MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new Mountain Meadows Massacre book

[Mister Scratch]

T. S. Eliot once described Henry James as a man with a "mind so fine that no idea could violate it." For some reason, that phrase keeps recurring to me.

How much James have you read, Professor P.?

[Daniel Peterson]

How much James have you read, Professor P.?

A fair amount, though none for quite some time.

He never really caught on with me.

I've read quite a bit of his brother, though. And still do.

[beastie]

DCP - care to address my question about BY's altar statement, whether or not it was included in the new book?

[Daniel Peterson]

DCP - care to address my question about BY's altar statement, whether or not it was included in the new book?

You'll be able to answer your own question if and when you read the book.

I don't recall it being mentioned. Certainly not in the main text.

But, as those who have actually read (or even looked at) Massacre at Mountain Meadows know, it's a narrative history focusing essentially on the backgrounds of the participants, the lead-up to the massacre, the massacre itself, and the very immediate aftermath. A second volume will take the story further.

Given the character of the book, which includes very, very few "fastforwards" -- the brief afterword sketch jumping twenty years ahead to depict the execution of John D. Lee is much the exception in this regard -- I think it would have been odd and jarring to have discussed the incident to which you refer in this volume.

When you've actually seen a copy of the book, I expect that you'll understand what I mean.

[TAK]

I've registered here just so I could come on this thread and do my bit to boost your post count. . . I think we've outdone you on views (more than 8,000 so far). But I know that at least some of you are upping our count by lurking over there without posting.

Why the obsession with views and post counts? Do they matter in any way, shape, or form?

Scott makes a similar comment on the other MAD thread..

7,500 views and counting, folks. And more than 500 posts.

This thread started out rather slowly but has really taken off.

The MAD thread was started by Scott so maybe its an ego thing..

[ScottLloyd]

Why the obsession with views and post counts? Do they matter in any way, shape, or form?

Scott makes a similar comment on the other MAD thread..

7,500 views and counting, folks. And more than 500 posts.

This thread started out rather slowly but has really taken off.

The MAD thread was started by Scott so maybe its an ego thing..

I probably wouldn't have mentioned it but for the fact that interest in the thread is so phenomenal -- more than four times as many views as almost any thread currently running on the board.

I attribute this more to keen interest in the new book than anything else -- which also might help explain the substantial traffic on this thread, where almost none of the vocal critics have read or even seen the book and thus are unable to discuss it intelligently.

[ScottLloyd]

DCP - care to address my question about BY's altar statement, whether or not it was included in the new book?

You'll be able to answer your own question if and when you read the book.

I don't recall it being mentioned. Certainly not in the main text.

But, as those who have actually read (or even looked at) Massacre at Mountain Meadows know, it's a narrative history focusing essentially on the backgrounds of the participants, the lead-up to the massacre, the massacre itself, and the very immediate aftermath. A second volume will take the story further.

Given the character of the book, which includes very, very few "fastforwards" -- the brief afterword sketch jumping twenty years ahead to depict the execution of John D. Lee is much the exception in this regard -- I think it would have been odd and jarring to have discussed the incident to which you refer in this volume.

When you've actually seen a copy of the book, I expect that you'll understand what I mean.

Beastie might be interested to know that volume 2 is already in second draft, this because the book was initially conceived as one complete treatment and only became two volumes when the amount of material became unwieldy for a single book. I have this from a conversation I had with author Turley while in his office on another matter a couple of weeks ago.

I agree with Dr. Peterson that, given the organization of the two-volume work, it would have been awkward to include discussion of the cairn incident in the first volume.

[Ray A]

I attribute this more to keen interest in the new book than anything else -- which also might help explain the substantial traffic on this thread, where almost none of the vocal critics have read or even seen the book and thus are unable to discuss it intelligently.

The thread views here, by the way, on the new board format, are inaccurate. Don't know if anyone else saw this, but sometimes it starts over from zero though several thousand views may have already occurred.

