Best method for dialogue between believers and doubters regarding Mormon history

[RevTestament]

20 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Just need to say this:  If what is True is so squishy and malleable then what's the point of this thread?  If not even we the enlightened posters of this thread can agree on what is true...how in the heck can anyone have a discussion based on truth with a member or non.  It seems that there is no path forward that we could ever agree upon.  This is why I find discussions on Mormonism so freaking frustrating we can't even agree on what is true.

You are apparently not a historian. Looking into the "history" of the Catholic Church for example leads one to the same frustrations. The point is that all history contains biases, omissions, etc. It is the nature of the beast. To try to determine what is "truth" one cannot pick up one book and say this is the truth about what happened. 

Ultimately, the truth of the church is spiritual. Trying to determine its truth using the "scientific" method is bound to lead to frustration as you have found. This is what M. Bukowski has been saying on this site for years I gather. There are "historical" evidences for the truth of the church, but there are also "historical" evidences for its foundation being built on fictions, lies, etc. It depends on who and what you choose to believe.

I didn't start this thread, but I believe the point is to find some common ground on which to discuss these issues, and the best means to do so. My position is that SS is not the appropriate place to do so. 

[James Tunney]

33 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Just need to say this:  If what is True is so squishy and malleable then what's the point of this thread?  If not even we the enlightened posters of this thread can agree on what is true...how in the heck can anyone have a discussion based on truth with a member or non.  It seems that there is no path forward that we could ever agree upon.  This is why I find discussions on Mormonism so freaking frustrating we can't even agree on what is true.

I don't think there is a way to agree on what the facts are or correct interpretations are. The resolution of this issue is outcome determinative. All I know is that the church felt it necessary to sugar coat their version and still to this day advises its members to stay away from those nasty non-member historians who tell the complete story, warts and all. Also, the church has slowly and quietly admitted what was once vehemently denied in the past.

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, Danzo said:

We didn't go into what they already knew or didn't know, The primary audience was my children, who were asking about it.  (the conversation came about when we were talking about some of the potential negative things said about the church by the relatives of one of the investigators).

I explained that the short answer was that a bunch of Mormon settlers shot a and killed every man, woman and child above eight years of age in an ambush.   After the missionaries left we discussed some more of the details to my children (the missionaries had an appointment they had to get to).

We talked about how some of the primary motivation for the massacre seems to have been motivated by trying to cover up things.  About how the settlers didn't wait for instruction from the church leaders. I also went over briefly some of the details about the Utah war, etc.  How one member was executed and that there were probably several others that deserved to be, but weren't.

It was a good opportunity to teach the children about how covering up for one bad decision can lead to more bad decisions and tragedies like this one. 

My approach to discussing bad things from the past in or out of the church tries to follow the advise of Moroni

" Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been. "

Nice, thanks for sharing your experience.  These can be difficult topics to address with kids, it sounds like you did so in a thoughtful way.  

[HappyJackWagon]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

On the quality of the Tanners' work regarding (that is, in virulent opposition to) Mormonism, I think the following critique by Dr. Lawrence Foster is noteworthy:

I contrast this assessment with this glowing review of the Tanners provided by Mr. Tunney: " Dan Vogel, Michael Marquart, the Tanners, and Quinn were and are very meticulous in what they write. They have to be..."

Of these two mutually incompatible critiques, I think Dr. Foster's is more accurate.

D. Michael Quinn, on the other hand, is rather a mixed bag.  My sense is that he has made some very substantive and valuable contributions to scholarship about Mormonism, but his writings also some contain some profound flaws, including egregious misuse/distortion of sources (rather a big no-no for historians, I would say). See, e.g., the following:

• A FairMormon Analysis of: Early Mormonism and the Magic World View
• A FairMormon Analysis of: The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power
• A FairMormon Analysis of: The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power
• A FairMormon Analysis of: Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I won't attempt to defend the Tanners because I don't know the totality of their work. However, they were at the forefront of making information available even if it was dismissed as anti-Mormon literature at the time. IIRC- they were the first to publicly make the 1832 account of the First Vision available. I see people like Fawn Brodie and the Tanners being demonized, and they may have had an ax to grind, but they were also right about things long before the church acknowledged it.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Just need to say this:  If what is True is so squishy and malleable then what's the point of this thread?  If not even we the enlightened posters of this thread can agree on what is true...how in the heck can anyone have a discussion based on truth with a member or non.  It seems that there is no path forward that we could ever agree upon.  This is why I find discussions on Mormonism so freaking frustrating we can't even agree on what is true.

I can see that.  However, I can understand why people don't agree on what is true.  That is a common problem in most aspects of life. I show up to these threads to learn and share why people find something to be true or not true.

