beastie wrote:Um, Daniel, what Xong means is that, under the rules of your logic and reasoning, I am only "allowed" to mention the conflict of interest one time. If I mention it more than one time, it's poisoning the well.
That is, of course, not what I said.
But fifty pages [!] of repeating it -- fifty pages! -- never having even seen the book? (Have we made it to fifty pages yet? If not, soon!)
ScottLloyd wrote:Incidentally, the news release announcing the educational seminar included bio information for the speakers. In the paragraph about Turley, it says he is working on a 500-page volume containing MMM documents and transcriptions from the John D. Lee trials. Doesn't sound much like the behavior of a man who plans on squirreling away primary sources so that others can't get at them.
That would be far more interesting to me than the M@MM book itself, something worth investing in. I'm about halfway through Lee's Confessions and find sources like this of far more interest.
I'm assuming here, Ray, that you've seen Massacre at Mountain Meadows already and from it are aware, for instance, that Lee's published confessions were posthumously doctored by his attorney to increase sales (the attorney's fee came from the proceeds of the publication), that one of the alterations was a fabricated quote from Lee purportedly implicating Brigham Young in ordering the massacre.
Perspective counts for a great deal, and part of the historian's task is to provide perspective which isn't always immediately apparent from examining this or that document.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
beastie wrote:But fifty pages [!] of repeating it -- fifty pages! -- never having even seen the book? (Have we made it to fifty pages yet? If not, soon!)
It's the 5th, Daniel, but she's just a few posts shy of the milepost. Will she make it? The suspense is palpable.
TAK wrote:Book arrived yesterday. Only 50 pages in but a pro-mormon slant seems to be developing. Not a surprise I suppose.
Not at all a surprise.
This is a subject judgment. Who is the subject?
More to the point.. Whats the goal? Gene Sessions has said that "[t]he Church came to the conclusion with Bagley's book that there had to be another version of the story that the Church brought forth."
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it. Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010
TAK wrote:More to the point.. Whats the goal? Gene Sessions has said that "[t]he Church came to the conclusion with Bagley's book that there had to be another version of the story that the Church brought forth."
That gives us some sense of a general goal, but, I think, not a precise one.
Unless, perhaps, you or beastie can disclose it to us.
TAK wrote:More to the point.. Whats the goal? Gene Sessions has said that "[t]he Church came to the conclusion with Bagley's book that there had to be another version of the story that the Church brought forth."
That gives us some sense of a general goal, but, I think, not a precise one.
Unless, perhaps, you or beastie can disclose it to us.
Seems Clear to me.. pin it on anyone but Brigham Young.
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it. Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010
I'm assuming here, Ray, that you've seen Massacre at Mountain Meadows already and from it are aware, for instance, that Lee's published confessions were posthumously doctored by his attorney to increase sales (the attorney's fee came from the proceeds of the publication), that one of the alterations was a fabricated quote from Lee purportedly implicating Brigham Young in ordering the massacre.
I have only seen speculation the account was doctored by the atorney. No proof.
CFR that it infact was doctored.
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it. Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010
I have only seen speculation the account was doctored by the atorney. No proof.
CFR that it infact was doctored.
See pages 71, 228-229 of the new book on Lee's repeated denials that Young ordered the massacre, including Lee's final statement just before being executed. Turley's and colleagues' sources on the doctoring of the confessions are cited in end note 115 from page 71.
And ladies and gentlemen, we have officially hit 50 pages by the 5th. Take a bow, Beastie.