour into
this area." Tensions soon erupted into violence, with beatings, lootings and
burnings being committed on both sides. By October, believing that they had
enough manpower to "take the state," Smith and Rigdon then sent their "Danite"
forces to begin "consecrating"
from the "Gentiles" as well as the dissident "Saints," with the loot going to
support their war effort. Church historian John Whitmer reported that the
Mormon leaders claimed the stealing was justified because they were the "chosen
people":
"After they had driven us and our families, they commenced a difficulty in
Daviess County, adjoining this county, in which they began to rob and burn
houses, etc. etc., took honey which they, (the Mormons) call sweet oil, and
hogs which they call bear, and cattle which they called buffalo. Thus they
would justify themselves by saying, "We are the people of God, and all things
are God's; therefore, they are ours." (John Whitmer's "History of the Church")
John Whitmer's remarks revealed Smith's and Rigdon's true attitude: they viewed
their organization as the literal "House of Israel," and "the Kingdom of God on
Earth"; they taught the imminent return and millenial reign of Christ, wherein
all the "enemies" of the "true church" would be defeated. Since, in the
"millenium," all things on earth would be theirs, they haughtily taught their
subordinates to appropriate the property of the "Gentiles."
Mormon historian Leland Gentry admits to Mormon thefts: "The Danites were
taught to take from the Gentiles and consecrate to the Church. Nearly every
person who testified at the trial against the Mormon leaders made mention of
this fact. John Clemenson stated that 'it was frequently observed among the
troops at Diahman that the time had come when the riches of the Gentiles should
be consecrated to the Saints.' Jeremiah Myers testified that 'the consecrated
property...was dealt out to those in need' by Bishop Vinson Knight." (A
History of the Latter-Day Saints in Northern Missouri, p. 385-387.)
"Danites struck at Gallatin and two other towns, Millport and Grinding Fork.
The three onslaughts occurred simultaneously and had a crushing impact on the
Missourians who were unaccustomed to Mormon resistance. When Captains Lyman
Wight, David W. Patten, and Seymour Brunson rode into Far West at the head of
their companies, the sight of wagonloads of plunder was offensive to a number
of less aggressively inclined Saints. That night they gathered their families
together and abandoned the settlement. Among the defectors were two of
Joseph's most trusted followers, Thomas B. Marsh and Orson Hyde, both members
of the Council of Twelve Apostles. The two men fled to nearby Richmond and
blurted out everything they knew." ("Orrin Porter Rockwell," Harold Schindler,
p. 54.)
"The Mormons were two hundred and fifty men by the time they reached Daviess
County...The bulk of the forces went out in search of the gentile opposition.
They marched through three settlements, including Gallatin, repaying the
Missourians in kind, looting and firing stores, homes, and barns, before their
anger spent itself.....When they returned with their loot, many of their own
people were appalled and frightened. Thomas B. Marsh, Brigham Young's superior
as President of the Twelve, let it be known that he did not approve such
retaliation, and he left the church." ("Kingdom of the Saints", Ray B. West, p.
86.)
"There was much mysterious conversation in camps, as to plundering, and
house-burning; so much so, that I had my own notions about it; and, on one
occasion, I spoke to Mr. Smith, Jr., in the house, and told him that this
course of burning houses and plundering, by the Mormon troops, would ruin us;
that it could not be kept hid, and would bring the force of the state upon us;
that houses would be searched, and stolen property found. Smith replied to me,
in a pretty rough manner, to keep still; that I should say nothing about it;
that it would discourage the men...I saw a great deal of plunder and bee-steads
brought into camp; and I saw many persons, for many days, taking the honey out
of them; I understood this property and plunder were placed into the hands of
the bishop at Diahmon....The general teachings of the presidency were, that the
kingdom they were setting up was a temporal kingdom...that the time had come
when this kingdom was to be set up by
forcible means, if necessary. It was taught, that the time had come when the
riches of the Gentiles were to be consecrated to the true Israel."
(Testimony of George M. Hinkle, "Senate Document 189".)
"Smith replied, the time had come when he should resist all law...I heard J.
Smith remark, there was a store at Gallatin, and a grocery at Millport; and in
the morning after the conversation between Smith and Wight about resisting the
law, a plan of operations was agreed on, which was: that Captain Fearnaught,
who was present, should take a company of 100 men, or more, and go to Gallatin,
and take it that day; to take the goods out of Gallatin, bring them to Diahmon,
and burn the store...On the same day, in the evening, I saw both these
companies return; the foot company had some plunder..." (Testimony of WW
Phelps, "Senate Document 189").
From Marsh's own sworn legal affidavit of October 24, 1838:
"At the request of citizens of Ray County, I make the following
statement...Joseph Smith, the prophet, had preached a sermon in which he said
that all the Mormons who refused to take up arms, if necessary, in the
difficulties with the citizens, should be shot or otherwise put to death; and
as I was there with my family, I thought it most prudent to go and did go with
my wagon as the driver. We marched to Adam-ondi-Ahman and found no troops or
mob in Davies County....a company of about eighty Mormons, commanded by a man
fictitiously named Captain Fearnaught [apostle and Danite David Patten],
marched to Gallatin...I afterwards learned from the Mormons that they had burnt
Gallatin and that it was done by the aforesaid company
that marched there. The Mormons informed me that they had hauled away all the
goods from the store in Gallatin and deposited them at the Bishop's storehouse
at Diahmon. On the same day, [apostle and Danite] Lyman Wight marched about
eighty horsemen for Millport...The same evening a number of footmen came up
from the direction of Millport laden with property which I was informed
consisted of beds, clocks, and other household furniture...During the same
time, a company called the Fur Company were sent out to bring in fat hogs and
cattle, calling the hogs 'bears', and the cattle 'buffaloes.' They have among
them a company consisting of all that are considered true Mormons, called the
Danites, who have taken an oath to support the heads of the church in all
things that they say or do, whether right or wrong.....The plan of said Smith,
the prophet, is to take this State, and he professed to his people to intend
taking the United States, and ultimately the whole world. This is the belief
of the church, and my own opinion of the prophet's plans and intentions.....The
prophet inculcates the notion, and it is believed by every true Mormon, that
Smith's prophecies are superior to the law of the land. I have heard the
prophet say that he should yet tread down his enemies and walk over their dead
bodies; that if he was not let alone he would be a second Mahomet to this
generation, and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky
Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean....."
I don't find anything about "milk strippings" in Marsh's, or any other
eyewitnesses' testimony of those events; and I have failed to find even one
mention of the alleged "milk strippings" incident in any history on the subject
by any reputable scholar. To the contrary, they all concur that the reason the
Mormons were booted out of Missouri was because of Smith and Rigdon's haughty,
belligerent attitudes and teachings; their calls for violence, their
"revelations" that "justified" their followers stealing from their neighbors;
and their boasts that their organization had a "divine right" to take the state
of Missouri for themselves, by any means necessary, including force.
Late LDS author Harold Schindler recounted the series of events that caused
Governor Boggs to issue his "Extermination Order," which came the day after the
skirmish between Missouri militiamen and Mormon "Danites" at Crooked River:
"Twenty-four hours after the Crooked River fight, Boggs, armed with the
affidavits of Marsh and Hyde plus complaints from frightened settlers
describing a wholesale Mormon rebellion, ordered two thousand militiamen from
five divisions into the field...Then Boggs received a message confirming an
earlier report of Bogart's defeat but compounding the rumors of a
massacre...this report prompted Boggs to issue his infamous 'Extermination
Order' of October 27 to General John B. Clark. In effect, the order challenged
Sidney Rigdon's Fourth of July address in which he defied the Gentiles and
threatened a 'war of extermination.' It was more than coincidence that Boggs
chose that particular word in his instruction to General Clark."
("Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God, Son of Thunder," Harold Schindler, pp.
56-58.)
Thus we see that the major incident which spurred Boggs to issue his
"Extermination Order" was the Crooked River skirmish, wherein several men on
both sides were killed. That event made Boggs realize that the Mormons would
not peacefully cohabit the state with non-Mormons, and since many Mormons had
taken a secret oath to obey Smith's every order, even those which called on
them to commit crimes, Boggs was forced to evict all of the Mormons from the
state.
So, in view of the documented facts, can anyone honestly believe that Thomas B.
Marsh's "real gripe" was a fight between two women over "milk strippings"?
And, was Gordon B. Hinckley being "honest with his fellow man" by using George
A. Smith's "faith-promoting" version of events, rather than objectively
relating the numerous testimonies of first-hand eyewitnesses and participants?
Of course he wasn't. Hinckley, as well as most other LDS leaders and
apologists, are not interested in relating the actual history of Mormonism;
their agenda is to spin "faith-promoting" tales that attempt to "teach a
lesson," while simultaneously obfuscating the actual facts. The average
rank-and-file Mormon, upon learning that the first president of the Q12 had
"apostasized," would naturally inquire as to the reasons for his "apostasy";
and the "milk strippings" story is propagated to conceal the actual reasons,
and to
provide an "object lesson" for Mormons sitting in Sunday School class.
So, Xan, when you say that "logic tells me that people have left the church for
more legitimate concerns" than misspelled names and "milk strippings," you're
right; Simonds Ryder's and Thomas B. Marsh's true "concerns" were a thousand
times greater than the trivial "faith-promoting" smokescreens dispensed by LDS
Inc.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: Wed, Aug 29, 2001 03:53 EDT
>Message-id: <910C69C7netza...@209.84.17.10>
Guy, if you can spare the time from typing bad jokes, perhaps you can deal with
the following. Maybe it will help readers judge whose knowledge of Mormon
history is more accurate.
Guy Briggs wrote of Fawn Brodie:
> Ah, yes. The money-digging thing again. Supported by affidavits she
> has already deemed as untrustworthy because of their common style,
Attention ARMekites!!! The above statement is another example of Guy Briggs'
misrepresentations of both Fawn Brodie's book and the facts of Mormon history.
Fawn Brodie most certainly DID NOT "deem untrustworthy" the affidavits
concerning Joseph Smith's 1820's "peep-stoning" and money-digging. To the
contrary, here is her actual statement on this issue:
"D. P. Hurlbut in 1833 collected sworn statements from more than a hundred of
the early friends and neighbors of Joseph Smith in the areas of Palmyra, New
York, and Harmony, Pennsylvania. These have been largely ignored by Mormon
historians. 'It was simply a matter of muck raking on Hurlbut's part,' wrote
B.
H. Roberts. 'Every idle story, every dark insinuation which at that time
could
be thought of and unearthed was pressed into service to gratify this man's
personal desire for revenge.....' Since, however, Joseph's money-digging is
well established by the previous court record and newspaper stories, Hurlbut's
affidavits can hardly be dismissed by the objective student, particularly
since
they throw considerable light on the writing of the Book of Mormon." ("No Man
Knows My History," p. 432.)
Guy Briggs is attempting to forge a career as a Professional Brodie Debunker
here on ARM, but his misciting of her work discredits him just as he attempts
to discredit Brodie.
> probably all written by none other than Eber D. Howe.
And here is Guy's next false statement. Eber D. Howe was the editor of the
Painesville, Ohio 'Telegraph.' He did not go to New York or Pennsylvania, and
he did not interview the numerous witnesses of Smith's 1820's activities. The
affidavits of which Brodie wrote were sworn legal affidavits, given before
justices of the peace in Palmyra and Harmony. Philastus Hurlbut obtained
permission to use the sworn affidavits from Palmyra, and he sold them to Howe
upon his return to Ohio. Thus, the affidavits were written and sworn to
before
Howe ever saw them, and he had no part whatsoever in writing them. In fact,
the affidavits from the Harmony area (including that of Smith's father-in-law,
Isaac Hale), were actually published in the "Susquehanna Register" on May 1,
1834, after which Howe obtained permission to re-publish them in his
"Mormonism
Unvailed." Hurlbut did not go to Harmony, and did not interview those
testators nor obtain their affidavits. IOW, neither Hurlbut or Howe had
anything to do with the production of the Harmony affidavits, therefore they
could not have been fabricated or "coached" by either of them.
Alien Ward wrote:
>Ah, yes. Like the affidavit from Issac Hale where he says JS used the same
rock in a hat trick for both money-digging and BoM dictation. Ah yes, the
very
same untrustworthy affidavit quoted in the Mormon church's flagship
publication, the Ensign (February 2001. p. 44-45)
At least twice this year, I have posted some comments on this "Ensign" article
to which Alien Ward refers. Since the "Ensign" magazine quotes from Isaac
Hale's and Peter Ingersoll's affidavits as though they were credible sources,
Guy Briggs' opinion of their validity is contrary to that of LDS leaders.
