MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[Guest]

Essentially, there will be loose ends, ambiguities, guesses or suppositions, etc. in contrast to a nice and clean-cut ending where the crook is caught, the motives are explained, and everyone goes home satisfied all because Nancy cracked the case.

So is one of the loose ends, messy ending, crook not being caught, the idea that the Fancher party may have actually behaved in an aggressive and belligerent fashion, possibly triggering the LDS reaction?

If the complex variables in the massacre could be summed up as quickly and cleanly as this we might be able to make a very nice Nancy Drew novel from this tragedy.

From what I can tell, however, the Mormon settlers very well could have perceived some of the emigrants as behaving in an aggressive or belligerent fashion. It seems that some of them did perceive such. This does not mean the emigrants actually committed any or many of the acts the settlers perceived, or that the actions- even in their most extreme versions in rumor- would have justified what happened to the emigrants.

What do you think about the perceptions of the settlers in comparison to the behavior of the emigrants? Maybe you can tell me what you think about the records of those living in the area and what the historical record tells us about the behavior of the emigrants.

PS- I do not necessarily recommend any of the Google ads that have been placed within my post.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Twenty-two delicious pages!

[_beastie]

So would you say that anything coming from Church historians who had the support of the Church is very likely not going to be dishonest and a distortion?

Here is what I've repeatedly said: I think that there is an obvious conflict of interest, combined with the past tendency to support the suppression of historical facts that could damage the faith, that result in an undermining of confidence. As I've stated over and over, this does not mean that the book is inaccurate, or that anything unethical occurred with this book at all. It does mean that allowing other qualified historians, including nonLDS or critical historians, access to the same material would mitigate that effect.

Now, as to whether or not, in general, "anything coming from Church historians who had the support of the Church is very likely NOT going to be dishonest and a distortion", you'd have to provide me a general list of books that fit that parameter in the first place. I also think that the Bushman text may be signaling a change in approach to these sensitive questions.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

So would you say that anything coming from Church historians who had the support of the Church is very likely not going to be dishonest and a distortion?

Here is what I've repeatedly said: I think that there is an obvious conflict of interest, combined with the past tendency to support the suppression of historical facts that could damage the faith, that result in an undermining of confidence. As I've stated over and over, this does not mean that the book is inaccurate, or that anything unethical occurred with this book at all. It does mean that allowing other qualified historians, including nonLDS or critical historians, access to the same material would mitigate that effect.

Now, as to whether or not, in general, "anything coming from Church historians who had the support of the Church is very likely NOT going to be dishonest and a distortion", you'd have to provide me a general list of books that fit that parameter in the first place. I also think that the Bushman text may be signaling a change in approach to these sensitive questions.

Bushman didn't write RSR as a "church historian," he wrote it as a historian.

[_beastie]

From what I can tell, however, the Mormon settlers very well could have perceived some of the emigrants as behaving in an aggressive or belligerent fashion. It seems that some of them did perceive such. This does not mean the emigrants actually committed any or many of the acts the settlers perceived, or that the actions- even in their most extreme versions in rumor- would have justified what happened to the emigrants.

So, after completing this book, you do not feel that you are able to state, with any satisfaction that, aside from the "perceptions" of the LDS, whether or not the Fancher part actually did behave in a belligerent or aggressive fashion? Is that one of the loose ends?

[_beastie]

Bushman didn't write RSR as a "church historian," he wrote it as a historian.

I didn't say that he did.

[_beastie]

Repeating for DCP's recognition, amidst his busy occupation of noting how long this thread is:

One quick example:

Quote:
It's poisoning the well to suggest, on the basis of nothing (not even an acquaintance with the book), that anything coming from Church historians who had the support of the Church is very likely going to be dishonest and a distortion.


Now, admittedly you didn't use the exact words "whitewash, full of lies, worthless", but "dishonest and distortion" is close enough.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

From what I can tell, however, the Mormon settlers very well could have perceived some of the emigrants as behaving in an aggressive or belligerent fashion. It seems that some of them did perceive such. This does not mean the emigrants actually committed any or many of the acts the settlers perceived, or that the actions- even in their most extreme versions in rumor- would have justified what happened to the emigrants.

