MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_Daniel Peterson]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Maxwell Institute funded at least partly with tithing?

The Maxwell Institute is partially funded by Brigham Young University -- though the proportion of the Institute's budget that is funded by BYU is considerably lower than it is for standard BYU colleges and departments.

As you consider your answer, please consider that forthrightness is a virtue.

As I consider your question, I note the false and insulting insinuation that I require special exhortation from you in order to be forthright.

And it didn't come out of the blue, it came out of the 2003 conference where Church dollars [sic] influenced Yale's decisions on participation in the conference, which you've just admitted actually happened and defended. . . . if the Church's money [sic] can bend Yale to its will, why not Oxford?

You seem to be writing on the assumption that, when a conference is being planned by two co-sponsors, one of those co-sponsors, if it's LDS, has the duty simply to pay and shut up, while the other should have entirely free rein to determine the content and approach of the conference, and that, if this arrangement is not observed by the LDS co-sponsor, there's something wrong with that.

And, I think it's only a matter of time until the faith-promoting rumors start flying that Oxford's publishing of the book constitutes an endorsement by Oxford of the LDS Church's claims to be the only true Church on the face of the earth today.

Your prediction is bizarre, but it's well worth what it costs to read.

Other LDS-related books have been published previously by Oxford University Press -- including Terryl Givens's Viper on the Hearth, By the Hand of Mormon, and People of Paradox, which, though they represent first-rate scholarship and are not really apologetic in character, are far more reasonably viewed as "faith-promoting" than Massacre at Mountain Meadows -- yet I've heard no such rumors. Have you?

Moreover, knowing how LDS spinmeisters work, we'll also hear how one or more Oxford editors were converted to the LDS Church by the message in the book.

Other LDS-related books have been published previously by Oxford University Press -- including Terryl Givens's Viper on the Hearth, By the Hand of Mormon, and People of Paradox, which, though they represent first-rate scholarship and are not really apologetic in character, are far more reasonably viewed as "faith-promoting" than Massacre at Mountain Meadows -- yet I've heard no such rumors. Have you?

Incidentally, are you aware that one of your apologetic colleagues in another venue is suggesting that not only did the "threatening" Francher Party fully deserve what it got (contradicting Turley et al's book), but is claiming that the Cedar City militia had no choice but to destroy the wagon train because the Francher Party had threatened that its members would kill Cedar City settlers and take over their farms and ranches?

I'm unaware of this.

Who is this "apologetic colleague," in what sense is s/he a "colleague" of mine, and how, precisely, am I responsible in any way for what s/he has said?

Please remember that I have bet you a diet Coke that one or more of your apologetic colleagues at MADB would advocate the idea that the Francher Party had it coming and you assured me that no such allegations would be made.

Where, exactly, did I accept this silly "bet," and what are the exact words that I used?

I have absolutely no control over what is said on the board formerly known as FAIR, and feel no responsibility for what anybody says there. Anybody can post essentially anything on the internet -- and, very commonly, under a pseudonym.

I'm responsible for what I write, and, to some extent, for what I edit for publication. What other people may spout off somewhere is no direct concern of mine, and I'm aware of no obligation to account for it or to justify it.

[_beastie]

Too bad it only covers up to the massacre. As far as involvement of the church at the highest levels, what occurred afterward is probably more productive.

I can give you a speculative thought for BYs comments. He was a human, subject to all the ranges of emotions humans are subject too. I think he was rightfully pissed off about the mistreatment the LDS Church had continually received. So he said something and did something that was spiteful because people are spiteful creatures. That is about it.

I think that in combination with the fact that the settlers' goods were used by LDS, without any negative side effects, and that people involved continued to have callings in the church should be considered along with this act of BY. So I'm not convinced that's about it. I think it tells us something about the attitudes of the highest leaders in the church about the event. At the very least, as you say, that BY - and most likely other leaders as well - connected this massacre to the mistreatment the church had received. Personally, I think that tells us something important.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Why is the incessant mentioning of "Oxford University Press" necessary? It's the largest university publisher in the world. The likelihood of academic material being printed by OUP is high. It's as if one wants to build up some cache by mentioning a movie is being produced in Hollywood. Well, whoopdee-f*****g'-doo.

Whereas Hollywood doesn't really have serious rivals in Chicago, Seattle, Miami, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Edmonton, Auckland, London, New York, Sydney, Toronto, Denver, or Dallas, Oxford University Press has very serious rivals in the presses of Harvard, Chicago, Cambridge, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, NYU, California, SUNY, Columbia, etc. -- to say nothing of the non-academic publishing houses (like HarperCollins, Eerdmans, Wiley, Simon and Schuster, Alfred A. Knopf, and a host of others) that routinely publish scholarly books and the large number of specialized independent presses (like E. J. Brill, Eisenbraun's, De Gruyter, and many others) that also do so. But Oxford is, very arguably, the most prestigious of all English-speaking academic presses, and more prestigious, academically, than any of the independent presses.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Too bad it only covers up to the massacre. As far as involvement of the church at the highest levels, what occurred afterward is probably more productive.

There's no reason why anybody here needs to wait to review the second volume until it actually appears. Not having seen the first volume hasn't interfered in any significant way with the expression of strong opinions and negative judgments.

