Without further ado, let's begin the story.
Some here will remember the young scholar named Tom Murphy, who was notable for his criticism of the Lamanite DNA theory. Rather like the more recent case of Simon Southerton, Murphy was attacked---ad hominem for his views. Here, for instance, was the opening salvo of a ZLMB thread, entitled (tellingly) "More on Disingenuous Murphy", started by Confidential Informant [note: On ZLMB, CI used the nom de guerre "Pentatach1"]:
Confidential Informant wrote:If you haven't heard, Tom Murphy gave his presentation at UVSC this past week. Quite a performance too, he had to have his publicist, his financial backer and his wife, bail him out. -- But that is beside the point.
Take careful note of the way CI is setting everything up here---painting Murphy as someone desperately in need of protection. We will examine later just how accurate CI (who is now notable as the attorney who represented Allen Wyatt in the recent Tanner lawsuit) is being here.
Confidential Informant wrote:At his presentation, he repeatedly complained that his positon was being misrepresented by FARMS et. al. In light of this complaint, I found the following interesting:
Murphy PowerPoint Presentation [Mr. S's note: on the original thread, this was a link to a website which is now defunct. Sadly, it is now impossible to check up on CI's claims.]
This link takes you to a presentation that Murphy gives about the Book of Mormon, racism, etc. On the second to the last page, just prior to the Suggested readings, we find a photo of a very distinguished looking gentleman named Larry Echohawk, the former Attorney General of Idaho and a Native American. Accompanying this photo, we find the following quote:
:“Only one thing I don’t understand,” he grins. “It [the Book of Mormon] says we’ll be a white and delightsome people someday. I like the color I am. In fact, I don’t know any Indian who wants to change.”
I cannot help but wonder about the dialog tag, "he grins," here. Why, if the text was accompanying a photo, would Murphy have added the tag? I can only come to the conclusion that this was a result of CI's finagling. In any case, the OP continues:
Confidential Informant wrote:In context, the slide is clearly meant to appear as if Mr. Echohawk supports the ideas that Murphy has espoused. This, however, is untrue. Moreover, Murphy has done violence to his source. The full quote, in context, reads,
:'For an Indian looking for pride, the Book of Mormon was a wonderful experience,' he remembers. 'It was really an uplift to me.' The pride in heritage that his parents taught him, his experience going to Brigham Young University, and especially his research into Indian law at law school completed the process. 'Only one thing I don't understand,' he grins. 'It says we'll be a white and delightsome people someday. I like the color I am. In fact, I don't know any Indian who wants to change.'"
This omission is interesting for several reasons. First, it shows how disingenuous Mr. Murphy is. Second, it clearly shows that not all Native Americans believe the Book of Mormon is "robbing" them of their history (another favorite claim of Murphy -- or at least his wife).
Huh? Does Confidential Informant know how to read? The primary beef Echohawk has with Mormonism's history claims lies in the "white and delightsome" issue! I find it further interesting that half of this supposedly "disingenuous" omission is apparently the work of someone operating under official Church direction, and not a direct quote from Echohawk. (In other words, CI is implicitly espousing a Church takeover of Echohawk's words.) The OP goes on:
CI wrote:Some othe problems, the photo he used is the property of the State of Idaho and I don't see any indications that Murphy has used it with permission.
Finally, since I happen to know Mr. Echohawk, I showed all of this to him. Needless to say, he was less than pleased at Mr. Murphy's use of his image and his abuse of the quote in question.
Maybe Mr. Murphy would like to explain/defend himself on this issue. More likely, however, we will get an explanation/defense from one of the people who stepped up to defend him at the UVSC conference.
Thus, the gauntlet was thrown down. This was, I think we can all agree, quite a ruthless attack by CI. But, as you will see, this was only the beginning.
A bit further on, CI, apparently oblivious to studies in race and ethnicity, makes a rather racist response to a witty comment from Cinepro:
CI wrote:Cinepro wrote:I can't help but wonder what Brother Echohawk's feelings are going to be when his skin starts turning lighter.
Pent: Assuming that is the correct interpretation of the verse (a question that is still open, but please, don't argue that on this thread, start another one) probably not much since Professor Echohawk's skin is not discernably darker than anyone elses. In fact, unless you knew he was an Indian I doubt you'd really notice the difference, as he is of a very light complexion. If anything, you might assume he was of mediterranean descent.
This is problematic, since it neatly oversteps the ethnic pride that Prof. Echohawk was clearly espousing. CI squashes this into the dust, in effect saying, "Ah, well, your ethnicity is no big deal. It's all just an issue of skin color, and since you are practically white anyhow, I'm sure you won't mind."
A bit further on, we get this interesting nugget from "FreeThinker" (aka Daniel C. Peterson):
FreeThinker wrote:Murphy's out-of-context use of Professor Echohawk's comment does indeed seem more than a little disingenous, though.
I find this interesting since it so neatly prefaces the Good Professor's own mis-use of sources in his recent articles, "The Witchcraft Paradigm," and "Apologetics by the Numbers." Does he regard himself as "more than a little disingenous [sic]", I wonder? (Another interesting sidenote is that, while using the "FreeThinker" moniker, DCP made more errors in spelling, perhaps because he felt "safe" using the pseudonym.)
Next, we get this curio from The Wrong-Headed Wench herself:
(emphasis added)juliann wrote:That is pretty disgusting. Is he running out of Indians who want to join him in his assault on their creation myths? Has he made any progress in convincing them that they all wandered in from Asia and their ancient beliefs are as silly as those Mormons?
But then he is still spreading false accusations against people who he insists sent things to his Stake President. It's hard to keep up with this guy's research.
It is a rare treat to go to a stuffy academic conference and hear raucous laughter emanating from the next room. A non-LDS professor of religion asked the poor man if she could sell him some Amway after his lame explanation of why he is assisting a fundamentalist ministry. No wonder his wife had to join in to help. What a spectacle.
Take careful note of this bolded portion. Ask yourself: How did juliann know what a woman in a completely different room had asked Tom Murphy? This will be crucial later on. What followed was some more smirking from DCP, and then finally, this interjection from our very own beloved Dr. Shades:
Dr. Shades wrote:Pentatach1 wrote: "If you haven't heard, Tom Murphy gave his presentation at UVSC this past week. Quite a performance too, he had to have his publicist, his financial backer and his wife, bail him out."
