MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_beastie]

And you know what? It bothered me not one bit that he did not engage me on it. I never expected him to. He has admitted that this is not the reason he comes here. He is fascinated with the collective obsession with Mormonism. He enjoys going the rounds with people the more irrational and obsessive they seem to him. Why then would he do more than acknowledge that I was not being unreasonable and then move on?

I think it does help to understand people’s intents in interaction. DCP has frequently affirmed he’s not interested in serious discussion, but rather in observing what he seems to think of as the collective hatred, irrationality, and obsessiveness of internet exmormons. Of course, he gives out mixed messages, because he does, on occasion, actually address serious discussion. He’ll offer a seemingly serious response to the actual content of the discussion, but when challenged, turn around and retreat back into the “I’m not interested in serious discussion” mode.

But let’s ignore the mixed messages, and just focus on the “going the rounds” with obsessive and irrational people. I admit that these discussions tend to take on an obsessive loop once Daniel gets involved, but a large part of that is in reaction to what he’s doing. If he were really just interested in observing the obsessive, irrational, hate-filled behavior of internet exmormons, he shouldn’t be inserting himself in the middle of the loop, because what the subsequent discussion evolves into has as much to do with him as with the nature of internet exmormons. In other words, had Daniel not started his schtick on this thread, posters would have stated their points and rested their cases long ago. I know I would have. So what he’s observing isn’t really just about the obsessiveness of internet exmormons at all. It’s also about DCP’s obsessiveness.

I was not attacking beastie. I was stating a simple fact. Look at how the thread began. Then tell me why any faithful Mormon would expect it to inspire a fair reading of the book from people around here. I am not saying Daniel is right. I am not saying beastie is wrong. I am saying, "let's look beyond that and try to understand each other as more than sparring partners in an interminable pissing contest."

First, the vast majority of Daniel’s posts on this thread have not been about the OP – they’ve been about my posts. Second, I’m not sure it’s realistic to expect understanding to take place in interactions with DCP when he’s stated his interest lies elsewhere (see the first part of this post).

As in real life, people do have different objectives in these sort of interactions. Personally, I am too jaded by years of past interactions with internet defenders of the faith to have much hope in trying to understand each other, or bridging any gap. Yes, when I first discovered this odd little world, I did have that hope or objective. But I was still treated harshly and with suspicion by a core, influential group, which pretty much disabled that objective. I personally concluded that unless and until the LDS church changes its basic teachings about apostates, the goal of understanding and bridging the gap is doomed and will only result in frustration. There are a few folks on both sides who do a good job enduring the insults and jabs and, with good humor, make their points and let it go. They may make a dent. But, to me, that feels like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon. So my interest has shifted, and not unlike DCP, I am more interested in the way internet defenders of the faith act. This is the part that interests me:

So tenaciously should we cling to the world revealed by the Gospel, that were I to see all the Angels of Heaven coming down to me to tell me something different, not only would I not be tempted to doubt a single syllable, but I would shut my eyes and stop my ears, for they would not deserve to be either seen or heard.” (Luther) To rely on the evidence of the senses and of reason is heresy and treason. It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. What we know as blind faith is sustained by innumerable unbeliefs. The fanatical Japanese in Brazil refused to believe for four years the evidence of Japan’s defeat. The fanatical communist refuses to believe any unfavorable report or evidence about Russia, nor will he be disillusioned by seeing with his own eyes that the cruel misery inside the Soviet promise land.

It is the true believers ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move. And it is the certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and the unpleasant realities of the world around him.

(Eric Hoffer)

So what entertains me, in particular, is laying out simple, obvious facts in a more and more stark fashion to see just how far defenders of the faith will go in their attempts to avoid or deny those facts. I realize that may be irritating to people who do not share that particular interest, and would like to see more understanding between the two sides. (They can try to get that going on other threads and see the results.) I also realize it must be doubly frustrating to those who still believe understanding is attainable when defenders of the faith aren’t particularly interested in understanding, either, and prefer goading what they see as obsessiveness, hatred, irrationality. Of course, I could be “polluting” the observation field as much as DCP does. Perhaps believers like DCP are repeatedly “shutting their eyes and stopping their ears” in a deliberate manner to provoke repeated (and hence “obsessive”) commentary by exmormon critics. Funny, eh? Good thing this is just a diversion in my life, and nothing serious. ;)

So, Trevor, what would you have liked to have seen as response to your comments about the content of the book?