Guy wrote:
> But I want to thank you for pointing out yet another anachronism in
> Brodie's work, yet another arrow for my quiver. Howe's _Mormonism
> Unvailed_ was published in 1834. So if the First Vision was the invention
of a
> "grand tradition to cancel out the stories of his fortune-telling and
> money-digging" as you're now suggesting, I have to ask: Why was it
> first written in 1831-32, two to three years before Howe's book started
> causing problems?
This cocky statement of Guy's shows that in his eagerness to discredit Brodie,
he unwittingly demonstrates his own ignorance of the facts. As quoted from
Brodie above, "Joseph's money-digging is well-established by the previous
court
record and newspaper stories...".
In another recent post, Guy referred to Abner Cole's 1830-31 "Palmyra
Reflector" articles which told of Smith's 1820's money-digging and
"peep-stoning," which obviously indicates that Guy is aware of those 1830-31
articles. Cole's articles, as well as many others published in 1830-31, are
the ones which Brodie referred to as the reasons why Smith concocted his
"first
vision" story in 1831-32, to "cancel out the stories of his fortune-telling
and
money-digging." IOW, neither Hurlbut's 1833 interviews, nor Howe's 1834
"Mormonism Unvailed" were the origin of the stories of Smith's occultic
activities, and therefore what Guy thinks is "another anachronism in Brodie's
work" is instead a demonstration of his own ignorance. Mormons like Guy have
been brainwashed by Mormon apologists to believe that Hurlbut/Howe invented
the
tales of Smith's "peep-stoning" in 1833; that lifelong indoctrination prevents
Guy from comprehending that reports of Smith's 1820's occultic activities were
published at least three years before Hurlbut even joined the Mormonite
church.
Alien wrote:
>Because people like his father in law had seen him using the same rock in a
hat trick for money-digging and BoM dictation at least four years before
Howe's book was written.
To repeat: Neither Hurlbut nor Howe had anything whatsoever to do with the
production of Isaac Hale's affidavit. In fact, Howe had to write Hale to
obtain permission to re-publish it in his book. Seeing as Hale gave his
permission, it's disingenuous for Mormon apologists to assert that Hale's
testimony was falsified or coached. And since his testimony is corroborated
by
Ingersoll's, it is pointless to question the veracity of either. And, again,
as the "Ensign" magazine quotes from both Ingersoll's and Hale's affidavits in
its February 2001 issue, perhaps Guy Briggs should contact the "Ensign"
editors
and politely ask them to stop quoting from sources which he is trying to
discredit here on ARM.
Guy wrote:
>Bwahahahahaha!
Guy waxes Shirtsian.
For the benefit of newcomers, I repeat below some more citations from
publications of 1830-31 that tell of Joseph Smith's 1820's activities, along
with some comments from me. I have already posted these three times this
year.
I hope that this fourth posting will stop Mormons like Guy Briggs and Woody
Brison from ever again repeating their deceitful "Hurlbut invented the stories
of
Smith's peep-stoning", but it probably won't.
<< Dale Broadhurst wrote:
>>I'm calling for papers --
>>
>> Your very old newspapers with articles on the Mormons, that is.
>>
>> Send your special requests, along with family heirlooms, and whatever
>> you can copy off the microfilm reels down at the FHC Library
>> to yer ever-lovin Unk.
Randy wrote:
Dale, an impressive collection. A few comments--- Your first article, from
the
Cincinnati Advertiser of June 2, 1830, is quite revealing:
"A fellow by the name of Joseph Smith, who resides in the upper part of
Susquehanna county, has been, for the last two years we are told, employed in
dedicating as he says, by inspiration, a new bible. He pretended that he had
been entrusted by God with a golden bible which had been always hidden from
the
world. Smith would put his face into a hat in which he had a white stone, and
pretend to read from it, while his coadjutor transcribed."
The article corroborates the "stone in the hat" version of the "translation,"
as opposed to Smith's later story of "two stones in silver bows." Considering
the earliness of the article, June 1830, it is closer to the original method
of
the "translation" as told by Smith's first "scribes"----Emma, Harris, Whitmer,
Joseph Knight, etc.---before Cowdery "happened" upon the scene. That makes
it
more obvious that Smith and Cowdery invented the "two stones in silver bows"
story sometime after June, 1830. Of course, we already know that Cowdery
and/or Phelps invented the "Urim and Thummim" story sometime after
that---meaning that the occultic, yet original "peep-stone" story evolved over
time into the "Urim and Thummim" version, in an attempt to give Smith's
practice
a Biblical stamp, and to shed the image of his 1820s "peep-stoning."
Next, the Cleveland Advertiser of August 31, 1831:
"Rigdon was formerly a disciple of Campbell's and who it is said was sent out
to make proselytes, but is probable he thought he should find it more
advantageous to operate on his own capital, and therefore wrote, as it is
believed the Book of Mormon, and commenced his pilgrimage in the town of
Kirtland, which was represented as one of the extreme points of the Holy
Land."
This assertion that Rigdon may have been the BOM's secret producer is the
earliest I've seen. Needless to say, it also dynamites the oft-repeated
Mormon
fallacy that
"Hurlbut invented the Spalding/Rigdon theory," because Hurlbut did not begin
his investigation until fully two years after this article was published.
Next, from the New York Inquirer of August 31, 1831:
"A few years ago the Smith's and others who were influenced by their notions,
caught an idea that money was hid in several of the hills which give variety
to
the country between the Canandaigua Lake and Palmyra on the Erie Canal. Old
Smith had in his pedling excursions picked up many stories of men getting rich
in New England by digging in certain places and stumbling upon chests of
money.
The fellow excited the imagination of his few auditors, and made them all
anxious to lay hold of the bilk axe and the shovel. As yet no fanatical or
religious character had been assumed by the Smith's. They exhibited the simple
and ordinary desire of getting rich by some short cut if possible. With this
view the Smith's and their associates commenced digging, in the numerous hills
which diversify the face of the country in the town of Manchester. The
sensible
country people paid slight attention to them at first. They knew them to be a
thriftless set, more addicted to exerting their wits than their industry,
readier at inventing stories and tales than attending church or engaging in
any
industrious trade. On the sides & in the slopes of several of these hills,
these excavations are still to be seen. They Would occasionally conceal their
purposes, and at other times reveal them by such snatches as might excite
curiosity. They dug these holes by day, and at night talked and dreamed over
the counties' riches they should enjoy, if they could only hit upon an iron
chest full of dollars. In excavating the grounds, they began by taking up the
green sod in the form of a circle of six feet diameter--then would continue to
dig to the depth of ten, twenty, and sometimes thirty feet."
This August, 1831 documentation of the Smith's money-digging practices is
important for at least two major reasons: One, it corroborates the affidavits
of the 1833 Palmyra and Harmony testators of the Smith's treasure-digging, yet
they were published two years before Hurlbut even went to NY to interview
Smith's neighbors; that again destroys the Mormon apologetic line that
Hurlbut
either invented his testators' stories or coached them.
Secondly, this article fleshes out both the intent and the extent of the
Smiths' money-digging band. Today's Mormon apologists trust Smith's story
that
he only treasure-hunted because Stowell talked him into looking for a "Spanish
silver mine," and that he only did it for about a month, and that Smith
advised
Stowell to
drop it. This article reveals that the Smiths' involvement was extensive,
well-known, and long-lasting, rather than the downplayed "about a month" story
Smith told in 1838. It gives high credibility to the accounts from Willard
Chase & Co. that the Smiths had been peep-stoning and/or treasure-digging
since
at least 1822. The 1831 article could not have come from Hurlbut; the news
had
to have come from people who actually knew the Smiths intimately in the late
1820s.
Of course, we already know all of this from other pre-Hurlbut sources,
including Cole's 1830 "Palmyra Reflector" articles and A. W. Benton's 1831
relating of Smith's 1826 and 1830 peep-stoning trials. The benefit of all
these articles is that they both pre-date, and are independent of Hurlbut, yet
they corroborate Hurlbut's findings; thus, it's disingenuous for Mormons
to
claim that Hurlbut invented it all.
It's one thing for Mormons to try to discredit Hurlbut's findings, or W. D.
Purple's or Emily Pearsall's much-later publications of the 1826 Bainbridge
trial account; it's quite another for Mormons to explain how numerous
articles
published in 1830
and 1831 could corroborate those from Hurlbut, Purple, and Pearsall, if the
latter three were false.
"At last some person who joined them spoke of a person in Ohio near
Painesville, who had a particular felicity in finding out the spots of ground
where money is hid and riches obtained. He related long stories how this
person
had been along shore in the east--how he had much experience in money digging
-- how he dreamt of the very spots where it could be found. "Can we get that
man here?" asked the enthusiastic Smiths. "Why," said the other, "I guess as
how we could by going for him." "How far off?" "I guess some two hundred miles
-- I would go for him myself but I want a little change to bear my expenses."
To work the whole money-digging crew went to get some money to pay the
expenses
of bringing on a man who could dream out the exact and particular spots where
money in iron chests was hid under ground. Old Smith returned to his
gingerbread factory -- young Smith to his financing faculties, and after some
time, by hook or by crook, they contrived to scrape together a little "change"
sufficient to fetch on the money dreamer from Ohio."
This "person from Ohio near Painesville---money dreamer from Ohio"---Who could
that have been?
"After the lapse of some weeks the expedition was completed, and the famous
Ohio man made his appearance among them. This recruit was the most cunning,
intelligent, and odd of the whole. He had been a preacher of almost every
religion -- a teacher of all sorts of morals. -- He was perfectly au fait with
every species of prejudice, folly or fanaticism, which governs the mass of
enthusiasts. In the course of his experience, he had attended all sorts of
camp-meetings, prayer meetings, anxious meetings, and revival meetings. He
knew
every turn of the human mind in relation to these matters. He had a superior
knowledge of human nature, considerable talent, great plausibility, and knew
how to work the passions as exactly as a Cape Cod sailor knows how to work a
whale ship. His name I believe is Henry Rangdon or Ringdon, or some such
word."
Yep, there it is---none other than Sidney Rigdon, of Ohio. Rigdon swore that
he had never met Smith before late 1830; yet, here's a newspaper article from
August 1831 naming him, and installing him into the Smith's circle of
occultists, before Smith
ever published the BOM or founded his church, and two years before Hurlbut
interviewed Smith's neighbors.
"About the time that this person appeared among them, a splendid excavation
was
begun in a long narrow hill, between Manchester and Palmyra. This hill has
since been called by some, the Golden Bible Hill. The road from Canandaigua to
Palmyra, runs along its western base. At the northern extremity the hill is
quite abrupt and narrow. It runs to the south for a half mile and then spreads
out into a piece of broad table land, covered with beautiful orchards and
wheat
fields. On the east, the Canandaigua outlet runs past it on its way to the
beautiful village of Vienna in Phelps. It is profusely covered to the top with
Beech, Maple, Bass, and White-wood -- the northern extremity is quite bare of
trees. In the face of this hill, the money diggers renewed their work with
fresh ardour, Ringdon partly uniting with them in their operations."
And here the article places Rigdon smack-dab in the middle of the diggings on
"Gold Bible Hill", known to Mormons as the "Hill Cumorah."
Now, how and why did this band of occult treasure diggers transform themselves
into a religious enterprise?
"It was during this state of public feeling in which the money diggers of
Ontario county, by the suggestions of the Ex-Preacher from Ohio, thought of
turning their digging concern into a religious plot, and thereby have a better
chance of working upon the credulity and ignorance of the [their] associates
and the neighborhood. Money and a good living might be got in this way. It was
given out that visions had appeared to Joe Smith -- that a set of golden
plates
on which was engraved the "Book of Mormon," enclosed in an iron chest, was
deposited somewhere in the hill I have mentioned. People laughed at the first
intimation of the story, but the Smiths and Rangdon persisted in its truth.
They began also to talk very seriously, to quote scripture, to read the bible,
to be contemplative, and to assume that grave studied character, which so
easily imposes on ignorant and superstitious people. Hints were given out that
young Joe Smith was the chosen one of God to reveal this new mystery to the
world; and Joe from being an idle young fellow, lounging about the villages,
jumped up into a very grave parsonlike man, who felt he had on his shoulders
the salvation of the world, besides a respectable looking sort of a blackcoat.
Old Joe, the ex-preacher, and several others, were the believers of the new
faith, which they admitted was an improvement in christianity, foretold word
for word in the bible. They treated their own invention with the utmost
religious respect. By the special interposition of God, the golden plates, on
which was engraved the Book of Mormon, and other works, had been buried for
ages in the hill by a wandering tribe of the children of Israel, who had found
their way to western New York, before the birth of christianity itself. Joe
Smith is discovered to be the second Messiah who was to reveal this word to
the
world and to reform it anew.
