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

[gmormon]

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.

...

Scott have you heard of any timeline on the second volume?

[Hyrum Page]

I tend to pay the utmost attention to the linchpins of an argument. If my reading of an historical event hinges largely on one bit of documentary evidence I would make damn sure I knew the document inside and out, in person, in as many ways as possible.

I don't regard that to be such a lynchpin. Oh and "a worse and worse scholar in this instance" (which I also contend we do not know enough to say).

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes Bagley interprets that Young encouraged the Indians to attack. But he made that argument without the "allies" reference. If you interpret the grains reading as meaning the Indians were reluctant, then it furthers Bagley's overall argument that it was the Mormons who instigated it and that the Indians were reluctant. Good job Scott! You have demonstrated how the grains reading reinforces Bagley's argument!

What I've maintained is that Brigham Young refused to continue to restrain the Indians, as he had done up to then. Quite a difference between that and instructing the Indians to attack. And quite a gap between that and the crime-worthy-of-death that Bagley has alleged.

Don't misrepresent my position again.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott have you heard of any timeline on the second volume?

No.

I was in Turley's office about the time of the release of the first, and he indicated an early draft was already complete.

[Hyrum Page]

I've seen nothing to persuade me that Bagley is even capable of such sophisticated thought. Bagley manifests a classic two-dimensional mentality. His propaganda is riddled with internal inconsistencies and contradictions. He simply lacks the capability to keep the "big picture" clear in his mind, and therefore isn't even aware of the inconsistencies he introduces into his narrative.

[Q] From Dave: What does hue and cry mean?

[A] This idiom, meaning a loud clamour or public outcry, contains the obsolete word hue, which people these days know only as a slightly formal or technical word for a colour or shade. As a result, you sometimes see the phrase written as hew and cry.

As for your overall caricature of Bagley, I see no reason to offer a serious response to something I can't take very seriously.

[Scott Lloyd]

Enhanced?

Somebody want to contact BYU Studies and ask if they enhanced the photo? Multi-spectral imageing, that sort of thing?

Better yet, one of us who works downtown could trot over to the Church History Library and request a photo copy of the page in question and see how it compares with what Smac posted.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Yes. He has said so on this board.

That's a disappointment. He should have known better than to think I was trying to put arguments in his mouth.

[Hyrum Page]

That's a disappointment. He should have known better than to think I was trying to put arguments in his mouth.

Well, we are both disappointed then. I am disappointed in you, and you are disappointed in me. I hope we can both get over it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Somebody want to contact BYU Studies and ask if they enhanced the photo? Multi-spectral imageing, that sort of thing?

Better yet, one of us who works downtown could trot over to the Church History Library and request a photo copy of the page in question and see how it compares with what Smac posted.

Frankly, I think the charge of enhancement is a remarkable, remarkable stretch (and a desperate and unseemly one). Coates published the document specifically to counter Bagley's reading. There is no mention of the photo being altered.

He is basically accusing BYU Studies of outright fraud and dishonesty, even slander. Not only that, but why would Bagley silently make the change for his next edition rather than explaining that BYU Studies did him wrong? I am certain, absolutely certain, Bagley would have made a very big deal of it if that picture was doctored. He never misses a chance to make fun of BYU and all things related thereto.

[William Schryver]

AI:

And as for the whole raise "grain" vs. raise "allies", I think while the word changes the meaning of the sentence, it's not worth all this vitriol.

Your naivete is showing again.

What Bagley manifests in this particular instance is his willingness to distort and misrepresent his sources pursuant to his preconceived objective. His standard modus operandi is revealed. This single locus of propaganda, then, is emblematic of the whole.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well, we are both disappointed then. I am disappointed in you, and you are disappointed in me. I hope we can both get over it.

Undisappoint me by explaining how Bagely's schilling for September Dumb wasn't a shameful participation in propaganda, or by agreeing that he made a dumb move.

[Hyrum Page]

Frankly, I think the charge of enhancement is a remarkable, remarkable stretch (and a desperate and unseemly one). Coates published the document specifically to counter Bagley's reading. There is no mention of the photo being altered. He is basically accusing BYU Studies of outright fraud and dishonesty, even slander. Not only that, but why would Bagley silently make the change for his next edition rather than explaining that BYU Studies did him wrong? I am certain, absolutely certain, Bagley would have made a very big deal of it if that picture was doctored. He never misses a chance to make fun of BYU and all things related thereto.

What high drama. First, I was not aware of the context in which the image was offered. Second, I did not know whether information regarding possible enhancement was included or not. In short, I am not "accusing BYU Studies of outright fraud and dishonesty, even slander." Sigh. The disappointments keep stacking up.

[LifeOnaPlate]

AI:

Your naivete is showing again.

What Bagley manifests in this particular instance is his willingness to distort and misrepresent his sources pursuant to his preconceived objective. His standard modus operandi is revealed. This single locus of propaganda, then, is emblematic of the whole.

I don't know if I'd go that far and I don't think we need to. After all, the crucial point to be seen is whether or not Bagley made such a blunder in a way that sustains his overall argument. Again, to the degree that the misreading aligns with his overall thesis...

[LifeOnaPlate]

What high drama. First, I was not aware of the context in which the image was offered.

