MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_Daniel Peterson]

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

Of course I didn't. See my above explanation.

Are we to 23 yet?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Yes!

And still no book!

[_beastie]

Please cite where I said that the book is dishonest and a distortion.

[_beastie]

by the way, this thread, in my opinion, has added some insight into why DCP is often specifically targeted by exmormons upset by their experiences with apologists.

[_beastie]

I don't recall this link being offered before:

Common Consent

Will Bagley participates in the conversation, as well. I haven't read all of it yet, but one thing I already saw that the lack of delving into the vengeance oaths was cited as weakness there, as well.

[_beastie]

Hmm, someone else actually thinks my larger point is a legitimate question:

Brad:

According to the many statements and conference presentations the authors have made over the past few years as well as the preface to this volume, the Church has supported this project by providing what they call “full and open disclosure.” Because “[t]horoughness and candor” were governing priorities, the Church granted the authors unfettered access to all relevant documents in its history library and archives, including (wait for it) the archives of the First Presidency. These facts are important and make this book unique for two overarching reasons. First, the authors had unprecedented access to relevant historical materials, as well as the resources to conduct unusually thorough research, a process that extended well beyond the walls of the Church history library. Second, and perhaps more significant (or, at least, more attention grabbing), this work has enormous implications for what the future of Mormon scholarship will entail. Just how free and open is the Church prepared to be when it comes to granting access to sensitive materials to professional, scholarly historians? How candid will a Church-condoned history of Mormonism’s most disturbing, embarassing historical moments actually be? These authors set a task to answer the question: “How could basically good people commit such a terrible atrocity?” How sufficient is their answer? Do they offer more than transparent apologia for the perpetrators of this unthinkably vicious crime or sweeping, knee-jerk indictments of any and all involved and of Mormonism (and, perhaps, religion) itself?

[_Trevor]

I have read the book. I just wanted to throw that out there before the thread went on any longer. My first impressions: It is an impressive piece of work, as far as I can tell. The book skillfully builds a case against John D. Lee--more so than against any other single person--and deflects most of the blame that has been aimed at Brigham Young in the past. Granted, it credits Haight and other leaders in Cedar City with the original plan to attack the train. The reader is still unfortunately left with an overwhelmingly negative and damning impression of Lee and his culpability.

Lee comes out looking particularly bad because of the book's focus on his character and past behavior, the fact that it shows him as the real leader on the scene, and then ends with his execution. The last part coming after a jump of several decades. You basically find yourself going from the placement of the orphaned children to the execution of Lee.

The most crucial defenses of Young: The assertion, which seems quite persuasive, that his War policy with regard to the Indians had been misunderstood by the leaders (militia and church) in the Iron Mission. This policy had been announced August 16. The authors quote it, but selectively, and I would have preferred that such a crucial document be quoted in full at this point, at least in the footnote if not in the text itself. As they argue, most other acts of theft from emigrants had not resulted in the deaths of the emigrants. Second, whereas Bagley ties the massacre to Brigham's meeting with Indian chiefs in SLC, these authors argue that the meeting came too late (Sept. 1) to have had any effect on the massacre.

Unfortunately, the authors have not provided a clear chronology of the events of the first week of September, so it becomes difficult for the reader to really sort out the timing of different events. I am not saying that such a chronology would cast doubt on their argument, but it would have been much more convenient and convincing if it had been there.

From what I can gather, and according to their footnotes, Lee dated the meeting in which Haight recruited him to organize an Indian attack on the train to Saturday, Sept. 5. Lee's date seems unlikely, but unfortunately the authors do not comment on the problem, which is a crucial point for their claim that the Sept. 1 meeting had no impact on the situation.

Finally, they also reject (in a footnote) the report of James Gemmell that at the Sept. 1 meeting he overheard Hamblin tell Young of the misconduct of the Fancher party, to which Brigham supposedly replied, "If he (Brigham) were in command of the Legion he would wipe them out." About this, they simply say that the sources Bagley gives "are contradictory, and some are anachronistic." This point is argued in a "symposium paper" written by Turley. I regret that I do not have access to this paper, and I wish they had actually provided more of the argument in the footnote.

Just some initial reactions.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Please cite where I said that the book is dishonest and a distortion.

Please cite where I said that you said that the book is dishonest and a distortion.

My brother-in-law and his son are visiting from Oregon. We went boating and wakeboarding. Do you like boating, beastie?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I have read the book.

And your post is like cool water in a parched desert.

[Tator]

Please cite where I said that you said that the book is dishonest and a distortion.

My initial reaction to this is that this is just a part of DCP’s overall approach to this thead, which is to seemingly attempt to clutter it with inane comments, perhaps as some sort of distraction. But what’s really sad about this is based on years of interacting with defenders of the faith on the internet, it’s a real possibility that DCP really hasn’t allowed the information I already provided to register in the first place. Sometimes I think that certain defenders of the faith approach difficult issues by trying to annoy the critic as much as possible by creating the “alice in wonderland effect” in the hopes that the critic will give up in disgust, or get so irritated that that he/she begins name calling, which the defender can then use as proof of the bad behavior of critics.

At any rate, since it will only take a minute to put together, I will just go ahead and provide the information yet again. The citations are put together from the interactions over several posts.

Beastie

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.

DCP’s response:

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

Beastie

How is it poisoning the well to refer to my NicStix example?

DCP

Referring to NicStix isn't "poisoning the well."

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.