Setting The Record Straight

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

I know I'm new here, and have written a copious amount of posts, most of them focusing on Mormon history, the majority of them regarding the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Eventually my integrity was called into question and I have chosen to respond. Normally I wouldn't do so, but I seriously like this board, and would really like to stay. Actually, I'm probably going to stay anyway, but I want to do what I can to help you understand that I am not guilty of the things I have been accused of. This is important to me as I'd like to feel a basic level of trust in what I put forth as being come by fervently and honestly.

I'm not saying I expect everyone to agree with me--I know that's not going to happen. Rather, it's accusations such as "putting words in an author's mouth", and "using only one book" when that's not the case.

Honestly, I love the debate. But I assure you, it is anathema to me to write a post with historical information in it of which I do not have sound knowledge.

So, here goes:

I am a member of the

- Utah State Historical Society and

- The Daughter of the Utah Pioneers

- a book club dedicated to Mormon history

I own the following books that contain information on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I have many other Mormon history books, but won‘t bother to list them here because they don't cover the MMM.

- Blood of the Prophets, Brigham Young and the Mountain Meadows Massacre, Will Bagley, University of Oklahoma Press, c 1950

- John Doyle Lee: Zealot-Pioneer Builder-Scapegoat (Glendale, 1962) The Mountain Meadows Massacre (Stanford, 1950; new edition, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, c 1962, 1970)

- History of Utah, Hubert Howe Bancroft, Bookcraft Publishers, c 1964 (not amy favorite)

-The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power; Michael D. Quinn; Signature Books, c 1994

- The Mormon Mountain Meadows Massacre: From the Diary of John I. Ginn by Steven E. Farley (haven't read yet)

- The Mountain Meadows Massacre by Juanita Brooks, University of Oklahoma Press, c 1950, 1962 (fourth printing)

- The Unsolicited Chronicler, An Account of the Gunnison Massacre, Its Causes and Consequences by Robert Kent Fielding, Paradigm Publications, 1993

- Utah Historians and the Reconstruction of Western History, Gary Topping; University of Oklahoma Press, 2003 (despite Jason’s protestations of inferior writing, it won the 2004 Best Book Award from the Utah State Historical Society, my history book club loved it, and is a marvelous comprehensive appraisal of the best past Utah historians.)

- Utah's History; Richard D. Poll/Thomas G. Alexander/Eugene F. Campbell/David E. Miller; Utah State University Press, c. 1989

- CD of all Church books, including Journal of Discourses and History of the Church.

Additionally, I've read numerous master's theses, journal articles, history presentations, etc. about the MMM.

Comments on the threads:

Jason has accused me of only using one book as a reference. This is not true. The following are all of the posts where I listed references:

a. June 11, post #13, Brigham thread, after I had written a fairly detailed post, I recommended reading The Mountain Meadows Massacre by Juanita Brooks.

b. June 11, post #13, Brigham thread, Blood of the Prophets by Will Bagley.

c. June 14, post #1, Reformation thread, Blood of the Prophets

d. June 14, post #1, Reformation thread, From the Contributions of George A. Smith to the Establishment of the Mormon Society in the Territory of Utah, BYU Online Collection, Vol 038, No. 2

e. June 16, post 159, Brigham thread, Utah Historians and the Reconstruction of Western History, Gary Topping. This book is some of the most recent scholarship on the MMM, and as I mentioned above, won the 2004 Best Book Award from the Utah State Historical Society. Topping is hardly the "best guesser" Jason intimates.

f. June 16, post 160, Brigham thread, Blood of the Prophets

So, that's six references, or four if you prefer. Either way, it is not one. I would really appreciate it if in the future, before criticizing the number of references I use, one would actually look at them first.

When I quoted Topping's book, Jason wrote: "So you're interpreting Gary Topping now? Putting words into the mouth of an author, who himself is only making a best guess is hardly the evidence Im looking for."

I am literally stunned at Jason"s accusation. The quote I used is on page 360 of the book and I did not change any of the words.

I suspect Jason may once again demean Topping's qualifications, but let me assure you, in the historian community he is very well thought of.

