Bagley Slanders B. Young = Lots of Attention / Bagley's Slander Proven Bogus and Dishonest = No Attention

[LifeOnaPlate]

And that complicated situation is so much improved by a "historian" branding the leaders of a religion he hates as "murderers" and "liars."

Thanks for putting all of this together. You've made it glaringly obvious that Bagley's work is severely flawed.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Now that everyone else has failed, do you want to try demonstrating where I am wrong?

Smac already did, but you have already declared victory for yourself. I think the respective views as already laid out by smac and you are sufficient for readers of this thread to form an accurate opinion of the situation.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I ask, what meaning does Bagley place on the passage and how does he use it to make his argument?

You are defending an argument that Bagley himself has tried to jettison, which is frankly bizarre.

[smac97]

Now that everyone else has failed, do you want to try demonstrating where I am wrong?

Um, not really. You've dislocated your shoulder patting yourself on the back about what you've "proved" and about how everyone else "has failed" and is now "in defeat."

How boring. You enter into an argument, then unilaterally declare it won or lost based on proximity to your arguments.

I find that people who repeatedly try to declare themselves the winner and everyone else losers are generally A) not discussing the issue in good faith, B) not worth much time or attention, and C) incorrect in their assessment.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Those were sure a lot of words.

And you aren't engaging them.

You did everything but actually address the issue.

I believe I did.

But unlike you, I'm not about to declare myself victorious in this discussion. I posted a lot of stuff and will let people come to their own conclusions.

I ask, what meaning does Bagley place on the passage and how does he use it to make his argument?

I addressed this. I quoted Coates:

Replacing the word grain with allies substantially changes the meaning, but most readers will not be aware of Bagley's changing these words.

I also quoted Reeves and Parshall:

To make his case, Bagley substitutes the word

[smac97]

You are defending an argument that Bagley himself has tried to jettison, which is frankly bizarre.

Yep. If the interpolation is as irrelevant as MysterMan insists, then why did Bagley describe this incorrect interpolation as "a grave error?"

If the interpolation is as irrelevant as MysterMan insists, then why did Bagley refer to this incorrect interpolation as "that key word?"

If the interpolation is as irrelevant as MysterMan insists, then why did Bagley say he will change that "key word especially?"

Bagley is shifting his argument. It was originally "Brigham Young induced the Indians to rustle cattle and raise allies." Now it's just "Brigham Young induced the Indians to rustle cattle."

Bagley imputed sinister motives onto the September 1 meeting primarily by accusing Brigham Young of inducing the Indians to "raise allies." Now that he's been caught misrepresenting and misinterpreting the journal, he is only left with arguing that cattle-rustling is some sort of secret code for "murdering emigrants."

That's absurd. Brigham Young inducing the Indians to "raise allies" is a far more serious accusation than inducing the Indians to rustle cattle - which amounted to bloodless guerrilla tactics against an oncoming army (and as such was more morally defensible that Brigham Young's other option of planning an armed conflict with the Army).

But why are we still talking about this? Don't you know that MysteryMan has declared himself the victor? That the discussion is over? That we've failed and are "in defeat?"

Stupid Mormons!

-Smac

[smac97]

And one more thing there Smac, you asked in some of your earlier posts that Bagley hasn't publicly admitted his mistake, yet here you are quoting him saying in a public place, "Now, in Dimick Huntington's journal, it's a very complicated, very simple, but very complicated document, and I made a grave error in mis-transcribing a word,

[smac97]

Now that everyone else has failed, do you want to try demonstrating where I am wrong?

Gadzooks, man. Get over yourself.

-Smac

[smac97]

I picked apart your arguments on page 1 of the thread.

Well, not really.

You tried to say that the "allies" word was crucial to Bagley's argument,

Bagley describes his incorrect interpolation as "a grave error." If you disagree with that assessment, feel free to take it up with Bagley.

Bagley referred to his incorrect interpolation of "allies" as a "key word" that he will change in future editions of BOTP. If you think that "allies" is not a "key word," feel free to take it up with Bagley.

Ok, we both know you fail to do so,

No, I don't know that. I've posted quite a bit of material on this subject. And you're ignoring it and instead saying that you win, we lose, game over.

Yawn.

so why not just move on and answer the real question, why would Bagley deliberately change a word that has no bearing on his argument?

It does have bearing on his argument. That's why Bagley called it a "key word" and his incorrect interpolation a "grave error."

He still needs to salvage his thesis, of course. Plus he was caught red-handed. So of course he's going to focus on the cattle-rustling and no longer defend his interpolation. I would hardly expect him to do anything else.

