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 Historical content remains viewable.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

BY and the MMM

67 views
Skip to first unread message

Kevin Zoellner

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 11:07:45 PM12/5/01
to
I found this interesting, considering the argument about whether or not
BY ordered the MMM.


"The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
safety""

From the Confessions of John D. Lee


--
Kevin

United States Marine Corps, When it absolutely, positively has to be
destroyed
overnight!


Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 1:00:07 PM12/6/01
to
Kevin Zoellner <zoell...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3C0EEF0F...@attbi.com>...

> I found this interesting, considering the argument about whether or not
> BY ordered the MMM.
>
>
> "The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
> for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
> or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
> of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
> me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
> Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
> safety""
>
> From the Confessions of John D. Lee

The really interesting thing about this is the apparent *real
consideration* that the Saints in Southern Utah gave to the idea that
Brigham Young might *NOT* want the emigrants to pass in safety, and so
necessitated sending a messenger to Salt Lake City to find out.

It's sort of like a trial of the Mob, where the guy on the witness
stand says:

"We asked'd boss if he wanted us to waste'd guy, and'd boss said no."

See what I mean? If you have to ask the president of the Church
whether or not you should murder a wagon train full of emigrants, then
there must be some expectation that, in some circumstances, the
president might say YES. So the next obvious question is:

"Why might the Saints in Southern Utah have considered the possibility
that Brigham Young did not want the emigrants to pass safely? What
historical context within the LDS Church might have led those LDS to
think that murdering the emigrants should even be CONSIDERED?"

Duwayne Anderson

American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.

Innovators_Dilemma

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 1:07:35 PM12/6/01
to

"Kevin Zoellner" <zoell...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3C0EEF0F...@attbi.com...
> I found this interesting, considering the argument about whether or not
> BY ordered the MMM.
>
>
> "The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
> for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
> or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
> of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
> me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
> Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
> safety""
>
> From the Confessions of John D. Lee
>

Good post Kevin. From the posts on ARM, one would have believed that John
D. Lee had accused Brigham Young of ordering the massacre. That is not what
Mr. Lee ever said, and this proves it.


Innovators_Dilemma

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 1:10:43 PM12/6/01
to

"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a42139e3.01120...@posting.google.com...

> Kevin Zoellner <zoell...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<3C0EEF0F...@attbi.com>...
> > I found this interesting, considering the argument about whether or not
> > BY ordered the MMM.
> >
> >
> > "The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
> > for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
> > or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
> > of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
> > me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
> > Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
> > safety""
> >
> > From the Confessions of John D. Lee
>
> The really interesting thing about this is the apparent *real
> consideration* that the Saints in Southern Utah gave to the idea that
> Brigham Young might *NOT* want the emigrants to pass in safety, and so
> necessitated sending a messenger to Salt Lake City to find out.>

I don't think the state of mind of frontier settlers is really pertinent.
The reality is that BY never ordered the massacre and the locals obviously
acted on their own. To state otherwise is reckless, inflammatory and
libelous.

Moreover, you insinuate that a decesion by BY not to let the emigrants pass
through Utah territory is tantemount to an order to massacre them, when the
more reasonable view would be simply to have them pass through a different
route.

<snip to end>


Clovis Lark

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 2:18:50 PM12/6/01
to
Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a42139e3.01120...@posting.google.com...
>> Kevin Zoellner <zoell...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:<3C0EEF0F...@attbi.com>...
>> > I found this interesting, considering the argument about whether or not
>> > BY ordered the MMM.
>> >
>> >
>> > "The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
>> > for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
>> > or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
>> > of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
>> > me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
>> > Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
>> > safety""
>> >
>> > From the Confessions of John D. Lee
>>
>> The really interesting thing about this is the apparent *real
>> consideration* that the Saints in Southern Utah gave to the idea that
>> Brigham Young might *NOT* want the emigrants to pass in safety, and so
>> necessitated sending a messenger to Salt Lake City to find out.>

> I don't think the state of mind of frontier settlers is really pertinent.

In light of the ongoing Mormon Reformation and its effects upon the
population, it is really pertinent. Motivations for the murder of William
Laney need to be addressed.

> The reality is that BY never ordered the massacre and the locals obviously
> acted on their own. To state otherwise is reckless, inflammatory and
> libelous.

It isn't obvious at all.

> Moreover, you insinuate that a decesion by BY not to let the emigrants pass
> through Utah territory is tantemount to an order to massacre them, when the
> more reasonable view would be simply to have them pass through a different
> route.

And what route might that be out of SLC?

> <snip to end>


Clovis Lark

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 2:30:31 PM12/6/01
to
Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Brigham Young honored me in many ways after the affair at Mountain
Meadows was fully reported to him by me." Lee suggesting that BY was an
accessory after the fact. Not to be forgotten is BY's Mormon Reformation
and the violent zealotry that followed. People like Isaac C. Haight
operated with impunity and deadly results in this environment.

Innovators_Dilemma

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 2:36:05 PM12/6/01
to

"Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:9uogaq$ct2$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...

Why? I see no connection.

> Motivations for the murder of William Laney need to be addressed.>

Well John D. Lee said BY ordered them to let the settlers pass in peace.
Whatever motivated the locals to kill, it wasn't due to orders from Salt
Lake. You can't say BY was a dictator in one breath, and then pretend some
other higher up in Salt Lake gave the order in direct contradiction to BY's
order.

>
> > The reality is that BY never ordered the massacre and the locals
obviously
> > acted on their own. To state otherwise is reckless, inflammatory and
> > libelous.
>
> It isn't obvious at all.>

It is from the best evidence we have, which is the testimony of John D. Lee.

>
> > Moreover, you insinuate that a decesion by BY not to let the emigrants
pass
> > through Utah territory is tantemount to an order to massacre them, when
the
> > more reasonable view would be simply to have them pass through a
different
> > route.
>
> And what route might that be out of SLC?>

Were they in SLC?

>
> > <snip to end>
>
>


Innovators_Dilemma

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 2:38:00 PM12/6/01
to

"Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:9uoh0n$d0g$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...

> Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Kevin Zoellner" <zoell...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C0EEF0F...@attbi.com...
> >> I found this interesting, considering the argument about whether or not
> >> BY ordered the MMM.
> >>
> >>
> >> "The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
> >> for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was
three
> >> or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
> >> of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk
with
> >> me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
> >> Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
> >> safety""
> >>
> >> From the Confessions of John D. Lee
> >>
>
> > Good post Kevin. From the posts on ARM, one would have believed that
John
> > D. Lee had accused Brigham Young of ordering the massacre. That is not
what
> > Mr. Lee ever said, and this proves it.
>
> "Brigham Young honored me in many ways after the affair at Mountain
> Meadows was fully reported to him by me." Lee suggesting that BY was an
> accessory after the fact.>

Do you even know what "an accessory after the fact" is? Is a group giving
an award to a criminal always an "accessory after the fact"? If so, all
groups better watch who they honor.

> Not to be forgotten is BY's Mormon Reformation
> and the violent zealotry that followed. People like Isaac C. Haight
> operated with impunity and deadly results in this environment.>

Call for references, not naked assertion.


Clovis Lark

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 3:40:00 PM12/6/01
to
Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Utah Historical Society

Clovis Lark

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 3:39:11 PM12/6/01
to
Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Do some checking on the Mormon Reformation which occurred from 1856-58.
the general descriptions are of popular paranoia and of serious violence
toward "apostates", outsiders, etc.

>> Motivations for the murder of William Laney need to be addressed.>

> Well John D. Lee said BY ordered them to let the settlers pass in peace.
> Whatever motivated the locals to kill, it wasn't due to orders from Salt
> Lake. You can't say BY was a dictator in one breath, and then pretend some
> other higher up in Salt Lake gave the order in direct contradiction to BY's
> order.

If the Joseph Morris case is any indication, BY had his "man" on site and
was appraised of details after the fact. Hickman, Lee, Haight, Burton, et
al. all knew this process.

>>
>> > The reality is that BY never ordered the massacre and the locals
> obviously
>> > acted on their own. To state otherwise is reckless, inflammatory and
>> > libelous.
>>
>> It isn't obvious at all.>

> It is from the best evidence we have, which is the testimony of John D. Lee.

And he names BY accessorary after the fact.

>>
>> > Moreover, you insinuate that a decesion by BY not to let the emigrants
> pass
>> > through Utah territory is tantemount to an order to massacre them, when
> the
>> > more reasonable view would be simply to have them pass through a
> different
>> > route.
>>
>> And what route might that be out of SLC?>

> Were they in SLC?

Aug. 10 1857

>>
>> > <snip to end>
>>
>>


Innovators_Dilemma

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 4:13:45 PM12/6/01
to

"Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:9uol1f$dog$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...

Such as...

>
> >> Motivations for the murder of William Laney need to be addressed.>
>
> > Well John D. Lee said BY ordered them to let the settlers pass in peace.
> > Whatever motivated the locals to kill, it wasn't due to orders from Salt
> > Lake. You can't say BY was a dictator in one breath, and then pretend
some
> > other higher up in Salt Lake gave the order in direct contradiction to
BY's
> > order.
>
> If the Joseph Morris case is any indication, BY had his "man" on site and
> was appraised of details after the fact. Hickman, Lee, Haight, Burton, et
> al. all knew this process.>

Then why didn't Lee, during his tell all testimony after being jerked around
by the church, mention this or implicate BY?


>
> >>
> >> > The reality is that BY never ordered the massacre and the locals
> > obviously
> >> > acted on their own. To state otherwise is reckless, inflammatory and
> >> > libelous.
> >>
> >> It isn't obvious at all.>
>
> > It is from the best evidence we have, which is the testimony of John D.
Lee.
>
> And he names BY accessorary after the fact.>

Not so. The above quote expressly states BY never ordered anything. You'll
have to do a little more research on crimes of complicity before alleging
that BY was a criminal accessory.

>
> >>
> >> > Moreover, you insinuate that a decesion by BY not to let the
emigrants
> > pass
> >> > through Utah territory is tantemount to an order to massacre them,
when
> > the
> >> > more reasonable view would be simply to have them pass through a
> > different
> >> > route.
> >>
> >> And what route might that be out of SLC?>
>
> > Were they in SLC?
>
> Aug. 10 1857>

Gee, if BY wanted them dead, he could have sent them to the salt flats.

>
> >>
> >> > <snip to end>
> >>
> >>
>
>


Innovators_Dilemma

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 4:14:26 PM12/6/01
to

"Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:9uol30$dog$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...

Post what they have to say.


Clovis Lark

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 4:52:31 PM12/6/01
to
Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Such as...

Come on, John. I know your interest is peaked. Read some books on it.
It is documented in the archives of the Utah Historical Society. I'm sure
you have access. This will help save time until someone has the time to
post a scan novel of all the details.

Here is what Lee says in his confession. Note he refers to the
reformation and its implications upon behavior:

I said I thought they would attack any train that would come in their
way. Then the General was in a deep study for some time, when he said,

"Suppose an emigrant train should come along through this southern
country, making threats against our people and bragging of the part they
took in helping kill our Prophets, what do you think the brethren would do
with them? Would they be permitted to go their way, or would the brethren
pitch into them and give them a good drubbing?"

I reflected a few moments, and then said,

"You know the brethren are now under the influence of the late
reformation, and are still red-hot for the gospel. The brethren believe
the government wishes to destroy them. I really believe that any train of
emigrants that may come through here will be attacked, and. probably all
destroyed. I am sure they would be wiped out if they had been making
threats again our people. Unless emigrants have a pass from Brigham Young,
or some one in authority, they will certainly never get safely through
this country."

My reply pleased him very much, and he laughed heartily, and then
said,

"Do you really believe the brethren would make it lively for such a
train?"