However, what really gets me is when people in this thread and others have tried to redefine what "truth" means to fit their own philosophy.  I just don't see that as a useful avenue of discussion.   I think both Mormons, nonmormons, and exmormons should probably be able to reach agreement on the definition of truth given in the D&C 93:24:

 

Quote

And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

 

I don't believe that those are the words of Jesus Christ and yet I still accept that definition of truth.  Truth is simply that which is in accordance with reality.  If a philosophy causes one to define truth in some other way, I guess that is cool, but that definition falls outside what makes the term useful for communicating an understanding of reality. 

 

Edited December 7, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Why does it have to take 100s of years, this is not how the early church worked.  Joseph didn't wait for ideas to filter down, he upended and changed things with a few revelations and a sermon.  Jesus did the same.  What it takes is leadership, not hundreds of years, because over that length of time people could also become more fundamental and isolated just as easily as they could become more accepting of philosophical schools of thought.  

I can't intelligently disagree with you here just because i haven't seriously considered any arguments from Dawkins or others like him.  However, I'm hesitant to just reject their perspectives without giving them some consideration.  My gut feel is that while I'm sure they are subject to flaws of reasoning (human condition and all) I'm also pretty sure that Dawkins and others have some legitimate points that should be considered and weighed in the balance.  

Yes, agree with everything here except for the "full gospel" comment.  I like the idea of being whole, not the idea of being full, maybe its just semantics, but I don't like how Mormon culture misappropriates this "fullness of the gospel" concept to foster complacency and superiority.  In that sense fullness is a damnable doctrine.  

Mormonism ultimately is what people think it is.  Perception = reality.  If someone is a scriptural literalist and believes Mormonism exemplifies their paradigm, then thats what Mormonism is for them.  For you, Mormonism is contextual, and more power to you and I hope your ideas spread throughout the church, but at the end of the day Mormonism as a whole will follow the trajectory the church leaders take it, and i don't see them clearly teaching relativism and contextual truths from the pulpit.  

It takes hundreds of years because it has taken that long already and as you yourself say, we are still not following Joseph OR Jesus.  The philosophies I espouse go back to the 17th century.

Hang around a hundred years and you will see.  Mormonism which agrees with Dawkins will not survive-it can't,  The ideas are antithetical to each other.  Either spiritual experience is defined as "real" or it is not.

Ideas evolve.  Five fingers are better than 3 or none, and so we have 5 fingers, just enough to grab fruit off the tree with an opposable thumb.  Same with ideas.  No families, no people.  Family values have evolved for a purpose.  We worship the Eternal Family essentially.  It is the best possible set of values for the survival of humanity, anything else ultimately leads to death- read the Didache. Family values include knowing where you came from- that's genealogy.  Not essential, but comforting.

There are no arguments against contextual truth- they don't work. There are no moral arguments against family values- they lead to death of the species.  A mechanism for forgiveness must exist or lives cannot advance - that is the atonement.  No mechanism for forgiving oneself for "sins" and you have a bunch of crazy people.

Future religion must have 1- family values, 2- a reason to believe in spiritual matters and 3- a mechanism for forgiveness of sin.  Society will demand contextual truth because that is the only way truth itself makes sense.  Humanism will triumph, so the only paradigm which will work is a God who is an ideal human, who we can try to emulate.

That's all here and nowhere else.

You have not figured it out yet- you will.

 

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I can see that.  However, I can understand why people don't agree on what is true.  That is a common problem in most aspects of life.  That is the reason I show up to these threads.  People learn and share why they find something to be true or not true.

However, what really gets me is when people in this thread and others have tried to redefine what "truth" means to fit their own philosophy.  I just don't see that as a useful avenue of discussion.   I think both Mormons, nonmormons, and exmormons should probably be able to reach agreement on the definition of truth given in the D&C 93:24:

 

 

I don't believe that those are the words of Jesus Christ and yet I still accept that definition of truth.  Truth is simply that which is in accordance with fact or reality.  If a philosophy causes one to define truth in some other way, I guess that is cool, but that definition falls outside what make the term useful for communicating an understanding of reality. 

 

Ah yes and what is reality?  THAT is what you are leaving out! How do you know Jesus was a "reality"??   Why should you follow feelings in your heart OR your faulty perceptions of what you think is "real"?   What about mirages and all the forces you cannot see?  Are they real?  What color are cosmic rays?  Are they "real"?   Are moral laws or the laws of nature "real"?  Where are they??  Can you see them?

How can you escape your human perceptions to know what "reality" is?   Do you see atoms and the strings of string theory?  What IS "reality"?  How do you get outside of human perception?

Unfortunately your argument itself has no "reality" and has been recognized as untenable hundreds of years ago- at least as far back and Kant and Hume.

THAT is why informed people would never use your argument.  It is untenable.

Quote

 

The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.[1]

Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.

It is a traditional model which goes back at least to some of the classical Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.[2] This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined solely by how it relates to a reality; that is, by whether it accurately describes that reality. As Aristotle claims in his Metaphysics: "To say that that which is, is not, and that which is not, is, is a falsehood; therefore, to say that which is, is, and that which is not, is not, is true".[3]....

