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

[alter idem]

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.

Since you are calling me 'naive' once again, I will tell you what I think of you. I think your zealous "US vs. THEM" perspective hampers your ability to be objective.

Yes, Bagley has a preconceived notion of Brigham Young's guilt and it influences how he presents the evidence. But your reactions also have a knee jerk quality to them which comes through in your posts.

So, I consider what both of you write with the understanding that you both work from a position of bias.

And, I suspect you have not read his book.

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

Unseemly histrionics, to state it concisely.

Interestingly, with the publication of Massacre at Mountain Meadows, the publication of the Andrew Jenson transcripts and manuscript images, the repeated condemnation of the massacre by today's Church leaders, and the construction of a monument on the site, the Church has in effect opened its records and publicly deplored the mass murder. In the process of all this, Bagley has been discredited as a conspiracy theorist.

As for his other demands, well, I reject the concept of institutional guilt for the aberrant and horrific actions of a panicked and tragically misguided few acting on their own part and contrary to the values and teachings of the Church to which they professed devotion. Of course, Bagley can't accept that. Hence his determination to implicate Brigham Young and to view the perpetrators as mindless victims themselves under remote control from Salt Lake City. And I'm afraid his judgment as a scholar is clouded by his emotional investment.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't see any information regarding enhancement of the photo in the Coates review.

It strikes me, therefore, that the default assumption is that it was not enhanced.

In journalism, it would be considered a violation of ethics to enhance an image without disclosing the fact.

[Pahoran]

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!

Great spin there, MM! You've PROVEN that there is no evidence that counts against your hero's simon-pure academic disinterest!

You have also PROVEN that you know how to blatantly misrepresent your hero's argument. Bagley is not simply arguing that the Mormons wanted to fight and the Indians didn't. He is arguing that "the atrocity was not a tragedy but a premeditated criminal act initiated in Great Salt Lake City." And what does he think has PROVEN that "fact?" Why, the Huntington journal entry.

The one Bagley saw fit -- for whatever reason -- to, um, "improve."

His argument is not that the Mormons were gung-ho and the Indians hanging back. His argument is that the journal entry in question is the record of the birth of a conspiracy. Think Don Corleone calling together the heads of the Five Families.

That's why he needs it to say "allies." He wants the Indians to be saying, "Hold the phone for a few days while we dash off into the hills and round up some more braves." And a few days later, some Paiute braves do indeed turn up at Las Vegas de Santa Clara and start taking potshots at the Fancher train; post hoc ergo propter hoc, and his case is made.

Except that they are not saying that. They are saying, "We don't want to fight the army." (Note please that the army, NOT the Fancher train, is indisputably the subject of the meeting.) "We'll go up into the hills and plant corn, and help you out with food supplies while you guys go and fight." Thus, "allies" supports Bagley's conspiracy theory; "grain," to put it charitably, disembowels it.

Why would Bagley deliberately change a word that has no bearing on his argument?

Exactly. And since "allies" appears in brackets as an interpolation, it is indisputably clear that it was a deliberate word choice.

So why would he deliberately choose a word that is clearly wrong, if indeed it had no bearing upon his argument?

Because he clearly did deliberately choose it, and it is clearly wrong.

Regards,

Pahoran

[alter idem]

Quote

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

[Hyrum Page]

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.

Well, you must know something about Frank Singer that I do not know. I am interested in learning more about him. Other than his financial problems and his tax evasion issues, I don't know much. I was not aware that he was a confirmed anti-Mormon.

[LifeOnaPlate]

In the process of all this, Bagley has been discredited as a conspiracy theorist.

But we haven't said the magic words: "Brigham Young did it, and he was a very bad man, and certainly not a prophet, and the idea of 'prophets' is dangerous and silly, and results in murder."

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's how Turley et al see it and I agree:

"As part of his developing war policy, Young wanted Indian leaders to ally themselves with the Saints against the approaching troops and prepare for a long siege." Massacre pg. 146

"Similarly, in the Sept. 1 meeting, the native leaders from central and southern Utah were told, apparently by Young himself, that they might take "all the cattle that had gone to Cal the southe rout." pg. 146

He was telling the Indians they could run off the cattle that belonged to Emigrant trains. This Turley agrees with Bagley on--and he had access to the records so I believe he is correct.

