MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_TAK]

None. I said Deseret News.

So Churchnews is a Deseret News publication and all of the staff for that publication (Churchnews) is LDS?

[_ScottLloyd]

The approach of the authors, as expressed in the preface and elsewhere, was not to argue with past conclusions about the massacre, but rather, to take a fresh look at the research and go where it took them. That is why your supposition about this being an "apologetic" work is so far off the mark.

Since the authors did not set out to debate anybody, or to refute anyone's theory about Brigham Young being the instigator, it is a natural course that they would deal with the events roughly in chronological order. Since this has evolved into a two-volume project, that logically leaves the cairn incident to volume 2, which is devoted to discussion of events following the massacre.

What does this have to do with whether or not the authors addressed BY's attitude towards the massacre?

Since President Young did not learn the facts until later, that would be material for the second volume.

Incidentally, I don't concede the accuracy of your rendition above of the alleged "coverup and and lack of church censorship [sic] of the known murderers." But I too eagerly await volume 2 and expect it will be enlightening. Of course, you have the reading of volume 1 before you, which you have yet to do despite having plenty to say on the subject.

I have said nothing about the content of the book, other than to ask questions of those who have read the book.

So, since there is no volume 2 to read yet, we can discuss the cover-up and why you apparently do not believe it occurred. Do you believe BY was not able to immediately discover the names of those involved, were he to desire those names?

I believe there was a cover-up on a local level that hindered President Young and others from learning about it. The authors of the new book say he learned about it "incrementally."

[_ScottLloyd]

None. I said Deseret News.

So Churchnews is a Deseret News publication and all of the staff for that publication (Churchnews) is LDS?

TAK, I've grown bored with this line of questioning. I'm still feeling my way here, and I don't know what the rules/attitude are about derailment of threads, but I do have my own standards.

[_beastie]

Since President Young did not learn the facts until later, that would be material for the second volume.

So BY's attitude towards the massacre is not discussed at all in the first volume? Ok.

I believe there was a cover-up on a local level that hindered President Young and others from learning about it. The authors of the new book say he learned about it "incrementally."

Wait, so they DID discuss BY finding out about the massacre after the fact? That seems a contradiction.

So you believe BY would not have been able to uncover the names of the participants if he had so wanted to do so? That seems quite contradictory to everything I've read about BY's leadership.

[_ScottLloyd]

So BY's attitude towards the massacre is not discussed at all in the first volume? Ok.

I believe there was a cover-up on a local level that hindered President Young and others from learning about it. The authors of the new book say he learned about it "incrementally."

Wait, so they DID discuss BY finding out about the massacre after the fact? That seems a contradiction.

It's not a contradiction. Saying that he learned about it incrementally is not the same as saying the book goes into depth about his attitude regarding it.

So you believe BY would not have been able to uncover the names of the participants if he had so wanted to do so? That seems quite contradictory to everything I've read about BY's leadership.

I'm not accountable for your sources of information or your perceptions.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

So you believe BY would not have been able to uncover the names of the participants if he had so wanted to do so? That seems quite contradictory to everything I've read about BY's leadership.

What have you read about BY's leadership? Specific titles and authors preferred.

[_TAK]

ScottLloyd

So Churchnews is a Deseret News publication and all of the staff for that publication (Churchnews) is LDS?

TAK, I've grown bored with this line of questioning. I'm still feeling my way here, and I don't know what the rules/attitude are about derailment of threads, but I do have my own standards.

I will assume that's a yes..

[_beastie]

It's not a contradiction. Saying that he learned about it incrementally is not the same as saying the book goes into depth about his attitude regarding it.

But you and DCP claimed that the authors could not possibly mention his statement about the Lord's vengeance because it was out of chronological order, and it would be jarring. Yet now you are saying that the authors actually did mention information that was out of chronological order, and the book survived. Imagine. by the way, one statement about the Lord's vengeance isn't "going into depth about his attitude regarding it", any more than mentioning his incremental discovery of the facts is "going into depth" about the subsequent cover-up.

I'm not accountable for your sources of information or your perceptions.

Of course you aren't. It's just amazing, though, that so many people in the area knew exactly who the killers were, and yet not one of these faithful Mormons would have provided that information to the man that they regarded as the prophet of the Lord, if asked.

What have you read about BY's leadership? Specific titles and authors preferred.

Off the top of my head, I've read Lion of the Lord, The Mormon Conflict (which deals quite a bit with BY's leadership), and the Quinn Hierarchy books. Aside from those texts that deal specifically with BY's leadership, he's been mentioned quite a bit in other books I've read regarding Mormon history. If you'd like a list of every single title I've ever read regarding early church history, that will take a while.

Tell me, by your estimation, do you agree with Scott Lloyd that not a single member in the area who knew exactly who was involved in the massacre would have revealed that information to the prophet of the Lord, if requested? What titles have you read that have led you to the conclusion that BY invoked so little respect among believing members, that they would hide such significant information from him, were he to seek that information from them?

[_ScottLloyd]

ScottLloyd

So Churchnews is a Deseret News publication and all of the staff for that publication (Churchnews) is LDS?

TAK, I've grown bored with this line of questioning. I'm still feeling my way here, and I don't know what the rules/attitude are about derailment of threads, but I do have my own standards.

I will assume that's a yes..

That had already been asked and answered. Hence, my boredom.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Off the top of my head, I've read Lion of the Lord, The Mormon Conflict (which deals quite a bit with BY's leadership), and the Quinn Hierarchy books. Aside from those texts that deal specifically with BY's leadership, he's been mentioned quite a bit in other books I've read regarding Mormon history. If you'd like a list of every single title I've ever read regarding early church history, that will take a while.

I was hoping to see some specific works on Young (are you talking about Lion of the Lord by Stanley P. Hirshson?) Arrington's American Moses would be a very good start. If you think believe all of the Utah Territory and Church members did whatever Brigham Young told them to do, or were always honest with him you have some more reading to do. ;)

Tell me, by your estimation, do you agree with Scott Lloyd that not a single member in the area who knew exactly who was involved in the massacre would have revealed that information to the prophet of the Lord, if requested? What titles have you read that have led you to the conclusion that BY invoked so little respect among believing members, that they would hide such significant information from him, were he to seek that information from them?

I think the people who really knew what happened swore not to tell. I don't think many people really knew what had happened, and those that did were sworn to secrecy. Things seem to be easier to evaluate looking back on it, but I would argue that at the time there were all sorts of stories circulating about the massacre, why it happened, etc. I see too many people here looking for soundbite answers to historical questions that would take much more time than I am willing to invest for their benefit on this subject.

To be specific, I have no doubt that certain people could lie to Brigham Young, yes.