MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_beastie]

Thanks, chap. I think it has been revealing.

[_truth dancer]

I'm assuming that the leaders of the Church were confident, rightly or wrongly, that the full story would not implicate Brigham Young and/or the Church, and that the benefits of fully honest and open treatment of the Mountain Meadows Massacre would outweigh any costs. I assume that they felt that way at least partially because, for various reasons, that's the way I feel.

My bold

Yes I totally agree with you on this. Actually, I think this is a crucial point and several posters have suggested the same. Leaders most likely know there is no evidence to implicate BY.

However, if the authors did find something that would destroy or harm testimonies, the book would not have seen the light of day. Do you agree?

So here's my view:

3. The LDS Church, from President Hinckley on down, pledged to support -- to the tune of many thousands of dollars, and perhaps (but not certainly) even of millions of dollars -- the research and writing of a book (now two books) that would tell the full truth about the Mountain Meadows Massacre insofar as it is possible to do so.

Yep... I think we can agree with this as well.

The question is... would the LDS church have given millions of dollars to church employees to write a book that would damage and harm testimonies of believers.

I think we agree the answer is no. Right?

How would one go about determining whether, in fact, Massacre at Mountain Meadows lives up to that pledge? I can't think of a better or more effective way of setting out to do that than by first reading the book.

Of course no matter how many times you repeat this mantra, it is not the point. ;-)

The point is... (for like, the hundredth time), given that the LDS church spent millions of dollars and supported church employees writing a book, we can be fairly certain the book will NOT destroy or harm testimonies.

OK... we can move on.

:-)

td

[_Daniel Peterson]

Ah, yes, repeating phrases like “20 by 20” is a well respected tactic for puncturing pretense and exposing vacuousness.

A twenty-page thread without any real content is, well, vacuous. That's what the word means.

It's pretentious and vacuous to go on and on and on about the potential problems in a book that virtually nobody who's doing the going on and on has so much as seen.

You have no meaningful rebuttal because there is no way for me, or anyone else, to be able to verify this information when, by your own admission, this is private, archived information not accessible to the public.

Pretty much like the Hudson's Bay Company archives, the Clinton Presidential Library, the military archives of the Citadel in Cairo, the Isma‘ili collections in Bombay, and the Huntington Library. To pick just a few.

Could a person who follows Mormon historiography very closely get access to the necessary materials in order to evaluate how well the LDS church kept its pledge? Someone like, say, Will Bagley?

A person who is well-informed on the relevant issues -- including, say, Will Bagley -- will be able to tell whether the authors have avoided or attempted to paper over issues, or have ignored relevant archival data (much of which is not in the control of the Church), and will be able to make an argument based on a careful and informed reading of the book for or against such a criticism. Moreover, the LDS archives are making more and more material available to qualified researchers, and the new Historical Department building, nearing completion, will accelerate that process. The publication of Massacre at Mountain Meadows isn't fundamentally different from any other historical publication that claims to have used previously inaccessible or unused sources. (Stanford Shaw's monumental history of Turkey, which draws on a previously unimaginable mastery of the Ottoman archives, is as nice an illustration as any. In my own area, Vladimir Ivanow's work with Bohra manuscripts in India also comes to mind.)

LOL! How does it help you to state that the church doesn’t appear to have recognized a conflict of interest that you, yourself, stated was too obvious to even state your agreement with? Kind of like 2+2, If I recall correctly??? Seriously, how in the world does this help your case?

LOL! Right over your head.

Of course there's an obvious potential conflict of interest whenever people working for an institution write about the history of that institution. That goes virtually without saying. (It typically doesn't need to be said more than two or three score times in a row.) But the proof is in the product. And the product, in this case, is a heavily documented book. And the best way to test a book is via an informed and careful reading of the book.

