24 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
| Wednesday, May 22, 2013 |
|
- A Bird's Eye View
- A Motley Vision
- Adventures in Mormonism
- Blognitive Dissonance
- Book of Mormon Blog
- By Common Consent
- Ethesis
- Face of the Other
- Faith Promoting Rumor
- Feminist Mormon Housewives
- Flooding the Earth With the Book of Mormon
- Golden Road to Samarqand
- Head Life
- Just Sayin'
- Juvenile Instructor
- Messanger & Advocate
- Millennial Star
- Mormon Matters
- Mormon Mommy Wars
- New Cool Thang
- Nine Moons
- Old Testament Blog
- Our Mother's Keeper
- Proud Daughter of Eve
- Segullah
- Sunstone Blog
- Times & Seasons
- Wheat and Tares
- Zelophehad's Daughters
Thanks for the love, DKL. |
Agreed, thank you very much. |
a) I predict a white-wash. Turley may have some credibility… but: This whole expose’ was started by Juanita Brooks, who was ostracized for her trouble…It directly led to the reinstate4ment of JDLee by DOM in the early 1960′s (an action that he & church leaders sought to suppress). Juanita Leone Leavitt Pulsipher Brooks, 1898 – 1989; “Long may her memory live in the hearts & minds of those who love the truth.” IMHO, BYU should be re-named in her honor; she told the Truth, BY did NOT. |
Guy, then prophet, David O. McKay himself publicly defended Juanita Brooks from her critics and the issue pretty-much blew over. No action was ever taken against her. Time for more fact-checking. |
Seth, no official action was taken against Brooks, but that’s not the same as not being ostracized. I think it was in her autobiography (but could be wrong about the place) where she expressed regret in particular that her good kind husband Will was also ostracized and not given callings after her book came out. |
Looks like a very solid book review regarding a very solid book. DKL, thanks for putting up the link/post. |
Thanks DKL – I read the review and will have to get the book. Guy – JLLPB University is a bit of a mouthful. |
Uh Guy, did you even bother reading the review on BCC? a) I predict a white-wash. Seriously read the review. You don’t have to predict anything. The book has been reviewed by competent individuals. While the contents and quality of the book are still open to debate, no “predictions” need be made. b) Any history regarding the MMM should be divided into (at least)two parts: the Massacre, and, the Cover-Up. Again, read the review. This volume explores the massacre, and a future second volume will discuss the cover-up. Your suggestions are not original or unique, something that (again) reading the review would help you better understand. |
Guy, your comment shows that you didn’t read the review. And if you think that the only church history done by practicing Mormons is white-wash, then you haven’t read a lot of Mormon history. I invite you to attend a John Whitmer Historical Association conference or a Mormon History Association conference. As I’ve said: You suffer from a misperception of Mormons and Mormonism much more egregiously incorrect than the misperception that you attribute to them. Nevertheless, your strategy of trying to explain Mormonism to Mormons by belittling them is counter-productive, because it simply confirms their stereotypes of anti-Mormons as simplistic. |
The circumstantial ad hominem works as well against Bagley and Denton as it does against Turley. Of course Bagley has been using it for years against Turley et al.’s forthcoming book. No need to wait for ink to hit the paper if we can start discrediting the work now. Perhaps we would do better to just evaluate all of their works based on their merits and on the evidence presented? But it’s so much easier to form an opinion without having to read anything… |
Guy, I’m going to make a sincere suggestion: get your own blog. I’ll even put up a post here announcing it and linking to it once you have some posts. But your propensity to jump into any conversation here with your unique blend of mixed-up facts, hatred, and bad formatting and grammar is unappealing. Please, please, please read the post in question before ranting about a book which you know nothing about. |
A lot of what I got is from Levi Peterson’s bio of JB. As I side note, I started looking into her work when I heard her death announced on NPR in 1989. I dated a nurse that attended her in her declining years. one more comment: There is also another aspect of this. LP wrote that JB wanted more (total) access to the church held documents & artifacts to do her research, but she got the two-step from GAs. one more: After reading (after I read) Turleys book about Hofmann, I won’t be expecting too much… |
