MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_The Nehor]

Does she have a point?

Here's hoping the point arrives sometime before page 23.

[_beastie]

Honestly, DCP, if you really have no idea what my point is, then you deserve to be confused with Nehor.

Here's the point:

Given the past statements of Packer and Oaks about suppressing truths in order to protect faith, it is reasonable to view the church's reassurances of historical integrity with skepticism. Once having accepted the conflict of interest as well as the reasonable and justified skepticism regarding the church's assurances of historical integrity, one could reasonably desire to evaluate the reliability of the claims made within the book. The problem in so doing is that the authors had access to material that other researchers have not had access to, so we cannot look to the work of other researchers for verification. Even if we were able to "visit the archives", the access to this material appears to have been restricted, hence, the importance of these materials being open to the authors. Are the materials going to be provided for reference? Or are we just supposed to trust the word of representatives and employees of an organization that has, in the past, stated that they believe in suppressing truth?

In other words - the conflict of interest is a given. That means that readers should be aware and attempt to verify the validity of the information, just as readers would with NicStix's study. But we cannot.

Get the point yet? Or will it take 20 more pages of stubborn repetition until one of you stops pretending that such a simple point is beyond you?

[_The Nehor]

Get the point yet? Or will it take 20 more pages of stubborn repetition until one of you stops pretending that such a simple point is beyond you?

I have great faith in you. I think you can do it in 15, maybe even 12.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've got the point. I got the point millions of words ago. It's a transparently obvious point. It's a trivial point. It's not a particularly interesting point. It's pointless to repeat the point for all eternity.

The only way to judge a book is by looking at the book. Got the point?

You almost never get to check the archival or unpublished sources used by a non-fiction book. (Have you ever done so?)

If the book you read is based upon materials archived in the Huntington Library, you will be exceedingly unlikely to be able to wander through the Huntington Library to check those materials. The odds are even extremely low that the thought will even cross your mind.

The best way to judge a book is by reading the book.

If you're not in an ideal position to judge this book, you're in the same position you're always in when you read such a book

Got the point?

The only way to judge a book is by reading the book. However ill-equipped you may be to judge the book, the book is the thing.

Got the point?

You can't judge a book by what non-authors have said about other subjects.

What the authors have said is much more relevant.

But by far the best way to evaluate the book is via the book.

Got the point?

Has there been suppression of historical data? Maybe. Maybe not. Whether it's Mormon-related or it isn't Mormon-related.

History is just that way.

But the best way to judge a book is by reading the book.

Got the point?

Is reading a book the perfect way to attain pure historical truth?

No.

Is it the best way?

If the book is at all good, yes.

What is the best way to judge whether a book is good? Via a careful and informed reading of the book.

Got the point?

Abstract discussions of a book that one hasn't read are of very, very limited value.

Got the point?

Speculating about possible interference by the Church in the research of the book is essentially useless, without any real evidence to go by.

What is the indispensable first step in trying to detect such interference? Reading the book.

Got the point?

Inferring from some statements by Church leaders made in other contexts that the researchers weren't given free rein to find the truth is of marginal value when it's contradicted by frequent, express declarations by the researchers themselves.

How to tell whether the researchers have been able to do a credible job? By a careful and informed reading of their book.

Got the point?

Is this a perfect method for determining whether a historian has looked at all of the evidence and interpreted it correctly? No.

But it's the best starting place.

Got the point?

On the whole, when we read historical books, we are obliged to rely upon the good faith of those who researched and wrote them. That's true in non-Mormon as well as Mormon historiography. We're seldom if ever in a position to really check them.

Got the point?

[_truth dancer]

I have an idea... :-)

How about this, Dan which one of the following statements fits best with your opinion:

1. The LDS church would gladly support and spend millions of dollars to help some of its employees write a book that would harm and damage the testimonies of many believers.

2. The LDS church would not support or spend millions of dollars to help some of its employees write a book that would harm and damage the testimonies of many believers.

Just trying to clear things up... ;-)

[_Daniel Peterson]

I have an idea... :-)

How about this, Dan which one of the following statements fits best with your opinion:

1. The LDS church would gladly support and spend millions of dollars to help some of its employees write a book that would harm and damage the testimonies of many believers.