In this case, though, notwithstanding your suspicions, the authors of the book, many researchers who worked on the book, several leaders of the Church, and a number of people closely acquainted with the production of the book, have expressly said, numerous times, publicly and privately, that the Church and its leaders opened the archives up to the researchers and not only encouraged them to produce an accurate and honest account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but demanded that they do it. This has been recounted in print. It has been told to me privately by people well positioned to know, and whom I trust. Church leaders have said that the best interests of the Church would be best served by a full and frank accounting of the story. I believe them. I believe those who say that this has in fact happened. Your inferences to the contrary from statements not made about this project do not cancel out the explicit statements made directly about the project by Church leaders, historians, and the authors themselves, in public and in private. If you remain in doubt, the only way to allay that doubt is via a careful and informed reading of the book in which the project has resulted. If you are not qualified to judge the book, that isn't the fault of the Church, nor is it the fault of the authors. But you can watch for reviews by qualified, competent historians, and, by sifting their opinions, you may be able to come to some sort of provisional judgment of your own. But they will only be worth listening to if they have actually read the book. And you will not be in any real position to evaluate what they say without having read the book.

For heaven’s sake, I repeated the citations several times.

You still haven't repeated them enough. Perhaps four or five hundred more repetitions will transform them into decisive evidence for your speculations?

Packer’s The Mantle is Far, Far Greater

Those of us who are extensively engaged in researching the wisdom of man, including those who write and those who teach Church history, are not immune from these dangers. I have walked that road of scholarly research and study and know something of the dangers. If anything, we are more vulnerable than those in some of the other disciplines. Church history can he so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer.

So far, so good. I agree with him.

President Brigham Young admonished Karl G. Maeser not to teach even the times table without the Spirit of the Lord. How much more essential is that Spirit in the research, the writing, and the teaching of Church history.

Again, I agree.

If we who research, write, and teach the history of the Church ignore the spiritual on the pretext that the world may not understand it, our work will not be objective. And if, for the same reason, we keep it quite secular, we will produce a history that is not accurate and not scholarly--this, in spite of the extent of research or the nature or the individual statements or the incidents which are included as part of it, and notwithstanding the training or scholarly reputation of the one who writes or teaches it. We would end up with a history with the one most essential ingredient left out.

Still on track. I agree.

Those who have the Spirit can recognize very quickly whether something is missing in a written Church history this in spite of the fact that the author may be a highly trained historian and the reader is not. And, I might add, we have been getting a great deal of experience in this regard in the past few year.

Still fine. Still nothing recommending the falsification of history.

President Wilford Woodruff warned: "I will here say God has inspired me to keep a Journal and History of this Church, and I warn the future Historians to give Credence to my History of this Church and Kingdom; for my Testimony is true, and the truth of its record will be manifest in the world to Come."

I believe that President Woodruff is right. Still no problem.

There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher Of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.

This, I think, is where you imagine that Elder Packer might be justifying the wholesale falsification of history. But I see nothing to that effect here.

And I think that the temptation -- in some biographers, for example, in and out of the Church -- to debunk and to cut down, can seriously mar historical writing. Fawn Brodie, to choose a familiar name, was criticized by many reviewers for the fact that she put so much emphasis on Thomas Jefferson's alleged affair with Sally Hemmings (still not actually proven, even now) that his authorship of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Declaration of Rights, as well as his presidency and his founding of the University of Virginia, were actually relatively neglected. But such an approach grievously distorts Jefferson's life and misleads readers.

Some things that are true are not very useful.

Quite true. Some true things aren't very useful. Not all true things are equally useful.

Every historian necessarily and inevitably selects what he or she is going to include.

Historians seem to take great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure. For some reason, historians and novelists seem to savor such things. If it related to a living person it would come under the heading of gossip. History can be as misleading as gossip and much more difficult--often impossible--to verify.

Brodie's biography of Jefferson is a classic illustration of Elder Packer's very sound point.

Numerous other examples could be cited. Edmund Morris's weird biography of Ronald Reagan is one that comes readily to mind.

The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment. He should not complain if one day he himself receives as he has given. Perhaps that is what is contemplated in having one's sins preached from the housetops.

I agree with Elder Packer on this point.

