MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't need to argue it -- seriously or non-seriously -- at all. I simply never said that you regarded the book as "worthless" and "full of lies," though you do seem to suggest, given the Church's alleged propensity to suppress non-faith-promoting facts and thereby falsify history, that it could be a "whitewash" and that it may not give an honest history of the event. Moreover, it's not as if I have to convince myself about what I think and what I've said (I have privileged access to that), and you show little sign of being open to any persuasion on the matter now that you've attained dogmatic certainty.

Why would I bother?

Anyway, this thread needs no fuel in order to continue expanding.

[_Dr. Shades]

Okay, so thanks to the following three things:

1. The book in question was heavily funded by the LDS church,
2. The book in question was written by employees of the LDS church, and
3. The leaders of the LDS church have overtly stated their modus operandi to never allow faith-challenging facts to see the light of day, then. . .

. . . we can safely conclude that the book in question is a faithful presentation of the LDS church's version of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but whether the LDS church's version of the Mountain Meadows Massacre corresponds in any way to reality is pretty much anyone's guess.

. . . right?

[_Daniel Peterson]

The leaders of the LDS church have overtly stated their modus operandi to never allow faith-challenging facts to see the light of day

That is a wildly exaggerated claim, without any serious support in the eeevil quotations that beastie likes to trot out.

we can safely conclude that the book in question is a faithful presentation of the LDS church's version of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but whether the LDS church's version of the Mountain Meadows Massacre corresponds in any way to reality is pretty much anyone's guess.

. . . right?

If true, that would make the book potentially worthless, a whitewash, and dishonest, would it not?

Let's see if beastie goes after you.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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 should clarify. Within this thread I haven't really gotten into what what caused arguments and trouble, yet. I have personally seen what Turley, Walker, Brooks and Bagely, et. al. have said on it, though. It seems I wasn't clear enough in my post.

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.

Exactly.

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.

It seems, from the historical record, there were belligerent and aggressive actions on the part of at least some of the emigrants. A few of these actions were pretty cut-and-dry. Some of them, however, actually stemmed from things the Mormons themselves had done. In turn, some things the Mormons were doing actually stemmed from other circumstances as well. In addition, there were specific things that led the Mormons to believe the emigrants had engaged in more belligerent and aggressive manners, etc. Add to the mix Indian suspicion, etc. as well. You see, the circumstances were not so cut-and-dry; things don't really fall as nicely in place as we might hope for. Such is the nature of reality. Such is the nature of history rather than fiction. One who studies the historical method will quickly learn these problems are not unique to Mormon historiography.

[_beastie]

I don't need to argue it -- seriously or non-seriously -- at all. I simply never said that you regarded the book as "worthless" and "full of lies," though you do seem to suggest, given the Church's alleged propensity to suppress non-faith-promoting facts and thereby falsify history, that it could be a "whitewash" and that it may not give an honest history of the event. Moreover, it's not as if I have to convince myself about what I think and what I've said (I have privileged access to that), and you show little sign of being open to any persuasion on the matter now that you've attained dogmatic certainty.

Well, by all means, after that persuasive argument, let me correct my previous statement:

I want to emphasize that I have not stated that the work is dishonest or a distortion, or any of the pejorative statements that DCP has tried to attach to my words.

Yes, I can see that makes ALL the difference in the world.

[_beastie]

. . . we can safely conclude that the book in question is a faithful presentation of the LDS church's version of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but whether the LDS church's version of the Mountain Meadows Massacre corresponds in any way to reality is pretty much anyone's guess.

First, I have no idea why DCP thinks I should “go after” Shades. Shades did not attribute false meaning or intent to my words, as DCP did.

But I will try, once again, to explain my thoughts on the matter. I doubt it will make much of a dent in the fixed ideas of some on this thread, who have already shown themselves to be fairly impervious to my own words, and prefer their own strawmen, but I will give it a try.

I do not believe, nor have I stated or insinuated that all historical material produced by the faithful is likely to be untrustworthy, dishonest, or a distortion. I also do not believe, nor have I stated, that all apologia produced by apologists is likely to be untrustworthy, dishonest, or a distortion.

I do believe that some historical material produced by the faithful has been untrustworthy, possibly dishonest (although that depends upon knowing deceit, which, given the human tendency to biased thinking is difficult to prove and not necessary as an explanation, anyway), and a distortion. Likewise, I believe that some historical material produced by the faithful has been trustworthy, honest (given the same qualification of bias) and not a distortion. (and the same can be said for apologia)

So do I believe that this particular work is untrustworthy, dishonest, or a distortion? No, I do not, nor do I believe the opposite. I have no beliefs in this regard due to the fact that I haven’t read the book. Once I read the book, I will have a more developed opinion, but unless other qualified researchers can access the same material I’ll never really know.

There is nothing wild, malicious, or illogical about this position. It is not based in frothing prejudice or bias, or a hopelessly skewed worldview. I think it is a position that many reasonable people would take, given the circumstances.

So whether or not Shades was correct in saying it’s “anyone’s guess” remains to be seen. I don’t know yet how much material they used that no other researchers will be able to access, for starters. If it’s a relatively small amount, then we can probably make a pretty accurate evaluation and not rely on anyone’s guess. If it’s a large amount of material, then “anyone’s guess” might sum it up. But, at this point, I really have no idea because I haven’t read the book, nor compared its material to Bagley’s.

[_beastie]

It seems, from the historical record, there were belligerent and aggressive actions on the part of at least some of the emigrants. A few of these actions were pretty cut-and-dry. Some of them, however, actually stemmed from things the Mormons themselves had done. In turn, some things the Mormons were doing actually stemmed from other circumstances as well. In addition, there were specific things that led the Mormons to believe the emigrants had engaged in more belligerent and aggressive manners, etc. Add to the mix Indian suspicion, etc. as well. You see, the circumstances were not so cut-and-dry; things don't really fall as nicely in place as we might hope for. Such is the nature of reality. Such is the nature of history rather than fiction. One who studies the historical method will quickly learn these problems are not unique to Mormon historiography.

Well, then, this answers that question. The reason why several readers have brought up the bad behavior of the Fancher party as a possible trigger is that the book does claim that they engaged in some bad behavior, if LoaP's summary is accurate. This will be an interesting comparison to Bagley's work.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Almost to 23!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Shades did not attribute false meaning or intent to my words, as DCP did.

I did nothing of the sort.

Are we to 23 yet?

[_beastie]

I did nothing of the sort.

Of course you did. I never said the work was dishonest or a distortion. See my above explanation.