The difference is that Bagley is assuming from this that Brigham Young was encouraging the Indians to attack the Fancher party, which clearly is a stretch and he's making it only because he wants to tie B.Young to the attack, not because it's logical or even reasonable.

As Turley points out "neither chronology nor unfolding events confirm such a charge." pg. 146 Bagley doesn't let these concerns stop him from making the connections he makes. Also, his interpretation of 'allies' instead of 'grain' bolstered his desire to pin it on B.Young, so that's how he read it. However, even if it DID say 'allies', it wouldn't connect the dots Bagley wants it to.

Allowing or even encouraging the Indians to run off cattle to help sustain them in their war against the US is not unreasonable. Believing that he wanted them to massacre an Emigrant train is and no matter how he massages the evidence, he can't make it support this claim.

The book further reads: "Young's invitation for Indians to take cattle was a generalized war polciy, not an order to massacre the Arkansas company. As the conflict continued, Young directed members of the territorial militia to take cattle and destroy supplies owned not only by the federal government but also by its private contractors. Despite the wartime atmosphere, this was done successfully with very few casualties.

"[isaac] Haight and his associates were recruiting Paiutes before word of the September 1 meeting reached southern Utah. In addition, the Indians attending the September 1 meeting in Salt Lake were reluctant to take part in the crisis. According to Huntington's account, when the meeting ended, the Indians declared themselves 'afraid to fight the Americans & so would raise grain & we [the Mormons] might fight" (pp. 146-147).

Apparently, Turley, et al viewed the Huntington manuscript unhindered by the "bad photocopy" Trevor speculates impeded Bagley's research.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It strikes me, therefore, that the default assumption is that it was not enhanced.

In journalism, it would be consider a violation of ethics to enhance an image without disclosing the fact.

Not only journalism, but history as well. It would be an egregious violation of ethics to alter a photo that way and make no mention of it. (Though I can't help but point out that such a thing has been done in Mormon-themes books before, like D. Michael Quinn's "Same Sex Dynamics" book.)

[Hyrum Page]

Not only journalism, but history as well. It would be an egregious violation of ethics to alter a photo that way and make no mention of it. (Though I can't help but point out that such a thing has been done in Mormon-themes books before, like D. Michael Quinn's "Same Sex Dynamics" book.)

Let's put a few more exclamation marks on that one.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well, you must know something about Frank Singer that I do not know. I am interested in learning more about him. Other than his financial problems and his tax evasion issues, I don't know much. I was not aware that he was a confirmed anti-Mormon.

If you don't know, then I'm not particularly interested in hashing it out here. Poke around a bit, you might get what I mean. The key is that Bagley's interpretation is geared to implicate Brigham Young, and one of the star witnesses was changed in Bagley's 1st edition.

[Hyrum Page]

Apparently, Turley, et al viewed the Huntington manuscript unhindered by the "bad photocopy" Trevor speculates impeded Bagley's research.

I should hope so. After all, their employers own the thing.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I should hope so. After all, their employers own the thing.

Fortunately, being "employees of the Church" wouldn't affect the reading of the piece of paper depicted in the BYU Studies review, ya? Also, was this a restricted item, or could Bagley have gone and looked at the original? I suspect he could have. Coates was able to get a copy. Granted Bagley might have been denied access to things that other people, including Coates, would have been allowed to see. Nevertheless, the recent publication of the Jensen collection, etc., undercuts the "suppression" argument significantly.

[Hyrum Page]

If you don't know, then I'm not particularly interested in hashing it out here. Poke around a bit, you might get what I mean. The key is that Bagley's interpretation is geared to implicate Brigham Young, and one of the star witnesses was changed in Bagley's 1st edition.

That was a pretty simple question, LOaP. Either the guy is a confirmed anti-Mormon and you have solid evidence to back that up, or he is not. You claimed that Frank Singer's role in funding Bagley tainted the book. It would seem to me that you now don't want to back up your claim.

