Brigham Young..a Murderer? Huh?

[Jason]

There is no evidence the settlers bragged about any such thing. They did not even know who Pratt was, much less that he been murdered.

This is one example of many that the Mormons came up with after the fact to excuse what they had done. It doesn't show up in any of the journals, and the story changes with each telling.

I don't have any idea what they actually said, and neither do you.

There are reasons the Mormons did what they did, but it drives me nuts when people perpetuate the myths that blame it on the victims.

Emma

The myths are part of what we have to go on. Nobody here is claiming as absolute, indisputable fact that the settlers actually said they killed Pratt. It's just another part of the saga, and there's no reason not to put it out on the table.

If you truly think you have insider information that the rest of us either haven't read or heard before, then bring it forth and we can examine it. Otherwise your unsubstantiated claims of superior information are getting really old and it would be nice if you'd knock it off.

[Annabelli]

I'm an agnostic concerning The Mountain Meadows Massacre.

[CrimsonKairos]

They had been counting on buying foodstuffs to restock what they had used, and they resented the hostility, and were a bit frightened because there was going to be nowhere else to restock.

Where did you read this? Fancher train diaries? (I'm not being sarcastic, it's a real question)

Additionally, the wagon train had approximately 400 head of cattle. In Provo, they were grazing the cattle on land the Mormons grazed the cattle on in the winter. The Mormons, again with hostility, insisted the Fancher train move their cattle elsewhere. The Mormons did give them an alternate area, but the emigrants, refused, cockily replying: "This is Uncle Sam's grass. We are his boys. We have a better claim on it than a bunch of Mormons which had to be kicked out of one state to another and finally out of the United

States. We are staying right here."

Again, where can I read this?

The hostility against them was palpable, and they had no idea why.

Maybe it had something to do with the, "This is Uncle Sam's grass. We are his boys. We have a better claim on it than a bunch of Mormons which had to be kicked out of one state to another and finally out of the United States. We are staying right here," comment. I'm just guessing here...

[vinny15]

<div class='quotemain'>Thankyou Emma. (You are agreeing wth me right? lol)

Well, no....and yes!

Emma

Well Ill take that. lol

[Guest Yediyd]

The hostility against them was palpable, and they had no idea why.

Maybe it had something to do with the, "This is Uncle Sam's grass. We are his boys. We have a better claim on it than a bunch of Mormons which had to be kicked out of one state to another and finally out of the United States. We are staying right here," comment. I'm just guessing here...

Uh, ya think?

[a-train]

Otherwise your unsubstantiated claims of superior information are getting really old and it would be nice if you'd knock it off.

Hilarious.

Why don't you try knocking it off?

-a-train

Oh yeah, and take a look at the 'Oath of Vengence'. Did it say: 'Pray that you will have strength to commit genocide against the US?' Did it even ask that those so covenanted are to rise up at all? Again, it would take a great interpolation to imagine this somehow meant that Arkansas travellers passing through Utah should be butchered by those so convenanted.

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>Otherwise your unsubstantiated claims of superior information are getting really old and it would be nice if you'd knock it off.

Hilarious.

Why don't you try knocking it off?

-a-train

Oh yeah, and take a look at the 'Oath of Vengence'. Did it say: 'Pray that you will have strength to commit genocide against the US?' Did it even ask that those so covenanted are to rise up at all? Again, it would take a great interpolation to imagine this somehow meant that Arkansas travellers passing through Utah should be butchered by those so convenanted.

Some posts don't merit a response.

[a-train]

But like the rest, he couldn't resist.

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

The myths are part of what we have to go on.

No, they are not, not when it comes to what really happened. Historial research is what we have to go on. Myths are part of the story, but they must always be identified as such. You did not do that.

Nobody here is claiming as absolute, indisputable fact that the settlers actually said they killed Pratt. It's just another part of the saga, and there's no reason not to put it out on the table.

Yes, someone is claiming an absolute, indisputable fact, and it was you, because of the way you wrote the sentence. You did not qualify it by saying "It is a myth that the settlers said the members of the wagon train killed Pratt."

And no, there is never a reason to put a "myth" out on the table unless you are very careful to identify it as such.

If you truly think you have insider information that the rest of us either haven't read or heard before, then bring it forth and we can examine it. .

