not mormon, but super fascinated with how such a huge and tragic event within mormon history can be so swept under the rug. I know most TBM mormons are slightly familiar with polygamy and the black priesthood stuff, but how does one justify slaughter like this? And if you have (as an exmo) talked about it to a mormon, how do they respond?

I never heard of the massacre in all the time I was a tbm.It was only when I delved in to a book written about Mark Hoffman that I even heard of it at all.

I was in tscc for 22 years. Never heard if it till I was out and found this site.

Taking a TBM to the memorial sites today and teaching some history. They've never heard about it.

I was an active member of the church for over 50 years and never heard about it until I stumbled on RfM. In fact, my husband was asking me just this week who exactly comprised this group of people and were they seeking to settle in California, or were they trying to join with those in Utah? And why were they viewed as a threat to BY??

Quite the opposite. Those few who know about it go to great lengths to avoid talking about it, confronting it, or letting others learn about it.

My g-g-grandfather came across the plains to Utah, and settled in Parowan. He was part of the militia there, and great friends with William Dame, one of the instigators of the MMM. So much so that he named his second-born son William Dame (our last name). He was part of a group that went from Parowan to try and re-settle Panguitch (the first group that went there abandoned the settlement after a hard winter and Indian problems).

Now, from what I can find, I'm pretty damn sure he was involved in the MMM. But I can't pin it down with evidence -- because subsequent family made a concerted effort to wipe out anything written that might implicate him. Journals, family records, letters, etc. all have a conspicuous missing block of time: from late 1856 to about 1859. Even the family birth records (and he did have kids during those three years, having two wives at the time) are absent, so the kids born during those years have no written record of their birth dates.

The obvious missing time frame helps convince me he was involved -- instead of doing what the family apparently intended, removing suspicion from him.

Nowhere have I been able to find a FULL list of the mormon men who participated (even the best ones leave about 20-30 men un-named). Somehow grandpa seems to have been part of that anonymous group, though his best pal William Dame wasn't so fortunate.

My family has gone to great lengths to hide facts about the MMM, and to avoid talking about it. Which only serves to make me more sure they were hiding something. At least it gives me reason to think that some were at least a little ashamed of it -- small comfort.

Timeline:
grandpa born 1833, England
Family converts to mormonism 1848
Family leaves for US, 1849
Arrives in Parowan, 1854
1855-1856 "history gap" starts
Son named William Dame born in Parowan, Sept. 10 1857
(3 days after MMM, only know from WD telling his kids his birthdate)
1859 "history gap" mostly ends
1871 goes with group to "refound" Panguitch



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2017 10:14AM by ificouldhietokolob.

Wow! That's some family tree you have Hie. So sorry!! :(

I am currently reading 'Blood of the Prophets' about the massacre, truly enlightening.

I grew up in TSCC and left at about age 23. I actually HAD heard of MMM. BUT it was white washed propaganda.

In the early 80s my parents bought all of those dramatized scriptures and early church history audio recordings. Almost nightly we'd go to bed listening to the dramatizations on a tape player in the hallway (With all of us having our doors cracked open to hear it).

I loved listening to those stories, they were well done (from my child perspective, have no idea what I'd think now!), I remember some of them practically by heart we listened to them so many times (ah, my parents did an excellent job of indoctrination in our family.. so you can understand I am quite a resilient soul to have gone through all of that and still found a way to question and leave! Sometimes I have to remember to give myself credit for that when I beat myself up for having not left it sooner!) ..

Anyway I remember the Massacre one. Not really clearly but I remember the name and how there was a 'misunderstanding' that Brigham and the other 'good' saints were very distraught over. I think it was told like the Mormon men down south had thought that there was an army in the guise of a wagon party out to get them.. some such nonsense and that they were waiting on Brigham's approval to fight (and probably said they'd been shot at first, that kind of thing).. which was actually partially true.. and then they got impatient and were afraid and went ahead with the 'fight'..

I remember it was something sad and that these Mormon men who did it were actually 'bad' Mormons and not 'good' saints. And they were bad for not being obedient and waiting to hear from the 'prophet'.. and they were bad for being scared and for not having faith. That's the way I remember viewing it when hearing it. And Brigham seemed so sad over it all.

But I don't think there was much mention of children being killed, certainly not in any kind of detail. And I remember there was Indian involvement.