Well, that's what you say, but is that an accurate representation of the day's events? Were you actually there at the conference, or did you just hear about it from someone? And, due to your placement of commas (a comma after "wife" but not "backer"), are we to infer that his publicist, his financial backer, and his wife are all the same person?
Come to think of it, I wondered the same things myself.... Shades continues:
Dr. Shades wrote:Juliann wrote: "That is pretty disgusting."
juliann wrote:Is he running out of Indians who want to join him in his assault on their creation myths?"
Since when is the Book of Mormon one of the Native Americans' organic (for lack of a better word) creation myths?
juliann wrote:Has he made any progress in convincing them that they all wandered in from Asia and their ancient beliefs are as silly as those Mormons?"
Is that his stated aim? And, on a purely rhetorical basis, which is better: Destroying a false belief and replacing it with another false belief, or destroying a false belief and replacing it with the truth?
juliann wrote:But then he is still spreading false accusations against people who he insists sent things to his Stake President."
How do you know?
juliann wrote:"It's hard to keep up with this guy's research."
Didn't he just lay it out for you during his UVSC presentation?
juliann wrote:"It is a rare treat to go to a stuffy academic conference and hear raucous laughter emanating from the next room."
I'm sorry to hear that Murphy's presentation was a stuffy academic one. What were the raucously laughing people in the next room laughing at, and did the attendees of Murphy's presentation find it distracting? (And for that matter, what do the goings-on in the next room have to do with Murphy?)
juliann wrote:"A non-LDS professor of religion asked the poor man if she could sell him some Amway after his lame explanation of why he is assisting a fundamentalist ministry."
What does Amway have to do with Murphy assisting a fundamentalist ministry?
juliann wrote:"No wonder his wife had to join in to help. What a spectacle."
In what way did his wife join in to help?
The plot thickens, and we head ever-deeper down the rabbit hole. But we are still missing one of the major players: Jan. Dear, sweet, innocent Jan, who later went on to play a starring role in the Pundits Forum Fiasco (using the Mod mask "Oreos"). She is, and was, likable, and it seems that she was merely trying to help out her friends. The problem is that she picked some pretty crummy people to be friends with. Here are her first couple of posts from the thread:
Jan wrote:He didn't use a "Baby Autumn" myth in his recent UVSC presentation. The advertised title of his presentation was "On Being a Mormon Anthropologist." I didn't learn much about that - it mostly consisted of a quite un-acadmic response to FARMS. Not that there is a problem per se with that - problem is, this was supposed to be an academic presentation - which it most definitely wasn't. In addition to Dr. Murphy fielding his questions, he also permitted his wife, his publiscist, and Brent Metcalf to answer when he seemingly couldn't.
In no other presentation during the 2 day conference or in any other academic conference which I've ever attended, have audience members answered questions on behalf of the presenter. Strange. Very strange indeed.
Oh, Shades. You should have been there. Or were you there? I didn't see you and your post seems to have some unwarranted assumptions.
To this last bit, Dr. Shades replied that he was merely asking a few questions. Later, we get a bit more information from juliann, who reveals some more about how and why she seems to be privy to such apparently exclusive knowledge:
(emphasis added)juliann wrote:The conference was running concurrent sessions, so all I heard was the howls of laughter....and reports from the stunned observers. We were treated to a very detailed transcription of this Galileo Event. It appears his planets are colliding, however. He had a real live scientist telling him to stop the condescension.
Again (and I know this is getting complicated), please pay very careful attention to the material I've bolded, as it is absolutely crucial. A bit further on, Shades solicits more clarification:
Dr. Shades wrote:juliann wrote: "A non-LDS professor of religion asked the poor man if she could sell him some Amway after his lame explanation of why he is assisting a fundamentalist ministry. No wonder his wife had to join in to help. What a spectacle. [snip!] Well, Mark....I was in the next room."
Okay, let me see if I have this straight: You somehow know it was a "spectacle," even though you weren't actually in the room to witness it.
Do I have that right?
Dr. Shades forgets to also thank Jan for introducing him to "FreeThinker":
Dr. Shades wrote:(By the way, Jan: Thanks for introducing me to Dr. Peterson. We were able to enjoy an extremely pleasant face-to-face chat a few weeks later.)
It just so happens that, through no fault of his own, Shades was a long, long ways from getting it "right." Here is Jan, with more of the details:
jan wrote:Tom Kimball was introduced as Murphy's publicist when he answered a question from Professor McDannell to Dr. Murphy and she wanted to know who he was. Brent Metcalf was referred to as "Book of Mormon Scholar Brent Metcalfe" by Dr. Murphy and he too jumped in and answered a question directed to Murphy when Murphy wasn't able to answer it right away. I believe that is who Pent is referring to as a financial backer (since, IIRC, Metcalf admitted here to providing some sort of financial support to Murphy via a donation to M.S.S. - or something like that). And thirdly, a woman who was probably Murphy's wife, jumped in and made a couple of comments during questions by others directed to Murphy.
I don't know about you, but I am grateful that Jan is at least admitting that they're not sure whether this was actually his wife or not. Boy, this is really beginning to seem like a smear campaign, isn't it? (At least on the part of CI and juliann---and, for that matter, DCP, with his smart alecky asides such as this:
Is anyone still buying his claims about not wanting to smear Mike Quinn???)FreeThinker wrote:On reflection, I can't see why there is any puzzlement about Murphy's assistants.
Major politicians typically travel with a sizeable entourage.
Does Murphy have a personal valet, as well? I'm a big fan of P. G. Wodehouse's stories about Jeeves and Wooster.
Jan's comment, however, does not seem to sink in with juliann, who just cannot keep her big yap shut:
juliann wrote:The issue is not who he travels with. The issue is who speaks for him at academic conferences. I have been to so many lectures that I have lost count. I have never, never seen (or heard of) a scholar's wife piping up in the middle of one. Evidently this is common place for the academic lectures you attend...? Can you reference one?