-Smac

[smac97]

Sure, I won't do it again. As soon as you stop misrepresenting Bagley's argument by saying it is some how dependent on the word "allies."

Bagley's original argument was dependent on the word "allies" (partially dependent, anyway).

That's why Bagley has admitted that this incorrect interpolation was a "grave error" about a "key word" in Huntington's journal, and that he will correct it in future editions of BOTP.

Please cc us on the email you are undoubtedly going to send to Bagley explaining to him why interpolating "allies" was not a "grave error," why it was not a "key word," and why he needn't worry about changing it in future editions of BOTP.

I know it sucks to be proven wrong, but it is really not a big deal.

Well, it is a big deal. Bagley flagrantly misrepresented the historical data. He built an inflammatory thesis on that misrepresentation. And although he has quietly admitted his misrepresentation of the data, he has not revised his now-flawed thesis.

I don't think that's honest scholarship.

So what if Bagley's argument is not centered on the word "allies"? You can still not like his book.

If you don't think it's a big deal, then by all means get out of this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, not really.

Bagley describes his incorrect interpolation as "a grave error." If you disagree with that assessment, feel free to take it up with Bagley.

Bagley referred to his incorrect interpolation of "allies" as a "key word" that he will change in future editions of BOTP. If you think that "allies" is not a "key word," feel free to take it up with Bagley.

No, I don't know that. I've posted quite a bit of material on this subject. And you're ignoring it and instead saying that you win, we lose, game over.

Yawn.

It does have bearing on his argument. That's why Bagley called it a "key word" and his incorrect interpolation a "grave error."

He still needs to salvage his thesis, of course. Plus he was caught red-handed. So of course he's going to focus on the cattle-rustling and no longer defend his interpolation. I would hardly expect him to do anything else.

-Smac

It's clear that mm is not going to budge an inch on this, but once again you've done an admirable job in clarifying and crystallizing this matter, Smac. Thanks again.

[smac97]

It's clear that mm is not going to budge an inch on this, but once again you've done an admirable job in clarifying and crystallizing this matter, Smac. Thanks again.

Scott, you dolt. We've already lost this argument. Also Sprach MysteryMan!

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, you dolt. We've already lost this argument. Also Sprach MysteryMan!

-Smac

Yes, and let that be a lesson to us. We would have gotten away with it too, if hadn't been for those meddling kids and their mangy dog.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Smac: Bagley argues that the DBH journal's decisive evidence comes from this entry:

20 [september 1857] Arapene came to see Brigham Brigham told him now was the time to helps himself to what he wanted but he sayes he was a squaw he sayes the Americans had not hurt him & he did not want to hurt them but if they would only hurt one of his men then he would wake up he told me that the Piedes had killed [19] the whole of an Emigrant Company & took all of their stock & it was right that was before the news had reached the City he sayed he would go off & stand still & see how the Battle went I told him he might go as far as he could get but the Lord would fetch him out & he must doo the work that God & the prophets had said they must & Josephs Blood had got to be Avenged & they had got to help to do it [20]

I don't have access to his book right now, so I can't verify how he uses this evidence, etc.

[jwhitlock]

Smac:

Thanks for your posts on the subject. As always, well thought out and well reasoned.

Keep up the good work!

[Pahoran]

Well, you really need to read the previous posts to understand what I was saying.

Really? I would never have guessed.

Funnily enough, I did read them.

And I understand you to be saying that you have "PROVED" something or other.

Well, you've PROVED that you think almost as highly of yourself as you do of your hero, I'll grant you that.

I will once again turn to the text to challenge anybody to show me where I am wrong. Trust me Pahoran, even an intelligent guy like Scott Lloyd has been unable to answer my questions, he's tried to spin it elsewhere, but he hasn't been able to do it and he knows it.

Sez you. Oddly enough, Scott doesn't seem to "know" any such thing.

Here's the deal, Oh man of no mystery: if you want anyone to give your hero the benefit of speaking for himself, you need to be willing to do the same to those you are trying to shout down.

Ok, lets pause for a second. What have been the main points so far:

1. There was a meeting with several Indian chiefs on Sept 1

2. Huntington had given the Shoshonis all the cattle on the northern road, in other words giving them permission to steal the cattle.

3. Young said he could hardly restrain them from killing the Americans.

4. Bagley says,

[mysteryman]

Let me try one more time to see if I can get you guys to actually engage the TEXT. You guys are doing everything but that. I have provided and you still refuse to engage the TEXT. MAKE AND ARGUMENT USING THE ARGUMENTS BAGLEY ACTUALLY MAKES, USE HIS INTERPRETATION OF HIS OWN ARGUMENT, NOT YOURS.

