Calling attention to a potential conflict of interest is entirely legitimate. But to go on and on and on and on, absent even so much as a glance at the book, about the potential, even likely, conflict of interest involved in the book’s production begins to look like an attempt to poison the well.
The only reason I’ve gone on and on about it is due to your approach to this thread. For another example, see the bit about whether or not you claimed that I had said the book was dishonest and a distortion. How many posts, back and forth, went on about that point? And why? Because of how you reacted to it all – you first quibbled about the exact words I used, then you denied having said it at all, intermingling inane comments throughout. You seem to think that you have the right to quibble, deny, and make inane comments without having to endure the responses those very posts invite. This isn’t FAIR, and it’s not MAD. You make a bed here, you get to lie in it. This issue would have been settled long ago, had you not quibbled, denied, parsed, and made innumerous inane comments about how ridiculous the entire point was (in between claiming I made no point at all!).
That there is a potential conflict of interest whenever employees or advocates of a given institution write a book about a negative or potentially negative subject connected with that institution is a given. It's obvious. The only real way to determine whether that potential conflict of interest has substantially marred the book, however, is to carefully inspect the book.
This is
exactly the type of quibbling that has ensured this thread has lasted as long as it has. There is not a
potential conflict of interest. There is a
present and
existing conflict of interest. The only real way to determine whether that present, existing conflict of interest has marred the book is to carefully inspect the book and rely on qualified researches to inspect the heretofore inaccessible primary documents.
Everybody involved with the production of Massacre at Mountain Meadows appears to have said, many times over several years, in print, in public lectures, and in private conversations, that every effort has been made to tell the story fully and honestly. Can that assertion be tested? To a large extent, yes. And the best way to test it is by careful inspection of the book.
The best way to test it is by careful inspection of the book along with careful inspection of the heretofore inaccessible primary documents, by qualified researchers.
I know you’re intelligent enough to recognize the validity of this point. It’s just inconvenient.
Look again at what wiki stated about conflict of interest:
A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results from it. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the person, profession, or court system. A conflict can be mitigated by third party verification or third party evaluation noted below—but it still exists.
Your quotation from Elder Packer and, even more so, your quotation from Elder Oaks fall far short of establishing an official Church policy of suppressing relevant historical facts and falsifying the historical record. Yet you seem to believe that they demonstrate such a policy. An excellent test of your belief, in this case, is to carefully inspect Massacre at Mountain Meadows.
I said nothing about an “official Church policy”. This is how I referred to this issue:
Beastie, page 5
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.
Now, I understand you insist that I have egregiously misinterpreted Packer’s comments. I imagine that my interpretation of his remarks is extremely common, for such an egregious misinterpretation. I am quite comfortable standing by my interpretation of his remarks, which is that he thinks some historical truths are not useful, and in particular, he does not want historical truths to be shared that could damage the faith. He’s not referring to what so-and-so had for breakfast. He’s referring to facts that cause people to doubt the truthfulness of the church.
Everybody involved with the production of Massacre at Mountain Meadows appears to have said, many times over several years, in print, in public lectures, and in private conversations, that the leadership of the Church, from President Hinckley on down, has encouraged, even demanded, that the full story be told, accurately and without spin. Can that assertion be tested? Not directly, and not fully. But, indirectly, its plausibility can be examined. And the best way to do so is by careful inspection of the book.
Along with a careful inspection of the original sources by other qualified researchers.
[quote] Raising the issue of a possible record of institutional dishonesty is not out of line, provided that one has provided substantial evidence for the charge. (I don’t believe that you’ve offered any.) Otherwise, doing so may be merely slanderous. But, even if such substantial evidence has been offered, to go on and on and on and on, absent even so much as a glance at the book itself, regarding the possible marring of the book by possible institutional dishonesty begins to look like an attempt to poison the well.[/qutoe]
This is laughable. Slanderous???? Once again, I said nothing about “institutional dishonesty”. I have repeatedly stated that two influential leaders of the LDS church have made statements that encourage the suppression of historical truths that could damage the faith. This is a true statement, unless one attempts to spin and twist their words as you have already attempted.