Is It Kosher To Thinkg By Was A Jerk But Still A Prophet?

[ERayR]

Brigham Young had to move a people accross two thousand miles of hardship and deprivation. Some of these people had the means to make the move and some didn't but it was his task to get them all moved and keep the fledgling church organization, not only intact but growing. Once they were moved there was a wilderness to tame and a land to settle. If something broke you couldn't run down to the corner store and get a new one.

Such a task was not to be accomplished without offending someone. I am sure that had I been there and started to whine about the difficulty and Brother Brigham dispensed one of his castigations I would have been offended. If I refused to see and acknowledge any wisdom in his admonitions I would harbor ill feelings for a long time.

From our vantage point we have the advantage of seeing his accomplishment, if we want to. We also have the disadvantage of looking at things through the relative ease which we now enjoy.

Look at his accomplishment and contributions and you will see, that despite his faults, Brother Brigham did a marvelous job.

[Bob Crockett]

I understand fully that some, and why, disagree about BY's role in the hand cart companies. That's fine. Testimonies and unsupported assertions without authentication are not satisfactory shields to well documented and researched narratives. The smugness comes in throwing off statements without support.

However, Roberts' work was a piece of work. He slavishly follows Bagley while, three times, calling him "acerbic." I don't based my analysis of Roberts on testimonies, but on evidence. Roberts' work was very poor.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

And that's why I love him and small children.

Amen

[Pahoran]

I haven't read Rea's work but I have Roberts'. My amazon review is out there somewhere.

What strikes me about Roberts' account is that while he seems hell-bent to attack Brigham Young, he certainly documents the many "back-outs" in the Martin company who, when seeing the facts as presented, weighed the risks and decided not to go then. Seems folks had their freedom of will to gamble with their lives.

In terms of mortality rates, the handcart excursions were not unusual if seen as a whole.

I think Franklin D. Richards was partly to blame for the Martin fiasco, and he was rightly criticized for it.

I found your Amazon review here.

Looking over the reviews, I note that the less a reviewer actually knows about Mormon history, they more adulatory they are.

I remember that Lou Midgley documented the same phenomenon with Fawn Brodie's works.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I understand fully that some, and why, disagree about BY's role in the hand cart companies. That's fine. Testimonies and unsupported assertions without authentication are not satisfactory shields to well documented and researched narratives. The smugness comes in throwing off statements without support.

It seems you are speaking about your own position here. Oh the irony.

[MelvinCJohnson]

However, Roberts' work was a piece of work. He slavishly follows Bagley while, three times, calling him "acerbic." I don't based my analysis of Roberts on testimonies, but on evidence. Roberts' work was very poor.

You just demonstrated what I wrote. No, your evidence is based on your testimony first, then the evidence has to meet that belief system. History writing works from a factual grasp of the narrative; the interpretation must flow from the most logical construction of the artifacts. I believe your conclusion simply fails. However, the simple matter is for anyone to read the reviews, read the work, study the sources.

[MelvinCJohnson]

It seems you are speaking about your own position here. Oh the irony.

Begin with reading my review; the link is above. Then read the works, Then study the sources. Then turn your opinion into supported commentary. I will be glad to read and comment on it.

[Mars]

No, your evidence is based on your testimony first, then the evidence has to meet that belief system.

~sigh~

[Deborah]

~sigh~

double sigh.

I just put up some historical documentation that the handcarts were warned about leaving when they did but that apparently isn't evidence when it conflicts with someone's negative opinion.

Furthermore testimony cannot be removed from the equation when one considers the testing of the Lord's people and his hand in easing their trials. If the people there at the time saw the blessing, who are we to question a couple hundred years later?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Then turn your opinion into supported commentary.

Again, are you speaking about yourself here?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

double sigh.

I just put up some historical documentation that the handcarts were warned about leaving when they did but that apparently isn't evidence when it conflicts with someone's negative opinion.

Well, you see Deborah, that when you "read the works, Then study the sources. Then turn your opinion into supported commentary." you wont have the problem you are having.

You just have not read the works. Apparenlty no one has but our good friend Melvin.

