MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_truth dancer]

True believers will do anything in the name of God.

They'll even make wild generalizations -- something an unbeliever, of course, would never do.

You are not suggesting True Believers will not do anything they believe God wants them to do are you? :-)

For example, fly airplanes into a building to kill innocent people? Like agree to kill ones son? Like grown men sleeping with girls? Yeah... True Believers will do anything if they believe God wants them to.

Yep, both True Believers and unbelievers, and everyone in between can make generalizations. I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion. Unless you are sort of suggesting the idea that True Believers will do anything they believe God wants them to do is a wild generalization?

If you are suggesting the above I would just say that I think the very definition (or a portion of it) of a True Believer is that they will do whatever they believe God wants them to do.

If someone isn't willing to do whatever they believe God wants them to do then they aren't a True Believer.

~dancer~

Just to be clear, I'm talking True Believer in the Eric Hoffer sense, hence the capital letters.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

And I'll be a bit surprised if you ever do read it.

Apart from your having apparently read a thing or two by Mike Quinn, I've never seen much evidence that you actually care about real issues in LDS history or Mormon studies. Your interest runs heavily to personalities.

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.

But, unlike most of the commentators here, I am reading it, and I've said absolutely nothing about the book's quality as such. I'm pretty consistent in my view that the content of a book can only be judged via an informed and careful reading of 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.

Typical Scartch.

I've said absolutely nothing of the kind. I don't believe anything of the kind. And, if anything, I've suggested precisely the opposite in this thread.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You are not suggesting True Believers will not do anything they believe God wants them to do are you? :-)

Some believers have done terrible things in the name of God, or using God as a pretext, just as some non-believers have done terrible things on behalf of their ideologies.

Unless you are sort of suggesting the idea that True Believers will do anything they believe God wants them to do is a wild generalization?

I'm not "sort of suggesting the idea." I'm saying it outright.

I first read Eric Hoffer when I was about thirteen, and he was a significant influence on my thinking from an early age -- even a kind of intellectual hero to me. If you want to use the term True Believer in some restricted (even Hofferian) sense, you need to make that absolutely crystal clear every time you make so unnuanced a generalization as you've been making here. Serious readers may, in that case, be willing to cut you a little bit of slack. Though it still seems to me that you're engaging in a form of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

[_TAK]

DCP

Do you have any actual evidence that the book's agenda-driven "#1 intent" was "clearing BYoung of any wrong doing"?

Do you really think that if evidence was developed by the authors that BYoung instigated this attack that the Church would let that be published? Absolutly not ! There is only one reason for this book - Keep Young's name clean.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Do you really think that if evidence was developed by the authors that BYoung instigated this attack that the Church would let that be published? Absolutly not ! There is only one reason for this book - Keep Young's name clean.

In a world where so many books are published each year, I suppose that there's something to be said for the strategy of judging a book without even having seen its cover. It saves time.

[_TAK]

Do you really think that if evidence was developed by the authors that BYoung instigated this attack that the Church would let that be published? Absolutly not ! There is only one reason for this book - Keep Young's name clean.

In a world where so many books are published each year, I suppose that there's something to be said for the strategy of judging a book without even having seen its cover. It saves time.

So answer the question ... Do you really think that if evidence was developed by the authors that BYoung instigated this attack that the Church would let that be published?

[_Jason Bourne]

He was a PROPHET OF GOD ferchrissakes! Yanno the kind who could see past things like that... He knew full well that none of these people were guilty of any mistreatment of the Mormons. And history(even this very book) have PROVEN THAT.

Prophets are not perfect men. It is quite clear how and why you so rapidly exited the LDS Church over bumps in the road and why you are as radicallly against it now.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

And exactly what does it tell us?

[_Daniel Peterson]

So answer the question ... Do you really think that if evidence was developed by the authors that BYoung instigated this attack that the Church would let that be published?

The authors -- respected historians -- have repeatedly said in public and in print and, in fact, in this volume, that they were encouraged by Church leaders to follow the evidence wherever it led them and to tell the truth, wholly and without partisan spin. They say that they have made every effort to do precisely that.

I believe them. I know them, somewhat, and have no reason to believe them to be liars.

[_Jason Bourne]

You are not suggesting True Believers will not do anything they believe God wants them to do are you? :-)

For example, fly airplanes into a building to kill innocent people? Like agree to kill ones son? Like grown men sleeping with girls? Yeah... True Believers will do anything if they believe God wants them to.

Yep, both True Believers and unbelievers, and everyone in between can make generalizations. I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion. Unless you are sort of suggesting the idea that True Believers will do anything they believe God wants them to do is a wild generalization?

If you are suggesting the above I would just say that I think the very definition (or a portion of it) of a True Believer is that they will do whatever they believe God wants them to do.

If someone isn't willing to do whatever they believe God wants them to do then they aren't a True Believer.

~dancer~

Just to be clear, I'm talking True Believer in the Eric Hoffer sense, hence the capital letters.

I disagree. There are many true believers that may have something presented to them and decide that what is being presented is not really of God but still they retain their belief. I think you are redefining what it means to be a believer to fit your characterization.