Grant Palmer is attacked by Brian Hales and Gregory L. Smith

[_Yahoo Bot]

An audiologist is not a credible historian. He's never had to defend a dissertation or challenge dissertations. (Umm -- Hales and Greg Smith suffer from the same defects.) This whole field suffers from a dearth of credentialed historians.

Wouldn't you agree that the authoring of hit pieces on history articles requires much less credentialing, since saying "uh uh" is a FAIRly simple task?

I say nothing of the sort. Van Wagoner's book had a number of problems. The one thing I recall after all these decades is that he based some of his more salacious factual statements solely upon uncorroborated claims of anti-Mormon newspapers along the Mississippi during the Nauvoo period. He didn't qualify it or warn the reader.

An unqualified historian tends, in my opinion, to array his note cards developed in research to write his book -- as we all learned in high school -- without any discrimination or qualification as to the credibility or value of the sources. I've commented in writing upon Will Bagley's issues with that.

When a historian has to defend a dissertation, the committee routinely challenges the sources.

I don't believe that Van Wagoner's book was peer-reviewed.

[_Kishkumen]

Richard S. Van Wagoner

An audiologist is not a credible historian. He's never had to defend a dissertation or challenge dissertations. (Umm -- Hales and Smith suffer from the same defects.) This whole field suffers from a dearth of credentialed historians. Well, there's the Bushmans. There's Compton. There's Quinn. But not Van Wagoner. I've chased some of his sources.

So says the esquire who represents himself as a scholar of Mormon history who can adequately argue such issues as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. This complaint just oozes credibility coming from you.

[_Kishkumen]

What really troubles me though, is Hales and Smith claiming that Grant Palmer is some kind of sloppy or shoddy researcher and that he only uses “secondary” sources because he includes a middle initial in Benjamin Winchester’s name, which was gotten from a very credible historian, Richard S. Van Wagoner.

If only Grant Palmer had had the money to hire Don Bradley to do his research. And, if only he had not had the temerity to criticize the Prophet Joseph.

If only.

[_Bazooka]

I don't believe that Van Wagoner's book was peer-reviewed.

Has the Book of Mormon been peer-reviewed?

[_Dr. Shades]

An audiologist is not a credible historian.

Is an attorney a credible historian?

[Guest]

-

[_Mormon Think]

I don't get Brian Hales on this stuff. He admits Joseph had sex with certain amount. What is it? A dozen? 20? Half dozen? Can't remember but he admits many were sexual. But then he becomes very adamant that it wasn't all of them, like it's better if it was 15 and not 30? I don't get this. He also admits to young girls, what like age 18 or something? But becomes very adamant that none of the younger ones 16 or 14 are proven to be sexual. He creates very odd lines in the sand.

When you're a prophet creating or restoring a new religion, you've jumped the shark once you reveal that God wants you to have sex with several young, hot members of the congregation. It doesn't matter if it was 10 or 30. And it doesn't matter if the youngest was 14 or 18.

This is a very good point. Hales helps validate the critics:

Faithful amateur LDS historian Dr. Brian C. Hales was interviewed for a mormonstories podcast (#403, #404 and #405) with John Dehlin called '12 Myths Regarding Joseph Smith's Polygamy'. Although the focus of his critique was to refute arguments by the critics, he acknowledged the following things:
•Joseph consummated 12 of his plural marriages.
•Polygamy was illegal when Joseph practiced it.
•Fanny Alger was not sealed to Joseph.
•There is evidence that Joseph had sexual relations with three of the women that already had husbands - Sylvia Sessions, Mary Heron, and Sarah Ann Whitney.

These four items are some of the most common things about polygamy that faithful church members write to MormonThink arguing against these claims, yet this LDS apologist agrees that these are the facts.

Conclusion

If even the FARMS apologists, FAIR apologists and faithful LDS historians acknowledge that Joseph may have had sex with his polygamous wives (including the ones already married) then why should any LDS members dispute that Joseph likely did have sex with those wives?

Bill

[_grindael]

There is the truth and there are the lies. The truth is Smith f**ked around with lots of women. He did so behind the back of his first wife when he said he would not. He wrote that promise into his "revelation" as a must get first wife's consent before adding to the Harem clause. It was not followed by either him nor his followers to any consistent degree which tells you more about those men and the practice of polygamy than anything else ever could. It drove men to do bad things.

Smith was caught "frigging" Mary Heron Snider by her son in law, who then said when he was accused of the same thing, "I'm not bringing up the fact that Jo committed adultery to justify my own, but .... he did it too, and broke in the house by committing the "first frigging" there."

Smith consistently messed around with the servant girls or any girls that happened to be in his home. The Lawrence Sisters. Fanny Alger, Eliza Snow, Marinda Johnson, etc. etc. That is a long list and there is just no way to explain it away.

[_Yahoo Bot]

An audiologist is not a credible historian.

Is an attorney a credible historian?

Depends, but the chances are greater. Some attorneys have to do a lot of research and editing, as well as be edited, as well as understand the basic rules of evidence and provenance. Many attorneys publish in professional journals. The study of law is the study of history -- history of the law. Rick Turley, the Church's leading professional attorney, is one of the best at what he does.

This article from UC Berkeley's law school talks about the similiarity between lawyers and historians (fact gathering, weighing sources), but argues that true history cannot be depicted in the courtroom. The article, however, does not tackle the question of an attorney publishing like an historian.
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi ... ntext=bjil

There are many historians with legal training; almost none with training to sell hearing aids.

[_moksha]

There are many historians with legal training; almost none with training to sell hearing aids.

Would audiologists tend to give historical data a FAIR hearing, or might they tend to slant the facts in favor of their client? Remember, be judicious!