Done.

From Utah Historians and the Reconstruction of Western History:

RE: Claims from Mormons that the Fancher train claimed it had been involved in the murder of Parley Pratt.

The identity of the "Missouri Wildcats" [the people who claimed they had shot Pratt] and their ultimate fate--if indeed their was such a group----continues to elude scholarship. Brooks, whose focus was on the Mormon side of the incident, made little effort to study the emigrant train at all, and seems to accept the Mormon descriptions of them and their actions at face value. As I indicate in the text, the Wildcat’s provocative acts as reported by the Mormons seem suicidal and their motivation hard to explain. Recent scholarship has disclosed that the party was both an emigration group and a speculative venture in cattle of which they were driving a large herd--perhaps 300 to 1,000--to California’s gold country. . . . It would not have taken very many unwise acts, perhaps against the wishes of the family contingent [the Fancher wagon train] to provoke a fatal conflict, and they would have known that. Brooks did not have this information at the time.

Re: Poisoning the cattle, putting it into the stream where many Native Americans died:

This elaborateness of the emigrants’ alleged poison inventory and the delay and effort it would have cost them to wait for the animals to die, then further doctor the carcasses with poison, would seem to add to the implausibility of the story.

Otherwise your unsubstantiated claims of superior information are getting really old and it would be nice if you'd knock it off

They're not unsubstantiated claims. It's called research.

Emma the "Know-It-All"

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

<div class='quotemain'>

They had been counting on buying foodstuffs to restock what they had used, and they resented the hostility, and were a bit frightened because there was going to be nowhere else to restock.

Where did you read this? Fancher train diaries? (I'm not being sarcastic, it's a real question)

Additionally, the wagon train had approximately 400 head of cattle. In Provo, they were grazing the cattle on land the Mormons grazed the cattle on in the winter. The Mormons, again with hostility, insisted the Fancher train move their cattle elsewhere. The Mormons did give them an alternate area, but the emigrants, refused, cockily replying: "This is Uncle Sam's grass. We are his boys. We have a better claim on it than a bunch of Mormons which had to be kicked out of one state to another and finally out of the United

States. We are staying right here."

Again, where can I read this?

Blood of the Prophets, Will Bagley, pp. 102

The hostility against them was palpable, and they had no idea why.

Maybe it had something to do with the, "This is Uncle Sam's grass. We are his boys. We have a better claim on it than a bunch of Mormons which had to be kicked out of one state to another and finally out of the United States. We are staying right here," comment. I'm just guessing here...

Hmmmmm.

It was a common problem. Many emigrant trains had previously come through Utah, and the Mormons were always having to make them move because it really was their winter grazing area. But it had never been hostile before. It was due to the coming of the Army, and the Reformation that I wrote a freakin' treatise about but nobody wants to read oh well, I'll get over it.

So, yes, I agree with you....that certanly didn't help things!

Emma

[rosie321]

Is Brigham Young a murderer? If people followed his teachings on blood atonement and acted on his words because they they believed it was the right thing to do?

If you answer yes to that question..................................

Would Christ be at least guilty of assault then for commanding his disciples to purchase swords and then using them to cut off a guards ear? Christ pretty much put the weapons into their hands....

(Who knows what other things may have been left out or hidden from scriptures. Were there massacres or murders we don't know of? )

[vinny15]

I agree with Emma. There was a renegade group of mormons and they killed the settlers. Plain and simple. Brigham young might of been preaching blood atonement (could of been in a different way than was written because allot of the stuff thats written is merely a mans try to explain in his words what he heard from a prophet) and that might of smarked some type of reason in there twisted minds. We shouldn't make any excuses for the killers. It is what it is. It shouldnt shake any persons testimony of the true church. The church is perfect the people arent (definately arent!!!) lol.

I have seen no evidence brigham young ordered the attack. I by my own testimony know he wouldnt have, but Im clarifying that that is my testimony.

[Guest Yediyd]

I agree with Emma. There was a renegade group of mormons and they killed the settlers. Plain and simple. Brigham young might of been preaching blood atonement (could of been in a different way than was written because allot of the stuff thats written is merely a mans try to explain in his words what he heard from a prophet) and that might of smarked some type of reason in there twisted minds. We shouldn't make any excuses for the killers. It is what it is. It shouldnt shake any persons testimony of the true church. The church is perfect the people arent (definately arent!!!) lol.