In relation to the finding of the plates and the taking the engraving, a
number
of ridiculous stories are told.--Some unsanctified fellow looked out the other
side of the hill. They had to follow it with humility and found it embedded
beneath a beautiful grove of maples. Smith's wife, who had a little of the
curiosity of her sex, peeped into the large chest in which he kept the
engravings taken from the golden plates, and straightway one half the new
Bible
vanished, and has not been recovered to this day. Such were the effects of the
unbelievers on the sacred treasure.
There is no doubt but the ex-parson from Ohio is the author of the book which
was recently printed and published in Palmyra and passes for the new Bible. It
is full of strange narratives--in the style of the scriptures, and bearing on
its face the marks of some ingenuity, and familiar acquaintance with the
Bible.
It is probable that Joe Smith is well acquainted with the trick, but Harris
the
farmer and the recent converts, are true believers."
Next:
"They were called translaters, but in fact and in truth they are believed to
be
the work of the Ex-Preacher from Ohio, who stood in the background and put
forward Joe to father the new bible and the new faith."
Once again, this article from August of 1831 asserts that Rigdon was the
actual
producer of what became the "Gold Bible."
It predates Hurlbut's investigation by two years, yet tells the same story.
That should effectively end, for intellectually honest people at least, the
Mormon contention that "Hurlbut invented the stories because he was a
'bitter apostate.' " Because of that, it gives even more credence to
Hurlbut's Ohio witnesses who testified of the Spalding/Rigdon connection.
Such published reports certainly sped Joseph Smith's removal from New York to
Ohio; his 1820's occultic activities were simply too well-known for him to
succeed as a "prophet" in his own country. Once he settled in Ohio, he began
downplaying his money-digging and "peep-stoning," and re-invented himself into
a Biblical-style "prophet" that was more conducive to drawing a following on
the frontier. It was during that same period that he penned the first version
of his "first vision," and the evidence indicates that he wrote that to
replace
his occultic past with a religious one, and to counter published reports of
his
1820's activities.
Looks like your "arrow in your quiver" against Brodie is broken, Guy.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: Wed, Aug 29, 2001 13:40 EDT
>Message-id: <f36171a3.01082...@posting.google.com>
>
>Glenn Thigpen <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote in message
>news:<3B89ABEE...@tcnet-nc.com>...
>>
>> Randy does not tell you that Judge Drummond had abandoned his wife
>> and family upon his appointment as a Utah Territorial Judge and brought
>> with him a prostitute whom he passed off as his wife (CHC Vol 4-Chapter
>> CIII with quotes from H. H. Bancroft and Jules Remy).
>
>Drummond used to lecture the Latter-day Saints on morals from
>the bench when he handed down sentences. Sometimes he had his
>hooker sit next to him while he did this.
So, Drummond had 55 less hookers than Brigham Young did.
>> Of course, one of Randy's athoritative sources (although he did not
>> quote her on this one), Ann Eliza Young (Wife Number Nineteen) states
>> that Almon Babbitt was murdered by the Mormons because he was an
>> apostate fleeing to the East.
>Wasn't this the gal that escaped BY's harem by leaping from an
>upper window of the Salt Lake Temple into the Salt Lake?
>
>Wood
No. Someday, you will hopefully learn the difference between fact and fiction.
Of course, sine you don't know the difference between fantasy and reality,
that's not likely to happen.
Randy J.
Glenn Thigpen
> Part 3 of 4
>
> Glenn Thigpen wrote:
>
> < Concerning the death of Almon Babbitt, Randy does not tell you that no
> credible report report, in any way implicates any whites, LDS or not.
>
> You still cannot get it through your head that the modus operandi of the
> Mormon Danites of the day was to commit crimes while disguised as Indians,
> so that
> they could blame such atrocities on the Indians. To repeat, from Josiah
> Gibbs, speaking of ten-year-old MMM survivor Charley Fancher:
>
> " It was from the lips of Charley Fancher, soon after his arrival from the
> vicinity of the tragedy, that I heard the first story of the massacre. In
> his childish way he said that "some of the Indians, after the slaughter,
> went to the little creek, and that after washing their faces they were
> white men." (Josiah Gibbs, "The Mountain Meadows Massacre.")
Although John D. Lee, who did not live near Salt Lake City, said that he
adopted Charley Fancher and gave him to one of his wives, Caroline, who
kept him until Dr. Forney took them back East. Wouldn't give Mr. Gibbs much
time to play marbles with him.
<snip the part about the Duke train. Do not know whether credible or not>
>>But in fact the reports of Indian agent Thomas Twiss (Nebraska Historical
> Society Vol 18, page 199), his brother-in-law, and his wife affirm that it
> was the Cheyenne Indians who perpetrated this act. (CHC Vol. 4, Chapter
> CIII)
>
> For all Twiss knew, that was the truth. However, the fact that Mormons
> committed crimes while disguised as Indians makes Twiss' comments
> irrelevant.
How so? Have you read the report? Do you know where Babbitt was killed?
> Of course, there is no way to determine today who killed
> Babbitt; but we can certainly examine conditions of the times, and the
> motives and operations of the Mormons, and arrive at a more believable
> presumption than Babbitt's death
> being a random murder by Cheyennes. For starters, why would "Cheyennes"
> kill this one single Mormon official, when the Mormons had made it a point
> to
> befriend, feed, and make alliances with all local Indians? If Cheyennes
> would
> kill Babbitt, then why not numerous other Mormons over the years, as well?
> It simply doesn't add up.
You have not done your homework. Babbitt was nowhere near Utah when he
was killed. He was a WHITE man. The Cheyenne had no way of knowing what his
religion was. Babbitt was not the only one killed. But the reason that he
was killed HAS been documented, and by whom. Now with your vast knowledge
of LDS history, tell us what Joel Hills Johnson said about what he found
out.His death was not a random murder. You just have not done your homework.
> What DOES add up is that a) Babbitt had quarreled
> with Brigham Young for years over numerous issues and b) at the time of
> his death, Babbitt was carrying the payroll of Utah Territorial officials
> from Washington.
Randy, you are blowing smoke. That Almon Babbitt was censured is a matter
of public record, by the Lord throuh Joseph Smith. So was Brigham Young and
many others. But there is no evidence that he was constantly quarrelling
with Brigham Young.
> Now, would "Cheyennes" be interested in obtaining any U. S. currency? Of
> course not. Then who WOULD? Obviously, someone who needed U. S.
> currency.
> Who, in the area, needed U. S. currency in 1856? Obviously, a group of
> people who were in the process of financing a war against the U. S.
> Government---Brigham Young and his Mormons.
Randy, now you are blowing hot air. This was September of 1856. There were
no preparations for war at the time. This did not start until almost a year
later. There was not even a hint of what was to come almost a year later.
>
> "Babbitt had been in and out of favor with the authorities of the church
> many
> times, beginning as early as the Kirtland days. Shortly after his death
> the rumor was started in the East, and given prominent space in the
> Eastern press, that he had quarreled with Brigham Young and that Brigham
> Young had ordered his
> death. It was also rumored in the East that Capatin Gunnison, a surveyor
> originally with the Stansbury expedition, who had been killed by Indians
> on the Sevier River in 1853, had really been put to death on orders of
> Brigham Young."
> ("Kingdom of the Saints," Ray B. West, p. 249.)
RUMORS!!!!! Not one shred of evidence!
>
> "During all the period from 1852 to 1856 numerous 'Gladdenites' and other
> apostate and recusant Mormons were frequently slipping away and crossing
> to California and Oregon; and many of these parties, as well as trains of
> Gentile emigrants, were harassed in various ways which could hardly be
> accounted for by
> Indian hostility. Almon W. Babbitt, having quarreled with Brigham,
> started across the plains in 1855 and was murdered 'by Indians who spoke
> good English;'
Not one scintilla of evidence.
> and of this case Brigham said, 'He lived a fool and died like a fool.
> When officers undertake to interefere with affairs that do not concern
> them, I will
> not be far off. He undertook to quarrel with me and soon after was killed
> by
> the Indians.' In 1852 Lieutenant Gunnison, M. Creuzfelt, the botanist,
> and eight of their party were massacred near Sevier Lake, as then
> reported; but, soon after escaped apostates stated that it was done by
> 'painted Mormons.' " ("Life in Utah, or the Mysteries and Crimes of
> Mormonism", J. H. Beadle.)
That has also been discredited. One corporal and three privates escaped
that massacre and reported it back to the larger group who had been
accompanying Captain Gunnison.
Lt. Beckwith, who assumed charge of the expedition after Captain
Gunnison's death made this report:
"The statement which has from time to time appeared or been copied in
various newspapers of the country, since the occurrence of these sad events,
charging the `Mormons' or `Mormon' authorities with instigating the Indians
to, if not actually aiding them in, the murder of Captain Gunnison and his
associates, is, I believe, not only entirely false, but there is no
accidental circumstance connected with it affording the slightest
foundation for such a charge."
Hogwash. You have just finished reporting:
***********************************************************************************
In 1852 Lieutenant Gunnison, M. Creuzfelt, the botanist,
> and eight of their party were massacred near Sevier Lake, as then
> reported; but, soon after escaped apostates stated that it was done by
> 'painted Mormons.' " ("Life in Utah, or the Mysteries and Crimes of
> Mormonism", J. H. Beadle.)
***********************************************************************************
>
> "During all the period from 1852 to 1856 numerous 'Gladdenites' and other
> apostate and recusant Mormons were frequently slipping away and crossing
> to California and Oregon; and many of these parties, as well as trains of
> Gentile emigrants, were harassed in various ways which could hardly be
> accounted for by
***********************************************************************************
Those are two of your sources which say that there were any number of
apostates who were slipping away and telling tales. Everybody is so afraid
to say anything because they will be killed, yet people are slipping away
all the time and running their mouth's about all of the people that are
getting killed, yet, they don't get killed.
Ann Eliza Webb is irrelevant.
>
>>states that Almon Babbitt was murdered by the Mormons because he was an
> apostate fleeing to the East. However every other source that I have
> offered on Babbitt aver that he was heading East to pick up the mail (he
> was a mail carrier), when he was killed. Check it out.
>
> Since Babbitt was carrying a government payroll, that was obviously a
> prime reason for his murder.
How obviously? Where do you find the information that he was carrying a
payroll? What evidence did Colonel Wharton have?
>
>>But it says much about her credibility.
>
> Since Webb did not mention Babbitt, this says nothing about her
> credibility,
> but it says much about yours. Not that we didn't already know you have no
> credibility concerning Mormon history.
>
> Randy J.
From Wife #19, Chapter 10:
Apostates were even more hardly dealt with than the Gentiles. One of
the old Mormons, named Almon Babbitt, was "killed by the Indians," on his
way to the States. Mr. Babbitt was among the first seventy apostles
appointed by Joseph Smith; he had been among those who went up to Missouri,
to "Zion's Camp," and was an eloquent preacher and advocate of Mormon
doctrines. After Brigham came into power, Babbitt became quite disaffected
towards the authorities, and left Utah to return to the States, when he was
overtaken by his doom.
She obivously DID mention Babbitt. It just was not one of your quotes,
which I pointed out. And Babbitt had not left Utah to return to the states
as a disaffected apostate. He was Secretary of Utah and had traveled back
on official business and was on his way back when he was killed.
Randy, your sources are garbage, which makes most of what you post garbage.
You have a few facts enlarged by lies, half-truths, and innuendo on which
you attempt to build your cases. Fortunately for the world, it is not
controlled by your viewpoint.
Fortunately for the world, we will not be judged by you and what you
produce as "evidence". We all will stand before a just and allknowing judge
at some point. God will judge Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John D. Lee, me,
and you. And I gurantee you that on that day, you will find out how wrong
that you have been. Those might sound like empty words to you at this time,
but I am saying this before the Lord also.
It is not too late for you to yield to the promptings of the Holy Ghost
and repent of the things that you have said, much as Thomas B. Marsh and
Orson Hyde did. I really hope that you do so. But as Thomas B. Marsh said,
"I found out that the Lord can get along without me" or something to that
effect.
I do not feel that any fruitful discussions with you are possible. Not
because I am afraid of the truth, but because I have not seen the truth
from you or your sources. You may rant all that you wish on the newsgroup,
but please to not fill my e-mail box with them.
Glenn
R. L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> Part 2 of 4
>
> Glenn Thigpen wrote:... ... ...
> ... ...
Randy:
> ... ... ...
€ Glenn -- My unsolicited advice is to read not. The adage "the truth
will set you free" does not apply to the mormonite religion. For TBMs,
unadjusted truth is not without danger.
cheers
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures
R. L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
€ Accurately citing Brodie is a rarity among mormonites. Perhaps they
assume that the oppositition doesn't have the chutspah to read a book that
was really and truely commissioned by The Devil hisself?.
> >... ...
€ An astoundingly thorough essay. Randy J.