Two things worth noting: A) the way she brags about how many lectures she's been to, and B) her insistence, despite Jan's clarification (and let's not forget that Jan seems to have been the only person in attendance) that it was, in fact, Murphy's wife who was "answering questions for him." She ought to be more careful! Sadly, some people never learn:
(emphasis added)juliann wrote:FreeThinker wrote: The most substantive matter, in my opinion, is Murphy's apparent misrepresentation, even abuse, of Professor Echohawk.
Since Murphy & Co. appeal to truth, honesty and the Native American way...it is beyond appalling that he would stoop to deception. His inexplicable defamation of Lou Midgley in the middle of an *academic* conference is just about as bad.
Wow! Where did that come from?!? You would think that Jan or CI would have mentioned something a explosive as that! Sure juliann is just inventing things whole cloth.... Or is she?
Let's press on: a bit further on, Shades asks her about this new Midgley business:
Dr. Shades wrote:What did Murphy say about Midgley? And how do you know it qualified as "defamation," since you weren't there?
juliann wrote:Shades, get a grip. There is a transcription of the lecture. You know...like those court reporter kind of people that take notes in courtroom proceedings? Then you can read it? And no...I'm not posting it.
Does anyone else wonder why she is so unwilling to post it? I sure do!
Dr. Shades wrote:So did you find out about the supposed "defamation" by reading the transcript? And if so, did you read it on the Internet or in hard copy? If you read it on the Internet, why won't you provide a link? If you read the hard copy, why not just transcribe the relevant portion?
This is beginning to remind me of rcrocket's butchered Mountain Meadows Massacre quote.... Next juliann supplies this vague, somewhat evasive response:
juliann wrote:Let's see. I heard about it from the man he defamed. I heard about it from people who were there minutes after it occurred. I read it in the transcript. And there is more but that is really all you need to know.
Come now, let us see the transcript, juliann!
Dr. Shades wrote:[Y]ou say you "heard about it from the man he defamed." Are you implying that Midgley was in Murphy's audience, and Murphy went ahead and lit into him anyway?
After this, juliann finally did cough up a link. But, if you are thinking that it was a link to this mysterious "transcript" (which is beginning to seem a lot like the apocryphal "2nd Watson Letter"), you are dead wrong (or you don't know enough about juliann). Instead, all she supplied was a link to "schedules and fliers." Gee, why do you suppose she did this?
juliann wrote:I gave you the link so that you could get the information from the organizers, Shades. I can see from your response that getting an accurate account is not exactly your agenda right now.
Now, to pause for a bit, (and to introduce another character in this farce), here is a posting from "rchivist," who shows up to support juliann, and to explain the bit about Midgley [note: this is worth mentioning if for no other reason than the fact that the thread took a bit of a diversion off into a discussion about Midgley/Murphy squabble]:
rchivist wrote:In all that I was personally involved in, Juliann's account is totally accurate. In what I heard related to me by those who were present at Murphy's presentation (at least 5 people), including those who transcribed it, Juliann's account is accurate. [emphasis added: once again, keep a close eye on this "transcript."]
I like Midgley, he's a cool guy. Had a very nice time talking and sitting with him through a couple of presentations. He is definitely passionate about his faith. As I've stated elsewhere on the board, Midgley specifically denies sending Murphy's stuff to Murphy's SP. Murphy knows this as Midgley told him himself and as related to me by Brother Midgley he was willing to consider the possibility it was someone else at that time. I don't see what's so complicated to remember about "I didn't do it"..."Okay, then who did?" Pretty straightforward conversation.
Dr. Murphy continues to present it as fact in public for little reason as far as I can tell save to injure Bro. Midgley. I really don't think Midgley would care about it being known if he had actually sent it. I don't see any reason, knowing his disposition toward Murphy and others he views as apostate, for him to lie about this. He certainly wasn't shy about it at the conference.
A bit further on, juliann makes a snippy reply to our own, newly revealed Gadianton, who had questioned the accuracy of Midgley's reportage:
juliann wrote:Gadianton wrote:Beyond that, from what I've read of Midgley's obviously inflated online boasts of trekking down to the Tanner Book store to school Sandra on such inane topics as the definition of a Christian, my confidence in his ability to collectively recount his opponents arguments against him in other contexts wavers even more.
Whatever. What does that have to do with an accusation ....witnessed by mulitple people, taped and transcribed....made by Murphy in the middle of an academic lecture? You are denying this statement was made as well?
Gee, wouldn't it make everything a whole, WHOLE lot easier if someone would simply post---or provide a link to---this transcript?
Now, get this---a very ironic and prescient comment:
juliann wrote:FreeThinker wrote:Murphy took a statement by Larry Echohawk out of context, thus grossly misrepresenting Professor Echohawk's position in order to advance his own agenda.
Juliann: This is what caught my attention....why would he need to manufacture support for what he claims is such a valid position?
An excellent question, and, it turns out, there is no one better suited to answer it then.... (drum roll) juliann herself. But we'll have to wait for the full unveiling of this. Meanwhile, here is Pentatach1/CI gloating about the "evidence":
CI wrote:In all, this appears to have been a very, very bad week for the Murphster.
First, he get's embarrassed at a academic conference, forcing his publicist, his wife and his pet yorkie to defend him, then, in the space of just a few hours, het get's two letters accusing him of blatent misrepresentation and dishonesty, at least one of them amply supported by the available evidence.
Yeah, except the "available evidence" was supplied by.... Lou Midgley and Juliann Reynolds. Keep trying, counselor.
Finally, we get Dr. Shades, who helpfully attempts to clarify this whole mess:
Dr. Shades wrote:Just for the record, let's clarify something.
Neither Rchivist nor Juliann were in the room for Dr. Murphy's presentation.
Rchivist and Juliann both claim that the people who reported the goings-on claimed to be accurately reporting said goings-on. In other words, we know that Rchivist's and Juliann's sources are reliable because, well, the sources said so.
How about Jan? Were you actually, physically in the room as well, or did you, too, hear about the goings-on secondhand?
It seems that, at base, what we have here is a bunch of people--CI, juliann, rchivist, and possibly Jan---attempting to smear Murphy based on second-hand accounts. Or is it? It would be easy to clarify, if only we had access to this "transcript" that juliann keeps mentioning. But let's press on!
