First of all, it’s Will Bagley, and secondly, he doesn’t say that. He says Juanita Brooks (author, in 1950, of the book Mormon Meadow Massacre, and in 1961, of John D. Lee: Zealot, Pioneer Builder, Scapegoat) wrote in a letter to Everett Cooley (history professor at the University of Utah, director of the Utah Historical Society, and Utah state archivist) that one of Lee’s descendants, Art Clark, claimed that some members of his family had a journal owned by Lee in which Lee said that Young had said that, but but that when family members, in an attempt to rehabilitate Lee, brought it to the attention to the LDS Church, the Church ordered that the journal never be shown to anyone.
Is the debate over whether someone made sport of you for not posting a debate?
Don’t you have better things to do ? Whether you know it or not, the mods move threads that do not have debate. This one does. At least it would if it weren’t interrupted by kiddies running off topic . Off with you.
I still don’t see what we’re supposed to be debating. The massacre happened, it’s not clear how far up the chain things went, but it’s not clear that there’s an actual debate topic. Perhaps you can be more explicit? What are you hoping to get from this discussion?
Well is a cover up a sign of innocence? What I read is Young was a spur for the massacre.
Two years after the massacre the army finally got to the site and was appalled. They buried the bodies and set up a cross to commemorate. The Mormons went out there and ripped the sign down and left no markers for the graves. Was that guilt, cover up or anger ?
Where is the evidence?! How much steel is in those guns? I saw it with my own eyes and it’s not physically possible for bullets to pierce leather like that?! These questions need to be asked!
It wasn’t their fault. Bush, telepathing form the eternal beyond made them do it.
Well, I’m not entirely sure what your thesis is here, so I don’t really know what you want me to say? The high level of tension between the Mormons and the federal government helped contribute to the incident. The Mormons thought that they were on the verge of extermination by the government, and were getting ready to burn down Salt Lake City and flee (which is part of the reason for the growth of Provo…it was the first place a lot of fleeing Mormons went). So, with that sort of atmosphere, it was almost inevitable that violence would break out, and Brigham Young bears some, but by no means all, of the responsibility for increasing that level of paranoia.
The Mormon Church also tried to deny the involvement of Mormons at first. That certainly was a bad thing to do, but I don’t know if it suggests that Young was involved before the fact.
What indicates Young would be involved is that an operation of that size, with those ramifications would be incredibly unlikely to be undertaken with Young’s explicit approval. It is far too long ago to conclusively prove his involvement, but for those of us who strongly suspect he was involved it makes it very difficult
to give much credibility to Mormonism.
I don’t know what you mean about an “operation of that size”. Only nine people were indicted, all of whom were from the Nauvoo Legion 10th Regiment, and John Lee was an Indian agent, so he had a relationship with the Paiute. Everyone involved was from Cedar City, and on September 6th, in Cedar City, there was a debate over what to do with the Fancher party. It wasn’t until then that they sent a messenger out asking Young what to do. The messenger didn’t even get to Salt Lake City until September 10th.
We also know that Isaac Haight, who was the mayor and stake president of Cedar City, had been pushing for violent action against the Fancher party, gave a speech on September 6th, calling for violence, and we know that it was on the 6th that Lee sent his son in law Don Carlos Shirts to incite the Paiute against the wagon train. And, then, on the evening of the 10th, the Cedar City militia had a meeting at Mountain Meadows where they probably agreed to slaughter the party.
Just looking at the chronology, it looks like it was an entirely Cedar City thing. It was the Cedar City people (Stake President Haight, Councilor Higbee, Bishop Klingensmith), who were pushing for violence against the wagon train. It was the Cedar City people who carried out the violence against the wagon train. So, if you want to extend the blame further than the Cedar City people, you really need something like evidence.
It’s true that Jacob Hamblin had suggested that the Fancher party camp in Mountain Meadows, and also that Young met with Hamblin about getting the Paiutes as allies, but the Hamblin party was in SLC at the time (where the Paiute were meeting with Young to get his approval to steal cattle from Gentile wagon trains and Hamblin was taking another wife), so I can’t see that he was involved. The chronology just doesn’t make sense for there to have been involvement from Salt Lake City on the decisions.
now now lets wait till all the facts are in before rushing to judgment.
Those Mormons better not go to Switzerland to accept any awards.
The scenario they showed on TV ,was that the settlers gave up their weapons and as they walked away each had a Mormon with them. Then on a signal they all shot the settler in the head . That required more than 9 people. If some were attacked with axes at the signal it gets even uglier. But. it was a religious group doing the killing. They were organized and led by religious leaders. It was disgusting .
…uh…they had it coming?
It clearly was disgusting, and they were organized and led by religious leaders. That’s not disputable. But what is disputable is whether anyone was involved other than the Cedar City militia, and I don’t think there’s enough evidence that they were.