I said, "Yes, sir, I know they will, unless they are protected by a
pass, and I wish to inform you that unless you want every train captured
that comes through here, you must inform Governor Young that if he wants
emigrants to pass, without being molested, he must send orders to that
effect to Colonel Wm. H. Dame or Major Isaac C. Haight, so that they can
give passes to the emigrants, for their passes will insure safety, but
nothing else will, except the positive orders of Governor Young, as the
people are all bitter against the Gentiles, and full of religious zeal,
and anxious to avenge the blood of the Prophets."

AGAIN LEE MENTIONS THE REFORMATION:

I repeated my views to him, but at much greater length, giving my reasons
in full for thinking that Governor Young should give orders to protect all
the emigrants that he did not wish destroyed. I went into a full statement
of the wrongs of our people, and told him that the people were under the
blaze of the reformation, full of wild fire and fanaticism, and that to
shed the blood of those who would dare to speak against the Mormon Church
or its leaders, they would consider doing the will of God, and that the
people would do it as willingly and cheerfully as they would any other
duty. That the apostle Paul, when he started forth to persecute the
followers of Christ, was not any more sincere than every Mormon was then,
who lived in Southern Utah.


>>
>> >> Motivations for the murder of William Laney need to be addressed.>
>>
>> > Well John D. Lee said BY ordered them to let the settlers pass in peace.
>> > Whatever motivated the locals to kill, it wasn't due to orders from Salt
>> > Lake. You can't say BY was a dictator in one breath, and then pretend
> some
>> > other higher up in Salt Lake gave the order in direct contradiction to
> BY's
>> > order.
>>
>> If the Joseph Morris case is any indication, BY had his "man" on site and
>> was appraised of details after the fact. Hickman, Lee, Haight, Burton, et
>> al. all knew this process.>

> Then why didn't Lee, during his tell all testimony after being jerked around
> by the church, mention this or implicate BY?

He did implicate him:

"I have always believed, since that day, that General George A. Smith was
then visiting Southern Utah to prepare the people for the work of
exterminating Captain Fancher's train of emigrants, and I now believe that
he was sent for that purpose by the direct command of Brigham Young. "

"Sidney Littlefield, of Panguitch, has told me that he was knowing to the
fact of Colonel Wm. H. Dame sending orders from Parowan to Maj. Haight, at
Cedar City, to exterminate the Fancher outfit, and to kill every emigrant
without fail. Littlefield then lived at Parowan, and Dame was the
Presiding Bishop. Dame still has all the wives he wants, and is a great
friend of Brigham Young.

"The knowledge of how George A. Smith felt toward the emigrants, and
his telling me that he had a long talk with Haight on the subject, made me
certain that it was the wish of the Church authorities that Francher and
his train should be wiped out, and knowing all this, I did not doubt then,
and I do not doubt it now, either, that Haight was acting by full
authority from the Church leaders, and that the orders he gave to me were
just the orders that he had been directed to give, when he ordered me to
raise the Indians and have them attack the emigrants."

>>
>> >>
>> >> > The reality is that BY never ordered the massacre and the locals
>> > obviously
>> >> > acted on their own. To state otherwise is reckless, inflammatory and
>> >> > libelous.
>> >>
>> >> It isn't obvious at all.>
>>
>> > It is from the best evidence we have, which is the testimony of John D.
> Lee.
>>
>> And he names BY accessorary after the fact.>

> Not so. The above quote expressly states BY never ordered anything. You'll
> have to do a little more research on crimes of complicity before alleging
> that BY was a criminal accessory.

Brigham then said:

"Isaac (referring to Haight) has sent me word that if they had killed
every man, woman and child in the outfit, there would not have been a drop
of innocent blood shed by the brethren: for they were a set of murderers,
robbers and thieves."

While I was still talking with him, some men came into his house to
see him, so he requested me to keep quiet until they left. I did as he
directed.

As soon as the men went out, I continued my recital. I gave him the
names of every man that had been present at the massacre. I told him who
killed various ones. In fact I gave him all the information there was to
give.

When I finished talking about the matter, he said:

"This is the most unfortunate affair that ever befell the Church. I am
afraid of treachery among the brethren that were there. If any one tells
this thing so that it will become public, it will work us great injury. I
want you to understand now, that you are never to tell this again, not
even to Heber C. Kimball. It must be kept a secret among ourselves. When
you get home, I want you to sit down and write a long letter, and give me
an account of the affair, charging it to the Indians. You sign the letter
as Farmer to the Indians, and direct it to me as Indian Agent. I can then
make use of such a letter to keep off all damaging and troublesome
enquiries."

I told him that I would write the letter. (I kept my word; but, as an
evidence of his treachery, that same letter that he ordered me to write,
he has given to Attorney Howard, and he has introduced it in evidence
against me on my trial.)

Brigham Young knew when he got that letter just as well as I did, that
it was not a true letter, and that it was only written according to his
orders to throw the public off of the right trail. He knew that it was
written simply to cast all the blame on the Indians, and to protect the
brethren. In writing that letter I was still obeying my orders and earning
that Celestial reward that had been promised to me.

He then said, "If only men had been killed, I would not have cared so
much; but the killing of the women and children is the sin of it. I
suppose the men were a hard set, but it is hard to kill women and children
for the sins of the men. This whole thing stands before me like a horrid
vision. I must have time to reflect upon it."

He then told me to withdraw and call next day, and he would give me an
answer. I said to him,

"President Young, the people all felt, and I know that I believed I
was obeying orders, and acting for the good of the Church, and in strict
conformity with the oaths that we have all taken to avenge the blood of
the Prophets. You must either sustain the people for what they have done,
or you most release us from the oaths and obligations that we have taken."

The only reply he made was,

"Go now, and come in the morning, and I will give you an answer."

I went to see him again in the morning. When I went in, he seemed
quite cheerful. He said,

"I have made that matter a subject of prayer. I went right to God with
it, and asked Him to take the horrid vision from my sight, if it was a
righteous thingthat my people had done in killing those people at the
Mountain Meadows. God answered me, and at once the vision was removed. I
have evidence from God that He has overruled it all for good, and the
action was a righteous one and well intended.