[_antishock8]

Why is the incessant mentioning of "Oxford University Press" necessary? It's the largest university publisher in the world. The likelihood of academic material being printed by OUP is high. It's as if one wants to build up some cache by mentioning a movie is being produced in Hollywood. Well, whoopdee-f*****g'-doo.

Whereas Hollywood doesn't really have serious rivals in Chicago, Seattle, Miami, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Edmonton, Auckland, London, New York, Sydney, Toronto, Denver, or Dallas, Oxford University Press has very serious rivals in the presses of Harvard, Chicago, Cambridge, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, NYU, California, SUNY, Columbia, etc. -- to say nothing of the non-academic publishing houses (like HarperCollins, Eerdmans, Wiley, Simon and Schuster, Alfred A. Knopf, and a host of others) that routinely publish scholarly books and the large number of specialized independent presses (like E. J. Brill, Eisenbraun's, De Gruyter, and many others) that also do so. But Oxford is, very arguably, the most prestigious of all English-speaking academic presses, and more prestigious, academically, than any of the independent presses.

"It is the largest university press in the world, being larger than all the American university presses combined with Cambridge University Press."- OUP, Reports and Accounts

You're an ass.

[_Daniel Peterson]

"It is the largest university press in the world, being larger than all the American university presses combined with Cambridge University Press."

A huge portion of Oxford's catalogue is books on learning English and dictionaries (especially English-learners' dictionaries), marketed to non-English-speaking countries. I've discussed this with leading executives of the Press itself, in connection with my Maxwell Institute duties. They absolutely dominate this market, and they have subsidiary units in places like Karachi and Hong Kong.

Neither Cambridge University Press nor any American academic press competes at all seriously in this market. Yet it is this market, to a very large extent, that accounts for Oxford's size and, overwhelmingly, as Oxford executives have told me personally, for their profitability.

The portion of Oxford University Press that actually competes for the scholarly market with Cambridge and Princeton and Chicago and Harvard and the like, while still large, is much more closely comparable in size, as anybody who ever goes to academic conferences and sees their book displays can readily confirm.

You're an ass.

[_TAK]

One thing that strikes me abit humorous; when Bagley’s book came out one of the prevailing criticisms is that he was a hired gun – paid to write the book and hang the crime on Breedem Young. Therefore the book could not be trusted.

Do you suppose that same critical analysis will be applied to this book – written for money, by Church employees with the #1 intent of clearing BYoung of any wrong doing?

Somehow I doubt it.

[_Mister Scratch]

Well, this is all very interesting. I have not yet read this book, so I shall withhold judgment on its content until I've done so. That said, I find it odd that Prof. Peterson would try to use the Oxford Press as a "Trump card," even though he himself has not yet read the book. He is carrying on with all this business about prejudice and bias and whatnot---he is riding critics for commenting on the books quality without having read it.... And yet, he himself has not yet read it.

Anyways, what struck me the most was the notion that:

a) The book cost millions of tithing dollars to produce
b) It footnotes to "off-limits" sources
c) It is apologetic in nature

If "b" is true, then how could Oxford U. Press possibly have checked every source? Or, was this a case of the LDS Church sending over copies of sources and expected Oxford to accept them?

As for "c"---now, I have not read the book, so I cannot say for sure. That said, James Clifford Miller definitely seemed to detect an apologetic agenda within the book. Further, DCP, using the infamous Yale conference as an example, has pointed out that the LDS Church should have a say in the way that things such as an Oxford U. Press book get edited and peer reviewed. I'm sure that, so long as nothing was done to harm Oxford's reputation, the LDS Church threw its weight around big time. Just like what happened at Yale.

[_Daniel Peterson]

One thing that strikes me abit humorous; when Bagley’s book came out one of the prevailing criticisms is that he was a hired gun – paid to write the book and hang the crime on Breedem Young. Therefore the book could not be trusted.

There appears to be some truth in the charge, though I have never made it and though, in the serious reviews that I read in BYU Studies and published in the FARMS Review, I don't recall it playing a significant role. (Was it even mentioned? Possibly. I don't recall.)

Do you suppose that same critical analysis will be applied to this book – written for money, by Church employees with the #1 intent of clearing BYoung of any wrong doing?

Somehow I doubt it.

Do you have any actual evidence that it was "written for money"? (Rick Turley would presumably continue to draw a salary as full-time managing director of the Church History Department whether he wrote the book or not; Glen Leonard and Ron Walker are both retired.) Do you have any actual evidence that the book's agenda-driven "#1 intent" was "clearing BYoung of any wrong doing"?

Which do you think should come first: Reviewing a book, or reading it? In your view, is the latter even necessary at all? Would it simply tend to cloud one's judgment?

[_beastie]

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.

Let's turn this around a bit. Let's say that an evangelical group that was not only associated with printing "anti Mormon" literature in the past, but actually had several of its leaders state that not all truth is useful, and if any individual prints information that could help a Mormon retain faith in Mormonism, that individual will be accountable to the LORD, funded a book on Mountain Meadows Massacre. Having funded the research and writing of the book, it is fair to call them the employers of the authors, in a fashion.

Would it be unfair for people to assume that the book was going to be quite critical of the LDS church in its analysis, and would probably be an "anti Mormon" book?

This would not mean that the book was necessarily inaccurate, but rather, that the facts would be presented in a hostile manner to the church. Is this an unfair conclusion to reach?