But you were earlier castigating me for not reading the thread closely enough. It's inthe very first post of the thread, including a picture, a description, and a link to a download to see the review in question. Smac couldn't have made it more plain, so why wonder if it was enhanced? Why not just check? High drama and high adventure on the high seas.

Second, I did not know whether information regarding possible enhancement was included or not.

I do, because I clicked on the provided link and looked. You can do the same, it's free. I'm glad to know your error was from careless reading and not from any desire to impugn BYU Studies. Now go read!

[Hyrum Page]

Undisappoint me by explaining how Bagely's schilling for September Dumb wasn't a shameful participation in propaganda, or by agreeing that he made a dumb move.

Oh, it was more than a dumb move. It was a deplorable move. I am not sympathetic to those who offer their scholarly services to bona fide anti-Mormons. If that movie weren't defamation of a dangerous kind, it would simply be laughable garbage.

[Hyrum Page]

But you were earlier castigating me for not reading the thread closely enough. It's inthe very first post of the thread, including a picture, a description, and a link to a download to see the review in question. Smac couldn't have made it more plain, so why wonder if it was enhanced? Why not just check? High drama and high adventure on the high seas.

I do, because I clicked on the provided link and looked. You can do the same, it's free. I'm glad to know your error was from careless reading and not from any desire to impugn BYU Studies. Now go read!

Fair enough. But I also think it is important to check the document itself. And, I think it is important to know which copy Bagley used.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Oh, it was more than a dumb move. It was a deplorable move. I am not sympathetic to those who offer their scholarly services to bona fide anti-Mormons. If that movie weren't defamation of a dangerous kind, it would simply be laughable garbage.

There's one thing you and I can be very grateful for, no matter what other disagreements we have. We can thank the folks who gave us September Dawn, which can always be a point of common ground for us!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Fair enough. But I also think it is important to check the document itself. And, I think it is important to know which copy Bagley used.

I trust the BYU Studies image for the present. We'll see if Bagley will explain how he made the misreading. (And of course, even then he may not remember, or may not be entirely forthcoming.)

[William Schryver]

Trevor:

As for your overall caricature of Bagley ...

I have crafted no "caricature" whatsoever. Quite to the contrary, my descriptions of Bagley the Second-Rate Propagandist have been both precise and restrained. When I choose to use caricature in reference to the would-be historian, I will leave little doubt of my intentions in the minds of my readers.

[Hyrum Page]

Trevor:

I have crafted no "caricature" whatsoever. Quite to the contrary, my descriptions of Bagley the Second-Rate Propagandist have been both precise and restrained. When I choose to use caricature in reference to the would-be historian, I will leave little doubt of my intentions in the minds of my readers.

I am sure you believe that.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Trevor:

I have crafted no "caricature" whatsoever. Quite to the contrary, my descriptions of Bagley the Second-Rate Propagandist have been both precise and restrained. When I choose to use caricature in reference to the would-be historian, I will leave little doubt of my intentions in the minds of my readers.

Ha, that's the truth!

It should be noted, and I think Will would agree, that Bagley's book was as much of an attack on the presently constituted LDS Church, and even a sermon! as it is an attempt to tell what "really happened." Consider Bagley's somewhat weird declaration in an academic approach to the historical subject that "The faith [current LDS Church] must accept its role, open all of its records on the subject, acknowledge its accountability, and repent--or learn to live with the guilt" (p. 382).

What's that about?

[Hyrum Page]

I trust the BYU Studies image for the present. We'll see if Bagley will explain how he made the misreading. (And of course, even then he may not remember, or may not be entirely forthcoming.)

I don't see any information regarding enhancement of the photo in the Coates review. At the same time, I still do not know that Bagley was using the original or his transcription was taken from a bad photocopy.

[Hyrum Page]

Ha, that's the truth!

It should be noted, and I think Will would agree, that Bagley's book was as much of an attack on the presently constituted LDS Church, and even a sermon! as it is an attempt to tell what "really happened." Consider Bagley's somewhat weird declaration in an academic approach to the historical subject that "The faith [current LDS Church] must accept its role, open all of its records on the subject, acknowledge its accountability, and repent--or learn to live with the guilt" (p. 382).

What's that about?

Sometimes scholars become outspoken concerning what they perceive to be history's injustices. There are differing opinions regarding the appropriateness of this stance. I do not choose to do this in my work, but I do not condemn those who do.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Sometimes scholars become outspoken concerning what they perceive to be history's injustices. There are differing opinions regarding the appropriateness of this stance. I do not choose to do this in my work, but I do not condemn those who do.

My point is that it lends right into the very reason the book was commissioned by Frank Singer to begin with, namely: to make the current church look bad by implicating Young. And you disliked Bagley's participation in the SD movie, but his book is structured in a similarly cartoon way, with the evil sinister Mormons in the lead role, eager to carry out blood atonement on the hapless pious emigrants.

[Zakuska]

My point is that it lends right into the very reason the book was commissioned by Frank Singer to begin with, namely: to make the current church look bad by implicating Young. And you disliked Bagley's participation in the SD movie, but his book is structured in a similarly cartoon way, with the evil sinister Mormons in the lead role, eager to carry out blood atonement on the hapless pious emigrants.

As evidenced very planely right here...

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