Replies

Without critically reviewing Walker, Turley & Leonard, I'm sure they've done a professional work on this book. The only thing the Mormon church probably told them from the jumpstart was to just not look very hard for any pre-massacre connections leading back to Brigham Young...or perhaps even develop a credible mopology [sic] on that.

Make up your mind. If the authors did "professional work" on the book, they would not have overlooked "connections" to Brigham Young. To do so would have been unprofessional.

Do you have any evidence to support your suggestion that the Mormon Church "probably" told the authors how to proceed?

Well, you can't expect an objective look from a corporation that has as much invested in the name of "Brigham Young."

You should look up the fallacy known as "poisoning the well."

Make up your mind. If the authors did "professional work" on the book, they would not have overlooked "connections" to Brigham Young. To do so would have been unprofessional.

Hey. If you're conducting an archaelogy dig -- or you're mining for minerals or gold. And I'm your boss. And I tell you to dig here & there & over there. And you do a 100% bang-up job on that. That's professionalism. (Even if an amateur's at work).

Likewise, if I as your boss said dig here, there & over there -- but if you find anything that looks like a "vein" leading to the one isolated spot a ways away...leave it alone. And if you leave it alone; hey, you're obeying your payroll check-writers, which is a + on your annual eval. That, too, is regarded as "professionalism" -- doing what your boss tells you to do.

Do you have any evidence to support your suggestion that the Mormon Church "probably" told the authors how to proceed?...You should look up the fallacy known as "poisoning the well."

What? You expect me to be privvy to the inner workings of a hierarchy that's not even accountable to its own members?

You should look what, say, basketball officials do. You know, if Jimmer's dad was a Utah college basketball referee, do you think he'd wind up reffin' a Cougar game? I mean, c'mon. He could be rated the best b'ball ref in the NCAA. But if his son was on the squad, they'd actually take care to remove him from any such assignments.

What makes the source even more highly suspect than normal in this particular case is the Lds Church track record of...
(a) Covering up this mass crime...
(b) Being uncooperative in bringing justice to the victims...
(c) Tearing down even Memorials on the site - as if they could wipe away the memory of their trail of victims...
(d) And basically ignoring whatever they didn't cover up for almost 150 years.

What's also going to be interesting is Turley, who works for the Mormon Church, doing this sequel on the aftermath. Frankly it could be harder to prove Brigham Young's pre-massacre role -- and exactly what that was.

But you could be an 11-yo investigator & do a school report and probably find enough leads that implicated Brigham Young in a de-facto cover up.

I mean, Young WAS not only a dictator-"prophet" during the "reformation" years of 1850s Utah, but he was also territorial governor at the time this happened. While it's true he didn't remain at that post much longer after this happened, he still had the ecclesiastal authority to get people to turn themselves in.

He knew who was involved; and covered it up. He knew what remnant evidence existed -- even the fanciest horses Utah ever saw -- that were stolen...and who had control of them -- and how they were received. (I mean even receiving stolen property is a common pawn-shop crime...and was pretty easy to trace re: many of what was taken...and didn't they shoot horse thieves in the middle of the 19th century?)

In that sense, because of his sheer power, Brigham Young is at least a de facto accomplice to murder. A sin of omission is still a sin of omission: 17 If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them. (James 4:17)

Now, tell me, Logo: How is Turley going to squirrel around that one? [Wouldn't surprise me if the book never goes to print]

How is Turley going to avoid implicating Young in ANY de-facto way if he applies James 4:17 to Brigham's behavior from mid-September, 1857 until his death???

What? Was Brigham such a weakling that he couldn't get more than one stubborn adopted "son" to confess? Or he couldn't get his people to turn over evidence?

What? Are you telling me that nobody knew what was going on? Eye-witness accounts? Second-level hearsay?

Did the Cavalry just put their fingers in the air two years after it happened, and determined that the surviving children must have been at this particular home or that? All because they had to rely upon their own info because the Mormons suddenly turned Moronic about certain September 1857 details? Did the Army just have such great pigeon-like skills that they could determine things from afar like where the children were -- details that couldn't be uncovered locally & regionally?

In fact, we'd like to see your pollyanna gullibility on parade: Go ahead, tell us...
"Why, Brigham wasn't guilty of anything after the fact...even with James 4:17 standards applied."

But that's OK, Logo...I'm sure you & I could agree in singing on the same Mormon Tubercular choir if the refrain was the following:
"We agree...
...that Tur-ley
...will conveni-ent-ly
...leave un-published
...what Young missed
...intentional-ly
...or otherwise be
...critical-ly
...linked to his hand
...Why, why render
...a late indictment vs.
...their own PR Brand?"

If Turley can't critique Brigham Young in a series of omissive steps (not to mention intentional cover-ups), then you might as well pull out the old hit, "I'm your puppet...I'm your puppet" & sing along as you read his sequel.