Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.

rocket

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by rocket »

All I did was write a review and this guy's come after me ever since. He's harmless.

I do find the following odd statement he perpetuates on this website (it keeps changing), as true: "Mr. Crockett completely discredits Mr. Bagley using Juanita Brooks as one reference to do so. " The fellow is an extremely poor writer. And repeatedly violates copyright laws.
Last edited by rocket on Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
karl61
God
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:29 pm

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by karl61 »

is it true that goods were taken from the massacre and put in the Bishops store house; that Brigham Young rode in a new buggy taken from the massacre. Those were some of the things that leaped out at me when I read that page.

Historians do say that in Missouri Mormon raiders did burn down houses and bring goods back to the Bishops store house so if it is true it is nothing new regarding the LDS Church. I read where that was the last straw for some and they left the LDS church after that.

This is not new - The Hebrews took towns and the "booty". It was their land anyways. God gave it to them.
I want to fly!

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17989
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by EAllusion »

karl61 wrote: The Hebrews took towns and the "booty".
Heh.

User avatar
karl61
God
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:29 pm

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by karl61 »

EAllusion wrote:
karl61 wrote: The Hebrews took towns and the "booty".
Heh.


The gold, silver, live stock, people, etc.
I want to fly!

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17989
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by EAllusion »

karl61 wrote:
The gold, silver, live stock, people, etc.


I was laughing at the double entendre.

User avatar
karl61
God
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:29 pm

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by karl61 »

EAllusion wrote:
karl61 wrote:
The gold, silver, live stock, people, etc.


I was laughing at the double entendre.


whats a "double entendre"? is that a double meaning.
I want to fly!

User avatar
solomarineris
God
Posts: 1207
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:51 pm

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by solomarineris »

The gold, silver, live stock, people, etc.
That, my friend ain't the best part.
I want the Virgins.

User avatar
karl61
God
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:29 pm

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by karl61 »

you want the virgins so you can't commit adultery. But you got to marry them so just have a close friend say a little something joining you two and you are again married
I want to fly!

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 21857
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by moksha »

I was thinking that it would be wise for apologists to not defend something like a massacre. When one's primary purpose is to defend the Church, concomitantly defending evil that Church members have done, makes further apologetics much less credible. Sort of like they have no compass to distinguish between good and bad. Why defend the bad? A mea culpa seems much more honest, together with a reminder that this was a horrendous aberration.

Just a friendly thought...
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
karl61
God
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:29 pm

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by karl61 »

But if they brought the goods from the wagon train to the bishops store house and Brigham Young was riding around in a new buggy then not only did a horrendous evil take place at the massacre but it kept going...................
I want to fly!

rocket

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by rocket »

I am not an apologist. Because I published twice in FARMS Review does not make me an apologist.

I merely published a review of Will Bagley's book.

Will's essential theme was that Brigham Young knew about the massacre before it happened and actually ordered it. In that regard, he disagreed with Juanita Brooks who concluded that Brigham Young didn't know about it in advance.

There were a number of subsidiary themes which interested me as a legal matter. For instance, both Brooks and Bagley concluded that a deal had been made with the U.S. Attorney to let Brigham Young and others off the hook for prosecution in return for scapegoating Lee. That particular claim was rather fascinating and took some space in my review, as I pointed out that a deal to thwart justice without a presidential pardon would have been illegal. Indeed, I found in the National Archives correspondence which neither Bagley nor Brooks had which showed another ten years of trying to pin Brigham Young to the crime.

In terms of an "apology", of course, my review did not concern that. Whether the United States should apologize for slavery, or for the internment of Japanese citizens, or for the atrocity of the Mexican American war (started on a fiction), or for the atrocity of the Vietnam war (started on a fiction) or the Mormon Church apologize for the massacre, is a matter beyond my interest. Perhaps an apology is in order.

User avatar
karl61
God
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:29 pm

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by karl61 »

If the U.S. Atorneys' office was still trying to get Brigham Young it was likely they had witnesses that they were trying to get to testify. Did your research find out who the witnesses were and what they were going to testify to; was Lee a witness the government was going to use against Brigham Young?
I want to fly!

rocket

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by rocket »

karl61 wrote:If the U.S. Atorneys' office was still trying to get Brigham Young it was likely they had witnesses that they were trying to get to testify. Did your research find out who the witnesses were and what they were going to testify to; was Lee a witness the government was going to use against Brigham Young?


Lee wouldn't testify against Young. The U.S. Attorney offered a presidential pardon to Lee and Lee wouldn't testify. It is not clear that Lee had any evidence to offer. Lee offered in his first trial a statement of what he could say and the U.S. Attorney found it unacceptable.

The U.S. Attorney spent ten years going after Brigham Young. They had no witnesses who could qualify as being able to offer evidence.

User avatar
karl61
God
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:29 pm

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by karl61 »

so they shot Lee. Did Brigham Young sign Lee's death warrant?

Image
I want to fly!

rocket

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by rocket »

No. A federal judge did.

User avatar
karl61
God
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:29 pm

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by karl61 »

any courts of love?
I want to fly!

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17989
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by EAllusion »

Booty:

1. plunder taken (as in war) ; especially : plunder taken on land as distinguished from prizes taken at sea

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/booty

2. sexual contact. Typically implies intercourse, but can also apply to oral sex, "fooling around," etc.

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/definition+of/booty

The practice of taking young virgins of spoils of war makes this a double entendre.

User avatar
karl61
God
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:29 pm

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by karl61 »

Google booty bible Joshua ; Google "booty" images and see if they match.
I want to fly!

rocket

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by rocket »

any courts of love?


Mocking me won't elicit any answers.

User avatar
karl61
God
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:29 pm

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by karl61 »

rocket wrote:
any courts of love?


Mocking me won't elicit any answers.



no mockery intended as it was a simple question. It was clear that Lee didn't do it himself. Lee likely named others but he was the scapegoat. But that doesn't prevent church authorities from going after people that were involved unless it included the top man himself.
I want to fly!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AZCaesar, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], huckelberry and 8 guests