Difference between revisions of "Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows/Use of sources/Bishop Philip Klingensmith"

m
 
(17 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
__NOTOC__
+
{{Main Page}}
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
+
{{H1
|title=[[../../]]
+
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows/Use of sources/Bishop Philip Klingensmith
|author=Will Bagley
+
|H=Use of sources: The testimony of Bishop Philip Klingensmith
|noauthor=
+
|T=[[../../]]
|section=[[../../Use of sources|Use of sources]], Bishop Philip Klingensmith
+
|A=Will Bagley
|previous=
+
}}
|next=
+
<!-- INSERT CHART HERE -->
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
+
<onlyinclude>
 +
{{H2
 +
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows/Use of sources/Bishop Philip Klingensmith
 +
|H=Use of sources: The testimony of Bishop Philip Klingensmith
 +
|S=
 +
|L1=Question: How reliable is the testimony of Bishop Philip Klingensmith with regard to the Mountain Meadows Massacre?
 
}}
 
}}
  
Line 13: Line 18:
 
* Critics often use the testimony of (former) Bishop Philip Klingensmith on the Massacre.
 
* Critics often use the testimony of (former) Bishop Philip Klingensmith on the Massacre.
  
===Source(s) of the criticism===
+
{{:Question: How reliable is the testimony of Bishop Philip Klingensmith with regard to the Mountain Meadows Massacre?}}
* {{CriticalWork:Bagley:Blood of the Prophets|pages=178}}
 
* {{CriticalWork:Denton:American Massacre|pages=216}}
 
 
 
 
 
==Response==
 
One reviewer discussed the problems with this witness:
 
 
 
:How good is Klingensmith's testimony?...upon cross-examination during the first Lee trial, Klingensmith admitted that whatever passed between Lee and Young about the massacre was outside his hearing. His testimony was so worthless that U.S. District Attorney Sumner Howard declined to recall Klingensmith for the second trial.  Klingensmith also admitted to participating in the massacre. He turned state's evidence before Lee's first trial in exchange for a grant of immunity. He gave his testimony as a disillusioned apostate. Thus his 6 October 1857 account is very suspect, even without Young's denial."{{ref|klingensmith.1}}
 
  
  
==Endnotes==
+
{{Critical sources box:Specific works/Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows/Use of sources/Bishop Philip Klingensmith/CriticalSources}}
#{{note|klingensmith.1}} {{FR-15-2-11}} <!--Crockett on Bagley-->
+
{{endnotes sources}}
  
=Further reading=
 
{{FAIRAnalysisWiki}}
 
[[Category:Mountain Meadows Massacre|Reviews]]
 
  
[[fr:Specific works/Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows/Use of sources/Bishop Philip Klingensmith]]
+
<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
 +
[[Category:Mountain Meadows Massacre]]

Latest revision as of 13:16, 1 May 2024

Use of sources: The testimony of Bishop Philip Klingensmith



Use of sources: The testimony of Bishop Philip Klingensmith


Jump to details:

The problem

  • Critics often use the testimony of (former) Bishop Philip Klingensmith on the Massacre.


Question: How reliable is the testimony of Bishop Philip Klingensmith with regard to the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Klingensmith's testimony was considered to be worthless at the time of the trial

Critics often use the testimony of (former) Bishop Philip Klingensmith on the Massacre. One reviewer discussed the problems with this witness:

How good is Klingensmith's testimony?...upon cross-examination during the first Lee trial, Klingensmith admitted that whatever passed between Lee and Young about the massacre was outside his hearing. His testimony was so worthless that U.S. District Attorney Sumner Howard declined to recall Klingensmith for the second trial. Klingensmith also admitted to participating in the massacre. He turned state's evidence before Lee's first trial in exchange for a grant of immunity. He gave his testimony as a disillusioned apostate. Thus his 6 October 1857 account is very suspect, even without Young's denial." [1]



Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources

Notes

  1. Robert D. Crockett, "A Trial Lawyer Reviews Will Bagley's Blood of the Prophets," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 199–254. off-site