MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Mister Scratch wrote:you guys collect a lot of money from wealthy Latter-day Saints, which means, in a sense that "the Church" and its various social networks are used to fund apologetics.

And the fact that certain wealthy Latter-day Saints have donated money to the Maxwell Institute means that "the Church" the Maxwell Institute? If I were you, I wouldn't be accusing others of equivocation . . .

Mister Scratch wrote:I agree with Harmony that there is something unsavory about it.

And I disagree. It seems that we're at an impasse.

Mister Scratch wrote:Oh, really? Then who is it that funds the FROB?

Do you want his Social Security number? Or will his name, address, and telephone number suffice?

Dream on, Scartch.

Assemble your own creepy "dossiers." I'm not one of your creepy "informants."
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:you guys collect a lot of money from wealthy Latter-day Saints, which means, in a sense that "the Church" and its various social networks are used to fund apologetics.

And the fact that certain wealthy Latter-day Saints have donated money to the Maxwell Institute means that "the Church" [sic] the Maxwell Institute? If I were you, I wouldn't be accusing others of equivocation . . .


The fact remains that the MI uses a massive operating budget which was acquired via dubious means. And Harmony is correct that a portion of those millions may very well have come from a "widow's mite." Tell me: Do you guys do as President Hinckley did, keeping a "mite" on your desk to remind yourselves where your money comes from?

Anyways, the point here is that you should strive to be more honest when you discuss how FARMS is funded. Simply saying "The Church doesn't pay for it!" won't do. And you know it.

Mister Scratch wrote:I agree with Harmony that there is something unsavory about it.

And I disagree. It seems that we're at an impasse.


The fact that you always rush in with knee-jerk responses to criticism of FARMS makes me suspect that you know on some level that what you are up to is rotten.

Mister Scratch wrote:Oh, really? Then who is it that funds the FROB?

Do you want his Social Security number? Or will his name, address, and telephone number suffice?


Just the name. And why don't you want to say? Do you feel that this person (or persons) needs special protection? Talk about paranoia!
_Tarski
_Emeritus
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:57 pm

Post by _Tarski »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Tarski wrote: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.

I must say that I admire the speed with which you've read, devoured, and taken the measure of the new Oxford MMM book.

To my embarrassment, I haven't even gotten around to buying a copy yet. In fact, I haven't so much as seen it.

Umm, I was just speaking generally of the two tactics of cover up and innoculation. I did this simply because the notion of whether there is a cover up or not had come up. Whether or not the book amounts to innoculation I cannot say or partial truth, biased or even dead on correct I cannot say. BY may have been innocent (of this).
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie

yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
_guy sajer
_Emeritus
Posts: 1372
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:16 am

Re:

Post by _guy sajer »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
guy sajer wrote:Which of the MI's publications that have investigated different aspects of Mormonism's truth claims have concluded that "Mormonism is not true?"

This is irrelevant to my point, but you could certainly place Paul Owen and Carl Mosser's FARMS Review essay in that category, and probably also Michael Heiser's.


But it's relevant to MY point. (We seem to be arguing at cross purposes.) Again, due to my limited time to read everything you recommend, would you mind simply listing the specific truth claims addressed and what the specific conclusion was related to the specific truth claim. This should take no more than a few minutes of your time.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
guy sajer wrote:Or have concluded that a particular truth claim may not be true, or is problematic?

Oh gosh. I couldn't begin to count them.


Ok, how about listing a few, including the particular truth claim refuted.

For example, which publication in particular concluded that the Book of Mormon was not true or is probably not true, or that the First Vision didn't actually happen as portrayed in the official version in the PofGP, or probably didn't happen that way, or which concluded that Joseph Smith didn't actually receive a revelation about polygamy, or that the Book of Abraham does not recount actual historical events, etc. related to critical truth claims of Mormonism?

Daniel Peterson wrote:There's really no substitute for reading.


And there's really no substitute for time either. I work 50-60 hour weeks, so what reading time I have is limited. I choose not to spend it these days reading Mormon apologetics. (I have in the past, but now find my interests lie elsewhere. I'm reading, for example, a fascinating book about Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe called "Over the Edge."

I'm asking in good faith. You can choose to reply in good faith, or you can choose to reply in smarky self-righteous tones. You decide.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Re:

Post by _harmony »

guy sajer wrote:I'm asking in good faith. You can choose to reply in good faith, or you can choose to reply in smarky self-righteous tones. You decide.


