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

[mysteryman]

I have looked at very difficult manuscripts. This isn't one.

Really? So you have looked at the very document at the very place Bagley did?

And yet academics do it all the time. Right now a trial is taking place because the son of a prominent Dead Sea Scrolls author was impersonating, with the help of his father and family, other Dead Sea Scrolls scholars online to make them seem hateful, vindictive, and stupid. Doesn't make sense, but it happened. The fact that someone's behavior doesn't make sense doesn't really matter when the evidence all points in a certain direction.

Impersonating someone on-line is different than what Bagley did. Find a better example. So again, why would he do it knowing he would be caught? Logic is key.

All you did above was show that Bagley never directly addressed the word. The "grain" reading shows a reluctance to fight. The "allies" reading shows a desire to fight. You've proven nothing except that your methodologies are poor.

So YOU interpret the passage with "allies" to mean they have desire to fight but that with grains YOU interpret it to mean they are reluctant. Hmm, you have an interesting interpretation of it, but it is Will Bagley's interpretation that is important, not yours. No good historian just throws a document on a page and leaves it up to the reader to interpret, the writer gives his thoughts on it in order to make his argument. Contrary to popular belief, texts do not speak for themselves. Bagley says nothing you say above but he does give his interpretation of why he thinks the passage is important. Willingness or non-willingness to fight was not the point of the quoted passage was it. All the "allies" quote would show is that they weren't going to raise allies to fight, but it still says "and we might fight." So what is the point of Bagley using this passage? Just read it please!!! The manner in which Bagley uses the passage does not in any way depend on whether or not the word says "allies" or "grains." And you have failed to demonstrate that. Its not that difficult, does Bagley's argument at all depend on that word? Absolutely not, I PROVED it no matter how much you want to spin it. Therefore, if nothing in his argument depends on that word, why in the world would he have to change it? The argument is centered on allowing the Indians to steal cattle, not on the notorious "allies" reference which has no bearing on what he argued no matter how much you try to make it so. Facts are stubborn things and won't go away as much as you might like it to. And that FACT is this little word is meaningless to his argument.

I wouldn't trust a single transcription the man has ever done if he messed up that word. And save your patronizing for someone who cares.

The fact that "allies" is an absolutely unjustified and ridiculous reading of the text. He either did it on purpose or never read the text.

Your clairvoyance is unimpressive. Again, I have more than PROVEN it makes no sense for him to change the word since it has no bearing on his argument. Furthermore, the text is choppy, and the allies reference can make sense in the context.

It very clearly changes his argument. Without that reading it shows reluctance on the part of the Indians involved to fight, not a willingness to go attack someone, and definitely not acceptance of a request to go attack someone. The "allies" reading shows exactly the opposite.

Wrong yet again. You need to demonstrate that the "allies" reference is necessary to the argument he makes. You have failed because it is not. The passage still demonstrates some reluctance but yet a willingness to fight. And that still doesn't matter, Bagley thinks Indian involvement was very small, so yet again the "allies" issue has zero bearing on the argument. Just read it!!! The point he is making is that Young gave permission to steal cattle and then uses another quote indicating Young knew they might kill innocent people with such an allowance. Again, the "allies" word is irrelevant to the argument, if it wasn't he would have argued it when interpreting the passage wouldn't have he? Remember, logical thinking is the key to understanding. Just think logically and put all desires to demonize out of your mind and you will be able to see the obvious. Also, insert the word "grains" and see if anything Bagley says about the passage changes.

Intelligent people don't go around telling Mormons they know Bagley's being honest because of a burning in the bosom.

Intelligent people don't go around telling ANYBODY they KNOW anything is true by a burning in their bosom.

Well, the first example you share is wrong. A 1989 Ensign article discusses exactly that issue.

An Ensign article demonstrates that the Wentworth letter says something different than what it says? What are you talking about? The Wentworth letter says, "On the 6th of April, 1830, the 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,' was first organized in the town of Manchester, Ontario co., state of New York." So your saying that the Ensign says it doesn't say that? Maybe you should have let Dean C. Jesse know that before he revised The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith. Maybe you should have told that to Richard Bushman as well when he wrote his biography of Joseph Smith (see page 109). In fact I guess you and this mythical Ensign article are the only ones aware of what the Wentworth letter REALLY says. You might want to let the editors of the Joseph Smith Papers know about this before they make this mistake. Look, the document was falsified and no manner of spinning will change that fact. And there is no way the correlation committee could have possibly not known it. But what do think about the blatant dishonesty of Joseph Fielding Smith and John A. Widtsoe? Those two make Bagley look like small potatoes don't they?