Some time ago a historian gave a lecture to an audience of college students on one of the past Presidents of the Church. It seemed to be his purpose to show that that President was a man subject to the foibles of men. He introduced many so-called facts that put that President in a very unfavorable light, particularly when they were taken out of the context of the historical period in which he lived.

Someone who was not theretofore acquainted with this historical figure (particularly someone not mature) must have come away very negatively affected. Those who were unsteady in their convictions surely must have had their faith weakened or destroyed.

I assume that you want me to say that attempts to cut prominent people "down to size" by using decontextualized historical data should be encouraged and favored?

That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith--A destroyer of faith--particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith--places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities.

Again, I agree with Elder Packer. Any historian who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of generally-admired people is a rather perverse and pathetic individual.

One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for "advanced history," is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be accountable. After all of the tomorrows of mortality have been finished, he will not stand where be might have stood.

Hmmm. I was expecting a ringing demand for the falsification and suppression of important historical facts. So far, though, I haven't seen that. Maybe it's still to come?

I recall a conversation with President Henry D. Moyle. We were driving back from Arizona and were talking about a man who destroyed the faith of young people from the vantage point of a teaching position. Someone asked President Moyle why this man was still a member of the Church when he did things like that. "He is not a member of the Church." President Moyle answered firmly. Another replied that he bad not heard of his excommunication. "He has excommunicated himself," President Moyle responded. "He cut himself off from the Spirit of God. Whether or not we get around to holding a court doesn't matter that much; he has cut himself off from he Spirit of the Lord."

I agree.

In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on and we are engaged in it. It is the war between good and evil, and we are belligerents defending the good. We are therefore obliged to give preference to and protect all that is represented in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and we have made covenants to do it.

I agree. I'm not neutral, either.

I make every effort to be honest, but I make no pretense of being "neutral."

I don't believe that such neutrality is possible, and, along with Peter Novick of the University of Chicago, I don't believe that historiographical objectivity is either a coherent idea or desirable.

And I want to say in all seriousness that there is a limit to the patience of the Lord with respect to those who are under covenant to bless and protect His Church and kingdom upon the earth but do not do it.

I believe this, too.

There is much in the scriptures and in our Church literature to convince us that we are at war with the adversary. We are not obliged as a church, nor are we as members obliged, to accommodate the enemy in this battle.

President Joseph Fielding Smith pointed out that it would be a foolish general who would give access to all of his intelligence to his enemy. It is neither expected nor necessary for us to accommodate those who seek to retrieve references from our sources, distort them, and use them against us.

Am I ever going to get to the part where historians are encouraged to lie about our past, or to falsify our story, or to suppress documents?

I'm beginning to get hungry.

Suppose that a well-managed business corporation is threatened by takeover from another corporation. Suppose that the corporation bent on the takeover is determined to drain off all its assets and then dissolve this company. You can rest assured that the threatened company would hire legal counsel to protect itself.

This seems reasonable to me.

Do you disagree?

I think you can see the point I am making. Those of you who are employed by the Church have a special responsibility to build faith not destroy it. If you do not do that, but in fact accommodate the enemy, who is the destroyer of faith you become in that sense a traitor to the cause you have made covenants to protect.

Well. That's it?

I must have missed the advice to suppress documents and falsify history.

So you’ve already dismissed the conflict of interest that you found painfully obvious a couple of pages ago? And you’ve dismissed the words of Packer? LOL.

LOL. I've done neither.

How is it poisoning the well to refer to my NicStix example?

Referring to NicStix isn't "poisoning the well."

It's poisoning the well to suggest, on the basis of nothing (not even an acquaintance with the book), that anything coming from Church historians who had the support of the Church is very likely going to be dishonest and a distortion.

So referring to a spiritual witness is now an insult?

Don't be disingenuous.

But really, what other alternative do we readers have? All we can do is take the church and its employee/authors at their word.

And you've already poisoned the well, such that their word simply cannot be taken.