R. L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
€ Few escape from the almighty juggernaut, Randy. Count yourself lucky.
Woody Brison
> >From: wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison)
> >Glenn Thigpen <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote...
> >>
> >> Randy does not tell you that Judge Drummond had abandoned his wife
> >> and family upon his appointment as a Utah Territorial Judge and brought
> >> with him a prostitute whom he passed off as his wife (CHC Vol 4-Chapter
> >> CIII with quotes from H. H. Bancroft and Jules Remy).
> >
> >Drummond used to lecture the Latter-day Saints on morals from
> >the bench when he handed down sentences. Sometimes he had his
> >hooker sit next to him while he did this.
>
> So, Drummond had 55 less hookers than Brigham Young did.
Brigham Young didn't have any hookers. He had a lot of wives.
There is a significant and fundamental difference. Parley Pratt
explained this to you.
http://web.lds.net/pages/wwbrison/pppratt.htm
> >> Of course, one of Randy's athoritative sources (although he did not
> >> quote her on this one), Ann Eliza Young (Wife Number Nineteen) states
> >> that Almon Babbitt was murdered by the Mormons because he was an
> >> apostate fleeing to the East.
>
> >Wasn't this the gal that escaped BY's harem by leaping from an
> >upper window of the Salt Lake Temple into the Salt Lake?
>
> No. Someday, you will hopefully learn the difference between fact and fiction.
Oh, different gal?
> Of course, sine you don't know the difference between fantasy and reality,
> that's not likely to happen.
So, you admit that some things are fantasy. Now to get you to
correctly sort them...
Here, I know. Tell your wife that there's no difference
between a wife and a prostitute. See how she reacts.
Wood
Glenn Thigpen
Glenn's tactic here was to call into question the credibility of Hans B.
Freece as a witness. Randy did not qualify in any way how Hans came by his
"information". Randy did not tell anyone that Hans was not in Utah during the time
of the MMM. And from his "offering" that Randy posted, there is not even a hint
that Hans is a secondhand source. And Hans does not tell anyone where he obtained
his information. He just put it out, much like Randy and his other sources do, and
expect those who read it to believe it.
According to all the information I have been able to glean from the Mountain
Meadows Association links, the Fancher party's worth was estimated to be around
seventy thousand dollars, noqhwere near the three hundred thousand that Hans
"offered", without divulging anything as to how he knew. But that is one of the
problems I have with Randy and his sources. He accepts it as gospel if it is
negative and cares not a whit about the credibility or motives of his "witness".
There may have been other reasons those people left. Let's take Garland Hurt,
for example.
ALLEGED "EXPEDITION'S" EFFORTS TO INCITE INDIANS AGAINST THE
SAINTS
In January, in consequence of great anxiety for the safety of Captain
Marcy, Colonel Johnston permitted Dr. Hurt, the Indian agent, to cross the
Uintah range of mountains in company with four Pah-Utah Indians to the Indian
villages located on the Uintah river. "It was his intention, in case of
need," says the chronicle, "to employ these Indians to warn Captain Marcy of
danger and afford him relief. It proved to be unnecessary to do so, and Dr.
Hurt returned in April." This was doubtless what Dr. Hurt was authorized to
do by the colonel; but what he really did was the following: Indian messengers
were sent to various tribes urging them to take sides with the "soldiers"
against the "Mormons" in the spring, and rumors were current among many bands
that they would be employed by the "soldiers" to "drive off the cattle and
horses of the Mormons as soon as the passes to Bridger were practicable."
From Uintah Dr. Hurt "sent frequent messages to have all the Utahs come out
and join in the onslaught upon the Mormons.' A number of such messages were
sent to Chief Arapeen of the Utahs, offering him large presents if he would
join the troops with his people for this purpose. "These items," writes
Secretary pro tem, W. H. Hooper, to Governor Cumming, "though but reports from
Indians, are so substantially corroborated by the facts, that I felt myself
bound in the discharge of my duty, to submit them.
CHC Vol. 4.
Negatory. The Stiles episode is chronicled by B. H Roberts also. Stiles wrote
his own letter. But according to Governor Cumming in a letter to the U.S Secretary
of State dated May 2 of 1858 states:
"Since my arrival I have been employed in examining the records of the
supreme and district courts which I am now prepared to report upon as being
perfect and unimpaired. This will doubtless be acceptable information to those
who have entertained an impression to the contrary. I have also examined the
legislative records and other book> belonging to the office of the secretary
of state, which are in perfect preservation. I believe that the books and
charts, stationery, and other property appertaining to the surveyor general's
office will, upon examination, be found in their proper place, except some
instruments which are supposed to have been disposed of by a person who was
temporarily in charge of the office. The condition of the large and valuable
territorial library has also commanded my attention, and I am pleased in being
able to report that Mr. W. C. Staines, the librarian, has kept the books and
records in most excellent condition."
>
>
> As to Cumming's own assessment of the Mormons, after having served as
> territorial governor for three years:
>
> "When Sir Richard Burton came to Great Salt Lake in 1860, the English explorer
> and writer found Governor Cumming disheartened because his 'scrupulous and
> conscientious impartiality' had only served to alienate other federal
> officials, who considered him to be a pacifist and had won no acceptance of him
> from the people. Still firmly in command was the territory's true governor,
> Brigham Young, while other federal officials, civil and military, had either
> quit in disgust or were getting ready to go. That year, Cumming reported that
> Utah was 'bordering on anarchy'.....Deeply disillusioned, the federal
> bureaucrat later reported his labors had been 'onerous and embarrassing' and
> asked for a leave of absence until a new appointee 'shall have arrived and
> qualified.' When asked how a successor wold get along, he replied, 'Get along?
> well enough, if he will do nothing. There is nothing to do. Alfred Cumming is
> Governor of the Territory, but Brigham Young is Governor of the people.' "
> (Bigler, p. 197-98.)
>
> Thus we see that even Cumming, who had worked for peace among the Mormons,
> became disgusted enough over their blind obedience to Brigham Young, that he
> resigned after only four years. And that further invalidates Glenn's ignorant
> depiction of Drummond as 'the bad guy who made up all those lies against the
> Mormons'.
>
We do not see that at all. If one were to follow Governor Cumming's career a
little further, it would be found that he left Utah and headed home to Georgia to
lend his assistance to the Southern States, as did Albert Sidney Johnston.
>
> The simple fact of the matter is that Brigham Young wanted to rule Utah
> Territory as a theocratic dictator, with no interference or oversight from
> federal officials; he and his minions harassed, intimitated, threatened, and/or
> perhaps murdered numerous federal appointees, to the point where they could not
> effectively do their jobs, and most of them returned east fearing for their
> lives. These activities occurred from Young's appointment as Governor in 1850
> to his forced ouster in 1858, and constituted the reasons for his removal.
There are no simple facts here, as Randy stated.
>
>
> >Randy does not tell you that : "died in Great Salt Lake City in June 1855 of
> an inflammation of the inner ear (compounded by the jurist's use of
> opium)".(Harold Schindler, Salt Lake tribune article "Saints Invited to Flock
> to Zion").
>
> Are you asserting that Drummond died in June 1855? If so, that was a true
> miracle in Mormon history, because he resigned as Associate Utah Supreme Court
> Justice on March 30, 1857. Knowing Harold Schindler to be a good historian, I
> find it hard to believe he wrote what you cited. I suggest you check your
> sources. Could it be that you found that bit of information secondhand in a
> "faith-promoting" pro-Mormon book, and you naively assumed it was the gospel
> truth?
I was referring to Judge Shaver, not Judge Drummond. I cited the source. Check
it.
Ladies and gentlemen, I invite all of you who have not done so to read the
Comprehensive History of The Church, Volume 4, by B. H. Roberts for another side
to the story about life in early Utah and the problems with some of the federal
officials that were sent to Utah. Randy disparages that work, but B. H. Roberts
documents his work very well. Check Roberts' documentation out against Randy's
sources. Read a number of Brigham Young's words from the Journal of Discourses.
Find out what he taught from day to day, week to week, year to year. If you only
take quotes here and there, a grossly distorted picture of the man and his
accomplishments will emerge.
But you may believe what you wish. Brother Brigham is long gone. He will be
judged by Someone who knows the full truth of all matters. And fortunately for all
of us, that same One will also judge us.
I will not be responding to any more of Randy's posts nor any of his insults. I
will leave him "severely alone". Any futher correspondence between us would only
be of "was so!" "was not" circle. I have too many things to occupy my time which
are more important to me than interminable arguments. Randy will of course
translate that for all of you, as he is a mindreader also, as he has demonstrated
on a number of occasions.
Glenn
R. L. Measures
<glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote:
> TheJordan6 wrote:
>
> > Part 2 of 4
> >
> > Glenn Thigpen wrote:
> >
> > > ... ... ...
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, I invite all of you who have not done so to read the
> Comprehensive History of The Church, Volume 4, by B. H. Roberts for
another side
> to the story ... ... ...
€ Roberts had another side to the story about the Book of Mormon. Joseph
Smith, Junior appears to have lifted story ideas for the Book of Mormon
from Masonic literature, newspaper stories, family stories his mother told
him, and three books - Ethan Smithąs View of the Hebrews (1825), James
Adairąs, A History of the American Indians (1775) and Josiah Priestąs The
Wonders of Nature and Providence (1824). Adair tried to prove that
American Indians had descended from the ancient Israelites. This theme is
also found in the Book of Mormon . On pages 377-378 of Adairąs book,
there are a series of phrases describing Indian fortifications that are
virtually identical to the phrases which describe the construction of
defensive forts in Alma 48-50 and 53. Mormon church historian, B. H.
Roberts, found 18 parallels between View of the Hebrews and the Book of
Mormon . Roberts wrote two manuscripts about the subject. The
manuscripts were suppressed for many years by the church. Eventually, the
manuscripts were published by the University of Illinois Press in *Studies
of the Book of Mormon* . Roberts wrote: łThe material in Ethan Smithąs
book is of a character and a quantity to make a ground plan for the Book
of Mormon. ˛ łCan such numerous and startling points of resemblance and
suggestive contact be merely coincidence?˛ {pages 240 and 242} łIf from
all that has gone before in Part 1, the view be taken that the Book of
Mormon is merely of human origin if it be assumed that he is the author
of it, then it could be said there is much internal evidence in the book
itself to sustain such a view.˛ łIn the first place there is a certain
lack of perspective in the things the book relates as history that points
quite clearly to an undeveloped mind as their origin. The narrative
proceeds in characteristic disregard of conditions necessary to its
reasonableness, as if it were a tale told by a child, with utter disregard
for consistency.˛ {Roberts, B.H. *Studies of the Book of Mormon*., page
251}
cheers, Glenn
Fool Speck
> Randy Jordan's reporting accuracy, credibility, etc. I am not going to
> engage in a debate on this matter, but will post my observations with
> supporting documentation and let those who read this article make up
> their own minds, although I think that most minds are already made up.
> Randy has a self proclaimed "vast knowledge" of LDS history, which
> should encompass facts/knowledge presenting both sides of an issue. I
> invite any perusers of this article to examine Randy's past posts on
> anything LDS and ascertain if he presents an impartial point of view. He
> claims to be presenting the plain and unvarnished truth.
>
> My first example wll be concerning the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It
> is Randy;s contention that Brigham Young had foreknowledge of the
> Mountain Meadows Massacre, and actually was the planner of the deed.
<snip>
> Glenn
This is the kind of rebuttal that I long to see from the apologists!
Good work, Glen. I feel you may have overreached some of your
conclusions a bit, but all in all it is a post good enough to send
some of us critics scrambling!
Steve Lowther
ARM Critics Guild
Fool Speck
that you have done a magnificent job in this and its accompanying
posts! You did some unnecessary jabbing personally at Glenn, however,
and IMO the quality of your posts suffered a bit for it.
All-in-all, you deserve kudos for a series of well-presented postings!
Excellent reading and quite informative! You met Glenn's challenge
and then some.
Steve Lowther
ARM Critics Guild
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message news:<20010904003059...@mb-ml.aol.com>...
Clovis Lark
> Randy, while I congratulated Glenn on his original post, I must say
> that you have done a magnificent job in this and its accompanying
> posts! You did some unnecessary jabbing personally at Glenn, however,
> and IMO the quality of your posts suffered a bit for it.
> All-in-all, you deserve kudos for a series of well-presented postings!
> Excellent reading and quite informative! You met Glenn's challenge
> and then some.
> Steve Lowther
> ARM Critics Guild
Wassup wit dis critix gild? Jabs are de rigueur on arm.
