MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_Yoda]

Thanks for clarifying, Beastie.

So...the Church is responsible for the production of the book, correct?

Obviously, if this is the case, it is going to show the Church in the best light it can.

Are you saying that the Church is holding onto material that it will not provide to other scholars who wish to write about the topic independently?

[_beastie]

So...the Church is responsible for the production of the book, correct?

Obviously, if this is the case, it is going to show the Church in the best light it can.

Are you saying that the Church is holding onto material that it will not provide to other scholars who wish to write about the topic independently?

Well, this is exactly what has been debated on this thread. I agree that the book is very likely going to show the Church in the best light it can.

It isn't disputed that the church allowed these authors access to materials it has denied other researchers. The open question is whether or not the church will not allow other researchers access to the same material or not. Some folks have stated that is the church's intent, but no one has provided an actual statement from a church representative asserting this will be the case.

[_harmony]

Thanks for clarifying, Beastie.

So...the Church is responsible for the production of the book, correct?

Obviously, if this is the case, it is going to show the Church in the best light it can.

Don't say that too loudly. Dan and Scott will hear you.

Are you saying that the Church is holding onto material that it will not provide to other scholars who wish to write about the topic independently?

Well, I don't know if "holding onto" is quite the way I'd put it. Evidently, the church allowed the authors access to all pertinent material in the vault. However, that brings up a couple of red flags:

1. who decided what was pertinent and what wasn't?
2. who's to say there wasn't all sorts of stuff purged prior to allowing the authors' access, or even prior to the current or former 1st Presidency?

And then there's always the kicker: how can any nonLDS historian, let alone independent reader, check footnotes of stuff that's locked away in the vault?

But Dan will tell you that we can't discuss anything about the process of producing the book, until we've read the damn thing. As if the content will explain the process? yeah, right.

[_TAK]

Seems Clear to me.. pin it on anyone but Brigham Young.

That's a leap that goes far, far beyond any evidence on offer, here or anywhere else, so far as I can tell.

It's a statement of your faith, not an entailment of the facts.

Actually that was Gene Sessions point that the Church needed to counter Bagley's Book which pinned it on Brigham Young. If you don't like his statement you should take it up with him.

[_TAK]

I'm assuming here, Ray, that you've seen Massacre at Mountain Meadows already and from it are aware, for instance, that Lee's published confessions were posthumously doctored by his attorney to increase sales (the attorney's fee came from the proceeds of the publication), that one of the alterations was a fabricated quote from Lee purportedly implicating Brigham Young in ordering the massacre.

I am aware of that Scott. It's like reading the seven volume History of the Church :) Lee is still copiously referenced by historians and used as a primary source. The one I'm really looking for now is Juanita Brooks, John D. Lee: Zealot, Pioneer Builder, Scapegoat (1962).

Perspective counts for a great deal, and part of the historian's task is to provide perspective which isn't always immediately apparent from examining this or that document.

Which is why it's wise to look at the perspectives of different historians. I learned my lesson many years ago (early 1980s) when I read Eric Williams' British Historians and the West Indies. If you want to see the credibility of several major 19th century historians and writers demolished, read Williams.

Ray did you check Amazon,
I believe they have it..
http://www.amazon.com/John-Doyle-Lee-Pi ... 236&sr=1-2

[_Daniel Peterson]

But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... You haven't read the book!!!!

What a silly point.

As if there's any reason to read it.

Goin' for fifty-two!

[_TAK]

Scott Lloyd

Given the fact that few things in history can be known with absolute certainty, especially when it involves matters of more than a century in the past, and given the authors' penchant for painstaking exactness (Turley is an attorney by training, and Walker and Leonard are both academics and professional historians with eminent backgrounds), I'd say "almost certainly" goes a very long way, far beyond mere speculation.

But go ahead, TAK: give us a persuasive rebuttal if you can. (I won't hold my breath.)

“painstaking exactness” ?? Oh please.. Give up the hyperbole- it is only an embarrassment to yourself.

As you frequently like to say – the burden of proof is on the accusers. And on this point the authors fall flat offering only apologetic rancor and no proof.

I find it perfectly plausible that JDLee could remain faithful to Brigham Young right up to the end knowing that his fate was always in Young’s hands but also be angry enough to want to expose the Smith and Young after he was dead.

[_Tom]

Well, I don't know if "holding onto" is quite the way I'd put it. Evidently, the church allowed the authors access to all pertinent material in the vault. However, that brings up a couple of red flags:

1. who decided what was pertinent and what wasn't?
2. who's to say there wasn't all sorts of stuff purged prior to allowing the authors' access, or even prior to the current or former 1st Presidency?

One church historian has acknowledged that relevant documents have been "lost, suppressed or destroyed."

[_ScottLloyd]

Scott Lloyd

Given the fact that few things in history can be known with absolute certainty, especially when it involves matters of more than a century in the past, and given the authors' penchant for painstaking exactness (Turley is an attorney by training, and Walker and Leonard are both academics and professional historians with eminent backgrounds), I'd say "almost certainly" goes a very long way, far beyond mere speculation.

But go ahead, TAK: give us a persuasive rebuttal if you can. (I won't hold my breath.)

“painstaking exactness” ?? Oh please.. Give up the hyperbole- it is only an embarrassment to yourself.

It's not hyperbole. I'm in earnest. It's up to you to show, if you can, that they are careless and inaccurate in their narrative. Again, I say I won't hold my breath.

As you frequently like to say – the burden of proof is on the accusers. And on this point the authors fall flat offering only apologetic rancor and no proof.

The authors have laid out the evidence in the book. I've given you page numbers and an end note for reference. You now bear the burden, and to meet it you must deal with the documented sources they have cited, not just spew empty derision.

I find it perfectly plausible that JDLee could remain faithful to Brigham Young right up to the end knowing that his fate was always in Young’s hands but also be angry enough to want to expose the Smith and Young after he was dead.

You find it "plausible," no doubt, because you are desperate to cling to any tenuous excuse for pinning the blame on Brigham Young. But what you find "plausible" and what is supported by evidence are, in this matter, two different things.

[_ScottLloyd]

Well, I don't know if "holding onto" is quite the way I'd put it. Evidently, the church allowed the authors access to all pertinent material in the vault. However, that brings up a couple of red flags:

1. who decided what was pertinent and what wasn't?
2. who's to say there wasn't all sorts of stuff purged prior to allowing the authors' access, or even prior to the current or former 1st Presidency?

One church historian has acknowledged that relevant documents have been "lost, suppressed or destroyed."

I don't think that has been disputed here.

I think what is more relevant to the discussion at hand are these closing lines from the newspaper story you cited:

Surviving documents relating to the massacre "form a massive web of conflicting information," he said. "Understanding the history of the sources themselves is a vital tool for arriving at some approximation of historical truth."

During the question and answer session that followed, church history department historian Richard Turley, one of three authors of the forthcoming book on the massacre, said the documents originally denied to Brooks when she wrote her book were available to authors of the new volume.

"We did use those documents at some point in the book, and at some time they will be accessible to you," he said.

By way of explanatory background, the occasion was the annual conference earlier this year of the Mormon History Association, an eclectic group of Mormon, non-Mormon and secular historians and history enthusiasts.