Bagley's Interpolation Of "allies" For "grain"

[Scott Lloyd]

Sessions said:

And Bagley said:

Singer wanting to pin the MMM on Brigham Young sounds like he wanted "history made to order," which is what Bagley said he would not deliver.

Hence the discrepancy.

Well, the question I have is whether Singer was really so brazen as to ask for - as Bagley put it - "history made to order," and whether Bagley was so unscrupulous to - as Sessions put it - promise that he "could and would pin [the MMM] on Brigham Young."

If Singer felt Bagley was already disposed to believe that Brigham Young ordered the massacre, he might not have had any problem with Bagley's refusal to deliver "made-to-order" history.

As I said, I doubt he would have put such implicit trust in Rick Turley, even though Turley is at least as competent a researcher as Bagley.

What is it about Singer's name that makes you say that?

I wasn't referring to the name. I was referring to Bagley's remark about Singer having already written a screenplay and having already composed his Oscar acceptance speech.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't see any discrepancy either. edited to add my reason; I think Singer was satisifed after speaking to Bagley that he would "pin it on" Pres. Young. I think Sessions comments, since they are second hand about Bagley and Singer, should be recognized as such.

Absolutely.

But I don't see anything in Sessions' recollection that materially contradicts what Bagley said in his address to the anti-Mormon group.

There is more to history than dry recital of facts and events. Much of a historian's work involves interpretation, analysis, evaluation and, yes, expression of opinion.

So, perhaps the scenario transpires as follows: As you suggested, there are discussions between Singer and Bagley, during the course of which, Bagley may well have said something to the effect of "Yes, I can and will pin it on Brigham Young, but you might not like some of what I come up with. It won't be history made to order." In the course of the discussions, Singer gets the impression that Bagley is likely to interpret the historical record in a manner with which Singer is comfortable. So Bagley gets the gig, and, at length, Blood of the Prophets is the result, which Gene Sessions labels "an anti-Mormon polemic," even though, as a member of the reading committee, he enthusiastically recommends it for publication.

[cdowis]

Will Bagley's book is well researched and a credit to anyone with a BA, MA or Phd, if you ask me.

I felt that despite his position and conclusions(which I disagree with completely), his scholarship and research deserves respect.

The Tanners also have excellent research. Unlike yourself, I cannot separate unwarranted, absurd conclusions from simply citing multiple historical sources. Any simpleton can cut and paste. It is how you *interpret* those sources that makes you a distinguished professional from the biased, hate monger.

History is full of "excellent researchers" who promote hatred and bigotry, twisting their research into some alternate reality.

I think you are a very naive person to praise Bagley for his research alone. His bias affected his source control -- where he actually MISQUOTED a source to promote his agenda, and conclusions are unwarranted by the evidence.

Again, I challange you to get to the truth on his misquote. Show us your sincerity, his "respected" research skills by getting to the bottom of his "mistake". Do you really understand the nature of this misquote. Do you understand what it means when our DISTINGUISHED researcher tells you to f*** off when you point out the mistake.

Do you truly comprehend the difference between grain and allies in this quote and what it implies.

And that is the "burr under my saddle". Silly people like yourself.

[alter idem]

I think you are a very naive person to praise Bagley for his research alone. His bias affected his source control -- where he actually MISQUOTED a source to promote his agenda, and conclusions are unwarranted by the evidence.

Again, I challange you to get to the truth on his misquote. Show us your sincerity, his "respected" research skills by getting to the bottom of his "mistake". Do you really understand the nature of this misquote. Do you understand what it means when our DISTINGUISHED researcher tells you to *** off when you point out the mistake.

Do you truly comprehend the difference between grain and allies in this quote and what it implies.

And that is the "burr under my saddle". Silly people like yourself.

cdowis, I suspect you have not read Bagley's book. I believe that if you had, you would understand what I am saying. I am saying nothing more than what Gene Sessions said. Do you think he is a naive person also?

I also do not know why you keep bringing up "allies" for "grain", as if I'm defending him on it!!! I believe I explained myself clearly. For some reason that I cannot fathom, you seem to think I'm siding with Bagley on "allies"; I'm not. I agreed completely that Bagley was wrong in his interpolation, he had to retract it, he was mad. I'm glad, cdowis. I'm one of those who believes in Brigham Young's innocence. Why would I want it to say "allies"? As for his interpretation, it was wrong and he was called on it. But that does not mean that all his research is bad. Critics have jumped all over some of our LDS scholars for mistakes too. That doesn't mean that all their research is bad either.