There's a whole day's worth of posts on this thread that are missing.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

Post by _beastie »

I found an early review of one of the advance copies:

MMM review



Title: Massacre At Mountain Meadows (Uncorrected Advance Reading Copy)
Author: Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley, and Glen M. Leonard
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Year Published: 2008
Binding: Hardcover
Number of pages: 408
Genre: Non-fiction
ISBN: 978-0-19-516034-5
Photos, Images, Maps included (not listed)
Notes
Appendices
Index (listed but not included)

Reviewed by Melvin C. Johnson, Angelina College, Lufkin, Texas

Professionals and laypersons have long waited for this book, and finally an uncorrected advance reading copy of Massacre At Mountain Meadow by the Oxford University Press has been released for review. Authored by Ronald Walker, Richard Turley and Glen Leonard, all important LDS scholars, it gives a detailed investigation of one of Western America’s greatest tragedies
of the 19th-Century. This book will not end debate, however, concerning the context and responsibility for the massacre. It does try, in some fashion, to explain why fundamentally upright Utah Latter Day Saints wiped out an emigrant train at Mountain Meadows on September 11, 1857, the majority of victims women and children, to narrate the story and fix the blame.

In the spirit of open and full disclosure, the LDS Church has given Walker and his colleagues access to all pertinent church resources and documents, including restricted material in the First Presidency’s records. Such access, coupled with the unparalleled cooperation and support of hundreds of other individuals and scores of institutions and libraries, should make this a definitive work. Secondly, here is the opportunity to demonstrate that the LDS church is ready to meet its history with open and full disclosure. Will the LDS church permit open access to all scholars, not just vetted historians that the church leaders approve?

The incident is worthy of renewed inspection. The massacre of 120 immigrants by Mormon militia and American natives on September 11, 1857, in southwestern Utah, has been the genesis for articles, histories, novels, and motion pictures. "Massacre At Mountain Meadows," however, is unique in that it is the first work created under the imprimatur of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Walker, et al, attempt to answer the question that has provoked all since the emigrants’ innocent blood soaked the killing fields. Who was responsible? Who decided to massacre men, women, and children? Right from the beginning many blamed President Brigham Young and Apostle George A. Smith. For more than a hundred years the LDS argued that their own were barely involved, blaming it on Federal Indian agent John D. Lee and local Indians, and Lee would be the only participant executed for his role in the crime. Nonetheless, the question of culpability and responsibility has intrigued scholars, professionals, and lay individuals alike. The writers have decided for themselves if the local LDS priesthood and militia leadership perpetuated the massacre on their own, or if they were working at the direction of President Brigham Young in Salt Lake City. These LDS historians condemn the local leaders in Parowan and Cedar, and, unsurprisingly, exculpate Brigham Young and Apostle George A. Smith of guilt.

The book is well structured with a Preface, Prologue, fourteen chapters, and an Epilogue. Four appendices give partial listings of the Emigrants and their Property, the Mormon militia members present at the Meadows, and the Indians who may have been present. Almost 140 pages of notes follow the narration. A Bibliography is not included. An Index is listed in the Table of Contents as beginning on page 409 but has been omitted from my copy of the book. No list is given for the nearly four dozen maps, sketches, prints, photos, and portraits in the work. This should be corrected for the official edition. Two of the maps, one of southwestern Utah and a more particular one of the killing ground, are particularly helpful in orienting the reader geographically to the events, thus increasing one’s understanding of the story’s timeline and locations.

Good history writing is good literature. Three writers’ styles and singular interests naturally provoke contradictions and conflicts of what is and is not important to a work, and that is certainly the case with "Massacre At Mountain Meadows." However, these authors always present a methodical and professional yeomanly work ethic; the narration is acceptable and at times grows better. The first three chapters are satisfactory in tone and mood, but the prose is uninspired, unlike the first chapter of Will Bagley’s "Blood of the Prophets’" unveiling powerfully the magnificence of the Meadows’ oasis before the California road drops down to the desert. The literary style improves and grows more intense as it tries to untangle and understand the motivations and confusions of the Southern Utah leadership as time contracted for coming to a decision whether to attack and kill the emigrants or to let them go. The story well conveys, after the massacre, the fearful uncertainty of immigrants and Mormons alike during the next few days of Indian intentions along the wagon road’s back trail to Beaver. The final chapter of the book unfortunately returns to the pedestrian prose of the book’s initial chapters.

