This is the evidence to back up my assertion that:
The fact is that NO critic on this thread has declared the book worthless and lame without even looking at it.I have reread the thread and copied pertinent comments:
TD
I'll once again role play being a PR director for the church. As I have said before, my first plan would be to get faithful authors to write books disclosing bits of the truth while also presenting the apologetic perspective.
Tarski
Before the internet, "Cover ups" could be rather passive and implicit like "the invisible hand". Just don't mention anything but that there is anti-Mormon literature out there somewhere. Now days, even an active cover up seems unlikely to work. But innoculation! Now that's bound to work. Expose curious members to a tiny part of, or a watered down version of, critical arguments, difficult history and surprising aspects of Joseph Smith's life and activites. Do it with a air of confidence from the faithful perspective and against the assumed background that of course the church is still true (the authors are LDS after all) and we have succesfull innoculation.
As soon as someone brings it up, the member can immediately take the inward stance of "oh, that? I already know about that!" and then go on back to the all is well in Zion mentality.
Innoculation is the key.
(tarski later clarifying his comments)
Umm, I was just speaking generally of the two tactics of cover up and innoculation. I did this simply because the notion of whether there is a cover up or not had come up. Whether or not the book amounts to innoculation I cannot say or partial truth, biased or even dead on correct I cannot say. BY may have been innocent (of this).
Beastie:
Are you suggesting that it's unthinkable that rich LDS donors would be approached to help fund apologetic projects??????? This seems to defy known reality.
And after DCP objected to the term “apologetic”
Do you expect to be taken seriously at all? I'm not "dismissing" the book, I'm stating an obvious fact. If the LDS church funds a book about MMM, it is obviously going to be apologetic in nature. That doesn't mean it's inaccurate.
DCP, implying that I meant something that directly contradicted what I just said:
Some critics, of course, take it necessarily to imply dishonesty and use it as shorthand for slipshod pseudoscholarship, which is objectionable, unjustifiable, and unfair, but the term itself is a respectable one.
Yong
What are the criteria for defining an "apologetic project"?
I think a better approach is to admit that this book presents the church's position. It should be read in that light. Perhaps, the authors have shed new light on the subject. I say we take what it gives us.
Beastie
I already explicitly stated that the fact that a work is apologetic does not mean it is inaccurate.
Yong
Agreed. Understanding how the book came about is part of that examination. It seems obvious, that any book published with the blessing (funding, archive access, etc.) of any organization must be examined very carefully. How does one examine sources that are not available to the public or other researchers? I am speaking of sources that are cited and those that influence the authors' conclusions but are not cited.
Beastie
I think that any text written by believers with the intent of preserving faith in the face of controversy is apologia. I think that, given church leaders' recent views of the appropriate sharing of historical material, it is undeniable that their main goal is to preserve faith. Do you disagree with that?
James
I have both purchased and completed my first read of the book. My summary at this point is:
It contains classic LDS doubletalk so Chapel Mormons will leave its pages with the age-old Official message that (1) Brigham Young didn't order it, (2) the people on the wagon train had it coming, and (3) the Indians did it, anyway.
Brigham Young may have made some completely innocent remarks about blood atonement, killing people, and letting the Indians kill people and steal their livestock which set the stage for violence, but didn't set the stage for violence.
Brigham Young didn't order the massacre, but the people had no question that they were following his orders.
The inoffensive, innocent people on the wagon train didn't have it coming and nothing could justify the violence, but they were offensive louts who DID have it coming and it's completely understandable why people in southern Utah would massacre them.
Most of fighting and killing was done by members of the Nauvoo Legion and not the Indians particularly on the last day when Lee and his men betrayed and killed the remaining men, women, and children, but a noticeably disproportionate amount of the narrative is devoted to the little fighting and killing the Indians did.
Southern Utahans in dual roles as commanding officers of the Nauvoo Legion AND the highest LDS Church and community leaders -- who were advised by Church headquarters in advance of the arrival of the wagon train -- planned and ordered the massacre carried out by LDS who were both church members and formally enlisted Nauvoo Legion soldiers under direct orders of the Nauvoo Legion from, if I remember correctly, at least four different communities in Southern Utah (which required substantial and coordinated travel over long distances from disparate locations). But the massacre was the work of a small number of rogue elements acting spontaneously on their own.
James Clifford Miller
my note: James comes the closest to saying the book is a “whitewash”, although he didn’t say it’s “full of lies.” But he also read the book.
Brian Laundrie
Just reading the first part of chapter one you can see the tone they attempt to set for the book. This book was written by LDS Inc specifically shut up it's members with STS(shaken testimony syndrome.
Guy
Aside from the question of BY's culpability in the massacre itself (of which I don't have a firm opinion), there certainly appears to have been some kind of cover up (or sweeping under the rug) orchestrated T, or at least winked at, high levels of Mormon leadership. If this occurred, this strikes me as only somewhat less inconsistent behavior of men claiming to be God's sole representatives on earth.
