MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_Boaz & Lidia]

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10060114

After six years of unprecedented access to LDS Church archives, hundreds of hours in the nation's libraries and thousands if not millions of dollars spent on research, three Mormon historians believe they can put to rest the question of what prompted a southern Utah Mormon militia to slaughter 120 unarmed men, women and children at Mountain Meadows on Sept. 11 1857.

Amazingly, Turdley admits that Young's actions aided the WHY:

"It is true that [Young's] rhetoric during a time of war was part of the backdrop against which the massacre happened," Turley said

Why were these three employees of LDS Inc given unprecedented access to LDS historical archives but non LDS authors have not???

"We came up with the idea for the book ourselves. We were not assigned to do it," said Turley, assistant LDS Church historian. "We sought the cooperation of church leaders to get access to information [such as the First Presidency's confidential collection] but asked that we retain full editorial control and they've honored that."

Not surprising, the book penned by LDS Inc does not find fault with Young.

"Many Mormons still don't know anything about it," Turley said. "My feeling is the best approach is to face it."

Chapelness lives on.
Moderator Note--This thread has been temporarily pinned so that those wishing to access comments for the new thread may do so. Liz

[_Dr. Shades]

If they were not assigned to write it, who footed the millions?

[_Boaz & Lidia]

If they were not assigned to write it, who footed the millions?

Dunno, good question though..

Sanders points to the fact that though all three authors are or were employed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they insist that LDS authorities did not dictate or approve the book's direction.

Someone page the Scratcher...

[_beastie]

They probably solicited funds from their Gold Star - or whatever they call it - FARMS donors.

[_truth dancer]

"We came up with the idea for the book ourselves. We were not assigned to do it," said Turley, assistant LDS Church historian. "We sought the cooperation of church leaders to get access to information [such as the First Presidency's confidential collection] but asked that we retain full editorial control and they've honored that."

A few faithful LDS men ask the church leaders for permission to access confidential (perhaps unavailable to non LDS authors), records so they can write a faith promoting book about one of the worst events in church history.

Why would the authors need to ask for editorial control? If the church didn't think it would be a faith promoting book they never would have given permission, nor assisted in any way.

I'll once again role play being a PR director for the church. As I have said before, my first plan would be to get faithful authors to write books disclosing bits of the truth while also presenting the apologetic perspective.

This is the way the PR machine works whenever there is something messy to address.

Bushman did a great job. Sounds like these guys will accomplish their mission as well.

~dancer~

[_Inconceivable]

"We came up with the idea for the book ourselves. We were not assigned to do it," said Turley, assistant LDS Church historian. "We sought the cooperation of church leaders to get access to information [such as the First Presidency's confidential collection] but asked that we retain full editorial control and they've honored that."

The fact that the murderer John D. Lee was posthumously returned to his full fellowship speaks louder than any book about a henhouse written by the foxes assigned to guard it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

They probably solicited funds from their Gold Star - or whatever they call it - FARMS donors.

I assume that you're joking.

But, just in case you're not: No, they didn't.

Incidentally, it's amusing to watch people who've complained for years about a Church cover-up of the Mountain Meadows Massacre complain now about the Church having spent millions of dollars (whether that figure is true or not, I have no idea) to research the case and publish a two-volume historical analysis of it.

That's almost as amusing as it is to watch people who haven't even seen the book yet dismiss it as just one more incompetent and dishonest Morg cover-up. Of course, it must be said that Turley et al. would have been able to publish with a more reputable outfit than Oxford University Press if their book had met at least minimal standards of quality.

[_beastie]

I assume that you're joking.

But, just in case you're not: No, they didn't.

Incidentally, it's amusing to watch people who've complained for years about a Church cover-up of the Mountain Meadows Massacre complain now about the Church having spent millions of dollars (whether that figure is true or not, I have no idea) to research the case and publish a two-volume historical analysis of it.

That's almost as amusing as it is to watch people who haven't even seen the book yet dismiss it as just one more incompetent and dishonest Morg cover-up. Of course, it must be said that Turley et al. would have been able to publish with a more reputable outfit than Oxford University Press if their book had met at least minimal standards of quality.

I didn't realize that the church directly funded it, otherwise I wouldn't have made the half-joking suggestion. It seemed clear to me that the millions had to come from somewhere, and probably not the pockets of the authors. Who else would be interested enough to fund it other than the church itself, or rich Mormons interested in defending the faith? My only mistake was not realizing that the church funded it directly.

Are you suggesting that it's unthinkable that rich LDS donors would be approached to help fund apologetic projects??????? This seems to defy known reality.

[_Tarski]

Before the internet, "Cover ups" could be rather passive and implicit like "the invisible hand". Just don't mention anything but that there is anti-Mormon literature out there somewhere. Now days, even an active cover up seems unlikely to work. But innoculation! Now that's bound to work. Expose curious members to a tiny part of, or a watered down version of, critical arguments, difficult history and surprising aspects of Joseph Smith's life and activites. Do it with a air of confidence from the faithful perspective and against the assumed background that of course the church is still true (the authors are LDS after all) and we have succesfull innoculation.
As soon as someone brings it up, the member can immediately take the inward stance of "oh, that? I already know about that!" and then go on back to the all is well in Zion mentality.

Innoculation is the key.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Who else would be interested enough to fund it other than the church itself, or rich Mormons interested in defending the faith? My only mistake was not realizing that the church funded it directly.

Are you suggesting that it's unthinkable that rich LDS donors would be approached to help fund apologetic projects??????? This seems to defy known reality.

It's amusing that you dismiss the book as an "apologetic project" designed to "defend the faith."

You've probably heard the old academic joke about the two professors talking. "Have you read Smith's new book yet?" asks one. "Have I read it?" responds the other. "Why, I haven't even reviewed it yet!"