Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[Scott Lloyd]

Excellent. I hope you told him there are some smart folks on the Intarweb who have good theories about him having a ghost writer do Victims for him, and that his ghost writer purposefully left out damning evidence in order to protect the Church.

I wish to high heaven I could find out who that was. I CFR'd, they never answered, but I think that's an accusation grievous enough to warrant a full retraction or explanation.

In the course of looking up something else, I think I've been able to pin that down, LOAP.

The perpetrator was John Larsen. But it wasn't here. It was on Mr. Scratch's "Mormon Discussions" Board, to wit:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/discuss/v...13a4e7fad8b4a7f

He was disparaging Turley's writings and saying it wouldn't surprise him if they were ghost written. You then asked: "Victims is a ghost write?" He then responded:

Could be. I don't know that anyone would claim it, it wasn't very good. Why do I say that? He left out undisputed material facts that reflected poorly on the church. If you read that book, you will only get half of the picture.

You challenged him on the claim, but he never came forth with any substantiation. Since he posts here, perhaps he would care to do it on this board. If he can, that is. I doubt it, because it's pretty clear from a reading of the exchange that he didn't know what he was talking about.

Incidentally, anyone who had been with Turley on last year's Mountain Meadows tour in connection with the Mormon History Association convention would recognize immediately that Larsen's assessment of Turley's ability as a historian is ridiculous. Turley has an encyclopedic knowledge of the whole saga at the ready, without the aid of notes or references. Will Bagley repeatedly tried to challenge him on this point or that and never got the better of him.

[LifeOnaPlate]

John Larsen, care to clarify on your weighty and serious accusation?

[John Larsen]

John Larsen, care to clarify on your weighty and serious accusation?

Sorry about the slow response, I wasn't following this thread. Here is my complete response on the "other" board:

I believe that the Church's actions a few years ago show their true colors. On his death, Arrington donated his papers to USU. The Church took aggressive legal action to keep the papers from becoming public. Their further intent is show in Turley himself. He was a lawyer not a historian when he took over the department. He has since then published some marginal pieces, but I would not be surprised if they were ghost written. The idea that the Church archives are more open and honest now is laughably and demonstrably false.

Arrington's body of work speaks for itself. His writings demonstrate a sensitivity to the material intermixed with his commitment to honest history. To attack such a man demonstrates much more about the character of the speaker than any perceived flaw in Arrington.

What exactly is it you find objectionable?

[Pahoran]

Sorry about the slow response, I wasn't following this thread. Here is my complete response on the "other" board:

What exactly is it you find objectionable?

Only the lies. Also the nasty, baseless accusations that merely serve to show the character of the accuser.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Sorry about the slow response, I wasn't following this thread. Here is my complete response on the "other" board:

What exactly is it you find objectionable?

I think the specific objection is your unsubstantiated implication about Turley's work having been ghost written.

For my part, I don't think you know Turley very well if you persist in the notion that he's not a good historian. I'm certain the forthcoming book on Mountain Meadows, on which Turley was clearly the lead author of the three, will demonstrate that.

And while we're at it I think you're blowing smoke about the openness and honesty of the Church archives, and I challenge your spin on the incident involving Arrington's papers. As I recall it, it was a matter of the Church endeavoring to regain lost property, not keep it from being made public.

[John Larsen]

I think the specific objection is your unsubstantiated implication about Turley's work having been ghost written.

For my part, I don't think you know Turley very well if you persist in the notion that he's not a good historian. I'm certain the forthcoming book on Mountain Meadows, on which Turley was clearly the lead author of the three, will demonstrate that.

All of you guys are such good friends, why don't you ask him if he had a ghost-helper?

I don't know Turley at all. I just know that he is uncredentialed as a historian and I haven't been impressed by what I have read.

Only the lies. Also the nasty, baseless accusations that merely serve to show the character of the accuser.

Regards,

Pahoran

Please point to the lie, speaking of baseless accusations.

[Scott Lloyd]

All of you guys are such good friends, why don't you ask him if he had a ghost-helper?

I wrote about the book when it was published; I don't have to ask. And in any case, you as the accuser bear the burden of proof.

I don't know Turley at all.

Which is more than obvious.

I just know that he is uncredentialed as a historian and I haven't been impressed by what I have read.

What does it take to be "credentialed as a historian"? Do you make the same charge against Will Bagley, who doesn't have an academic degree in history?

[John Larsen]

What does it take to be "credentialed as a historian"? Do you make the same charge against Will Bagley, who doesn't have an academic degree in history?

I stated that Turley did not have the credentials to warrant his appointment to that position. Which position are you referring to in Bagley's case?

[John Larsen]

I wrote about the book when it was published; I don't have to ask. And in any case, you as the accuser bear the burden of proof.