I have seen no evidence brigham young ordered the attack. I by my own testimony know he wouldnt have, but Im clarifying that that is my testimony.

You know, Vinny...you strike me as a very inteligent young man! You are wise and mature beyond your years. If I didn't know better, I would take you for one of us "old folks". (and I mean that in a good way) :)

Some of the "adults" up here could take lessons from you, my friend.

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

I agree with Emma. There was a renegade group of mormons and they killed the settlers. Plain and simple. Brigham young might of been preaching blood atonement (could of been in a different way than was written because allot of the stuff thats written is merely a mans try to explain in his words what he heard from a prophet) and that might of smarked some type of reason in there twisted minds. We shouldn't make any excuses for the killers. It is what it is. It shouldnt shake any persons testimony of the true church. The church is perfect the people arent (definately arent!!!) lol.

I have seen no evidence brigham young ordered the attack. I by my own testimony know he wouldnt have, but Im clarifying that that is my testimony.

Hey Vinny!

Don't be agreeing with me so soon, because what you're saying here isn't what I'm saying. It wasn't a renegade group of Mormons. I feel like I've written a whole book about this on this thread, so I thought I'd just give a link to a website that I believe tells the story with a lot of the details.

I don't believe Brigham Young literally said "Kill the wagon train." But there is no doubt in my mind that he created an environment where he knew it was a possibility that the train could be in danger. He had met with the southern Native Americans and told them they could steal all the wagon train's cattle. He had also sent George A. Smith down south to tell the Mormons to prepare for battle, that they had to be ready to kill at a moments notice, etc. The rhetoric was very incendiary.

I think too often people think the men inolved in the murders had no connection to the north and BY. That is not true, as I've just described. They were in contact with the north, although it took days to send messages.

The point is, the murderers were the stake president, bishopric, etc. of Iron County. They also reformed the Nauvoo Legion and when George Smith arrived he was very pleased to see them drilling, as they had been told to do. It was a very militaristic and fanatic time, and there was definitely the anticipation of blood shed.

Mountain Meadows Massacre

Emma

You know, Vinny...you strike me as a very inteligent young man! You are wise and mature beyond your years. If I didn't know better, I would take you for one of us "old folks". (and I mean that in a good way) :)

Some of the "adults" up here could take lessons from you, my friend. [/b]

Hi Yedihd,

I want to second that! He is a sweetie, isn't he?

Emma

[Jason]

No, they are not, not when it comes to what really happened. Historial research is what we have to go on. Myths are part of the story, but they must always be identified as such. You did not do that.

Im hardly convinced that these stories are not factual either. I've seen nothing to indicate that the party didn't utter this, so either way, it's worth telling.

Yes, someone is claiming an absolute, indisputable fact, and it was you, because of the way you wrote the sentence. You did not qualify it by saying "It is a myth that the settlers said the members of the wagon train killed Pratt."

And no, there is never a reason to put a "myth" out on the table unless you are very careful to identify it as such.

Again, unless there is indisputable proof, I'll tell it as we know it. Provide some evidence to the contrary, and we can all dismiss it out of hand.

From Utah Historians and the Reconstruction of Western History:

RE: Claims from Mormons that the Fancher train claimed it had been involved in the murder of Parley Pratt.

The identity of the "Missouri Wildcats" [the people who claimed they had shot Pratt] and their ultimate fate--if indeed their was such a group----continues to elude scholarship. Brooks, whose focus was on the Mormon side of the incident, made little effort to study the emigrant train at all, and seems to accept the Mormon descriptions of them and their actions at face value. As I indicate in the text, the Wildcat’s provocative acts as reported by the Mormons seem suicidal and their motivation hard to explain. Recent scholarship has disclosed that the party was both an emigration group and a speculative venture in cattle of which they were driving a large herd--perhaps 300 to 1,000--to California’s gold country. . . . It would not have taken very many unwise acts, perhaps against the wishes of the family contingent [the Fancher wagon train] to provoke a fatal conflict, and they would have known that. Brooks did not have this information at the time.

