Thank you for contributing to the discussion.

I don’t suppose one of the poems begins something like “The purest tributes earth can bring—Bright gems, that never fade, Should be for friendship’s offering Upon her altar, laid” ?

http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=604bca2b-0413-4fd4-957a-b12b5605a924

Ken and I will be on KUER’s Radio West with Ron Barney on Tuesday at 11 a.m. Speculate away, all-knowing ones.

Will Bagley

There it is. That’s all you get. Not much for even Jerry Springer to hyperventilate about. The last sentence is still strikingly true nearly 140 years later.

Immediately preceding that entry is this one, ” . . . We had the painful intelligence that Franklin Woolley was Murdered By the Indian[s] near Calafornia & they were Bringing his body home in a Metalic Coffin.”

Regarding Kristin Johnson’s remark above about Woodruff’s lack of intelligence and humanity, I offer this entry (same source as above, 27 May 1869; 6:476) found a few pages after the one regarding Long’s death. I can’t justifiably appoint myself judge of Woodruff’s intelligence, but you can consider for yourself how humanely Woodruff acted in the following traumatic and gruesome situation. You might also want to imagine what you would have done in a similar circumstance.

Woodruff journalized, “I had an unplesant day. I spent most of the day with Brother James Brown with G. Q. Cannon[,] Drs Anderson[,] Bernhisel, & Heber John Richards. Brother Brown was shot some 5 years ago in the night in the Canyon By a young Man who thought He was a grizerly Bear. The Ball Broke his thigh bone & he has been years in misery & to day the surgeons Cut open his thigh & Examined the Bone & found it so diseased they amputated his leg near the Body. Brother Cannon & myself held his leg while it was Cut off. Several of his Cousins was present & Bishop Davis. Dr. Anderson Cut his leg off. Heber John Richards took up the arter[ie]s. Br Brown was a strong Man. It was Hard to put him under the Influence of Cloriform & hard to Come out of it. Presidt Young Came a short time But his [Brown's] leg was taken off when he got there. . . .” The next day Woodruff saw Brown again and recorded, “I visited Brother Brown & found him much better than Could possibly have Been Expected. . . .”

Someone killed by Indians, someone shot mistakenly as a grizzly bear, an alcoholic drowned in a ditch–life was ruggedly unpredictable and severe on the western frontier.

I agree wholeheartedly with Ardis Parshall’s astute observations. If Long had been murdered, don’t you think the “1850s rock star” clerk who was “Brigham’s personal secretary” (both unsubstantiated speculations, by the way) would have left behind incredibly incriminating documentation that “Bully Boy” Brigham–who always got his way–would have instantaneously seized and destroyed? Logic escapes me on a motive for the dastardly Danites doing in Bro. Long and not destroying the incriminating records detailing “where all the bodies/bones are buried.” This conspiratorial sieve springs leaks from a thousand holes.

May truth prevail in this life and the next. In the meantime, I’m sitting right tight on my million dollars!

As for what the family believes depends upon which branch or line of the family. My wife is a great-great-granddaughter of John Varah Long and her family does not believe he was killed. Her grandmother and father specifically said they did not think he was murdered. Her great-grandfather was bitter against the church but it was more that he felt his family had been mistreated by some of the church leaders rather than his father had been murdered. He made sure, however, that all of his children were raised in the church and baptized, etc., including my wife’s grandfather, Walter Varah Long.

So it comes down to everyone having a different point of view and believing what they want to.

When it comes to Wilford Woodruff\’s statement about \”two bottles,\” I have to say, \”Consider the source.\” First of all, I am not at all impressed by Woodruff\’s intelligence or humanity, as evidenced in the portions of his diaries that I\’ve read. I *was* stuck, however, by the apparent satisfaction he took in reporting the awful death of someone he believed to be an apostate, and what he says about Long seems to be in the same vein.

The second problem I have with Woodruff\’s statement is that looks a lot like the sort of gossip that swirls around people who leave the church. Former members, even those who voluntarily leave because they no longer believe, frequently become victims of character assassination. No doubt the rumor mill churned out stories about Long when he was excommunicated, and accusations of alcoholism and embezzlement are actually pretty mild, by today\’s standards.

What were the official reasons for Long\’s excommunication? We\’ll (probably) never know. Did he have two bottles of liquor on him? I wouldn\’t take Wilford Woodruff\’s unsubstantiated word for it. Was he an alcoholic? He may well have been, but I\’d like to see more evidence. Was he drunk at the time of his death? Another conundrum — no CSI back then!

But even if John V. Long was an alcoholic, even if he was drunk when he died, it doesn\’t mean he wasn\’t murdered. After all, it would be a lot easier to drown a man who was already incapacitated.

If nothing else, the Long case is fascinating. I\’m looking forward to finding out more.

Yet, you never mention those minor details. So, I thought I would.