I could be misremembering since it's been so long since I heard that and it wasn't one that we listened to repeatedly (for good reason I am sure my parents didn't want us dwelling on it or THEY didn't want to dwell on it!). But I know I had heard of it previous to my recent investigations. And I am pretty sure that was the source but it was distorted propaganda only.

I only now (at age 44) after all the years out of the cult have found out the true about MMM. I can't remember how I came across it exactly, but it's been truly an eye opener for me and has led me to delve deeper into investigating the cult so that I can understand how fully I was affected by it and what a hold it has on my TBM family.

I am half way through 'Blood of the Prophets' which is a very through study of the massacre and starts with a lot of background about Joe Smith and Brigham and the blood atonement sermons of Brigham's. I would highly recommend it. Very well researched.

That's a great book.
The Bagleys rock :)

I don't feel any "shame" over grandpa being involved in MMM (or not) -- if there's any shame to be had, it would be his.

I'd just like to *know.* One way or the other.
But the family has worked so hard to never talk and hide everything that I may not ever know. Frustrating!
Thanks for the kind words.

Nor should you (feel shame).. of course YOU didn't do anything, but it always feels weird to think of a relation having possibly done something awful.. like you said knowing would be nice. But families love to keep their dark secrets hidden any way they can!

I was just reading the part in Blood of the Prophets about Juanita's reasons for investigating the massacre history and writing about it.. how she met a man (ended up being linked to the crime, I forget which one he was) who was on his death bed and sent for her because he wanted her to write down some 'important things' for him but by the time she got there he wasn't coherent enough to dictate. She ended up with some hint of it having to do with the massacre and it sounded like he wanted to confess his crimes and clear his conscience. He left this world crying out 'blood, so much blood!'

So very truly sad, those who got convinced that what they were doing was 'God's will' and 'righteous' but had to live with the effects of their conscience, having done something against it and live with the nightmares and the pain of having done terrible things. While those without conscience who gave the orders (Brigham and some of his men who seemed to enjoy partaking in the bloodshed) and having no conscience (sociopaths) likely felt no pain over it.

MMM is a perfect example of why blindingly obeying anyone is very dangerous.

There was also the hand cart disaster, almost 70 dead, and so many suffering life long consequences (like frost bitten missing hands and feet) all because of Brigham's 'divine' plan to save money on the 'saints' emigration. He felt that the wagon train ox carts methods were getting too costly and came up with a 'brilliant' plan (to make himself richer) to bring more saints than ever over from England in the cheapest way possible (he was trying to get more people in Utah in order to build up his militia against the US government). So not only did they have to walk and push or pull handcarts the handcarts were made too cheaply and they had to be constantly repaired which further delayed their already late start (some men of conscience protested them leaving so late in the season but Brigham was convinced they would 'meet no harm' and that the lord would protect them, etc.. and of course they all believed the 'prophet').. So they left late and endured the most unimaginable hardships, including fewer provisions (not enough food at all, not enough clothing or blankets), and met with crazy winter storms crossing the rockies.. Total unnecessary suffering and waste of lives. Still Brigham thought it a 'great success' until he realized the PR mess he was facing when he heard of so many trapped by storms so THEN (after many already died) he sends a relief party.

Still wanting to push the handcart idea, he sends missionaries from a shorter distance who were all very hearty and left well early enough and even THEY had to be rescued! So that was the end of that scheme.

But honestly the more I read of the truth of Brigham Young the more I understand that he was a heartless ruthless tyrant and it really pains me that he is still honored and that a well known university is named after him. It's like saying 'Adolf Hitler University' or 'Napoleon Bonaparte University' or 'Joseph Stalin University'.. He was that bad! And here he is still honored and revered as a great man! That is just SO WRONG!

Wasn't there also something about BY wanting to purchase a locomotive? Or am I conflating stories?

Young purchased it for one of his hair-brained schemes, and for a time it was "cached" up in Wyoming because of the same severe weather that led to the Willy and Martin Handcart horrors.

BY actually diverted one of the wagon trains sent to rescue the stranded handcart parties, and they retrieved the steam engine and several tons of "groceries."

The steam engine would've kept until spring, but the groceries consisted of cases of various liquor including whiskey...

'Nuff said...

(Source: Will Bagley, and I believe David Roberts mentions it in "Devil's Gate" as well)

If memory serves, Young wanted a steamboat on the Great Salt Lake, but that never happened, and eventually it wound up scrap.