When you show me you can engage this discussion without burping up infantile rhetoric and poor historiography then I'll get more involved, but if you're going to insult my intelligence with this bush league argument then I'm not wasting my time.

Look, forget the burning bosom stab. I do that sometimes to try to demonstrate to Mormons how ridiculous it really sounds to outsiders when they say they know something by a burning in their bosom or a fuzzy wuzzy. So just forget I said that. But really, I would recommend you still getting out of the discussion because you will never be able to demonstrate how that little word would have changed Bagley's use of it, FACTS are very stubborn.

[Hyrum Page]

I have worked with the Church's manuscripts numerous times. I have plenty of experience in this area, and I vehemently reject the notion that Bagley honestly thought this said "allies," irrespective of what text he was using. Double /l/ does not come through no matter how blurry that text becomes. I think it's time to stop pumping this dry well. You know as well as everyone else there's no way he honestly thought the text said "allies."

So by autopsy you can state that he could not have read "allies"? You have read the same copy of the same document under the same conditions as Bagley? Or is it that you simply can't imagine a scenario in which the document might have been interpreted (by a restoration of sorts) to say "allies." Hey, I don't know what the case here is either, but having spent some time working with ancient Greek and Latin inscriptions, pictures of them, pressings of them, and drawings of them, it is clear to me that a number of unusual things can happen that lead to a grossly inaccurate reading.

Mysteryman also has a point about the importance of the word. It is not crucial to Bagley's argument. Bagley may be stretching somewhat in his conclusions about Young's precise role, but the LDS leadership did participate in the creation of an atmosphere in which it was quite likely that something like the MMM would occur. Young obviously did not want it, and seems to have tried to stop it, but it is difficult to say that this would have been a completely unforeseen possibility. I think it is fair to say that Young and others got carried away in their rhetoric, and may have counseled doing things that were risky, but I don't think that reaching such a conclusion is to condemn them (especially given the historical context).

[USU78]

HP: The fact remains, whether or not Bagley was reckless with the document in question, when his misread was pointed out his conclusion based at least in part thereon should have been jettisoned when he jettisoned the misread.

And his jumping to the conclusion that the "new" docs support his conclusion based at least in part on his prior misread supports the proposition that he's a hack. He's demonstrated he is a "talking head" ready at the drop of the hat to opine on stuff he knows nothing about (as demonstrated in this very thread), and, therefore, has no credibility at all.

He's merely an advocate of an insupportable position.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm wondering how mysteryman will explain Bagley's schilling for

, a tragedy in its own right.

I like Bagley's quote when he says something to the effect of "people who think God is directing them do really bad things" or some broad, desperate, and generally meaningless over-generalization like that.

[J Green]

mysteryman keeps instisting that he has PROVEN that Bagley's argument didn't rely on the word [allies] and that the fact that Bagley doesn't afterward refer to the word [allies] is proof of this. I am not persuaded by this "proof". In fact, he has proven no such thing. Bagley doesn't need to refer to the specific word because he has highlighted the Huntington passage itself as crucial evidence that has not been available before in tying the Sep 1 meeting to the specific attack on the Fancher party. And when you read the passage, [allies] instead of grain quite plainly gives us the exact opposite meaning from what was said (as Mak has pointed out several times).

[Confidential Informant]

mysteryman keeps instisting that he has PROVEN that Bagley's argument didn't rely on the word [allies] and that the fact that Bagley doesn't afterward refer to the word [allies] is proof of this. I am not persuaded by this "proof". In fact, he has proven no such thing. Bagley doesn't need to refer to the specific word because he has highlighted the Huntington passage itself as crucial evidence that has not been available before in tying the Sep 1 meeting to the specific attack on the Fancher party. And when you read the passage, [allies] instead of grain quite plainly gives us the exact opposite meaning from what was said (as Mak has pointed out several times).

Why does no one ever mention the fact that Bagley was PAID to write this book and to reach the conclusions he did? (Although he already held those same beliefs).

C.I.

[Hyrum Page]

HP: The fact remains, whether or not Bagley was reckless with the document in question, when his misread was pointed out his conclusion based at least in part thereon should have been jettisoned when he jettisoned the misread.