"The brethren acted from pure motives. The only trouble is they acted
a little prematurely; they were a little ahead of time. I sustain you and
all of the brethren for what they did. All that I fear is treachery on the
part of some one who took a with you, but we will look to that."

[I think you'd have a pretty hard time in court with this]

>>
>> >>
>> >> > Moreover, you insinuate that a decesion by BY not to let the
> emigrants
>> > pass
>> >> > through Utah territory is tantemount to an order to massacre them,
> when
>> > the
>> >> > more reasonable view would be simply to have them pass through a
>> > different
>> >> > route.
>> >>
>> >> And what route might that be out of SLC?>
>>
>> > Were they in SLC?
>>
>> Aug. 10 1857>

> Gee, if BY wanted them dead, he could have sent them to the salt flats.

And lost all the booty?

>>
>> >>
>> >> > <snip to end>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>


Clovis Lark

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 4:58:00 PM12/6/01
to
Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote:

"To whatever extent the preaching on blood atonement may have influenced
action, it would have been in relation to Mormon disciplinary action among
its own members. In point would be a verbally reported case of a Mr.
Johnson in Cedar City who was found guilty of adultery with his
stepdaughter by a bishop's court and sentenced to death for atonement of
his sin. According to the report of reputable eyewitnesses, judgment was
executed with consent of the offender who went to his unconsecrated grave
in full confidence of salvation through the shedding of his blood. Such a
case, however primitive, is understandable within the meaning of the
doctrine and the emotional extremes of the Reformation." (Utah
Historical Quarterly, January, 1958, page 62)

Innovators_Dilemma

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 5:07:34 PM12/6/01
to

"Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:9uopav$eho$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...

That's all interesting and all, but I don't see how it connects BY with the
massacre.

That's odd considering BY's direct order to the contrary. I guess we're
supposed to read between the lines.

>
> "Sidney Littlefield, of Panguitch, has told me that he was knowing to the
> fact of Colonel Wm. H. Dame sending orders from Parowan to Maj. Haight, at
> Cedar City, to exterminate the Fancher outfit, and to kill every emigrant
> without fail. Littlefield then lived at Parowan, and Dame was the
> Presiding Bishop. Dame still has all the wives he wants, and is a great
> friend of Brigham Young.
>
> "The knowledge of how George A. Smith felt toward the emigrants, and
> his telling me that he had a long talk with Haight on the subject, made me
> certain that it was the wish of the Church authorities that Francher and
> his train should be wiped out, and knowing all this, I did not doubt then,
> and I do not doubt it now, either, that Haight was acting by full
> authority from the Church leaders, and that the orders he gave to me were
> just the orders that he had been directed to give, when he ordered me to
> raise the Indians and have them attack the emigrants.">

I still don't see any evidence connecting BY and the massacre.

>
>
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > The reality is that BY never ordered the massacre and the locals
> >> > obviously
> >> >> > acted on their own. To state otherwise is reckless, inflammatory
and
> >> >> > libelous.
> >> >>
> >> >> It isn't obvious at all.>
> >>
> >> > It is from the best evidence we have, which is the testimony of John
D.
> > Lee.
> >>
> >> And he names BY accessorary after the fact.>
>
> > Not so. The above quote expressly states BY never ordered anything.
You'll
> > have to do a little more research on crimes of complicity before
alleging
> > that BY was a criminal accessory.
>
> Brigham then said:
>
> "Isaac (referring to Haight) has sent me word that if they had killed
> every man, woman and child in the outfit, there would not have been a drop
> of innocent blood shed by the brethren: for they were a set of murderers,
> robbers and thieves."

So, BY was repeating what Isaac Haight said? And this is supposed to
indicate what BY actually thought? Ever heard of the hearsay rule? In this
case, it's double hearsay! Ever wonder such evidence is usually not
considered to be reliable in a court of law and is normally excluded?

>
> While I was still talking with him, some men came into his house to
> see him, so he requested me to keep quiet until they left. I did as he
> directed.
>
> As soon as the men went out, I continued my recital. I gave him the
> names of every man that had been present at the massacre. I told him who
> killed various ones. In fact I gave him all the information there was to
> give.
>
> When I finished talking about the matter, he said:
>
> "This is the most unfortunate affair that ever befell the Church. I am
> afraid of treachery among the brethren that were there. If any one tells
> this thing so that it will become public, it will work us great injury. I
> want you to understand now, that you are never to tell this again, not
> even to Heber C. Kimball. It must be kept a secret among ourselves. When
> you get home, I want you to sit down and write a long letter, and give me
> an account of the affair, charging it to the Indians. You sign the letter
> as Farmer to the Indians, and direct it to me as Indian Agent. I can then
> make use of such a letter to keep off all damaging and troublesome
> enquiries."

Hearsay.

>
> I told him that I would write the letter. (I kept my word; but, as an
> evidence of his treachery, that same letter that he ordered me to write,
> he has given to Attorney Howard, and he has introduced it in evidence
> against me on my trial.) >

And I'm sure John D. Lee at this point had no motivation to lie to save his
bacon..

>
> Brigham Young knew when he got that letter just as well as I did, that
> it was not a true letter, and that it was only written according to his
> orders to throw the public off of the right trail. He knew that it was
> written simply to cast all the blame on the Indians, and to protect the
> brethren. In writing that letter I was still obeying my orders and earning
> that Celestial reward that had been promised to me.
>
> He then said, "If only men had been killed, I would not have cared so
> much; but the killing of the women and children is the sin of it. I
> suppose the men were a hard set, but it is hard to kill women and children
> for the sins of the men. This whole thing stands before me like a horrid
> vision. I must have time to reflect upon it." >

There you have it. Even if true (but it's hearsay) BY was against killing
the women and children, only the men who bragged to have had a hand in
killing Mormons. What more do you want?

