MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_harmony]

It's pertinent because Daniel complains that participants in this discussion haven't read the book yet. How will reading the book in any way impact the concept of the problems with the process? It won't. The process is independent of the content. Thus Daniel's complaint has no connection with your observation.

Dan's point is that the best way to test the theory about the process is to begin by reading the book. It's really quite that simple.

How will reading the book change the conflict of interest problem? How will reading the book change the church's historical way of dealing with church history or historians? How will reading the book change the lack of open access for nonLDS historians to the sources for the footnotes?

Reading the book won't change any of those problems.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

How will reading the book change the conflict of interest problem? How will reading the book change the church's historical way of dealing with church history or historians? How will reading the book change the lack of open access for nonLDS historians to the sources for the footnotes?

Reading the book won't change any of those problems.

Are you saying the book must automatically be crippled based on your assertions here? If so, I would recommend reading the book to see how right you are. If not, I would advise reading the book to see if playing it safe was a good idea.

'night!

[_harmony]

How will reading the book change the conflict of interest problem? How will reading the book change the church's historical way of dealing with church history or historians? How will reading the book change the lack of open access for nonLDS historians to the sources for the footnotes?

Reading the book won't change any of those problems.

Are you saying the book must automatically be crippled based on your assertions here? If so, I would recommend reading the book to see how right you are. If not, I would advise reading the book to see if playing it safe was a good idea.

'night!

Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about the content at all. Now address what I said, instead of what you wish I'd said.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about the content at all. Now address what I said, instead of what you wish I'd said.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I asked if you were saying such and such, and if not, I said you ought to read the book anyway. Unless you already have read the book. Have you?

'night!

[_Ray A]

Are you saying the book must automatically be crippled based on your assertions here?

I didn't think she was, for a minute. There are two levels of discussion going on, one about the book, the other about historiography, specifically approaches to "faithful history", and in particular how comments from Elders Oaks and Packer have, or have not influenced this, and what interests me, where the Church is going in the future with this. I've learned a lot more about Dallin Oaks' views, which has been helpful, including a lot I haven't posted.

[_harmony]

I didn't put words in your mouth. I asked if you were saying such and such, and if not, I said you ought to read the book anyway. Unless you already have read the book. Have you?

'night!

There is no "if not". You know what I said; you didn't address what I said at all.

Like Daniel, you won't see me discussing the book's content here. Or anywhere. I have no interest in the content. What I have an interest in is the process, especially if being a part of the discussion about the process in any way furthers the cause of openness in the church. Who knows? If the vault is really opened to qualified non-LDS historians, maybe the financials will be opened soon after that! A change that radical would be an excellent thing.

[_Daniel Peterson]

For harmony, who doesn't entirely get what's happened here: I'll probably finish the book tonight.

For Ray: I could quibble with Elder Oaks here and there, but, on the whole, I'm sympathetic to his concerns and to his position. And I see nothing in what you've quoted from him above that would legitimate (let alone call for) destroying historical evidence or falsifying history.

I'll let you have the last word, DCP, since it's bound to be as insipid as the vast majority of all your words on this thread, and somehow that seems to bring it full circle.

LOL. If you had really intended to let me have the last word, you could simply have . . . let me have the last word.

So go right on and rant some more about how crude and simplistic I am, while neglecting to mention pesky little details like exactly where you disagree with my points.

No. Sorry. I draw the line at six repetitions

I suddenly regret having posted my actual reactions to the book, as one of its readers, on this thread. Evidently it was a waste of time. Too bad, because I thought the book was worth reading, and I thought I had made some reasonable observations about it.

You should have no regrets. Substantive conversation about the book would have created a much, much better thread. You did your part.

Now, as to what Daniel is doing... You don't imagine that it might be frustrating that the first discussion of the MMM book here would be about why we shouldn't expect anything valuable out of it? I mean, say what you will of the FARMS Review (Heaven knows I have), but at least they do read the books they write about.