2. The LDS church would not support or spend millions of dollars to help some of its employees write a book that would harm and damage the testimonies of many believers.

Just trying to clear things up... ;-)

Neither.

I'm sure that the Church wouldn't be "glad" to help destroy testimonies.

But the Church did encourage Turley, Walker, and Leonard to write an honest book and to let the chips fall where they may. Various leaders of the Church said so, the authors have repeatedly said so, and various professional historians who have been involved with the project and who are friends of mine have told me so. I believe them.

I'm assuming that the leaders of the Church were confident, rightly or wrongly, that the full story would not implicate Brigham Young and/or the Church, and that the benefits of fully honest and open treatment of the Mountain Meadows Massacre would outweigh any costs. I assume that they felt that way at least partially because, for various reasons, that's the way I feel.

So here's my view:

3. The LDS Church, from President Hinckley on down, pledged to support -- to the tune of many thousands of dollars, and perhaps (but not certainly) even of millions of dollars -- the research and writing of a book (now two books) that would tell the full truth about the Mountain Meadows Massacre insofar as it is possible to do so.

How would one go about determining whether, in fact, Massacre at Mountain Meadows lives up to that pledge? I can't think of a better or more effective way of setting out to do that than by first reading the book.

[_beastie]

Yes, DCP, of course you got the point millions of years ago. You’re just playing the game you always play. That’s why this thread is as long as it is.

Of course I will read the book carefully. But since neither I nor other researchers are going to have access to this material, there really is no way for me to evaluate the accuracy of its claims, no matter how carefully I read it, is there?

This, in and of itself, may not be particularly troubling, but it is very troubling in the face of two known facts:

1 – the church has a serious conflict of interest in this issue
2 – two very influential and powerful leaders of the church – Packer and Oaks – have already gone “on the record” regarding their view that not only is suppression of damaging historical evidence justified, but it is the only ethical choice for church employees.

You can dismiss these two facts all you want, but they’re not going away, and I am not the first nor the last person to point them out. All you have, in response, is to repeat that the authors – who are church employees under the ethical obligation already clearly stated by Packer and Oaks – have assured us that, despite the conflict of interest and despite Packer and Oaks’ statements, the historical integrity of the work is intact.

This is like asking us to simply accept the words of the employees of NicStix that their study adhered to the highest standards of research integrity – with no ability to judge for ourselves whether or not that is an accurate assessment.

On the whole, when we read historical books, we are obliged to rely upon the good faith of those who researched and wrote them. That's true in non-Mormon as well as Mormon historiography. We're seldom if ever in a position to really check them.

Once again, this is only accepted and non-problematic if a serious conflict of interest and past interest in suppressing information does not exist. I suspect that if the organization funding the research has a known history of supporting the suppression of truths, and has a simultaneous serious conflict of interest in the matter, that no one would be comfortable with the situation.

How would one go about determining whether, in fact, Massacre at Mountain Meadows lives up to that pledge? I can't think of a better or more effective way of setting out to do that than by first reading the book.

How does reading the book, in and of itself, allow one to determine whether the church lived up to that pledge, when none of us have access to the restricted materials that only the authors were able to access?

Does the process involve a spiritual witness? ;)

[_Daniel Peterson]

You’re just playing the game you always play.

Puncturing pretense and exposing vacuousness.

Yes. I love to play that game.

Of course I will read the book carefully. But since neither I nor other researchers are going to have access to this material, there really is no way for me to evaluate the accuracy of its claims, no matter how carefully I read it, is there?

Then it's hopeless.

And I'm guessing that somebody who didn't even know what the Joseph Smith Papers project is probably doesn't follow Mormon historiography very closely.

But look on the bright side: At least you know that you'll be reading a book that very likely distorts and misrepresents history. So you can be on the alert, unlike the other cases where you've been in very much the same position, unable to check the author's sources, but you haven't even realized that the book was biased and misleading.

the face of two known facts:
1 – the church has a serious conflict of interest in this issue

A serious conflict of interest that, in my view, the Church doesn't appear to have recognized. As I've noted, Church leaders and the authors and the researchers and knowledgeable insiders have said, in public, in private, and to me, that they wanted the full truth told and that it was in the interest of the Church to see that this occurred.