>
> He then told me to withdraw and call next day, and he would give me an
> answer. I said to him,
>
> "President Young, the people all felt, and I know that I believed I
> was obeying orders, and acting for the good of the Church, and in strict
> conformity with the oaths that we have all taken to avenge the blood of
> the Prophets. You must either sustain the people for what they have done,
> or you most release us from the oaths and obligations that we have taken."
>
> The only reply he made was,
>
> "Go now, and come in the morning, and I will give you an answer."
>
> I went to see him again in the morning. When I went in, he seemed
> quite cheerful. He said,
>
> "I have made that matter a subject of prayer. I went right to God with
> it, and asked Him to take the horrid vision from my sight, if it was a
> righteous thingthat my people had done in killing those people at the
> Mountain Meadows. God answered me, and at once the vision was removed. I
> have evidence from God that He has overruled it all for good, and the
> action was a righteous one and well intended.
>
> "The brethren acted from pure motives. The only trouble is they acted
> a little prematurely; they were a little ahead of time. I sustain you and
> all of the brethren for what they did. All that I fear is treachery on the
> part of some one who took a with you, but we will look to that."
>
> [I think you'd have a pretty hard time in court with this]>

Yeh, I think the entire line of hearsay testimony would make it mighty hard
to convict anyone.

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 7:14:04 PM12/6/01
to
"Innovators_Dilemma" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9uoc8h$5pb$1...@news.aros.net>...

> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a42139e3.01120...@posting.google.com...
> > Kevin Zoellner <zoell...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:<3C0EEF0F...@attbi.com>...
> > > I found this interesting, considering the argument about whether or not
> > > BY ordered the MMM.
> > >
> > >
> > > "The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
> > > for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
> > > or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
> > > of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
> > > me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
> > > Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
> > > safety""
> > >
> > > From the Confessions of John D. Lee
> >
> > The really interesting thing about this is the apparent *real
> > consideration* that the Saints in Southern Utah gave to the idea that
> > Brigham Young might *NOT* want the emigrants to pass in safety, and so
> > necessitated sending a messenger to Salt Lake City to find out.>
>
> I don't think the state of mind of frontier settlers is really pertinent.

Nobody is trying to determine anyone's state of mind.

The point I was making is that the situation was such that anyone
would even *THINK* to ask Brigham Young if they should kill the
emigrants. I mean, why would LDS members in southern Utah think they
needed to ask Brigham Young if they should let the emigrants pass, if
it wasn't at least a possibility in their mind that, perhaps, Brigham
Young wanted them murdered?

The asking of a question often carries with it implications.

In this case, the asking of the question "Do you want us to kill the
emigrants" implies that the answer *MIGHT* be yes. After all, if the
answer is always "no" then there is no need to ask the question,
because you already know the answer.

So, my point is, the fact the Mormon settlers would even bother to ask
Brigham Young what to do with the emigrants means that they had some
expectation or reason to believe that Brigham Young might want them to
do something at all.

> The reality is that BY never ordered the massacre and the locals obviously
> acted on their own.

Well, you don't really know that. First of all, this is just one
historical opinion. Secondly, there is nothing in any of this to
suggest that Brigham Young didn't order the massacre, and then retract
it.

In fact, the idea that Brigham Young first ordered the massacre, and
later retracted the order fits the facts of the story better. After
all, that would explain why the settlers would have sent a deligation
to Brigham Young asking what to do about the emigrants. One could
easily understand them questioning such an order, and asking for
clarification.

> To state otherwise is reckless, inflammatory and
> libelous.

Bunk. There is abundant evidence that the LDS were up to their necks
in MMM, and to suggest that in a tight-knit organization like fronteir
Mormonism the leaders -- who managed things VERY tightly -- didn't
know anything about it is a leap of faith.

> Moreover, you insinuate that a decesion by BY not to let the emigrants pass
> through Utah territory is tantemount to an order to massacre them, when the
> more reasonable view would be simply to have them pass through a different
> route.

Wrong. I'm not insinuating anything. I'm saying, point blank, that
decent people don't have to be told not to murder other folks. The
fact that the LDS would send a group to ask Brigham Young if they
should murder the emigrants is incriminating in its own right, and
suggests that this sort of thing was happening in Utah.

Clovis Lark

unread,
Dec 7, 2001, 8:42:26 AM12/7/01
to
Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote:

"I have always believed, since that day, that General George A. Smith was

Do you know how they convicted John Gotti? Had they today's system and
had they placed Haight, Lee, Young, Smith, Dame, et al. on trial as a
group, similar to RICO proceedure, they qould have made the case. The
above would have been allowed. They would also had to take the
disposition of the Fancher possessions into the proceedings. They would
have been able to show the lines of connection from the top down.

>>
>> While I was still talking with him, some men came into his house to
>> see him, so he requested me to keep quiet until they left. I did as he
>> directed.
>>
>> As soon as the men went out, I continued my recital. I gave him the
>> names of every man that had been present at the massacre. I told him who
>> killed various ones. In fact I gave him all the information there was to
>> give.
>>
>> When I finished talking about the matter, he said:
>>
>> "This is the most unfortunate affair that ever befell the Church. I am
>> afraid of treachery among the brethren that were there. If any one tells
>> this thing so that it will become public, it will work us great injury. I
>> want you to understand now, that you are never to tell this again, not
>> even to Heber C. Kimball. It must be kept a secret among ourselves. When
>> you get home, I want you to sit down and write a long letter, and give me
>> an account of the affair, charging it to the Indians. You sign the letter
>> as Farmer to the Indians, and direct it to me as Indian Agent. I can then
>> make use of such a letter to keep off all damaging and troublesome
>> enquiries."

> Hearsay.

See above.

>>
>> I told him that I would write the letter. (I kept my word; but, as an
>> evidence of his treachery, that same letter that he ordered me to write,
>> he has given to Attorney Howard, and he has introduced it in evidence
>> against me on my trial.) >

> And I'm sure John D. Lee at this point had no motivation to lie to save his
> bacon..

He knew he was dead man and nothing he could do would save him. Even if
they let him out, he was a dead man walking.

See above.

Innovators_Dilemma

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 5:08:18 PM12/6/01
to

"Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:9uopl8$eho$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...

