MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_Daniel Peterson]

And it seems like those who have read the book have delivered their verdict. For example, the fact that no mention is made of the Oath of Vengeance is indicative of the extremely problematic nature of the book.

When one or two internet critics post their opinions, the thinking has been done. The question is closed.

They speak on behalf of all those who have read the book or will yet read it, and theirs is the verdict of final record.

You can't possibly be serious.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

From my perspective, it's exceedingly strange to see people apparently struggling with the concept (which seems to me utterly noncontroversial) that actually reading a book is an indispensably important step toward answering the question of whether the book represents a serious, honest effort to deal with its subject. Other steps may be required, as well, but surely there can be no dispute that reading the book is essential.

And it seems like those who have read the book have delivered their verdict. For example, the fact that no mention is made of the Oath of Vengeance is indicative of the extremely problematic nature of the book.

No mention was made of the "oath of vengeance"?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

In terms of fully verifying its accuracy, reading the book would be a waste of time. This is true, and will continue to be true until the LDS Church agrees to fully open up its archival holdings. I know that you're not so dense that you cannot grasp this very simple and obvious point.

Does this mean you'll stop pontificating about anything that has to do with the LDS Church archives, or the so-called "skinny-L" list, or the other things to which you have no direct reference?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

And it seems like those who have read the book have delivered their verdict. For example, the fact that no mention is made of the Oath of Vengeance is indicative of the extremely problematic nature of the book.

When one or two internet critics post their opinions, the thinking has been done. The question is closed.

They speak on behalf of all those who have read the book or will yet read it, and theirs is the verdict of final record.

You can't possibly be serious.

Shades didn't even represent the brief reviews of the book correctly.

[_Mister Scratch]

And it seems like those who have read the book have delivered their verdict. For example, the fact that no mention is made of the Oath of Vengeance is indicative of the extremely problematic nature of the book.

When one or two internet critics post their opinions, the thinking has been done. The question is closed.

They speak on behalf of all those who have read the book or will yet read it, and theirs is the verdict of final record.

You can't possibly be serious.

Well, is there any mention of the Oath of Vengeance? If not, then Shades is entirely correct. That fact, coupled with the Church's suppression of archival material, means that one should approach the book with an attitude of extreme skepticism.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Well, is there any mention of the Oath of Vengeance?

Pg. 286n48

Also page 428 (if one counts its place in the index...)

[_Trevor]

As the authors explain in the outset of the book, the ending regarding the trial and execution are only included to end the current book, rather than to conclude the historical examination which will continue in another volume (and possibly 2?)

Yes, as I understood to be the case. I was simply pointing out that the cumulative effect, whether intentional or not, at least on this reader, was a decidedly negative impression of Lee. It could be that this is completely deserved and historically accurate. Unfortunately, at present, the responsibility of Haight takes the backseat. Maybe the second volume will change this.

I would have loved a good chronology in list form as an index. Perhaps one will be included in the upcoming edition of BYU Studies, in addition to other things that were left out of the book. Or maybe vol. 2 will provide one.

Yes. I would love one too, and I think it is important in a work like this, where issues of timing are a big deal.

[_Trevor]

No mention was made of the "oath of vengeance"

Just to be clear, I did not claim this.

[_Trevor]

When one or two internet critics post their opinions, the thinking has been done. The question is closed.

Well, I would hope that my status as "critic" does not prejudice people against my reading completely.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I myself have, as it happens, published on the problematic use of the term magic.

No; not really.

Yes, really.

Here are two specimens:

With Stephen D. Ricks. “Joseph Smith and ‘Magic’: Methodological Reflections on the Use of a Term.” In “To Be Learned is Good If...”, edited by Robert L. Millet, 129-147. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1987.

With Stephen D. Ricks. “The Mormon as Magus.” Review of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, by D. Michael Quinn (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1987). Sunstone 12 (January 1988): 38-39.

You've been told by a journalist that the book may have cost "millions of dollars."

Do you have any reason to distrust the journalist?

No, not really. Peggy's a friend of mine.

So when she says that Massacre at Mountain Meadows required "six years of unprecedented access to LDS Church archives, hundreds of hours in the nation's libraries and thousands if not millions of dollars spent on research," I see no reason to doubt her claim that it may have taken millions of dollars.

Could you see this material? Or is it "off-limits" as per the order of some authoritarian organization?

Are you talking about the U.S. Department of State? The Department of Defense? The Hudson's Bay Company? The Cairo Military Museum? The archives of the Indian Isma‘ili community? The Clinton Presidential Library? The Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago?

We have public statements from GAs declaring, among other things, that "some kinds of truth" are not useful, and that full disclosure of history can result in the deaths of testimonies.

I trust you have in mind statements more potent and on point than the two that beastie has trotted out here.

It is deceptive argumentation. You know: like telling people that "not one dime" gets paid to you for apologetics.

Something that, as a matter of fact, I've never said.