MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_Yong Xi]

Ok, Daniel, how many purely academic, non-apologetic books has the LDS church directly funded? A list would be fine.

The nature of a book is best determined by examining the book itself.

Agreed. Understanding how the book came about is part of that examination. It seems obvious, that any book published with the blessing (funding, archive access, etc.) of any organization must be examined very carefully. How does one examine sources that are not available to the public or other researchers? I am speaking of sources that are cited and those that influence the authors' conclusions but are not cited.

[_beastie]

You will, in that case, interpret it incorrectly, as is your very frequent habit. Which is a major reason for my unwillingness to attempt serious conversation with you on serious subjects.

Of course, Dan will not lower himself to answer the question.

Anyone know what books the LDS church has funded in the past?

We all know that they fund and publish church manuals, magazines, etc. That's a given. And, of course HoC and JoD.

My impression has always been that it is very unusual for the LDS church to fund a book. Of course I may be wrong. Perhaps someone who knows better will be willing to lower him or herself in order to answer the question.

I do know that Talmage's Jesus the Christ was fully supported by, and likely funded by, (whatever funds that required, I'm assuming not a hashish allowance) the LDS church.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism appears to have been at least indirectly funded by the church, through access to BYU, but did more funding than that take place? Any others?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Agreed. Understanding how the book came about is part of that examination. It seems obvious, that any book published with the blessing (funding, archive access, etc.) of any organization must be examined very carefully. How does one examine sources that are not available to the public or other researchers? I am speaking of sources that are cited and those that influence the authors' conclusions but are not cited.

Careful. You're entering into territory that has inevitably gotten me into trouble with critics.

I've argued several times, in print, that historians are more like witnesses than they are like, say, mathematicians. The reasoning of a mathematician is entirely public, and his character, trustworthiness, ideology, etc., are irrelevant. The logic either holds or it doesn't. When we read a historian's work, by contrast, we have to take his word for it that he's accurately representing the sources he cites, that he has cited all of the salient sources, etc.

Scientists are more like mathematicians in this regard than like historians, but not quite entirely; there have been more than a few cases of the fudging of data, the outright falsification of laboratory results, and etc. To guard against this, scientists expect experimental outcomes to be replicated. A somewhat similar safeguard works in historiography, but it's far and away not so simple a matter as merely repeating an experiment and checking the results.

Anyway, whenever I've ventured to suggest that ideology, preconceptions, and the like affect historians and cannot simply be ignored -- there is no Marxist mathematics, but there are most definitely Marxist, Freudian, secularizing, faithful, and many other kinds of historiography -- I've been accused of employing vicious ad hominems.

Of course, I agree that concentrating altogether on the historian rather than the historiography cannot be justified in most cases -- biographies of historians themselves, and metahistorical studies of their work, are obvious exceptions -- and that raising questions about a historian's ideological commitments and even character can easily be abused (and abusive). In fact, I think that is actually occurring right now, in some circles, in the case of the Walker, Turley, and Leonard book. Nothing can be substituted for actually examining the book itself.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism appears to have been at least indirectly funded by the church, through access to BYU, but did more funding than that take place? Any others?

And I suppose that you would consider the Encyclopedia of Mormonism an apologetic venture? On what basis?

The Church funded Leonard Arrington's Church History Department for many years, which produced numerous historical publications. Do you consider them all apologetic works? If you do, on what basis? Please be specific.

The Church is currently helping, in a massive way, to fund the landmark Joseph Smith Papers project. Do you consider that an apologetic undertaking? If so, on what basis?

[_beastie]

I think you are using the term in a far more narrow sense than I am. If you are more comfortable with "defines the church's position", then I'm fine with that, as well.

In my view, any text that spells out the stance of the church with the specific goal of strengthening the faith of members is apologetic, but that may be an inexact use of the term.

Arrington's department did produce work that was not apologia, in my view - however, the fact that the church apparently did not approve of that direction supports my current view that the church is only interested in funding texts that will support their view, and present material in such a way that will help members of the church preserve faith in the face of controversy. However, perhaps Bushman's text is an omen of a different tactic.

Encyclopedia of Mormonism is in a somewhat different category, because it's not addressing just one event or person, although I'm sure it was still written with the view or preserving faith.

I think that any text written by believers with the intent of preserving faith in the face of controversy is apologia. I think that, given church leaders' recent views of the appropriate sharing of historical material, it is undeniable that their main goal is to preserve faith. Do you disagree with that?

[_beastie]

The Church is currently helping, in a massive way, to fund the landmark Joseph Smith Papers project. Do you consider that an apologetic undertaking? If so, on what basis?

If you're referring to the same project that advertised for participation, and explained the terms as finding a satisfactory way of dealing with Joseph Smith' history (an advertisement that was quickly removed because it was reproduced on internet boards as proof of the apologetic attempt), then yes, I consider that an apologetic undertaking. Perhaps someone remembers where to find the copy of that ad, I'm on my way out the door now and won't have time to deal with it until later this weekend.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If you're referring to the same project that advertised for participation, and explained the terms as finding a satisfactory way of dealing with Joseph Smith' history (an advertisement that was quickly removed because it was reproduced on internet boards as proof of the apologetic attempt), then yes, I consider that an apologetic undertaking. Perhaps someone remembers where to find the copy of that ad, I'm on my way out the door now and won't have time to deal with it until later this weekend.

You're talking about this summer's seminar led by Richard Bushman at BYU, which has now concluded.

That's not even remotely what I'm referring to.

I guess you aren't aware of the Joseph Smith Papers project.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism appears to have been at least indirectly funded by the church, through access to BYU, but did more funding than that take place?

Keep in mind, This Encyclopedia of Mormonism

does not necessarily represent the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Which begs the question on this LDS Inc funded MMM book, will it contain a similar disclaimer?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Which begs the question on this LDS Inc funded MMM book, will it contain a similar disclaimer?

It raises the question. It doesn't beg it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

And yes, I'm quite confident that it will/does.

[_guy sajer]

Do you expect to be taken seriously at all? I'm not "dismissing" the book, I'm stating an obvious fact. If the LDS church funds a book about MMM, it is obviously going to be apologetic in nature.

Do you expect to be taken seriously at all? (If you do, give it up. At least with me. I simply can't. And your remarks here on this thread, once again straight from the Department of Redundancy Department, illustrate why.) The nature of a book should be determined through examining the book.

I've never understood the defensiveness among apologists regarding the term apologetic.

There's nothing wrong with the term apologetic. As I explain in my Editor's Introduction to FARMS Review 18/2 (2006), entitled "The Witchcraft Paradigm: On Claims to 'Second Sight' by People Who Say It Doesn't Exist," it's a perfectly honorable word:

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=2&id=621

Some critics, of course, take it necessarily to imply dishonesty and use it as shorthand for slipshod pseudoscholarship, which is objectionable, unjustifiable, and unfair, but the term itself is a respectable one.

I'm not allowed to use the word??? LOL.

LOL. Do you expect to be taken seriously at all? Nobody said that you're "not allowed to use the word."

But the term apologetic has a determinate meaning, and, since you apparently haven't even seen the new Oxford book, it isn't clear on what grounds (beyond ideological prejudice) you've determined that it applies.

I agree with Dan is that one should ideally reserve opinions about a book until one has read it. This is sound advice that all should heed, but few probably do, including, I am reasonably certain, your colleagues in the Mormon apologetic community.

I cannot help but wonder how many of your colleagues had an open mind about, say, "An Insider's View . . . ?" I also wonder how many 'anti-Mormon' books FARMS has reviewed favorably. (I concede that the reviewers read the book, but am questioning whether they had already made up their minds about it before they read it. I guess also that using Dan's definition, this would make them prejudiced as well, if this was indeed the case.) I also wonder many books written by FARMS and other in the apologetic community reach conclusions reasonably perceived as damaging to Mormonism's truth claims?

I am not accusing you of anything Dan, just wondering in general. And if this were to occur among your colleagues, I wonder if you are as vocal to them about the need for open-mindedness and to avoid prejudicial conclusions. I suspect, but am willing to be shown to be wrong, that your (I think largely truthful) principle is one of convenience that you use to strike at critics but which you sheath when you're among your colleagues.

I would further argue that much apologetic work is in fact 'pseudo-scholarship' in the sense that one can predict well ahead of almost any effort the types of conclusions likely to be reached. As a general rule, I don't consider scholarship to consist of starting with the conclusion and working backward, while stuffing and fitting all the evidence into a pre-determined box.

And yes, I think critics are equally as guilty. In fact, I think this kind of behavior is far, far more the norm than exception, even among the learned, who are every bit as prejudicial as the unlearned, only on different topics, and who, through high-sounding, but self-serving rhetoric, are better at times of cloaking their prejudice. (And yes, I am guilty as well.)

So, Dan, I agree with you, I just wonder how consistently you apply this principle.