I only said that I wouldn't be surprised if it was ghost written, which is different than an accusation. I explained clearly why I said that. You guys are making a mountain of a molehill. He might have written it himself, he might have had help. So what? The book still stands as it is.

[Scott Lloyd]

I stated that Turley did not have the credentials to warrant his appointment to that position.

What do you know about the requirements of the position that would render Turley unqualified for it?

By the way, Turley has now been elevated from managing director of the Family and Church History Department to Assistant Church Historian. That must really have you bothered.

Which position are you referring to in Bagley's case?

Bagley is the darling of detractors of the Church for his book on Mountain Meadows. But he's not a historian by academic degree.

[Scott Lloyd]

I only said that I wouldn't be surprised if it was ghost written, which is different than an accusation. I explained clearly why I said that. You guys are making a mountain of a molehill. He might have written it himself, he might have had help. So what? The book still stands as it is.

The charge wasn't that he "had help." It was that the book was ghost written. And your smear dies from its own lack of substance. It's the old "I wouldn't put it past 'im" gripe. Which is worthless. Case closed. Thanks for playing.

[John Larsen]

What do you know about the requirements of the position that would render Turley unqualified for it?

For taking me to task for having "uninformed" opinions about Turley, since I don't know him, you sure have a lot of opinions about me who you also do not know.

By the way, Turley has now been elevated from managing director of the Family and Church History Department to Assistant Church Historian. That must really have you bothered.

I wish the archives were more open, but other than that I don't give a rip. If you recall from about an hour ago, you hunted me down to haul me back into this discussion. I really don't think about Turley that much.

Bagley is the darling of detractors of the Church for his book on Mountain Meadows. But he's not a historian by academic degree.

Well, I voted for the other guy on my "darling of detractors" ballet. I think you are making a silly comparison. I don't see what Bagley has to do with the conversation at all except your obvious contempt for the man.

[LifeOnaPlate]

All of you guys are such good friends, why don't you ask him if he had a ghost-helper?

This is basically an admission that you were blowing smoke.

I don't know Turley at all. I just know that he is uncredentialed as a historian and I haven't been impressed by what I have read.

And this is basically a continuation of said blowing.

[John Larsen]

The charge wasn't that he "had help." It was that the book was ghost written. And your smear dies from its own lack of substance. It's the old "I wouldn't put it past 'im" gripe. Which is worthless. Case closed. Thanks for playing.

Now you are just being weird. Having a ghost writer is not a smear. No ghost writer completely writes a book on their own without help from the principle, thus my statement "had help".

You seem to have a personal axe to grind that goes well beyond my statements on this and other boards.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I stated that Turley did not have the credentials to warrant his appointment to that position. Which position are you referring to in Bagley's case?

Church callings do not require specific academic credentials.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I only said that I wouldn't be surprised if it was ghost written, which is different than an accusation. I explained clearly why I said that. You guys are making a mountain of a molehill.

Here's what you clearly said:

Their further intent is show in Turley himself. He was a lawyer not a historian when he took over the department. He has since then published some marginal pieces, but I would not be surprised if they were ghost written.

You added to this chimera by saying re: Victims:

He [Turley] left out undisputed material facts that reflected poorly on the church. If you read that book, you will only get half of the picture.

I asked for your evidence of these serious allegations. You provided none.

Homey don't play that.

I don't see what Bagley has to do with the conversation at all except your obvious contempt for the man.

It has to do with credentials.

[Paul Ray]

John and Scott,

What was your point in saying what you said, other than to give your opinion of certain other people?

I'd like to know each of your personal opinions without having to wade through your personal opinions about other people.

[Scott Lloyd]

For taking me to task for having "uninformed" opinions about Turley, since I don't know him, you sure have a lot of opinions about me who you also do not know.

I'm expressing an opinion about specific on-line statements, which are quite accessible and open for analysis. I don't have to know you to evaluate them.

I wish the archives were more open, but other than that I don't give a rip.

Hence the strongly worded polemic on the other board. Got it.

If you recall from about an hour ago, you hunted me down to haul me back into this discussion. I really don't think about Turley that much.

I didn't hunt you down. As I said, I ran across your post in the course of looking up something else. That triggered my memory of LOAP's posts in this thread, so I thought I'd be helpful to him. Since your name had come up, I thought, as a courtesy, I'd alert you to it.

Well, I voted for the other guy on my "darling of detractors" ballet. I think you are making a silly comparison. I don't see what Bagley has to do with the conversation at all except your obvious contempt for the man.

