MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_Daniel Peterson]

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. . . . 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.

Fiendishly clever of the authors, I must say.

It's left to you to divine the true subliminal message of the book by parsing the penumbra of the shadow of its silent insinuations. Fortunately, you can't be taken in.

By the way, my copy of Massacre at Mountain Meadows is dedicated "To the victims." Pretty cunning that, in its sinister way.

"The truth of the matter is that there is literally no way that this [as yet unseen] letter is not damning in some way." (Master Scartch, 30 July 2008, MDB)

"Actually, you lose either way." (Master Scartch, 31 July 2008, MDB)

[_James Clifford Miller]

Could you please double check, Dr. Peterson? I thought Richard Turley was an attorney and did not have any kind of a history degree. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

He has the same number of graduate history degrees that Leonard Arrington and Juanita Brooks and Fawn Brodie had, and precisely the same number of graduate history degrees that Will Bagley has.

The fact is that he's been managing director of the Church Historical Department for roughly twenty years, and had already published a considerable amount on Mormon history prior to co-authoring Massacre at Mountain Meadows, including Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hofmann Case (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992). My bet is that, if Oxford University Press -- arguably the most prestigious academic press in the English-speaking world, and one that does rigorous peer review in order to protect its reputation -- had found Massacre at Mountain Meadows embarrassingly amateurish, Oxford University Press would not have published it.

Thank you for the correction. To clarify, does Mr. Turley hold a masters or doctorate in history?

I’m very impressed with the prestige of Oxford University’s Press, the publisher of this new volume. But I’m also impressed with the prestige of Yale University and its various colleges. I know that in March of 2003, Yale Divinity School held a conference on Joseph Smith. But Yale’s prestige didn’t protect it when the LDS Church threatened to withhold BYUs funding of the conference if Dr. Quinn were to participate. Prestige notwithstanding, the Church’s dollars spoke and Yale caved in and Dr. Quinn, ironically a Yale graduate, was excluded from the conference.

So I have to wonder how much of a parallel there is between Church dollars influencing the Yale conference and Church dollars influencing Oxford University Press. Besides the “thousands, if not millions of dollars” spent by the Church on research, I wonder how much the Church paid directly or indirectly to Oxford University Press for the publication of Massacre at Mountain Meadows.

James Clifford Miller

[_Boaz & Lidia]

Could you please double check, Dr. Peterson? I thought Richard Turley was an attorney and did not have any kind of a history degree. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

He has the same number of graduate history degrees that Leonard Arrington and Juanita Brooks and Fawn Brodie had, and precisely the same number of graduate history degrees that Will Bagley has.

The fact is that he's been managing director of the Church Historical Department for roughly twenty years, and had already published a considerable amount on Mormon history prior to co-authoring Massacre at Mountain Meadows, including Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hofmann Case (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992). My bet is that, if Oxford University Press -- arguably the most prestigious academic press in the English-speaking world, and one that does rigorous peer review in order to protect its reputation -- had found Massacre at Mountain Meadows embarrassingly amateurish, Oxford University Press would not have published it.

Thank you for the correction. To clarify, does Mr. Turley hold a masters or doctorate in history?

I’m very impressed with the prestige of Oxford University’s Press, the publisher of this new volume. But I’m also impressed with the prestige of Yale University and its various colleges. I know that in March of 2003, Yale Divinity School held a conference on Joseph Smith. But Yale’s prestige didn’t protect it when the LDS Church threatened to withhold BYUs funding of the conference if Dr. Quinn were to participate. Prestige notwithstanding, the Church’s dollars spoke and Yale caved in and Dr. Quinn, ironically a Yale graduate, was excluded from the conference.

So I have to wonder how much of a parallel there is between Church dollars influencing the Yale conference and Church dollars influencing Oxford University Press. Besides the “thousands, if not millions of dollars” spent by the Church on research, I wonder how much the Church paid directly or indirectly to Oxford University Press for the publication of Massacre at Mountain Meadows.

James Clifford Miller

Pwnage cometh.

[_James Clifford Miller]

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. . . . 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.

Fiendishly clever of the authors, I must say.

It's left to you to divine the true subliminal message of the book by parsing the penumbra of the shadow of its silent insinuations. Fortunately, you can't be taken in.

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."

James Clifford Miller

[_antishock8]

If you could see where I'm sitting right now -- in one of two adjoining rooms in my basement with built-in ceiling-to-floor bookshelves on every wall, which still can't hold the hundreds and hundreds of books in most of the other rooms of my house, to say nothing of the books in my two campus offices -- perhaps even you would recognize how silly it is to try to portray me, of all people, as a "man of one book."

Do you buy all these books retail, or do you send away for like, a professor kit that comes with all the volumes included? You wasted good money on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at the public library.

[_Ray A]

I think the Church has one of the largest, most comprehensive apologetics "forces" I've ever seen. There is virtually nothing they haven't covered, or are attempting to cover. I agree with Moser and Owen in this regard. Unfortunately, it leaves me unconvinced that I should reconsider my desire to sin.

[Tator]

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:

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.

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.

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.
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.

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."2

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.

Some things that are true are not very useful.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Do you not recognize a breach of ethics, or integrity, or morality?

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.

http://www.mormonismi.net/kirjoitukset/ ... teli.shtml
"The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect" by Boyd K Packer

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.

[_beastie]

Thanks to mms for providing even more evidence that Packer's attitude is still the prevalent one in the organization that funded this book:

http://mormontimes.com/WC_headquarters.php?id=1663

Elder Oaks' 1985 talk also contained the caution that "criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward church authorities, general or local."

"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."

However, Oaks did say one thing with which I agree:

3. Bias. Readers need to be sensitive to the bias -- which may be religious or irreligious, believing, skeptical or hostile -- of the writer or publisher, Elder Oaks said.

An author's bias may be evident in the way he or she portrays sacred experiences and his or her decisions on what news stories to publish and what to omit. Bias may also be present in the fact that the news media have "ignored all of the positive evidence and then expended so many lines of negative disclosures."

I would add that bias of the FUNDER needs to be considered, as well.

[_Ray A]

for what it's worth, I really don't believe BY ordered the massacre. But if the hypothetical were true, no the Church would not admit it. This was made clear by Dallin Oaks, commenting on why the Church at first banned Mormon Enigma from being mentioned, advertised or promoted in official LDS circles:

"My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors." (emphasis mine)

Here we see the huge difference between someone like Quinn and Oaks/Packer. There have been some very fine Mormon historians who never agreed with Packer. I've always felt that Richard Poll was one of them. The real measure of the worth of any apologist or historian is how truthful he/she is, even if that truth is damaging to his/her cause. There is something very admirable and honourable about making such admissions. The people initially drawn in by approaches like Packer's, will end up disillusioned, and probably very angry.

[_Jason Bourne]

Dan, did you overlook the fact that these three historians are not only LDS, but WORK FOR LDS Inc?

You're working your way up to a classic ad hominem fallacy, I suppose, but, even though I have no expectation that you'll acknowledge the point, I have to repeat that the principal -- and far and away the best -- method for evaluating a book is carefully to read the book.

I don't think that this idea is really very controversial among normal people.

Why would I read this book? I have no need to believe in Mormonism. Besides, I already know who did it.

Now this is worthy of a sig line.

So B&S,.....I mean B&L, who did it and how do you know? Evidence please.