Cardinal Newman's example is directly apropos.

[_Daniel Peterson]

However, if the authors did find something that would destroy or harm testimonies, the book would not have seen the light of day. Do you agree?

No, I don't. The authors say, and my friends say, and Church leaders have said, and the other researchers involved have said, that the Church told the authors to tell the story honestly and accurately, come what may.

I believe them.

(Have I not said that before?)

The question is... would the LDS church have given millions of dollars to church employees to write a book that would damage and harm testimonies of believers.

I think we agree the answer is no. Right?

No. We can't.

The authors say, and my friends say, and Church leaders have said, and the other researchers involved have said, that the Church told the authors to tell the story honestly and accurately, come what may.

I believe them.

(Have I not said that before?)

And it hasn't been established, incidentally, that the project cost millions. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. I don't particularly care. But it hasn't been established.

The point is... (for like, the hundredth time), given that the LDS church spent millions of dollars and supported church employees writing a book, we can be fairly certain the book will NOT destroy or harm testimonies.

No. We can't. And, as a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the book does damage some testimonies.

The authors say, and my friends say, and Church leaders have said, and the other researchers involved have said, that the Church told the authors to tell the story honestly and accurately, come what may.

I believe them.

(Have I not said that before?)

And it hasn't been established, incidentally, that the project cost millions. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. I don't particularly care. But it hasn't been established.

[_beastie]

It's pretentious and vacuous to go on and on and on about the potential problems in a book that virtually nobody who's doing the going on and on has so much as seen.

Once again, we are not discussing the contents of the book. We are discussing the problems presented by the conflict of interest and the past statements of church leaders advocating suppressing truth that could damage the faith.

I believe it is pretentious to pretend as if these issues are trivial and minor, and to generally respond in a ridiculing fashion to a serious issue. It also seems vacuous to repeatedly add meaningless one-liners while mocking the length of the thread. So we can agree that we both regard each other’s participation on this thread as pretentious and vacuous. So let’s take that as a given and deal with the issue instead.

Pretty much like the Hudson's Bay Company archives, the Clinton Presidential Library, the military archives of the Citadel in Cairo, the Isma‘ili collections in Bombay, and the Huntington Library. To pick just a few.

And, again, this would be problematic if the organization funding the study and restricting access to the material had a serious conflict of interest and a past history of supporting the suppression of truths that could damage faith.

Or, to use my earlier example, if NicStix controlled the data and did not allow any other researchers access to it, it would be problematic. It would not be problematic if the organization that funded the study had no vested interest in the outcome, and no history of advocating suppressing history that could damage their goal and agenda.

by the way, to state the obvious, part of the reason this thread is so long is that I’m forced to repeat things over and over until you finally break down and address the actual point, instead of skipping over it in the hopes that no one will notice. Or perhaps you don’t even notice what you’re doing. I have no idea.

A person who is well-informed on the relevant issues -- including, say, Will Bagley -- will be able to tell whether the authors have avoided or attempted to paper over issues, or have ignored relevant archival data (much of which is not in the control of the Church), and will be able to make an argument based on a careful and informed reading of the book for or against such a criticism. Moreover, the LDS archives are making more and more material available to qualified researchers, and the new Historical Department building, nearing completion, will accelerate that process. The publication of Massacre at Mountain Meadows isn't fundamentally different from any other historical publication that claims to have used previously inaccessible or unused sources. (Stanford Shaw's monumental history of Turkey, which draws on a previously unimaginable mastery of the Ottoman archives, is as nice an illustration as any. In my own area, Vladimir Ivanow's work with Bohra manuscripts in India also comes to mind.)

How can Will Bagely evaluate the authors’ use of sources when he does not have access to those same sources? The significance of Massacre at Mountain Meadows is partly in the fact that the authors were given access to material no other researcher was given access to, including Juanita Brooks and Will Bagley. So is the church going to make that same material available to people like Bagley? Simply saying they are making “more and more material available to qualified researchers” obviously does not answer that question.

LOL! Right over your head.