Clovis Lark
> <snip>
>> Glenn
Randy's contention is not his alone. It is a fact that BY had divided
Yewtah between the northern and southern NA nations. It is a fact that
local caucasian settlers of mormon faith were witnessed in war paint and
NA outfits partaking in raids. It is a fact that the Fancher party were
camped in the SLC vicinity. It is a fact that according to Hickman and
others, little occurred in the Deseret territory without BY's knowledge.
It is a fact that BY quickly took possession of Fancher property. It is a
fact that he personally oversaw the destruction of the Fancher monument.
It is a fact that he personally gave the order for the whacking of the
Aikens.
If any of this sounds odd, then the following related by Hickman is
offered as evidence:
"About this time all was still, and everybody supposed to be in their
beds. No person was to be seen, when Col. Jones and two others, Hosea
Stout and another man whose name I do not recollect, came to my camp-fire
and asked if Yates was asleep. I told them he was, upon which his brains
were knocked out with an ax. He was covered up with his blankets and left
laying. Picks and spades were brought, and a grave dug some three feet
deep near the camp by the fire-light, all hands assisting. Flack and
Meacham were asleep when the man was killed, but woke up and saw the grave
digging. The body was put in and the dirt well packed on it, after which
our camp-fire, which consisted of small wood and brush, was moved onto the
grave in order to prevent notice of a change
of ground. Our horses were immediately sent for, and we were off before
daylight; went to the next station, found my brother, got breakfast, and
arrived at Salt Lake that day.
The next day I took the nine hundred dollars, and we all went to
headquarters. Flack and I had a talk, as we went, about the money. He said
Brigham ought to give that to us as we had already been to more expense
than that money amounted to, from horses used up and other losses, and
urged me to get it. I told him I would try, saying to him: "You know how
much I have been out, and can testify to it, and I think he will give us a
part of it, anyway."
Soon after dark Flack and I went to Brigham's office. He asked how things
were going on out East, and I told him. He asked what had become of Yates?
I told him. He then asked if I had got word from him? I told him that I
had got his instructions at Jones' camp, and also of the word I had got
from his son Jo. He said that was right, and a good thing. I then told him
that I had nine hundred dollars given me to bring in, that Yates had at
the time he was captured. I told him of the expense I had been to during
the war, and asked him if I might have part of the money? He gave me a
reprimand for asking such a thing, and said it must go towards defraying
the expenses of the war. I pulled out the sack containing the money, and
he told me to give it to his clerk (I do not remember who he was now). The
money was counted, and we left. "
TheJordan6
>Date: 9/6/2001 3:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <da736b0d.01090...@posting.google.com>
Surely you noticed that in his responses, Glenn did the same thing that Xan Du
noted that Guy Briggs does, a couple of weeks ago---focus on trivialities and
"minutae", and ignoring the large, more important issues. Glenn harped on
minor points like the Hans Freece account, the Ann Eliza Webb account, and the
Almon Babbitt murder---none of which were even terribly material to the primary
issue, which is whether the MMM was an act instigated and committed by "local"
Mormons of southern Utah, or whether it was the product of institutional LDS
policies. By focusing on trivial side issues, Glenn attempts to shift the
discussion from "the people versus Mormonism" to "the people versus Hans
Freece" or "the people versus Ann Eliza Webb"---IOW, he's not defending his
client, he's trying the witnesses. This is the same tactic that O. J. Simpson's
lawyers successful employed, when they shifted the discussion from "the people
versus O. J. Simpson" to "the people versus Mark Fuhrman." It is obfuscation,
plain and simple.
Notice that Glenn refrained from tackling the documentation that showed the MMM
to be the product of premeditation by LDS church leaders. Note that he still
still failed to appreciate the impact of Dimick Huntington's journal telling of
giving the southern Utah Indians the
"cattle that had gone to California by the south route," and that mere days
later, those same Indians attacked the Fancher party on the "south route."
Note how Glenn inappropriately attempted to blame all the reports of Mormon
depradations on the "evil" W. W. Drummond, when the fact is, that numerous
territorial officials made similar reports and resigned their offices in
disgust, and some even fled Utah fearing for their lives. This tactic is
identical to the way Mormon apologists continue to assert that "the evil
Philastus Hurlbut was responsible for all the reports of Joseph Smith's
peep-stoning and money-digging"; their objective is to discredit those reports
by claiming Hurlbut was a "sinner" with an "axe to grind", but the simple fact
is that reports of Smith's peep-stoning and money-digging had been published
two to three years before Hurlbut even joined the Mormon church. And in
similar fashion, Drummond was not the only, nor even the first federal official
to complain of the Mormons' criminal habits and treasonous attitudes.
Apologists like Glenn merely try to use figures like Drummond as
"scapegoats"---thinking that if they can point out character flaws in people
like Drummond (or Hurlbut), that that will magically wash away every dubious
event in Mormon history, and thus they can retain their "faith" in Mormonism.
Note also Glenn's complete intellectual denial of the origination of the Danite
band in 1838. His list of names that we are supposed to "research" was
laughable; even some LDS historians are finally coming around to the fact that
Smith and Rigdon organized the Danites, rather than the supposed "renegade"
Avard. I documented all of this in great detail to Glenn last June, and he
simply refuses to deal honestly with that documentation, instead relying on the
revisionist "faithful history" that has been employed by Mormon apologists, but
which is soundly refuted by a careful study of contemporary accounts.
What all of this shows is that Glenn is merely a blind apologist in the Woody
Brison mold. He is either intellectually dishonest, or intellectually
incapable of analyzing the documentation and arriving at the most reasonable
and correct conclusions. His motivation is not to learn the facts and act
according to them, but to deny the facts so that he can maintain his chosen
worldview.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Randy's contention is not his alone. It is a fact that BY had divided
>Yewtah between the northern and southern NA nations. It is a fact that
>local caucasian settlers of mormon faith were witnessed in war paint and
>NA outfits partaking in raids. It is a fact that the Fancher party were
>camped in the SLC vicinity. It is a fact that according to Hickman and
>others, little occurred in the Deseret territory without BY's knowledge.
>It is a fact that BY quickly took possession of Fancher property. It is a
>fact that he personally oversaw the destruction of the Fancher monument.
>It is a fact that he personally gave the order for the whacking of the
>Aikens.
This looks like a good place to repeat an article:
Hinckley's Mountain Meadows Efforts Made Limited Progress
(The Dilemma of Blame)
Salt Lake Tribune 14Mar00 N6
http://www.sltrib.com/03142000/utah/33530.htm
By Christopher Smith: Salt Lake Tribune
MOUNTAIN MEADOWS, UTAH -- While the LDS Church sought last fall to
heal the wounds opened for 142 years, the legal and practical issues
of the attempt limited what could be said and how it could be
delivered. That, combined with the accidental discovery of the
remains of 29 of the victims thwarted much of what was gained by
building the memorial.
The descendants of the victims have long hoped for some kind of
apology from the LDS Church for the massacre, "What we've felt would
put this resentment to rest would be an official apology from the
church," says Scott Fancher of the Mountain Meadows Monument
Foundation in Arkansas, a group of direct descendants of the victims.
"Not an admission of guilt, but an acknowledgement of neglect and of
intentional obscuring of the truth."
But they weren't to get that, and current Mountain Meadows
Association president Gene Sessions says that the Church can't give
it, "You're not going to get an apology for several reasons, one of
which is that as soon as you say you're sorry, here come the
wrongful-death lawsuits," says Sessions. "If President Hinckley ever
contemplated he was going to open this can of worms he never would
have bothered to do this, because it asks embarrassing questions. It
raises the old question of whether Brigham Young ordered the massacre
and whether Mormons do terrible things because they think their
leaders want them to do terrible things."
LDS author Levi Peterson tries to explain the dilemna that the Church
and Church members face this way, "If good Mormons committed the
massacre, if prayerful leaders ordered it, if apostles and a prophet
knew about it and later sacrificed John D. Lee, then the sainthood of
even the modern church seems tainted," he has written. "Where is the
moral superiority of Mormonism, where is the assurance that God has
made Mormons his new chosen people?" Historian Will Bagley, who has
written a forthcoming book on the tragedy agrees, "The massacre has
left the Mormon Church on the horns of a dilemma," says Utah
historian Will Bagley, author of a forthcoming book on Mountain
Meadows. "It can't acknowledge its historic involvement in a mass
murder, and if it can't accept its accountability, it can't repent."
Another historian, David Bigler, says that part of the problem is
that the Mormons that committed the massacre were different from
today's LDS Church members, "The problem is that Mormons then were
not simply old-fashioned versions of Mormons today," says historian
David Bigler, author of Forgotten Kingdom. "Then, they were very
zealous believers; it was a faith that put great emphasis on the Old
Testament and the Blood of Israel." Sessions says for this reason the
individual members couldn't help getting involved, "Somebody made a
terrible decision that this has got to be done," he says. "I don't
justify it in any way. But I do believe it would have taken more guts
to stay home in Cedar City on those days in 1857 than it would to go
out there to the meadows and take part. You couldn't stay away. You
would have been out there killing people."
The LDS Church isn't alone in having to explain such problems. The
Catholic Church apologized recently for its treatment of the Jews
during its long history, a treatment that is much worse than Mountain
Meadows. And other religious groups have apologized for atrocities
also.
Ever since the massacre, historians have struggled to explain it.
While the massacre has been the subject of alternate explanations,
such as the often used story that Indians were behind the massacre,
historians say the evidence doesn't support these alternatives. The
first major book to deal with the tragedy was LDS historian Juanita
Brooks' "The Mountain Meadows Massacre." Brooks explained the
massacre by pointing out that the emigrants were from an Arkansas
county adjacent to where LDS Apostle Parley P. Pratt had recently
been murdered. Others said that the group included some Missourians
that persecuted Mormons 20 years earlier.
But none of these explanations are entirely satisfying to many
historians. Bagley's forthcoming "Blood of the Prophets" includes new
evidence which supports some assertions and blunts others. Bigler
says that no one explanation will give the whole truth, "When you
have 50 to perhaps more than 70 men participate in an event like
this, you can't just say they got upset," says Bigler, a Utah native.
"We have to believe they did not want to do what they did any more
than you or I would. We have to recognize they thought what they were
doing is what authority required of them. The only question to be
resolved is did that authority reach all the way to Salt Lake City?"
But when Juanita Brooks brought up this issue 50 years ago in "The
Mountain Meadows Massacre," she was labeled an apostate by some.
So it comes as no surprise that President Hinckley, delivering words
of reconciliation at the September 11, 1999 dedication of the rebuilt
monument, added a legal disclaimer, "That which we have done here
must never be construed as an acknowledgment of the part of the
church of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful day," The
disclaimer came at the recommendation of attorneys.
When Hinckley gave an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune on
February 23rd, he was asked where he would place the blame. He told
the Tribune, "Well, I would place blame on the local people. I've
never thought for one minute -- and I've read the history of that
tragic episode -- that Brigham Young had anything to do with it. It
was a local decision and it was tragic. We can't understand it in
this time."
At the dedication, Hinckley declared, "Let the book of the past be
closed," believing it pointless to continue speculating about why the
massacre happened. "None of us can place ourselves in the moccasins
of those who lived there at the time," he said in an interview. "The
feelings that were aroused, somehow, that I cannot understand. But it
occurred. Now, we're trying to do something that we can to honorably
and reverently and respectfully remember those who lost their lives
there."
Sessions, the Weber State University historian believes that the
issue is slowly reaching that point. He says that Hinckley's efforts
at reconciliation last year "may be the most significant event to
happen in Mountain Meadows since John D. Lee was executed." He says
that attitudes among Church members are changing.
Randy J.
Xan Du
Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:9n8kka$o9n$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu...
> Fool Speck <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Randy, while I congratulated Glenn on his original post, I must say
> > that you have done a magnificent job in this and its accompanying
> > posts! You did some unnecessary jabbing personally at Glenn, however,
> > and IMO the quality of your posts suffered a bit for it.
>
> > All-in-all, you deserve kudos for a series of well-presented postings!
> > Excellent reading and quite informative! You met Glenn's challenge
> > and then some.
>
> > Steve Lowther
> > ARM Critics Guild
>
> Wassup wit dis critix gild? Jabs are de rigueur on arm.
Guild or no guild, the point is that when conversations degenerate into poor
spelling, and even worse social protocol with endless statements of "your an
idiot", it ceases to even be entertaining, let alone informational.
I'm all for friendly banter, and even some earnest jabbing when the
situation calls for it. But I think intelligence and creativity are
required for a really good roasting of a poor argument. Most of what I'm
opposed to are unilateral claims of victory or "refutation", arguments
without supporting documentation or data, and "unnecessary roughness" when
defending one's own argument. Then there's the bigotry, labeling and
polemics.
So, when I accuse Rich Measures of dispensing "sour milk", I'm just toying
with him. He knows it, and we both have a little chuckle trying to get one
in on each other. But when ibapain (Rick) starts talking about
"intellectual voids" among intelligent LDS critics, I'm going to let his ass
have it.
