MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_Daniel Peterson]

So, we're supposed to believe that the church would have willingly allowed the serious evidence of BY ordering the massacre to be published in this book that they supported and funded.

By Dan's own admission, this would like cast doubt on BY's role as prophet.

So I guess this talk by Packer was a load of baloney, as was Oaks' more recent comments.

If you prefer to discount the numerous public statements of Turley, Leonard, and Walker, as well as their express declarations in the book, as well as the several similar comments made to me personally by historians intimately acquainted with the project, that's your prerogative.

If you want to judge a relatively simple empirical matter -- the nature of the book and the quality of its argument -- on the basis, not of careful and informed study of the book itself, but of your deductions from at most tangentially related statements by people who were not actually involved in the research for or the writing of the book, that, too (though deeply bizarre) is entirely your prerogative.

[_cksalmon]

Who were the other historians that were being considered to write the Church's version of MMM?

My understanding is that the book was the brainchild of Turley, Leonard, and Walker.

There was no beauty contest designed to choose people to write "the Church's version."

But, still. Closed archives are closed. "Beauty contest" aside, I would imagine that the archives, at least those specific to this historical incident, will remain closed to "anti-Mormons," no matter their pedigrees. I could be wrong.

Do you think that the unprecedented access to Church archival material, specifically relevant to this incident, will ever be granted to non-Mormon scholars/historians or ex-Mormon scholars/historians or "anti-Mormon" scholars/historians?

[_beastie]

If you prefer to discount the numerous public statements of Turley, Leonard, and Walker, as well as their express declarations in the book, as well as the several similar comments made to me personally by historians intimately acquainted with the project, that's your prerogative.

If you want to judge a relatively simple empirical matter -- the nature of the book and the quality of its argument -- on the basis, not of careful and informed study of the book itself, but of your deductions from at most tangentially related statements by people who were not actually involved in the research for or the writing of the book, that, too (though deeply bizarre) is entirely your prerogative.

So you prefer to discount the public statements of Packer and Oaks?

by the way, I have not judged the quality of the book at all. In fact, I have stated several times that the book, even while presenting the church's side of the event, may be quite accurate.

I am very skeptical, however, that you would be so insistent on refraining from any sort of judgment about the nature of the book were it printed by an anti-mormon group that had openly stated that their goal is to save people from Mormonism, and not all truths are useful, and it expects its employees to avoid truths that may counter that goal.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So you prefer to discount the public statements of Packer and Oaks?

I prefer, in evaluating the content and intent of the book and of those in the Church who supported it, to look, first and foremost, at their words in and about the book.

I am very skeptical, however, that you would be so insistent on refraining from any sort of judgment about the nature of the book were it printed by an anti-mormon group that had openly stated that their goal is to save people from Mormonism, and not all truths are useful, and it expects its employees to avoid truths that may counter that goal.

When you can point me to an example of such a book that has been written by legitimate and widely respected scholars who deny that the purpose of their book is to save people from Mormonism, and that has been published by a top-tier academic press, we'll have something to talk about.

In the meantime, your deductions and suppositions don't really carry much weight.

[_beastie]

I prefer, in evaluating the content and intent of the book and of those in the Church who supported it, to look, first and foremost, at their words in and about the book.

Yes, I know that is what you prefer to do, but to do so, you must discount the statements of Packer and Oaks, who are influential members of the organization that funded the book. It just seems counterintuitive to insist that the statements of the employer, so to speak, mean nothing in regards to the final product.

When you can point me to an example of such a book that has been written by legitimate and widely respected scholars who deny that the purpose of their book is to save people from Mormonism, and that has been published by a top-tier academic press, we'll have something to talk about.

In the meantime, your deductions and suppositions don't really carry much weight.

Again, you insist that the words of the employer means nothing.

It's not how things work in real life.

[_truth dancer]

in my opinion, writing a book about the MMM without discussing the deeply held religious beliefs (and covenants/rituals/commandments) of the murderers is like writing a book about 9-11 and not discussing the beliefs of the terrorists.

Am I (and Jason), the only one who thinks the temple covenants of the day contributed to the underlying beliefs that resulted in the massacre?

Again, I am open to learning here.

~dancer~

[_beastie]

Am I (and Jason), the only one who thinks the temple covenants of the day contributed to the underlying beliefs that resulted in the massacre?

Of course they did. That's why the fallacious rumor mongering tried to link the party to the murder of Joseph Smith.

[_TAK]

DCP

According to the public testimony of the authors (and according to the private comments made to me by other historians very familiar with the project), the leaders of the Church -- specifically including President Hinckley -- insisted that the full story be told, holding no punches.

I rather doubt that is true, given the years it took to make it to press and limited scope of topic. My guess this was a rather painful process for church leaders and wonder what what left on the cutting room floor. . That said I will read it, watch the discussions it and look to see what other historians have to say.i

[_Yong Xi]

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.

What did you think of Dawkin's "The God Delusion" before reading it? Did you ever suggest anything negative about that book before reading it?

[_harmony]

All of us know the answer to that, even Daniel. The church would never let that evidence reach the light of day.

I don't know if "smoking gun" documents implicating BY ever existed. If they did, they were likely destroyed a long time ago.

This, coupled with the closed sign on the archives, makes it almost impossible to gain an accurate account, no matter how freely the current authors were allowed into the vault. Destruction of historical accounts was brought to light not long ago, by a woman (whose name escapes me) who was ripping pages from pioneer journals because they were not faith promoting. She was some pooh-bah with the Utah Pioneer/Mormon History folks, wasn't she? I see no reason to think any evidence of leaders' culpability in the MMM would have survived to this day.

Perhaps the Brethren knew they had nothing to fear, so they gave the project the go ahead.

And we're going to have to agree to disagree about the appropriateness of expending tithing money on this project, Jason.