It wasn't a locomotive, it was a steam engine. It was shipped out at the same time that the Willie and Martin handcart companies left. It was pulled by several teams of horses, which if they have been used by the handcart companies, could have eased their burden tremendously. The steam engine made it as far as Fort Bridger, and once Brigham was informed it was stopping there, he ordered that it be brought down to the Salt Lake Valley. It was to be used for a steam boat on the Great Salt Lake. Again, Brigham was more concerned with his steam engine than the welfare of the Saints dying on the plains. He was a Despicable individual.

Hell no

I grew up less than a 45 min drive to the location of the MMM. My convert father took us there on a regular basis and told us several versions of the story. In fact, I think we stopped there every time we were dragged to St. George for some temple function, where I would have to sit in the hot car.

I wish I could remember his conflicting stories(they were pretty glossy), but I do remember running my hand over the writing on the memorial stone there, and how it is was an intriguing bowl shaped area covered in grass, right off the road. It's possible one of my Mother's ancestors were involved. I can't even imagine asking them about it now, knowing what I know. They think Bring'em Young was a freakin genius saint.

One Mormon who talked about it a great deal was Juanita Brooks, who wrote a book about it.


Most books about the MMM were written by Mormons or ex-Mormons.

I really don't think these men would have committed this atrocity if they didn't have orders from BY. They would have never taken this on themselves.

John D. Lee was an adopted son of BY. He took the fall for it. BY sacrificed his son.

Juanita Brooks was a good historian, who did her research. She thought she would be ex'd for what she wrote, but they didn't ex her. Instead they stopped giving her callings.

Juanita Brooks was the sheriff's wife so that kept her busy enough.


She was very honest and forthright in explaining what she saw as the motivations behind the massacre.

Some Mormons will absolutely talk about this event.

By the way, I don't think looking through journals will give you clues to this event. It isn't the sort of thing you would write about in a journal.

Well my g-grandfather mentioned it in his journal claiming that he sold food and salt to the Fanchers when they passed through Parowan.

I'm pretty sure that BY was not pleased to learn of this flagrant act of perfidy, committed by a close relative of Horny Joe no less.

I stand corrected.


What close relatives of JS were a part of the massacre.

I have two g-grandfathers present in the area, at the time of the massacre but they both have alibis.

HOWEVER one of my ancestors WAS present at the Circleville massacre, which gets less attention then the MMM because the victims were local Indians.

MUCH TO HIS CREDIT, my ancestor tried to stop the Circleville massacre, and when he couldn't stop it, he walked away from it.

John D. Lee converted my other g-grandfather, who later purchased the Lee home when JDL needed to raise cash, fast.

I think you and I might be related.

Oh, I misunderstood you.

The "act of perfidy" your ancestor committed was selling food to the Fancher party.

That was a NO-NO, so good for your ancestor. He was a brave man. There were strict orders: NO food for THOSE gentiles.

I remember that from Juanita Brook's book. One man got in trouble for giving away an onion.

Hard times in Utah.

I have a hard time comparing the MMM to Nazi brutality.

HOWEVER, in both cases, the men that did the killing, were "just following orders," and thought they were protecting their native land.

I do not believe that these men were murderous brutes by nature. They were just convinced that they must perform this hideous act in order to protect their families.

I did read Juanita Brooks book, and remember being most impressed with the book and with the woman who wrote it, who was a Mormon and who stayed a Mormon.

Haven't read Blood of the Prophets yet, but I will.

I think there was a man named Dudley Leavitt, who was an ancestor of Ms. Brooks who participated in the massacre.

Yes.
Reminds me of the famous line that, "Good men will do good things and bad men will do bad things, but to cause good men to do bad things it takes religion".

Not in my experience. I never heard of it from a Mormon.

Well my g-grandfather was not present at the massacre but was sent down to investigate when rumors of the deed reached Parowan.

He was met by militia members at Cedar City who confirmed the rumors but gave few details whereupon he returned to Parowan.

GA Smith who was another close relative of Horny Joe played a prominent role in whipping up fear and loathing against the Fanchers and was greatly instrumental in the ensuing coverup.

Sad to admit, but there were two of my other close relatives whowere actual participants in briggy's brutal butchery.

Yes, we likely are related, as are a large portion of others who post here.

In a sense we are not unlike the posterity of the perpetrators of Nazi brutality.

Would one have been Charles Shumway?

Feijoada Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would one have been Charles Shumway?


Hey now.

Grandpa Charley was a lot of things but after committing murder in defense of Horny Joe in Nauvoo methinks he had had a bellyful of blood atonement by the time he reached Utah.

