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

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

A serious charge that warrants evidence, so refer to specifics or withdraw the charge, imo.

[mysteryman]

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

Your missing the point. He does deserve criticism for having not got the word right. But again you have failed to demonstrate how his argument depends on that notorious word. Since it is obvious at this point you can't do that, why would Bagley change a word that has zero bearing on his argument. Just use a little logic.

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.

Please just answer something that I ask. Have you looked at the same document at the same place Bagley did?

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.

I am sure he did. And if the Reagan Library hired Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Anne Coulter to write the definitive book concerning Reagan's involvement in Iran Contra they would make the same claim. Why don't you ask Bagley if he made that same declaration?

Amazing, you buy a comment by Turley at face value but scrutinize Bagley's explanation. In fact, why do I bet you had a preconceived notion that Turley's book would be better than Bagley's before it was even published.

The understatement here is amusing.

Wow!! Do you seriously still live in that fantasy world that thinks authors can approach subjects without bias and can be 100% objective? Are you serious!!! If so, you should probably quietly no longer discuss historical topics if you still live in that fantasy world.

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.

Do you have CFR how you have come to that conclusion? Have you ever actually asked him how he got the word wrong? Again, you have failed to demonstrate how Bagley's argument hangs on what that word says. What part of Bagley's argument depends on that word? What does Bagley have to change in his argument if that word is "grains"? I keep asking this, now take up my challenge, go to Bagley's book and demonstrate it. Then once you fail to do that as you have so far, admit that the word "allies" or "grains" has no bearing on his argument. Then after you admit that I have proven that point, ask yourself why he would intentionally change a word that had zero bearing on his argument. Take up my challenge please!!! Stop spinning out of answering how that word was important to his argument.

Thank you. I'm doing just that.

It is ok to argue with how he used it. Again, you have failed to demonstrate how Bagley's argument hangs on what that word says. What part of Bagley's argument depends on that word? What does Bagley have to change in his argument if that word is "grains"? I keep asking this, now take up my challenge, go to Bagley's book and demonstrate it. Then once you fail to do that as you have so far, admit that the word "allies" or "grains" has no bearing on his argument. Then after you admit that I have proven that point, ask yourself why he would intentionally change a word that had zero bearing on his argument. Take up my challenge please!!! Stop spinning out of answering how that word was important to his argument.

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

Where am I wrong? I have more than PROVEN my case that Bagley's argument did not hang at all on what that word said. Again, you have failed to demonstrate how Bagley's argument hangs on what that word says. What part of Bagley's argument depends on that word? What does Bagley have to change in his argument if that word is "grains"? I keep asking this, now take up my challenge, go to Bagley's book and demonstrate it. Then once you fail to do that as you have so far, admit that the word "allies" or "grains" has no bearing on his argument. Then after you admit that I have proven that point, ask yourself why he would intentionally change a word that had zero bearing on his argument. Take up my challenge please!!! Stop spinning out of answering how that word was important to his argument.

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

Again, you have failed to demonstrate how Bagley's argument hangs on what that word says. What part of Bagley's argument depends on that word? What does Bagley have to change in his argument if that word is "grains"? I keep asking this, now take up my challenge, go to Bagley's book and demonstrate it. Then once you fail to do that as you have so far, admit that the word "allies" or "grains" has no bearing on his argument. Then after you admit that I have proven that point, ask yourself why he would intentionally change a word that had zero bearing on his argument. Take up my challenge please!!! Stop spinning out of answering how that word was important to his argument.

Ignoring the question will not make it go away.

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

Now demonstrate what you are saying here. I have demonstrated and PROVEN my points, now lets see you try. How does "allies" comport to a preconceived notion that you do not even know he has? How does the word "allies" relate to the argument he makes? Turn to the text, show me where I am wrong. Again, you have failed to demonstrate how Bagley's argument hangs on what that word says. What part of Bagley's argument depends on that word? What does Bagley have to change in his argument if that word is "grains"? I keep asking this, now take up my challenge, go to Bagley's book and demonstrate it. Then once you fail to do that as you have so far, admit that the word "allies" or "grains" has no bearing on his argument. Then after you admit that I have proven that point, ask yourself why he would intentionally change a word that had zero bearing on his argument. Take up my challenge please!!! Stop spinning out of answering how that word was important to his argument.

