Brother of Mahonri wrote:TAK wrote:Scott - there is no proof Lee’s account was altered by his attorney; only speculation on the part of the authors.
It's not mere speculation. The authors have laid out their reasons for drawing this conclusion. Again, it requires more than vacuous derision to refute them.
The only reason (singular not reasonS like you claim)mentioned by the authors was that the lawyer was getting royalties from the book so he had a motive to lie to make the book more sensational and thus more marketable.
That's speculation that he lied and changed what Lee said. Not proof that made any changes. Turley ety al are speculating. They might be right, they might be wrong, but its still mere speculation that CAN be dismissed as such without any proof to support it.
Have you read the book? Have you examined the sources documented in the end note?
It is more than speculation; it is a conclusion drawn from evidence. You can ignore the evidence if you choose, but you cannot honestly act as though it doesn't exist. If you are going to make arguments, you are accountable for the evidence.
During his lifetime, Lee repeatedly denied Young's involvement (which denials are documented in the book), including in a statement made to a Salt Lake Tribune reporter just before his execution, a statement made
after the purported statements in the published confession. Lee was minutes away from his death; he had no reason to continue to protect Young, if, as TAK speculated, that is indeed what he was doing.
If anything, Lee could be expected to have been bitter enough at that point, with nothing to lose, to have blamed the whole thing on Young; he did not do that.
Why do the published confessions contradict Lee's repeated statements in his lifetime? The only plausible reason that has been put forth is the not-insignificant motive on the part of the attorney to boost book sales, thus playing on the pervasive anti-Mormon sentiment desiring to pin responsibility on Brigham Young.