And his jumping to the conclusion that the "new" docs support his conclusion based at least in part on his prior misread supports the proposition that he's a hack. He's demonstrated he is a "talking head" ready at the drop of the hat to opine on stuff he knows nothing about (as demonstrated in this very thread), and, therefore, has no credibility at all.

He's merely an advocate of an insupportable position.

Regardless of his attitude toward the LDS Church, which is undoubtedly unfavorable, I think it simply an insult to call him a "hack." Whether this new evidence does indeed support his position, and to what degree, is something that remains to be seen.

I get it: the man does not love Mormonism and is no fan of Brigham Young. He misread the journal. Hack? All that you are saying may be true and that does not make him a "hack."

[Dude75]

A. Bagley Interpolated "Allies" for "Grain" When Quoting Huntington's Journal. Coates notes that "[in] the context of the rest of the entry grain makes sense: the Piedes would raise grain rather than take the cattle." But Bagley's interpolation, read without context, suggests that the Indians wanted to on the warpath (that they wanted to "raise allies").

This fact alone is enough to show Bagleys true motives and methods. Yeah it's incredibly frustrating, but also incredibly predictable.

Regardless of his attitude toward the LDS Church, which is undoubtedly unfavorable, I think it simply an insult to call him a "hack." Whether this new evidence does indeed support his position, and to what degree, is something that remains to be seen.

I respectfully disagree. Hack (noun): a writer who works on order; also : a writer who aims solely for commercial success. Bagley clearly fits the bill. He's not a historian, as was said earlier, he's a propagandist with 2 sole purposes in his writing, 1) smear and distort church history 2) make money. To suggest he is actually aiming for academic honesty is naive.

[Scott Lloyd]

Obviously you have very little experience in transcribing old documents. You are going off of a picture of the document. Now ask yourself, which version of the document did Bagley look at? Was it the original? Was it microfilmed? I don't know what he looked at, and I don't think you do either. But I can tell you this, I have seen several versions of different typescripts of a journal in the Church Archives. All the different typescripts are different (I would have to look through some files, but I want to say it is the Peter Conover journal). The fact is that journal I looked at is almost unreadable, but there is certain types of lighting to make things more clear. For example, the Selected Collections the Church Archives put on CD have some outstanding pictures of the documents (this is not universally true). Some of the pictures are far more crisp and easier to read than the original or the a microfilm copy. So it is easy to make a statement out of sheer ignorance that Ray Charles or Stevie Wonder could see it because the picture provided in BYU studies looks easy to read, but if you had just a little more experience with the many different kinds of factors involved you would know why it is totally possible Bagley made an honest mistake.

It's my understanding that reputable historians accept accountability for thoroughness in their research. I have to wonder: If BYU Studies could reproduce a legible image of the manuscript in its journal, why couldn't Bagley, who presumably had access to primary sources, get hold of one? I've looked at that specimen repeatedly. Not only does the word in question not even bear a close resemblance to "allies," it is quite easily discerned as "grain." I just don't see any reasonable ambiguity here.

Furthermore it is indicated by the fact that he bracketed it.

What the bracketing indicates to me is that, unable to make out the actual word (and again, I don't know why; it's reads quite clearly as "grain" to me); he invented one out of whole cloth that fits his preconceived bias. I can tell you that in the world of journalism, such a thing would be considered a rather serious violation of ethics; I presume it would be in the world of academia and research as well.

And again, as I have more than PROVEN above, the word changes nothing concerning his argument, so why would he change a frivolous word?

What you tout as proof strikes me as your own spin. My understanding is that up to the time of the Utah War, Brigham Young had done his best to restrain the Indian tribes from attacking passing emigrant trains, a difficult task, as the travelers, through their own reckless behavior, quite often antagonized the Indians. Now, with the U.S. government bearing down on the settlement with what was perceived to be an invasionary force intent on wreaking violence on the settlers and the Mormon leaders, Brigham in effect rescinded that policy of restraint and was no longer willing to provide that service to the government. Doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me under the circumstances. I do think it poppycock, though, to spin this into the notion that Brigham Young ordered the Indians to attack the Fancher or any other wagon train.

What is it with this obsession of him [bagley] not making a public announcement?

It has to do with intellectual honesty. If a research error materially impacts a historian's conclusions, he owes it to one's readers in subsequent editions of his work to own up to that fact. At least that's my understanding of academic ethics. Maybe I'm too idealistic.