Intriguingly, despite the constant attacks on Tom Murphy for the fact that (supposedly) people were "answering questions" for him, juliann goes ahead and does just that for her pal Jan:
juliann wrote:Shades, Shades, Shades...not very impressive evasive maneuvering. Asked and answered.
(For the record, I never saw a clear answer to this. The whole discussion seems to hinge---once again---on this mysterious "transcript.")
Here is rchivist, chiming in:
When 5 or more independent sources say the same things, do you really think they are lying or misrepresenting what was said?
And here is "slithy"
slithy wrote:I saw Jan with my physical eyes in the room during the presentation. She even remembers who was sitting where.
And here is Jan herself:
Jan wrote:Hey Shades - I think I already said I was there. Did you forget or just making some sort of point? (Or maybe you missed it.)
Once again, helpfully, like the eye at the center of a hurricane, Shades steps in:
Dr. Shades wrote:Did all 5 independent sources verify this independently--i.e., alone and at different times--or were they all together merely nodding their heads while one spokesperson talked?
You see, I have been taught that eyewitness testimony is to be automatically discounted if it doesn't jibe with what one expects. Specifically, recently I posted firsthand testimony (secondhand to all of you) from the Tanners themselves that Midgley's version of the bookstore fiasco did not correspond with reality. I was then taught by several people here that even though they were eyewitnesses, the Tanners were unreliable.
Therefore, certainly the rest of you will be just as skeptical of these "eyewitnesses" as you were of the Tanners--won't you?
Right away, at least one "testimony" gets tainted. Here is Kevin Winters:
Rchivist was there for part of the presentation (but got there late); Jan was physically present (along with our very own Sharon) and taking extensive notes on Murphy's presentation (as was Sharon). Juliann and I got an extensive 're-creation' of the event the following day by both Jan and Sharon, notes in hand.
Thus, it seems that the entire interpretation of Prof. Murphy's presentation depends quite heavily upon Jan and her notes. (As to where the transcript has gone to at this point.... Who knows?)
Next, the waters are muddied further by "rchivist":
(emphasis added)rchivist wrote:Kevin is right on everything except for me, I came in late to another earlier presentation, not this one.
Using your conditions, I got at least 3 independent confirmations IIRC. I will not pretend to total recall, I was one of the few that was not taking notes at all so I may be confusing when people mentioned this to me and who was present. I do know some took very detailed notes. If you are really concerned about accuracy, why not verify this with Murphy himself or Brent.
Wow... The accuracy of these accounts just continues to crumble!
(emphasis added)rchivist wrote:Midgley was not in the room for that particular presentation but both Murphy and Midgley were in the same room at other times of the conference. I do not know if Murphy knew at the time of his public comment that Midgley was there, he certainly knew later or was totally self-consumed to the point of idiocy not to notice.
Here is strike one for juliann. She has clearly and very obviously committed the graves academic sin of manipulating evidence. Make it up on your scorecards, folks. Here comes strike two:
Gadianton wrote:I don't speak for Shades here, but I'd for the most part trust notes taken by Jan and Sharon. But what about the official transcript? Did you guys know about that?
juliann wrote:What official transcript? All sessions I attended had the guy with the black box. All that has been said is that some people transcribed the session and that it was recorded.
Wow. There you have it: you saw it with your own eyes. She went from defending her interpretation of the events via this "transcript," to questioning why anyone would wonder about such a thing in the first place. Stunning! (Phoning Wade Englund re: the Bromley Fiasco. Does this change your mind at all?)
Just in case anyone has had difficultly following this sordid turn of events, Gadianton helpfully summarizes thusly:
Gadianton wrote:Shades asked how Juliann knew there was "defamation" involved in the lecture,
"What did Murphy say about Midgley? And how do you know it qualified as "defamation," since you weren't there?"
"Shades, get a grip. There is a transcription of the lecture. You know...like those court reporter kind of people that take notes in courtroom proceedings? Then you can read it? And no...I'm not posting it.
Shades's logically pursued the transcript,
"So did you find out about the supposed "defamation" by reading the transcript? And if so, did you read it on the Internet or in hard copy?"
Let's see. I heard about it from the man he defamed. I heard about it from people who were there minutes after it occurred. I read it in the transcript. And there is more but that is really all you need to know.
Now, Juliann says,
"What official transcript? All sessions I attended had the guy with the black box. All that has been said is that some people transcribed the session and that it was recorded."
No, that isn't true. Juliann has said that there not only is a transcript, but that she read it and that's part of how she knew Midgley was defamed. lol. This on top of our newest fact that midgley, the victim Juliann heard the story from first hand, wasn't even in the room!
Ouch. What a brutal evisceration of such a "top notch" Mopologists. Juliann must have been horribly embarrassed! Just to think: she was caught in the act of lying about her evidence! How horrible! I really and truly hope she has atoned for this... Oh, wait, that's right.... She manipulated evidence on the sociology of ex-Mormonism too. So much for that!
Later, we get this interjection from another TBM---the "Sharon" referred to earlier, who was a real, live attendee of the lecture:
SharonUT wrote:Hi Shades,
Thanks for the vote of confidence on the reporting of Murphy's presentation.
I believe I can verify that Juliann has read and accurately reported the events in question. I hope my saying so will be sufficient to settle this matter in your mind.
What, are they all lying? The decent, human thing to do is to want to give these folks the benefit of the doubt. To be able to trust them. Rely on them. But, I must ask, What on earth is Sharon talking about? How can juliann have possible "read" ANYTHING??? There is, after all, NO TRANSCRIPT!!! Further, since Sharon (and Pentatach, and others who have "poor recall") are obviously misrepresenting the story, how are we supposed to trust them? A further problem with Sharon's comment is that she says juliann "accurately reported the events in question," and yet what are we supposed to make of her utterly butchered account of the Midgley fiasco? What a mess.
A bit later, Jan's reliability begins to crumble:
Jan wrote:Harmony/serenity wrote: "I'd like to know what questions he couldn't/didn't answer."