Some researchers and historians may criticize the writers’ understatement of polygamy as an important cause for conflict between church and state in 1857 and the resulting tragedy at Mountain Meadows. Although unique marriage Mormon practices did concern many in Washington, D.C., the authors are correct in asserting that an anxious administration was far more troubled that Brigham Young’s leadership over, and control of, the Mormons in the West seemed to be busily creating an independent theocracy at the
Crossroads of the Mountains. Another concern for some may be that the writers undervalued the role of Blood Atonement in the killings. While the murder of Apostle Parley Pratt in Arkansas that spring generated anger, I think the authors do well here to discount it as a major motive for the massacre. Mormons seemed more concerned with blood atoning defectors than mean gentiles.

Another area of particular interest includes those issues involving the roles and causes for Indian action against the emigrants. The authors present a good case for the real likelihood of infectious anthrax as the cause for poisoned animals and Indian deaths. This is far more likely than the Mormon rumor that the some of the emigrants poisoned cattle from which they suspected Indians would eat. One of the appendices at the end of the book reveals that the Indians were present in greater numbers at Mountain Meadows than has been recently suggested in some works, but still in numbers far fewer as Mormon apologists earlier suggested.

The authors rightly and righteously excuse the victims of any responsibility for the tragedy, and place it squarely on the Mormons in Southern Utah. The book uses an explanatory model of three linked causes to explain why generally good people commit horrific crimes. First, church and militia leaders in Parowan and Cedar City permitted the actions and sermons of the senior leadership in Salt Lake City to mitigate their own moral responsibility. Second would be the individual killer’s desire to conform with and be accepted by his associates and colleagues in murder group, as particularly demonstrated in the case of John D. Lee, both as actor and acted upon. Finally, the killers were able to categorize the victims as “them,” a breed distinct from “us,” a group to which the remedy of violence becomes not only acceptable but preferable.

Although the writers believe that President Young and others unwittingly crafted through militant sermons and directions to not trade with the emigrants an environment for potential violence against outsiders, Walker and his co-writers argue that Young did not directly or indirectly order the killings. They generally ignore Bagley’s assertion in "Blood of the Prophets" that the Huntington diary indicts Young for unleashing the Indians in the Territory on the emigrants. They do strongly attack John D. Lee’s “confessions” (later edited and expanded by his attorney as "Mormonism Unveiled"), which documents Apostle George A. Smith’s trip to Southern Utah to set the stage as he purportedly orders the local leaders to destroy the Fancher wagon train. The LDS scholars argue on Young’s behalf that Lee’s attorney had a financial stake in the book doing well and that Lee refused consistently to blame Young right up to and including the day of his execution.

Seven years have passed to get the work to this stage, and it still is incomplete. Almost sixty years ago, Juanita Brooks, in "The Mountain Meadows Massacre," set the standard for modern scholarship and investigation of the Massacre. Despite all the writing since then, only Bagley qualitatively furthered it in "Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows." The reader will do well to remember that Brooks and Bagley carried the great labor of their books almost entirely by themselves, while the authors of "Massacre At Mountain Meadows" have received assistance from many hundreds of individuals, as well as that of more than two hundred professional libraries and other collections. Despite all the help, these authors decided “the best way to present our information was by narrating it, largely foregoing topical or critical analysis” (xii). Great history writing involves interpretation of the narrative, but Walker, Turley, and Leonard have kept their promise and, I believe, missed the mark.

For instance, Juanita Brooks wrote to Roger B. Mathison, the Gifts & Exchange Librarian at University of Utah in later November, 1968 (Brooks to Mathison, 21 November 1968, Juanita Brooks Papers, MS 486, Folder 14, Manuscripts Division, University of Utah Marriott Library, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2). She told Mathison that she changed her mind about Young’s responsibility for the massacre. She had underplayed, she admitted, the role of the Indians in her book, and now believed "that" Young "was directly responsible" for the massacre because he stirred up the Indians. She mentions the meeting with the Indians to which Huntington referred, and believes that Haslam’s letter from Young to the Southern leadership is further evidence of Young’s guilt. The Fancher wagon train was away to the south of Utah, and its Indian threat, Young admitted to the Iron County leaders, "might have been more real than I had previously supposed." The missive instructs that the leaders "should . . . preserve good feelings with them [the Indians]", written at a time when a battle (or massacre) supposedly might occur, actually was occurring, or had occurred. The letter’s tone clearly reveals that the emigrants' welfare to Young, at the very least, was on the low scale when compared to that of the southern Indians or Mormons. A minimal interpretation of Brooks’ understanding of Young’s counsel is that if the Mormons had to choose a side, it should be Indians over emigrants, and that is the tale that "Massacre At Mountain Meadows" tells.

The authors are still not done with this book. I have been privately advised that they have revised the work twice since the Advanced Reading Copy was released, an event of which they were apparently not advised. Some readers still will question the book’s objectiveness and thoroughness. Other readers may have a real problem with what they perceive as the authors’ bias on behalf of the LDS church. I believe they must grip Brooks’ later opinion of Young’s culpability, and amend their casualness toward Bagley’s evidence that “the Boss” was responsible for the crime.

Massacre At Mountain Meadows could be a seminal history of the early American West. Its advance copy is not.


Comment about the bolded blood atonement: people often conflate blood atonement with the promise to avenge the death of the prophets. This reviewer conflates them as well. They were entirely different.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

Post by _harmony »

beastie wrote:I found an early review of one of the advance copies:

forums.mormonletters.org


What type of forum is this? Pro? Anti? Academic? Something else?

Reviewed by Melvin C. Johnson, Angelina College, Lufkin, Texas


An academic! And clearly he's not all that impressed.

Other readers may have a real problem with what they perceive as the authors’ bias on behalf of the LDS church.


Someone else thinks readers may have a problem with the authors' bias.

Massacre At Mountain Meadows could be a seminal history of the early American West. Its advance copy is not.


Ohhhhh. Now that was a slam!
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

Post by _beastie »

Harmony - I don't know what kind of forum it is, or anything about it. I was just looking for reviews of the book in order to help me decide whether to buy it.

I don't know whether the reviewer is LDS or not, but did find a Mormon themed book he wrote:

"POLYGAMY ON THE PEDERNALES: LYMAN WIGHT'S Mormon VILLAGES IN ANTEBELLUM, TEXAS, 1845-1858," by Melvin C. Johnson, Utah State University Press, 231 pages, $31.95 hardcover, $21.95 softcover. Lyman Wight was an LDS apostle who led a splinter group of followers to Texas following the death of Joseph Smith. The author is a historian at Angelina College in Lufkin, Texas.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... _n16540506
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

Post by _beastie »

by the way, this is how DCP reported this conversation on MAD:

In his FAIR Conference presentation yesterday, Daniel Peterson mentioned a discussion he has been having on another message board with individuals who are certain the new book is a whitewash, that it is full of lies, etc., this without their having ever laid eyes on it.

Hate to say it, but such a reaction is rather predictable from some quarters. One would hope as the book becomes better known generally, such ignorant dismissal will be increasingly viewed as unacceptable.


Sigh. This is so typical of apologists who come here and then return with a totally distorted report of what actually occured.

Who here has said it's a whitewash, full of lies? Please refer to their comments, because I don't recall reading that. The one person I recall saying it was a whitewash had already read the book. What I do recall people saying is that the book was funded by the church, written by church employees, and as such, can fairly be regarded as inclined to presenting the church in the most positive light possible, and may even create a conflict of interest. I know that I said several times that I wasn't saying the book was inaccurate, because I didn't know.

Of course the majority of MADdites won't bother to come here and see for themselves what the conversation actually was.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

beastie wrote:by the way, this is how DCP reported this conversation on MAD:

In his FAIR Conference presentation yesterday, Daniel Peterson mentioned a discussion he has been having on another message board with individuals who are certain the new book is a whitewash, that it is full of lies, etc., this without their having ever laid eyes on it.

Hate to say it, but such a reaction is rather predictable from some quarters. One would hope as the book becomes better known generally, such ignorant dismissal will be increasingly viewed as unacceptable.


Sigh. This is so typical of apologists who come here and then return with a totally distorted report of what actually occured.

The fact that the author of this summary referred to Daniel Peterson in the third person might serve as a clue that Daniel Peterson didn't write this summary, and even that the summary isn't a verbatim transcript of Daniel Peterson's remarks.

Just a thought.
Post Reply