[mysteryman]

mysteryman keeps instisting that he has PROVEN that Bagley's argument didn't rely on the word [allies] and that the fact that Bagley doesn't afterward refer to the word [allies] is proof of this. I am not persuaded by this "proof". In fact, he has proven no such thing. Bagley doesn't need to refer to the specific word because he has highlighted the Huntington passage itself as crucial evidence that has not been available before in tying the Sep 1 meeting to the specific attack on the Fancher party. And when you read the passage, [allies] instead of grain quite plainly gives us the exact opposite meaning from what was said (as Mak has pointed out several times).

Well I am glad to see your not persuaded. Now, tell me which page and which argument Bagley uses when interpreting the diary entry that had any reliance on the notorious "allies" reference. What part of Bagley's interpretation of the document and what part of his argument must change due to getting that word wrong? He did highlight the Huntington passage as crucial evidence. Now without any spin, look on pages 113-114 and tell me the part of the passage Bagley found crucial to his case. You don't even have to look it up, I provided it above. What meaning YOU draw from it doesn't matter, your not the one making the argument. What meaning does Bagley himself draw from it and in what manner does he use to further his argument? If you read "grains" where you are supposed to, how does that change any part of the argument Bagley is making with the passage? Just give me the page number please!!! I await with baited breath.

[mysteryman]

It's my understanding that reputable historians accept accountability for thoroughness in their research. I have to wonder: If BYU Studies could reproduce a legible image of the manuscript in its journal, why couldn't Bagley, who presumably had access to primary sources, get hold of one? I've looked at that specimen repeatedly. Not only does the word in question not even bear a close resemblance to "allies," it is quite easily discerned as "grain." I just don't see any reasonable ambiguity here

The good thing is he has changed it. Now have you or have you not looked at the very document at the very place Bagley did? If not, then you are still speaking out of ignorance. Furthermore, maybe his eyesight is bad, who knows.

What the bracketing indicates to me is that, unable to make out the actual word (and again, I don't know why; it's reads quite clearly as "grain" to me); he invented one out of whole cloth that fits his preconceived bias. I can tell you that in the world of journalism, such a thing would be considered a rather serious violation of ethics; I presume it would be in the world of academia and research as well.

He deserves some criticism for not explaining the word in a footnote. What you can't say is that he invented it out of whole cloth because you don't know. He may have certainly had some preconceived bias, almost as much as preconceived bias as Turley, Walker, and Leonard. In fact he probably, like the other authors, did have some preconceived bias. But since the word has zero bearing on how he used it or his argument (I still await to be proven wrong on this), it makes no sense for him to have changed it. What argument does he make using the "allies" word? Nada.

What you tout as proof strikes me as your own spin.

Show me in the text how Bagley's use of the passage to make his argument in any way relies on that little notorious word. Please, I beg you to do that, I have provided the pages above to make it easy for you.

My understanding is that up to the time of the Utah War, Brigham Young had done his best to restrain the Indian tribes from attacking passing emigrant trains, a difficult task, as the travelers, through their own reckless behavior, quite often antagonized the Indians. Now, with the U.S. government bearing down on the settlement with what was perceived to be an invasionary force intent on wreaking violence on the settlers and the Mormon leaders, Brigham in effect rescinded that policy of restraint and was no longer willing to provide that service to the government. Doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me under the circumstances. I do think it poppycock, though, to spin this into the notion that Brigham Young ordered the Indians to attack the Fancher or any other wagon train.

You can argue he spins the passage and draws bad conclusions from it. But lets stay on the target here. Does his argument in any shape or form at all rely on the passage to say "allies"? No, I have proven that. Now please if you think I am wrong, give me the quote and argument by Bagley where he relies on that word to make his argument. After you fail to prove me wrong, ask yourself why he would change a word deliberately in a passage when it has no bearing on his argument.

It has to do with intellectual honesty. If a research error materially impacts a historian's conclusions, he owes it to one's readers in subsequent editions of his work to own up to that fact. At least that's my understanding of academic ethics. Maybe I'm too idealistic.

He has changed it. I know he hasn't appeared on Larry King Live to make the announcement, but he has changed it. And like I said, since it had no bearing on his argument he didn't need to change anything but that word.

I am still curious if people hold the Church's correlation committee, John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Matthew Brown as accountable as Bagley. What these guys did is far more provable that it was intentional, so am curious about some of you guys concerning logical consistency.