Lets try yet again.

[mysteryman]

It's been demonstrated time and time again, but you reject every criticism of your explanation on the grounds that your explanation is perfectly accurate. You've not engaged any of the credible criticisms of your point and your only weapon is the presupposition that you're right. This is simply infantile bickering.

False, not one person here has really engaged the text, not one. I have proven the exact opposite theory false and that Bagley never once implements the "allies" sentence into the argument.

[mysteryman]

Well, I'll give you credit for creative use of uppercase, objective phrases such as "mental gymnastics," and quoting the same material over again. But in the end you never really engaged my argument that Bagley creates a thesis that the cattle stealing is connected to LDS and Indian violence as part of the cattle policy and that the word change injects that element of LDS and Indian violence into the passage that wasn't there to begin with.

In short, I reject your jejune response and say once again that that your argument has failed. I'll let others judge between the two.

Regards

No I picked your argument apart piece by piece. Bagley creates a thesis that Young is going to use the Indians as his battle axe. He has this meeting on Sept 1 to seal the Fancher's fate. Bagley argues that he will use the Indians as his battle axe by giving them permission to take cattle. Young hopes that the gentile retaliation will result with destruction of the Fancher's. Bagley later argues that this does not happen, the Indians were reluctant to join in the massacre and only wanted to steal the cattle. Bagley argues the massacre was a Mormon job, not Indian. Never does Bagley implement the line containing "allies" into the argument, not once. This is why it was easy for him to simply change that one word in the soft cover version. He didn't need to change anything else because it had no impact on the argument he makes before the quote or after. And you are yet to give me the sentence where Bagley implements that into his argument or the sentences he must change if it reads grains. The Indians are reluctant in both versions, in both they "might fight." Of course that line is difficult to interpret all the meaning, it seems there may be something in there missing. That is probably why Bagley does not use that as part of the argument. But the more reluctant they are, the more it actually fits his overall argument that it was a Mormon job. But actually for once engage the text as I have.

[mysteryman]

Smac already did, but you have already declared victory for yourself. I think the respective views as already laid out by smac and you are sufficient for readers of this thread to form an accurate opinion of the situation.

SMAC has yet to actually engage the text himself. All he has done is "hey well these guys say it changes something so it must be true." That is generally a sign that the person can't actually comprehend the argument and therefore simply hopes that the people on his side can answer the questions he can't.

[maklelan]

False, not one person here has really engaged the text, not one. I have proven the exact opposite theory false and that Bagley never once implements the "allies" sentence into the argument.

That's not true at all. I directly addressed the meaning of the passage with each variant, and several others have even shown what Bagley has said about the significance of the word for his argument. You just keep responding that none of it can be true because you've already proven you're right. This is bush league argumentation.

[mysteryman]

You are defending an argument that Bagley himself has tried to jettison, which is frankly bizarre.

Go back to the beginning. Here has been my point. My point was that Bagley did not change that word intentionally. My evidence for that is that little word is never implemented into his argument and therefore what he argues above that quote and after that quote is not at all impacted by whether or not the word is allies or grains. No one here has actually engaged the TEXT itself or the argument Bagley makes using the passage. That is why it was so easy for him to only change that one word in the soft cover version. Now yes, Bagley has backed off and believes he made too much of that Sept 1 meeting. But guess what, his backing off has nothing to do with that word. Do you doubt me? Ok, if so, let me set up a meeting between me, you, and Bagley and you can ask him if that word is why he has backed off. That is what is so silly, so many got caught up in that silly word problem, they didn't engage Bagley's argument sufficiently. Just look at the quotes from Smac. There is plenty to criticize Bagley over, he deserves scrutiny for having mistaken the word, but that word did not impact his argument. Now Crocket did write a good review of Bagley's work, he didn't dwell on the silly word. He mentioned it, but his review was not centered on it.

[maklelan]

Go back to the beginning. Here has been my point. My point was that Bagley did not change that word intentionally. My evidence for that is that little word is never implemented into his argument and therefore what he argues above that quote and after that quote is not at all impacted by whether or not the word is allies or grains.

But he never seems to explicate his exegesis of the passage. He just shares the passage and declares it proof of Young's implication in the event. When historians do this a lot of the time it's because their convictions rest more on a subjective impression rather than on an actual objective interpretation of the text. I've pointed out how the sense of the text changes with each variant and others have shown that he recognized his error was grave and that it influenced the interpretation of the passage. You've not responded to any of these concerns, you've just barked that you've already proven all possibly future criticisms null and void. Now that it's been shown that even Bagley recognizes that that word was the lynch pin you just keep trying to reassert your original position. It's transparent and childish. Please stop.