My note: this reference to a cover-up referred to the cover up that took place after MMM, and not the book.
TD
On no, you misunderstand. I'm saying if I were the PR person in charge, I would commission, ask, or request respected professional historians, and other professionals to do the inoculation. If these professionals had the idea first and came to me for help or permission, or funding, I would gladly spend millions to help them with their project.
Brian Laundrie
Dan, did you overlook the fact that these three historians are not only LDS, but WORK FOR LDS Inc?
If LDS Inc really wanted to make a point with this book, they would have had the work done by an unbiased outside party. You did see the PBS special "The Mormons" right? You were in it with your hat trick quote, remember?
James
I have you at a disadvantage, Dr. Peterson, having actually read the book myself where you have just started.
I can tell you, as you'll discover for yourself, that the book DOES explicitly state that the people didn't have it coming. This way critics can't claim it doesn't make the statement. But it also spends much of the narrative on the rumors and presents the southern Utah leaders and populace as reacting to the information in the rumors. Of course, if they're not true, then the southern Utah leaders and populace couldn't be reacting to them. But by focusing a significant amount of narrative on the rumors and their effect in southern Utah, I'm sure Chapel Mormons will remember that part and discount the "they didn't have it coming" part as inconsistent with what they've been taught.
Similarly, the book DOES explicitly state that the vast bulk of the fighting and killing was done by white men and white men disguised as indians. THis way critics can't claim that it doesn't make the statement. But then the book spends much of the narrative on the Indians' fighting and killing that, so much that I'm sure Chapel Mormons will remember that and discount the "white men did most of the killing" part as inconsistent with what they've been taught.
So the critics have been silenced, and the Chapel Mormons get to keep their prior understanding. I wonder if Mr. Turley learned that trick in court when he was still a practicing attorney? "The Indians did much of the killing and fighting?" "Objection!" Judge: "Sustained! The jury will disregard that testimony as contradictory." "The people on the wagon train had it coming?" "Objection!" Judge: "Sustained! The jury will disregard that testimony as contradictor."
It's just like the movie, "Anatomy of a Murder" when Lt. Manion asks his counsel, Paul Biegler (Jimmie Stewart), "how can the jury disregard those remarks?" Biegler responds, "That's just it -- they can't."
James
I wouldn’t underestimate the power of penumbras and emanations, Dr. Peterson. They work every day for the U.S. Bill of Rights.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, “The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy” According to Mr. Justice Douglas, who delivered the opinion of the Court in Griswold v. Connecticut [381 U.S. 479 (1965)], some of our most important constitutional rights come through these penumbras from the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments.
As for me, I'm protected from emanations from penumbra by my aluminium foil cap. Besides, you call it "penumbra" and I call it words printed on the page. There's no reading between the lines needed -- you just read the lines. I was particularly entertained when Turley et al had rumors not reported until decades AFTER the massacre influence the thinking and actions of the southern Utah LDS leadership BEFORE the massacre.
Besides, I, St. James, do prophesy that your apologetic colleagues over on MADB will, indeed, rely on the double talk in the book precisely to further the classic LDS arguments that the Francher Party had it coming and that the Indians did it. I'll bet you a diet Coke that either Cdowis [assuming that's not one of your sockpuppets], Pahoran [assuming that's not one of your sockpuppets, either], or any of the other hard-core apologists do just that.
On a serious note, the intensity of the scorn with which you dismiss my suggestions, suggests you may well see merit in them, but just haven't had time to think up a substantive rebuttal. This is one of the classic apologetic responses over at MADB. Critics always know when they've scored a hit when the apologists respond with scorn and the stronger the scorn the stronger the hit. As Pres. Benson said in his famous "Mantel" speech, something along the lines of "hit pigeons flutter."
Beastie:
All this quibbling over whether or not the book can rightfully be called "apologetic" seems irrelevant. We know that the book, having been funded by the LDS church, is going to be as friendly as possible and try to find as many ways to preserve faith in the face of such tragedy as possible. I have deliberately not assumed that the book is inaccurate. I think simply assuming that it will present the church's position in a manner conducive to retaining faith is a generous position given that, as far as I recall, the author of this essay still has an influential position in the organization that funded the book: (quotes about not all truth is useful follows)
Now, let’s look at the simple facts. This book was funded by the LDS church, so in a very realistic fashion the authors were “employed by the church”. The church has a clear agenda – their mission to bring people to salvation. One of the most influential leaders of the LDS church has made clear how he believes church history should be handled.
Ask yourself this: If the authors of this book, in their research, had uncovered real and serious evidence that Brigham Young had, indeed, order the mass murder – would they have printed it?
If there was any sort of “understanding” between the authors and their employer – the LDS church – that some things would never be printed, then it seems reasonable to call it apologia. Or perhaps it would be preferable to call it extraordinarily biased history.