[mysteryman]

Why does no one ever mention the fact that Bagley was PAID to write this book and to reach the conclusions he did? (Although he already held those same beliefs).

C.I.

Well for one it is a moot point. Many people are paid to write books. Do you think those that wrote the recent massacre book or that are working on the Joseph Smith Papers are doing it for free? But the initial launcher of the project, Frank Singer, disappeared during the research and stopped paying. Bagley had to carry on by himself. He references this in his final paragraph in the Acknowledgments. It is never good to make comments out of ignorance, hopefully you keep that in mind in the future.

[Scott Lloyd]

The good thing is he has changed it. Now have you or have you not looked at the very document at the very place Bagley did? If not, then you are still speaking out of ignorance. Furthermore, maybe his eyesight is bad, who knows.

This fails to address my point about reputable historians being accountable for the thoroughness of their research, bad eyesight or not.

He deserves some criticism for not explaining the word in a footnote. What you can't say is that he invented it out of whole cloth because you don't know.

It's a reasonable conclusion if the word he used is in brackets and the real word, as it turns out, bears absolutely no resemblance to the word in brackets.

He may have certainly had some preconceived bias, almost as much as preconceived bias as Turley, Walker, and Leonard.

At the outset of their project, Turley et al pledged to go wherever the research would take them. In hindsight, it seems they lived up to that pledge better than did Bagley.

In fact he probably, like the other authors, did have some preconceived bias.

The understatement here is amusing.

But since the word has zero bearing on how he used it or his argument (I still await to be proven wrong on this), it makes no sense for him to have changed it. What argument does he make using the "allies" word? Nada. Show me in the text how Bagley's use of the passage to make his argument in any way relies on that little notorious word. Please, I beg you to do that, I have provided the pages above to make it easy for you.

What happened, apparently, is that he asserted a tenuous argument, failed to make a persuasive case for it, and then invented a textual interpolation that bolstered (there's that word again) his half-baked argument. If nothing else, it reflects on his credibility.

You can argue he spins the passage and draws bad conclusions from it.

Thank you. I'm doing just that.

But lets stay on the target here.

A weak defense when the target is so ill-placed to begin with.

Does his argument in any shape or form at all rely on the passage to say "allies"? No, I have proven that. Now please if you think I am wrong, give me the quote and argument by Bagley where he relies on that word to make his argument.

See above. It's an out-of-the-blue textual interpolation to bolster (that word again) a weak premise.

After you fail to prove me wrong, ask yourself why he would change a word deliberately in a passage when it has no bearing on his argument.

His blunder does have bearing on his argument, albeit a rhetorical, not a factual one. "Allies" comports with his preconceived notion; "grain" does not.

He has changed it. I know he hasn't appeared on Larry King Live to make the announcement, but he has changed it. And like I said, since it had no bearing on his argument he didn't need to change anything but that word.

As I said above, it's all about credibility.

I am still curious if people hold the Church's correlation committee, John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Matthew Brown as accountable as Bagley. What these guys did is far more provable that it was intentional, so am curious about some of you guys concerning logical consistency.

If what you say is true, I don't approve of that either. But let's keep things in perspective. I've seen even critics acknowledge that whether the Church was formally organized in Manchester or Fayette has no bearing on the validity of Mormonsim. On the other hand, Bagley alleges Brigham Young committed a crime worthy of the death penalty. So spare us the "they did it first" rationalization.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Why does no one ever mention the fact that Bagley was PAID to write this book and to reach the conclusions he did? (Although he already held those same beliefs).

C.I.

Interestingly, Bagley likes to dismiss the authors of the new Massacre at Mountain Meadows book by Turley, Walker and Leonard as being paid representatives of the Church, thus they reach the conclusions dictated by the "Church." He then points to the name of his publisher to defray criticism of who paid his bills.

[Scott Lloyd]

Interestingly, Bagley likes to dismiss the authors of the new Massacre at Mountain Meadows book by Turley, Walker and Leonard as being paid representatives of the Church, thus they reach the conclusions dictated by the "Church." He then points to the name of his publisher to defray criticism of who paid his bills.

Furthermore, I understand Bagley pretty much guranteed Singer beforehand that he could deliver the goods, so to speak (that is to say, Bagley was already convinced going out of the gate that Brigham Young was culpable). Turley and company, on the other hand, said repeatedly they would go where the research took them.