No skin off my back if not one damn thing changes on ARM. I know who I like
to read. I either killfile or ignore everyone else. But that doesn't stop
me, nor should it stop me, from publicly advocating a better way.
For the record, I have always pretty much enjoyed what you have to say, and
how you say it.
-Xan
<snipped Randy J.'s excellent treatise on Danites>
Xan Du
Fool Speck <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da736b0d.01090...@posting.google.com...
Surely you *Jest*, Fool of Fools. <laugh>
What kind of argument is the following? "I invite any perusers of this
article to examine Randy's past posts on anything LDS and ascertain if he
presents an impartial point of view. He claims to be presenting the plain
and unvarnished truth."
Glenn Thigpen lecuring Randy J. on *impartiality*? The pot calleth the
kettle black, methinks.
CHUTZPAH!
-Xan
R. L. Measures
srlo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
€ Glenn is some piece of work. At times it seems that "Glenn" is the
product of a committee of antimormons who set out to design the ultimate
TBM. cheers. Steve.
R. L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
€ Glenn is on his way to becomming a better example than even Woody.
Congrats on the readable response, You could probably have gotten a job
with the Nauvoo Expositor.
cheers, Randy.
Clovis Lark
> Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:9n8kka$o9n$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu...
>> Fool Speck <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Randy, while I congratulated Glenn on his original post, I must say
>> > that you have done a magnificent job in this and its accompanying
>> > posts! You did some unnecessary jabbing personally at Glenn, however,
>> > and IMO the quality of your posts suffered a bit for it.
>>
>> > All-in-all, you deserve kudos for a series of well-presented postings!
>> > Excellent reading and quite informative! You met Glenn's challenge
>> > and then some.
>>
>> > Steve Lowther
>> > ARM Critics Guild
>>
>> Wassup wit dis critix gild? Jabs are de rigueur on arm.
> Guild or no guild, the point is that when conversations degenerate into poor
> spelling, and even worse social protocol with endless statements of "your an
> idiot", it ceases to even be entertaining, let alone informational.
How's 'bout "rediculous"?
> I'm all for friendly banter, and even some earnest jabbing when the
> situation calls for it. But I think intelligence and creativity are
> required for a really good roasting of a poor argument. Most of what I'm
> opposed to are unilateral claims of victory or "refutation", arguments
> without supporting documentation or data, and "unnecessary roughness" when
> defending one's own argument. Then there's the bigotry, labeling and
> polemics.
> So, when I accuse Rich Measures of dispensing "sour milk", I'm just toying
> with him. He knows it, and we both have a little chuckle trying to get one
> in on each other. But when ibapain (Rick) starts talking about
> "intellectual voids" among intelligent LDS critics, I'm going to let his ass
> have it.
> No skin off my back if not one damn thing changes on ARM. I know who I like
> to read. I either killfile or ignore everyone else. But that doesn't stop
> me, nor should it stop me, from publicly advocating a better way.
> For the record, I have always pretty much enjoyed what you have to say, and
> how you say it.
I'll try to correct this deficiency...
R. L. Measures
<cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> > news:9n8kka$o9n$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu...
> >> Fool Speck <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Randy, while I congratulated Glenn on his original post, I must say
> >> > that you have done a magnificent job in this and its accompanying
> >> > posts! You did some unnecessary jabbing personally at Glenn, however,
> >> > and IMO the quality of your posts suffered a bit for it.
> >>
> >> > All-in-all, you deserve kudos for a series of well-presented postings!
> >> > Excellent reading and quite informative! You met Glenn's challenge
> >> > and then some.
> >>
> >> > Steve Lowther
> >> > ARM Critics Guild
> >>
> >> Wassup wit dis critix gild? Jabs are de rigueur on arm.
>
> > Guild or no guild, the point is that when conversations degenerate into poor
> > spelling, and even worse social protocol with endless statements of "your an
> > idiot", it ceases to even be entertaining, let alone informational.
>
> How's 'bout "rediculous"?
>
€ guffaw
Xan Du
R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
news:2-0709010...@port111.dial.vcnet.com...
Have I been mispelling that again?
ridiculous
ridiculous
ridiculous
ridiculous
ridiculous
ridiculous
ridiculous
ridiculous
ridiculous
ridiculous
For the record, I typed each one. No control-v for me.
-Xan
Xan Du
> Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> > news:9n8kka$o9n$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu...
> >> Fool Speck <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Randy, while I congratulated Glenn on his original post, I must say
> >> > that you have done a magnificent job in this and its accompanying
> >> > posts! You did some unnecessary jabbing personally at Glenn,
however,
> >> > and IMO the quality of your posts suffered a bit for it.
> >>
> >> > All-in-all, you deserve kudos for a series of well-presented
postings!
> >> > Excellent reading and quite informative! You met Glenn's challenge
> >> > and then some.
> >>
> >> > Steve Lowther
> >> > ARM Critics Guild
> >>
> >> Wassup wit dis critix gild? Jabs are de rigueur on arm.
>
> > Guild or no guild, the point is that when conversations degenerate into
poor
> > spelling, and even worse social protocol with endless statements of
"your an
> > idiot", it ceases to even be entertaining, let alone informational.
>
> How's 'bout "rediculous"?
Well, that's how the word was said in my family growing up,
"Ree-dick-you-luss".
<laugh> ARM would mourn the loss if you did.
-Xan
Clovis Lark
Clovis Lark
I know of 5 or 6 humo(u)rless TBM's who would dance in the street...
Xan Du
I'm crushed!
-Xan
Xan Du
They're not why I'm here.
-Xan
R. L. Measures
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
€ I figgered you was being saintirical. / I got an e-mail from John
Manning today. He's in Brazil.
cheers, Xan
TheJordan6
>Date: 9/5/2001 3:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <f36171a3.01090...@posting.google.com>
>
>thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message
>news:<20010904010504...@mb-ml.aol.com>...
>> >From: wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison)
>> >Glenn Thigpen <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote...
>> >>
>> >> Randy does not tell you that Judge Drummond had abandoned his wife
>> >> and family upon his appointment as a Utah Territorial Judge and brought
>> >> with him a prostitute whom he passed off as his wife (CHC Vol 4-Chapter
>> >> CIII with quotes from H. H. Bancroft and Jules Remy).
>> >
>> >Drummond used to lecture the Latter-day Saints on morals from
>> >the bench when he handed down sentences. Sometimes he had his
>> >hooker sit next to him while he did this.
>> So, Drummond had 55 less hookers than Brigham Young did.
>Brigham Young didn't have any hookers. He had a lot of wives.
Brigham Young had only two wives, and only one living at a time. See "The
Teachings of Presidents of the Church---Brigham Young," 1997, published by the
LDS Church, p. vii.
>There is a significant and fundamental difference. Parley Pratt
>explained this to you.
> http://web.lds.net/pages/wwbrison/pppratt.htm
Parley P. Pratt was murdered for messing around with another man's wife. Since
he obviously understood less about the sacredness and legality of the marriage
contract than I do, his opinions and 50 cents will buy you a cup of Postum.
>> >> Of course, one of Randy's athoritative sources (although he did not
>> >> quote her on this one), Ann Eliza Young (Wife Number Nineteen) states
>> >> that Almon Babbitt was murdered by the Mormons because he was an
>> >> apostate fleeing to the East.
>> >Wasn't this the gal that escaped BY's harem by leaping from an
>> >upper window of the Salt Lake Temple into the Salt Lake?
>> No. Someday, you will hopefully learn the difference between fact and
>fiction.
>Oh, different gal?
No, Woody. No "gal" at all.
Ann Eliza Webb left SLC, and Brigham Young's domination of her, in 1874. She
toured the country lecturing on the evils of Mormon polygamy, and the absolute
power of Brigham Young, immediately thereafter. She published her memoirs
"Wife Number Nineteen" in 1875.
When Brigham Young died in 1877, the Salt Lake Temple had risen only twenty
feet above the ground. It was not completed or dedicated until 1893.
So as to whether or not Ann Eliza Webb "escaped BY's harem by leaping from an
upper window of the Salt Lake Temple in the Salt Lake," I assume that even you
can do the math and cipher the answer for yourself.
For those who wish to read Webb's book, it's online at
http://www.concordance.com/cgi-bin/contr.pl
Her account of leaving SLC begins in chapter XXXVlll.
>> Of course, sine you don't know the difference between fantasy and reality,
>> that's not likely to happen.
>So, you admit that some things are fantasy. Now to get you to
>correctly sort them...
Yes, some things are fantasy. For instance, suppose you provide us with the
reference about the girl who escaped from BY's harem by leaping from the SLC
temple. And then tell us how that could happen, when BY died in 1877, and the
temple was no taller than a house at the time.
>Here, I know. Tell your wife that there's no difference
>between a wife and a prostitute. See how she reacts.
>
>Wood
My wife knows the difference between a wife and a prostitute. A wife has a
marriage certificate to the man she is having sex with, and a prostitute does
not.
"In Young v. Young, Ann Eliza Webb Young sued Brigham Young for divorce in
1873, claiming neglect, cruel treatment, and desertion (CHC 5:442-43).
...Claiming that Young was worth $8 million and had a monthly income of
$40,000, she asked for $1,000 per month pending the trial, a total of $20,000
for counsel fees, and $200,000 for her maintenance. Brigham Young denied her
charges and claimed to have a worth of only $600,000 and a monthly income of
$6,000. ***More fundamentally, he pointed out the inconsistency of granting a
divorce and alimony for a marriage that was not legally recognized."*** (Zion
in the Courts-A Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, 1830-1900 by Firmage and Mangrum, 1988, Univ. of Ill. Press, p.249)
"Several civil cases involving Brigham Young came before McKean's court, but
undoubtedly the most celebrated was the attempt of Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young,
the Prophet's twenty-seventh wife, to sue for divorce. The facts of the case
are well known and need not be reiterated here. Judge Emerson at first referred
the case to the probate courts. After the passage of the Poland Act, it was
again returned to the Third District Court where McKean heard it. ***Brigham
Young filed a counter petition stating that, though it was unknown to him
previously, Ann Eliza was not divorced at the time of the marriage, which was
at any rate a ‘plural or celestial marriage’ and thus not legal. The
defendant was, in addition, legally married to Mary Ann Angell.***
"McKean placed the burden of proof on Young and ordered him to pay $500 per
month alimony pending the outcome. He rightly pointed out that no matter what
sort of marriage his union with Ann Eliza had been, it was a legal marriage,
provided both parties were competent to marry, because Utah had no laws
governing marriage. In Utah, it was incumbent upon Young to prove, either that
Ann Eliza was not divorced from James L. Dee at the time of the plural
marriage, or that he was legally married to Mary Ann Angell. If he could do so,
McKean said that he would sustain Young's position.
"This ruling, of course, placed Brigham Young on the horns of a dilemma. It
would be impossible to prove that Dee and Ann Eliza were not legally divorced
because the Poland Act had legalized all action of probate courts where their
divorce had taken place. On the other hand, if he were actually to prove he was
legally married to Mary Ann Angell, he would be bringing evidence which might
have led to his conviction under the Morrill Act because of his prior admission
under oath that he had also married Ann Eliza. Young chose simply to appeal to
the territorial supreme court. He failed, however, to follow the proper
procedure and on March 11, 1875, McKean sentenced the Prophet to a fine of $25
and one day imprisonment for contempt of court. *** Later, the divorce suit
was thrown out after the intervention of the United States Attorney General on
the ground that Ann Eliza could not have been Brigham Young's legal wife.***
"In addition to demonstrating McKean's poor judgment in some matters, the
Ann Eliza case served to show that the Mormons never bothered to define any
legal status for plural wives. The only sanctions which the Church imposed were
moral and religious, and anyone who chose to disregard them could do so with
legal, and sometimes even religious, impunity. ***Brigham Young argued that
the marriage could have no validity at law--that it was only an ecclesiastical
affair.*** Yet on other occasions, Mormons argued that plural wives should
have the same rights as did legal wives and they complained at the prosecution
for adultery with plural wives. On occasion, as when George Q. Cannon was
indicted for polygamy, they took the position that each polygamous wife was
also a legal wife." (Dialogue:A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol.1, No.3,
p.91-92, ‘Federal Authority Versus Polygamic Theocracy: James B. McKean and
the Mormons 1870-1875,’ by Thomas G. Alexander)
It has never been legal at any time for anyone to be married to more than one
living person at a time. That's exactly why Brigham Young attempted to avoid
paying Ann Eliza alomony by claiming that their relationship was not a legal
marriage, and the court agreed with him.
You can call all of BY's women, except for Mary Ann Angell, "hookers,"
"prostitutes," "kept women," or any number of terms. But the one thing you
can't call them is "legal wife."