Bingo!

Once again, I thank you for a serious post. Such rarities on this thread, as I've observed before, represent a draught of cold, clear water in a parched desert land.

Of course there is value in the book; heck, there's value in Beep, Beep, Sheep in a Jeep and Lord of the Rings!

Now that's a reassuringly generous sentiment!

And Daniel's continual wailing that some of the thread participants haven't yet read the book isn't going to change those problems.

"Some"??? If the posts of those who haven't even touched a copy of the book were deleted from this thread, it would be a fraction of its current impressive length.

I mean, say what you will of the FARMS Review (Heaven knows I have), but at least they do read the books they write about.

Daniel doesn't. At least not all of them. Didn't you see that post?

I'll wager that the book review editor of the International Journal of Middle East Studies reads very few of the books that IJMES reviews -- and that's pretty much standard across the world of academic journals.

If you think that you've leveled a legitimate criticism against me that somehow neutralizes or counters Trevor's entirely true statement, you're mistaken.

[_harmony]

For harmony, who doesn't entirely get what's happened here: I'll probably finish the book tonight.

I get it, Daniel. I have from the very first post. Are you going to start pounding your chest, advertising your CV, and telling us you have inside knowledge, as you usually do at this point in a discussion? You're right on schedule, so don't disappoint us now.

Once again, I thank you for a serious post. Such rarities on this thread, as I've observed before, represent a draught of cold, clear water in a parched desert land.

You're the one with the highest count of inane posts on this thread, Daniel. We'd all thank you, were you to actually put up something serious.

"Some"??? If the posts of those who haven't even touched a copy of the book were deleted from this thread, it would be a fraction of its current impressive length.

And you think your posts have contributed... what?

If you think that you've leveled a legitimate criticism against me that somehow neutralizes or counters Trevor's entirely true statement, you're mistaken.

I wasn't being critical, Daniel. I was stating a fact: you don't read all the books that show up in FROB.

You know what my criticism feels like and what it addresses.

[_Daniel Peterson]

you going to start pounding your chest, advertising your CV, and telling us you have inside knowledge, as you usually do at this point in a discussion? You're right on schedule, so don't disappoint us now.

You're wrong, as usual.

We'd all thank you, were you to actually put up something serious.

My point was entirely serious: To go on and on and on and interminably on about the background of a book one hasn't so much as set eyes upon is simply fatuous. And prolonged fatuousness is mockworthy.

It's one thing to raise concerns about the authors of the book and/or about its institutional backers. But then enough already: Read the book or have done with discussing it.

I wasn't being critical, Daniel. I was stating a fact: you don't read all the books that show up in FROB.

An irrelevancy.

[_harmony]

You're wrong, as usual.

Oh, wow. That was clever. I'm sure that will put me in my place. Right. Good grief.

Where's that world-famous wit? That subtle sarcasm?

I was right: you are mellowing.

My point was entirely serious: To go on and on and on and interminably on about the background of a book one hasn't so much as set eyes upon is simply fatuous.

No, it's not. See? I can do it too.

And prolonged fatuousness is mockworthy.

Nobody died and made you King, Daniel. You don't get to be the arbitrator of what is or isn't discussed here, how long the discussion goes on, who takes part in it, or what is said. This isn't MAD. Try to remember where you are.

It's one thing to raise concerns about the authors of the book and/or about its institutional backers. But then enough already: Read the book or have done with discussing it.

And you think you are the One who decides what is enough?! Get a grip, Daniel; you aren't. No one here is. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, then don't, but you don't get to decide what is enough for anyone else.

The process is a separate subject from the content. I don't see why that is so difficult to understand.

I wasn't being critical, Daniel. I was stating a fact: you don't read all the books that show up in FROB.

An irrelevancy.

What? that I wasn't being critical, or that you don't read all the books that show up in FROB? You brought up the former, and the latter is simply a fact relevant to a throwaway comment from Trevor.