MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_Jason Bourne]

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10060114

After six years of unprecedented access to LDS Church archives, hundreds of hours in the nation's libraries and thousands if not millions of dollars spent on research, three Mormon historians believe they can put to rest the question of what prompted a southern Utah Mormon militia to slaughter 120 unarmed men, women and children at Mountain Meadows on Sept. 11 1857.

I am skeptical is was millions. That was a big leap from thousands to millions. But if it was millions who cares? It is a huge issue and warrants a decent book.

Amazingly, Turdley admits that Young's actions aided the WHY:

"It is true that [Young's] rhetoric during a time of war was part of the backdrop against which the massacre happened," Turley said

Good. I agree.

Why were these three employees of LDS Inc given unprecedented access to LDS historical archives but non LDS authors have not???

"We came up with the idea for the book ourselves. We were not assigned to do it," said Turley, assistant LDS Church historian. "We sought the cooperation of church leaders to get access to information [such as the First Presidency's confidential collection] but asked that we retain full editorial control and they've honored that."

Not surprising, the book penned by LDS Inc does not find fault with Young.

Most likely because he had no direct influence over the event. But I am sure fact will not satisfy you as you have concluded in your own fuzzy mind Young gave the order.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I cannot help but wonder how many of your colleagues had an open mind about, say, "An Insider's View . . . ?"

One way of trying to determine that would be to read their reviews carefully, to see if they handle the data in a responsible way. I think they do.

My own serious engagement with the Palmer book -- I read the whole thing, but only meticulously examined this one portion -- concentrated on his attempt to link the Moroni story with E. T. A. Hoffmann's Der goldne Topf, which, in my judgment, was demonstrably ridiculous and is wholly without merit.

I also wonder how many 'anti-Mormon' books FARMS has reviewed favorably.

The answer to that question would not be enough, in and of itself, to demonstrate that FARMS reviewers have been unfair or fatally biased in their responses. The only way of demonstrating such unfairness or crippling bias on their part would be -- dare I say it? -- by actually examining their reviews on a case by case basis, evaluating their use of evidence and inspecting their logic. If their logic is sound and their evidence reasonably representative and well-used, there remains no substantial ground on which to dismiss their responses as representing mere prejudice.

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?

Once again, the answer to that question would not be enough, in and of itself, simplistically, to demonstrate that FARMS writers have been unfair or fatally biased in what they've written. The only way of demonstrating such unfairness or crippling bias on their part would be -- I'm going to say it again -- by actually examining these works on a case by case basis, evaluating their use of evidence and inspecting their logic. If their logic is sound and their evidence reasonably representative and well-used, there remains no substantial ground on which to dismiss their writing as representing mere prejudice.

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 don't know any way I could possibly allay your suspicions. So far as I'm aware, our editorial conference room is not bugged, and no tapes of our conversations exist.

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.

The same can be said, of course, of neo-Darwinist responses to intelligent design theorists, of intelligent design critiques of neo-Darwinism, of monetarist responses to Keynesians, of Keynesian responses to monetarists, of Edward Said's critiques of Bernard Lewis, of Lewis's critiques of Said, and so on and so forth.

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.

Then you will have to reject a very great deal of scholarship that, in fact, consists precisely of defending paradigms and views against criticism. (And, as Thomas Kuhn showed many years ago, this is also common in the history of science.)

You seem, incidentally, to be laboring under the illusion that the conclusion reached by most if not all FARMS (or, more properly, Maxwell Institute) publications is simply "The Book of Mormon is true!" But this is not at all the case, as I point out 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":

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

[_Jason Bourne]

If they were not assigned to write it, who footed the millions?

What millions? Feltcher was flamboyant. She should document it.

[_Jason Bourne]

A few faithful LDS men ask the church leaders for permission to access confidential (perhaps unavailable to non LDS authors), records so they can write a faith promoting book about one of the worst events in church history.

Why would the authors need to ask for editorial control? If the church didn't think it would be a faith promoting book they never would have given permission, nor assisted in any way.

Gee have you read the book already? If not how do you know it is faith promoting. Sheesh!

I'll once again role play being a PR director for the church. As I have said before, my first plan would be to get faithful authors to write books disclosing bits of the truth while also presenting the apologetic perspective.

