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

[Hyrum Page]

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Will. Remember your previous post about you only talking to Scott Lloyd? Check it again.

Sorry, but it is difficult to see how your response to Will, who is discussing things with me, would be so obviously not directed at me too. Especially when your explanation regards something that would be better left to a private message than an open forum, where few people have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

[mysteryman]

It would require getting the book in my hands again. Like I noted before, I don't have it with me at the moment, I tend not to carry around Bagley's book all the time. Maybe some patience before declaring victory would be warranted? Or are we being timed?

I provided the necessary pages on either page 1 or 2 of this thread. Go take a look and answer my questions that nobody has yet to do. What meaning does Bagley place on the passage an how does he use it to make his argument? If you place grains in the right place, what does Bagley have to change in his argument?

[Hyrum Page]

I agree he deserves some criticism for getting the word wrong. But people have made a mountain out of a mole hill!!! The word does not have any bearing on his argument whatsoever and not one person has been able to demonstrate from the text that it does. So my contention is if it has no bearing on the argument anyway, then why in the world would he deliberately change the word knowing he would be caught? It makes no sense.

You bet it doesn't. I would love to see how it does. I am ready to see how it does. I am ready to accept it if it does.

[Scott Lloyd]

No, that really isn't the only charitable yet reasonable construction of the facts.

Then I invite you to suggest an another. We can all see from the graphic Smac provided that the word in question doesn't look anything like "allies."

[LifeOnaPlate]

And guess what, very few people jump all over them as though they are devils or hacks for having done so. Generally, a measured scholarly response suffices.

Bagley's quiet correction doesn't help matters, though. An explanation, again, would have been more than useful, imo.

[Scott Lloyd]

I provided the necessary pages on either page 1 or 2 of this thread. Go take a look and answer my questions that nobody has yet to do. What meaning does Bagley place on the passage an how does he use it to make his argument? If you place grains in the right place, what does Bagley have to change in his argument?

His conclusion thereby loses documentary support. If the Indians were going to raise "allies," it would support the conclusion that they intended to attack the Fancher train; if they were going to raise grain, then there would be no such support.

And Bagley's weak conjecture alleging Brigham Young's complicity can ill afford to lose support.

[Hyrum Page]

Then I invite you to suggest an another. We can all see from the graphic Smac provided that the word in question doesn't look anything like "allies."

Great. Thanks for the opportunity. Bagley may have consulted a photocopy of the journal, which could have had any number of defects in addition to being too light to make out the word clearly. At the same time, I am not privy to the method that was used to produce the photo that Smac shared. It could have been enhanced to compensate for the deterioration of the ink. So, if Bagley had a relatively poor copy of a deteriorated document (I admit that I don't know the state of the original), it is altogether possible that he interpreted the data as reading "allies" and restored it thus. It is not unheard of, and really not a damnable offense.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Then I invite you to suggest an another. We can all see from the graphic Smac provided that the word in question doesn't look anything like "allies."

He could have been relying on notes he made a mistake on. (I've done this with dates, for instance.) He could have been relying on notes from an assistant researcher who made the mistake. Those are 2 possibilities.

The argument being made now is that the word change doesn't matter anyway, the damning evidence comes from elsewhere in the journal. But so far, no one who has access to the book is proving that point, and those who don't have access to it currently can't test that point.

[Hyrum Page]

Bagley's quiet correction doesn't help matters, though. An explanation, again, would have been more than useful, imo.

Well, maybe he didn't anticipate such a hew and cry about his restoration. Maybe, like mysteryman, he did not find that his argument was compromised by the difference.

[Hyrum Page]

He could have been relying on notes he made a mistake on. (I've done this with dates, for instance.) He could have been relying on notes from an assistant researcher who made the mistake. Those are 2 possibilities.

Yes, and reasonable possibilities too.

[maklelan]

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

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.

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.

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.

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 ANYBODY they KNOW anything is true by a burning in their bosom.

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?

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.

You've obviously either incapable or unwilling to discuss this intelligently. I'll leave it to the readers to draw there own conclusions from this point on.

[Zakuska]

Dimick Huntington had already given the Shoshonis all the cattle on the northern road to California, and only days before Little Soldier had seized some four hundred animals from a Missouri emigrant name Squires--the transaction Bishop Blackburn had reported in Provo. Describing his meeting with the Paiutes in his journal, Young claimed he could

[LifeOnaPlate]

Sorry, but it is difficult to see how your response to Will, who is discussing things with me, would be so obviously not directed at me too.

It wasn't directed at you. I am telling you right now, again, that it wasn't. I'm sorry you misinterpreted it. It happens sometimes.

Especially when your explanation regards something that would be better left to a private message than an open forum, where few people have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Right, which only came up after you took it personal and pressed the issue.

[Scott Lloyd]

Great. Thanks for the opportunity. Bagley may have consulted a photocopy of the journal, which could have had any number of defects in addition to being too light to make out the word clearly.

