Publications on Mormon History

[_harmony]

Any time he says something like: "Joseph Smith for his alleged sexual libertinism, his supposed arrogance, his purported greed," ... he's being sarcastic.

Perhaps I am wrong, though.

You are.

There's not a trace of sarcasm in what you quoted from me, above.

"alleged", "libertinism", "supposed", "purported" "greed"... in context, all sarcastic.

[_ludwigm]

My sentence was ambiguous, I admit.

Worth of a sig line.
Unfortunately, I committed myself to classic ones.

[_Chap]

So what sort of stuff is there for those who don't read?

There's lots of other stuff. This board, for instance.

I have noticed that several people who evidently do a lot of reading of printed material - whether because they are inclined to it, or for professional reasons, or both - do also seem to read this board; some post here frequently. It does seem odd when one of these frequent posters indulges in little digs and sneers about this board, apparently on the grounds that the posts on it are not print publications.

Do such people, I wonder, also spice their everyday conversation with interjected remarks to the people they are talking to, indicating that they would far rather be reading a book, and that conversation is really just for people who don't read?

For an internet board seems to be in part a new form of conversation. Like spoken conversation, it certainly lacks some of the opportunities for articulating lengthy arguments and dissecting evidence presented by a printed text. But like spoken conversation it surely has a legitimate role in the life of a society, and when well conducted it demands respect for that role.

Of course I suppose I could imagine someone with an agenda that could only be carried out while frequently contributing to a discussion board, but at the same time taking care to convey that one thought that kind of thing was far beneath one, and that one had far, far better ways of spending one's time. What might such an agenda consist of, I wonder?

[_solomarineris]

It starts when you're always afraid.

Afraid? Afraid? My gosh......
You & clones are representing the epitome, archetypes of fear....
You can never, ever stray from the straight path.
Reading your reviews would be like playing poker with you, you'd never have bad hands, and by any chance you got bad hands, you'd throw it under the table.
If I were to gamble with you I'd bluff 95% of time, I'm sure you'd chicken out 74.9% of time, the rest you'd see my bluff because you'd have 3 of a kind, straight, full house or something.
You always need a winning hand.
That happens only in "LaLa Corridor".

[_TAK]

I just picked up my copy of BYU Studies 47/3 (2008), which, despite its ostensible date, is just off the press. It's a special issue entitled "Mountain Meadows Massacre Documents," and was guest edited by Richard Turley and Ronald Walker. The contents include photographs and transcriptions of important materials from the Andrew Jenson and David H. Morris collections, as well as associated articles and reviews.

.

So do the authors explain the gapping hole on pages 134 and 135? The genesis of the conflict. There was no mob. Just a couple of Cedar City leaders who initiated the action.

[_Daniel Peterson]

"alleged", "libertinism", "supposed", "purported" "greed"... in context, all sarcastic.

Not even slightly sarcastic.

Libertinism and greed (and arrogance) have all been alleged against Joseph Smith, and, by the argument of the review essay that I edited yesterday, without substantial grounding for the allegations.

It does seem odd when one of these frequent posters indulges in little digs and sneers about this board, apparently on the grounds that the posts on it are not print publications.

I had in mind certain posters here the frequency and dogmatism of whose pronouncements on Mormon historiography is in inverse proportion to their familiarity with Mormon historiography, and who react with indignation when it's suggested that, before they pontificate, they should probably read. They know that, and they know who they are.

So do the authors explain the gapping hole on pages 134 and 135? The genesis of the conflict. There was no mob. Just a couple of Cedar City leaders who initiated the action.

This implicit complain eludes me completely. Massacre at Mountain Meadows is largely devoted to "the genesis of the conflict," and it makes absolutely no secret of the central role of those Cedar City leaders.

[_harmony]

"alleged", "libertinism", "supposed", "purported" "greed"... in context, all sarcastic.

Not even slightly sarcastic.

Libertinism and greed (and arrogance) have all been alleged against Joseph Smith, and, by the argument of the review essay that I edited yesterday, without substantial grounding for the allegations.

Fanny, Daniel. You can never get around Fanny. Caught in the straw, his bare legs exposed, his pants around his ankles. Caught by his best friend. There is no "alleged". There simply is... Fanny. That "dirty little affair."

It does seem odd when one of these frequent posters indulges in little digs and sneers about this board, apparently on the grounds that the posts on it are not print publications.

I had in mind certain posters here the frequency and dogmatism of whose pronouncements on Mormon historiography is in inverse proportion to their familiarity with Mormon historiography, and who react with indignation when it's suggested that, before they pontificate, they should probably read. They know that, and they know who they are.

Daniel works best under the illusion that his little digs and sneers are somehow effective. We allow him his delusions.

As for Mormon historiography: one word... Fanny. None of the rest matters, because after Fanny, he'd already laid down the mantle of prophet. All the rest is tainted.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Fanny, Daniel. You can never get around Fanny. Caught in the straw, his bare legs exposed, his pants around his ankles. Caught by his best friend. There is no "alleged". There simply is... Fanny. That "dirty little affair."

The review might help you.

But you won't read it.

Daniel works best under the illusion that his little digs and sneers are somehow effective. We allow him his delusions.

I'm under no illusion whatsoever, harmony, that you will either give up your ignorant dogmatism or inform yourself.

As for Mormon historiography: one word... Fanny.

And that one word, you imagine, settles all historical questions.

You're not serious. Whether you think you are or not.

None of the rest matters, because after Fanny, he'd already laid down the mantle of prophet. All the rest is tainted.

I've always liked the witty remark about Immanuel Kant, with regard to David Hume, that he should have "let sleeping dogmatists lie."

[_Yoda]

Fanny, Daniel. You can never get around Fanny. Caught in the straw, his bare legs exposed, his pants around his ankles. Caught by his best friend. There is no "alleged". There simply is... Fanny. That "dirty little affair."

The review might help you.

But you won't read it.

Daniel works best under the illusion that his little digs and sneers are somehow effective. We allow him his delusions.

I'm under no illusion whatsoever, harmony, that you will either give up your ignorant dogmatism or inform yourself.

As for Mormon historiography: one word... Fanny.

And that one word, you imagine, settles all historical questions.

You're not serious. Whether you think you are or not.

None of the rest matters, because after Fanny, he'd already laid down the mantle of prophet. All the rest is tainted.

I've always liked the witty remark about Immanuel Kant, with regard to David Hume, that he should have "let sleeping dogmatists lie."

Does the review have information on the relationship between Joseph and Fanny?

Which historical reference regarding Joseph and Fanny's relationship do you find the most accurate?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Does the review have information on the relationship between Joseph and Fanny?

Some. That's not a major focus.

But the review as a whole is very good on the overall question of early Mormon plural marriage.

Which historical reference regarding Joseph and Fanny's relationship do you find the most accurate?

The references that describe it as a marriage.