This is the way the PR machine works whenever there is something messy to address.

Bushman did a great job. Sounds like these guys will accomplish their mission as well.

Bushman wrote an honest well balanced open book. Did you read that one? He should be applauded and he did a fine job at it and was honest and open and continues to be so. If I recall you were pleased with his comments to the press about current temple sealing policy. But RSR can hardly be called faith promoting at all.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

Bushman wrote an honest well balanced open book. Did you read that one? He should be applauded and he did a fine job at it and was honest and open and continues to be so. If I recall you were pleased with his comments to the press about current temple sealing policy. But RSR can hardly be called faith promoting at all.

Bushman and this new MMM book are cattle prod in the hands of the bishops, used to scare the wondering sheep back into the corral.

Look! These books were authored by active members and one was funded by the church itself! I and my bishopric have read both and like the authors have not lost our testiphonies, and neither should you... zzzzapp! zzzzzzapppp!

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

I just picked up my own copy of Massacre at Mountain Meadows, and will shortly begin to read it.

I'm wondering whether I, as a Shades-certified "Chapel Mormon," will come away from it with the same impressions that you say you have.

In all that I've heard from the authors, both publicly and in conversation, and in all that I've seen from them in print, they have indeed said that the evidence indicates that Brigham Young didn't order it. But they have emphatically denied that the people in the wagon train "had it coming," and have been quite willing to say that the southern Utah Mormons who were involved bear principal if, indeed, not sole guilt for the massacre. If, contradicting all of their public statements, they have really written that "the people on the wagon train had it coming" and that "the Indians did it, anyway," there will be, to put it mildly, an enormous scandal and outcry. I'll be watching for that.

[_guy sajer]

I cannot help but wonder how many of your colleagues had an open mind about, say, "An Insider's View . . . ?"

One way of trying to determine that would be to read their reviews carefully, to see if they handle the data in a responsible way. I think they do.

My own serious engagement with the Palmer book -- I read the whole thing, but only meticulously examined this one portion -- concentrated on his attempt to link the Moroni story with E. T. A. Hoffmann's Der goldne Topf, which, in my judgment, was demonstrably ridiculous and is wholly without merit.

I did not find the golden pot argument particularly convincing either.

Based on the FARMS reviews I've read over the years, I'm less convinced than you that your colleagues always handle data in responsible ways. Rather, I see lots and lots of evidence of "prejudice" as you have used it to criticize Beastie.

Far more often than not, the manner in which the evidence is handled shows evidence itself of pre-judgment. We can agree to disagree about how objective FARMS is, although if you are trying to argue that FARMS makes a good faith effort at objectivity, I find this claim extremely specious.

I also wonder how many 'anti-Mormon' books FARMS has reviewed favorably.

The answer to that question would not be enough, in and of itself, to demonstrate that FARMS reviewers have been unfair or fatally biased in their responses. The only way of demonstrating such unfairness or crippling bias on their part would be -- dare I say it? -- by actually examining their reviews on a case by case basis, evaluating their use of evidence and inspecting their logic. If their logic is sound and their evidence reasonably representative and well-used, there remains no substantial ground on which to dismiss their responses as representing mere prejudice.

As I've said, I find FARMS reviews to show consistent evidence of bias. Some arguments, to be sure, are spot on, but my reading is that bias pervades its work, and that of other apologist writings. (Bias also pervades 'anti-Mormon' writings. I'm not saying FARMS is better or worse, I'm looking for honest concession from you that bias does exist, which you do not appear to be willing to concede. Can't say I'm surprised.)

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?

Once again, the answer to that question would not be enough, in and of itself, simplistically, to demonstrate that FARMS writers have been unfair or fatally biased in what they've written. The only way of demonstrating such unfairness or crippling bias on their part would be -- I'm going to say it again -- by actually examining these works on a case by case basis, evaluating their use of evidence and inspecting their logic. If their logic is sound and their evidence reasonably representative and well-used, there remains no substantial ground on which to dismiss their writing as representing mere prejudice.]