My comment:
by the way, B&L was the only one to state that he “didn’t need to read the book.” But he was talking about Bushman’s book, not MMM.And meanwhile, an important omission is noted by James, who read the book.
Jason
Certainly there were elements of the temple ceremony, particularly at that time, that could have contributed to what happened at MMM. And yes I know what you are talking about.
James:
I don't think the book covered this.
TD’s comments on this omission
So, how do serious authors deal with the motivation of the murderers without addressing this fundamental issue? Wouldn't the beliefs of the murderers seem pivotal to the event?
If they did not discuss this most important belief, in my opinion it is an apologetic work, not serious history.
Also, I'm with harmony on this... the LDS church has ZERO need to keep any information that would make the church look bad. I hardly think anything still exists that would implicate the church in anything.
Now, DCP starts the myth that people on this thread said they didn’t even need to read the book:
And published by Oxford University Press, a division of Deseret Book that distributes only along the Wasatch Front.
No need to look at it to know all that needs to be known about it.
DCP again implies a distortion of what has been said on this thread:
There's no reason why anybody here needs to wait to review the second volume until it actually appears. Not having seen the first volume hasn't interfered in any significant way with the expression of strong opinions and negative judgments.
Scratch
Well, this is all very interesting. I have not yet read this book, so I shall withhold judgment on its content until I've done so. That said, I find it odd that Prof. Peterson would try to use the Oxford Press as a "Trump card," even though he himself has not yet read the book. He is carrying on with all this business about prejudice and bias and whatnot---he is riding critics for commenting on the books quality without having read it.... And yet, he himself has not yet read it.
Anyways, what struck me the most was the notion that:
a) The book cost millions of tithing dollars to produce
b) It footnotes to "off-limits" sources
c) It is apologetic in nature
If "b" is true, then how could Oxford U. Press possibly have checked every source? Or, was this a case of the LDS Church sending over copies of sources and expected Oxford to accept them?
As for "c"---now, I have not read the book, so I cannot say for sure. That said, James Clifford Miller definitely seemed to detect an apologetic agenda within the book. Further, DCP, using the infamous Yale conference as an example, has pointed out that the LDS Church should have a say in the way that things such as an Oxford U. Press book get edited and peer reviewed. I'm sure that, so long as nothing was done to harm Oxford's reputation, the LDS Church threw its weight around big time. Just like what happened at Yale.
Beastie:
I have refrained from judging the book, other than to say it is logical to assume that it will present the church's side of the story, and will be as friendly as possible to the LDS church given the topic. I do believe it would not be unfair to call the work apologetic, but if that is not quite accurate I'm happy to use this summary instead. I have quite explicitly stated more than once that my referring to the book as apologetic was not meant as a pejorative term nor to imply it was inaccurate.
Let's turn this around a bit. Let's say that an evangelical group that was not only associated with printing "anti Mormon" literature in the past, but actually had several of its leaders state that not all truth is useful, and if any individual prints information that could help a Mormon retain faith in Mormonism, that individual will be accountable to the LORD, funded a book on Mountain Meadows Massacre. Having funded the research and writing of the book, it is fair to call them the employers of the authors, in a fashion.
Would it be unfair for people to assume that the book was going to be quite critical of the LDS church in its analysis, and would probably be an "anti Mormon" book?
This would not mean that the book was necessarily inaccurate, but rather, that the facts would be presented in a hostile manner to the church. Is this an unfair conclusion to reach?
TAK
Yes that's what they said but it still does not answer the question .. Do you really think that if evidence was developed by the authors that BYoung instigated this attack that the Church would let that be published?
Yong
All of us know the answer to that, even Daniel. The church would never let that evidence reach the light of day.
I don't know if "smoking gun" documents implicating BY ever existed. If they did, they were likely destroyed a long time ago.
Beastie:
So, we're supposed to believe that the church would have willingly allowed the serious evidence of BY ordering the massacre to be published in this book that they supported and funded.
By Dan's own admission, this would like cast doubt on BY's role as prophet.
So I guess this talk by Packer was a load of baloney, as was Oaks' more recent comments.
TD
in my opinion, writing a book about the MMM without discussing the deeply held religious beliefs (and covenants/rituals/commandments) of the murderers is like writing a book about 9-11 and not discussing the beliefs of the terrorists.
Am I (and Jason), the only one who thinks the temple covenants of the day contributed to the underlying beliefs that resulted in the massacre?
Again, I am open to learning here.
I admit that I have grown very jaded and cynical about discussions with apologists over the years. This episode demonstrates why that is so. It is far from unique. No critic stated that the book is a whitewash and full of lies without have read it. Critics clearly were focusing on whether or not it is appropriate to note possible author bias, possible conflict of interest, and noted omission of important information without having read the book. There is a huge difference between these two statements, and yet, somehow, in reacting to and reporting conversations such as this one, “magically” the critics’ arguments morph into an easily ridiculed strawman.