2 – two very influential and powerful leaders of the church – Packer and Oaks – have already gone “on the record” regarding their view that not only is suppression of damaging historical evidence justified, but it is the only ethical choice for church employees.

Just for the record -- I don't have time for an eighty-page thread today -- I have accepted that characterization of their positions only for the sake of discussion. I'm not convinced that you read them correctly. [3000 by 20?]

You can dismiss these two facts all you want

Thanks. I've already dismissed those "facts."

All you have, in response, is to repeat that the authors – who are church employees under the ethical obligation already clearly stated by Packer and Oaks – have assured us that, despite the conflict of interest and despite Packer and Oaks’ statements, the historical integrity of the work is intact.

This is like asking us to simply accept the words of the employees of NicStix that their study adhered to the highest standards of research integrity – with no ability to judge for ourselves whether or not that is an accurate assessment.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html

Does the process involve a spiritual witness? ;)

Cute. But, as you well know, an insult without relevance.

20 by 5:20 Mountain Time?

[_beastie]

Of course we'll reach 20. Pulling teeth usually does take a while.

Puncturing pretense and exposing vacuousness.

Ah, yes, repeating phrases like “20 by 20” is a well respected tactic for puncturing pretense and exposing vacuousness. Well played, sir, well played. Oh, and let’s not forget the time-honored tactic of pretending to be too stupid to recognize an obvious point. That’s another point for you, no doubt! I was really put in my place, wasn’t I?

Then it's hopeless.

And I'm guessing that somebody who didn't even know what the Joseph Smith Papers project is probably doesn't follow Mormon historiography very closely.

But look on the bright side: At least you know that you'll be reading a book that very likely distorts and misrepresents history. So you can be on the alert, unlike the other cases where you've been in very much the same position, unable to check the author's sources, but you haven't even realized that the book was biased and misleading.

Apparently it is hopeless, because you have no meaningful rebuttal. Again, well played!!

You have no meaningful rebuttal because there is no way for me, or anyone else, to be able to verify this information when, by your own admission, this is private, archived information not accessible to the public. So it hardly matters how carefully I follow Mormon historiography (which is not my primary interest, hence my hesitation in breaking my book budget for this book), does it? Could a person who follows Mormon historiography very closely get access to the necessary materials in order to evaluate how well the LDS church kept its pledge? Someone like, say, Will Bagley?

A serious conflict of interest that, in my view, the Church doesn't appear to have recognized. As I've noted, Church leaders and the authors and the researchers and knowledgeable insiders have said, in public, in private, and to me, that they wanted the full truth told and that it was in the interest of the Church to see that this occurred.

LOL! How does it help you to state that the church doesn’t appear to have recognized a conflict of interest that you, yourself, stated was too obvious to even state your agreement with? Kind of like 2+2, If I recall correctly??? Seriously, how in the world does this help your case?

Just for the record -- I don't have time for an eighty-page thread today -- I have accepted that characterization of their positions only for the sake of discussion. I'm not convinced that you read them correctly. [3000 by 20?]

For heaven’s sake, I repeated the citations several times. There’s not much wiggle room. But I’ll repeat it so you don’t have to search for it:

Packer’s The Mantle is Far, Far Greater

Those of us who are extensively engaged in researching the wisdom of man, including those who write and those who teach Church history, are not immune from these dangers. I have walked that road of scholarly research and study and know something of the dangers. If anything, we are more vulnerable than those in some of the other disciplines. Church history can he so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer.

President Brigham Young admonished Karl G. Maeser not to teach even the times table without the Spirit of the Lord. How much more essential is that Spirit in the research, the writing, and the teaching of Church history.

If we who research, write, and teach the history of the Church ignore the spiritual on the pretext that the world may not understand it, our work will not be objective. And
if, for the same reason, we keep it quite secular, we will produce a history that is not accurate and not scholarly--this, in spite of the extent of research or the nature or the individual statements or the incidents which are included as part of it, and notwithstanding the training or scholarly reputation of the one who writes or teaches it. We would end up with a history with the one most essential ingredient left out.
Those who have the Spirit can recognize very quickly whether something is missing in a written Church history this in spite of the fact that the author may be a highly trained historian and the reader is not. And, I might add, we have been getting a great deal of experience in this regard in the past few year.

