MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_Daniel Peterson]

The only reason I’ve gone on and on about it is due to your approach to this thread.

Sure. Right. Whatever you say.

Now, I understand you insist that I have egregiously misinterpreted Packer’s comments.

Yes, I do.

I imagine that my interpretation of his remarks is extremely common

In certain quarters, yes, it is.

This is laughable. Slanderous????

Yes.

ThisI have repeatedly stated that two influential leaders of the LDS church have made statements that encourage the suppression of historical truths that could damage the faith. This is a true statement, unless one attempts to spin and twist their words as you have already attempted.

It's a false statement. The comment from Elder Oaks that you've cited doesn't seem to refer to historiography at all, and the comment from Elder Packer that you've cited can be -- and, in my view, reasonably is -- interpreted far less drastically than you prefer.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I didn't think Lee was "over-vilified" in my initial read. Especially given that the authors have not fully investigated all things, including the post-massacre behavior of the participants, including Lee.

I'm not sure anyone who took part in the act can be "over-vilified"... but, thus far (once again, betraying my ignorance as I am commenting before having completed the book) it seems that an unequal amount of space (and early on within the book) has been devoted to painting Lee negatively. So far I haven't seen the same for Haight.

I imagine much might have to do with Lee’s overall character. Perhaps there weren’t the same character flaws within the early history of the settlements to allow for such commentary and presentation of evidence for Haight, but it is something that has stood out to me (for whatever strange reason).

I too am sure much more will be fleshed out within the pages of the second book (which I wonder if Walker will act as the writer to maintain the same narrative voice, or if Turley will undertake the narrative -- I must admit that I’ve enjoyed Walker’s writing voice thus far).

If I recall correctly the sources the authors had dealt more with Lee than Haight, or touched on him more. I'll have to see when I look through the book again. I didn't walk away from the book with a very good feeling about Haight, to say the least. You'll get there, I imagine.

[_TAK]

DCP

It's not a specious argument because, in several of the cases mentioned above, other experts often can't access the archival information to which one particular researcher or group of researchers has been granted access. That's why I included them.

Since you included them.. please elaborate . .Who and what “ experts often can't access the archival information to which one particular researcher or group? ” Why can't they?

DCP

And, in the vast majority of cases, if access to the archives isn't literally impossible for the typical reader, it's practically impossible.

I am not talking about the average reader. I am talking about experts in the field of study who can evaluate what is written. What is impossible about accessing LDS archives? What prevents any historian from researching LDS Archives except the choice of the LDS Church to control the facts?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Since you included them.. please elaborate . .Who and what “ experts often can't access the archival information to which one particular researcher or group? ” Why can't they?

Access to the Ottoman archives is highly restricted. Stanford Shaw made a name for himself because of his fairly unique access and his unparalleled command of their contents.

The Isma‘ili Shi‘ite archives in Bombay were closed to outsiders for many decades, with the exception of a few specially admitted outsiders like Vladimir Ivanow. Even now, they're difficult of access.

Access to a portion of the University of Illinois's collection is a flashpoint in presidential politics at this very moment:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MT ... Y2OGI0NDM=

Even places like the Huntington Library are fairly stingy with their grants of admission to their archival collections.

Biographers are very often given unique, special access to materials held by their subjects or by their subjects' heirs. I don't recall seeing blanket statements that biographies written on this basis are worthless.

DCP

And, in the vast majority of cases, if access to the archives isn't literally impossible for the typical reader, it's practically impossible.

I am not talking about the average reader.

But I was.

For the vast majority of the readers of any historical book, the difference between de jure lack of access to its sources and de facto lack of access is purely abstract and "academic."

[_Trevor]

If I recall correctly the sources the authors had dealt more with Lee than Haight, or touched on him more. I'll have to see when I look through the book again. I didn't walk away from the book with a very good feeling about Haight, to say the least. You'll get there, I imagine.

It is natural to spend a lot of time with Lee. He cuts a much more tragic figure in the story as it is traditionally told. I felt much less sympathetic to him when confronted with evidence of some pretty glaring character flaws as presented in this text. I agree with the comment above that it is difficult to sympathize with anyone who would perpetrate mass murder, but, on the other hand, it is very important that we do see them as human beings like ourselves. I don't think we learn enough about Haight in this book, imho. Maybe there is not a lot to know.

[_Ray A]

This thread is now 25 pages, so I'm not sure if this has been quoted before, but I think this is one of the quotes beastie is referring to:

"My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors." -Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii, Footnote 28

[_Mister Scratch]

Access to the Ottoman archives is highly restricted. Stanford Shaw made a name for himself because of his fairly unique access and his unparalleled command of their contents.

The Isma‘ili Shi‘ite archives in Bombay were closed to outsiders for many decades, with the exception of a few specially admitted outsiders like Vladimir Ivanow. Even now, they're difficult of access.

Access to a portion of the University of Illinois's collection is a flashpoint in presidential politics at this very moment:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MT ... Y2OGI0NDM=

Even places like the Huntington Library are fairly stingy with their grants of admission to their archival collections.