The Webb vs. Young case also demonstrated one of the great evils of Mormon
polygamy: Mormon "priesthood holders" could pontificate about how "righteous"
and "holy" their system was, but if one of their women decided she no longer
wished to be a part of it, she had no legal claim to alimony or maintenance.
She could be put out on the street without a penny, as Brigham Young did to Ann
Eliza.
Randy J.
Bill Williams
"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010907223029...@mb-md.aol.com...
That link won't work, since it's a page generated with CGI programming. You
can read or search Webb's book at www.concordance.com/19wf.htm.
Bill Williams
dangerous1
>
>
> The Webb vs. Young case also demonstrated one of the great evils of Mormon
> polygamy: Mormon "priesthood holders" could pontificate about how "righteous"
> and "holy" their system was, but if one of their women decided she no longer
> wished to be a part of it, she had no legal claim to alimony or maintenance.
> She could be put out on the street without a penny, as Brigham Young did to Ann
> Eliza.
>
> Randy J.
come on Randy, you know polygamy "is not doctrinal".
dangerous1
Think global, act loco
***************************************************************
<http://www.users.qwest.net/~dmarchant1/index.htm>
R. L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
€ However, both have contracts. One is written and one is oral.
> "In Young v. Young, Ann Eliza Webb Young sued Brigham Young for divorce in
> 1873, claiming neglect, cruel treatment, and desertion (CHC 5:442-43).
> ...Claiming that Young was worth $8 million and had a monthly income of
> $40,000, she asked for $1,000 per month pending the trial, a total of $20,000
> for counsel fees, and $200,000 for her maintenance. Brigham Young denied her
> charges and claimed to have a worth of only $600,000 and a monthly income of
> $6,000. ***More fundamentally, he pointed out the inconsistency of granting a
> divorce and alimony for a marriage that was not legally recognized....
€ Following in Slippery Joseph's footsteps.
> ...
cheers, Randy
CommUnitarian
wrote:
>>
>> >> >Wasn't this the gal that escaped BY's harem by leaping from an
>> >> >upper window of the Salt Lake Temple into the Salt Lake?
>>
>> >> No. Someday, you will hopefully learn the difference between fact and
>> >fiction.
Yep, the feat of leaping from the Salt Lake Temple into the lake, which I
have been told is at least a couple of miles away, is a feat worthy of the
heroes of the Book of Mormon.
>> >Here, I know. Tell your wife that there's no difference
>> >between a wife and a prostitute. See how she reacts.
The Book of Mormon says that polygamy is just legalized prostitution. So
the plural wife actually is a prostitute. However, if the husband has any
continuing use for her, he will not make her cognizant of this fact.
For, behold, thus says the Lord, "This people begin to wax in iniquity;
they understand not the scriptures; for they seek to excuse themselves in
committing whoredoms because of the things which were written concerning David
and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and
concubines, which thing was abominable before me," says the Lord.
>***More fundamentally, he pointed out the inconsistency of granting a
>> divorce and alimony for a marriage that was not legally recognized....
>
In other words, Brother Brigham forthrightly dismissed his plural wife as a
common whore who was not entitled to any respect, or any of his property. Even
the Koran commands better treatment of a plural wife than this.
Joseph Smith did the same. When he was "honeymooning" with a plural wife,
she was bound to him in a sacred relationship that demanded respect and honor
above and beyond what any mere human law could require. When he was facing
investigation for bigamy, he claimed that he had only one legal wife, i.e., all
these other women were mere prostitutes who were not smart enough to get the
money up front.
We need a new revelation, Section 132A, which would clarify that the
plural wife is to demand a prenuptial contract that is binding whether or not
the husband chooses to regard the marriage as either sacred or legal.
Raleigh
Confucious say: Man who eat beans not king of castle, but always has castle all
to self.
R. L. Measures
grale...@cs.comRLDS (CommUnitarian) wrote:
> >2...@vc.net (R. L. Measures)
>
> wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
€ I wrote none of what's below, Raleigh.
------------------------------------------------------
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures
Clovis Lark
Hows that? I'm sitting here making an honest living and can't come up
with the dough or time to get there...
R. L. Measures
<cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote:
> > In article <9nasdh$6cftk$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> >> news:2-0709010...@port111.dial.vcnet.com...
> >> > In article <9naj4s$vv2$2...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
> >> > <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> >> > > > news:9n8kka$o9n$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu...
> >> > > >>... ...
> >> > > How's 'bout "rediculous"?
> >> > >
> >> > ? guffaw
> >>
> >> Have I been mispelling that again?
> >>
> > € I figgered you was being saintirical. / I got an e-mail from John
> > Manning today. He's in Brazil.
>
> Hows that? I'm sitting here making an honest living and can't come up
> with the dough or time to get there...
€ Apparently, Rio de Janerio would have met with Prophet Smith's approval
since many teenbabes there are employed in work that requires clothes removal.
cheers
Woody Brison
>
> Yes, some things are fantasy. For instance, suppose you provide us with the
> reference about the girl who escaped from BY's harem by leaping from the SLC
> temple. And then tell us how that could happen, when BY died in 1877, and the
> temple was no taller than a house at the time.
OK, I'll try to find it. It's a hilarious gaffe made by an antimormon
author.
Note that there's no need to do a lot of math on them years and
heights of the building and stuff. The lake is several miles
from the Temple.
[I had written]
> >Here, I know. Tell your wife that there's no difference
> >between a wife and a prostitute. See how she reacts.
>
> My wife knows the difference between a wife and a prostitute. A wife has a
> marriage certificate to the man she is having sex with, and a prostitute does
> not.
How wonderful that you could finally admit this, even if crudely
is the only way you know how to put it.
> "In Young v. Young, Ann Eliza Webb Young sued Brigham Young for divorce in
> 1873, claiming neglect, cruel treatment, and desertion (CHC 5:442-43).
How could she sue for divorce unless she thought she was married
to him?
> ...Claiming that Young was worth $8 million and had a monthly income of
> $40,000, she asked for $1,000 per month pending the trial, a total of $20,000
> for counsel fees, and $200,000 for her maintenance.
Why does your skepticism not kick in here? Isn't it pretty
obvious what Ann was trying?
> "McKean placed the burden of proof on Young and ordered him to pay $500 per
> month alimony pending the outcome. He rightly pointed out that no matter what
> sort of marriage his union with Ann Eliza had been, it was a legal marriage,
> provided both parties were competent to marry, because Utah had no laws
> governing marriage.
Nice to see you firing more torpedoes at your little bathtub
fleet even as it's sinking. Plural marriage was not illegal
in Utah.
> It has never been legal at any time for anyone to be married to more than one
> living person at a time.
Except in Utah at that time, and every other place and time
without laws against it. Other than those, which is most of
the earth, sure.
It's always fun to see you come out with these bombs.
> You can call all of BY's women, except for Mary Ann Angell, "hookers,"
> "prostitutes," "kept women," or any number of terms.
Until you stand before God.
> The Webb vs. Young case also demonstrated one of the great evils of Mormon
> polygamy: Mormon "priesthood holders" could pontificate about how "righteous"
> and "holy" their system was, but if one of their women decided she no longer
> wished to be a part of it, she had no legal claim to alimony or maintenance.
> She could be put out on the street without a penny, as Brigham Young did to Ann
> Eliza.
Nonsense, he offered her a generous settlement, just declined to give
her half of the value of Utah like she tried to get the court to
award her.
Wood
Clovis Lark
> In article <9neb7l$ek2$2...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
> <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote:
>> > In article <9nasdh$6cftk$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
>> > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:2-0709010...@port111.dial.vcnet.com...
>> >> > In article <9naj4s$vv2$2...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
>> >> > <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>> >> > > > news:9n8kka$o9n$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu...
>> >> > > >>... ...
>> >> > > How's 'bout "rediculous"?
>> >> > >
>> >> > ? guffaw
>> >>
>> >> Have I been mispelling that again?
>> >>
>> > € I figgered you was being saintirical. / I got an e-mail from John
>> > Manning today. He's in Brazil.
>>
>> Hows that? I'm sitting here making an honest living and can't come up
>> with the dough or time to get there...
> € Apparently, Rio de Janerio would have met with Prophet Smith's approval
> since many teenbabes there are employed in work that requires clothes removal.
Not to mention the many teenboyz hangin' by the lavatories in Maracana...
Xan Du
> Manning today. He's in Brazil.
I'm glad he finally made it. He's on a "mission" again, yes?
-Xan
R. L. Measures
<cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
€ sounds like the king of pop might like it.
R. L. Measures
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:2-0709011...@port111.dial.vcnet.com...
> > In article <9nasdh$6cftk$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > ... ...
> > ? ... ... I got an e-mail from John
> > Manning today. He's in Brazil.
>
> I'm glad he finally made it. He's on a "mission" again, yes?
>
€ He's seemingly on sabbatical. But today he sounded sorta like he was
missin' the fray.
cheers
Clovis Lark
Macaques????
R. L. Measures
<cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
€ I don't know the meaning of this word.
Clovis Lark
A type of small monkey indigenous to Brasil...
R. L. Measures
<cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote:
> > In article <9nl67h$9ab$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
> > <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> >> ... ...
> >> >> Not to mention the many teenboyz hangin' by the lavatories in
Maracana...
> >> >>
> >> > € sounds like the king of pop might like it.
> >>
> >> Macaques????
> >>
> > € I don't know the meaning of this word.
>
> A type of small monkey indigenous to Brasil...
>
€ Thanks. If it's pronounced "mah-kack", I've heard of the creature. Is
it the sort of animal that Jacko would be likely to keep at Neverland?
thanks
Clovis Lark
> In article <9nlgup$av1$2...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
> <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote:
>> > In article <9nl67h$9ab$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
>> > <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >> ... ...
>> >> >> Not to mention the many teenboyz hangin' by the lavatories in
> Maracana...
>> >> >>
>> >> > € sounds like the king of pop might like it.
>> >>
>> >> Macaques????
>> >>
>> > € I don't know the meaning of this word.
>>
>> A type of small monkey indigenous to Brasil...
>>
> € Thanks. If it's pronounced "mah-kack", I've heard of the creature. Is
> it the sort of animal that Jacko would be likely to keep at Neverland?
I leave this to your vivid imagination. Now back to Leavitt's Backhoe...
Xan Du
> In article <9nitff$7k8gg$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> > news:2-0709011...@port111.dial.vcnet.com...
> > > In article <9nasdh$6cftk$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > ... ...
> > > ? ... ... I got an e-mail from John
> > > Manning today. He's in Brazil.
> >
> > I'm glad he finally made it. He's on a "mission" again, yes?
> >
> missin' the fray.
Notoriety is fiendishly addictive, it would seem. Many besides John Manning
exhibit the signs of such craving for attention.
-Xan
R. L. Measures
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:2-1009012...@port86.dial.vcnet.com...
> > In article <9nitff$7k8gg$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> > > news:2-0709011...@port111.dial.vcnet.com...
> > > > In article <9nasdh$6cftk$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > > > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ... ...
> > > > ? ... ... I got an e-mail from John
> > > > Manning today. He's in Brazil.
> > >
> > > I'm glad he finally made it. He's on a "mission" again, yes?
> > >
> > ? He's seemingly on sabbatical. But today he sounded sorta like he was
> > missin' the fray.
>
> Notoriety is fiendishly addictive, it would seem. Many besides John Manning
> exhibit the signs of such craving for attention.
>
€ Indeed, Xan. "The sins of the fathers are visited on the children".
- Henrik Ibsen.
Xan Du
> In article <9nmsk4$8agnq$5...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> > news:2-1009012...@port86.dial.vcnet.com...
> > > In article <9nitff$7k8gg$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:2-0709011...@port111.dial.vcnet.com...
> > > > > In article <9nasdh$6cftk$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > > > > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > ... ...
> > > > > ? ... ... I got an e-mail from John
> > > > > Manning today. He's in Brazil.
> > > >
> > > > I'm glad he finally made it. He's on a "mission" again, yes?
> > > >
> > > ? He's seemingly on sabbatical. But today he sounded sorta like he
was
> > > missin' the fray.
> >
> > Notoriety is fiendishly addictive, it would seem. Many besides John
Manning
> > exhibit the signs of such craving for attention.
> >
> - Henrik Ibsen.
That applies to me in *so* many ways.
-Xan
R. L. Measures
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:2-1209010...@port89.dial.vcnet.com...
> > In article <9nmsk4$8agnq$5...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > .... ...
> > ? Indeed, Xan. "The sins of the fathers are visited on the children".
> > - Henrik Ibsen.
>
> That applies to me in *so* many ways.
