MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_Daniel Peterson]

The fact is that NO critic on this thread has declared the book worthless and lame without even looking at it.

The operative phrase, stealthily introduced by beastie but irrelevant to what I actually said, is on this thread. My comments were not so limited, and, in fact, at least one critic on this board has said precisely that:

Come listen to the three stooges from LDS Inc defend their lame book.

LOL. B&L knows that the book is "lame" even though he's never read it and probably hasn't even seen it.

I had it on order at Amazon, but after listening to them talk about it on KUER, I canceled my order.

Their tone was enough. I don't need to read their book to know it why it was written. I no longer consider myself a member and therefore have no need to believe that Brigham was innocent.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

B&L's take on the newspaper article summary:

Not surprising, the book penned by LDS Inc does not find fault with Young.

First things first, the book does find fault with Young. In the OP we have B&L sounding off on a newspaper article without having read the book, stating a false conclusion that even the article doesn't condone. Oddly, just before saying this statement, B&L said "Amazingly, Turley admits that Young's actions aided the WHY."

In short, why is it "not surprising" to B&L Because B&L believes Brigham was not involved in ordering the massacre? Doubtful.

Tarski, as you pointed out, also chimed in:

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.

So we could take the view that Tarski's reading comprehension is so low that he was unaware this thread was about the MMM book and thought it was about Joseph Smith (hence he describes inoculation in dealing with Joseph Smith's life). Or we could realize that Tarski was saying the MMM book is an attempt at inoculation, exposing "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[sic]." Does this define the MMM book? Why did Tarski even say any of this in this thread if he was not talking about the MMM book? After reading the book I will unabashedly say his description does not fit the MMM book, except that it doesn't reflect on the truth claims of the Church, which he implies in a condescending manner at the end of his comment.

Your comments early on:

[...]Who else would be interested enough to fund it other than the church itself, or rich Mormons interested in defending the faith? My only mistake was not realizing that the church funded it directly.

Are you suggesting that it's unthinkable that rich LDS donors would be approached to help fund apologetic projects??????? This seems to defy known reality.

As DCP pointed out, you classified the book as an "apologetic project" funded by people interested in "defending the faith." Later you clarified this view as a generic "apologetic in the sense of etc.," clarifying that you do not believe an apologetic stance directly indicates inaccuracy; a good position.In your initial post it seemed you show that you already view the book, without having read it, as an "apologetic defense" rather than a general historic work; you don't, however, seem to make the two mutually exclusive later. You then ask for a list of "non-apologetic" books the Church has funded. This depends on the definition. either way, the Church is currently helping to fund, with the help of others, the Joseph Smith Papers project. I realize this is news to you, though it has been going on for a few years now, but here's the website where you can learn more. Also, the Church funded much of Leonard Arrington's work when he was Church historian. Of this you said:

Arrington's department did produce work that was not apologia, in my view - however, the fact that the church apparently did not approve of that direction supports my current view that the church is only interested in funding texts that will support their view, and present material in such a way that will help members of the church preserve faith in the face of controversy. However, perhaps Bushman's text is an omen of a different tactic.

Here you treat the Church like a monolithic whole. According to the historical record, Arrington's work was approved by some and made others uncomfortable. (Bruce R. McConkie really liked it, for example. Did you know?) His books are still sold at Deseret Book (and also in the gift shop of the Church History Museum in Salt Lake.)

I was amused by this comment:

I look forward to a comparison between the LDS MMM, Bagley's book and Brooks book.

I presume B&L, despite all the time he spends on message boards, will not be doing this comparison himself.

I already responded to James Clifford Miller's review, which reflected, in my opinion, a very shallow and cursory reading of the book itself. It appears Miller expected the work to read like Scooby Doo when, at the end, those pesky kids and their dog unmask the amusement park ghost only to find that it was the elderly caretaker/janitor all along.

Thank you for the review James.

But just to be safe, to reiterate, Miller's summary is patently false. But let's see what B&L has to say about it (not having read the book, but claiming to have read the intro on Amazon, which also expressly contradicts Miller's assertion:

Just reading the first part of chapter one you can see the tone they attempt to set for the book. This book was written by LDS Inc specifically shut up it's members with STS(shaken testimony syndrome.

Maybe a quote or two from the intro could justify B&L's position. But no, we should just sit back and rest assured that the thinking has been done. B&L doesn't need to read the book now (other than the title, and based on his summary of it we can surmise he would end with the same conclusion he already has.)

Then we get to this gem, which is exactly what DCP is talking about when he says someone claimed to not even need to read the book because they already know whodunnit:

Why would I read this book? I have no need to believe in Mormonism. Besides, I already know who did it.

(emphasis mine).