Biographers are very often given unique, special access to materials held by their subjects or by their subjects' heirs. I don't recall seeing blanket statements that biographies written on this basis are worthless.



For the vast majority of the readers of any historical book, the difference between de jure lack of access to its sources and de facto lack of access is purely abstract and "academic."

I don't think there is much that is "abstract" about this issue at all. I think that the average American would immediately understand why a book authored by high-ranking Mormons, dealing with controversial subject matter which, if not handled a certain way, could reflect very badly on Mormonism, would be suspect.

And again, are your above examples very relevant to the topic at hand? Or are you engaging in sophistry, trying to create a smokescreen that downplays Mormonism's historical secrecy? You say, for example, that the Huntington is "stingy" in terms of allowing access. But is this true? To my knowledge, one simply needs a letter from an established scholar stating that s/he is there to do legitimate research. Is that "stingy"? Compared to getting access to LDS documents and materials, I would have to say, "No."

Anyways, The Good Professor can cite all the examples he wants. None of it will change the basic fact that some of the authors' claims cannot be verified.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think that the average American would immediately understand why a book authored by high-ranking Mormons, dealing with controversial subject matter which, if not handled a certain way, could reflect very badly on Mormonism, would be suspect.

And the average American would also, I think, immediately understand that essentially no serious judgment on the book would be possible by anybody who hadn't read it.

And again, are your above examples very relevant to the topic at hand?

Yes, they are.

Thanks for asking.

Or are you engaging in sophistry, trying to create a smokescreen that downplays Mormonism's historical secrecy?

No, I'm not.

But, again, I appreciate your interest.

You say, for example, that the Huntington is "stingy" in terms of allowing access. But is this true? To my knowledge, one simply needs a letter from an established scholar stating that s/he is there to do legitimate research. Is that "stingy"?

It's enough to keep probably 99.9% of the visitors to the Huntington out of the archives there.

Anyways, The Good Professor can cite all the examples he wants. None of it will change the basic fact that some of the authors' claims cannot be verified.

To myself: "The truth of the matter is that there is literally no way that this issue is not damning in some way. I lose either way. Why not admit defeat? There'd be more dignity in it."

[_TAK]

Daniel Peterson

Access to the Ottoman archives is highly restricted. Stanford Shaw made a name for himself because of his fairly unique access and his unparalleled command of their contents.

Really?

Stanford J. Shaw, Professor of Modern Turkish History at Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey, replied by saying “I am very puzzled by Professor Berktay’s criticism of the Ottoman Archives. Perhaps he has not visited them for some time.”

“The Ottoman archives (Prime Minister’s Archives) in Istanbul are in fact fully open,” Shaw continued.

“Since moving to its new location at Sultan Ahmed Square it has been thronged with researchers. Usually several hundred scholars, young and old, Turkish and foreign (including scholars from Armenia and Greece) are studying there at all times. To say that these are a few persons selected by the Turkish government is absurd. The only persons I know to have been excluded from the archives are a very few persons who have abused the employees or who have attempted to steal documents.”

http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/otto-archives.htm

DCP

The Isma‘ili Shi‘ite archives in Bombay were closed to outsiders for many decades, with the exception of a few specially admitted outsiders like Vladimir Ivanow. Even now, they're difficult of access.

So a religion is hiding its history .. remarkable!

DCP

Access to a portion of the University of Illinois's collection is a flashpoint in presidential politics at this very moment:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MT ... Y2OGI0NDM=

Time:

AP) The University of Illinois on Tuesday refused to release records relating to Barack Obama's service to a nonprofit group linked to former 1960s radical activist William Ayers.

The university's Chicago campus said the donor of the records that document the work of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge has not yet turned over ownership rights to the material.

The university is "aggressively pursuing" an agreement with the donor, and as soon as an agreement is finalized, the collection will be made accessible to the public, the university said in a one-paragraph statement.

Sounds like its administrative and temporary .. I don't see how that relates to 150 year old diaries ..

DCP

And, in the vast majority of cases, if access to the archives isn't literally impossible for the typical reader, it's practically impossible.

TAK
I am not talking about the average reader.

DCP
But I was.

For the vast majority of the readers of any historical book, the difference between de jure lack of access to its sources and de facto lack of access is purely abstract and "academic."

TAK
And that is why your argument is specious .. researchers typically have access to records / documents to evaluate a writer's claims and analysis .. Your examples are either wrong or supercilious.

So why can't historians/researchers access LDS Archives?

[_Yong Xi]

A book written about MMM by church employees or former employees is about as reliable as the pronouncement at General Conference that according to Church auditors, Church finances are in order.

And Daniel, I seem to recall a thread on MADB some time ago (March 10, 2007) where you attempted to "poison the well" with regard to Dawkins' "God Delusion" by introducing a negative review of the book prior to your reading it. If I recall correctly, The Dude was taken to task by MADB MODS after asking if you had read the book.