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

Yeah, and he changed it. What more do you need? And of course, as I have PROVEN, he didn't need to change any of his argument.

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.

The question has to do with me testing your logical consistency. It has nothing to do with rationalizing. I already know Bagley didn't do it on purpose, not only did he tell me, but it makes no sense for him to have done so since the word has not bearing on his argument as I have PROVEN above. But I have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the Church Correlation Committee, John A. Widtsos, and Joseph Fielding Smith changed their documents knowingly. So have these people lost credibility with you as well? Do you no longer trust Church publications now that you know they will deliberately change and falsify documents? Do you no longer trust anything from Smith or Widtsoe now that you know they falsify documents? Again, this isn't about "they did it first," its about logical consistency. I just want to see you are objective and have no bias. Your the one that thinks its possible so I want to see for myself.

[mysteryman]

(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.)

What in the world is tu quoque???

[mysteryman]

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

Again, demonstrate it was an error of such great magnitude. How does that word have any bearing on his argument? If the word is grains, how does Bagley need to adjust how he used the passage? I still challenge anybody to demonstrate from Bagley's book how his argument in any way depends on what that word is. I have more than PROVEN it don't and await some brave soul, who will fail of course, to demonstrate from Bagley's book how that word changes anything Bagley argued.

[Hyrum Page]

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

Practically a whole thread at "The Board that Shall Not Be Named" was dedicated to comparing their use of quotations with Bagley's. Of course, I know that the sticking point here is inevitably going to be our differing definitions of "critical." When I find that thread, I will be happy to demonstrate the comparisons. Unfortunately, I am 200 miles away from my copies of the two books.

[LifeOnaPlate]

What in the world is tu quoque???

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tu+quoque

[William Schryver]

Trevor:

Listen, we all have biases, no matter what we like to tell ourselves.

Yes, indeed.

And yours manifest themselves much more often than you'd like to believe they do.

I do not perceive anything comparable between the Turley et al. book, which bears all the hallmarks of a fine scholarly treatment, and Bagley's blatant propaganda piece. Only someone exceptionally motivated to believe could read the Bagley book and not recognize the hallmarks of an exceptionally hostile hatchet job.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Again, demonstrate it was an error of such great magnitude. How does that word have any bearing on his argument? If the word is grains, how does Bagley need to adjust how he used the passage? I still challenge anybody to demonstrate from Bagley's book how his argument in any way depends on what that word is. I have more than PROVEN it don't and await some brave soul, who will fail of course, to demonstrate from Bagley's book how that word changes anything Bagley argued.

I don't have the 2nd edition with me, but smac posted the quote:

Brooks never saw Dimick Huntington's journal and its evidence that the atrocity was not a tragedy but a premeditated criminal act initiated in Great Salt Lake City. Although she lacked the documentation presented here that links Brigham Young to facilitating the murders...

Bagley misused Huntington's journal by changing a word. If you think Bagley was arguing based on other evidence in the journal I'd be interested to see what you have. I don't have the book with me, I am going from memory.

[Hyrum Page]

A serious charge that warrants evidence, so refer to specifics or withdraw the charge, imo.

I heartily disagree. It is hardly a serious charge for me to disagree with these authors on the extent to which they should have quoted their material. I take neither the present rhetoric against Bagley nor my statement about the three authors of MMM so seriously that we should even begin to think about the necessity of "withdrawing charges." ROFL. Give me a break. What we have here are garden variety differences of opinion.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Trevor:

Yes, indeed.

And yours manifest themselves much more often than you'd like to believe they do.

