September Dawn - The PR Campaign

[All-American]

The ONE solid piece of evidence that links BY to the massacre was his message to the rider to leave them alone. Anybody who will argue that he was directly involved has to come up with an argument that more than compensates for that message.

I think Arch hit it on the head.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I thought Bagley looked like a hack in the PBS special. He had his shot to put forth his best case in front of millions of viewers and the best he could do was a weak speculation ("I think BY ordered it because nothing happened at that time without his knowledge.")

You might think the speculation was weak, but Daniel Kaffee nailed Colonel Jessop's ass to the wall with that very same argument.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

You might think the speculation was weak, but Daniel Kaffee nailed Colonel Jessop's ass to the wall with that very same argument.

Come now. Kaffee stroked Jessop's pride and Jessop ejaculated out a confession. As well as a fantastic speech.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Other than the assertion that BY ordered the hit, what assertions do you disagree with?

Can you really blame Jon Voight for reaching the conclusion that BY ordered the MMM? Granted, it has never been proved, but neither has it been proved that O.J. slit his wife's throat. Most objective people who examine the facts would conclude the BY was involved.

Slow down there- I am no church apologist, far from it, but this simply isn't true. To say that BY's involvement is as clear as OJ's isn't close to being factual.

There is substantial evidence that suggests BY didn't know about the MMM and didn't order it. In fact, I would argue that the evidence leans in his favor.

The evidence, I think, does suggest that BY contributed to the MMM through inflamatory language and helping create a climate where something like the MMM could happen. That is a far cry from saying he ordered the MMM or even wanted it to occur. In fact, the historical record shows that he cried when he found out about the MMM.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Let me ask this (I'm sure it's less than 50/50 anyone will have the gumption to answer). Given what we know about Mormon culture and respect for chain of comand even today, and the size of the Mormon community at that time and Brigham Young's stature and presence in it, how much sense does it make that the actual perpetrators of the crime did this on their own initiative?

This reminds me more of the Manson murders than anything else. Charles Manson was never at the scene of any murder for which he was convicted. The prosecutor's theory, which carried the day, was that he was the puppeteer of the Tate LaBianca murderers who wielded the knives. Obviously, such a case could only be proven circumstantially.

Really? I think it makes a ton of sense.

You simply need to put the event into a historical context. The handcart company that was slaughtered came from Arkansas where a prominent Mormon had just been murdered. They were boasting that they had played a part in the murder. They also boasted during their journey from SLC to MM that they had poisoned the wells of the Mormons. They named their oxen Joseph Smith and then roundly whipped them.

The Mormons were already a paranoid bunch, after having been run out of several states by mobs and had the US army sent to destroy them. Can you imagine a more paranoid environment?

Then you have BY saying very inflamatory things, talking about blood atonement, and you have an explosion waiting to happen.

I think history shows that he had no idea they were going to be slaughtered. But I think it also suggests that he helped foster an environment where it could happen.

To say that something like this simply couldn't happen in the early church without direct orders just isn't true.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Slow down there- I am no church apologist, far from it, but this simply isn't true. To say that BY's involvement is as clear as OJ's isn't close to being factual.

There is substantial evidence that suggests BY didn't know about the MMM and didn't order it. In fact, I would argue that the evidence leans in his favor.

The evidence, I think, does suggest that BY contributed to the MMM through inflamatory language and helping create a climate where something like the MMM could happen. That is a far cry from saying he ordered the MMM or even wanted it to occur. In fact, the historical record shows that he cried when he found out about the MMM.

Do you completely discount John Lee's claims that BY ordered the massacre?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Let me ask this (I'm sure it's less than 50/50 anyone will have the gumption to answer). Given what we know about Mormon culture and respect for chain of comand even today, and the size of the Mormon community at that time and Brigham Young's stature and presence in it, how much sense does it make that the actual perpetrators of the crime did this on their own initiative?

This reminds me more of the Manson murders than anything else. Charles Manson was never at the scene of any murder for which he was convicted. The prosecutor's theory, which carried the day, was that he was the puppeteer of the Tate LaBianca murderers who wielded the knives. Obviously, such a case could only be proven circumstantially.