He was actually living in Cache Valley far away from the mmm madness at the time of the massacre.

Honest to Gawrsh...I actually had congenital TBM's in my extended family who thought that Mormons were actually massacred at Mountain Meadow until I could get some semblance of facts driven into their thick skulls!!!

MMM in Mormon circles is just as much NOT talked about as the inane Temple ceremony.

Or so it seems to me...

I've visited the site, (went out of my way to go); it was very sad.

I've studied it a lot, including an informal interview with one of Juanita's children.
We should remember that her research was funded, I forget by whom now (family of JDL?).

After yrs. of Momism, my first info was a NPR story about Juanita's death which peaked my curiosity.

Long may her memory live in the minds & hearts of those who love the TRUTH...

I heard about it from my non-Mormon father who heard about it from his minister when we joined TSCC. Even Dad didn't know a lot about it but what little I could find out about it from the church was totally inaccurate as I learned after leaving Mormonism. As I recall, the version I was given blamed the whole thing on Native Americans and/or the victims themselves.

The official narrative is that the raiders jumped the gun and found out after the fact that Brigham's orders were not to attack. However, it's out of character for soldiers to disobey orders. It's also out of character for Brigham to not brutally attack his enemies if he saw fit. Witness the Timpanogas tribe. So, I think as soon as they found it too big to contain, they whitewashed.

(To me)

The most telling element of this story was that the locals sent a messenger to SLC/BY asking what they should do with the travellers... WHY?

Why did they think they needed to ask BY?
Wouldn't they otherwise treat them Kindly?
Wouldn't they afford them every courtesy & comfort?

Mormons were Sheeple then, same as today;
they're NOT TRAINED IN RIGHT OR WRONG,
They're trained to be "loyal" to church leaders,
Right or Wrong, Truth or Lies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2017 02:08AM by GNPE.

Yeah. I've always heard that "it was them Indians."

Exactly. What little I heard, it was how the Indians did it (and tried to blame the benevolent Mormons).

I had never heard of the MMM until I moved to St. George in 1990. Someone asked a question about it in a church classroom and the teacher simply said it was the Indians that did it. Afterwards I asked what happened and I got the white washed version of how a rowdy group of immigrants was massacred by Indians and evil people were trying to blame the mormons for it.
That is also when I heard the name Juanita Brooks and was told that she writes anti-mormon books and to never open the cover of one of her books or I would be just as evil as her.

Never heard one word about MMM and I came from intense Mormon country and a large Mormon family. First I heard of the slaughter by Mormons was here on RFM a few years ago.

The Native Americans were very useful to the Mormons to blame their own atrocities and ugly behavior on. What they did to the Timpanogas tribe in particular is so sickening it brings tears to my eyes.

First blame them, then kill them, then put their children into a program that teaches them that they have the curse of dark skin because their ancestors were wicked and they can become white if they just try harder to be more like white Mormons.

Sickening. All of it.

One premise in Bagley's "Blood of the Prophets" was that Brigham Young wanted the Native Americans to become his "battleax of the Lord," and that he hoped the attack on the Fancher party would demonstrate to the U.S. government the power that he had to "hurt and make afraid." The Mormon participants were there to help out the Indians, and make them take the blame. As I recall, the Indians got turned off by it early in the game, and then the Mormons had to re-group and come up with a new tactic, which proved to be talking them into surrendering, then executing them all, clubbing the women and children to death after the men had gotten a bullet to the head. I think they scalped some to make it look like the Indians had been the ones to attack.

Didn't they drive the Fancher party's cattle north, re-brand them, and incorporate them into the church's cattle herd?

According to NY Times article, Baker-Fancher party "...was especially prosperous -- 40 solid, well-equipped wagons, ostentatious carriages, carrying precious household belongings and gold and currency worth at least $100,000, along with herds of horses, dairy cows, beef steers and even exceptional longhorn cattle."

Later in the article it mentions many of the cattle were taken by the Paiute during the initial siege, but before most of the indians left (and were not part of the massacre).

Later, "... Mormons in the southern communities began openly sporting clothing, jewelry and other possessions of the massacre victims, appropriating their wagons and carriages and corralling their branded livestock. Lee actually submitted a bill to the federal government for providing cattle and supplies to local Indians, all of it plunder."

I have read that one of the "ostentatious" carriages actually went to BY, where he rode in it in SLC as show of plunder from the "gentiles."

