Comments on: Evaluating Historical Documents; or, I Do Not Think that Proves What You Think It Proves

By: kevinf

kevinf — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:11:26 +0000

Ardis, good one. I’d vote for you, so if you ever run, I’ll get the name of some dead person off your blog and register to vote in Utah. Vote early and often, you know.

Actually, all three of you (Connell, Stapley, and you) are behaving like adults, which is refreshing. I mostly remembered this post and thought it would be worthwhile to point out Stapley’s response in the JMH.

I have to say, though, after receiving my copy, looking at the letters section this time, the table of contents started looking to me like the program for one of those big wrestling extravaganzas: Stapley vs O’Donovan, Aird and Topping vs the JMH Staff, and in the headline event, Robin Jensen vs. The World at Large!

My apologies in advance to all of these folks, as I respect them all, but I don’t recall ever seeing an issue that started with such a long list of “scholarly disagreement,” although I will admit that the Joseph Smith/Mark Twain thing did seem a bit of a stretch to me at time.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:38:53 +0000

So, kevinf, am I lacking in those interpersonal skills in my my own discussion here, or are you saying that I’m too [fill in the blank] for you to want to curse me with election to political office?

By: kevinf

kevinf — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:08:44 +0000

I received my Fall 2012 copy of the JMH, and Stapley responds fully in the letters section. Without making any judgments on the merits of their arguments, I am impressed that even with some pretty fundamental disagreements, the dialogue is very respectful and serves as a lesson in and of itself in how to handle such disagreements in a civilized manner. I’m for electing both Stapley and Connell to Congress, as they obviously both have some interpersonal skills otherwise lacking there.

By: Juvenile Instructor » Responding to O’Donovan on Augusta Adams Cobb Young and priesthood

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 20:05:55 +0000

[...] Parshall has already taken issue with some of the conclusions drawn in O’Donovan’s letter. The following are some [...]

By: Diane Peel

Diane Peel — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 05:19:28 +0000

Thanks for the mini lesson Ardis. It is, as usual in any lesson you teach, quite clear, even to those of us outside the field.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 22:32:26 +0000

kevinf, mine only came yesterday, so most are probably still in the mail. Enjoy!

By: kevinf

kevinf — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 22:30:44 +0000

Important lesson, and one I hope to take to heart. It is too easy to read these old documents with a modern perspective only, and not being academically trained, the reminder to read critically is important for me.

However, of more importance is that I have not yet received my copy of the Spring 2012 JMH. I am hoping it is in my mailbox when I get home tonight.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 20:26:05 +0000

In rereading my comment, I don’t want to be dismissive of Augusta’s experience. Often times, it is aberrations that allow us to probe more deeply into the dynamics at play. I think this is the case with several aspects of Augusta’s life. I’m very much looking forward to Connell’s complete volume.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 19:38:22 +0000

Thanks, Bruce.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 19:37:39 +0000

Me, too, Amy — without the openness of the field, I’d have little role. I have never heard anyone speak of Connell without awe at the range of his research, either.

J., thanks for your remarks — and, of course, if you were going to respond more fully elsewhere, certainly don’t let this brief coverage interfere with that. I don’t have the background to have said what you just did about the post-Nauvoo years and the views of the priesthood or priesthoods, but it was generally that which I had in mind when I mentioned the need to evaluate whether “priesthood” meant the same to Sister Cobb as it does to contemporary Mormonism. Connell would seem to be equating them, or Sister Cobb’s claims, even if legitimate, would be irrelevant to any contemporary discussion about women’s right to hold and exercise the priesthood.