I don't have my notes in front of me, so I'm going from memory here. One question that was answered for Dr. Murphy was from an anthropologist in the audience making a statement about what anthropologist do. It had to do with the text of the Book of Mormon and what the text says about where it (the Book of Mormon events) are located. Brent answered the question to Dr. Murphy after Murphy kind of started but didn't say much and kind of paused (IIRC).
Given how problematic things have been, don't you think it would have been reasonable to ask that she rely on her notes? I do! And so does Harmony:
Harmony wrote:Thanks, Jan. When you have your notes, perhaps you could give a more complete answer? I mean, from the way Pent/Juliann made it sound, there were a lot of questions that he didn't/couldn't answer, not just one.
Next, another witness---"slithy"---goes down the tubes:
slithy wrote:Edit: my notes actually say essentially nothing about this presentation. I have a couple of quotes, and that's it. So, nevermind. Ignore this post.
Holy cow... They are dropping like flies! Perhaps if there were a Dunamis-type moderator to swoop in and help them out, everything would be okay.... Hmmmm....
Next, here's Jan, dodging Harmony's question:
Jan wrote:Could you tell me what it matters (I'm out of town still and don't have my notes with me)?
I think the point was that 3 different people spoke up to answer questions for Murphy at all in a lecture at an academic setting.
What is your point in knowing what the questions are? How has the one question that I can remember helped or not helped? Can you at least elucidate on the information I did provide you at your request rather than just asking for more?
C'mon, Jan. Don't toy with us. Please. It is ever so tiresome.
What follows is another one of the immensely and endlessly useful summaries provided by Dr. Shades, who seems to have a penchant for cutting to the heart of the matter:
Dr. Shades wrote:Juliann writes:
And what also matters is whether you've actually read it or not, which you claimed to have done but which turned out to have not been the case.
"So...now I have not read it by royal decree?"
No, we know you have not read it via a careful reconstruction of the evidence, as Gadianton has pointed out.
BUT PERHAPS I'M WRONG:
Did you, Juliann, read the transcript? And NO LYING:
B. No, although I said I did.
"Can you keep your own story straight before you start telling everyone what they have done and heard?"
I have no story (if I'm wrong, please point out my story to me), so there's nothing that's not already straight. I'm merely trying to get to the bottom of this fish story.
"All this careful sifting of evidence and painstaking reconstruction of the actual events is equivalent to burying one's head in the sand?
"And you just keep digging in that shifting sand, Shades."
That doesn't answer the question, Juliann. Try again: How is all this careful sifting of evidence and painstaking reconstruction of the actual events equivalent to burying one's head in the sand?
"Bring out the lemonade and umbrellas, folks!"
"I think the point was that 3 different people spoke up to answer questions for Murphy at all in a lecture at an academic setting. "
But you said that one of those questions dealt with Book of Mormon geography, which Murphy hasn't (and to my knowledge, has never) dealt with. Sounds like people were asking Murphy side questions which had nothing to do with his presentation, so it's only natural that others would, could, and should answer them.
But to address your salient points: Yes, I can use the word "if." Perhaps Murphy did, indeed, use a picture of Echohawk without permission. If so, that was a breach of ethics. But how do we know he didn't have permission?
We hear that Murphy took Prof. Echohawk's words out of context, but we haven't heard what Murphy actually said. Does Echohawk like the color of his skin, or doesn't he? Does he "get" the part about turning white, or doesn't he? And did Murphy ever imply that Mr. Echohawk was a disbeliever in the Book of Mormon or was otherwise disenchanted with it?
We also hear that Murphy made "defamatory" comments about Midgley, but we haven't heard what Murphy actually said. Did someone ask him who set his Stake President on his trail, and Murphy respond by saying, "Well, I used to think it was Louis Midgley from FARMS, but now I'm not so sure" or something similar, and his words subsequently get blown out of proportion (like that old kid's game "telephone")?
We also hear that Murphy wasn't able to answer some questions, but we haven't heard what those questions actually were. As I pointed out, they probably had nothing to do with his area of Book of Mormon specialization, the Lamanite/DNA issue.
So it appears as though this wasn't quite the crash-and-burn event that we've been led to believe it was. It also appears that the people who have been hyping this event up the most (with comments such as "what a spectacle" and "she ended the session with a rousing cry that would have out done the suffragettes") are the very same people who were not actually in attendance. Those who were in attendance--Jan, Slithy, [who, it should be noted, did not take good notes---Mr. S.] and, to an extent, Rchivist (who arrived late)--haven't made this event seem like a dramatic occurrence at all.
By the way, Pentatach1: While we're on the subject, you yourself said it was "[q]uite a performance too" and "he repeatedly complained that his positon was being misrepresented by FARMS et. al." Were you actually in attendance? Or are you just hyping things up in Juliann-style?
A. I was physically in the room for the presentation
B. I was not physically in the room for the presentation
What comes next is Strike Three for juliann, who is dancing like a marionette at this point:
(emphasis added)juliann wrote:And of course I have read the transcription of the events. I was even in the room when it was put together. Even if I hadn't, Shades, are you going to continue to discount every single person who was there and has corroborated what was said for your benefit??
What??!!? Now there *is* a transcription after all? And she was "even in the room when it was put together"??? Huh? Does she mean, like, from a tape recording? Or is she now claiming to have been "in the room" where the "court stenographer"-type transcript was made? Curiouser and curiouser!
Here, rchivist adds his two cents:
I was even in the room when Juliann was in the room when it was put together!
Finally, after this long, drawn-out relaying of events solely from TBMs, we get an important piece of the puzzle, passed along by Brent Metcalfe to Dr. Shades:
Dr. Shades wrote:I e-mailed Brent Metcalfe to see if he had a different take on the alleged goings-on, and he was kind enough to respond, giving me permission to post his response as well. Now we can finally get to the bottom of this fish story.
What follows is the entire text of the e-mail minus his two-word opening salutation:
=====[ BEGIN QUOTE ]=====
Sorry for the delayed response -- I've been wrapping up an essay for publication, and otherwise occupied.
I haven't followed ZLMB closely for some time. My brief skim of the thread on Tom felt like a stroll through the _Twilight Zone_. A few salient points follow.