Of course there's an obvious potential conflict of interest whenever people working for an institution write about the history of that institution. That goes virtually without saying. (It typically doesn't need to be said more than two or three score times in a row.) But the proof is in the product. And the product, in this case, is a heavily documented book. And the best way to test a book is via an informed and careful reading of the book.

DCP’s earlier statement:

A serious conflict of interest that, in my view, the Church doesn't appear to have recognized. As I've noted, Church leaders and the authors and the researchers and knowledgeable insiders have said, in public, in private, and to me, that they wanted the full truth told and that it was in the interest of the Church to see that this occurred.

Perhaps you simply made your point in a sloppy fashion. I don’t believe you mean to say that the church doesn’t recognize the conflict of interest – church leaders would have to be incredibly stupid not to recognize it. What you may mean to say is that church leaders determined to do their best to encourage the full reporting of the truth despite that conflict of interest. This certainly may be the case, but does not change the fact that a conflict of interest exists and reasonably causes increased skepticism.

In this case, though, notwithstanding your suspicions, the authors of the book, many researchers who worked on the book, several leaders of the Church, and a number of people closely acquainted with the production of the book, have expressly said, numerous times, publicly and privately, that the Church and its leaders opened the archives up to the researchers and not only encouraged them to produce an accurate and honest account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but demanded that they do it. This has been recounted in print. It has been told to me privately by people well positioned to know, and whom I trust. Church leaders have said that the best interests of the Church would be best served by a full and frank accounting of the story. I believe them. I believe those who say that this has in fact happened. Your inferences to the contrary from statements not made about this project do not cancel out the explicit statements made directly about the project by Church leaders, historians, and the authors themselves, in public and in private. If you remain in doubt, the only way to allay that doubt is via a careful and informed reading of the book in which the project has resulted. If you are not qualified to judge the book, that isn't the fault of the Church, nor is it the fault of the authors. But you can watch for reviews by qualified, competent historians, and, by sifting their opinions, you may be able to come to some sort of provisional judgment of your own. But they will only be worth listening to if they have actually read the book. And you will not be in any real position to evaluate what they say without having read the book.

Yes, I know you believe them. I also know that you can read Packer’s statements and deny the obvious. And, of course, you have a conflict of interest as well. So your assurances hardly resolve the problem.

Now, if qualified researchers were given access to the same material the authors were given access to, and were able to evaluate and report on that investigation, that would resolve the problem.

So, once again, will researchers like Bagley be given access to the same materials?

{snipping to best example of obfuscation)
Packer:

One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for "advanced history," is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be accountable. After all of the tomorrows of mortality have been finished, he will not stand where be might have stood.

DCP

Hmmm. I was expecting a ringing demand for the falsification and suppression of important historical facts. So far, though, I haven't seen that. Maybe it's still to come?

Please explain Elder Packer's comments. What does he mean by "choosing to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy faith" mean, exactly, if it does not mean that some historical facts that are true ought to be omitted from "faithful history", and if the historian chooses to follow the tenets of his profession and include those facts, then that historian has broken his/her covenants"?

It's poisoning the well to suggest, on the basis of nothing (not even an acquaintance with the book), that anything coming from Church historians who had the support of the Church is very likely going to be dishonest and a distortion.

This isn’t what I suggested. I suggested, or stated, that given the fact of the conflict of interest, and the past history of LDS leaders encouraging the suppression of material that could damage the faith, that increased skepticism was warranted, and interested readers would likely want information verifying the accurate and fair use of sources.

And you've already poisoned the well, such that their word simply cannot be taken.

Do you seriously suggest that, given the conflict of interest and the past statements of church leaders supporting the suppression of material that could damage faith, readers have an obligation to simply take them at their word?? Would you proffer such a solution for any other organization, faced with similar issues, on the face of the earth?

[_truth dancer]

I have an idea... :-)

How about this, Dan which one of the following statements fits best with your opinion:

1. The LDS church would gladly support and spend millions of dollars to help some of its employees write a book that would harm and damage the testimonies of many believers.

2. The LDS church would not support or spend millions of dollars to help some of its employees write a book that would harm and damage the testimonies of many believers.

Just trying to clear things up... ;-)

Neither.

I'm sure that the Church wouldn't be "glad" to help destroy testimonies.

But the Church did encourage Turley, Walker, and Leonard to write an honest book and to let the chips fall where they may. Various leaders of the Church said so, the authors have repeatedly said so, and various professional historians who have been involved with the project and who are friends of mine have told me so. I believe them.

I'm assuming that the leaders of the Church were confident, rightly or wrongly, that the full story would not implicate Brigham Young and/or the Church, and that the benefits of fully honest and open treatment of the Mountain Meadows Massacre would outweigh any costs. I assume that they felt that way at least partially because, for various reasons, that's the way I feel.

So here's my view:

3. The LDS Church, from President Hinckley on down, pledged to support -- to the tune of many thousands of dollars, and perhaps (but not certainly) even of millions of dollars -- the research and writing of a book (now two books) that would tell the full truth about the Mountain Meadows Massacre insofar as it is possible to do so.

How would one go about determining whether, in fact, Massacre at Mountain Meadows lives up to that pledge? I can't think of a better or more effective way of setting out to do that than by first reading the book.

Well... when you said that you did not agree with #1, I assumed you thought the church would not spend millions of dollars to help or support some of its employees to write a book that would harm or damage the testimonies of many believers.

I guess you are saying that you believe the church would indeed spend millions of dollars to help some of its employees write a book that damaged and harmed the testimonies of many believers but they would not do so gladly?

Is that more accurate?

Dan, we all get that you had a conversation with various people and you believe them and yada yada yada. I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up since it has nothing whatsoever to do with the conversation.

I was just wondering if you thought the church would spend millions of dollars to help church employees write a book that would damage the testimonies of many members, evidently you do.

OK... Just wanted to know your opinion on this.

Thanks.

I don't think the church would do so but it is fine to disagree.

:-)

td

[_beastie]

by the way, did D. Michael Quinn make the following statement in his essay in Faithful History?

"In June 1986 the staff of the church historical department announced it was necessary to sign a form which Elder Packer declared gave the right of pre-publication censorship for any archival research completed before signing the form. I and several others refused to sign the form and have not returned to do research at LDS church archives since 1986."

[_beastie]

Hey, I left out a pertinent quote from Packer's talk:

I must not be too critical of those professors. They do not know of the things of the Spirit. One can understand their position. It is another thing, however, when we consider members of the Church, particularly those who hold the priesthood and have made covenants in the temple. Many do not do as my associate did; rather, they capitulate, cross over the line, and forsake the things of the Spirit. Thereafter they judge the Church, the doctrine, and the leadership by the standards of their academic profession.

This problem has affected some of those who have taught and have written about the history of the Church. These professors say of themselves that religious faith has little influence on Mormon scholars. They say this because, obviously, they are not simply Latter-day Saints but are also intellectuals trained, for the most part, in secular institutions. They would that some historians who are Latter-day Saints write history as they were taught in graduate school, rather than as Mormons.

So what's the difference between writing "history are they were taught in graduate school" and writing history "as Mormons"?

And this:

In an effort to be objective impartial, and scholarly a writer or a teacher may unwittingly be giving equal time to the adversary.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

Hey, I left out a pertinent quote from Packer's talk:
In an effort to be objective impartial, and scholarly a writer or a teacher may unwittingly be giving equal time to the adversary.

Cult is as cult does.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Once again, we are not discussing the contents of the book.

Yes you are. Indirectly and vacuously. You're suggesting, sight unseen, that they cannot be trusted and that there is no way to validate them.

That's poisoning the well.

I believe it is pretentious to pretend as if these issues are trivial and minor, and to generally respond in a ridiculing fashion to a serious issue.

You've raised a potential concern. You haven't shown it to be an actual serious issue in this case. But you've gone on and on and on about it.