Here's the whole article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/07/books/the-great-utah-mystery.html

But you're correct that Brigham Young was seen riding around in it with Lee. Now if I could just remember where I read that bit of information...

Alas, senior moments are creeping despite my best attempts to ward them off.

I don't recall the Correlation department ever putting out a lesson to teach us about this so-called Mountain Meadow Massacre. Same goes for the Missionary department putting any Discussion topic about it in there. I suppose I could read up on this topic but with all the duties on our plate (cleaning chapels, cleaning temples, callings, HT/VT, missionary work, genealogy work, having a small family of around a dozen children pre-teenagers, Mormon Helping Hands charity work all the time, and numerous meetings & other duties) and other higher priorities for lesson topics (obedience, sacrifice, tithing, service, loyalty, etc) there just is no time or emphasis on such things. And besides if any such topic could create a Doubt then I need to be constantly on guard to make sure its not a thought that Satan or his billions of minions who are 100% dedicated to destroying Mormons' testimonies, could be inspiring. If I let a doubtful thought fester for even a microsecond then the loving angels in Heaven will take note on my negative thought then I could get fried at Judgment Day. Thus I got to shut out any and all negative thoughts immediately. Instead I'll put in positive thoughts such as thinking of ways how I can convince non-Mormons that the Church is super honest/transparent and its members super open-minded :)

What I do recall from the curriculum though is that there has been plenty of emphasis on obedience to our local leaders, not just the GAs, in the Church. Why is this? Because the doctrine says that they were called of God through revelation by to the General Authorities in the Church. Thus if ever the local leaders tell their members to do something then its as if the President of the Church and God is directly telling them to do it. This was especially true in the days of Brigham Young in Utah. All of the Bishops and Stake Presidents were in-line with the direction of Brigham Young. If a Bishop or Stake President told their members to do something then they could rest assured that it was as if Brigham Young himself was giving the order.

Just look at the leaders who were called back then and all believers must accept that they were called by real revelation by the unchanging eternal Heavenly Father. For example, Isaac C. Haight who in his 40s during the 1850s was President of the Iron Stake (Cedar City) and a powerful spokesman for God and Brigham Young. Same goes for other powerful men called of God such as William Dame, John D. Lee, and Philip Klingensmith in that same area of Utah in the 1850s where the voice of our loving and compassionate Lord was made known through these holy men. If the members of the Church would study the lives and all of the instructions that these leaders, who according to the eternal unchanging doctrine were the voice and will of God on all their business with the Saints under their jurisdiction, ever gave then the members today would better understand how to handle instructions from the Bishops and Stake Presidents of today.

And what's really marvelous to tell us about the real character of Brigham Young is how he'd act in the aftermath of any difficulties. For example, if a wagon train were passing from Utah and one of the pioneer boys was hunting rabbits for food to feed their siblings and what if they accidentally shot the leg of a kitten of one of the gentile wagons. Surely we would see Brigham Young, assuming he was a true prophet, have the matter addressed fully and responsibly ASAP as the kitten's leg would need repair and maybe it would be nice for the pioneers to give it extra milk and cat food to try to make up for the accidental shooting. If Brigham Young weren't to do so with real charity/kindness then he'd have been an irresponsible evil person as its impossible to call it a true Church if there are cover ups. I'd certainly like to study up more on the whole aftermath of this Mountain Meadow Massacre subject to show how Brigham Young handled it so straightforwardly for anyone who was a victim. But like I've mentioned before there are plenty of duties to keep us busy like scrubbing the chapel toilets.

I learned about MMM from a childhood friend, raised in a very strict and devout Mormon family. They made my Mormon relatives look like complete libertines. My friend told me, when we were kids, all about the Indians murdering the invading party of settlers.

Then, after college, the same friend told me that he had learned that it was not Indians, but Mormon men dressed as Indians. He was sickened and angry that he had been raised on a lie (hmmm, where have we heard that before...). He left the Mormon church, and never went back.

However, to his dying day, he still maintained that TSCC was a great place to raise children.

Sometimes I really wonder.

I've been reflecting on when I first heard about MMM; I know we took a "science field trip" to near the site right after high school, and it might've been mentioned. My maternal grandfather helped found, along with David Bigler, the late Harold Schindler, and others, the "Utah Westerners," a loose-knit group of "Mormons and non-Mormons interested in history." He had several books in his library on the subject, all by Juanita Brooks, of course. I didn't get around to reading them until years later. I do remember bringing up the subject in passing in a college paper in the '80's, and incredibly, my ed psych professor told a story of how she was teaching junior high in the valley and had a student give a report on the subject. Apparently there was a lot of brouha that she still doubtless shakes her head over...

