MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_Doctor Steuss]

Slight amendments to my previous comments regarding Haight and Lee. Haight is now (to me) being painted as being the “king pin” of sorts for the initiation of the massacre (going against orders received from his commanding officer, etc.). I’m still not sure why there was a preemptive coloring of Lee’s character so early on, but the authors (in my opinion) have begun to illustrate the blame that belongs to Haight (which may be the lion’s share).

Reading on...

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

On the first day of the thread, twenty days ago: Beastie may still not have seen the book even today; she had definitely not seen it back then.

I'm stating an obvious fact. If the LDS church funds a book about MMM, it is obviously going to be apologetic in nature.

Bushman and this new MMM book are cattle prod in the hands of the bishops, used to scare the wondering sheep back into the corral. . . . Why would I read this book? I have no need to believe in Mormonism. Besides, I already know who did it.

[_beastie]

beastie, way back on page 8

I have refrained from judging the book, other than to say it is logical to assume that it will present the church's side of the story, and will be as friendly as possible to the LDS church given the topic. I do believe it would not be unfair to call the work apologetic, but if that is not quite accurate I'm happy to use this summary instead. I have quite explicitly stated more than once that my referring to the book as apologetic was not meant as a pejorative term nor to imply it was inaccurate.

Let's turn this around a bit. Let's say that an evangelical group that was not only associated with printing "anti Mormon" literature in the past, but actually had several of its leaders state that not all truth is useful, and if any individual prints information that could help a Mormon retain faith in Mormonism, that individual will be accountable to the LORD, funded a book on Mountain Meadows Massacre. Having funded the research and writing of the book, it is fair to call them the employers of the authors, in a fashion.

Would it be unfair for people to assume that the book was going to be quite critical of the LDS church in its analysis, and would probably be an "anti Mormon" book?

This would not mean that the book was necessarily inaccurate, but rather, that the facts would be presented in a hostile manner to the church. Is this an unfair conclusion to reach?

[_Wheat]

Funnily enough, I've not seen anyone say that we shouldn't expect anything valuable out of it. Exaggeration is Daniel's forté, not yours. Try to avoid it; it does your point no good.

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."

Your willingness to express yourself in this fashion is admriable in a certain sense. However, I think it is extremly naïve as well _ especially when spoken within the context of this message board. From what I have observed, there is little or no hope of diminishing the level of antipathy between the two parties. Sure, it's one thing to see Millet (and others of like mind) attempting to find *common ground* between Mormons and Evangelicals _ a situation where the differences are mostly at the doctrinal level. But the stakes of the contest between Mormonism and traditional Christianity pale in comparison to that between believing LDS and apostates. In the eyes of believers, apostates are mostly despicable traitors who will stoop at nothing to discredit their former faith _ even using conciliatory language and tones as they systematically seek to undermine the faith of their former brethren. In the eyes of apostates, believers are deluded fools whose willingness to blind themselves to the *truth* is both worthy of denigration as well as probably threatening to societal progress in general. They are a cancer on the body politic. They must be eradicated. Almost without exception, that is the underlying attitude of most apostates who participate here.

So it is a battle to the death, as it were.

I personally wouldn't have it any other way. In the long run _ for believers _ there is no way to accommodate the apostate in the Kingdom of God. And for apostates, there is no way to accommodate the Kingdom of God in their world.

[_Dr. Shades]

They must be eradicated. Almost without exception, that is the underlying attitude of most apostates who participate here.

Holy cow. You have got to be kidding.

I personally wouldn't have it any other way. In the long run _ for believers _ there is no way to accommodate the apostate in the Kingdom of God. And for apostates, there is no way to accommodate the Kingdom of God in their world.

Since the truth is usually somewhere in the middle, what's your view of the way things really are once the above two stereotypes are stripped away?

[_Daniel Peterson]

There's no question, beastie, that you began to moderate your formulations a bit, and that the more extreme posters here -- frightened of even the prospect of substance ("read the book????") and, in any event, arguably incapable of substantive discussion -- dropped out.

Have we reached 30 pages yet? This post may do it.

Has your copy of the book arrived yet?

[_The Nehor]

So it is a battle to the death, as it were.

I personally wouldn't have it any other way. In the long run _ for believers _ there is no way to accommodate the apostate in the Kingdom of God. And for apostates, there is no way to accommodate the Kingdom of God in their world.

Two sides enter, NO ONE LEAVES!!!!
Two sides enter, NO ONE LEAVES!!!!
Two sides enter, NO ONE LEAVES!!!!
Two sides enter, NO ONE LEAVES!!!!
Two sides enter, NO ONE LEAVES!!!!
Two sides enter, NO ONE LEAVES!!!!
Two sides enter, NO ONE LEAVES!!!!

[_beastie]

Your willingness to express yourself in this fashion is admriable in a certain sense. However, I think it is extremly naïve as well _ especially when spoken within the context of this message board. From what I have observed, there is little or no hope of diminishing the level of antipathy between the two parties. Sure, it's one thing to see Millet (and others of like mind) attempting to find *common ground* between Mormons and Evangelicals _ a situation where the differences are mostly at the doctrinal level. But the stakes of the contest between Mormonism and traditional Christianity pale in comparison to that between believing LDS and apostates. In the eyes of believers, apostates are mostly despicable traitors who will stoop at nothing to discredit their former faith _ even using conciliatory language and tones as they systematically seek to undermine the faith of their former brethren. In the eyes of apostates, believers are deluded fools whose willingness to blind themselves to the *truth* is both worthy of denigration as well as probably threatening to societal progress in general. They are a cancer on the body politic. They must be eradicated. Almost without exception, that is the underlying attitude of most apostates who participate here.

So it is a battle to the death, as it were.

I personally wouldn't have it any other way. In the long run _ for believers _ there is no way to accommodate the apostate in the Kingdom of God. And for apostates, there is no way to accommodate the Kingdom of God in their world.

This is exactly why I think that unless and until the LDS church changes its teachings about apostates, there is little hope of genuine dialog (in general, it can occur between specific individuals).

Holy cow. You have got to be kidding.

Shades, you have to remember that this idea of what apostates "really want" is part of the "evil apostate" meme that the LDS church encourages in the first place. It doesn't matter that it has little to do with reality at all.

[_The Nehor]

This is exactly why I think that unless and until the LDS church changes its teachings about apostates, there is little hope of genuine dialog (in general, it can occur between specific individuals).

The Church doesn't want genuine dialog. That would be like saying that any of the stupid apostate's grievances are legitimate issues that need to be addressed when the truth is they're all sinners that need to repent or be condemned to the eternal flame....the sooner....the better...hehehehehe

[_Daniel Peterson]

This is exactly why I think that unless and until the LDS church changes its teachings about apostates, there is little hope of genuine dialog (in general, it can occur between specific individuals).

Wheat mentions two sides. Beastie, claiming full agreement, notices only one side.

Not surprising.

Shades, you have to remember that this idea of what apostates "really want" is part of the "evil apostate" meme that the LDS church encourages in the first place. It doesn't matter that it has little to do with reality at all.

Wheat alleges some attitudes. Beastie declares that there is an attitude, and that the Church is responsible.

Par for the course.