MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_Daniel Peterson]

That's precisely what I had in mind.

Then, to quote, "you chose poorly."

No, I didn't.

It simply isn't the case that all, or most, or even a significant minority of the apologetic works published by the Maxwell Institute merely come to the conclusion "Mormonism is true!"

[_Yong Xi]

Before the internet, "Cover ups" could be rather passive and implicit like "the invisible hand". Just don't mention anything but that there is anti-Mormon literature out there somewhere. Now days, even an active cover up seems unlikely to work. But innoculation! Now that's bound to work. Expose curious members to a tiny part of, or a watered down version of, critical arguments, difficult history and surprising aspects of Joseph Smith's life and activites. Do it with a air of confidence from the faithful perspective and against the assumed background that of course the church is still true (the authors are LDS after all) and we have succesfull innoculation.
As soon as someone brings it up, the member can immediately take the inward stance of "oh, that? I already know about that!" and then go on back to the all is well in Zion mentality.

Innoculation is the key.

Gee you have read the book already as well? List five watered down issues please.


Sheesh. You people bitch, yes bitch, and I have too, that the Church does not give full disclosure about its history, that it typically promotes a faith promoting view. Now a book comes out that may and hopefully does, deal with a sticky issue and you bitch. Same for RSR. TD calls it faith promoting. So what if they are inoculating. You don't think it is agood and proper thing for the Church to do this? I am all for it.

But no you all just bitch about it either way. Sheeesh.

The church owns the archives, so they can do what they want. Maybe someday they will allow non-lds historians to view the archives. Perhaps, this is a step closer to that.

I don't know that it is "good and proper" for the church to inoculate, but that is what most organizations do.

Now, if they would disclose their finances. This would be great, even if outside auditors were never involved.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason, my friend, what happens to members who write a faith challenging book?

There is another another option. That is a more neutral book.

They get Xed that's what. (Or disfellowshipped, or called to order, or something along these lines).

Bushman's book had raised alot of eyebrows, Did he get ex'd? So did Mormon Enigma. While the authors were banned from speaking in Church for a short period they were not ex'd and now the book is sold at Deseret Book. Van Wagner did not get ex'd.

Are you seriously suggesting the church (or its faithful members) would pay millions or even hundreds of thousand of dollars to have a book published that would destroy or challenge some testimonies?

See above.

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.

Yes I have read it and I actually met Bushman in SLC. I do think it is faith promoting. It is innoculating. I think it was clearly intended to be so.

I agree that it could be innoculating but the book was not faith promoting and it was candid and land mark book. A huge leap in the right direction. I think it should be the text book for a the Church history year in Seminary.

As I have stated many times.... the way to deal with messy issues from a PR standpoint is to have some expert give just enough of the truth to have it out there, while providing the apologetic spin. This is PR 101.

Bushman's book is not "just enough." It covers most contreversial issues and in most cases he does not opine.

I think this is the approach the church is taking and I think we will continue to see more of this.

No, I don't blame the church nor am I bitching about it.

Yea you sort of are but mostly Tarski was and Boaz as well.

[_Daniel Peterson]

As I have stated many times.... the way to deal with messy issues from a PR standpoint is to have some expert give just enough of the truth to have it out there, while providing the apologetic spin. This is PR 101.

I think this is the approach the church is taking and I think we will continue to see more of this.

No, I don't blame the church nor am I bitching about it. The church is not the only org who handles messy stuff in this way. Have you ever noticed how big companies handle problems? Politicians? The military? This approach is very effective.

It's simply absurd to treat Ron Walker, Glen Leonard, Rick Turley, and Richard Bushman [!!!] as if they were, first and foremost (or even to any signficant degree), PR agents rather than highly regarded, widely respected, and very accomplished professional historians.

[_truth dancer]

As I have stated many times.... the way to deal with messy issues from a PR standpoint is to have some expert give just enough of the truth to have it out there, while providing the apologetic spin. This is PR 101.

I think this is the approach the church is taking and I think we will continue to see more of this.

No, I don't blame the church nor am I bitching about it. The church is not the only org who handles messy stuff in this way. Have you ever noticed how big companies handle problems? Politicians? The military? This approach is very effective.

It's simply absurd to treat Ron Walker, Glen Leonard, Rick Turley, and Richard Bushman [!!!] as if they were, first and foremost (or even to any signficant degree), PR agents rather than highly regarded, widely respected, and very accomplished professional historians.

On no, you misunderstand. I'm saying if I were the PR person in charge, I would commission, ask, or request respected professional historians, and other professionals to do the inoculation. If these professionals had the idea first and came to me for help or permission, or funding, I would gladly spend millions to help them with their project.

~dancer~

[_antishock8]

That's precisely what I had in mind.

Then, to quote, "you chose poorly."

No, I didn't.

It simply isn't the case that all, or most, or even a significant minority of the apologetic works published by the Maxwell Institute merely come to the conclusion "Mormonism is true!"

How much of it has come to the conclusion tha t "Mormonism isn't true!"?

[_Daniel Peterson]

How much of it has come to the conclusion tha t "Mormonism isn't true!"?

Try to follow the discussion, poor fellow.

[_Gadianton]

Amazing the lengths and money the church will spend to avoid a simple apology.

[_James Clifford Miller]

As I have stated many times.... the way to deal with messy issues from a PR standpoint is to have some expert give just enough of the truth to have it out there, while providing the apologetic spin. This is PR 101.

I think this is the approach the church is taking and I think we will continue to see more of this.

No, I don't blame the church nor am I bitching about it. The church is not the only org who handles messy stuff in this way. Have you ever noticed how big companies handle problems? Politicians? The military? This approach is very effective.

It's simply absurd to treat Ron Walker, Glen Leonard, Rick Turley, and Richard Bushman [!!!] as if they were, first and foremost (or even to any signficant degree), PR agents rather than highly regarded, widely respected, and very accomplished professional historians.

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.

James Clifford Miller

[_Daniel Peterson]

Amazing the lengths and money the church will spend to avoid a simple apology.

When you plead guilty to a few felonies that you really didn't commit, you'll have standing to recommend that the Church do the same.