I've already allowed for the possibility he couldn't make out the word. That alone doesn't justify the interpolation.

At the same time, I am not privy to the method that was used to produce the photo that Smac shared. It could have been enhanced to compensate for the deterioration of the ink. So, if Bagley had a relatively poor copy of a deteriorated document (I admit that I don't know the state of the original), it is altogether possible that he interpreted the data as reading "allies" and restored it thus. It is not unheard of, and really not a damnable offense.

But in fact he enclosed the word in brackets, indicating that "allies" was not what actually appeared on the document. So, in effect, he paraphrased it in a manner that misleadingly supported his foregone conclusion.

How does that differ from what I came up with?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I provided the necessary pages on either page 1 or 2 of this thread. Go take a look and answer my questions that nobody has yet to do. What meaning does Bagley place on the passage an how does he use it to make his argument? If you place grains in the right place, what does Bagley have to change in his argument?

I don't have the book with me. How about this: why not just post your argument on the board and declare victory, rather than waiting on people? Seems reasonable enough. If you have such an open and shut case it seems it wouldn't take long, and would be much appreciated.

[mysteryman]

His conclusion thereby loses documentary support. If the Indians were going to raise "allies," it would support the conclusion that they intended to attack the Fancher train; if they were going to raise grain, then there would be no such support.

And Bagley's weak conjecture alleging Brigham Young's complicity can ill afford to lose support.

So Scott Lloyd's interpretation of the passage changes. I got it. Luckily Bagley highlighted for us how he was using the passage like any historian will do since documents do not speak for themselves. Furthermore, the passage still demonstrates a reluctance but slight willingness to fight, but in one they seem to suggest they will raise allies to fight. But again it doesn't matter, Bagley highlights the purpose of why he is even quoting the passage. So again I ask, what meaning does Bagley, not Scott Lloyd, place on the passage and how does he use it to make his argument? If you place grains in the right place, what does Bagley have to change in his argument? Show me from the text of the book, I provided it above.

[Hyrum Page]

It wasn't directed at you. I am telling you right now, again, that it wasn't. I'm sorry you misinterpreted it. It happens sometimes.

Right, which only came up after you took it personal and pressed the issue.

Yes, clearly I am the one pressing the issue. Right.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, and reasonable possibilities too.

For a professional researcher and historian, inexcusable, especially when bolstering an allegation of pre-meditated murder.

[mysteryman]

I don't have the book with me. How about this: why not just post your argument on the board and declare victory, rather than waiting on people? Seems reasonable enough. If you have such an open and shut case it seems it wouldn't take long, and would be much appreciated.

Perhaps I should, no one has yet to take up my challenge. Again I ask, what meaning does Bagley place on the passage and how does he use it to make his argument? If you place grains in the right place, what does Bagley have to change in his argument?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I am not convinced by the argument that Bagley wouldn't make such a mistake on purpose because he knew he'd be caught.

See Hoffer's Past Imperfect for why. This isn't to say whether or not Bagley's mistake would fit in with Hoffer's cases, but to simply say that things are not always what we hoped they would be.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Perhaps I should, no one has yet to take up my challenge.

So pull the trigger.

[Hyrum Page]

I've already allowed for the possibility he couldn't make out the word. That alone doesn't justify the interpolation.

Interpolation? He treated it as a restoration. The question would then be whether it was accurate. It turned out that it was not, but that is not the point of the discussion. The point of this discussion is whether he is somehow a bad scholar for having done this. Unless you are privy to the conditions under which he made this "restoration," then you are not really justified in impugning his honesty on the issue.

But in fact he enclosed the word in brackets, indicating that "allies" was not what actually appeared on the document. So, in effect, he paraphrased it in a manner that misleadingly supported his foregone conclusion.

How does that differ from what I came up with?

One generally makes such tentative restorations and marks them with brackets and the like to indicate honestly that it is an arguable point. If he wanted to be dishonest, he probably would have excluded the brackets.

[Hyrum Page]

For a professional researcher and historian, inexcusable, expressly when bolstering an allegation of pre-meditated murder.

No, Scott. People rely on their notes all the time. People are prone to error. Few are so precious as to suggest this is all inexcusable somehow.

Well, I gotta run. I'll check in later.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Yes, clearly I am the one pressing the issue. Right.

Yes, right.

[Remember how you quoted me and said you didn't want me making arguments in your behalf (when I hadn't done any such thing, then let you know I hadn't done any such thing and you questioned me again on it?)]

[LifeOnaPlate]

Interpolation? He treated it as a restoration. The question would then be whether it was accurate. It turned out that it was not, but that is not the point of the discussion. The point of this discussion is whether he is somehow a bad scholar for having done this. Unless you are privy to the conditions under which he made this "restoration," then you are not really justified in impugning his honesty on the issue.

Again, to the degree the change supports Bagley's stated purpose of deliberately trying to prove that Young ordered the massacre, it implicates him as a worse and worse scholar in that instance.