[_Trevor]

So what he’s observing isn’t really just about the obsessiveness of internet exmormons at all. It’s also about DCP’s obsessiveness.

I thought he had admitted as much, but maybe I am mistaken.

First, the vast majority of Daniel’s posts on this thread have not been about the OP – they’ve been about my posts. Second, I’m not sure it’s realistic to expect understanding to take place in interactions with DCP when he’s stated his interest lies elsewhere (see the first part of this post).

Well, the steady message I have been getting here is that it would be a decent idea to read the book, which, I think, is a fair point. I have also appreciated your point about the LDS Church's difficult relationship with history, and Ray A's quotes. I really need to read that Arrington book about his experience as a Church historian. From my point of view it looks like the Church has consistently had difficulty with some of its more aggressively conservative (I know how odd that sounds) apostles. Guys like McConkie and Packer have had their fair share of run-ins with BYU faculty, and the results have been mixed at best (imho).

Personally, I am too jaded by years of past interactions with internet defenders of the faith to have much hope in trying to understand each other, or bridging any gap. Yes, when I first discovered this odd little world, I did have that hope or objective. But I was still treated harshly and with suspicion by a core, influential group, which pretty much disabled that objective. I personally concluded that unless and until the LDS church changes its basic teachings about apostates, the goal of understanding and bridging the gap is doomed and will only result in frustration. There are a few folks on both sides who do a good job enduring the insults and jabs and, with good humor, make their points and let it go. They may make a dent. But, to me, that feels like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon. So my interest has shifted, and not unlike DCP, I am more interested in the way internet defenders of the faith act.

I would guess that I have a similarly long experience discussing Mormonism online. Like you, I was treated rather harshly by apologists at ZLMB, FAIR, and MA&D. I don't demand that you act differently. My fascination is with the human aspect. I like to sympathize with others and their perspectives once in a while. I get tired of being disagreeable. That is my hang-up.

So what entertains me, in particular, is laying out simple, obvious facts in a more and more stark fashion to see just how far defenders of the faith will go in their attempts to avoid or deny those facts. I realize that may be irritating to people who do not share that particular interest, and would like to see more understanding between the two sides. (They can try to get that going on other threads and see the results.) I also realize it must be doubly frustrating to those who still believe understanding is attainable when defenders of the faith aren’t particularly interested in understanding, either, and prefer goading what they see as obsessiveness, hatred, irrationality. Of course, I could be “polluting” the observation field as much as DCP does. Perhaps believers like DCP are repeatedly “shutting their eyes and stopping their ears” in a deliberate manner to provoke repeated (and hence “obsessive”) commentary by exmormon critics. Funny, eh? Good thing this is just a diversion in my life, and nothing serious. ;)

I am not all that irritated, beastie. You seem (to me) to think there is little more than evasion in what Daniel is doing. I am willing to explore other options, like taking him seriously when he mentions things like nuance and precision. I do not exclude evasion. I do think he does not hand his opponents explanations all that often. He frequently does not elucidate why someone is incorrect from his point of view. I happen to think this is more than evasion, however annoying it may be. On the other hand, he is an apologist. I don't expect him to act contrary to his overall commitment to defending Mormonism.

So, Trevor, what would you have liked to have seen as response to your comments about the content of the book?

Thanks for the question. I would like to see a more thorough discussion of the issues of chronology in the first week of September. And it would be interesting to explore Brigham's leadership and rhetoric in this period more closely. These would be two interesting approaches to testing some aspects of the M@MM book. At the end of the day, I think it is not possible, given the current evidence, to prove that Brigham ordered the massacre. I am not even sure it is consistent with his usual M.O. as a leader. I could be wrong. I want to know more.

[_beastie]

I appreciate the response, Trevor. Just two quick points before I have to go to work:

I am not all that irritated, beastie. You seem (to me) to think there is little more than evasion in what Daniel is doing. I am willing to explore other options, like taking him seriously when he mentions things like nuance and precision. I do not exclude evasion. I do think he does not hand his opponents explanations all that often. He frequently does not elucidate why someone is incorrect from his point of view. I happen to think this is more than evasion, however annoying it may be. On the other hand, he is an apologist. I don't expect him to act contrary to his overall commitment to defending Mormonism.

You bolded the portion that makes interaction about DCP's points impossible. I have no idea if it's evasion, or what, but it certainly does not allow for interaction or correction.

