How odd. DCP has gone from asserting that the conflict of interest is so obvious that it doesn’t even need to be stated, and my requiring him to concede that it exists is the equivalent of conceding 2 + 2 = 4, to now claiming that asserting the existence of that same conflict of interest constitutes “poisoning the well”.
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?
I propose to eventually get you to admit that there is a conflict of interest (which you once did but now your statements are ambiguous )
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??
Look at your insertions. Now it’s just a “possibility of” and the noted “sic” of suppression. Far cry from so obvious that it’s 2 + 2 = 4, eh?
I propose to eventually get you to admit that LDS church leaders have, in the past, advocated suppressing history that is potentially damaging to the faith. I propose to eventually get you to admit that these two facts are legitimate concerns about the text, in particular combined with the fact that – at this point – other scholars cannot access the same material the authors did.
That’s all I propose.
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…
My understanding, although I could be wrong, is that the materials will eventually be opened to qualified researchers…
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?
When did I ever say, or insinuate, that “anti-Mormon” researchers are “objective and reliable by definition”? You’re just making up things out of desperation.
If and when other researchers can access the same material, they will obviously report on their findings. At that time the research will be open, and the question of whether or not the authors reliably utilized these sources will be largely resolved. Of course, there may still be differences of opinions, but each can make their case, using the same material.
Is this really so difficult to grasp?
He simply didn't call for the wholesale falsification of history. Period.
What do you mean by “wholesale falsification”? As I understand and would use the term, no, that’s not what Packer called for. He called for the omission of facts that could damage the faith. That’s a “partial falsification”.
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.
So graduate schools teach historians to “give undue weight to aspects of a story or biography that tend to demean or diminish those they’re writing about”? I seriously doubt it. Remember, he is differentiating between historians who follow the “tenets of their profession”, and “write history as they were taught in graduate school” versus writing history “as Mormons”.
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.
Yes, since he was made apostle, he made the following statement:
Also, some things that are true are not edifying or appropriate to communicate, Elder Oaks said. Members should rely on the Holy Ghost, which if used, will not allow them to be mislead by lies and half-truths.
"Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true."
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.
Of course, but without access to the same materials for other researchers to also review, you are, indeed, proffering the church’s and authors’ assurances as a solution. Or, of course, you could just be repeating that over and over as some sort of nervous tic without any attached meaning to the conversation.