Vagueness or circularity[edit]

Either the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers some accompanying theory of the world, or he or she does not.

If no theory of the world is offered, the argument is so vague as to be useless or even unintelligible: truth would then be supposed to be correspondence to some undefined, unknown or ineffable world. It is difficult to see how a candidate truth could be more certain than the world we are to judge its degree of correspondence against.

On the other hand, as soon as the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers a theory of the world, he or she is operating in some specific ontological or scientific theory, which stands in need of justification. But the only way to support the truth of this theory of the world that is allowed by the correspondence theory of truth is correspondence to the real world. Hence the argument is circular.[7]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth#Vagueness_or_circularity

Sorry, your theory doesn't work.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/

 

[Oliver_Cowdery]

37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

THAT is why informed people would never use your argument.  It is untenable.

 

Count me as uninformed then, right along side the author of the D&C verse.   And I don't mean that sarcastically.  It is true, I am uninformed about a great number of things.

I don't claim to know exactly what is real or what is true. There are huge holes in my understanding. But that doesn't mean there is no reality and no truth.  I see it as my goal to learn more about reality, not to define it away.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I can see that.  However, I can understand why people don't agree on what is true.  That is a common problem in most aspects of life. I show up to these threads to learn and share why people find something to be true or not true.

However, what really gets me is when people in this thread and others have tried to redefine what "truth" means to fit their own philosophy.  I just don't see that as a useful avenue of discussion.   I think both Mormons, nonmormons, and exmormons should probably be able to reach agreement on the definition of truth given in the D&C 93:24:

 

 

I don't believe that those are the words of Jesus Christ and yet I still accept that definition of truth.  Truth is simply that which is in accordance with reality.  If a philosophy causes one to define truth in some other way, I guess that is cool, but that definition falls outside what make the term useful for communicating an understanding of reality. 

 

One more.  

You have not read enough of D&C 93- that is the problem

"things as they are" are things as we EXPERIENCE them, including feelings in our heart

Quote

 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

That says truth is contextual, that it is based on intelligence and how we classify ideas, acting "in their own sphere" https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng

President Kimball on Absolute Truth

Quote

The scientists taught for decades that the world was once a nebulous, molten mass cast off from the sun, and later many scientists said it once was a whirl of dust which solidified. There are many ideas advanced to the world that have been changed to meet the needs of the truth as it has been discovered. There are relative truths, and there are also absolute truths which are the same yesterday, today, and forever—never changing. These absolute truths are not altered by the opinions of men. As science has expanded our understanding of the physical world, certain accepted ideas of science have had to be abandoned in the interest of truth. Some of these seeming truths were stoutly maintained for centuries. The sincere searching of science often rests only on the threshold of truth, whereas revealed facts give us certain absolute truths as a beginning point so we may come to understand the nature of man and the purpose of his life.

 

The"facts of science" change but the purpose of human existence does not change.

Quote

We learn about these absolute truths by being taught by the Spirit. These truths are “independent” in their spiritual sphere and are to be discovered spiritually, though they may be confirmed by experience and intellect. (See D&C 93:30.) The great prophet Jacob said that “the Spirit speaketh the truth. … Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be.” (Jacob 4:13.) We need to be taught in order to understand life and who we really are.

The sphere of science is not the same sphere as the realm of the spirit- they are different contexts and different "spheres" of truth.

THAT is why there is no one definition of truth or "things as they are"

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Count me as uninformed then.   And I don't mean that sarcastically.  It is true, I am uninformed about a great number of things.

I don't claim to know exactly what is real or what is truth. There are huge holes in my understanding. But that doesn't mean there is no reality or truth.  I see it as my goal to learn more about reality, not to define it away.

Good idea.  Keep studying!

[lostindc]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Good idea.  Keep studying!

It's okay to say "I don't know."  If you really don't have a solid answer to something then it is okay to say "I don't know."

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Future religion must have 1- family values,

Family values are constantly evolving and culturally diverse.  Societal evolution will ultimately select for those traits culturally that are of highest value, no need to apply 20th century family constructs (not saying you are, but many people see "family values" and think of the 1950s American Leave it to Beaver ideal)

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

3- a mechanism for forgiveness of sin.

Need to redefine "sin" in mainstream contemporary Christianity.  I actually think this concept should radically change from the current culture.  Mormon atonement theology is slowly moving more towards grace, this is a good shift and needs to continue.  Having a bunch of followers with scrupulosity isn't a formula for success in future religion.  

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The"facts of science" change but the purpose of human existence does not change.

I love that Kimball quote, I just wanted to thank you for sharing it and ask if you have a link to the full talk, I'm interested in understanding the context.

Also, to Kimball's quote, is there absolute existential truth?  He seems to believe so, but you say that Mormonism's truth is contextual and relativistic.  Seems like Kimball disagrees with you.  

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

You are apparently not a historian.