Thanks for the question. I would like to see a more thorough discussion of the issues of chronology in the first week of September. And it would be interesting to explore Brigham's leadership and rhetoric in this period more closely. These would be two interesting approaches to testing some aspects of the M@MM book. At the end of the day, I think it is not possible, given the current evidence, to prove that Brigham ordered the massacre. I am not even sure it is consistent with his usual M.O. as a leader. I could be wrong. I want to know more.

I suspected that you did want to see more discussion regarding the book's actual content. The problem is that most of us haven't read the book yet, so can't engage in that discussion with you. My book isn't due for delivery till August 29, and then it will take some time to complete it. Since these authors had access to material previous authors did not, I don't want to engage in that sort of detailed conversation until I have read the book. Trust me, once I complete the book, I will start a thread discussing details of content.

by the way, I also have deep reservations about whether or not BY directly ordered the massacre, and believe it is not possible to prove as well. But that's based on my previous readings.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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

Actually, there quite literally was an "if not." My quote, "if not" in bold:

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.

Like Daniel, you won't see me discussing the book's content here. Or anywhere. I have no interest in the content.

Then to me the conversation with you has become meaningless. I appreciate your forthrightness in saying the content is unimportant to you.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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

Why state the obvious, though?

Here's what I'm getting from you. You seem to make implications and when someone follows the implications through you throw up your arms and say someone is putting words in your mouth. It immediately becomes personal.

Again, if you weren't being critical, and all you were doing was stating the simple and obvious fact that DCP doesn't read all the books that are reviewed in FR, why did you say it at all?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

So tenaciously should we cling to the world revealed by the Gospel, that were I to see all the Angels of Heaven coming down to me to tell me something different, not only would I not be tempted to doubt a single syllable, but I would shut my eyes and stop my ears, for they would not deserve to be either seen or heard.” (Luther) To rely on the evidence of the senses and of reason is heresy and treason. It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. What we know as blind faith is sustained by innumerable unbeliefs. The fanatical Japanese in Brazil refused to believe for four years the evidence of Japan’s defeat. The fanatical communist refuses to believe any unfavorable report or evidence about Russia, nor will he be disillusioned by seeing with his own eyes that the cruel misery inside the Soviet promise land.

It is the true believers ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move. And it is the certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and the unpleasant realities of the world around him.

(Eric Hoffer)

So what entertains me, in particular, is laying out simple, obvious facts in a more and more stark fashion to see just how far defenders of the faith will go in their attempts to avoid or deny those facts. I realize that may be irritating to people who do not share that particular interest, and would like to see more understanding between the two sides. (They can try to get that going on other threads and see the results.) I also realize it must be doubly frustrating to those who still believe understanding is attainable when defenders of the faith aren’t particularly interested in understanding, either, and prefer goading what they see as obsessiveness, hatred, irrationality. Of course, I could be “polluting” the observation field as much as DCP does. Perhaps believers like DCP are repeatedly “shutting their eyes and stopping their ears” in a deliberate manner to provoke repeated (and hence “obsessive”) commentary by exmormon critics. Funny, eh? Good thing this is just a diversion in my life, and nothing serious. ;)

So, Trevor, what would you have liked to have seen as response to your comments about the content of the book?

What struck me most when reading Hoffer's book is how much it applies to the religiously irreligious as much as the irreligious religious.

"But we always look for allies when we hate...Whence come these unreasonable hatreds, and why their unifying effect? They are an expression of a desperate effort to suppress an awareness of our inadequacy, worthlessness, guilt and other shortcomings of the self. Self-contempt is here transmuted into hatred of others -- and there is a most determined and persistent effort to mask this switch. Obviously, the most effective way of doing this is to find others, as many as possible, who hate as we do. Here more than anywhere else we need general consent, and much of our proselytizing consists perhaps in infecting others not with our brand of faith but with our particular brand of unreasonable hatred."

(Eric Hoffer)

[_Daniel Peterson]

DCP has frequently affirmed he’s not interested in serious discussion,

I'm not interested in attempting serious discussion on message boards with the typical message board anti-Mormon -- both because I would rather do my serious writing elsewhere and because, frankly, considerable experience has convinced me that success in such an effort is not a realistic goal.

He’ll offer a seemingly serious response to the actual content of the discussion, but when challenged, turn around and retreat back into the “I’m not interested in serious discussion” mode.

I'll state a serious position, but, when it's still ungrasped after perhaps half a dozen reiterations and attempted restatements, I lose interest. Particularly when the repeated iterations simply offer a combative polemicist more material with which to level accusations of self-contradiction, to brand attempts at precision and nuance as "tap dancing" and "evasion," and the like. This grows tiresome.