My goodness, Guy. I wasn’t even close to being alive back then. Do you still hold a grudge against Japan for bombing Pearl Harbor? |
Guy, Brooks talks in her own footnotes about the documents that she was not allowed to see when she wrote her book. So not only have you failed to read the review, but you haven’t even read The Mountain Meadows Massacre very carefully, if at all. This is part of what makes your comments idiotic. I second arj’s suggestion that you start your own blog to peddle this kind of nonsense. |
all: I ‘admit’ it’s been quite a while since I’ve read-looked at MMM by JB. LP’s bio of her was very helpful. JB turned the knob that opened the door to MMM research (and people finding the Truth regarding it); we owe her a tremendous debt; pot-shots at me don’t even come close to diminishing that, do they? The totality of the actions of the COB/GAs over the years to obscure truths of various historical events and their documentation that survives casts a cloud of doubt over their veracity that I have very little to do with… |
I’m sorry Kathleen, but I can’t follow anything your saying. What California Material? Who has the local material? Walker et al.? What analysis do you refer to? You’re saying that the immigrants passing through Utah went to California and massacred Native Americans there? Who are the genocidal maniacs you refer to? The immigrants? Or the perpetrators of MMM? What is it that might lead them to withdraw participation? Which side of the Sierra Nevadas is “this side”? What exactly is it that is recognizable from there? Walker et al. is poorly resourced because their historical standards are too high? Walker et al. will lead people to commit genocide in the future? Or are you trying to say that it will alter our perception of the reality of the past? Help me out here. |
Guy: The totality of the actions of the COB/GAs over the years to obscure truths of various historical events and their documentation that survives casts a cloud of doubt over their veracity that I have very little to do with… Nobody is arguing about whether claims from church scholars should be scrutinized to a greater degree than claims by others. We’re actually talking about a specific book (viz., Massacre at Mountain Meadows), what it says, and what the review of it says. But I get it. Your ignorance precludes you from winning the argument on the specifics, so you just claim an entitlement to accuse others of dishonestly based on a hazy generalization. This will not do. You have it the wrong way around: the generalization is supposed to be justified by the specifics, not vice versa. |
DKL: otoh, the LDS record on truthfulness -accuracy isn’t Completely Convincing, is it? Would any informed reader (LDS or not) have complete confidence in another book with Turley’s byline? I am urging Caution, that’s all. “IF there was a smoking gun’ that pointed at BY or one of the GAs, would we expect that Turley would reveal it? I’m not sure…. History tells us ‘with confidence’ that there has been a lot of cover-up surrounding the MMM, doesn’t it? |
Kathleen, it seems like you have some useful and interesting information and perspective. But you’ve crammed at least 20 separate issues into a single post with almost no narrative flow or order to them. It’s quite impossible for me to follow what you are trying to say. |
Okay, that clears it up completely. I won’t be asking any more questions. |
My father has a confession written by one of my direct ancestors involved in the massacre. This man was unrepentant and stated specifically that the victims had bragged to have participated in the killing of Joseph Smith and had to pay for that sin. The Mormon temple ceremony around that time included very specific vows to avenge the death of Joseph Smith. Any book which avoids placing this front and center is rubbish. |
Joe: Do you know if the temple ceremony referred to the deaths of others (Parley Pratt)? Unfortunately, the most important truths of the MMM is the Fact that (about) 120 lives were lost. Since then, we’ve seen a lot of ‘dodge ball’ and finger pointing… but in the end, we really don’t know nearly as much as we would like to. “Truth cuts a fine edge” |
I see Auchim’s razor. |
Guy, I think you might be mixing up some of the Danite stuff from Missouri into this. |