I have a philosophical book about Seinfeld and similar programs, entitled Shows about Nothing. That's what this thread is. As Gertrude Stein said about Oakland, "There's no there there."

It also seems vacuous to repeatedly add meaningless one-liners while mocking the length of the thread.

I think this pretentious thread is one of the most ludicrous things I've observed in many moons.

So we can agree that we both regard each other’s participation on this thread as pretentious and vacuous. So let’s take that as a given and deal with the issue instead.

What issue? And how do you propose to deal with it?

You don't have the book, you don't believe that reading the book will help you form a judgment, you don't believe that Will Bagley will be able to form a judgment based on reading the book, and you say that you lack the knowledge of the subject to allow you to form a judgment.

So what is it, exactly, that you propose to do over the next forty to eighty pages of this thread?

by the way, to state the obvious, part of the reason this thread is so long is that I’m forced to repeat things over and over until you finally break down and address the actual point

There is no point.

I have no idea.

And when you realize that, it's time to stop posting.

How can Will Bagely evaluate the authors’ use of sources when he does not have access to those same sources?

He has access to the vast majority of the sources used by the authors. And he'll be able to tell, as others will, if they've tried to glide past an issue or to cover something up.

So is the church going to make that same material available to people like Bagley?

My understanding, although I could be wrong, is that the materials will eventually be opened to qualified researchers.

What you may mean to say is that church leaders determined to do their best to encourage the full reporting of the truth despite that conflict of interest.

What I meant to say is what I said: Leaders of the Church expressly said, both in public and directly to the researchers, that the interests of the Church would be best served by a full and accurate historical account.

a conflict of interest exists and reasonably causes increased skepticism.

Skepticism that, in your view, won't be allayed by your reading the book nor by Will Bagley's reading of the book.

Which leaves me wondering what the point of continuing this thread might be? It seems to be, well, vacuous.

I also know that you can read Packer’s statements and deny the obvious.

He simply didn't call for the wholesale falsification of history. Period.

There's nothing at all unreasonable or dishonest about decrying "gotcha" historians and lamenting the work of perversely debunking biographers.

And that, I happen to know, is the best Packer quote you've got. It's a tried and true old war horse.

And, of course, you have a conflict of interest as well. So your assurances hardly resolve the problem.

Back to poisoning wells. A classic ad hominem.

Now, if qualified researchers were given access to the same material the authors were given access to, and were able to evaluate and report on that investigation, that would resolve the problem.

Would it? How do you know you could trust them? Or are you talking, simply, about non-Mormon or even anti-Mormon researchers, who are objective and reliable by definition?

Please explain Elder Packer's comments. What does he mean by "choosing to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy faith" mean, exactly, if it does not mean that some historical facts that are true ought to be omitted from "faithful history", and if the historian chooses to follow the tenets of his profession and include those facts, then that historian has broken his/her covenants"?

It's obvious from the context of the remark, as I pointed out, that he was taking aim at historians and biographers who give undue weight to aspects of a story or a biography that tend to demean or diminish those they're writing about.

That said, Elder Packer's views on historiography from nearly thirty years ago might or might not accord completely with those of other members of the Twelve or the First Presidency, then or now, or even entirely reflect his own views today. There's no reason to assume that they do. Elder Oaks, for example, was, prior to his call to the Twelve, the author or co-author of several important contributions to what has sometimes been termed "The New Mormon History," including the University of Illinois Press title Carthage Conspiracy.

Do you seriously suggest that, given the [possibility of a] conflict of interest and the past statements of church leaders supporting the suppression [sic] of material that could damage faith, readers have an obligation to simply take them at their word??

I've suggested that the book be carefully evaluated. If you're not competent to evaluate it, that isn't Elder Packer's fault.

Would you proffer such a solution for any other organization, faced with similar issues, on the face of the earth?

I've "proffered" no such "solution" for any organization, anywhere, at any time. I think that the best way of evaluating a book is via a careful and informed reading of it.