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.

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.

Heh.

The gold, silver, live stock, people, etc.

I was laughing at the double entendre.

whats a "double entendre"? is that a double meaning.

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

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 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...

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 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.

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.

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

No. A federal judge did.

any courts of love?

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.

Google booty bible Joshua ; Google "booty" images and see if they match.

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.