Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
I bet it is a real yawner. Sorry but the real, non biased HISTORIANS have already spoken.The Nehor wrote:Anyone else read the Church News article about the Meadow Mountain Massacre. It was pretty detailed. I don't get the Church News but while visiting my parent's home my dad read me, my sister, and my mother the article. It was very direct. Wish it was online.
Any thoughts from those who have read it?
Polygamy Porter wrote:I bet it is a real yawner. Sorry but the real, non biased HISTORIANS have already spoken.The Nehor wrote:Anyone else read the Church News article about the Meadow Mountain Massacre. It was pretty detailed. I don't get the Church News but while visiting my parent's home my dad read me, my sister, and my mother the article. It was very direct. Wish it was online.
Any thoughts from those who have read it?
Hey, let's go ask the Nazis to write a history about the concentration camps! Phooie on those other sources!
Well then, unless you are under an NDA then give it up! Give us a report on the article. Don't just say it was "direct".The Nehor wrote:I personally think a Nazi history of the Concentration Camps would be very interesting reading though how that relates to this circumstance is problematic.
All HISTORIANS are biased. Without some investment no historical writing would occur.
The Nehor wrote:Anyone else read the Church News article about the Meadow Mountain Massacre.
Rollo Tomasi to Bob Crockett wrote:[In the] [l]ast paragraph on page 213 in your FARMS Journal review of Will Bagley's book[,] [y]ou totally slaughtered a quote by William Bishop, apparently to further your argument that you "do not see how Bagley can place any faith in Lee's confession, particularly those written as Mormonism Unveiled." You go on to claim:
"Lee wrote this confession with the assistance of William Bishop, his attorney. Bishop relied on these confessions to obtain his fee. As Bishop urged Lee to finish his work before his execution, he told Lee that he would be 'adding such facts ... as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public.'"
After many months of badgering, you finally revealed the full text of the letter from Bishop to Lee, from which you gave the small quote above (with ellipses). The full text of that letter, however, demonstrates that Bishop did not say what you claim he did. Here is the relevant portion of that letter [from Bishop to Lee] (using the text you provided), bolding the words you omitted with ellipses:
"I do most certainly wish and expect the remainder of your manuscript, and have this a telegraphed to you to send all my express, which I am certain will have been done before you receive this letter. I will at once go to work preparing it for the press adding such facts connected with the trial and history of the case as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public."
Clearly the "facts" Bishop was referring to were those connected with the trial and legal case, of which Bishop had personal knowledge. Your mutilation of the quote, however, suggested Bishop would make up facts about anything, including the massacre and later cover-up. That Bishop wanted Lee to tell the full truth is obvious from the latter part of his letter (which you also failed to quote):
"I do wish you to write up your history fully from the time you came to Salt Lake, until the trial began -- giving a full statement of all the facts and doctrines connected with the Reformation and especially give me all the facts that will throw light upon or that were connected with the massacre and the Leading men of Utah as connected with it that his is if you have held anything back. In Justice to yourself and to me -- as well as your family 'tell it all.'"
As used on page 213 of your article, the butchered quote you lift from the Bishop to Lee letter was misleading and unprofessional. And, frankly, I'm surprised the stringent peer review process at FARMS Journal did not catch it before publication.
Tom wrote:I noticed the following comment last week on the MAD boards:
"[Will Bagley] and I were members of the same LDS-Bookshelf list for some time; that list was dominated by persons hostile to the Church's view of things. I repeatedly prodded Bagley for answers to questions. He would just insult me and refuse to engage. For instance, I pointed out to him that he was a Huntington Library scholar, and contained within the massacre files there is a letter from John D. Lee's lawyer indicating that the lawyer was going to fictionalize Lee's confession to make it sell better. I asked Bagley whether he had seen that, and whether he thought it was worth mentioning in his book since he cited so much and frequently to Lee's confession. Bagley just called me a hack and a stooge."
Tom wrote:I noticed the following comment last week on the MAD boards:
"[Will Bagley] and I were members of the same LDS-Bookshelf list for some time; that list was dominated by persons hostile to the Church's view of things. I repeatedly prodded Bagley for answers to questions. He would just insult me and refuse to engage. For instance, I pointed out to him that he was a Huntington Library scholar, and contained within the massacre files there is a letter from John D. Lee's lawyer indicating that the lawyer was going to fictionalize Lee's confession to make it sell better. I asked Bagley whether he had seen that, and whether he thought it was worth mentioning in his book since he cited so much and frequently to Lee's confession. Bagley just called me a hack and a stooge."