MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_beastie]

What a revealing thread this has been. Each of my major points:

1. the conflict of interest exists
2. the conflict of interest will undermine confidence
3. that undermined confidence can only be mitigated by the church allowing other qualified researchers access to all the same materials these authors accessed

has been validated, and more or less conceded to by the defenders of the faith who continued to participate.

This thread is as long as it is because defenders of the faith opposed some or all of these points along the way. I argued in defense of these points in response to their opposition. DCP admitted number 1, but opposed numbers 2 and 3. Scott wouldn’t even admit number 1 until he realized DCP had already conceded it, and then he backtracked. Other defenders of the faith popped in now and then, and usually opposed number 1 as well.

Now, think about it. I was making points that have now, after 50 pages, been conceded to be legitimate and valid. Defenders of the faith argued against these points. I defended the points in response.

And yet this fact – that I made valid points and defended them when they were opposed – is a matter of ridicule for DCP and Scott.

I suppose their paradigm demands that I make my valid and legitimate points and then remain silent when these same valid and legitimate points were contested. Shall I also bow my head and say “yes”? Even more revealing is the fact that, as I defended my points that have now been conceded to be valid and legitimate, defenders of the faith accused me of being an angry shrew.

So, in sum, what I find so revealing about this thread is that defenders of the faith seem to think that critics should not defend valid and legitimate points when those points are opposed by believers, and that several defenders of the faith perceive a female critic who does persistently defend valid and legitimate points as an angry shrew.

[_Daniel Peterson]

That's a really funny summary, beastie. Well played!

But you forgot one of your very first "major points," from the very first page. It's the point, essentially, that drew me into this extremely revealing pseudo-discussion. You described the book's "apologetic character" without ever having seen the book. (Have you seen the book even yet?) I found that remarkable, and still do.

[_beastie]

That's a really funny summary, beastie. Well played!

But you forgot one of your very first "major points," from the very first page. It's the point, essentially, that drew me into this extremely revealing pseudo-discussion. You described the book's "apologetic character" without ever having seen the book. (Have you seen the book even yet?) I found that remarkable, and still do.

LOL! As you recognized earlier, I quite willingly refined my comments, recognizing that "apologetic" could well be inaccurate. You're well aware of this fact, because, If I recall correctly, you cited it for another poster earlier.

Beastie, way back on page eight

I have refrained from judging the book, other than to say it is logical to assume that it will present the church's side of the story, and will be as friendly as possible to the LDS church given the topic. I do believe it would not be unfair to call the work apologetic, but if that is not quite accurate I'm happy to use this summary instead. I have quite explicitly stated more than once that my referring to the book as apologetic was not meant as a pejorative term nor to imply it was inaccurate.

So, DCP, what was the last 42 pages about?

[_Daniel Peterson]

So, DCP, what was the last 42 pages about?

Nothing.

Of course.

You didn't already know my answer to that question? (Actually, I'd already realized that you didn't. Which is why I've tried repeating it in various formulations. Again and again and again. I'm a teacher, a pretty patient one, and I try really hard to help my classes understand.)

[_harmony]

That's a really funny summary, beastie. Well played!

But you forgot one of your very first "major points," from the very first page. It's the point, essentially, that drew me into this extremely revealing pseudo-discussion. You described the book's "apologetic character" without ever having seen the book. (Have you seen the book even yet?) I found that remarkable, and still do.

One point, which she rectified. What about her other three points? What about calling her an angry shrew? What about 40+ pages of ridicule and mocking her?

Good grief. Sometimes I'm so embarrassed by my fellow Mormons.

[_Daniel Peterson]

One point, which she rectified.

Her initial point.

What about her other three points?

I responded to all of them. Several times each.

What about calling her an angry shrew?

No thanks. I won't do it.

I'm surprised that you would even suggest it.

What about 40+ pages of ridicule and mocking her?

Again, I'm just not interested. And I don't think that this thread will reach ninety pages -- although, at fifty pages [!], it's already more than three times the length of any other thread on the page, and many times the length of most of them.

No, I'm content, on the whole, to laugh at the length and the utter (and utterly book-free) vacuity of the thread. If you want to attack beastie personally, you're going to have to do the heavy lifting yourself.

Good grief. Sometimes I'm so astonished by some of those who call themselves Mormons.

[_beastie]

Nothing.

It was in the last 42 pages that you argued against two of my points, which have since been shown to be valid and legitimate:

2. the conflict of interest will undermine confidence
3. that undermined confidence can only be mitigated by the church allowing other qualified researchers access to all the same materials these authors accessed

I responded to you in attempts to defend these two points against your opposition. I might also add that I (and others) obviously defended them well, since they have been validated.

I have a strong suspicion that any topic in which the critics' assertions end up being legitimate and validated are always "nothing" in your opinion.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It was in the last 42 pages that you argued against two of my points

No I didn't.

You plainly didn't understand what I was saying.

I can't think of any other ways to express it, though. I give up.

I have a strong suspicion that any topic in which the critics' assertions end up being legitimate and validated are always "nothing" in your opinion.

No. Fifty pages of speculation about the character, weaknesses, and reception of a book in the absence of any actual contact with the book will always be "nothing" in my opinion.

Always.

And transparently obviously.

(And hilariously, too.)

[_beastie]

No I didn't.

You plainly didn't understand what I was saying.

I can't think of any other ways to express it, though. I give up.

Somehow I suspected that you would now deny that you argued against points 2 and 3. In fact, I almost went ahead and posted that prediction, but did not due to wanting to see if you would actually do it.

So, tell me, what was this post – just one out of numerous examples – really all about?

Beastie:

All personal barbs aside, I do think it should be high on your list of concerns, because the church allowing other qualified researchers access to the same material would do quite a bit to mitigate the concerns about the conflict of interest.

DCP’s response:

When and if such "concerns" loom large among the professional historians, Mormon and non-Mormon, who will read and review and respond to Massacre at Mountain Meadows, it will probably rise a bit higher on my list. But, since I myself am not a professional historian of Mormonism and, even among my Mormon-historical interests, have no special interest in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, it will never be all that high.

As it is, the fact that such "concerns" are being expressed and expressed and iterated and reiterated and expressed again and then repeated a few more times and then expressed again several more times and then reiterated yet again (by a handful of people who aren't historians, professional or even amateur, and who haven't even read the book) on a thread on a small message board doesn't exactly constitute a major crisis in Mormon historiography.

I expect that Massacre at Mountain Meadows will be received quite well by American academic historians.

My new comments:

Hmmm. DCP is now maintaining that he did NOT oppose points 2 and 3. Yet he put “concerns” in scare quotes, and expressed skepticism that, in fact, any “concerns about conflict of interest” would be expressed by anyone other than a “a handful of people.. on a thread on a small message board”.

I then responded with:

I understand that the opinions and concerns of the unwashed masses are beneath your notice or concern. You have made that known in many ways, but thank you for reminding us once again.

DCP clarified his stance with even stronger language:

Well, really. What have you got here?

A small handful of people (five or six, and perhaps even less), none of whom appear to be historians, orating on an obscure message board about the likely crippling defects of a book none of them have read?

How seriously is one supposed to take that?

Rest assured, there are numerous other examples that demonstrate DCP’s opposition to points 2 and 3.

This is beginning to remind me of Scott insisting he never really opposed point 1.


DCP

No. Fifty pages of speculation about the character, weaknesses, and reception of a book in the absence of any actual contact with the book will always be "nothing" in my opinion.

Always.

And transparently obviously.

(And hilariously, too.)

How revealing that DPC has consistently ignored my repeated assertion that the existence of the conflict of interest, in and of itself, does not automatically mean the text was compromised.

However, at least the authors, if the rumors are correct, actually do understand this problem, and want to mitigate it through the church allowing other qualified researchers access to the same material.

No, Amazon still hasn’t shipped the book. They claimed a window from Aug 29-Sept 17. Every other time they’ve delivered my books by the earlier ship date, but not this time. Rest assured, when I read the book, I will create another thread devoted to the content.

[_Daniel Peterson]

First of all, beastie, congratulations! Your post, just above, was the one-thousandth entry on this vacuous thread!

I hope you heard the band playing and saw the cheerleaders doing human pyramids.

A non-leather-bound non-copy of Massacre at Mountain Meadows will be delivered to your home, and the non-discussion will flourish as never before.

Somehow I suspected that you would now deny that you argued against points 2 and 3.

Of course I would!

Because (in a sense) it's very nearly true!

I didn't write all those posts attempting to explain my position to you just for the pleasure of typing, you know.

This is beginning to remind me of Scott insisting he never really opposed point 1.

LOL. Which ought to tell you something.

What a fascinating case!

Fifty-one pages!




XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX