Joseph Smith Papers Volume 1

[_Daniel Peterson]

Really? Would M@MM by Turley and Co. fall into that category of "Serious Mormon historiography" ?

Yes, it would -- as serious professional and academic historians, Mormon and non-Mormon, recognize, and despite the static put up by a few anonymous posters on this little board and notwithstanding whatever an anonymous Amazon.com critic might say.

[_harmony]

Really? Would M@MM by Turley and Co. fall into that category of "Serious Mormon historiography" ?

Yes, it would -- as serious professional and academic historians, Mormon and non-Mormon, recognize, and despite the static put up by a few anonymous posters on this little board and notwithstanding whatever an anonymous Amazon.com critic might say.

You're saying it's entirely possible to be a serious professional while not telling the whole story.

Okay. I got that.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You're saying it's entirely possible to be a serious professional while not telling the whole story.

Okay. I got that.

When did you finish Massacre at Mountain Meadows, harmony? Did you work your way through the notes, as well as the main text?

What did you think of it, overall?

Did you prefer it to Will Bagley's Blood of the Prophets? To Juanita Brooks's Mountain Meadows Massacre? Especially if you've read those two fairly recently, I would be interested in at least a summary comparison, from your point of view.

And what do you think of Bill Mackinnon's recent work on the Utah War? Do you think it compatible with the Walker/Leonard/Turley approach? If not, why not?

Do you agree with Thomas Alexander's take on the question of Brigham Young's culpability?

[_John Larsen]

Yes, it would -- as serious professional and academic historians, Mormon and non-Mormon, recognize, and despite the static put up by a few anonymous posters on this little board and notwithstanding whatever an anonymous Amazon.com critic might say.

You're saying it's entirely possible to be a serious professional while not telling the whole story.

Okay. I got that.

I would say that Historians always must tell just part of the story because of the volume of raw information and the nature of human interaction. The art of the historian is figuring out which parts to leave out. But when someone rights history with the purpose of leading readers to a particular conclusion supporting an outside agenda, the history becomes propaganda. However, the line is fine.

Turley, as an executive officer for for the Church has a clear and undeniable bias.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I would say that Historians always must tell just part of the story because of the volume of raw information and the nature of human interaction. The art of the historian is figuring out which parts to leave out. But when someone rights history with the purpose of leading readers to a particular conclusion supporting an outside agenda, the history becomes propaganda. However, the line is fine.

Turley, as an executive officer for for the Church has a clear and undeniable bias.

The fact that he has a bias -- scarcely hidden, by the way -- doesn't, in and of itself, demonstrate whether his work is good or bad, let alone that it's mere propaganda.

Every historian has biases. Nobody writes history in a state of pure objectivity, because no human has ever attained such a state. And besides, as Peter Novick has demonstrated in his wonderful Cambridge book on the concept of historical "objectivity," such a state wouldn't be desirable, even if it were possible or conceptually coherent.

[_harmony]

When did you finish Massacre at Mountain Meadows, harmony? Did you work your way through the notes, as well as the main text?

What did you think of it, overall?

Did you prefer it to Will Bagley's Blood of the Prophets? To Juanita Brooks's Mountain Meadows Massacre? Especially if you've read those two fairly recently, I would be interested in at least a summary comparison, from your point of view.

And what do you think of Bill Mackinnon's recent work on the Utah War? Do you think it compatible with the Walker/Leonard/Turley approach? If not, why not?

Do you agree with Thomas Alexander's take on the question of Brigham Young's culpability?

You say you have no interest in Spaulding/Rigdon?

[_harmony]

Turley, as an executive officer for for the Church has a clear and undeniable bias.

The fact that he has a bias -- scarcely hidden, by the way -- doesn't, in and of itself, demonstrate whether his work is good or bad, let alone that it's mere propaganda.

Where does John insinuate that Turley's bias is hidden? He doesn't. He says it's quite clear and undeniable. So why your comment..."scarcely hidden, by the way"?

Good? Bad? I didn't see any value statement in John's comment. Why would you insert a value comparison (good vs bad) accusation when there was no value statement in John's comment?

[_Jason Bourne]

You say you have no interest in Spaulding/Rigdon?

I think DCPs question was a fair one Harmony. How can you pan the book as you do without having read it and at least being familiar with other works on the topic?

[_John Larsen]

I would say that Historians always must tell just part of the story because of the volume of raw information and the nature of human interaction. The art of the historian is figuring out which parts to leave out. But when someone rights history with the purpose of leading readers to a particular conclusion supporting an outside agenda, the history becomes propaganda. However, the line is fine.

Turley, as an executive officer for for the Church has a clear and undeniable bias.

The fact that he has a bias -- scarcely hidden, by the way -- doesn't, in and of itself, demonstrate whether his work is good or bad, let alone that it's mere propaganda.

Every historian has biases. Nobody writes history in a state of pure objectivity, because no human has ever attained such a state. And besides, as Peter Novick has demonstrated in his wonderful Cambridge book on the concept of historical "objectivity," such a state wouldn't be desirable, even if it were possible or conceptually coherent.

Sure it does. You can know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Turley would not arrive at any conclusion not approved by his superiors. This makes the work irretrievably flawed. There might be good stuff in there, but that is beside the point. The heart and soul of science is an attempted escape from human bias based on rigorous methods.

[_rcrocket]

And what do you think of Bill Mackinnon's recent work on the Utah War? Do you think it compatible with the Walker/Leonard/Turley approach? If not, why not?

I thought MacKinnon's book was wonderful, in that it brought together a large number of documents I had never seen before. The book was also very understated. Occasionally, however, I thought his conclusions were uncharacteristically overstated and unsupported -- particularly in areas dealing wth Brigham Young's sanction of personal violence. I don't mind such a conclusion as long as it has support. It also seemed to me that the book to some degree "looked" like and had the feel of Will Bagley's book, BOTP, in the way it used snippets of quotes from sources as the title of chapters and subchapters (thus overemphasizing some things).

But, I think that MacKinnon's book is a watershed for researchers, and I gratefully access it along with Moorman/Session, Hafen and Furniss. All four are very worthy books -- probably not all that well read, however.