---- On Tom's alleged finger pointing at Lou Midgley ----
I _do not_ recall Tom identifying Lou (or anyone else) as the person who contacted his Stake President. Tom gave me an electronic copy of his paper a few days before the conference and Lou's name appears nowhere in the presentation. Tom even includes a fairly detailed footnote about rumors that someone at BYU had sent his SP his essay ("Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics") -- again, no mention of Lou. I have tremendous respect for Jan, but I simply don't share her recollection. Frankly, if Tom had speculated that Midgley was the source, I'd have no qualms acknowledging it.
---- On Tom's alleged misrepresentation of Larry Echohawk ----
I find it odd, though I probably shouldn't, that some LDS have impugned Tom's honesty based on a document that is clearly a synopsis of ideas. Tom's PowerPoint presentation is a summary of his Ph.D. dissertation. The fact is, when Tom details Larry's position in his dissertation he gives Larry's remarks a fair and accurate hearing:
"Larry J. Echohawk, Pawnee and the first Native American admitted to the Utah Bar Association, commented fondly but ambiguously about the Book of Mormon and Lamanite identity in 1975. He reported that as a boy growing up in Farmington, New Mexico he was "ashamed to be an Indian." But, the Book of Mormon, he said, taught him a lot about being an Indian. 'For an Indian looking for pride, the Book of Mormon was a wonderful experience. ... It was really an uplift to me'" (Thomas W. Murphy, "Imagining Lamanites: Native Americans and the Book of Mormon," Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 2003, 136).
In the above, Tom quotes the very portion of Larry's interview that Pentatach1 accuses Tom of disingenuously suppressing. What nonsense.
---- On Tom's wife Kerri commenting during the Q&A ----
Kerri has a degree in anthropology and spent years with Tom in Guatemala working with Amerindians. It seems reasonable, then, that she may have something relevant to add to the discussion.
---- On people laughing _at_ Tom during the presentation ----
I'd say that most were laughing _with_ Colleen McDannell when she questioned the propriety of Tom's participation on the LHM video. Outsiders may have been taken aback by Colleen's candor if they didn't know that Colleen and Tom are actually good friends.
As fun as it would be, I simply don't have enough playtime for ZLMB right now. You're welcome, however, to share my reply.
=====[ END QUOTE ]=====
In the immortal words of Paul Harvey: "And now you know, the rest of the story!"
Ho, ho, ho! This seems very different from the account he had hitherto been given! Shocking, just shocking that there would be such utter discrepancies! Here is Harmony, who agrees:
Harmony wrote:At least Brent was at the lecture, Juliann. That's more than can be said for you or Pent. That his opinion differs from what slithy or Jan said is interesting, but having read enough evalutions of presentations to know, that sort of difference is commonplace. People often hear different things in the same presentation.
Maybe next time you attend a conference, you'll choose the presentations you grace with your presence more judiciously. Looks like you missed out on the fun one.
The basic line of argument that the Mopologists continue with is, "Well, we have three eyewitnesses who were there and who agree that Murphy made a disparaging remark about Lou Midgley!!" The trouble is that these three witnesses (Jan, slithy, and Sharon), have all (save, arguably, Jan) been shown to be untrustworthy: slithy took no notes, and Sharon obvioulsy distorted her view of just what, exactly, juliann knew. So that leaves, at best, only one usable witness: Jan, who refuses to cough up her notes!
Next we get another helpful summary from Shades:
Dr. Shades wrote:Well, I'm happy to come back to this thread and find that everything has finally been unwound and the mystery solved. Enigm0, it appears there's nothing more to see here, since the controversy is over:
1. We know that Midgley was defamed during Murphy's presentation, even though Midgley wasn't mentioned. We know this because Midgley complained to Juliann about being defamed, even though Midgley wasn't in the room either. Thankfully, slithy has cleared this up by recalling that someone--probably and audience member--mentioned the name "Midgley" once.
2. We know this is true thanks to the corroboration of at least 5 or 6 different people--who attended the presentation--who may or may not have been in the group of a few people surrounding Murphy after the presentation was over wherein the things they are verifying were mentioned.
3. We also have the word of two eyewitnesses that Brent left the presentation early, seemingly in a great hurry, but simultaneously stayed around to mix & mingle with the crowd after the presentation.
4. If that weren't enough proof for you, we have the transcript itself, which may or may not be official, which Juliann has refused to post here, but was in the room with Rchivist when it was "put together," which of course means she read it.
5. To cap it all off, we have the word of Jan, who tells us that Juliann's recollection is correct, even though Juliann wasn't there, which doesn't stop you from being able to recollect something, of course. Even though Jan hasn't bothered to tell us specifically which parts were recalled correctly, we can only assume that Juliann got everything right--even the parts which she got wrong; those, too, she got right.
Once again, thanks, folks, for clarifying for us.
Now, I'm thinking of going and reading one of the 1st Vision versions again. I'm sure they're all just as consistent as the story told in this thread--right?
Here, utterly destroying the attempts of the TBMs to use the Midgley accusation to their advantage, is an actual comment from Tom Murphy himself, which was posted to ZLMB by Noel00:
Jan’s summary on ZLMB of the events at UVSC appear to be mistaken. See the message I sent to Louis pasted below. I would appreciate it if you would post a copy of this message to ZLMB.
I can assure you that the reports you have heard about me mentioning your name at the UVSC event are untrue. I believe the session was tape recorded and you should be able to obtain a copy to verify my denial. In fact, you’ll see that I very specifically stated that I did not know who sent the article to my stake president. This appears to be another case where people are trying to bait you and me into an unnecessary confrontation.
In a forthcoming article in Sunstone, drawn from that presentation at UVSC, you’ll also see a quotation from an email message from my stake president that appears to clear you and any others in the Mormon intellectual community of sending the article to him. I would have mentioned that message at the forum, except that it did not arrive until afterwards.
Here’s a selection from the text of the article.
My willingness to question would lead someone, as yet unidentified but probably not anyone associated with BYU, to send a copy of my article “Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics” to my stake president, Mathew Latimer.
Here’s the text that will appear in a footnote of the forthcoming article.