Maybe I am wrong. Just provide the evidence or at least give me a link.

[LifeOnaPlate]

That was a pretty simple question, LOaP. Either the guy is a confirmed anti-Mormon and you have solid evidence to back that up, or he is not. You claimed that Frank Singer's role in funding Bagley tainted the book. It would seem to me that you now don't want to back up your claim.

Maybe I am wrong. Just provide the evidence or at least give me a link.

I apologize for bringing it up, I don't want to get in the mud regarding Singer.

[Hyrum Page]

Fortunately, being "employees of the Church" wouldn't affect the reading of the piece of paper depicted in the BYU Studies review, ya? Also, was this a restricted item, or could Bagley have gone and looked at the original? I suspect he could have. Coates was able to get a copy. Granted Bagley might have been denied access to things that other people, including Coates, would have been allowed to see. Nevertheless, the recent publication of the Jensen collection, etc., undercuts the "suppression" argument significantly.

Uh, I think the point is that they read the actual document. Bagley also did not utilize Lawrence Coates' picture in BYU Studies.

[Hyrum Page]

I apologize for bringing it up, I don't want to get in the mud regarding Singer.

OK, so I take it that one cannot use Singer's role in funding the project to taint Bagley's work.

[Zakuska]

OK, so I take it that one cannot use Singer's role in funding the project to taint Bagley's work.

Theres a closed thread on the guy...

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/27915-who-is-frank-james-singer/

[LifeOnaPlate]

Uh, I think the point is that they read the actual document. Bagley also did not utilize Lawrence Coates' picture in BYU Studies.

We have no reason to suspect they didn't read it, right. As for Bagley, we have a huge reason for believing he didn't read the original, namely: that he read it completely wrong somehow. But he still might have read the original, and he still might have had access to it even if he didn't read it. Only Bagley ostensibly knows.

[LifeOnaPlate]

OK, so I take it that one cannot use Singer's role in funding the project to taint Bagley's work.

Sort of like how calling the authors of the recent MMM book "employees of the church" is little more than a rhetorical strategy to discredit their work.

[Hyrum Page]

Nevertheless, the recent publication of the Jensen collection, etc., undercuts the "suppression" argument significantly.

Well, I am not using a "suppression" argument.

[Hyrum Page]

Sort of like how calling the authors of the recent MMM book "employees of the church" is little more than a rhetorical strategy to discredit their work.

The difference being, of course, that they actually are employees of the Church, whereas you have merely implied that Singer is an anti-Mormon and have cited no evidence.

As for my comment, I think it should be fairly clear to everyone that their special access to certain documents is likely not unrelated to the trust their employer places in them. It is a reasonable statement and is not intended in any way to call into question their interpretation of the documents themselves.

[alter idem]

I think it is reasonable to assume that Bagley may have only had access to a photocopy while Turley had the original. And, not that they would have tried to foil him, but clearly interested parties would have wanted to look carefully at the passage which Bagley cited--because he was using it to implicate B.Young--so they may have used something to make it more legible.

It may be that the photo copy that we see where it clearly says 'g-r-a-' may have been photoshopped to make it more legible--and possibly it was not this legible in the copy that Bagley used.

I'm not saying this because I want to exonerate Bagley, I'm trying to understand how Bagley could have read 'allies' when it doesn't look like it at all and to me, and just maybe his copy was different. I know that my husband has been able to photoshop pictures to bring out things that were not visible in the original photo.

[Zakuska]

Frank James Singer Missing?

http://www.nampn.org/cases/singer_frank.html

Apparently the UMW did their job.

[alter idem]

Fortunately, being "employees of the Church" wouldn't affect the reading of the piece of paper depicted in the BYU Studies review, ya? Also, was this a restricted item, or could Bagley have gone and looked at the original? I suspect he could have. Coates was able to get a copy. Granted Bagley might have been denied access to things that other people, including Coates, would have been allowed to see. Nevertheless, the recent publication of the Jensen collection, etc., undercuts the "suppression" argument significantly.

Yes, now the Jensen collection is available, but it was not to Bagley or to Brooks. We cannot deny the fact that records were not made available to them.