So, after completing this book, you do not feel that you are able to state, with any satisfaction that, aside from the "perceptions" of the LDS, whether or not the Fancher part actually did behave in a belligerent or aggressive fashion? Is that one of the loose ends?

I don't wish to imply such in any case. I haven't really gotten into what caused arguments and trouble, yet. But I do remember reading about instances in the book that will shed light on your questions. I don't want to spoil them for you! And you didn't answer my question:

What do you think about the perceptions of the settlers in comparison to the behavior of the emigrants? Maybe you can tell me what you think about the records of those living in the area and what the historical record tells us about the behavior of the emigrants.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Now, admittedly you didn't use the exact words "whitewash, full of lies, worthless", but "dishonest and distortion" is close enough.

In my view, a "dishonest" book need not be "full of lies." There are other ways -- more subtle and dangerous ways -- for a book to be dishonest. It might, for example, be based on a skewed representation of the evidence or on a skewed sampling of the evidence, or both. And isn't that what you're suggesting as a possibility that cannot easily be refuted in the case of Massacre at Mountain Meadows, the closed LDS archives, and the historical-truth-suppressing General Authorities?

And you're right: I didn't use the "exact words" whitewash, full of lies, and worthless. Had I wanted to do so, I could have. I've known all of those words for several years.

Twenty-two pages. Creatio ex nihilo. Proof positive of perpetual motion.

[_beastie]

I don't wish to imply such in any case. I haven't really gotten into what caused arguments and trouble, yet. But I do remember reading about instances in the book that will shed light on your questions. I don't want to spoil them for you! And you didn't answer my question:

If you haven't read that portion of the book yet, why were you making statements about it? I guess for the same reason you're trying to get ME to discuss specifics before I've read the book with this question:

What do you think about the perceptions of the settlers in comparison to the behavior of the emigrants? Maybe you can tell me what you think about the records of those living in the area and what the historical record tells us about the behavior of the emigrants.

I haven't read the book yet. What do you want me to do, pull out Bagley quotes? Bagley didn't have access to the material these authors did.

I'm asking a very simple question, LoaP. If you haven't read the entire book yet, then you can't answer it. If you've read the entire book, could you tell, by the end, whether or not the Fancher party actually DID engage in belligerent and aggressive manners? Please note I'm not asking whether or not the Mormons PERCEIVED them to be so doing.

DCP

In my view, a "dishonest" book need not be "full of lies." There are other ways -- more subtle and dangerous ways -- for a book to be dishonest. It might, for example, be based on a skewed representation of the evidence or on a skewed sampling of the evidence, or both. And isn't that what you're suggesting as a possibility that cannot easily be refuted in the case of Massacre at Mountain Meadows, the closed LDS archives, and the historical-truth-suppressing General Authorities?

And you're right: I didn't use the "exact words" whitewash, full of lies, and worthless. Had I wanted to do so, I could have. I've known all of those words for several years.

Seriously??? Seriously??? You are seriously going to argue that this:

It's poisoning the well to suggest, on the basis of nothing (not even an acquaintance with the book), that anything coming from Church historians who had the support of the Church is very likely going to be dishonest and a distortion.

is not the functional equivalent of "full of lies, whitewash, worthless?"

Seriously?

And folks, this tap dancing is a large part of the reason this thread is as long as it is. Along with DCP's crowing about how long the thread is, and I suspect those posts of his would easily equal at least a couple of pages.

As to this:

And isn't that what you're suggesting as a possibility that cannot easily be refuted in the case of Massacre at Mountain Meadows, the closed LDS archives, and the historical-truth-suppressing General Authorities?

I am not suggesting, but flat out stating the same thing I have stated repeatedly in this thread. The serious conflict of interest, combined with the past encouragement of suppressing "truths" that could damage faith, undermine confidence in the book. This does not mean, as I have said repeatedly, that the book is unethical or inaccurate. What this does mean is that the conflict of interest could be mitigated if and when other qualified researchers, like Bagley, are able to access all the materials these authors accessed.