President Wilford Woodruff warned: "I will here say God has inspired me to keep a Journal and History of this Church, and I warn the future Historians to give Credence to my History of this Church and Kingdom; for my Testimony is true, and the truth of its record will be manifest in the world to Come."2

There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher Of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.

Some things that are true are not very useful.

Historians seem to take great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure. For some reason, historians and novelists seem to savor such things. If it related to a living person it would come under the heading of gossip. History can be as misleading as gossip and much more difficult--often impossible--to verify.

The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment. He should not complain if one day he himself receives as he has given. Perhaps that is what is contemplated in having one's sins preached from the housetops.

Some time ago a historian gave a lecture to an audience of college students on one of the past Presidents of the Church. It seemed to be his purpose to show that that President was a man subject to the foibles of men. He introduced many so-called facts that put that President in a very unfavorable light, particularly when they were taken out of the context of the historical period in which he lived.

Someone who was not theretofore acquainted with this historical figure (particularly someone not mature) must have come away very negatively affected. Those who were unsteady in their convictions surely must have had their faith weakened or destroyed.

That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith--A destroyer of faith--particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith--places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities.

One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for "advanced history," is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be accountable. After all of the tomorrows of mortality have been finished, he will not stand where be might have stood.

I recall a conversation with President Henry D. Moyle. We were driving back from Arizona and were talking about a man who destroyed the faith of young people from the vantage point of a teaching position. Someone asked President Moyle why this man was still a member of the Church when he did things like that. "He is not a member of the Church." President Moyle answered firmly. Another replied that he bad not heard of his excommunication. "He has excommunicated himself," President Moyle responded. "He cut himself off from the Spirit of God. Whether or not we get around to holding a court doesn't matter that much; he has cut himself off from he Spirit of the Lord."

In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on and we are engaged in it. It is the war between good and evil, and we are belligerents defending the good. We are therefore obliged to give preference to and protect all that is represented in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and we have made covenants to do it.

And I want to say in all seriousness that there is a limit to the patience of the Lord with respect to those who are under covenant to bless and protect His Church and kingdom upon the earth but do not do it.

There is much in the scriptures and in our Church literature to convince us that we are at war with the adversary. We are not obliged as a church, nor are we as members obliged, to accommodate the enemy in this battle.

President Joseph Fielding Smith pointed out that it would be a foolish general who would give access to all of his intelligence to his enemy. It is neither expected nor necessary for us to accommodate those who seek to retrieve references from our sources, distort them, and use them against us.

Suppose that a well-managed business corporation is threatened by takeover from another corporation. Suppose that the corporation bent on the takeover is determined to drain off all its assets and then dissolve this company. You can rest assured that the threatened company would hire legal counsel to protect itself.

Do you not recognize a breach of ethics, or integrity, or morality?

I think you can see the point I am making. Those of you who are employed by the Church have a special responsibility to build faith not destroy it. If you do not do that, but in fact accommodate the enemy, who is the destroyer of faith you become in that sense a traitor to the cause you have made covenants to protect.

DCP

Thanks. I've already dismissed those "facts."

So you’ve already dismissed the conflict of interest that you found painfully obvious a couple of pages ago? And you’ve dismissed the words of Packer? LOL.

How is it poisoning the well to refer to my NicStix example? It’s a clear example of conflict of interest, a clear example of a group with the past history of suppressing truths, and a clear history of expecting loyalty from its employees. If that sounds like poisoning the well, perhaps the well already had a serious problem before I got anywhere near it.

Cute. But, as you well know, an insult without relevance.

So referring to a spiritual witness is now an insult? It does sound silly, doesn’t it? But really, what other alternative do we readers have? All we can do is take the church and its employee/authors at their word. This wouldn’t be problematic except for the two inconvenient facts you have rushed to dismiss.

[_Chap]

I do hope that Beastie will continue to encourage DCP to continue posting as much and as frequently as possible on this thread, so that anybody who reads this board will have the maximum chance to evaluate the cogency and persuasiveness of his answers to her points in relation to the book under discussion.

More please.

Remember, it is the readers that count.