Joseph Smith Papers Volume 1

[_Daniel Peterson]

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

So you've read at least three books on the subject, and at least a half-dozen substantial academic articles in various journals?

Care to name them?

[_harmony]

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

So you've read at least three books on the subject, and at least a half-dozen substantial academic articles in various journals?

Care to name them?

The latest books and articles I've read are:

Poverty in America: Economic Research Shows Adverse Impacts on Health Status and Other Social Conditions as well as Economic Growth by the GAO.

Race, Poverty, and Cancer by Harold Freeman, MD, published in Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1991.

Poverty, Culture, and Social Injustice, Determinants of Cancer Disparities, by Harold Freeman, MD published in CA, a Journal for Cancer Clinicians 2004

Differential Effects of Messages for Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening by Jibaja-Weiss et al, in Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved , Feb 2005.

Cancer and Poverty: Double Jeopardy for Women by Jean Hardisty, PhD.

etc. etc. etc.

I don't have much time for church history right now. I am focusing on a thesis-type paper I'm preparing for a leadership forum which my agency is funding. (I'm writing posts in between print jobs).

I may get to your suggesions by summer. Maybe.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The latest books and articles I've read are:

Of course, I didn't ask what the latest books and articles you've read might be.

I asked whether you had read the basic scholarly books on the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and it seems pretty obvious that you haven't.

No crime in that, of course. But it should give one pause before one pontificates on the subject, and on one of those books.

[_harmony]

No crime in that, of course. But it should give one pause before one pontificates on the subject, and on one of those books.

I don't pontificate. I leave that to you. And I've never commented on a book I haven't read. That doesn't stop me from commenting on the bias inherent in writing books.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've never commented on a book I haven't read. That doesn't stop me from commenting on the bias inherent in writing books.

Here's the exchange:

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.

So your remark above was totally out of the blue, and utterly unconnected with Massacre at Mountain Meadows, which you haven't read?

Even though TAK was specifically referring to Massacre at Mountain Meadows, and I was specifically referring to Massacre at Mountain Meadows, you were just interposing a general theoretical remark about author bias that had no connection with any particular book or author?

This is puzzling. Why would you imagine that my statement that Massacre at Mountain Meadows represents serious Mormon historiography actually means that serious professional historians, generally, can fail to tell "the whole story"?

[_harmony]

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

Okay. I got that.

So your remark above was totally out of the blue, and utterly unconnected with Massacre at Mountain Meadows, which you haven't read?

Try to not confuse me with TAK, Daniel. He wouldn't appreciate it. My comment was based on your comment, and not at all connected with TAK's comment.

Even though TAK was specifically referring to Massacre at Mountain Meadows, and I was specifically referring to Massacre at Mountain Meadows, you were just interposing a general theoretical remark about author bias that had no connection with any particular book or author?

Exactly.

This is puzzling. Why would you imagine that my statement that Massacre at Mountain Meadows represents serious Mormon historiography actually means that serious professional historians, generally, can fail to tell "the whole story"?

Because that's a natural continuation of the thought, since they haven't told "the whole story". (You realize, of course, that M@MM isn't the "end of the M@MM story," right? That's there's another book out there still, right?) Unless you meant that the authors in question aren't serious professional historians, which I gave you the benefit of the doubt and didn't assume that's what you meant.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Because that's a natural continuation of the thought, since they haven't told "the whole story". (You realize, of course, that M@MM isn't the "end of the M@MM story," right? That's there's another book out there still, right?) Unless you meant that the authors in question aren't serious professional historians, which I gave you the benefit of the doubt and didn't assume that's what you meant.

That's a pretty lame explanation, harmony, and I don't buy it.

[_harmony]

That's a pretty lame explanation, harmony, and I don't buy it.

That doesn't make any difference whatsoever, Daniel. There are other truths you don't buy either, but that doesn't make them any less true.

My logic may be unconventional, but it suffices for my needs.

[_Daniel Peterson]

My logic may be unconventional

If you wish to communicate with others, you're not free to invent your own idiosyncratic logic.

but it suffices for my needs.

You're sure?

[_harmony]

My logic may be unconventional

If you wish to communicate with others, you're not free to invent your own idiosyncratic logic.

but it suffices for my needs.

You're sure?

I don't seem to have much trouble in the real world (if anything, I'm TOO clear)... or even here, except with you. I think it's your ear rather than my mouth that has a problem (assuming a vocal exchange).