Perhaps God told Brigham Young to tell his chosen people to kill the infidels from Arkansas.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Do you completely discount John Lee's claims that BY ordered the massacre?

John D. Lee's claims shouldn't be completely discounted, but the situation in which they were made should be considered. He did have a considerable axe to grind with Brigham Young. Also, his claim was communicated to the world through his defense attorney, who edited and published the Life and Confessions of John D. Lee after Lee's death.

That being said, even Lee doesn't claim to have personally received direction from Brigham Young regarding the MMM. He said he has always believed that Gen. George A. Smith was sent by Brigham Young. He had no direct knowledge regarding Brigham Young's communication w/ Smith.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Slow down there- I am no church apologist, far from it, but this simply isn't true. To say that BY's involvement is as clear as OJ's isn't close to being factual.

There is substantial evidence that suggests BY didn't know about the MMM and didn't order it. In fact, I would argue that the evidence leans in his favor.

The evidence, I think, does suggest that BY contributed to the MMM through inflamatory language and helping create a climate where something like the MMM could happen. That is a far cry from saying he ordered the MMM or even wanted it to occur. In fact, the historical record shows that he cried when he found out about the MMM.

He cried? As the Leader of the Mormon Militia, Leader of the LDS Church, Federal Agent over the Indians in Utah Territory, and Governor of the Territory, it was required of him to immediately launch a thorough investigation, see to it that the victims were properly buried, arrange for proper legal custody of the child survivors, and properly account for the emigrants property. Then promptly punish those who did order and plan the massacre, as something of that scale does not happen by individual impulse, like a bar fight. Brigham Young had the authority to do all those things, but he did absolutely none of them. Those who were on the scene were not only allowed to go free, they were allowed to profit from the event -- many of the belongings of the Fancher Party (livestock, wagons, even clothes) wound up on the farms and in the homes of those involved. So its not such a strecth to believe he had no interest in knowing the true line of responsibility.

If you're looking for a smoking gun of an order, direct or implied, of course any of that kind of evidence has been destroyed. 20 years went by before the trial of John D. Lee, and many records were not-so-mysteriously missing by then. Even personal journals of the time had pages missing, etc, as some of the later documenters were members who felt they would rather destroy the truth than present something that might caste the LDS Church in bad light (tendency mentioned by Juanita Brooks).

So the movie producers and writers, like the thorough research of Will Bagley, concludes that Brigham Young was implicated, and the movie, apparently, reflects that opinion. Its a movie, not a documentary, so they can only take one position as to the chronology of events and present that.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by hyrum

He cried? As the Leader of the Mormon Militia, Leader of the LDS Church, Federal Agent over the Indians in Utah Territory, and Governor of the Territory, it was required of him to immediately launch a thorough investigation, see to it that the victims were properly buried, arrange for proper legal custody of the child survivors, and properly account for the emigrants property. Then promptly punish those who did order and plan the massacre, as something of that scale does not happen by individual impulse, like a bar fight. Brigham Young had the authority to do all those things, but he did absolutely none of them. Those who were on the scene were not only allowed to go free, they were allowed to profit from the event -- many of the belongings of the Fancher Party (livestock, wagons, even clothes) wound up on the farms and in the homes of those involved. So its not such a strecth to believe he had no interest in knowing the true line of responsibility.

If you're looking for a smoking gun of an order, direct or implied, of course any of that kind of evidence has been destroyed. 20 years went by before the trial of John D. Lee, and many records were not-so-mysteriously missing by then. Even personal journals of the time had pages missing, etc, as some of the later documenters were members who felt they would rather destroy the truth than present something that might caste the LDS Church in bad light (tendency mentioned by Juanita Brooks).

So the movie producers and writers, like the thorough research of Will Bagley, concludes that Brigham Young was implicated, and the movie, apparently, reflects that opinion. Its a movie, not a documentary, so they can only take one position as to the chronology of events and present that.

Ok, one vote for Hyrum for all Mormons going to hell. Thanks for your contribution-- next comment, please?