A serious interlocutor will attempt to understand and, where s/he feels it necessary, will ask for clarification. A serious interlocutor won't start with the assumption that his or her conversation partner is operating in bad faith. By contrast, a hypercombative polemicist seeking to score points rather than to have a serious conversation will be constantly looking for mistakes, for "deception," for "evasions," and the like. It's impossible to have a serious conversation with such a person.

Trevor is correct when he suggests that I view this entire thread as, to a certain extent, an exercise in effectively poisoning the well -- conscious on the part of some, reflexively unconscious on the part of some others.

[_Trevor]

I suspected that you did want to see more discussion regarding the book's actual content.

I should hope so. After all, I took the time to post about its actual content.

The problem is that most of us haven't read the book yet, so can't engage in that discussion with you. My book isn't due for delivery till August 29, and then it will take some time to complete it. Since these authors had access to material previous authors did not, I don't want to engage in that sort of detailed conversation until I have read the book. Trust me, once I complete the book, I will start a thread discussing details of content.

So many people have not read it. Those few who have do not want to discuss my reading. I am not particularly upset that you haven't read it yet. I am bewildered that there has been almost no discussion of the content of the book on MDB from anyone. And I do agree that conflict of interest is a fair point to bring up. What is truly interesting, however, is testing to see how this actually affected the work. I'll be looking to see what you have to say in that regard, since you are homed in on this issue.

[_beastie]

So many people have not read it. Those few who have do not want to discuss my reading. I am not particularly upset that you haven't read it yet. I am bewildered that there has been almost no discussion of the content of the book on MDB from anyone. And I do agree that conflict of interest is a fair point to bring up. What is truly interesting, however, is testing to see how this actually affected the work. I'll be looking to see what you have to say in that regard, since you are homed in on this issue.

If I recall correctly, four people have read it - you, James Miller, DCP and LoaP. James posted a couple of times on this thread but hasn't returned in a while. DCP and LoaP have continued participating. I have no idea why they are not interested in discussing the content.

The most we can do, as far as judging whether or not the conflict of interest affected the work, is to compare this book's assertions to other texts, mostly Bagley's. I'll be interested in seeing if this book omits certain information that Bagley included (vice versa doesn't work because Bagley would obviously omit information he didn't have access to). That's something, but it obviously is not going to fully answer the question, since Bagley did not have access to the same materials. One example is the possible Eleanor Pratt connection. Bagley claims that on July 26, there was an evening prayer meeting in Young's "upper room", and Eleanor Pratt's letter about Parley's murder was read aloud. He connects the reading of that letter to BY writing, in his journal, "we prayed for our enemies." (p 81) On Aug 1 Woodruff visited Eleanor and obtained an account of the murder, and "Years later Charles Wandell, an embittered Mormon apostate, reported that when the Fancher train passed through Salt Lake, the widow Pratt 'recognized one or more of the party as having been present at the death of Pratt'.'" (from a newspaper report) (p 98) In addition, in a newspaper interview years later, Eleanor Pratt claimed that, while McLean went unpunished for the murder, Pratt's death still "has been fearfully avenged upon the nation that has permitted the blood of the Prophets to be split without punishing the murderers." (p 266) How was it avenged?

Now, I'm not saying that these authors were required to accept the accuracy of these reports (obviously they're going to be skeptical of a claim from an "embittered apostate", several years later), but it does seem incumbent to actually discuss these claims - even if just to debunk them. If these authors simply ignored these claims, I think that's problematic.

The reason I think this issue must be addressed is due to the known fact that BY, years later when ordering the dismantling of the altar at the site, connected MMM to the Lord's vengeance. I think this means that the possible vengeance connection must be fully explored. Vengeance for what? Is that a puzzle piece the authors even attempted to address? I know that, chronologically speaking, this event occurred outside the time frame they set for the book, but it speaks strongly to BY's perspective of the event.

[_antishock8]

Beastie nailed it on the head. I know I don't read any of of DCP's responses any more because the meat of the response is buried within layers of useless yammering. I'll usually jump to the respondee's post because he or she will parse out the relevant information, and then respond accordingly.

The bottom line is Mormons HAVE to resort to endless red herrings and ad homs because that's the only defense they have to defend something as nonsensical as Mormonism. They derail threads that unwittingly snare critics by offering ridiculous non sequiturs about amorphous doctrines and ideas in response to very pointed observations. The Nehor is probably the best example of this kind of thinking.