Here we have it, then. One, the book is seen as a mere tool to make people believe in Mormonism. Two, we have the explicit statement that he doesn't need to read it because he "already knows" who did it. He is not talking about a Bushman book, he is talking about the book about the MMM.

Aside from the question of BY's culpability in the massacre itself (of which I don't have a firm opinion), there certainly appears to have been some kind of cover up (or sweeping under the rug) orchestrated T, or at least winked at, high levels of Mormon leadership. If this occurred, this strikes me as only somewhat less inconsistent behavior of men claiming to be God's sole representatives on earth.

This is all fine as far as speculation and guesswork go, I agree. Guy, who admittedly has not read the book and said one should read it before judging it, would have discovered that the aftermath (involving any cover-up, etc.) will be covered in the second volume. This is explicitly mentioned in the introduction. Yet what do we have in the very next response by B&L, the person who said he already read that introduction?:

Exactly.

Growing up Mormon, we are taught that the top 16 men of LDS were all of God.

Additionally, in both seminary and Utah history class I was taught explicitly that the indians did all of the planning and killing.

Yet today, LDS Inc admits that it was Mormon men lead by Mormon leadership who did all of the planning and the majority of the killing.

Given that Young and his leaders were "chosen men of God", why did they cover up the facts that the massacre was carried out by Mormons instead of just turning over those responsible IMMEDIATELY to the US officials?

It seems in his reading of the intro that B&L completely missed the fact that the covering up of facts or reaction to the massacre by Church leaders would be the explicit focus of the second (forthcoming!) book. The authors are quite open about this, saying that the first book can be thought of as "crime" and the second as "punishment." This provides an easy and memorable way to look at what to expect from the works. This was apparently lost on B&L. I do not trust B&L's comprehension of the introduction when I see that he missed such an obvious and crucial point regarding the very thing he is criticizing. Also, it appears he is still confused about the nature of the argument here; implying that what he was taught about church leaders (that they are men of God, supposedly infallible?) has any bearing on whether or not Brigham Young or any other Church leader participated in or covered up the massacre-all without having read the book, and without having even understood the introduction he claims to have read.

B&L goes on to describe the MMM book (and Richard Bushman's):

Bushman and this new MMM book are cattle prod in the hands of the bishops, used to scare the wondering sheep back into the corral.

Look! These books were authored by active members and one was funded by the church itself! I and my bishopric have read both and like the authors have not lost our testiphonies, and neither should you... This is a very interesting thread.! This is a very interesting thread.!

So what B&L is saying (ironically?) is that bishops might read the book and then recommend it to Saints who eagerly await to hear about the book rather than reading it, in order to pacify them that all is well in Zion. Oddly, this seems to be exactly what B&L has done in regards to Miller's posted brief review!

Then we get this bizarre addition:

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

Then we have more talk of the book being faulty because of "LDS Inc"

Dan, did you overlook the fact that these three historians are not only LDS, but WORK FOR LDS Inc?

If LDS Inc really wanted to make a point with this book, they would have had the work done by an unbiased outside party.

B&L is still talking about "unbiased outside parties" after DCP and Guy have been discussing the objectivity question, and etc. He is out of the loop here.

AFTER that B&L responds to Jason Bourne regarding Bushman:

Why would I read Bushman's book when I have already read Palmer's? Besides that, unlike you, I have no need to believe in Mormonism.

You say "The fact is that NO critic on this thread has declared the book worthless and lame without even looking at it. However, I realize this is the best I can hope for under the circumstance." B&L's claimed reading (which completely missed at least an entire and critical paragraph based on his later statements alone) doesn't demonstrate your point as well as you believe, in my opinion. "Looking" at a book isn't the issue. Thumbing quickly through a book and tossing it off as a screed (especially when there is a history of animosity towards the authors) doesn't strike me as a good investigation of the facts. We have B&L completely misunderstanding the intro, and then saying, himself, that he doesn't need to read the book. Meanwhile, we're off pontificating over the definition of apologetics, whether the Church has funded other academic books, and etc. rather than simply reading the book. (I have read the entire book. You? B&L? Anyone but apparently James Clifford Miller.)

Sure TD, an apologetic book written by employees of LDS Inc are going discuss the temple ceremony let alone discuss the possibilities of past-since-removed oaths aiding in planing the slaughter of children, women and completely unarmed men.

Was that the oath that was removed in 1927?

Here we have B&L pontificating about the contents of the book, again, without having actually read the thing. He doesn't even know what this "oath" is that he is asking about!

I've already wasted far too much time discussing this. As we see at least one critic summarily dismissed the book without having read it (claims to have read the intro, but didn't even understand or grasp it). Several others sounded off on the massacre, on the cover up, etc. without having read the book. People talked about the books funds, LDS Inc., apologetics, making a "church-friendly" version, etc. etc. all without having read the book.