Like many others, I have heard rumors that someone associated with FARMS sent the article to my stake president. I have not, however, seen any affirmative evidence to support those allegations. On 11 March 2004 I sent the following email inquiry to President Latimer. “Rumors have been circulating in the Mormon intellectual community that accuse one or more individuals at BYU of sending you a copy of ‘Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics’ and encouraging you to take disciplinary action against me. One of those individuals has asked for my help in dispelling such rumors. I do not know if you are at liberty to disclose who might have sent you the article but is there anything you can say that would help dispel such rumors?” Ten days later he replied, “I'm not inclined to discuss specifics on how I became aware of the material at issue. As you know, your papers are publicly available, and you have openly discussed these matters in several venues. While it may be intriguing to think that a member of the so-called ‘intellectual community’ turned you in, I can assure you my involvement in this matter arose out of much more mundane circumstances. In the end, our discussions were never about suppressing academic freedom or honest inquiry -- despite what your supporters may believe. It was about encouraging repentance, correcting error and, hopefully, rekindling faith in Christ. For me, it remains so.” Mathew Latimer to Thomas Murphy, “Re: Dispelling Rumors,” electronic mail, 21 March 2004.
I want to assure you that ever since our previous discussions via email that I have reiterated your denial of involvement to those who have asked me about the the rumors. These forthcoming statements will have me going on record to discredit the rumors.
Immediately, juliann tries to douse this fire:
Eh...little problem here. No one ever claimed he said this during the taped lecture.
Nice try, though
A "nice try" indeed! Especially when we realize that juliann, earlier in the thread, said that it was de rigueur for academic talks to be taped! What's that, Strike Four???
Next, (and at last) we get a useful bit of info from Jan, who is the Last Witness Standing:
Murphy to Louis via Noel: "In fact, you’ll see that I very specifically stated that I did not know who sent the article to my stake president."
This is not true to my best recollection. Dr. Murphy didn't say that he "didn't know who" at all. During the lecture, he said that someone from BYU FARMS sent it to his stake president. (It is difficult to know if he meant BYU or FARMS -or- FARMS at BYU). But, I did not hear him say that he *didn't know* who sent it and, in fact, he identified the "someone" as being from BYU &/or FARMS. Later, after the formal lecture and Q&A, the "someone" was identified as Midgley.
Aha! So Tom Murphy categorically *did not* attack Midgley "in the middle" of an academic presentation. Thanks for clarifying, Jan.
Here is a good summary from Gadianton, trying to sort out all of juliann's baloney and obfuscation (still waiting for that transcript, by the way):
Gadianton wrote:Now lets look at one more of Juliann's contradiction. Originally she claimed,
"His inexplicable defamation of Lou Midgley in the middle of an *academic* conference is just about as bad."
now she says,
"Eh...little problem here. No one ever claimed he said this during the taped lecture.
she also said previously,
"Shades, get a grip. There is a transcription of the lecture. You know...like those court reporter kind of people that take notes in courtroom proceedings?"
she also said,
"Juliann: And are you implying that he did not say what he said about Midgley to a room of people?"
I wonder if FT would agree with me, that it is more than abundantly clear that Juliann's accusation is that Murphy made his accusation in the middle of his lecture when everyone was listening. It's those conditions that would be required for Murphy to be seriously considered for the crime of defaming migdley publically, in the "middle of a conference, " where everyone saw, and the details were recorded by tape (professionally recorded no less) and by "transcript" so that there is little dispute as to the exact words and context.
Whatever Murphy's crimes are, if any, Juliann certainly owes Murphy and apology. For defaming him, here on this message board.
My analysis is as follows:
Juliann heard an account second hand and third hand from migdley. It just had to be true, in her mind, since it was about an enemy. So she made a number of assumptions that she thought would pan out in her favor if it were the case she got questioned. Shades questioned. She bet on her assumptions and prejudices, and she has ended up contradicting herself ever since. There most likely was a tape recorder there. But there was never any "court room" note taking. There had to be, for her story, to say she firsthand, "read the transcript." And it wasn't entirely illogical for her to direct Shades to the website, because it's entirely possible that the tape recording would be transcribed by then to prove she was right. Of course, she didn't realize in the beginning, that the supposed smoking gun came during an offline Q/A session after the lecture. She heard the story, in absence of specifics contrary, she assumed that the accusation happened during the lecture, heightening it's credibility being that it would be recorded, and it's seriousness as a moral infraction. But yet she still tries to salvage a case against murphy, by making the very opposite argument, that now the recording/s are not evidence of Murphy's innocence!!!
Is this how most people reason who brag about being liberals and frequenting academic conferences on the weekends?
Gad's assessment of everything leads to this apoplectic, foul-mouthed outburst from our lawyer friend, Confidential Informant:
Screw Juliann's "defamation" of Murhpy. This thread is about Murphy's defamation of Echohawk, a point which he conveniently ignores, expecially considering I have the text of the Email Echohawk sent to him telling him to stop or be sued.
Take you @#%$ mach with Julie to another thread. I want answers about Echohawk. I don't give whoopte doo aboutr Midgley.
I find it fascinating that he so nakedly announces his desire to focus *only* on the things which (in his mind) make Murphy look bad. Would it be too much, counselor, to ask you to be fair-minded and judicious?
At this point, Noel00 once again supplied a key piece of information: a letter, from Tom Murphy, addressed to Larry Echohawk in which he (i.e., Murphy) apologized for any unintended misinterpretation caused by the presentation. (The letter is quite long, and this thread is long as it is, so I'm afraid you will have to track it down yourself if you are interested.)
Next, once again spoiling all the fun, is Jan, who, like her gal-pal juliann, doesn't seem to understand when it's best to keep one's mouth shut:
Jan wrote:e0 wrote: I do wonder why no one here claiming Murphy did not say that he didn't know who sent the information during his main presentation(as murphy claims) is interested in getting the recording or transcript and verifying it...could it be that they already have and now silence is their best option?
I guess that be me then, since I'm the only one here claiming that?
1. I don't need the tape to know what I heard and what I wrote in my notes. Murphy said that is was someone from FARMS BYU. Now e0, logic tells us that it can't be "he didn't know" if it is "someone from FARMS BYU."