NO I'm not...but it was my minor in University...so I am aware of the nuance required for understanding claimed historical truths

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

My position is that SS is not the appropriate place to do so. 

 

 

We share the same opinion

 

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 Were the missionaries aware of anything outside the really basic misinformed apologetics like Indians were a catalyst and Brigham Young had absolutely nothing to do with it?  

You are accusing BY for complicity in the MMM.  This is a formal CFR to substantiate your assertion.

FYI, it has been demonstrated that he sent an urgent letter telling them to leave them alone, but arrived too late.

Edited December 7, 2016 by cdowis

[Oliver_Cowdery]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

THAT is why there is no one definition of truth or "things as they are"

 

Elder D. Todd Christofferson put it this way:

Quote

To those who believe anything or everything could be true, the declaration of objective, fixed, and universal truth feels like coercion—“I shouldn’t be forced to believe something is true that I don’t like.” But that does not change reality. Resenting the law of gravity won’t keep a person from falling if he steps off a cliff. The same is true for eternal law and justice. Freedom comes not from resisting it but from applying it. That is fundamental to God’s own power. If it were not for the reality of fixed and immutable truths, the gift of agency would be meaningless since we would never be able to foresee and intend the consequences of our actions. 

source

Okay, so taking this back to the topic of the thread.  How does your philosophy get us to the best method for dialogue between believers and doubters regarding Mormon history? 

If there is a discussion to be had about Mormon history do you first convert the participants to your philological point of view before you address their concern?  Let's say you are speaking with person who takes Christofferson's talk to heart and was also concerned about a forged diary entry in which Brigham Young miraculously appeared as Joseph Smith to settle the succession crisis.  The person further learns that that story taught in Sunday School in 2013 (and next year in 2017) is on built accounts of people who were not even present and late accounts.  Not only that but at least one (and maybe even possibly two) accounts of the event are forgeries.

Do you explain to that person that they just misunderstand that truth can't be defined? Or do explain that forgeries can contain spiritual truth even if the events they describe most likely did not happen? Do you explain that Christofferson's declaration of reality and fixed and immutable truths don't jive with the philosophers you subscribe to? Or should "truth" just be redefined to be a catalyst for spirituality in this specific case? I don't see those lines of reasoning being helpful.

Every discussion has to start somewhere and people generally need to agree on a few basic foundational things.  But your take seem to undermine a few fountadaional things about fixed universal truth that many (most?) Mormons accept.

 

Edited December 7, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Oliver_Cowdery]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

You are accusing BY for complicity in the MMM.  This is a formal CFR to substantiate your assertion.

I don't think that's what hope_for_things meant.  He was only asking what bad apologetics the Missionaries had heard.

Brigham Young did have something to do with the massacre.  He created an environment of fear and violent rhetoric.   But yeah, there is no evidence he was complicit. 

Likewise the Pope can't be directly tied to the Catholic child rape scandal, but a little suspicion is probably warranted.  A good leader realizes that he or she bears some responsibility for their rhetoric and their followers. 

Edited December 7, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, cdowis said:

You are accusing BY for complicity in the MMM.  This is a formal CFR to substantiate your assertion.

FYI, it has been demonstrated that he sent an urgent letter telling them to leave them alone, but arrived too late.

I'm surprised by the CFR.  Juanita Brooks said this in her book "While Brigham Young and other church authorities did not specifically order the massacre, they did preach sermons and set up social conditions that made it possible."

Whether Brigham Young specifically ordered the massacre continues to be debated by historians.  I can't settle that ongoing debate, and honestly I'm not sure where I stand based on my non scholarly reading of the evidence.  I don't think there is any clear direct evidence that it was ordered by BY, unfortunately evidence has been accidentally and intentionally lost or destroyed over time.  I can tell you that I wouldn't be surprised if he or other high ranking church leaders did order it.  

I was merely commenting that I would be surprised if the Missionaries knew any actual history, rather than just parroting old flawed apologetics.  I suggest you read some books on the subject, you could start with Brooks and then read Bill Bagley's Blood of the Prophets, and then Walker's and Turley's book.  A fairly decent short summary of the events can be found here:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/leeaccount.html

  

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

NO I'm not...but it was my minor in University...so I am aware of the nuance required for understanding claimed historical truths

Then I am having a hard time understanding your position. I guess you tend to favor "secular" historians over others? Do you accept official "Church" historians?

Quote

My position is that SS is not the appropriate place to do so. 

I am glad u believe these issues should not be debated in SS. My opinion was not really directed at you, but has been my generally stated position on the subject.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I won't attempt to defend the Tanners because I don't know the totality of their work. However, they were at the forefront of making information available even if it was dismissed as anti-Mormon literature at the time.

I concede, and even appreciate, their contribution to the field of Mormon Studies in the form of locating and publishing documents not otherwise available to the general public.

However, their use of those materials has been, in the main, very poor.