Additionally, numerous ad hominem comments were made that were totally unecesary. Seriously, when the conversation regresses to ad hominems, it's essentially over. It's really a poor debating technique, and it demonstrates immaturity and a lack of compulsion control. Just please, think about it next time. Again, I seriously love the debate. I just hate the personal attacks.

Anyway, let me assure you, if I write a post about Mormon history, it is something I have studied and know quite a lot about. If I don't know the subject well, I won't post about it.

Emma

[Guest Yediyd]

And this was my point, exactly!!!!!I had no way of knowing who was telling the truth about who read what...but I was offended by the immature resorting to personal attacks.

Now that Emma has posted a bibliogrphy of her sources...can we PLEASE just let this rest?

Except, of course unless you wish to give her the apollogy that she deserves, Jason.

[chrisbull]

hiya emma, have u seen that documentary/film on the mountain meadows massacre called burying the past?

i dont know ur views on it, or really what the event was all about -

i have the DVD bt not watched it yet...would u recommend me watch it? what i mean is, is it truthful and unbiased - as in, slating us LDS members, or truthful?

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

hiya emma, have u seen that documentary/film on the mountain meadows massacre called burying the past?

i dont know ur views on it, or really what the event was all about -

i have the DVD bt not watched it yet...would u recommend me watch it? what i mean is, is it truthful and unbiased - as in, slating us LDS members, or truthful?

I'm sorry, chris, I haven't seen it, so I can't recommend it.

I have to say though, I can't imagine any one or two-hour documentary doing MMM justice. The only television event I can see being productive would be a mini-series documentary.

Emma

[pushka]

Hi Emma,

It's a shame that you were made to feel that it was necessary to post a defense of yourself and the sources you used in your posts, but thanks for taking the time to do so anyway.

I enjoy history, for history's sake, and would love to read more of your historical posts.

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

Hi Emma,

It's a shame that you were made to feel that it was necessary to post a defense of yourself and the sources you used in your posts, but thanks for taking the time to do so anyway.

I enjoy history, for history's sake, and would love to read more of your historical posts.

Thanks Pushka,

I can tell you're a fan of history as I am. I'm something of an insomniac and often spend my nights with Joseph and/or Brigham, my choice.

Actually, it's the Mormon women that I love. Unbelievable creatures they were . . . truly, I've never heard of any others like them.

Emma

[Jason]

Jason has accused me of only using one book as a reference. This is not true. The following are all of the posts where I listed references:

a. June 11, post #13, Brigham thread, after I had written a fairly detailed post, I recommended reading The Mountain Meadows Massacre by Juanita Brooks.

b. June 11, post #13, Brigham thread, Blood of the Prophets by Will Bagley.

c. June 14, post #1, Reformation thread, Blood of the Prophets

d. June 14, post #1, Reformation thread, From the Contributions of George A. Smith to the Establishment of the Mormon Society in the Territory of Utah, BYU Online Collection, Vol 038, No. 2

e. June 16, post 159, Brigham thread, Utah Historians and the Reconstruction of Western History, Gary Topping. This book is some of the most recent scholarship on the MMM, and as I mentioned above, won the 2004 Best Book Award from the Utah State Historical Society. Topping is hardly the "best guesser" Jason intimates.

f. June 16, post 160, Brigham thread, Blood of the Prophets

So, that's six references, or four if you prefer. Either way, it is not one. I would really appreciate it if in the future, before criticizing the number of references I use, one would actually look at them first.

Maybe you haven't been to college, but a reference is more than "read XYZ book". That's not a reference, and you'd get a failing grade in any University level course for your "references" alone.

To help you put this in perspective, If I told you that the Hebrews worshipped a female goddess named Asherah, and as a "reference" told you to read the Bible, just how helpful is that?

I hope you see my point.

When I quoted Topping's book, Jason wrote: "So you're interpreting Gary Topping now? Putting words into the mouth of an author, who himself is only making a best guess is hardly the evidence Im looking for."

I am literally stunned at Jason"s accusation. The quote I used is on page 360 of the book and I did not change any of the words.

I am unimpressed by anyone who stands on the shoulders of great historians, only to put them down. That goes for historians of any subject, not just Mormonism.

I suspect Jason may once again demean Topping's qualifications, but let me assure you, in the historian community he is very well thought of.

Your book of the month club doesn't count as the "historian community".

[CrimsonKairos]

Hold on to your safety bars everyone...the ride is about to get bumpy.

[StrawberryFields]

But does it really have too?

[Saab900man]

Hold on to your safety bars everyone...the ride is about to get bumpy.

[a-train]

We ARE having a Friday the Thirteenth this month, Jason.

-a-train

[Dr T]

[Guest MrsS]

You go Girl!

[FrankJL]

college is where you sit and eat hamburgers all day

Where is this? I'm transferring out of Penn State..

This summer econometrics class is frying my brain.

oh..and since we need to cite our posts...will a regular works cited work, or should we go with a full annotated bib?

or CMS style foot notes and endnotes?

I prefer CMS myself..

But I will do whatever our prof desires..

[Hikchick]

*Hikchick starts singing*

"There is beauty all around, when there's love at home! There is joy in every sound when there's love at home! Peace and plenty here abide, Smiling sweet on every side... Time doth softly sweetly glide when there's love at home! Love at Home... Love at home. Time doth softly sweetly glide, when there's love at home!" :)

[Guest Yediyd]

Just spotted this...That was "bitingly" hillarious!!!

I believe the man slightly underestimated you, Emma!!!!!

You go girl!!!!!

And Jason, You must admit...you kinda set yourself up for that one!!!!

[Jason]

Emma,

I'm very disappointed in your last post. Not something I would expect from a woman who pretends to be such a grand intellectual. I suppose you are showing us your true colors. Pity.

Now in spite of your rant, let me take you down the path again, correcting the record once and for all, and show you that it can be done without a such a gross display of insecurity.

You don't like that I asked for a better reference than "read this book". Recommending a book is not a reference. If you tell us that Juanita Brooks, or Will Bagley, or even Gene Sessions should be read, that's a recommendation, not a reference. There is a fundamental difference between a recommendation and a reference. One supports your position, the other does not.

If you have misplaced your text that shows you how to cite a source (and having owned a publication company for 15 years, I cannot understand how you could forget!), you can provide us a with a hotlink as in the case of Gene Sessions talk at FAIR, or give us the page number of your quote along with your text name and author. Nobody here is requiring you to provide publisher and date of publication. We would appreciate you telling us enough information that for those of us who own the text, we can validate your reference.

You mentioned "blood atonement" in post 15. Great. But you didn't explain what it even was. That was me who did that. I gave a source (JoD vol. 4) and then, realizing that might not be enough, found Grant's sermon and quoted it in full (with reference provided at the top of the post.)

So while you casually mentioned the words "blood atonement" it was left to me to explain what that meant and reference it.

After accusing you of making statements without references, you finally provided one in posts 159 &160. You were more careful after that, and I thank you.

Now on to the remainder of your complaint:

1. Jason accused me of putting words into Topping’s mouth in one of my posts. I responded that I had done no such thing, and gave him the page number (360) to prove it. Instead of acknowledging his mistake, Mason was completely silent about his outrageous accusation. Integrity demands an apology.

You have no quotations in post 159 to show what was a quote, and what are your own words. Surely someone who graduated "cum laude" and "owned a publishing company for fifteen years" understands the importance of quotation marks! As you should know, without proper quotation marks, one cannot differentiate between the author of the text, and the person quoting the author. So if anyone is to blame my dear, it is you.

2. Jason accused me of using one book for a reference for all of my posts on two threads when in fact I had used six (actually 8, 2 more discovered in a recount). Integrity demands an apology.

Again, a recommendation and an actual reference are quite different. After I pointed out your error, you corrected the situation and began giving references. Thank you for that. I hope you now understand the difference.

3. Jason, in an attempt to dismiss the quality of my contributions to the Mountain Meadows Massacre conversation, claimed he had been the first person to bring up blood atonement. In fact, I was the first to bring it up on June 11, post 15 on the Brigham MMM thread. Integrity demands an apology.

Indeed, you said the words: "...blood atonement..." in post 15, but did not define what that even meant. I then asked if anyone knew what it was in post 30, gave a rough definition of it in post 32, gave a reference in post 34 to back up what I said in post 32, and gave an actual full sermon quote of it in post 39.

Now who owes whom an apology?

[Guest Yediyd]

OK kids!!!! Back to your corners!!!!!!

[BenRaines]

Lets stop the personal attacks on all sides. If one wants to outline why they feel justified one way and the other wants to outline what is standard research technique I have no problem with that but the personal attacks are to stop.

Any further and posts may be put on moderator review.

Ben Raines

[Outshined]

Wow; I was just gone a few days, but it looks like I missed some drama...

[Guest Yediyd]

Wow; I was just gone a few days, but it looks like I missed some drama...

You can catch up on it by reading the thread: Brigham Young a murderer,Huh?

My bad...I started it.

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

So, Jason, you didn’t care for my satire? I sure had fun writing it.

If you wish, I would like to continue the debate. However, I will only continue if we use what is called “The Question,” format. I think an example of this concept is the best way to explain how it would benefit both of us:

To illustrate how inadequate my knowledge of the MMM was, you insisted you were the first person to bring up “blood atonement” in the discussion, as it is crucial to comprehending the reason for the massacre. I corrected you and explained I had been the first to mention it. Your response:

“You mentioned "blood atonement" in post 15. Great. But you didn't explain what it even was. That was me who did that.”

Your token acknowledgement that I had mentioned BA first was noted. But notice, you couldn’t leave it at that. In an effort to make me look bad, and probably you look good, you diverted the discussion and actually changed “The Question.“ which was “Who was the first person to mention BA in the MMM discussion?” If you can’t stay on “The Question,” you can’t have an honest debate.

So, what should you have done?

First, you should have seriously answered “The Question.” When I proved to you that I had been the first to mention BA, your response should have been something to the effect of: “You you are right. I apologize for not verifying my information before writing it on the board.”

Better still, but certainly not required, you could have said, “I found your mention of blood atonement intriguing and decided to actually take the time to read your posts. I discovered you understand the MMM much more than I originally thought you did. So I also apologize for my harsh comments.”

(Yeah, right, like that’s gonna happen!)

Anyway, do you see how it is important to stay on “The Question.“ When you do that, debates can usually be discussed without rancor, obfuscation, and especially without diversion. There is no need for straw men, and the discussion usually has more depth than deceit.

So let‘s say you had actually written what I suggested, which is 1, acknowledged your error, and 2, apologized. What should you do now given that you actually did want to discuss BA in more depth, which I believe you really did.

You should have composed and proposed a new “The Question.”

For example, you inappropriate response to me continued with: “I gave a source (Jodi vol. 4) and then, realizing that might not be enough, found Grant's sermon and quoted it in full (with reference provided at the top of the post.)

“So while you casually mentioned the words "blood atonement" it was left to me to explain what that meant and reference it. “

Based on your comments, “The Question” could have been directed at me about “blood atonement,” because you and I disagree fairly strongly about it. In fact, in the thread I was at first supportive of you as many members were disagreeing with you, claiming BA played no part. But as the thread went on, I felt your obsession with BA was distracting from the complexity of MMM; that’s why I started the new “The Reformation” thread.

So, you could have written me a “The Question” comment, to which I would have had to answer directly, or refused to answer. I could have disagreed with you, at which point, I would have then answered another “The Question.” But your “The Question,” would need to have been resolved, or “agreed to disagree,” first.

It is more difficult when the questions cannot be answered with yes or no answers. But with a little practice, I think you might enjoy your debates more thoroughly.

Make sense?

So, with that in mind, I propose that you and I try the following “The Question” format, and see if you can follow the exercise. If you can, perhaps future provocative, illustrative and enjoyable debates will ensue. If not, c’est la vie. I have a “The Question” ready if you’d like to try. You let me know.

Emma

P.S. An explanation is in order. I sold my publishing company seven years ago when I became disabled. This is why my stylebooks are in storage. Jason made a condescending remark about them; however, I don’t blame him because he did not know this. Just an FYI.

[Guest Yediyd]

Oh yeah, Outshined..I forgot...this got drawn out in, "the Refomation" thread too.

[Palerider]

I think if you read Ben Raines earlier post all your questions are answered.....