2. I know of no transcript being available, do you? I believe that the mysterious "transcript" that Juliann mentioned may be my transcribed notes. I have heard nothing of a transcript being available or talk of one being available. I did ask Brian Birch if the papers would be published ... he hoped they would but I doubt that this would be actual transcripts of the entire sessions. It would be my guess that it would be the papers the presenters prepared in advance to the conference. It is very labor intensive and costly to make transcripts of recordings.
3. I know of no tapes being available, do you?
Unbelievable. Not only is there no "transcript" (Strike 5?), but the "notes" now seem to be thrown into further doubt since, as juliann and others have said, they "were present" when the transcript was put together---which means that Jan's notes were made after the lecture. Well, there goes the validity of witness number three. What a pity.
Here, once more, is a superb summary from Dr. Shades:
"The papers will be put up on the website after it goes up when the sponsors are able to do it, the recording if there is one (I did not see it except for a couple of presentations, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there) will likely follow the same routine."
I thought you said that you were in the room with Juliann when it was "put together." So now you're saying that you didn't even see it, even though you were in the room when it was "put together?" Amazing! Did Juliann also not see it?
"In order to preserve belief in the immaculateness and inerrancy of Tom Murphy, the witnesses against him must be discredited."
No, that's not it. The issue is this: In order to determine what actually took place during the presentation, we must untangle the impossibly convoluted web of conflicting testimony that they eyewitnesses have given us.
"Does someone want to explain to me how my acquiring a recording of the lecture would be any more convincing than the witnesses that have already been called liars? "
Yes, I want to explain it to you: A recording won't wildly contradict itself. And no, nobody has been called a liar. We're just trying to get to the bottom of things.
"Here is how it works, EO...you have been given a report of a lecture by more than one person who attended."
All of whom have told different stories.
"A link have been supplied for those who have any questions about what occurred."
Yes, a link which gave us no information whatsoever.
"I know of no transcript being available, do you?"
Juliann seems to.
"I believe that the mysterious 'transcript' that Juliann mentioned may be my transcribed notes."
Then why didn't Juliann just say so and save us all the hassle?
"I have heard nothing of a transcript being available or talk of one being available."
THE PLOT THICKENS! First Juliann offers me a link whereby I can obtain the transcript, then we hear that Juliann and Rchivist were in the room when it was "put together," now we learn that it's not even available and may not ever become available. As Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof" lamented: "Where will it end? Where will it end?"
"I did ask Brian Birch if the papers would be published ... he hoped they would but I doubt that this would be actual transcripts of the entire sessions. It would be my guess that it would be the papers the presenters prepared in advance to the conference."
So we're going to get Murphy's papers, just as Brent has them. Apparently Brian Birch (whoever he is) believes Murphy's paper is just as good as a transcript, unlike everyone else here.
"This was posted on another board by someone who attended one of Murphy's recent presentations, . . ."
Is his/her story as straight as the stories here?
"Why then, did Mrs. Murphy (as part of those Mr. Murphy accepted speaking for him that day) specifically say during the formal Q&A, ". . . and we think we know" who did it/who it was. . . why would I have sought clarification during the informal Q&A on exactly who they thought this person from BYU/FARMS was?"
Why did you assume they thought it was someone from BYU/FARMS if all she said was that "we think we know" who it was? Couldn't you have just as easily assumed that they thought it was someone from the U.S. State Department or the Society for the Promulgation of Seventeenth-Century French Drama?
"Now, what sort of witness I am is up to those who know me, but I specially asked this question and received an answer."
What was the answer you received?
Dr. Shades wrote:Jan writes:
"You have not seen a cohesive 'story' because no one yet has attempted to do so."
Boy, truer words were never spoken!!
"by the way, this is who Brian Birch is."
What/who is who Brian Birch is? You never told us.
"You and e0 are welcomed to pursue if/when papers &/or transcripts will or will not be available. You can't, however, legitimately use it as a hammer in this discussion."
I'm not using it as a hammer, ma'am. Juliann claimed that she read the transcript, and I'm trying to get to the bottom of her claim.
"How 'bout commenting on the actual content that has recently been shared on this thread vs trying to steer it back to some conspiracy?"
How 'bout putting your reply into a single post instead of needlessly breaking it up into three posts?
"What's the 'it' you are referring to in your first sentence?"
The transcript to which Rchivist and Juliann alluded.
"Not withstanding this has nothing to do with the Midgely and Echohawk issues with regard to Murphy."
It has everything to do with those issues, since we still haven't figured out if he said what he was alleged to have said. You know, contradictory testimony from hostile witnesses and all.
"There could be some conflicts in what has been posted here by th'eyewitnesses' [sic] but I don't remember seeing any of them. Can you point them out?"
Gadianton and I have done nothing but point them out!
"It will end with you. This has already been answered. What are you still confused or complaining about? I'll clear up anything for you that I can . . ."
I'm confused about the various and sundry allegations that have been made against Murphy, since none of the stories add up.
"Why don't you re-read her post and integrate it? Murphy said it was someone from FARMS BYU. Mrs. Murphy identified the person as Midgely. Got it?"
No. Sharon said that all Mrs. Murphy said was "we think we know." Now you're saying that she specifically accused Midgley? So which is it? (Even so, Juliann said that the male Murphy, not the female one, was the one who named Midgley. Once again, wildly contradictory testimony.)
Just a little FYI, Sharon: A rolling smilie face does not a compelling argument make.
"I wonder if people like Enigm0 and Shades are planning on adopting this new strategy of looking at evidence (that is, careful scrutiny, exacting accuracy, demands for resolution of any and all purported evidentiary conflicts prior to reaching a conclusion, etc.) when the subject in the crosshairs is someone other than Thomas Murphy."
I adopted that "new" strategy about 6 years ago.
Jan writes again (ad nauseum):
"How do you unring a bell?"
Boy, I'll bet Juliann is asking herself that question right now, eh?
"You think *I* owe Murphy an apology (for what?) and yet have never mentioned anything about what Murphy may or may not owe Midgely and Echohawk?"
If you're referring to an apology from Murphy to those two, he already did so, as Noel00 pointed out.
[Mr. Scratch's Note: This thread continues below.]