Thanks.


Innovators_Dilemma

unread,
Dec 7, 2001, 11:31:30 AM12/7/01
to

"Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:9uqh02$leq$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...

Then Lee equivocates. Whatever insinuation you might find from the above
quote is expressly refuted in the following statement that began the thread:

"The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
safety"

>
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >>

> > supposed to read between the lines. To wit:

"The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
safety"

>
> >>


> >> "Sidney Littlefield, of Panguitch, has told me that he was knowing to
the
> >> fact of Colonel Wm. H. Dame sending orders from Parowan to Maj. Haight,
at
> >> Cedar City, to exterminate the Fancher outfit, and to kill every
emigrant
> >> without fail. Littlefield then lived at Parowan, and Dame was the
> >> Presiding Bishop. Dame still has all the wives he wants, and is a great
> >> friend of Brigham Young.
> >>
> >> "The knowledge of how George A. Smith felt toward the emigrants, and
> >> his telling me that he had a long talk with Haight on the subject, made
me
> >> certain that it was the wish of the Church authorities that Francher
and
> >> his train should be wiped out, and knowing all this, I did not doubt
then,
> >> and I do not doubt it now, either, that Haight was acting by full
> >> authority from the Church leaders, and that the orders he gave to me
were
> >> just the orders that he had been directed to give, when he ordered me
to
> >> raise the Indians and have them attack the emigrants.">
>
> > I still don't see any evidence connecting BY and the massacre.

Particularly in light of the following:

"The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
safety"

>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >>

How would the prosecutors have handled the following unumbiguous statement:

"The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
safety"

>
> >>

Yeh, see above.

>
> >>
> >> I told him that I would write the letter. (I kept my word; but, as
an
> >> evidence of his treachery, that same letter that he ordered me to
write,
> >> he has given to Attorney Howard, and he has introduced it in evidence
> >> against me on my trial.) >
>
> > And I'm sure John D. Lee at this point had no motivation to lie to save
his
> > bacon..
>
> He knew he was dead man and nothing he could do would save him. Even if
> they let him out, he was a dead man walking.>

Well now, that's quite odd. When you ask an anti what he thinks about the
motivation of a guy who supposedly took the fall for the whole church, he
must be believed. However, when the 3 witnesses, all of whom were rudely
excommunicated at various times by JS, all maintained their testimonies in
the BoM up to their dying breaths, the anti's clammer that they had every
motivation to continue lying. Simply fascinating!

Yes indeed.

Clovis Lark

unread,
Dec 7, 2001, 11:53:40 AM12/7/01
to
Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Oddly, the message is to arrive after the fact...

After the fact.

After the fact.

They'd have field day. It would start with, why did this take a month when
you knew the situation on 10 Aug.? And then it would continue,
culminating with the obstruction of justice reported by Lee.

> Yeh, see above.

One involves corpses and really truly human beings. The other conjures up
angels and spooks with magic powers. You're an officer of the court,
suppose you tell us?

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Dec 7, 2001, 1:32:12 PM12/7/01
to
"Innovators_Dilemma" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9uoqf6$fqt$1...@news.aros.net>...

> "Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:9uopav$eho$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...

<snip>


> > AGAIN LEE MENTIONS THE REFORMATION:
> >
> > I repeated my views to him, but at much greater length, giving my reasons
> > in full for thinking that Governor Young should give orders to protect all
> > the emigrants that he did not wish destroyed. I went into a full statement
> > of the wrongs of our people, and told him that the people were under the
> > blaze of the reformation, full of wild fire and fanaticism, and that to
> > shed the blood of those who would dare to speak against the Mormon Church
> > or its leaders, they would consider doing the will of God, and that the
> > people would do it as willingly and cheerfully as they would any other
> > duty. That the apostle Paul, when he started forth to persecute the
> > followers of Christ, was not any more sincere than every Mormon was then,
> > who lived in Southern Utah. >
>
> That's all interesting and all, but I don't see how it connects BY with the
> massacre.

I thought it was pretty clear. First of all, Lee specifically
mentions the roll that the "reformation" had. Saying that it filled
the Saints with "wile fire and fanaticism, and that to shed the blood


of those who would dare to speak against the Mormon Church or its

leaders, they would consider doing the will of God..."

As prophet of the LDS Church, Brigham Young was responsible for the
reformation. The wild and irresponsible acts of murder that were
inspired by the climate he inspired rest squarely at his feet.

<snip to end>

Innovators_Dilemma

unread,
Dec 7, 2001, 1:53:32 PM12/7/01
to

"Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:9uqs6k$n1l$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...

You think? And, coincidentally, it's the only message from BY.

You think?

Like all of Lee's "testimony"..

What do you suggest they do to make the message go faster? Send an email?
Call on the telephone? Telegraph? How, exactly, would they have speeded up
the message? Do you know?

> And then it would continue,
> culminating with the obstruction of justice reported by Lee.>

You mean, the unbiased, good citizen Lee who committed murder?

I don't think you have a case. After all, all your presented thus far is
the fact of deaths and the hearsay testimony of one, Mr. Lee, a convicted
murderer on death row...

Clovis Lark

unread,
Dec 7, 2001, 1:53:39 PM12/7/01
to

And John, as a lawyer, should be able to see how today's Federal
prosecutors would be able to successfully implicate BY on this basis. The
repeated theft of wagon trains by caucasian "indians" of mormon faith in
both the north and south during this time would also play heavily in such
a case, perhaps under racketeering.

Innovators_Dilemma

unread,
Dec 7, 2001, 1:55:13 PM12/7/01
to

"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a42139e3.01120...@posting.google.com...

Oh. Is that like the dems contention that Gingrich's conservative rhetoric
was the direct cause of the Oklahoma bombing? I see. I guess one's own
actions can be explained away as "society's" fault. Liberals love to shift
blame.


<snip to end>


Innovators_Dilemma

unread,
Dec 7, 2001, 1:56:45 PM12/7/01
to

No doubt. So why bother bringing it up?