[Pahoran]

You just demonstrated what I wrote.

Actually he refuted what you wrote. By this time it is apparent that your prejudices are absolutely determinative of your opinions; but are you completely incapable of even seeing anything contrary to them?

No, your evidence is based on your testimony first, then the evidence has to meet that belief system.

And your evidence for that is -- what, precisely? That he disagrees with you?

It appears that you are at least as capable of drawing evidence-free, ideologically determined conclusions as you so readily assume your opponents to be.

History writing works from a factual grasp of the narrative; the interpretation must flow from the most logical construction of the artifacts.

That sounds pretty; but what does it mean? Don't you know that the historical narrative is absolutely dependent upon the narrator?

The Beadle school of Mormon history, of which you and Bagley are the leading proponents, sees everything bad in Utah being coolly planned in a back room of the Lion House, and then exactly carried out by Brigham's nefarious agents. But when I read the actual documents regarding the controversial events, I see all manner of blundering and mismanagement happening in circumstances where not even the most determined anti-Mormon can possibly implicate Brigham.

Where is the document implicating Brigham in the decision for the Martin and Willie companies to set out that late in the season? Produce it please; because without it, it is apparent that the drive to blame him is entirely driven by malice.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Where is the document implicating Brigham in the decision for the Martin and Willie companies to set out that late in the season? Produce it please; because without it, it is apparent that the drive to blame him is entirely driven by malice.

Regards,

Pahoran

I second this. I am unaware of any such document.

[Jeff K.]

Where is the document implicating Brigham in the decision for the Martin and Willie companies to set out that late in the season? Produce it please; because without it, it is apparent that the drive to blame him is entirely driven by malice.

The response will be telling.

[MelvinCJohnson]

Your lack of knowledge, Mola Ram Suda Ram, simply means that you are "unaware of any such document." I am aware that you are unaware.

Pahoran, you certainly disagree with, but certainly does not refute, what I wrote. Assertions never can replace factual narrative. My material and my work are posted. Check the links. Read them. Read the works. Check the sources. You have done none of that. You have not read any of my reviews, articles, book, whatever, to make such a silly statement that you can’t see “anything contrary to them.” You have merely made unsupported assertions, nothing more.

You both apparently are unaware that good history is dependent on the factual grasp of the historical artifacts. A good historian recognizes his own bias, the bias of others, does his best to account for and limit said bias in his work. That is one major difference between apologetics and history. “The Beadle school of Mormon history” is any apologetic faction that flatly refuses to grasp factually the artifacts and the narrative that arise from them. Nothing either of you have written here at all has demonstrated, proven, or introduced any “manner of blundering and mismanagement happening in circumstances where not even the most determined anti-Mormon can possibly implicate Brigham,’ other than your unsupported assertion that such implication is impossible.

Your assertions don't wash. Your unsupported beliefs are evidence only of that you have no evidence for your beliefs.

[MelvinCJohnson]

Introduce a document? Get off your lazy intellectual behinds and do some reading and checking. You saying, "la la la, I don't believe it," doesn't mean anything at all. That simply means you don't know the evidence, you refuse to read what has been posted, and that does not cut it, guys.

[Calm]

Introduce a document? Get off your lazy intellectual behinds and do some reading and checking. You saying, "la la la, I don't believe it," doesn't mean anything at all. That simply means you don't know the evidence, you refuse to read what has been posted, and that does not cut it, guys.

You really need to go back and read the board guidelines if you intend to stay on the board for much longer.

One of the things the mods say won't be tolerated:

Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements

[Hestia]

Introduce a document?

When you make a statement you must support it with evidence. You don't tell everyone to find it on their own. We need a specific reference.

[Pahoran]

Introduce a document? Get off your lazy intellectual behinds and do some reading and checking. You saying, "la la la, I don't believe it," doesn't mean anything at all. That simply means you don't know the evidence, you refuse to read what has been posted, and that does not cut it, guys.

I have read what has been posted. I have read several of your linked reviews. Your hand-waving and pontificating is getting tiresome.