I also note that Dr. Foster was critical of the LDS Church in his remarks.  But I think the Church has substantially improved over the years regarding treatment of historical issues.  The Tanners (more specifically, Sandra Tanner) apparently never has.

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IIRC- they were the first to publicly make the 1832 account of the First Vision available. I see people like Fawn Brodie and the Tanners being demonized, and they may have had an ax to grind, but they were also right about things long before the church acknowledged it.

"Right" in the sense that the 1832 account existed?  Yes, I will concede that.  But not much else.

As for Fawn Brodie, I have some real reservations about the quality and reliability of her psychological biography of Joseph Smith, which is a nice way of characterizing essentially hostile mindreading.  I think Kerry's Shirt's assessment of her merits some attention.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Whether Brigham Young specifically ordered the massacre continues to be debated by historians.  

  

CFR that any historian has any evidence that the Massacre was specifically ordered by Brigham Young.

At least can you point me to the debate by these historians on Brigham Young's Specific orders for the massacre?

 

Edited December 7, 2016 by Danzo

[smac97]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm surprised by the CFR.  Juanita Brooks said this in her book "While Brigham Young and other church authorities did not specifically order the massacre, they did preach sermons and set up social conditions that made it possible."

By that reckoning, President Buchanan is also culpable for the massacre, since he "set up social conditions that made it possible."  Quoth Wikipedia:

Quote

In 1857-1858, President James Buchanan sent U.S. forces to the Utah Territory in what became known as the Utah Expedition. The Mormons, fearful that the large U.S. military force had been sent to annihilate them and having faced persecution in other areas, made preparations for defense. Though bloodshed was to be avoided, and the U.S. government also hoped that its purpose might be attained without the loss of life, both sides prepared for war. Firearms were manufactured or repaired by the Mormons, scythes were turned into bayonets, and long-unused sabres were burnished and sharpened.

Rather than engaging the enemy directly, Mormon strategy was one of hindering and weakening them. 

Regarding "Buchanan's Blunder" in particular:

Quote

Although Eastern editors continued to condemn the Mormons' religious beliefs and practices, they praised their heroism in the face of military threat. By the time Governor Cumming was securely placed in office, the Utah War had become an embarrassment for President Buchanan. Called 'Buchanan's Blunder' by elements of the national press,^[3] the President was criticized for:

• failing to officially notify Governor Young about his replacement,
• incurring the expense of sending troops without investigating the reports on Utah's disloyalty to the United States,
• dispatching the expedition late in the season, and
• failing to provide an adequate resupply train for the winter.

And then there were the federal appointees and their contributions to the buildup leading to the Utah War (and the concomitant massacre).

There were other parties who also "set up social conditions that made it possible."

Quote

Whether Brigham Young specifically ordered the massacre continues to be debated by historians.  

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  Which historians?

Even Will Bagley, perhaps the principal current mover and shaker behind this theory at present, has copped to tweaking the supposed "troubling new evidence" he "found" to substantiate this accusation (see here):

Quote

Bagley's "troubling new evidence," which separates his work from Brooks's, is simply a diary entry, dated 1 September 1857, in which Indian interpreter Dimick Huntington describes a meeting purportedly held between himself, Brigham Young, and twelve Indian chiefs:

Kanosh the Pahvant Chief[,] Ammon & wife (Walkers Brother) & 11 Pahvants came into see B & D & find out about the soldiers. Tutseygubbit a Piede chief over 6 Piedes Bands Youngwuols another Piede chief & I gave them all the cattle that had gone to Cal[.] the southa rout[.] it made them open their eyes[.] they sayed that you have told us not to steal[.] so I have but now they have come to fight us & you for when they kill us then they will kill you[.] they sayed the[y] was afraid to fight the Americans & so would raise grain & we might fight.9 (cf. p. 114)

For Bagley this cryptic entry proves that "the atrocity was not a tragedy but a premeditated criminal act initiated in Great Salt Lake City" (p. 378). Blood of the Prophets tells us that "if any court in the American West (excepting, of course, one of Utah's probate courts) had seen the evidence [the Dimick Huntington diary] contained, the only debate among the jurors would have been when, where, and how high to hang Brigham Young" (p. 425 n. 42).

In footnote 9, Crocket observes: "Bagley interpolates 'allies' where 'grain' should be used. I think Bagley's conclusion is wrong. See Lawrence Coates, review of Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, by Will Bagley, BYU Studies 42/1 (2003): 153."

Coates' review (available here) leaves Bagley little room to argue that interpolating "allies" for "grain" was just justified or a whoopsy-daisy:

Quote

Serious errors in historical scholarship, however, severely undermine the fundamental arguments in his book. First, there are several important primary sources that he did not use accurately. Historians must verify the facts they use and avoid misusing information to support their interpretations. Bagley fails on both counts, because he seems to be driven by his passion to blame Brigham Young for this tragic event. For example, Bagley sees Young's offer to give the Piedes, a band of the Paiutes, "all the cattle that had gone to Cal[ifornia] the south rout" as the formation of an alliance (114). To make this point, Bagley quotes D. B. Huntington, Brigham Young's interpreter, as saying that the Piedes were "afraid to fight the americans & so would raise [allies]" (114). Instead, Huntington's journal for September 1 1857 says the Piedes "would raise grai"1 (fig. 1). Replacing the word "grain" with "allies" substantially changes the meaning, but most readers will not be aware of Bagley s changing these words.

According to Bagley, this entry (read with "allies" interpolated into it) proves that "the atrocity was not a tragedy but a premeditated criminal act initiated in Great Salt Lake City" (p. 378), and that "if any court in the American West (excepting, of course, one of Utah's probate courts) had seen the evidence [the Dimick Huntington diary] contained, the only debate among the jurors would have been when, where, and how high to hang Brigham Young" (p. 425 n. 42). Bagley goes on to argue that these Indian chiefs then traveled from the meeting (in Salt Lake City) to Cedar City and participated in the massacre.

Bagley's critics have made three basic arguments against Bagley's thesis:

• A. Bagley Interpolated "Allies" for "Grain" When Quoting Huntington's Journal. Coates notes that "[in] the context of the rest of the entry grain makes sense: the Piedes would raise grain rather than take the cattle." But Bagley's interpolation, read without context, suggests that the Indians wanted to on the warpath (that they wanted to "raise allies").
• B. The Timing of the Meeting Made it Unlikely or Impossible for the Indians who Participated in the Meeting to Have Been Present for the Massacre. Crocket observed that "Bagley's chronology is problematic to the point of impossibility. Tutsegabit and Youngwuds did not have time to get from Salt Lake City to Mountain Meadows and return to Salt Lake City by 16 September 1857 or, as Huntington says, by 10 September 1857."
• C. The Meeting was a Discussion About the Indians Going After the Army's cattle, not the Fancher Party's cattle. (See Crocket's review for a detailed explanation).

Significantly, even Bagley appears to have backtracked on his interpolation. BOTP was first published in 2002. It was reviewed by Crocket and Coates in 2003. It was published in paperback in 2004. What is interesting, however, is that the 2004 edition "interpolates" the word "grain" instead of "allies." The interpolation is odd because

• A) the reader is apparently given no indication that the text of the book has been altered from the original edition,
• B) interpolating "grain" is unnecessary (perhaps even misleading) because that word is actually in the text of Huntington's journal, and
• C) Bagley "corrected" the faulty interpolation, but left his conclusions - that Huntington's journal was evidence of Brigham Young's complicity in the massacre - intact.

The version of BOTP currently on Amazon is searchable using Amason's "Look Inside!" feature. As presently published, page 114 of BOTP no longer carries the interpolation of "allies," and instead quotes Huntington's journal as talking about "grain." However, on page 378, Bagley discusses - and deems incorrect - Juanita Brooks' analysis of the massacre ("that unfortunate circumstance played a part in the fate of the emigrants"). Bagley states:

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...

In sum:

• 1. Bagley committed historical malpractice by "rigging" the evidence. He interpolated "allies" for "grain" in an attempt to implicate Brigham Young.
• 2. Bagley presented this dishonest interpolation as "troubling new evidence," that this "evidence" showed that the massacre "was not a tragedy but a premeditated criminal act initiated in Great Salt Lake City," and that this evidence "links Brigham Young to facilitating the murders."
• 3. Crocket and Coates caught on to Bagley's dishonest interpolation.
• 4. Bagley, apparently without admitting or acknowledging his having been caught in rigging the evidence, tweaked the most recent published form of Blood of the Prophets to take out the interpolation of "allies" and replace it with the word that actually appeared in the text ("grain").
• 5. However, even though Bagley has technically and quietly retracted his dishonest interpolation, he has left intact the conclusions he drew from that dishonest interpolation (that it is "troubling new evidence," that this "evidence" showed that the massacre "was not a tragedy but a premeditated criminal act initiated in Great Salt Lake City," and that this evidence "links Brigham Young to facilitating the murders").  (By the way, as recently as 2007, Bagley has apparently maintained his specious usage of Huntington's journal (see here) ("In 1991 I had transcribed the diary of his Indian interpreter and brother-in-law, Dmick Huntington, at the Historical Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, or the Mormons). Its contents demonstrated that the depth of Young’s involvement was an open question.") (emphasis added).)

Quote

I can't settle that ongoing debate,

I question whether there is an "ongoing debate" amongst competent historians.  

Quote

and honestly I'm not sure where I stand based on my non scholarly reading of the evidence.  

What "evidence?"  Bagley fabricated and then withdrew his purported "troubling new evidence".  Denton's "evidence" was even more absurd (basically, that Brigham Young must have ordered it, because "'{n}othing happened in the place that did not happen under his direct orders.'').

The only competent evidence before us pertaining to Brigham Young is exculpatory, not inculpatory.

Quote

I don't think there is any clear direct evidence that it was ordered by BY,

If by "any clear direct evidence" you mean "there is no evidence whatsoever that it was ordered by BY, and in fact the extant evidence demonstrates he took affirmative steps to stop the massacre," then I agree with you. 

Quote

unfortunately evidence has been accidentally and intentionally lost or destroyed over time.  

What "evidence" are you referring to here?

Quote

I can tell you that I wouldn't be surprised if he or other high ranking church leaders did order it.  

Ah.  "I wouldn't be surprised if . . ."  That phrase and a nickel will buy you a gumball.

By making this statement you have officially departed from any semblance of evidence-based analysis, and are instead resorting to rank demagoguery.  

Quote

I was merely commenting that I would be surprised if the Missionaries knew any actual history, rather than just parroting old flawed apologetics.  I suggest you read some books on the subject, you could start with Brooks and then read Bill Bagley's Blood of the Prophets, and then Walker's and Turley's book.  

Were you aware of the problematic aspects of Bagley's book before you recommended here?  If not, what are your thoughts about those aspects?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 7, 2016 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

42 minutes ago, Danzo said:

CFR that any historian has any evidence that the Massacre was specifically ordered by Brigham Young.

At least can you point me to the debate by these historians on Brigham Young's Specific orders for the massacre?

 

There are reasons that some historians believe he may have ordered it, and I suggest you read this book if you're interested in reviewing some of the evidence, along with the other relevant books I mentioned earlier.   https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Prophets-Brigham-Massacre-Mountain/dp/0806134267/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1481147729&sr=1-1&keywords=blood+of+the+prophets

I'm no expert on the subject, and those are the only books I've read, but there are likely others on here that are more familiar with this topic than myself and could comment on other works out there on the subject.  The earlier link to a University of Missouri and Kansas web page giving a nice succinct overview said this:

Quote

Special controversy surrounds the role in the 1857 events of one man, Brigham Young, the fiery prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who led his embattled people to the "promised land" in the valley of the Great Salt Lake.  What exactly Brigham Young knew, and when he knew it, are questions that historians still debate.

 Wikipedia says this: 

Quote

Today, historians attribute the massacre to a combination of factors, including war hysteria about possible invasion of Mormon territory and hyperbolic Mormon teachings against outsiders, which were part of the excesses of the Mormon Reformation period. Scholars debate whether senior Mormon leadership, including Brigham Young, directly instigated the massacre or if responsibility lay with the local leaders in southern Utah.

 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

There are reasons that some historians believe he may have ordered it, and I suggest you read this book if you're interested in reviewing some of the evidence, along with the other relevant books I mentioned earlier.   https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Prophets-Brigham-Massacre-Mountain/dp/0806134267/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1481147729&sr=1-1&keywords=blood+of+the+prophets

Are you aware

• A) that Bagley essentially fabricated his key (only?) inculpatory evidence against Brigham Young (interpolating "allies" for "grain"),
• B) that Bagley has since revised his book to remove this specious and profoundly misleading "evidence", and
• C) that Bagley has nevertheless not altered his theory against Brigham Young, nor has he notified the public at large of his abandonment of his evidence?

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

By that reckoning, President Buchanan is also culpable for the massacre, since he "set up social conditions that made it possible."  Quoth Wikipedia:

Regarding "Buchanan's Blunder" in particular:

And then there were the federal appointees and their contributions to the buildup leading to the Utah War (and the concomitant massacre).

There were other parties who also "set up social conditions that made it possible."

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  Which historians?

Even Will Bagley, perhaps the principal current mover and shaker behind this theory at present, has copped to tweaking the supposed "troubling new evidence" he "found" to substantiate this accusation (see here):

In footnote 9, Crocket observes: "Bagley interpolates 'allies' where 'grain' should be used. I think Bagley's conclusion is wrong. See Lawrence Coates, review of Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, by Will Bagley, BYU Studies 42/1 (2003): 153."

Coates' review (available here) leaves Bagley little room to argue that interpolating "allies" for "grain" was just justified or a whoopsy-daisy:

According to Bagley, this entry (read with "allies" interpolated into it) proves that "the atrocity was not a tragedy but a premeditated criminal act initiated in Great Salt Lake City" (p. 378), and that "if any court in the American West (excepting, of course, one of Utah's probate courts) had seen the evidence [the Dimick Huntington diary] contained, the only debate among the jurors would have been when, where, and how high to hang Brigham Young" (p. 425 n. 42). Bagley goes on to argue that these Indian chiefs then traveled from the meeting (in Salt Lake City) to Cedar City and participated in the massacre.

Bagley's critics have made three basic arguments against Bagley's thesis:

• A. Bagley Interpolated "Allies" for "Grain" When Quoting Huntington's Journal. Coates notes that "[in] the context of the rest of the entry grain makes sense: the Piedes would raise grain rather than take the cattle." But Bagley's interpolation, read without context, suggests that the Indians wanted to on the warpath (that they wanted to "raise allies").
• B. The Timing of the Meeting Made it Unlikely or Impossible for the Indians who Participated in the Meeting to Have Been Present for the Massacre. Crocket observed that "Bagley's chronology is problematic to the point of impossibility. Tutsegabit and Youngwuds did not have time to get from Salt Lake City to Mountain Meadows and return to Salt Lake City by 16 September 1857 or, as Huntington says, by 10 September 1857."
• C. The Meeting was a Discussion About the Indians Going After the Army's cattle, not the Fancher Party's cattle. (See Crocket's review for a detailed explanation).

Significantly, even Bagley appears to have backtracked on his interpolation. BOTP was first published in 2002. It was reviewed by Crocket and Coates in 2003. It was published in paperback in 2004. What is interesting, however, is that the 2004 edition "interpolates" the word "grain" instead of "allies." The interpolation is odd because

• A) the reader is apparently given no indication that the text of the book has been altered from the original edition,
• B) interpolating "grain" is unnecessary (perhaps even misleading) because that word is actually in the text of Huntington's journal, and
• C) Bagley "corrected" the faulty interpolation, but left his conclusions - that Huntington's journal was evidence of Brigham Young's complicity in the massacre - intact.

The version of BOTP currently on Amazon is searchable using Amason's "Look Inside!" feature. As presently published, page 114 of BOTP no longer carries the interpolation of "allies," and instead quotes Huntington's journal as talking about "grain." However, on page 378, Bagley discusses - and deems incorrect - Juanita Brooks' analysis of the massacre ("that unfortunate circumstance played a part in the fate of the emigrants"). Bagley states:

In sum:

• 1. Bagley committed historical malpractice by "rigging" the evidence. He interpolated "allies" for "grain" in an attempt to implicate Brigham Young.
• 2. Bagley presented this dishonest interpolation as "troubling new evidence," that this "evidence" showed that the massacre "was not a tragedy but a premeditated criminal act initiated in Great Salt Lake City," and that this evidence "links Brigham Young to facilitating the murders."
• 3. Crocket and Coates caught on to Bagley's dishonest interpolation.
• 4. Bagley, apparently without admitting or acknowledging his having been caught in rigging the evidence, tweaked the most recent published form of Blood of the Prophets to take out the interpolation of "allies" and replace it with the word that actually appeared in the text ("grain").
• 5. However, even though Bagley has technically and quietly retracted his dishonest interpolation, he has left intact the conclusions he drew from that dishonest interpolation (that it is "troubling new evidence," that this "evidence" showed that the massacre "was not a tragedy but a premeditated criminal act initiated in Great Salt Lake City," and that this evidence "links Brigham Young to facilitating the murders").  (By the way, as recently as 2007, Bagley has apparently maintained his specious usage of Huntington's journal (see here) ("In 1991 I had transcribed the diary of his Indian interpreter and brother-in-law, Dmick Huntington, at the Historical Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, or the Mormons). Its contents demonstrated that the depth of Young’s involvement was an open question.") (emphasis added).)

I question whether there is an "ongoing debate" amongst competent historians.  

What "evidence?"  Bagley fabricated and then withdrew his purported "troubling new evidence".  Denton's "evidence" was even more absurd (basically, that Brigham Young must have ordered it, because "'{n}othing happened in the place that did not happen under his direct orders.'').

The only competent evidence before us pertaining to Brigham Young is exculpatory, not inculpatory.

If by "any clear direct evidence" you mean "there is no evidence whatsoever that it was ordered by BY, and in fact the extant evidence demonstrates he took affirmative steps to stop the massacre," then I agree with you. 

What "evidence" are you referring to here?

Ah.  "I wouldn't be surprised if . . ."

Were you aware of the problematic aspects of Bagley's book before you recommended here?  If not, what are your thoughts about those aspects?

Thanks,

-Smac

Wow this is quite the rant.  #1, I'm not going to side track this thread anymore, this thread is not intended for a knock down drag out MMM debate. I've pointed out that there is a debate among historians and given examples  You may not agree with Bill Bagley, thats fine, you don't even have to find him credible, I don't care.  I suspect that Bagley would have a very different account of the one sided representation of events described above.  

I try to be objective and read works from those on both sides of issues, that's why I encourage that people read Brooks, Bagley, Walker & Turley.  Make your own judgments based on the evidence.  Read Turner's and Arrington's biographys on Brigham Young, read all the history.  Believe what you want to believe, its makes no difference to me.  There are flaws in Bagley's book for sure, just like there are flaws in other works.  For a review of Bagley's book that I mostly agree with see this link.  https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V36N04_117.pdf 

I don't like hit piece reviews and I don't find some apologetic defenses to be objective, nor do I find blatant anti-mormon critics to be objective.  I eschew the black and white thinking that Mormonism raised me on.