>
> The point I was making is that the situation was such that anyone
> would even *THINK* to ask Brigham Young if they should kill the
> emigrants.>

You haven't shown that anyone asked any such question. Specifically the
word "kill".

> I mean, why would LDS members in southern Utah think they
> needed to ask Brigham Young if they should let the emigrants pass, >

As opposed to making them take a different route? Yeh, that's murder all
right.

Clovis Lark

unread,
Dec 7, 2001, 2:35:12 PM12/7/01
to
Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> You think?

10 Aug. was a month before MMM. the distance is 250 miles. it is easily
traversed in several days on horseback and certainly far faster than by
slow moving wagon train.

>> And then it would continue,
>> culminating with the obstruction of justice reported by Lee.>

> You mean, the unbiased, good citizen Lee who committed murder?

Just like Joe Valacchi, whose testimony put so many away.

Joe Valacchi put away far more powerful names. If you brought charges
against Haight, Lee, Dane, Smith, Young, etc. you could easily cull enough
witnesses in exchange for reduced sentences. John, you are a lawyer. I
can't believe you aren't privy to this knowledge.

Clovis Lark

unread,
Dec 7, 2001, 2:36:06 PM12/7/01
to
Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Stick to the subject, John.

> <snip to end>


Innovators_Dilemma

unread,
Dec 7, 2001, 4:07:19 PM12/7/01
to

"Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:9ur5n6$op4$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...

Oh I am. The accusation here is that there was an ambience of violence due
to some "reformation".


Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Dec 8, 2001, 1:19:54 AM12/8/01
to
"Innovators_Dilemma" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9ur3b6$2bt2$1...@news.aros.net>...

> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

<snip>


> > Nobody is trying to determine anyone's state of mind.>
>
> No doubt. So why bother bringing it up?

I didn't. That was your strawman argument.

What I described was an apparent state of mentality in Utah. A mental
state in which LDS Saints were asking the President of the LDS Church
if they should let emigrants pass safely.

My point is that the question makes no sense if the Saints were
law-abiding pacifists. But it makes plenty of sense if Brigham Young
was in the habit of telling the Saints to attack emigrants.

> > The point I was making is that the situation was such that anyone
> > would even *THINK* to ask Brigham Young if they should kill the
> > emigrants.>
>
> You haven't shown that anyone asked any such question. Specifically the
> word "kill".

Well, it's a fact that Mormons were complicit in the murdered over 140
emigrants. The question is whether they had direction/encouragement
from Brigham Young. One could, for example, look to the temple
endowment, which, at the time, included an oath to avenge the prophet
Joseph Smith.

> > I mean, why would LDS members in southern Utah think they
> > needed to ask Brigham Young if they should let the emigrants pass, >
>
> As opposed to making them take a different route? Yeh, that's murder all
> right.

Not sure what you mean with this last sentence. Makes no sense.

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Dec 8, 2001, 1:29:34 AM12/8/01
to
"Innovators_Dilemma" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9ur388$2br7$1...@news.aros.net>...

> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

<snip>


> > I thought it was pretty clear. First of all, Lee specifically
> > mentions the roll that the "reformation" had.>
>
> Oh. Is that like the dems contention that Gingrich's conservative rhetoric
> was the direct cause of the Oklahoma bombing?

What? Where did you get this? Stick to the subject.

> I see. I guess one's own
> actions can be explained away as "society's" fault. Liberals love to shift
> blame.

The only person "shifting blame," Mr. Dilemma, is you and your defense
of acts of violence by the LDS Church.

The fact that the Saints in Southern Utah would ask Brigham Young's
permission to let a train of emigrants pass safely implicates Brigham
Young in the same way that such a request might implicate a crime boss
or other terrorist.

Suppose that the government intercepted a message that said: "Osama,
this is Ben. Just wondering what you think we should do with flight
625. Should we let it land in peace?"

That would be a pretty incriminating question, and it would NOT lend
credibility to the notion that Osama or Ben were peace-loving
individuals. In fact, I'd hope that the government would want to talk
to the rascals that were involved in such communication.

In the same way, when the LDS Saints in Southern Utah asked Brigham
Young if they should allow a wagon train to pass in peace, they
implicated Brigham Young with prior acts of violence, and/or previous
instructions for violence.

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Dec 8, 2001, 1:32:32 AM12/8/01
to
"Innovators_Dilemma" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9uravu$2h8b$1...@news.aros.net>...

<snip>


> Oh I am. The accusation here is that there was an ambience of violence due
> to some "reformation".

<snip>

What is your opinion of the temple oaths of the time, in which temple
patrons swore to avenge the murder of Joseph Smith? Do you think that
might have contributed to an atmosphere of paranoia, and been partly
responsible for driving the early LDS Saints in Southern Utah to
murder the Francher train?

Clovis Lark

unread,
Dec 8, 2001, 10:06:12 AM12/8/01
to
Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote:

So you deny any knowledge of the Mormon Reformation being an historical
period in Ootah's past?

Clovis Lark

unread,
Dec 8, 2001, 10:09:38 AM12/8/01
to

In light that mormons dressed as NA's were attacking wagon trains with
regularity in Shoshonean and Paiute territories at the time, indeed. No
route was safe, unless the Prophet said so.

TheJordan6

unread,
Dec 9, 2001, 12:28:10 AM12/9/01
to
>From: Kevin Zoellner <zoell...@attbi.com>
>Date: Wed, Dec 5, 2001 23:07 EST
>Message-id: <3C0EEF0F...@attbi.com>

>
>I found this interesting, considering the argument about whether or not
>BY ordered the MMM.
>
>
>"The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
>for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
>or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
>of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
>me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
>Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
>safety""
>
>From the Confessions of John D. Lee
>
>
>--
>Kevin

Kevin, I've explained this numerous times already. Lee made his above
statement soon after the massacre, before he had any inkling of Young's
involvement. If you'll continue to read his "Confessions," you'll discover
that after all the facts became clear to him, he stated:

"I did not know then that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young for
instructions. Haight had not mentioned it to me. I now think that James
Haslem was sent to Brigham Young, as a sharp play on the part of the
authorities to protect themselves, if trouble ever grew out of the matter."