If there is in fact a document referenced in either your posts here or in the reviews to which you have linked, then kindly point it out. This is a formal Call For References, Melvin; something that is so well known and understood in this forum that the acronym CFR is usually sufficient. Please note:

• Hyperventilating is not a reference.
  
• Hand-waving is not a reference.
  
• Scolding us for not having read the document you do not deign to produce is not a reference.
  

AFAICT, nobody died and made you headmaster, Melvin. Assuring us that you are a Fearlessly Impartial Seeker of Absolute TRVTH while we are mere craven apologists may be good for stroking your ego, but it accomplishes nothing else. You've been asked for a reference: not a reference to your own opinion, but a reference to an actual piece of evidence of the type which, you assure us, is the sole source of your views.

That being the case, producing it ought to be a doddle for you. If it actually exists.

So, where is it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeff K.]

Introduce a document? Get off your lazy intellectual behinds and do some reading and checking. You saying, "la la la, I don't believe it," doesn't mean anything at all. That simply means you don't know the evidence, you refuse to read what has been posted, and that does not cut it, guys.

Translation: I don't have one.

[Bob Crockett]

You just demonstrated what I wrote. No, your evidence is based on your testimony first, then the evidence has to meet that belief system. History writing works from a factual grasp of the narrative; the interpretation must flow from the most logical construction of the artifacts. I believe your conclusion simply fails. However, the simple matter is for anyone to read the reviews, read the work, study the sources.

You're new to this board. Pahoran and pals try to kick my butt all the time because my views don't coincide with the orthodox here. I just don't roll over like you would claim.

You'll find no evidence of that dreaded testimony here on this board, but I do find very fascinating the Will Bagley approach to history. No discrimination whatsoever about the quality of sources. Rumor and innuendo has the same quality as first-hand eyewitness testimony. Will's book is a disgrace to the memory of the folks who sacrificed themselves for their religion. Roberts -- I've read the reviews, the work, the sources. My principal reaction to Roberts is as I have stated before, people went of their own free will and a lot backed out. Brigham Young castigated Richards for his role in the Martin Willie fiasco. People make mistakes about the weather all the time.

[CQUIRK]

The more I read about BY the more of a bad taste in my mouth I get from him. At times he comes off as callous, arrogant, and rude. At the same time I respect a lot of what he did. It seems people either hate him or love him, but I am kinda in both camps.

He was certainly someone that was 'old-fashioned', headstrong, and at times- brutally honest. Yet he still shared many of the same human flaws that Prophets of the Biblical times had.

But I don't know what to 'thinkg' of him, however

[Programmer]

...

BY always seemed a bit of a rough and tumble fellow, from what little I have studied it. ...

I am glad you admit you have studied little about the subject.

Have you ever read for instance the collect discourses of Brigham Young? (Edited and compiled by Widtsoe?)

[ERayR]

Begin with reading my review; the link is above. Then read the works, Then study the sources. Then turn your opinion into supported commentary. I will be glad to read and comment on it.

Thank you o holy one for deigning to notice the lowly ones. Thanks but no thanks.

[Pahoran]

I have read what has been posted. I have read several of your linked reviews. Your hand-waving and pontificating is getting tiresome.

If there is in fact a document referenced in either your posts here or in the reviews to which you have linked, then kindly point it out. This is a formal Call For References, Melvin; something that is so well known and understood in this forum that the acronym CFR is usually sufficient. Please note:

• Hyperventilating is not a reference.
  
• Hand-waving is not a reference.
  
• Scolding us for not having read the document you do not deign to produce is not a reference.
  

AFAICT, nobody died and made you headmaster, Melvin. Assuring us that you are a Fearlessly Impartial Seeker of Absolute TRVTH while we are mere craven apologists may be good for stroking your ego, but it accomplishes nothing else. You've been asked for a reference: not a reference to your own opinion, but a reference to an actual piece of evidence of the type which, you assure us, is the sole source of your views.

That being the case, producing it ought to be a doddle for you. If it actually exists.

So, where is it?

Regards,

Pahoran

Bump for Melvin. There is an unsatisfied CFR before you. Please produce your evidence or stand refuted.

Regards,

Pahoran