Not A Smoking Gun

[Guest bat]

This is an incredible story. It is an awful tale, but it is an American

tragedy. First of all, it's an American crime, and it is an incredible epic

story. So I thought, look, if I can tell this story accurately and fairly,

tell what happened and when---and I believe chronology is a key to

understanding history. I'm of the school of history that believes one damn

thing happens after another, and that chance plays an enormous role in human

history. And that if you want to track an event, look at the sequence of

events. In many ways, chronology is the key to figuring out the basic

parameters about Meadows.

Here's an example: The Fancher party doesn't get to Cedar City until Friday

evening, September 4th. On Monday morning, September 7th, they are attacked by

a large force of Mormons and Indians. And these Indians are allegedly

assembled all the way from the Muddy River, which is 80-90 miles away from

Mountain Meadows, all the way up to Cedar City, which is a span of 120 miles.

But guess what? You can't get pissed off on Friday night, and organize an

orchestrated military attack on the Fancher train over the weekend! You simply

can't get your people there to do it. So what does that tell you? It means

that whoever ordered this event did it before the Fancher party got to southern

Utah. It was ordered before they got there. Whatever they did in southern

Utah was irrelevant. It didn't matter. Their fate had already been determined

elsewhere.

This doesn't prove that Brigham Young had anything to do with the Mountain Meadows Massacre. In fact, he sent a letter saying that the Fancher wagon train should be allowed to pass without being bothered. Unfortunately, the messenger arrived too late.

I wonder how he (Brigham Young) expected the Southern Paiutes to procure the cattle that belonged to the Arkansas immigrants. Maybe Moroni was going to pick them up and teleport the cattle like he did with the gold plates that *might* have been made of tumbaga, which Moroni appears to have been confused about. Perhaps angels don't have to be able to distinguish different types of metals.

[Guest JLHyde]

Originally posted by bat@Aug 2 2004, 11:59 PM

This is an incredible story. It is an awful tale, but it is an American

tragedy. First of all, it's an American crime, and it is an incredible epic

story. So I thought, look, if I can tell this story accurately and fairly,

tell what happened and when---and I believe chronology is a key to

understanding history. I'm of the school of history that believes one damn

thing happens after another, and that chance plays an enormous role in human

history. And that if you want to track an event, look at the sequence of

events. In many ways, chronology is the key to figuring out the basic

parameters about Meadows.

Here's an example: The Fancher party doesn't get to Cedar City until Friday

evening, September 4th. On Monday morning, September 7th, they are attacked by

a large force of Mormons and Indians. And these Indians are allegedly

assembled all the way from the Muddy River, which is 80-90 miles away from

Mountain Meadows, all the way up to Cedar City, which is a span of 120 miles.

But guess what? You can't get pissed off on Friday night, and organize an

orchestrated military attack on the Fancher train over the weekend! You simply

can't get your people there to do it. So what does that tell you? It means

that whoever ordered this event did it before the Fancher party got to southern

Utah. It was ordered before they got there. Whatever they did in southern

Utah was irrelevant. It didn't matter. Their fate had already been determined

elsewhere.

This doesn't prove that Brigham Young had anything to do with the Mountain Meadows Massacre. In fact, he sent a letter saying that the Fancher wagon train should be allowed to pass without being bothered. Unfortunately, the messenger arrived too late.

I wonder how he (Brigham Young) expected the Southern Paiutes to procure the cattle that belonged to the Arkansas immigrants. Maybe Moroni was going to pick them up and teleport the cattle like he did with the gold plates that *might* have been made of tumbaga, which Moroni appears to have been confused about. Perhaps angels don't have to be able to distinguish different types of metals.

Well, this is interesting, bat.

So, B.Y. told the folks in the South of Utee Country to "let those Arkansans go". (And he did so by courier and by telegraph, perhaps?)

And--or but--by the same token, he, Brigham, wanted all the Arkansan travelers' cattle to be brought to him?

I'm not sure of the chronology of your point.

Please elucidate.

So, do you believe that John D. Lee was the "organizer" in all this, then?

(And, how is it that people from Tooele (?) erected one, big statue in honor of John D. Lee--who was put to death for murder?)

I guess people choose their "heroes" carefully, eh?

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by JLHyde@Aug 3 2004, 01:28 AM

So, do you believe that John D. Lee was the "organizer" in all this, then?

(And, how is it that people from Tooele (?) erected one, big statue in honor of John D. Lee--who was put to death for murder?)

I guess people choose their "heroes" carefully, eh?

Telegraph? Hmmm.........that would have been much more efficient. I wonder if they had a telegraph in Cedar City back then. If you have something really important, do you send it overnight, or do you give it to UPS and tell them to lose it?

And no, BY didn't want their cattle. He gave it to the Indians. Since the cattle were his to give with him being the prophet and all.

John D. Lee was a scapegoat.

[Guest]

Ah, the good 'ol blood atonement doctrine.

Young taught it. Lee believed it, just look how he wanted to die.

Let the sinful blood be purged!

[Guest bat]

Nope, no telegraph until almost a decade after the MMM.

[Matt]

The Mormon church would look much better if they said: "Yes. This was an act carried out by faithful Mormons. There were reasons why they did it. These reasons might have seemed right and proper to them, but we have to admit that even by the standards of the times they lived in, their reasons were shoddy and paperthin excuses for what happened. Although we know there's nothing that cas

n be done about it, we have to say that we are sorry it happened and accept our portion of the blame."

However, maybe there is something the Mormon Church could do? How about setting up an organisation to promote greater understanding of other people and calling it the Mountain Meadows Fancher Institute?

Would this help to put things right? Then those pesky anti-Mormons would have less to say on the issue, perhaps?

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Matt@Aug 3 2004, 04:38 PM

The Mormon church would look much better if they said: "Yes. This was an act carried out by faithful Mormons. There were reasons why they did it. These reasons might have seemed right and proper to them, but we have to admit that even by the standards of the times they lived in, their reasons were shoddy and paperthin excuses for what happened. Although we know there's nothing that cas

n be done about it, we have to say that we are sorry it happened and accept our portion of the blame."

However, maybe there is something the Mormon Church could do? How about setting up an organisation to promote greater understanding of other people and calling it the Mountain Meadows Fancher Institute?

Would this help to put things right? Then those pesky anti-Mormons would have less to say on the issue, perhaps?

Well they did spend a little bit of money to build a new rock carin for the victims as well as a whole bunch of plaques all over the massacre site that might as well say "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints did a truly noble thing by making this generous tribute to a bunch of people that died by some unknown means."

And

Gordon Hinckley DID say something like "We don't know what happened here, and we will never know what happened here, because I won't let historians look at the stuff that I keep hidden in the Vault at the church headquarters." at the dedication 4 or so years ago.

That's pretty close to what you said, isn't it?

[Jason]

John D Lee was the lone assassin! (wait.......or was that Lee Harvey Oswald.... )