In other words, Young's letter to Haight was a "cover your ass" effort. Young
and Hamblin had met with southern Indian chiefs only days before the massacre,
to plan the attack and the divvying up of the Fancher party's goods. The plan
was for ONLY the Indians to attack the party, with the "brethren" waiting out
of sight, supervising. That way, Young could "plausibly deny" that any Mormons
had taken part in the killing. That plan went awry when the Indians failed in
their initial attack, the Fancher party held out for days, and the Mormons
finally had to lure them out with a promise of protection, whereupon they
massacred them.

Mormons often quote Young's letter to Haight in an effort to show that Young
was against the killings. However, Young's statement following his counsel to
"let the emigrants pass" reveals that he knew exactly what was in the works:
"The Indians, I expect, will do as they please." Considering Young's many
documented threats to use the Indians as the "battle-ax of the Lord" against
any "Mericats" he so deemed to be the Mormons' "enemies," it's obvious that his
meeting with the southern Indian chiefs mere days before the massacre was to
plan the event and have the Indians do the killing. When Young got the news of
the massacre, he wasn't concerned that it happened, but he was upset that
Mormons had had to take part. That is why he began a campaign to cover up the
massacre and protect Mormons from prosecution for 20 years. Young told Lee to
write a report to the government charging the massacre to the Indians, and
Young claimed to have gotten the "word from the Lord" that the massacre was an
"approved" event.

Randy J.


TheJordan6

unread,
Dec 9, 2001, 12:40:47 AM12/9/01
to
>From: "Innovators_Dilemma" <innovato...@yahoo.com>
>Date: Thu, Dec 6, 2001 13:07 EST
>Message-id: <9uoc2m$5or$1...@news.aros.net>

>
>
>"Kevin Zoellner" <zoell...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:3C0EEF0F...@attbi.com...
>> I found this interesting, considering the argument about whether or not
>> BY ordered the MMM.
>>
>>
>> "The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
>> for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
>> or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
>> of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
>> me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
>> Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
>> safety""
>>
>> From the Confessions of John D. Lee
>>
>
>Good post Kevin. From the posts on ARM, one would have believed that John
>D. Lee had accused Brigham Young of ordering the massacre. That is not what
>Mr. Lee ever said, and this proves it.

If you would ever bother to actually READ Lee's "Confessions", you'd learn that
he later stated:

"I did not know then that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young for
instructions. Haight had not mentioned it to me. I now think that James
Haslem was sent to Brigham Young, as a sharp play on the part of the
authorities to protect themselves, if trouble ever grew out of the matter."

Lee further specifically charged Brigham Young with masterminding the entire
affair:

"General George A. Smith held high rank as a military leader. He was one of
the twelve apostles...and as such he was considered by me to be an inspired
man. His orders were to me sacred commands, which I considered it my duty to
obey, without question or hesitation.....The General told me to tell the
Indians that the Mormons were their friends, and that the Americans were their
enemies.....that the Indians must get ready and keep ready for war against all
of the Americans, and keep friendly with the Mormons and obey what the Mormons
told them to do---that this was the will of the Great Spirit; that if the
Indians were true to the Mormons and would help them against their enemies,
then the Mormons would always keep them from want and sickness and give them
guns and ammunition to hunt and kill game with, and would also help the Indians
against their enemies when they went into war.....I have always believed, since


that day, that General George A. Smith was then visiting Southern Utah to
prepare the people for the work of exterminating Captain Fancher's train of
emigrants, and I now believe that he was sent for that purpose by the direct
command of Brigham Young."

Randy J.

TheJordan6

unread,
Dec 9, 2001, 12:50:56 AM12/9/01
to
>From: "Innovators_Dilemma" <innovato...@yahoo.com>
>Date: Thu, Dec 6, 2001 13:10 EST
>Message-id: <9uoc8h$5pb$1...@news.aros.net>

>
>
>"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:a42139e3.01120...@posting.google.com...

>> Kevin Zoellner <zoell...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:<3C0EEF0F...@attbi.com>...
>> > I found this interesting, considering the argument about whether or not
>> > BY ordered the MMM.
>> >
>> >
>> > "The first time I heard that a messenger had been sent to Brigham Young
>> > for instructions as to what should be done with the emigrants, was three
>> > or four days after I had returned home from the Meadows. Then I heard
>> > of it from Isaac C. Haight, when he came to my house and had a talk with
>> > me. He said: "we are all in a muddle. Haslem has returned from Salt
>> > Lake City, with orders from Brigham Young to let the emigrants pass in
>> > safety""
>> >
>> > From the Confessions of John D. Lee
>>
>> The really interesting thing about this is the apparent *real
>> consideration* that the Saints in Southern Utah gave to the idea that
>> Brigham Young might *NOT* want the emigrants to pass in safety, and so
>> necessitated sending a messenger to Salt Lake City to find out.>
>
>I don't think the state of mind of frontier settlers is really pertinent.
>The reality is that BY never ordered the massacre and the locals obviously
>acted on their own. To state otherwise is reckless, inflammatory and
>libelous.

Last summer, I sent 18 posts documenting Young's statements and actions which
show that he was responsible for the conditions which led to the MMM, and that
he most likely was intimately involved in planning the specific attack. You
yourself made one sarcastic comment on my documentation, so I assume you read
it; if you read it, then you have seen the evidence that points to Young as the
mastermind.

>Moreover, you insinuate that a decision by BY not to let the emigrants pass
>through Utah territory is tantamount to an order to massacre them,

Read the sentence in Young's letter following the one wherein he advised the
Mormons to let the emigrants pass.

> when the
>more reasonable view would be simply to have them pass through a different
>route.

There was no other route through the south. George A. Smith was sent by Young
to follow the Fancher party, and he advised them on exactly where to camp at
the Mountain Meadows. He chose the most convenient place for the Indians to
attack the party.

Randy J.