September Dawn - The PR Campaign

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

do they show their hooters or not?

Not. But they make really good maple syrup.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

What a beautiful chruch. Thanks, AA. Where is it?

Copenhagen. Vor Frue Kirke, or "Church of our Lady."

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Juanita Brooks didn't believe that, and she was objective. You might believe McMurtry is not objective, but the McMurtry approach appears more scholarly than most.

Point to me an objective historian who is certain BY ordered and knew of the murders.

Will Bagley's MMM commentary on the PBS special was interesting. He basically implied there is enough circumstantial evidence to support the premise that BY was involved. I understand that Bagley is a member; how does he fit into the "objective historian" category?

[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.

[BYU71]

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.

I don't think I would argue hard for either side of the discussion. I can easily understand it came from Brigham Young or was thought to have come from him.

I can also easily understand it got carried away at the local level.

I don't have a "dog" in this fight over whether Brigham Young did or didn't have it done.

I am quite frankly more concerned with those who think the HC was divinely given.

[Requiem]

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?

Not wanting to shrink from your 50/50 challenge, I will gingerly dip my toe in and respond.

Certainly BY's leadership style was "top down"; he expected nothing less than complete obedience - his tolerance threshold was non-existent. The question in my mind is how much day-to-day control did he exert over events occurring 200 miles away? Given what we do know, how would today's justice system treat BY? Would he be charged with conspiracy?

One cause and effect element of MMM that is not fully understood is the assassination of P.P.Pratt by his wife's legal husband in Arkansas, and her subsequent arrival in SLC on 7/24/1857. History documents that her recount of the events inflamed the Saints and there was no love lost for anyone from Arkansas. Clearly there are more subtleties to MMM than the attack itself. From my idealistic perspective there is the possibility a conspiracy occurred - I just do not have enough credible information to make an objective assessment.

[YOhio]

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 is a valid point, but discussing how much sense something makes is a futile exercise when the topic is the cold-blooded murder of 129 people.

Few would dispute that Brigham Young contributed to an already hostile climate with inflamatory rhetoric. Anything beyond that is conjecture.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Will Bagley's MMM commentary on the PBS special was interesting. He basically implied there is enough circumstantial evidence to support the premise that BY was involved. I understand that Bagley is a member; how does he fit into the "objective historian" category?

But Bagley hasn't shown any "evidence", just a conclusion. There is, as far as I know, no new evidence. We don't have conclusive nor even suggestive evidence that BY (a) knew about it in advance, or (b) ordered or authorized it.

He did contribute to the inflammatory atmosphere and should be faulted, but that's a far cry from the ordering of 120 murders. Does he bear some responsibility? Yes, but not as an actual planner, or commander who desired it.

I'd be willing to look at the evidence piece by piece to pick it apart.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I have been to that chapel in Copenhagen. It's gorgeous.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Will Bagley's MMM commentary on the PBS special was interesting. He basically implied there is enough circumstantial evidence to support the premise that BY was involved. I understand that Bagley is a member; how does he fit into the "objective historian" category?

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.")