Re: Poisoning the cattle, putting it into the stream where many Native Americans died:

This elaborateness of the emigrants’ alleged poison inventory and the delay and effort it would have cost them to wait for the animals to die, then further doctor the carcasses with poison, would seem to add to the implausibility of the story.

So you're interpreting Gary Topping now? Putting words into the mouth of an author, who himself is only making a best guess is hardly the evidence Im looking for.

Next time let's see a nice peer-reviewed article from UHQ or BYU Studies, or heck, even Dialogue.

They're not unsubstantiated claims. It's called research.

Reading one book whose author pretends to critize better historians than himself makes you an expert researcher?

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

Reading one book whose author pretends to critize better historians than himself makes you an expert researcher?

From another thread:

"You needed your own thread to boost your ego?"

Jason,

I have provided diverse material, insight and scope on the subject of the MMM, while you have been on a one-horse ride shouting "blood atonement" for approximately ten pages. You accuse my posts of lacking that which you yourself refuse to provide.

Finally, you resort to ad hominem attacks, which means you have nothing left of substance to offer, so you attack me personally. I've had enough experience on message boards to know that when the level of discourse digresses to ad hominem, true debate is no longer possible.

Therefore, I will no longer respond to any of your posts.

Emma

[Jason]

I have provided diverse material, insight and scope on the subject of the MMM, while you have been on a one-horse ride shouting "blood atonement" for approximately ten pages. You accuse my posts of lacking that which you yourself refuse to provide.

You have provided one source and your opinion. You call that "diverse"?

[Guest Yediyd]

<div class='quotemain'>

I have provided diverse material, insight and scope on the subject of the MMM, while you have been on a one-horse ride shouting "blood atonement" for approximately ten pages. You accuse my posts of lacking that which you yourself refuse to provide.

You have provided one source and your opinion. You call that "diverse"?

OK, Jason...assuming that you are correct...what book is she quoting and where is your proof that she has not read any other material?

[Jason]

OK, Jason...assuming that you are correct...what book is she quoting and where is your proof that she has not read any other material?

I can only hope she's read more than one book. The book she offers as her source is called: "Utah Historians and the Reconstruction of Western History" by Gary Topping. But in a rather unscholarly way, she has made his book into "the" book on the subject. Toppings book appears little more than a trash-talk text against better historians.

[Guest Yediyd]

http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660224913,00.html

Just found this link and thought it was a good artical.

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660224913,00.html

Just found this link and thought it was a good artical.

Hi Yediyd!

I agree, I thought it was a good synopsis of what's to come. I'm very excited to see the book!

There is a part in which I wish Turley had expounded and written somethingt to the effect: ". . . president Brigham Young, who Turley said did send letters to leaders in southern Utah in the months before the massacre. He also sent George A. Smith to the south, stopping along the way to ensure the Saints' militias were prepared to meet the "Gentiles, preaching incendiary sermons as federal troops were approaching the state — warning of interlopers who may cause harm and urging the LDS faithful to defend themselves."

Perhaps this is better explained in the book, as it is as important to the story as Brigham Young's sending letters to the southern communities.

There is also an Ensign article about the massacre here.

I'm very glad to see the Church raising a dialogue about this. I agree with Bagley when he “said he considers Turley ". . . an honest historian. But he will soon go through the fire.”

I admit I was taken aback when on May 26, 2007, the Deseret News published an article, entitled “”New Mountain Meadows book places blame on local leaders.“ Glen Leonard, another author of the new book “Tragedy at Mountain Meadows,” was quoted as saying:

"We kept our minds open to all the eventualities," he said, adding they initially overlooked the significant role that Isaac C. Haight played in ordering an LDS militia to carry out the massacre. Ultimately, "we put him in the responsible chair many have said Brigham Young occupied."

When I read this my heart sank. Anyone who has read the available MMM literature, which I assume Leonard and Turley have, knows Haight was a ringleader at the MMM. The fact that they “initially overlooked” this concerns me.

However, I realize it is merely a sliver, albeit a significant one, of what I hope will be the book that answers questions that have haunted so many for at least sixty years. I realize I shouldn’t get my bloomers in a bunch until I read the entire book, which I look forward to with great anticipation.

Emma