Joseph Smith Papers Volume 1

[_TAK]

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.

Nonsense; M@MM is/was an apologetic effort as Gene Sessions said: " It's defensive. The Church came to the conclusion with Bagley's book that there had to be another version of the story that the Church brought forth.”

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

Serious historians will judge a historical work on the basis of the evidence deployed and the quality of its analysis.

Some other folks will dismiss it a priori on the basis of an ad hominem, after poisoning the well. In such cases, examining the evidence deployed and evaluating the quality of its analysis would be superfluous.

There's a certain simplicity and efficiency to the latter approach, although it does, arguably, have some flaws.

[_John Larsen]

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.

Serious historians will judge a historical work on the basis of the evidence deployed and the quality of its analysis.

Some other folks will dismiss it a priori on the basis of an ad hominem, after poisoning the well. In such cases, examining the evidence deployed and evaluating the quality of its analysis would be superfluous.

There's a certain simplicity and efficiency to the latter approach, although it does, arguably, have some flaws.

Where is the ad hominem? I say that an officer of a company has a fiduciary interest in the company he helps manage and that he will not act against that interest--a principle recognized by every court and most shoppers. You want to talk about poisoning the well, first explain how this is ad hominem in any shape or form!

[_rcrocket]

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.

Perhaps. I don't doubt the biases of any author, and certainly Bancroft's treatment of the MMM is not beyond criticism. Brooks -- she was out to vindicate the memory of John D. Lee and her own ancestors who were involved in the massacre by doing what she could to pin it on higher authority. Bagley -- whoever was paying him for the work was out to nail Brigham Young. Denton -- she culled a number of secondary sources and made little effort with the primary sources just to create a best-seller. Bancroft -- in his later years, in his treatment of the massacre -- relied upon younger subordinates just to get out his contracted work. Wise -- a vicious anti-Mormon in his treatment of the massacre not willing to look at any exculpatory source. Catherine Waite -- the suffragist wife of a Utah federal judge active in anti-Mormon polygamy raids -- her treatment of the MMM relied upon things made up out of rumor and whole cloth. Krakauer -- the best seller of all -- his treatment of the masscare was just meant to inflame; where he could, he cited minority views so long as they pinned the crime against Brigham Young. Orson F. Whitney -- now, there was a great work in my opinion but I don't think can be held to modern historical standards, and of course in those days he wasn't going to say anything negative about the church central authorities. So, none of these authors are without their biases.

I have my own particular issues with Turley's work (note that I am credited as a source), because I thought it wasted effort to devote space to sociological analogies, but I was impressed by its brevity, its selection of sources, and its editing. The fact that it went through such rigorous peer review is also impressive; by contrast, I don't think any editor ever looked at Bagley's cited sources, having looked at hundreds of them myself and seeing a mistake ratio that is hugely high.

[_rcrocket]

Nonsense; M@MM is/was an apologetic effort as Gene Sessions said: " It's defensive. The 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's not a fair quote of Sessions. He, a few seconds later, said: "It will be really hard for those guys to tell any lies even if they were inclined to do so."

[_Daniel Peterson]

For John Larsen: By dismissing the book as "irretrievably flawed" apart from any consideration of the evidence adduced in it or the quality of the analysis exhibited in it -- the two fundamental and salient criteria on which to judge a work of history -- and on the basis merely of the authors' religious adherence and employment, you commit the classic logical fallacy of "poisoning the well of discourse" (on which, see the historical background of John Henry Newman's coining of the phrase) and an absolutely classic ad hominem. This kind of literally a priori judgment is particularly inappropriate and ironic in the exceedingly empirical field of historiography.

Nonsense; M@MM is/was an apologetic effort as Gene Sessions said: " It's defensive. The Church came to the conclusion with Bagley's book that there had to be another version of the story that the Church brought forth.”

I don't expect that Massacre at Mountain Meadows will escape criticism from serious historians; I'm unaware of any serious bit of historiography from Herodotos and Thucydides down to the present that has.

But I do expect that serious historians will recognize it as a serious historical work, and I don't expect that they will dismiss it simply because it sought to correct a historical picture that its authors thought incorrect and even dangerously misleading. Many, many historical books share that motivation, since ancient times and very much still today.

I also expect that the reactions of competent, serious historians probably won't track with the reactions of vitriolic anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons on small message boards. But I don't regard that as very significant.

[Guest]

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?

Essentially none. I think it's rather silly, and, candidly, a playground for cranks.

But I've read a fair amount on the subject, including at least three books and, yes, the recent Criddle paper.

Have you read Juanita Brooks's Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Have you read Will Bagley's The Blood of the Prophets?

Have you read Walker, Leonard, and Turley's Massacre at Mountain Meadows?

Have you read anything relevant by Thomas Alexander?

Have you read anything relevant by Bill Mackinnon?

Have you read anything that Robert Briggs has published on the subject?

Have you read anything that Robert Crockett has published on the subject? (I'm not talking about message board posts. There's a whole world out there, harmony.)

[_TAK]

Nonsense; M@MM is/was an apologetic effort as Gene Sessions said: " It's defensive. The 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's not a fair quote of Sessions. He, a few seconds later, said: "It will be really hard for those guys to tell any lies even if they were inclined to do so."

They did not have to lie.. Just steer the facts in a different direction and avoid certain topics. Which is precisely what they did.

[_harmony]

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?

I didn't even mention the book, Jason. I was talking about bias in a historian. Daniel says bias is expected. I was just letting him know I agreed.

I'm as interested in MMM as Daniel is in S/R.

[_Daniel Peterson]

They did not have to lie.. Just steer the facts in a different direction and avoid certain topics. Which is precisely what they did.

TAK hath spoke.

The serious academic historians will be wasting their time from now on, examining and reviewing Massacre at Mountain Meadows. The verdict has been rendered.

And it's even possible that TAK may have read the book.