I had a chance to converse with Bagley last year on the MHA Mountain Meadows tour. I actually rather like him, though I strongly disagree with some of the conclusions in his book. My comparison was in an effort to ascertain what, in your mind, constitutes a "credentialed historian," since you say Turley is not one. (You'd better make Oxford University Press aware of your assessment of the man before they publish his book this summer.) Incidentally, I think the MHA gave Bagley an award for his book some years ago, so apparently that group (founded, incidentally, by Leonard Arrington) is more liberal than you in determining who is or is not a historian.

[Scott Lloyd]

Now you are just being weird. Having a ghost writer is not a smear. No ghost writer completely writes a book on their own without help from the principle, thus my statement "had help".

The clear message of your statements was that Turley, as an (your words) "uncredentialed historian," was incapable of writing the book, so he had someone or some others do it for him, and that the person or persons deliberately left out vital information.

Of course, all that now has clearly been shown to be fantasy, so I suppose this has not been an altogether unproductive exercise.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The clear message of your statements was that Turley, as an (your words) "uncredentialed historian," was incapable of writing the book, so he had someone or some others do it for him, and that the person or persons deliberately left out vital information.

Of course, all that now has clearly been shown to be fantasy, so I suppose this has not been an altogether unproductive exercise.

It satisfied me. John Larson was basically monkeying around on the Shades board. Bald assertions, unfounded accusations, slander, and the like. Why the suppression of the facts amongst the Shady folk? Beats me. But this is a good example of what goes on over there.

[Scott Lloyd]

It satisfied me. John Larson was basically monkeying around on the Shades board. Bald assertions, unfounded accusations, slander, and the like. Why the suppression of the facts amongst the Shady folk? Beats me. But this is a good example of what goes on over there.

As a target of the vitriol in this instance, I was amazed at the ugliness of the rhetoric over there. Mr. Scratch and Rollo Tomasi, who, at one time, were reasonably courteous in their interactions with me, though they were insufferably argumentative, have now turned rather nasty.

[Pahoran]

I only said that I wouldn't be surprised if it was ghost written, which is different than an accusation.

You're right. It is.

An accusation is more forthright; even when it is blatantly false, there is an element of honesty in that the accuser becomes responsible for it.

An "I wouldn't be surprised," a.k.a. "I wouldn't put it past him," goes towards the "slimy insinuation" end of the spectrum. You want to get your accusation out there, but you also want to weasel out of taking responsibility for it.

That's how it is different.

I explained clearly why I said that. You guys are making a mountain of a molehill. He might have written it himself, he might have had help. So what? The book still stands as it is.

It certainly does.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Paul Ray]

An accusation is more forthright; even when it is blatantly false, there is an element of honesty in that the accuser becomes responsible for it.

An "I wouldn't be surprised," a.k.a. "I wouldn't put it past him," goes towards the "slimy insinuation" end of the spectrum. You want to get your accusation out there, but you also want to weasel out of taking responsibility for it.

Thank you, Pahoran. I appreciate your efforts to explain everything directly and yet with enough detail so that even a child can understand you.

... but maybe, just maybe, John was simply sharing his opinion without expecting us to believe what he said.

Some people seem to just naturally blurt out whatever they think without regard for the thoughts of other people, neither expecting anyone else to believe them or to not believe them.

I think it's clear to everyone who can read that John was simply voicing his own opinion.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think it's clear to everyone who can read that John was simply voicing his own opinion.

Certainly. His opinion, however, is baseless and irresponsible. I don't appreciate it in the least. I don't take the accusation lightly because I've read the book and found it to be quite forthright and accurate. I know what kind of work goes into a book like that and to have someone like John, who appears to be fully capable of reasoned discussion, make such statements is something I didn't feel like passing by with a cursory nod.

[Paul Ray]

Certainly. His opinion, however, is baseless and irresponsible.

Perhaps, but I still think he is entitled to it. Let him have it.

I don't appreciate it in the least.

I appreciate the fact that John seems to feel like he can share his opinion with us.

I don't see anything to inidicate that John expects any of us to believe him.

I don't take the accusation lightly because I've read the book and found it to be quite forthright and accurate.

That's your opinion, LOaP, and the opinion of other people who for some reason agree with you.

You are also entitled to your own opinion.

I know what kind of work goes into a book like that and to have someone like John, who appears to be fully capable of reasoned discussion, make such statements is something I didn't feel like passing by with a cursory nod.

That's fine. I'm not saying you are not entitled to share your opinion.

I also feel that John is entitled to share his opinion too, though.

Do you plan to keep talking with John until you can convince him to agree with your opinion?

... or have you had enough now, feeling no need to try to get him to agree with your opinion?

And btw, I haven't read that book, so I don't have an opinion on that book, at this point, but I do have an opinion on having opinions.

... and personally, I enjoy hearing from people so I can know how those people think.

If nothing else, it helps me to get to know those people who have an opinion, personally.