Comments on: Utah Historical Quarterly: Utah War Issue

By: Ivan Wolfe

Ivan Wolfe — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:40:37 +0000

Will Bagely’s post almost proves Ardis’s point.

But I agree with #19. Whenever Bagely comes on the blogs to get self-righteously indignant, it’s become a yawner.

Other than that, this post convinced me I need to read the Utah Historical Quarterly more often.

By: Nate Oman

Nate Oman — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:53:09 +0000

Will: I haven’t read Bigler’s UHQ article, but I read and enjoyed his book _Forgotten Kingdom_, which in many ways is a wonderful study of the Utah conflict. Despite that book’s virtues, however, it has the flaws that Ardis ascribes to Bigler’s UHQ article, namely an insistance on understanding federal motives only in the rosiest possible terms and seeing Mormon actions in the blackest. Bigler’s work is a useful supplement to Mormon histories that too often present federal officials as cartoon bigots motivated by nothing but irrational hatred of God’s truth. Too often, however, Bigler’s interpretive framework feels like a 1950s Western movie, with virtuous feds protecting the God-fearing settlers from Indians and other savages (i.e. Mormons). Reading the book I kept imagining Robert Baskin played by Henry Fonda. (On this front, Bigler’s sympathetic portrayal of federal officials can be usefully compared with Sally Gordon’s treatment of some of the same actors, which in many ways is equally sympathetic but is much more nuanced and has less of the matinee white-hats-black-hats feel.)

There are Mormons who have a knee-jerk reaction to any history of Mormonism that differs from what they learned in junior Sunday school. On the other hand, to mistake Ardis for this particular creature is just plain silly.

By: Kaimi Wenger

Kaimi Wenger — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 07:51:45 +0000

Peter,

Huh?

Ardis’s post mentioned that “Johnston’s Army” is an outdated name for the war. She’s not applying those terms to anyone’s work. She’s not saying “Smith’s research is outdated” or “Jones’ work is parochial.”

Instead, she says,

“This war (you may be more familiar with it under its outdated parochial name of â€œJohnstonâ€™s Armyâ€) should be of interest to any Mormon interested in our 19th century history; its importance extends far beyond Utah history.”

You follow up with a bizarre comment accusing her of making “charges” that “fall short of civility” in that sentence.

Who exactly is she charging, Peter? And with what?

By: Kirk Reid

Kirk Reid — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 02:42:48 +0000

#9 Thanks for those recommendations Mark B.

By: Costanza

Costanza — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:41:57 +0000

Regarding the Ardis/Will discussion I have but one response: YAWN. Haven’t we seen this movie before?

By: just me

just me — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:57:16 +0000

Now we know what witnessers to the animus between Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin must have experienced! lol (Between Ardis and Will, which becomes beloved by the French and which joins the Rat Pack?)

By: Peter LLC

Peter LLC — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:44:33 +0000

Charges of â€œirrational responsesâ€ and â€œcharacter assassinationâ€ and â€œslanderâ€ fall somewhat short of civility.

Funny; I was just thinking the same thing about charges like “outdated” and “parochial.”

By: Ardis Parshall

Ardis Parshall — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:58:36 +0000

Will, we agreed to be civil to each other in public. Charges of “irrational responses” and “character assassination” and “slander” fall somewhat short of civility.

By: Rick

Rick — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:10:40 +0000

Thank you, Ardis. I always appreciate your writing. Years ago I bought a book titled something like: Dan Jones: Mormon Raider. It was a disappointment, but I have wondered if there is a better treament. Do you know of anything like that?

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 05:10:49 +0000

I finally wandered into the next room and saw that I misspelled Fischer’s name. Thanks to just me for getting it right.

And, thank Ardis. I’ll look for it.