>
€ When I was younger I assumed there were many good fathers. Now that I
automatically get the Senior's discount at Supercuts, I seem to see this
with a bit more clarity. Good fathers are indeed a rarity.
cheers -Xan
Xan Du
> In article <9no9lo$951s2$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> > news:2-1209010...@port89.dial.vcnet.com...
> > > In article <9nmsk4$8agnq$5...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > .... ...
> > > ? Indeed, Xan. "The sins of the fathers are visited on the
children".
> > > - Henrik Ibsen.
> >
> > That applies to me in *so* many ways.
> >
> automatically get the Senior's discount at Supercuts, I seem to see this
> with a bit more clarity. Good fathers are indeed a rarity.
It goes the other way too. The older I get, the wiser my father gets.
-Xan
R. L. Measures
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:2-1209011...@port102.dial.vcnet.com...
> > In article <9no9lo$951s2$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> > > news:2-1209010...@port89.dial.vcnet.com...
> > > > In article <9nmsk4$8agnq$5...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > > > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > .... ...
> > > > ? Indeed, Xan. "The sins of the fathers are visited on the
> children".
> > > > - Henrik Ibsen.
> > >
> > > That applies to me in *so* many ways.
> > >
> > ? When I was younger I assumed there were many good fathers. Now that I
> > automatically get the Senior's discount at Supercuts, I seem to see this
> > with a bit more clarity. Good fathers are indeed a rarity.
>
> It goes the other way too. The older I get, the wiser my father gets.
>
> -Xan
>
€ When I was 15 I thought my father was out to lunch. When I was 25 I
realized that I had been acting like a stupid teenager.
Fool Speck
> > Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > How's 'bout "rediculous"?
>
> Well, that's how the word was said in my family growing up,
> "Ree-dick-you-luss".
Yeah, that's right. Comes from the word "diculous". If something was
diculous once, and is again, then it is re-diculous.
OK. I know. I know.
Xan Du
Fool Speck <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da736b0d.01091...@posting.google.com...
Hmm. I know what "redundant" is, but what is "dundant"?
> OK. I know. I know.
:)
-Xan
TheJordan6
>>Yes, some things are fantasy. For instance, suppose you provide us with the
reference about the girl who escaped from BY's harem by leaping from the SLC
temple. And then tell us how that could happen, when BY died in 1877, and the
temple was no taller than a house at the time.
>OK, I'll try to find it.
Please do.
>It's a hilarious gaffe made by an antimormon author.
Until you cite the source, we don't know WHO wrote it, or whether you just made
it up.
>Note that there's no need to do a lot of math on them years and heights of the
building and stuff.
The reason I wrote that is so that even you could deduce that the proposition
of doing such a thing is preposterous, so there is little point in repeating an
obviously false story.
>The lake is several miles from the Temple.
I know that. You know that. Ann Eliza Webb knew that, because she lived in
SLC for 30 years. It's not in her book, either, so I recommend that you cease
theorizing that the story originated from her.
>>> [I had written] Here, I know. Tell your wife that there's no difference
between a wife and a prostitute. See how she reacts.
>>My wife knows the difference between a wife and a prostitute. A wife has a
marriage certificate to the man she is having sex with, and a prostitute does
not.
>How wonderful that you could finally admit this, even if crudely is the only
way you know how to put it.
I've known it all along. The point is that no Mormon "plural wife", at any
time, had a legal marriage certificate that made her legally wed to any Mormon
man. And that means that all Mormon "plural marriages" were adulterous
relationships, and all the children born of those relationships were
illegitimate.
>>"In Young v. Young, Ann Eliza Webb Young sued Brigham Young for divorce in
1873, claiming neglect, cruel treatment, and desertion (CHC 5:442-43).
>How could she sue for divorce unless she thought she was married to him?
Because she hoped to plead a case for "common-law marriage," wherein a man must
pay alimony to a woman he lived with without a legal marriage re: Lee Marvin.
>> ...Claiming that Young was worth $8 million and had a monthly income of
$40,000, she asked for $1,000 per month pending the trial, a total of $20,000
for counsel fees, and $200,000 for her maintenance.
>Why does your skepticism not kick in here? Isn't it pretty obvious what Ann
was trying?
Yes. She was trying to kick Young where it would hurt him the worst---his
pocketbook. But the amount of money she asked for is irrelevant to the point
of this discussion.
>> "McKean placed the burden of proof on Young and ordered him to pay $500 per
month alimony pending the outcome. He rightly pointed out that no matter what
sort of marriage his union with Ann Eliza had been, it was a legal marriage,
provided both parties were competent to marry, because Utah had no laws
governing marriage.
>Nice to see you firing more torpedoes at your little bathtub fleet even as
it's sinking. Plural marriage was not illegal in Utah.
The quote states that the Utah Territory "had no laws governing marriage."
That means that the territory had passed no laws concerning ANY type of
marriage. And THAT means that the only legal marriages were those which were
solemnized in other civil jurisdictions. For instance, Brigham Young was
civilly married to Mary Ann Angell in Ohio in 1832. That was his only legal
marital status during the remainder of his life. Ann Eliza Webb couldn't even
successfully sue him as a "common-law" wife, because a man cannot have a legal
wife and a "common-law" wife simultaneously.
And on top of that---Young's "plural marriage" to Ann Eliza occurred in 1874.
"Congress passed the first antipolygamy legislation, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy
Act, in 1862. This bill defined bigamy as the act of remarrying when one
already had a living husband or wife. The Morrill law punished bigamy with a
five-hundred-dollar fine and five-year imprisonment." "My Kingdom Shall Roll
Forth: Readings in Church History," p. 54, published by the LDS Church, 1979.)
This means that contrary to your assertion, Young's 1874 "plural sealing" to
Webb was in direct violation of the pre-existing Morrill Act.
>> It has never been legal at any time for anyone to be married to more than
one living person at a time.
>Except in Utah at that time, and every other place and time without laws
against it. Other than those, which is most of the earth, sure.
Refuted above. For readers new to ARM---This is a good place for me to point
out Woody's deceitful tactic of snipping out portions of documentation that
refute his assertions. By deleting those portions, he dishonestly gives the
impression that he is "winning" the debate. Therefore, I will repeat the
portions of my earlier post which Woody snipped out, that completely refute his
assertions. The most relevant portions are in ***asterisks***:
"Brigham Young denied her charges and claimed to have a worth of only $600,000
and a monthly income of $6,000. ***More fundamentally, he pointed out the
inconsistency of granting a divorce and alimony for a marriage that was not
legally recognized."*** (Zion
in the Courts-A Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, 1830-1900 by Firmage and Mangrum, 1988, Univ. of Ill. Press, p.249)
"***BrighamYoung filed a counter petition stating that, though it was unknown
to him
previously, Ann Eliza was not divorced at the time of the marriage, which was
at any rate a plural or celestial marriage and thus not legal. The defendant
was, in addition, legally married to Mary Ann Angell.***"
"on March 11, 1875, McKean sentenced the Prophet to a fine of $25 and one day
imprisonment for contempt of court. *** Later, the divorce suit was thrown out
after the intervention of the United States Attorney General on the ground that
Ann Eliza could not have been Brigham Young's legal wife.***
"In addition to demonstrating McKean's poor judgment in some matters, the
Ann Eliza case served to show that the Mormons never bothered to define any
legal status for plural wives. The only sanctions which the Church imposed were
moral and religious, and anyone who chose to disregard them could do so with
legal, and sometimes even religious, impunity. ***Brigham Young argued that
the marriage could have no validity at law--that it was only an ecclesiastical
affair.***"
For those who didn't understand that: -For the four years I've corresponded
with him, Woody has suffered under the delusion that Mormon "plural marriages"
were legal marriages. The reason I provided this documentation is to show that
even Brigham Young recognized that "plural marriages" were not legal marriages,
because he used the argument that they were only "ecclesiastical affairs" to
avoid paying Ann Eliza Webb alimony. And Webb lost her suit because the U. S.
Attorney General agreed with that---because Brigham Young was already legally
married to Mary Ann Angell, he could not possibly also have been married to
Webb.
>It's always fun to see you come out with these bombs.
I provide documentation. You provide opinion, speculation, and obfuscation.
>>You can call all of BY's women, except for Mary Ann Angell, "hookers,"
"prostitutes," "kept women," or any number of terms.
>Until you stand before God.
You snipped my next sentence: "But you can't call them legal wives." We're not
talking about "standing before God" here Woody, we're talking about what is and
is not a legal marriage. At this point, Woody had snipped the following line
from my previous post:
"That's exactly why Brigham Young attempted to avoid paying Ann Eliza alimony
by claiming that their relationship was not a legal marriage, and the court
agreed with him."
Note that Woody completely snipped out this remark which summed up the ruling
of the Young vs. Webb case, along with sinpping out the published documentation
of the case itself. Perhaps this example will show new readers just how
dishonest "Seminary Principal" Woody Brison is. He's the kind of man the LDS
Church employs to teach Mormon children about Mormonism.
>> The Webb vs. Young case also demonstrated one of the great evils of Mormon
polygamy: Mormon "priesthood holders" could pontificate about how "righteous"
and "holy" their system was, but if one of their women decided she no longer
wished to be a part of it, she had no legal claim to alimony or maintenance.
She could be put out on the street without a penny, as Brigham Young did to Ann
Eliza.
>Nonsense, he offered her a generous settlement,
What did he offer her, Woody?
>just declined to give her half of the value of Utah like she tried to get the
court to award her.
>Wood
How much of a man's estate is his divorcing wife entitled to for alimony?
Randy J.
R. L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> Randy wrote to Woody Brison:
>
> >>...
> >>> [I had written] Here, I know. Tell your wife that there's no difference
> between a wife and a prostitute. See how she reacts.
>
> >>My wife knows the difference between a wife and a prostitute. A wife has a
> marriage certificate to the man she is having sex with, and a prostitute does
> not.
>
> >How wonderful that you could finally admit this, even if crudely is the only
> way you know how to put it.
>
> I've known it all along. The point is that no Mormon "plural wife", at any
> time, had a legal marriage certificate that made her legally wed to any Mormon
> man. And that means that all Mormon "plural marriages" were adulterous
> relationships, and all the children born of those relationships were
> illegitimate.
> ... ... ...
€ And it came to pass that men acquired a reputation for being like unto dogs.
cheers, Randy. Congrats on the bull's-eye.
CommUnitarian
wrote:
>cheers, Randy. Congrats on the bull's-eye.
Of course, Rich. The plural wife was a "wife" only in the bedroom. In any
legal forum, the polygamist could deny having more than one wife because it was
legally impossible to have more than one wife.
It is sort of like the adherents of Islam who claim the right to throw
bombs and kill infidels on the basis of their own stupid interpretation of
Islamic doctrine, but then claim the protection of the very nonIslamic Bill of
Rights when it comes time for them to be prosecuted.
Raleigh
"We should never attempt to overpower them with cliches or blunt denunciations,
for antagonism has no part in witnessing to cultists."
--Dr. Walter Martin
R. L. Measures
grale...@cs.comRLDS (CommUnitarian) wrote:
> >2...@vc.net (R. L. Measures)
> wrote:
>
>
> >cheers, Randy. Congrats on the bull's-eye.
>
> Of course, Rich. The plural wife was a "wife" only in the bedroom. In any
> legal forum, the polygamist could deny having more than one wife because
it was
> legally impossible to have more than one wife.
>
> It is sort of like the adherents of Islam who claim the right to throw
> bombs and kill infidels on the basis of their own stupid interpretation of
> Islamic doctrine, but then claim the protection of the very nonIslamic Bill of
> Rights when it comes time for them to be prosecuted.
>
> Raleigh
// Good point, Raleigh. Islamic theocracy is goverment according will of
"al-Lah". Democracy is government according to the will of the majority
of the people. If Muslims ever become the voting majority in this
country, our democracy will be history.
ł... religion must be the cause of unity, harmony and agreement among
mankind. If it be the cause of discord and hostility, if it leads to
separation and creates conflict, the absence of religion would be
preferable in the world.˛ -`Abdušl-Baha, Bahaši World Faith, page 247.
RTBaird
"Woody Brison" <wwbr...@lds.net> wrote in message
news:f36171a3.01090...@posting.google.com...
> thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message
news:<20010907223029...@mb-md.aol.com>...
> >
> > Yes, some things are fantasy. For instance, suppose you provide us with
the
> > reference about the girl who escaped from BY's harem by leaping from the
SLC
> > temple. And then tell us how that could happen, when BY died in 1877,
and the
> > temple was no taller than a house at the time.
>
> OK, I'll try to find it. It's a hilarious gaffe made by an antimormon
> author.
>
I didn't know Paul H. Dunn was an anti! :o)
RTBaird
Horobiru
----------------------
> I didn't know Paul H. Dunn was an anti! :o)
>
> RTBaird
Well, maybe he's just a liar.