What was the right path to take?

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Relying on original sources can often lead you to better evidence. As a history student I often found that by reading original journals of people that lived through an event were more correct than a history written by an author 300 years removed from the event. I can see your point in the scientific fields, but it is not always the case when dealing with filtered history. The maxim that "history is written by the victors" is often sadly the case. A good example of this is the diary of Anne Frank; without the diary we would have less information and only the story that the surviving father could provide. There was a lot that was going on in her life that her father was not aware of. That gives us further insight and leads us to further original sources.

There are other examples that I could point out, but I think this one makes my point.

 

I am not sure you understand collaborating empirical evidence.  So I will provide an example - Lets say someone wrote in a personal journal (at the very time) that they were held captive by the Mormons in Salt Lake City but escaped by jumping out of a window in the Mormon temple into the Great Salt Lake.  The empirical evidence indicates that the Great Salt Lake at the time was several miles from the Mormon temple making the jump a fabrication and false account.  My point is (and this is especially important when there are conflicting sources) - the greater truth will always be more likely with the source that is backed by collaborating empirical evidence.

I do not consider myself a historian or an archeologists.  But I have visited many historical places and archeological sites or digs.  Last year I spend time in Israel visiting historical sites.  It became very obvious that many traditional places claiming to be historical places of importance - are in reality, fabrications.   Many are extremely poor fabrication even though the sources of the claims are much closer by thousands of years to my visit.

We (myself and many others) have also learned by sad experience, and the activities of someone known as Mark Hoffman, that forgeries are possible making positive identification of sources (like journals and letters) much more difficult for even experts in a particular field - especially documents and journal entries concerning the "Mormons".

My advice to you and everybody studying history - if there is little or no collaborating empirical evidence - be skeptical and regard the source as most likely flawed.   If there are conflicting sources - go with the source with the most collaborating empirical evidences - if collaborating empirical evidence is of the same extent then consider the earlier source - but to go strictly on the earliest source is an easy ticket for a forger like Mark Hoffman.

 

The Traveler

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

19 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I am not sure you understand collaborating empirical evidence.  So I will provide an example - Lets say someone wrote in a personal journal (at the very time) that they were held captive by the Mormons in Salt Lake City but escaped by jumping out of a window in the Mormon temple into the Great Salt Lake.  The empirical evidence indicates that the Great Salt Lake at the time was several miles from the Mormon temple making the jump a fabrication and false account.  My point is (and this is especially important when there are conflicting sources) - the greater truth will always be more likely with the source that is backed by collaborating empirical evidence.

I do not consider myself a historian or an archeologists.  But I have visited many historical places and archeological sites or digs.  Last year I spend time in Israel visiting historical sites.  It became very obvious that many traditional places claiming to be historical places of importance - are in reality, fabrications.   Many are extremely poor fabrication even though the sources of the claims are much closer by thousands of years to my visit.

We (myself and many others) have also learned by sad experience, and the activities of someone known as Mark Hoffman, that forgeries are possible making positive identification of sources (like journals and letters) much more difficult for even experts in a particular field - especially documents and journal entries concerning the "Mormons".

My advice to you and everybody studying history - if there is little or no collaborating empirical evidence - be skeptical and regard the source as most likely flawed.   If there are conflicting sources - go with the source with the most collaborating empirical evidences - if collaborating empirical evidence is of the same extent then consider the earlier source - but to go strictly on the earliest source is an easy ticket for a forger like Mark Hoffman.

 

The Traveler

Oh my gosh, my side hurts from laughing. Yes, collaborative evidence is important too. LOL

[pwrfrk]

Estradling(sp?) and Emmanuel(sp?), you two serve this thread poorly.  It's not here for an argument, but polite discussion.  If you can't do that then bow out.

On 8/12/2018 at 2:59 PM, Vort said:

Institutionally? Zero.

Why and why not?

 

[Vort]

8 hours ago, pwrfrk said:

On 8/12/2018 at 1:59 PM, Vort said:

Institutionally? Zero.

Why and why not?

None of the offshoot institutions will willingly tell their members, "We're wrong, the Utah church is right, go join them." And even if they did, they would in effect cease to exist.

[wenglund]

On 8/13/2018 at 9:40 AM, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Calling it "the succession crisis" is not very accurate. There was no crisis, there were those who accepted Brigham and there were those who apostatized, that's it.

I think Sidney Rigdon was in crisis, but beyond that, the succession was relatively uneventful, if not profoundly obvious, for the vast majority of members. 

A good account of the succession is in the History of the Church, Vol 7, particularly Chapter 18 and 19.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, wenglund said:

 the succession was relatively uneventful, if not profoundly obvious, for the vast majority of members. 

I've read the same thing. 

[wenglund]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I've read the same thing. 

I should note that a "professional historian, Ronald W. Walker, disagrees with us in his BYU Studies article on, "Six Days in August: Brigham Young and the Succession Crisis of 1844. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, wenglund said:

I should note that a "professional historian, Ronald W. Walker, disagrees with us in his BYU Studies article on, "Six Days in August: Brigham Young and the Succession Crisis of 1844. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Right, and I'm hardly an expert on the issue. Just read a few things here or there. 

[estradling75]

9 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I should note that a "professional historian, Ronald W. Walker, disagrees with us in his BYU Studies article on, "Six Days in August: Brigham Young and the Succession Crisis of 1844. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Indeed understanding that there are other takes on History, other ways to understand, and interpret the data.  Allows us to better prepare for and understand why people might have issues that we do not.

 

[Vort]

26 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

28 minutes ago, wenglund said:

 the succession was relatively uneventful, if not profoundly obvious, for the vast majority of members. 

I've read the same thing. 

My understanding is almost opposite -- that the body of the Church did not know who to turn to when the Prophet was murdered. There may have been some who worried more than others, but on the whole, I think "crisis" is a perfectly valid word to use to describe the state of the leadership question at the Prophet's death.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

My understanding is almost opposite -- that the body of the Church did not know who to turn to when the Prophet was murdered. There may have been some who worried more than others, but on the whole, I think "crisis" is a perfectly valid word to use to describe the state of the leadership question at the Prophet's death.

Oh, you might be right. Like I mentioned, I'm hardly an expert on it.