[LifeOnaPlate]

What the bracketing indicates to me is that, unable to make out the actual word (and again, I don't know why; it's reads quite clearly as "grain" to me); he invented one out of whole cloth that fits his preconceived bias. I can tell you that in the world of journalism, such a thing would be considered a rather serious violation of ethics; I presume it would be in the world of academia and research as well.

That Bagley changed it in a subsequent edition demonstrates that it was either an egregious error or deliberate mistake. Even if we grant the former we have to recognize that the error involved what Bagley felt was a key piece of evidence, not a wrong date or a misspelled name, but a linchpin to his case. This compounds the error, and as smac showed, he left in the conclusion of that misreading later in the book, which keeps the error intact.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It has to do with intellectual honesty. If a research error materially impacts a historian's conclusions, he owes it to one's readers in subsequent editions of his work to own up to that fact. At least that's my understanding of academic ethics. Maybe I'm too idealistic.

An error of that magnitude deserves a mention in a subsequent edition's new preface or explanatory note, at the very least.

[Hyrum Page]

II respectfully disagree. Hack (noun): a writer who works on order; also : a writer who aims solely for commercial success. Bagley clearly fits the bill. He's not a historian, as was said earlier, he's a propagandist with 2 sole purposes in his writing, 1) smear and distort church history 2) make money. To suggest he is actually aiming for academic honesty is naive.

Listen, we all have biases, no matter what we like to tell ourselves. It is clear that Bagley's biases are against Mormonism and Brigham Young. That does not make him a hack, nor does it make him a propagandist. He may be someone who was willing to stretch a little in drawing conclusions on a very sensitive matter. No matter what the technical definition of hack may be, to call someone a hack on my job is to impugn his claim to be a legitimate scholar. In Bagley's case, that is a gross exaggeration and one that is not befitting the person who claims the moral high ground when it comes to stretching the evidence.

[LifeOnaPlate]

He may have certainly had some preconceived bias, almost as much as preconceived bias as Turley, Walker, and Leonard.

Here's the long-expected jab at the authors of another MMM book.

Also, it isn't whether he had bias, or that he probably had bias, he quite simply did have bias. It's inescapable, understandable, and the only meaningful question IMO is how such bias impacted the interpretation, not whether such bias is present.

[Hyrum Page]

At the outset of their project, Turley et al pledged to go wherever the research would take them. In hindsight, it seems they lived up to that pledge better than did Bagley.

Yes, their sins are clearly of the omission rather than commission variety, as is made quite clear when you compare their quotations with the source material, or even the same passages in Bagley's book.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I am still curious if people hold the Church's correlation committee, John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Matthew Brown as accountable as Bagley. What these guys did is far more provable that it was intentional, so am curious about some of you guys concerning logical consistency.

Check out my softball review of Matt's recent Mormons/Masons book and you tell me.

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2009/10/review-matthew-b-browns-exploring.html

(PS- It's unclear how a tu quoque argument would exhonerate an ostensibly academic historian like Bagley compared to a church correlation committee with entirely different goals and governing assumptions.)

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well for one it is a moot point. Many people are paid to write books.

You're big on consistency in this thread; why don't you call Bagley out when he poisons the well against the new Turley, Walker, Leonard book by always describing it as the work of paid employees of the LDS church (A point, by the way, which entirely overlooks the complexities and perspectives of the respective authors anyway)?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I get it: the man does not love Mormonism and is no fan of Brigham Young. He misread the journal. Hack? All that you are saying may be true and that does not make him a "hack."

No need to call him a hack. It's a loaded term that usually stops, rather than begins, a good discussion on historiography in general.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, their sins are clearly of the omission rather than commission variety, as is made quite clear when you compare their quotations with the source material, or even the same passages in Bagley's book.

Let's bear in mind that the entirety of their project has not yet been published; the sequel to their book is in the works.

Also, the new evidence they brought us, namely the Andrew Jenson interviews with Cedar City residents and eyewitnesses, they have since published verbatim in a book published by University of Utah Press with facsimiles of the Jenson manuscripts accompanied by typescripts on facing pages, similar in that respect to the latest Joseph Smith Papers volume. Rather strange behavior, wouldn't you say, for authors prone to "sins of omission"?

That said, perhaps you could show us one or two examples where, in your view, Turley and colleagues left out something critical.

[LifeOnaPlate]

...nor does it make him a propagandist.

No, but this does: