MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_Boaz & Lidia]

I look forward to a comparison between the LDS MMM, Bagley's book and Brooks book.

[Guest]

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.

Begs, beeotchaaa

[_Boaz & Lidia]

Read the first part of chapter one on Amazon.

[_Mike Reed]

The Church Historian's office has denied me access to the entire Charles W. Nibley Papers collection for my MA Thesis (on a different topic). However, they have fortunately been willing to send me copies of a few documents within this collection, as long as I ask for them specifically, and as long as they don't contain sensitive information in them.

This means that I am pretty much limited to researching relevant selections that I already know exist—specific documents that have already been cited in other publications. If it wasn't for an article written by Ronald W. Walker, and the citations that he gave in it, I would have never known which selections in the CWN papers to ask the Historian's office for.

So... although it may be true that the authors of the new MMM book are going to interpret the documents they cite different from how you and I may interpret them, at least we will have the citation of those documents.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

The Church Historian's office has denied me access to the entire Charles W. Nibley Papers collection for my MA Thesis (on a different topic). However, they have fortunately been willing to send me copies of a few documents within this collection, as long as I ask for them specifically, and as long as they don't contain sensitive information in them.

This means that I am pretty much limited to researching relevant selections that I already know exist—specific documents that have already been cited in other publications. If it wasn't for an article written by Ronald W. Walker, and the citations that he gave in it, I would have never known which selections in the CWN papers to ask the Historian's office for.

So... although it may be true that the authors of the new MMM book are going to interpret the documents they cite different from how you and I may interpret them, at least we will have the citation of those documents.

This illustrates my point. Why were these authors given unfettered access to the archives and granted full editorial control over the presentation of these documents, while you are not?

The playing field is not level.

[_guy sajer]

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.

Begs, beeotchaaa

I suspect that B&L didn't intend to use the term 'beg the question,' as per its formal definition in Wikipedia . Terms and usage change over time, Dan. People use phrases in ways that they understand, and with a certain meaning in mind, that does not always conform with strict, traditional usage.

But then you know that. You just wanted to take a dig at B&L. I get it.

[_Yong Xi]

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.

I understand that math is out there for all to see (including other mathematicians). I also understand that science can be fudged for a period of time and that I have to trust the scientific community will set it aright over time. It should be understood that historians are affected by ideology, preconceptions, etc. Because of this, I should be able to draw my conclusions about the historians treatment after examining the sources. How do I respond to historians who cite and draw conclusions from sources that don't exist to others? How can I abuse, if necessary my own ideology and preconceptions if the historical sources that could accomplish such don't exist to me?

[_Boaz & Lidia]

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.

Begs, beeotchaaa

I suspect that B&L didn't intend to use the term 'beg the question,' as per its formal definition in Wikipedia . Terms and usage change over time, Dan. People use phrases in ways that they understand, and with a certain meaning in mind, that does not always conform with strict, traditional usage.

But then you know that. You just wanted to take a dig at B&L. I get it.

A cat which has been backed into a corner often has very few options left, and usually fears eminent demise.

[_Mike Reed]

This illustrates my point. Why were these authors given unfettered access to the archives and granted full editorial control over the presentation of these documents, while you are not?

Because they are trusted historians in relatively good standing with the Church.

The playing field is not level.

True. But just having the book published will make the field slightly more level than it has been before, even if the change is just a degree or two.

[Guest]

I must say that I admire the speed with which you've read, devoured, and taken the measure of the new Oxford MMM book.

To my embarrassment, I haven't even gotten around to buying a copy yet. In fact, I haven't so much as seen it.

I have both purchased and completed my first read of the book. My summary at this point is:

It contains classic LDS doubletalk so Chapel Mormons will leave its pages with the age-old Official message that (1) Brigham Young didn't order it, (2) the people on the wagon train had it coming, and (3) the Indians did it, anyway.

Brigham Young may have made some completely innocent remarks about blood atonement, killing people, and letting the Indians kill people and steal their livestock which set the stage for violence, but didn't set the stage for violence.

Brigham Young didn't order the massacre, but the people had no question that they were following his orders.

The inoffensive, innocent people on the wagon train didn't have it coming and nothing could justify the violence, but they were offensive louts who DID have it coming and it's completely understandable why people in southern Utah would massacre them.

Most of fighting and killing was done by members of the Nauvoo Legion and not the Indians particularly on the last day when Lee and his men betrayed and killed the remaining men, women, and children, but a noticeably disproportionate amount of the narrative is devoted to the little fighting and killing the Indians did.

Southern Utahans in dual roles as commanding officers of the Nauvoo Legion AND the highest LDS Church and community leaders -- who were advised by Church headquarters in advance of the arrival of the wagon train -- planned and ordered the massacre carried out by LDS who were both church members and formally enlisted Nauvoo Legion soldiers under direct orders of the Nauvoo Legion from, if I remember correctly, at least four different communities in Southern Utah (which required substantial and coordinated travel over long distances from disparate locations). But the massacre was the work of a small number of rogue elements acting spontaneously on their own.

James Clifford Miller