I do not perceive anything comparable between the Turley et al. book, which bears all the hallmarks of a fine scholarly treatment, and Bagley's blatant propaganda piece. Only someone exceptionally motivated to believe could read the Bagley book and not recognize the hallmarks of an exceptionally hostile hatchet job.

Ah, but Bagley received prestigious awards for his work!

[Hyrum Page]

And yours manifest themselves much more often than you'd like to believe they do.

I do not perceive anything comparable between the Turley et al. book, which bears all the hallmarks of a fine scholarly treatment, and Bagley's blatant propaganda piece. Only someone exceptionally motivated to believe could read the Bagley book and not recognize the hallmarks of an exceptionally hostile hatchet job.

Of course I have biases. Never claimed I did not. And that the two of us perceive things about these books differently is not the least bit surprising to me. Of course, I have not condemned either book, nor have I condemned their authors.

[Hyrum Page]

Ah, but Bagley received prestigious awards for his work!

I prefer to make my own arguments and I will accord you the same courtesy.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I heartily disagree. It is hardly a serious charge for me to disagree with these authors on the extent to which they should have quoted their material. I take neither the present rhetoric against Bagley nor my statement about the three authors of MMM so seriously that we should even begin to think about the necessity of "withdrawing charges." ROFL. Give me a break. What we have here are garden variety differences of opinion.

Let me be more clear. I believe you claimed that Leonard, Walker, Turley omitted crucial material that would overturn their interpretation of the events, and that this is "made quite clear when you compare their quotations with the source material, or even the same passages in Bagley's book." Examples, please? Or is your complaint that the authors paraphrased certain quotes that Bagley cited in full, and that such paraphrasing changed the meaning or abused the source?

[mysteryman]

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.

I again challenge you and anyone else to demonstrate from the text how Bagley's argument in any way hangs on that word. I have provided the text above and await with baited breath for someone to fall on their face trying to do so. I have PROVEN my case, not one person has taken up my challenge!

[LifeOnaPlate]

I prefer to make my own arguments and I will accord you the same courtesy.

You will? Then why didn't you?

IOW, yours is an ironic statement, since you turned my jest with Will into an "argument" against you, rather than allowing me to make my own argument.

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course, I know that the sticking point here is inevitably going to be our differing definitions of "critical."

Then will you at least acknowledge that you are hyperventilating to some degree in referring to "sins of omission"? Historical writing, like journalistic writing, is by nature selective. That's unavoidable. There are always going to be differences of opinion about what should or should not have been included. I suppose one could quarrel with Bagley's book, or Juanitia Brooks's, or that of any other historian on the same basis.

[Calm]

Why don't you ask Bagley if he made that same declaration?

According to Bagley's speech at the Salamander Society he did. OTOH, Gene Sessions says he heard something else from him....

Another reason of course is the publication of Will Bagley's book. 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/2003_Shining_New_Light_on_the_Mountain_Meadows_Massacre.html

[Hyrum Page]

Let me be more clear. I believe you claimed that Leonard, Walker, Turley omitted crucial material that would overturn their interpretation of the events, and that this is "made quite clear when you compare their quotations with the source material, or even the same passages in Bagley's book." Examples, please? Or is your complaint that the authors paraphrased certain quotes that Bagley cited in full, and that such paraphrasing changed the meaning or abused the source?

No, actually, I did not claim that they omitted crucial material that would "overturn" their interpretation of the events. You might try to stick to quoting what I have said instead of placing words in my mouth. I think that they have omitted material that may undercut their argument. There is a difference of degree, and it is quite a different kind of claim. One impugns the honesty and integrity of these scholars; the other simply registers a difference of opinion. I am trying to demonstrate what a measured response to such differences looks like when we strip it of all of the histrionics I have observed regarding Bagley on this thread.

And, if you read my posts, you will see why I have yet to produce those quotes for you. I am looking for them.

[Hyrum Page]

Then will you at least acknowledge that you are hyperventilating to some degree in referring to "sins of omission"? Historical writing, like journalistic writing, is by nature selective. That's unavoidable. There are always going to be differences of opinion about what should or should not have been included. I suppose one could quarrel with Bagley's book, or Juanitia Brooks's, or that of any other historian on the same basis.

No, I will not, because my precise point is that people are making far too much of Bagley's "sins." It is enough to recognize his bias, register disagreement, and move on. Damnatio memoriae is not required. Indulging in demonization does not make the demonizer look any more credible.

As I have clearly stated on this thread, I do not see the scholarly "sins" of any of these authors to be so severe that it requires a huge hullabaloo. The authors of both books have their biases. By now those biases are fairly clear. No one is a hack or a devil.

Your final sentence is exactly what I am getting at. We can all disagree with certain aspects of each of these books. It is legitimate to draw attention to those shortcomings. Beyond that the commentary begins to look a little silly.

[Scott Lloyd]

No, I will not, because my precise point is that people are making far too much of Bagley's "sins." It is enough to recognize his bias, register disagreement, and move on. Damnatio memoriae is not required. Indulging in demonization does not make the demonizer look any more credible.

As I have clearly stated on this thread, I do not see the scholarly "sins" of any of these authors to be so severe that it requires a huge hullabaloo. The authors of both books have their biases. By now those biases are fairly clear. No one is a hack or a devil.

Your final sentence is exactly what I am getting at. We can all disagree with certain aspects of each of these books. It is legitimate to draw attention to those shortcomings. Beyond that the commentary begins to look a little silly.

Can you come up with anything in the book by Turley, Walker and Leonard that compares with falsifying a word in a quoted historical source so as to prop up a weak argument?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think that they have omitted material that may undercut their argument....And, if you read my posts, you will see why I have yet to produce those quotes for you. I am looking for them.

I'm sorry I missed it, which post was that in?

[Hyrum Page]

You will? Then why didn't you?

IOW, yours is an ironic statement, since you turned my jest with Will into an "argument" against you, rather than allowing me to make my own argument.

Only if you think it out of bounds for someone to read your response as a "dig" of an anticipation of the kind of argument someone defending Bagley as a scholar might make.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm sorry I missed it, which post was that in?

Post #55. I think he was referring to beastie's thread over on Mormon Discussions.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Can you come up with anything the book by Turley, Walker and Leonard that compares with falsifying a word in a quoted historical source so as to prop up a weak argument?

That makes two of us who missed his statement that he is currently looking for such things. Did you see a post where he said he is in the process of finding examples? When I asked for examples he decided to castigate instead of explain.

[J Green]

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.

???

This is really a mess. (Perhaps it's due to your obvious passion for the subject.) I'm supposed to quote a passage but then I'm not supposed to because you already have, but then at the end I'm supposed to quote it again and apparently you're holding your breath while you wait. My opinion doesn't matter because only Bagley's opinion counts but then I am supposed to give my opinion (on how the words makes a difference). Etc.

It's not that hard. I basically made two assertions:

1. Bagley himself highlights the new passage as crucial to connecting BY to the Fancher party attack via the Sep 1 meeting.

2. The altered reading (allies vice grains) clearly gives a different meaning to the passage.

Ergo (1 + 2 = 3), the bracketed word is crucial to Bagley's argument. You yourself have admitted to 1 yet persist in arguing contra 2, using uppercase and other amusing devices to petualantly insist that you have carried the day and that nobody has impeached your position. But it's simply not true. You haven't even laid out a valid position other than the rather anemic "Bagley doesn't comment on the the word 'allies' therefore it isn't part of his argument." Hogwash. Bagley clearly insists that the passage is new and critical, and the meaning of the passage is clearly altered by the insertion. 1 + 2 = 3. And if you really can't see the difference the change in wording makes to the passage, this conversation isn't really going anywhere. Even in lowercase.

Regards