Signed, Silly and annoyed.

[CQUIRK]

What evidence do we have that he was "intentionally paid to write it in a negative biased manner?"

Here-

"...Will began work on his book well before the Hinckley initiative on the Meadows. He was employed by a former Mormon in California who, frankly, wanted to pin the Massacre on Brigham Young. He put an ad in the Salt Lake Tribune asking for applicants to write a new history of the Mountain Meadows Massacre and in the course of interviewing several who applied (inaudible) except for Br. Bagley. Will was, by his own words to me--this is first hand words--the only one who said that he could and would pin it on Brigham Young. So Will was hired, he quit his job at Evans and went to work full-time writing a new history which was published by the University of Oklahoma Press last year."

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...s_Massacre.html

-Disagree with me still?

[smac97]

Here-

"...Will began work on his book well before the Hinckley initiative on the Meadows. He was employed by a former Mormon in California who, frankly, wanted to pin the Massacre on Brigham Young. He put an ad in the Salt Lake Tribune asking for applicants to write a new history of the Mountain Meadows Massacre and in the course of interviewing several who applied (inaudible) except for Br. Bagley. Will was, by his own words to me--this is first hand words--the only one who said that he could and would pin it on Brigham Young. So Will was hired, he quit his job at Evans and went to work full-time writing a new history which was published by the University of Oklahoma Press last year."

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...s_Massacre.html

-Disagree with me still?

Yes, that's been quoted previously. Does Bagley admit that Sessions's statements are accurate?

-Smac

[cdowis]

cdowis, I suspect you have not read Bagley's book. I believe that if you had, you would understand what I am saying. I am saying nothing more than what Gene Sessions said. Do you think he is a naive person also?

I will let Sessions make his own statement and defend himself here, if he so desires. I will be happy to ask him specific questions right here, rather than try to interpret anything he may have said in the past.

I also do not know why you keep bringing up "allies" for "grain", as if I'm defending him on it!!! I believe I explained myself clearly. For some reason that I cannot fathom, you seem to think I'm siding with Bagley on "allies"; I'm not. I agreed completely that Bagley was wrong in his interpolation, he had to retract it, he was mad. I'm glad, cdowis. I'm one of those who believes in Brigham Young's innocence. Why would I want it to say "allies"? As for his interpretation, it was wrong and he was called on it. But that does not mean that all his research is bad. Critics have jumped all over some of our LDS scholars for mistakes too. That doesn't mean that all their research is bad either.

Changing allies from grain is not an "interpretation". It is a lie.

And if you praise someone who deliberately lies to his readers, and I quote you, "Will Bagley's book is well researched and a *****credit******* to anyone with a BA, MA or Phd, if you ask me", you and I have very different standards of excellence.

For you it is "another interpretation". To me it is a clear case of misstatement. That is what makes you naive and very silly.

And if that annoys you, perhaps I have done you a very great service for the future.

[alter idem]

I will let Sessions make his own statement and defend himself here, if he so desires. I will be happy to ask him specific questions right here, rather than try to interpret anything he may have said in the past.

You won't call Sessions "naive" for holding the same opinion (which you can clearly read from his statement regarding Bagley's book), but you can call me that.

Changing allies from grain is not an "interpretation". It is a lie.

And if you praise someone who deliberately lies to his readers, and I quote you, "Will Bagley's book is well researched and a *****credit******* to anyone with a BA, MA or Phd, if you ask me", you and I have very different standards of excellence.

For you it is "another interpretation". To me it is a clear case of misstatement. That is what makes you naive and very silly.

It is only a "lie" if the person does it to be intentionally misleading. Are you such a mindreader that you know Bagley did it to lie? I don't know Bagley therefore I could not make this judgement, but apparently you can. You think I'm naive and very silly--I think you're arrogant and stubborn, so I guess we're even.

And if that annoys you, perhaps I have done you a very great service for the future.

A word of advice. Most people don't consider "annoying" to be a virtue.

What's been most distressing about this interchange with you is that you have consistently misinterpreted my position--and each time I have tried to correct your misreadings-you refuse to acknowledge it. Therefore, I see no point in continuing this conversation.

[cdowis]

Okey dokey. You can have the last word.