[mysteryman]

And you aren't engaging them.

None of your words had much to do with my argument. At least none of YOUR words. You got a lot of mileage out of quoting others, but I am not arguing with Reeve or Coates, I am arguing with you. I want you to do something you have not done yet, actually engage the text of the book and make and argument against what I have said. Show me where Bagley implements the line containing "allies" into the argument. Show me which sentences and arguments above the quote and below that need to be changed if the word is grains.

I believe I did.

But unlike you, I'm not about to declare myself victorious in this discussion. I posted a lot of stuff and will let people come to their own conclusions.

You didn't. I declared victory because no one was engaging the Text and making and argument from it at the time. Later J Green sort of did.

I addressed this. I quoted Coates:

I'm done for, Coates said so so it must be true. Now actually engage the text yourself and make an argument against me.

I also quoted Reeves and Parshall:

I'm done for, Parshal said so so it must be true. Well, my mom says I'm right! So there! Now actually engage the text yourself and make an argument against me.

I also quoted Parshall alone:

Now again engage the text. In one version the Indians are reluctant, but will go and raise allies and "might fight." In the other, they are reluctant, but will go and raise grain and "might fight." So in both they might fight. But that isn't the argument Bagley is making anyway, his argument is that Young gave them permission to steal cattle in hopes that the gentiles will become angry and and then the Indians will destroy the emigrants. That is how Bagley argues the massacre was set in motion. If you are going to argue against that because the Indians were reluctant, then you can make that argument with the word "allies" or "grains." In neither version do the Indians entirely agree, they say they "might fight." But in one it is they will make "allies" and might fight and the other "grains" and might fight. But in the end Bagley's overall thesis is that the Indians wouldn't massacre the people and were reluctant. Therefore he argues it was a Mormon job, not an Indian. So if one shows more reluctance, it fits even better in his overall argument and yet doesn't contradict his belief that Young gave them permission to steal cattle in hopes that the gentiles will become angry and and then the Indians will destroy the emigrants. This is what he uses the passage to argue. Just go to the text and show me where Bagley implements the "allies" issue into the argument. It is simply not there.

I also quoted the UVU panel discussion at some length, in which Bagley referred to his (incorrect) interpolation of "allies" for "grain" as "that key word" that he says he will change in future editions of BOTP. I asked: "Now MysteryMan is bloviating (a lot) about how this incorrect interpolation was meaningless, that it did not impact Bagley's thesis one whit. But if that's so, why is Bagley himself referring to it as 'that key word?'"

I don't know what Bagley will change in relation to that "key word." Now Bagley does believe he made too much of that meeting having done further research, but it is not due to that word. If you would like, I could set up a meeting with him so you can ask him this question if he thinks word changes his argument. Try to call me on this bluff, please, I will set up a meeting if he is available. Otherwise, I will meet you next September at the Utah Historical Society meeting where Bagley is always in attendance and then you can ask him. I bear testimony to the point of betting my life on it, that Bagley will tell you that word is not why he has taken a step back from that meeting.

And your response to all of this is...to ignore it. Pretend it doesn't exist. Repeat your original question over and over. Ignore any responses. Declare the discussion over. Claim victory.

Thats funny, you haven't engaged me in one thing I have said, you have not engaged the text nor how I have interpreted it. You have not answered one question I have asked. The only thing you have done is quote some other people, I am assuming you do that because you are incapable of engaging the text and making and argument. You actually make me wonder if you have even read Bagley's book at all.

I am not sure your hero Paul Peterson has read it either. He says concerning the passage that "Among other things, there is no specific instruction to the Indians to massacre the emigrants, and there is no indication of premeditated Mormon complicity." I guess he missed where Bagley said,

[mysteryman]

That's not true at all. I directly addressed the meaning of the passage with each variant, and several others have even shown what Bagley has said about the significance of the word for his argument. You just keep responding that none of it can be true because you've already proven you're right. This is bush league argumentation.

False, Bagley never implements the passage about "allies" into the argument. Where has Bagley said that word was important to his argument? I am willing to meet you in September at the Utah Historical meeting where Bagley will doubtless be and we will ask. Lets wager a bet that Bagley will tell you that word was not important to his argument. You pay me one dollar if I am right, if you are right, I will take my own life right then and there. Fair enough?