In 1999 with the unearthing of the remains during monument reconstruction, I dived into the subject, spending some money at the Tanners' store and eventually attending the Exmormon Conference a few years later that featured Will Bagley (along with Sandra and Simon Southerton).

Early on, I actually published a letter in the St. George "Spectrum" as a rebuttal to an "editorial" claim--by a woman--that "it was never proven that any Mormons were involved." I brought up Brooks' citing the "deathbed demons" of Nephi Johnson--a known participant--and how she regretted not connecting with him to get his full story.

My phone rang the next day, and amazingly, a woman in St. George called to thank me for what I'd published. Incredibly, she was a descendant of the Fanchers who'd converted to the LDS Church. My account allowed her the opportunity to correct some serious misinformation within her book club. She said she had some original papers with information on how Alexander Fancher had come through Utah twice before, at least once by the "Southern Route." I later verified that claim with Will Bagley and others.

Nephi Johnson, incidentally, is the individual "shapeshifter" referred to above. And a big honk of my horn to Shummy and my friend "loislane" above... I'm pretty sure she has a copy of Bagley's book because I introduced her to Will when she was visiting here a few years ago...

These days there are very few I feel have a better grasp of what happened there than I do. There's Bagley, of course, whom I fact check material with regularly and once gave a link to an article in a national journal on the subject. Between us, we "schooled the author" (who was most gracious) because he'd relied extensively on the Turley, Walker, Leonard work which was written "in retaliation" to "Blood of the Prophets." I may get a "little bolder" in the future and not guard my identity nearly so closely because my life circumstances have changed. If so, I'll post a link to the article.

The church-financed book (Bagley estimates they spent more than ten million dollars) ends the "day after the massacre," and they still lamely insist "The Indians were largely responsible," and point to unproven claims of how the Fancher-Baker Party provoked the Cedar City militia (which probably refused them entry because they were already making preparations to attack the train). Volume II has yet to appear.

Lessee, what else is mentioned above? That's all good stuff, BTW. Like others, I never learned about it in Utah History in 7th grade even though it was yearlong class back then. I have a copy of "The Utah Story," the textbook used at the time (written by a BYU professor, of course), and it makes no mention of the subject.

Hmmm... Circleville Massacre? I guess lunch is on me next time, Lois :-), and there's another board regular from that part of Utah who will be supremely interested in the information you have. I'm having a senior moment myself on that subject, although I'm reading Brigham D. Madsen's account of the Bear River Massacre. There's not a lot to "blame Mormons for" with that atrocity, although their presence in Cache Valley was tinder for the flames of conflict that arose between the Shoshones and white people, both Mormons as well as emigrants passing through on their way to California or Oregon Territory.

Last item: Brigham Young's guilt? Well, two years after the fact he led a party to the site where Major Carleton's men had constructed a rock memorial cairn over the mass graves. He raised his arm to the square, and as Dudley Leavitt reported, didn't have to say anything but stood by and watched as his followers tore it down in what can only be described as a despicable act of desecration.

And yes, Dudley Leavitt was Juanita Brooks' grandfather as well as the great-great grandfather of Utah Governor Michael O. Leavitt who, after the uncovering of the remains in 1999, ordered them reburied in probable violation of state law and crime scenes.

http://www.cesnur.org/testi/morm_01.htm

As for discussing the subject with my Mormon friends? I actually have a few, two are former bishops and the third was a stake president. One offered me a copy of the Turley book, and I gave a signed, first edition of BOTP to another along with a note from Will saying, "Brigham did it. I know. Will"

I'm convinced Brigham Young was guilty, too.

A big honk backatcha Cabbie.

We all know BY did it.

I pray we live long enough to witness the discovery of the smoking musket that proves it.

I'm afraid the BY question is a distraction from what we do know.

You mean the Timely Gull of course.

He launched it sans his coveted steam power. He went with a horse treadmill instead:

https://heritage.utah.gov/tag/brigham-youngs-solution-to-rising-lake-build-a-boat

To say nothing of his whiskey which Brigham craved not for his own intoxication but for the immense bartering power it afforded.

Remember folks, the Indians couldn't have cared less for white man's currency but fire water was to them liquid bullion.