See my response above. Again, are you willing to concede that FARMS reviews and documents might carry some taint of bias? (Or is FARMS the only organization in the world that is wholly objective? My point is that you chastise Beastie for bias and prejudice, I'm trying to see whether you can turn your critical lense on yourself and your colleagues in Mormon apologetics.)][/quote]

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 don't know any way I could possibly allay your suspicions. So far as I'm aware, our editorial conference room is not bugged, and no tapes of our conversations exist.

I don't know, how about a yes or no? Do you chastise your colleagues in the Mormon apologetic community for bias and prejudice when they engage in it, or do you reserve your criticism only for your opponents? Whether the answer is yes or no helps us get to a point where we can judge better whether your criticism is a principle one or one merely of convenience.

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.

The same can be said, of course, of neo-Darwinist responses to intelligent design theorists, of intelligent design critiques of neo-Darwinism, of monetarist responses to Keynesians, of Keynesian responses to monetarists, of Edward Said's critiques of Bernard Lewis, of Lewis's critiques of Said, and so on and so forth.

Yes, in which case we have, I think, legitimate and reasonable right to view their conclusions (even ex ante) with a healthy dose of skepticism. Just because notable men engage in a certain behavior does not mean it is a desirable behavior.

Besides, to turn this around, if Lewis, Said, etc. are guilty of prejudice, which you now appear to rationalize away, why hold Beastie accountable for it?

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.

Then you will have to reject a very great deal of scholarship that, in fact, consists precisely of defending paradigms and views against criticism. (And, as Thomas Kuhn showed many years ago, this is also common in the history of science.)

But, Dan, you've missed a key element of Kuhn's arguments--the occurrence of paradigm shift--the throwing off of certain theoretical frameworks, the overturning of long-held beliefs. 200 years from now, FARMS will be making arguments hinging on the precise same theoretical framework on which its basing its arguments today. In Mormon apologetics, change occurs on the fringes, but there's never the type of paradigm shift there is in the Kuhnian world.

Even then, cognitive dissonance as a research tool is bad science, regardless who's doing it and why.

[You seem, incidentally, to be laboring under the illusion that the conclusion reached by most if not all FARMS (or, more properly, Maxwell Institute) publications is simply "The Book of Mormon is true!" But this is not at all the case, as I point out 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":

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

I don't labor under this illusion at all. I'm aware that FARMS does a variety of different types of work. You've drawn a wholly incorrect inference. I see nothing I've written to suggest this. My frame of reference is clearly FARMS' apologetic work viz Mormonism.

[_Inconceivable]

After six years of unprecedented access to LDS Church archives, hundreds of hours in the nation's libraries and thousands if not millions of dollars spent on research, three Mormon historians believe they can put to rest the question of what prompted a southern Utah Mormon militia to slaughter 120 unarmed men, women and children at Mountain Meadows on Sept. 11 1857.

Is it true that this work has prompted the Vatican to produce a no holds barred documentary on the Spanish Inquisition?


...anyone read "if I did it" by OJ Simpson?..

[_Boaz & Lidia]

Guy,

Daniel has far too much at stake.

His life's work, his job, his family, marriage, friends, his home are all at risk.

He simply cannot arrive at any conclusion which moves the above risk closer to reality.

In a way he is trapped by the Mormons closest to himself.

From the sounds of it, you got out early enough. Dan did not and is too close to finishing to back out and start fresh. The entrenchment gets worse with sons returning from missions, getting married in the temple, and grand kids repeating the cycle.

He is fully aware of what he must do.

[_guy sajer]

Guy,

Daniel has far too much at stake.

His life's work, his job, his family, marriage, friends, his home are all at risk.

He simply cannot arrive at any conclusion which moves the above risk closer to reality.

In a way he is trapped by the Mormons closest to himself.

From the sounds of it, you got out early enough. Dan did not and is too close to finishing to back out and start fresh. The entrenchment gets worse with sons returning from missions, getting married in the temple, and grand kids repeating the cycle.

He is fully aware of what must do.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for Dan to view the evidence and reach the conclusions he has. I see it all the time. I have no doubt as to his sincerity. I don't believe he is cynical in this sense you're suggesting.

I'm just looking for a concession from Dan that his apologetic colleagues are as biased and prejudicial as he accuses Beastie to be, and information on whether his stated argument viz withholding judgments is a principled one (e.g., consistently applied) or one of convenience (used solely or mostly to criticize his opponents).