Fin.

[_beastie]

I stand corrected, B&L did make the lame comment and declared he didn't need to read it. So one critic, on this very long thread with numerous critics, made the statement, and the most DCP can say, in his correction, is that "MOST" did not go that far???

How about being accurate and admitting that ONE critic went that far????

LoaP - these points have already been addressed ad nauseum. My sole interest was discussing DCP's summary of this conversation.

But here's an amusing aside: on the very thread in which Scott Lloyd shared his summary of DCP's summary of this thread, Scott rendered harsh judgment against Bagley... despite the fact that he had to later admit he hasn't read the book.

Scott:

If Bagley et al. could so badly garble the facts on the subject of the massacre, I don't have much reason to trust them on the subject of the alleged cover-up.

later Scott:

And I didn't say I had read Bagley's book. I'm somewhat acquainted with his position from the talk he gave to the ex-Mormon group in 2002 (see earlier link) and from having spent approximately 20 hours with him, Turley and others on a Mormon History Association bus tour of Mountain Meadows in 2007, during which Bagley was very outspoken.

Well. I am somewhat acquainted with Turley,et al, from their radio interview, too. :O

[_beastie]

One more time for old time's sake - if a tobacco company funded a study into the health effects of smoking, and the study was conducted by people who were employees of the tobacco industry, could people rightfully raise questions about conflict of interest even without having read the study?

[_TAK]

I had that exchange w/ Scott and thought he looked the fool by trying to back peddle his statement so I let his gaff go. If you go through the thread he rails on Bagley 5-6 times ~ so its quite comical that he never read the book. It's also clear the only thing Scott is interested in is playing down any role that Breedum Young might have had.

by the way I saw on a Amazon Customer review of Turley's MMM I saw this..

" And even more troubling was the decision on the part of the authors (assuming they had a choice in the matter) to ask two Mormon apostles to review their manuscript (p. 237). They tout the fact that they were given free reign by church authorities to pursue all lines of inquiry and to ferret out the truth wherever they could find it."

LOL!

[_beastie]

Thanks for that bit of entertainment, TAK - it was priceless. It was generous of you to let it go, I doubt I would have been so inclined, particularly given Scott's self righteous stance on the thread.

I wonder why they felt it necessary to allow the apostles to review their work. Wouldn't it be funny if the reviewers were Oaks or Packer? tee hee

[_TAK]

Thanks for that bit of entertainment, TAK - it was priceless. It was generous of you to let it go, I doubt I would have been so inclined, particularly given Scott's self righteous stance on the thread.

I wonder why they felt it necessary to allow the apostles to review their work. Wouldn't it be funny if the reviewers were Oaks or Packer? tee hee

I think its safe to say that it was Curley and Mo .. err Oaks and Packer..

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I stand corrected, B&L did make the lame comment and declared he didn't need to read it. So one critic, on this very long thread with numerous critics, made the statement, and the most DCP can say, in his correction, is that "MOST" did not go that far???

I think the length of the thread speaks a lot, given that only one person (other than myself) claims to actually have read the book being discussed.

But here's an amusing aside: on the very thread in which Scott Lloyd shared his summary of DCP's summary of this thread, Scott rendered harsh judgment against Bagley... despite the fact that he had to later admit he hasn't read the book.

Sounding off on a book one hasn't read is generally poor form.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

One more time for old time's sake - if a tobacco company funded a study into the health effects of smoking, and the study was conducted by people who were employees of the tobacco industry, could people rightfully raise questions about conflict of interest even without having read the study?

I would prefer to read the study and judge it by its arguments. Given that I don't smoke, and that I believe people can smoke if they want to, and given that I haven't formerly smoked nor do I plan on smoking, and that I don't spend time every day making fun of or questioning tobacco companies, I really wouldn't be too interested in the study in the first place. Additionally, your example doesn't really parallel the Turley book.

[_TAK]

One more time for old time's sake - if a tobacco company funded a study into the health effects of smoking, and the study was conducted by people who were employees of the tobacco industry, could people rightfully raise questions about conflict of interest even without having read the study?

I would prefer to read the study and judge it by its arguments. Given that I don't smoke, and that I believe people can smoke if they want to, and given that I haven't formerly smoked nor do I plan on smoking, and that I don't spend time every day making fun of or questioning tobacco companies, I really wouldn't be too interested in the study in the first place. Additionally, your example doesn't really parallel the Turley book.

You do not have to smoke to understand the concept of conflict of interest.. so your dance around the question is not really that ammusing.

If Turley and Co found a smoking gun that implicated BrighamYoung in the murders, do you think the Church / who funded this book, would let that evidence see the light of day?

~ Your mentor Dr. P said said he thought the church would disclose the fact.. I think that is laughable given it's history. What do you think?