MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_Dr. Shades]

Does anyone know why the church didn't strive to make this a joint production of both the LDS church and the Mountain Meadows Association?

[_collegeterrace]

Does anyone know why the church didn't strive to make this a joint production of both the LDS church and the Mountain Meadows Association?

I am sure they view the MMA as anti-mormons.

[_Dr. Shades]

Yeah, but it would've all-but-eliminated any conflict of interest.

[_Tom]

I would guess that the church views the MMA with more favor than the other MMM groups. At least two Mormons--Robert Briggs and Larry Coates--serve on the MMA board.

Gene Sessions has said that "[t]he Church came to the conclusion with Bagley's book that there had to be another version of the story that the Church brought forth. My advice to them was to bring in a non-Mormon scholar, for example, (inaudible) a highly respected historian in Arkansas. They chose not to do that. I think that was a (inaudible) mistake but, to make up for that they have announced rather loudly that, 'Here's our book, once you've read it, everything we looked at is available.' It will be really hard for those guys to tell any lies even if they were inclined to do so."

[_Daniel Peterson]

For beastie:

"they have announced rather loudly that, 'Here's our book, once you've read it, everything we looked at is available.' It will be really hard for those guys to tell any lies even if they were inclined to do so."

And happy 48th!

[Maureen]

Gene Sessions has said that "[t]he Church came to the conclusion with Bagley's book that there had to be another version of the story that the Church brought forth.

And we are to believe that if the LDS historians found a smoking gun they would publish it? The goal was to find "another version" ..

[_Doctor Steuss]

Does anyone know why the church didn't strive to make this a joint production of both the LDS church and the Mountain Meadows Association?

I finished to book yesterday, so I unfortunately don’t have it with me (moved on to a biography of Brigham Young). But, I recall them including the MMA in the acknowledgments and mentioning their website. Perhaps it was another Mountain Meadows group though. If anyone has the book, I believe it’s about 2-3 pages into the acknowledgments section (which, having read the entire section, I don’t necessarily recommend it to anyone… *yawn*).

And as a side note, I personally (and ignorantly) give the book 3.25 stars (out of 4). It might have warranted 3.5 had they used footnotes instead of blasted endnotes… maybe. All-in-all, a good book that I can see myself re-reading in a few years.

[_beastie]

"they have announced rather loudly that, 'Here's our book, once you've read it, everything we looked at is available.' It will be really hard for those guys to tell any lies even if they were inclined to do so."

Where did they announce that everything they looked at is available? That's very good news, if it is accurate.

Heh. It looks like the authors did recognize the conflict of interest as problematic. After all the dancing and smoke and mirrors by the defenders of the faith on this thread:

I think that was a (inaudible) mistake but, to make up for that they have announced rather loudly that, 'Here's our book, once you've read it, everything we looked at is available.' It will be really hard for those guys to tell any lies even if they were inclined to do so."

Gee, that's what I've been saying all long. TO MAKE UP FOR THAT, In other words, to mitigate the conflict of interest.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Heh. It looks like the authors did recognize the conflict of interest as problematic. After all the dancing and smoke and mirrors by the defenders of the faith on this thread. . . .

Gee, that's what I've been saying all long. TO MAKE UP FOR THAT, In other words, to mitigate the conflict of interest.

And I agreed with you back on . . . oh, I don't know . . . page three of this interminable thread?

Remember when I said that it was so obvious that I thought it scarcely worth mentioning?

Remember how I've said, forty or forty-five times since then, that mentioning it once was maybe okay, but that going on and on and on and on and on and on about it seemed rather pointless and smelled much too much like an attempt to poison the well?

[_harmony]

Remember when I said that it was so obvious that I thought it scarcely worth mentioning?

Remember how I've said, forty or forty-five times since then, that mentioning it once was maybe okay, but that going on and on and on and on and on and on about it seemed rather pointless and smelled much too much like an attempt to poison the well?

I don't think her remark was pointed at you, Daniel. Maybe you're just a little too sensitive?