Comments on: Of Massacres and Misinformation

By: Ronnie Bray

Ronnie Bray — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:36:22 +0000

Thank you, Ardis. I certainly will.

Ronnie

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:30:47 +0000

Ronnie, none of the papers have been published (yet), and I don’t know if the authors have plans to do so. The papers all grew out of the authors’ work on the project to research Massacre at Mountain Meadows so they might consider that “work product” and not individually publishable.

I think it would be especially useful to have Chad Orton’s paper available as a sort of tutorial on evaluating mixed-value sources.

Welcome to Keepa. I hope you’ll come back often.

By: Ronnie Bray

Ronnie Bray — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:20:36 +0000

Thank you for an excellent introduction.

Are the full texts of the three papers available anywhere?

Mormon history deserves better treatment, both ‘for’ and ‘against,’ and between non-scholarly, populist ‘anti’ view, and the comfort of the LDS faith-based view the truth tumbles about seeking escape from the straight-jackets imposed by those without and also from those within.

Not everything in LDS History is praiseworthy, but understanding the backgrounds, intentions, and sitz im leben goes a long way to make unpleasant events understandable, at the very least, whilst not brushing the responsibility or blame under any old carpet.

More light from dedicated historians, and less heat from those opposed to all things ‘Mormon,’ would make the rise and progress of the Restored Gospel look a lot less like “The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk,” and more like the autographs of the New Testament.

God speed the right.

By: Joe Geisner

Joe Geisner — Tue, 27 May 2008 18:00:42 +0000

Ardis,

Thanks for sharing your response. I really enjoy reading your insights. It was wonderful to see you again.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Mon, 26 May 2008 04:15:41 +0000

I wish you all could have been there, too. I enjoyed this MHA better than any other I have ever been to. It wasn’t the facilities, for sure (more than a little on the seedy side, especially in the hither-and-yon room I had, which might have had a non-smoking designation but which was obviously made non-smoking within the last week or two — and they never did get around to replacing the burned out bulbs I requested, and the furniture was so greasy and stained that I didn’t like to sit on the desk chair without first putting down a towel, but which all still cost me $111 per night). It may only have been partially because of the excellent quality of the papers and especially the plenary talks.

Really, I think it was because this was one of the smaller MHA meetings I’ve been to, so you could talk to and dine with and enjoy the company of people you might not have been able to find in the crowds of the larger recent meetings (Salt Lake and Killington being the most notorious examples). Anyway, it was great fun, for the 400 or so who did get there. Next year in Springfield, y’all!

By: Edje

Edje — Mon, 26 May 2008 03:57:47 +0000

Thanks for the write-up. Wish I could have been there.

By: Chad Too

Chad Too — Mon, 26 May 2008 02:35:57 +0000

Thank you for this, Ardis. I’m still a little dicey on full absolution for SLC, but only because the artifacts show enough evidence of tampering/suppression/etc. that I can’t internally rule complicity out. I’m glad to see that I’m not alone in my wariness.

Oh, and I’m not one of those Chads.

By: Just me

Just me — Sat, 24 May 2008 21:06:41 +0000

Bravo.

By: Ray

Ray — Sat, 24 May 2008 04:07:28 +0000

Excellent analysis, Ardis. I agree that the issues you raise appear to be difficult to address in a way that makes sense within the big picture view.

By: Maurine

Maurine — Fri, 23 May 2008 23:33:45 +0000

Ardis, I wish I could have been there for the session and to hear your comments. Unfortunately, I had to stay home this year. I hope you post some more in the next couple of days from the conference.