[ScottLloyd]

Well, well, well. What a real pleasure it is to see Scotty Dog Lloyd turn up on this thread! I guess he has finally summoned up enough courage to leave the safe, cozy confines of the aptly named MADboard. And of course he would turn up on this thread. Good ol' Scotty Dog, after all, is the poster who was once described as being a "boob" about LDS history. He also (allegedly) has a track record of producing appallingly whitewashed articles on Church history for the Deseret News and whatnot.

So, why is he here, then? To make a wisecrack? Could be. I submit, however, that the real reason lies in his deep anxieties concerning Church history. Discussions on the suppression of Church history make the veins stand out in his neck, making him look even more like Morton Downey, Jr. So, of course he is here. Of course he is posting on this thread. And, most importantly, of course he is completely overlooking and avoiding this primary topic of discussion.

So Scratch, here I am before you on your own turf, a proverbial sitting duck, and the best you can do is rerun tired insults from your "dossier" entry? Don't you think if I was going to shrink and cower in mortification from that, I would have done so long ago?

As for "deep anxieties concerning Church history," that hardly seems warranted, given the candor and thorough research in the book that has just been published. That I want the truth given full exposure is precisely the reason I am discussing the book in this and other venues. In that vein, I could hardly do better than quote the authors themselves from the preface: "Church leaders supported our book by providing full and open disclosure" (p. xi).

[Rollo Tomasi]

I attribute this more to keen interest in the new book than anything else -- which also might help explain the substantial traffic on this thread, where almost none of the vocal critics have read or even seen the book and thus are unable to discuss it intelligently.

I have my copy on order, and have no desire to discuss the substance until I've had the chance to read it.

[Rollo Tomasi]

But I know that at least some of you are upping our count by lurking over there without posting.

Perhaps that has something to do with the fact many of us here having been banned from posting over there.

[TAK]

ScottLloyd
As for "deep anxieties concerning Church history," that hardly seems warranted, given the candor and thorough research in the book that has just been published. That I want the truth given full exposure is precisely the reason I am discussing the book in this and other venues. In that vein, I could hardly do better than quote the authors themselves from the preface: "Church leaders supported our book by providing full and open disclosure" (p. xi)

Hardly shocking comments considering you work for the Church.

[Dwight Frye]

Perhaps that has something to do with the fact many of us here having been banned from posting over there.

And perhaps that has something to do with your inability to abide by that board's rules.

Just sayin', is all.

[Trevor]

And perhaps that has something to do with your inability to abide by that board's rules.

Just sayin', is all.

And those have always been a moving target, in my experience. Getting kicked off of that board is much easier if you have the wrong opinions, and that sometimes has very little to do with "rules."

[Rollo Tomasi]

Perhaps that has something to do with the fact many of us here having been banned from posting over there.

And perhaps that has something to do with your inability to abide by that board's rules.

Just sayin', is all.

Perhaps ... if there's a rule about censoring posters who the Mods deem 'critical' of the Church.

[ScottLloyd]

I attribute this more to keen interest in the new book than anything else -- which also might help explain the substantial traffic on this thread, where almost none of the vocal critics have read or even seen the book and thus are unable to discuss it intelligently.

I have my copy on order, and have no desire to discuss the substance until I've had the chance to read it.

To adapt a verse from Proverbs, As cold waters to a thirsty soul, so is an instance of common sense on this thread.

[ScottLloyd]

But I know that at least some of you are upping our count by lurking over there without posting.

Perhaps that has something to do with the fact many of us here having been banned from posting over there.

Perhaps. I've not suggested otherwise.

[ScottLloyd]

ScottLloyd
As for "deep anxieties concerning Church history," that hardly seems warranted, given the candor and thorough research in the book that has just been published. That I want the truth given full exposure is precisely the reason I am discussing the book in this and other venues. In that vein, I could hardly do better than quote the authors themselves from the preface: "Church leaders supported our book by providing full and open disclosure" (p. xi)

Hardly shocking comments considering you work for the Church.

But I don't work for the Church.

[beastie]

Beastie might be interested to know that volume 2 is already in second draft, this because the book was initially conceived as one complete treatment and only became two volumes when the amount of material became unwieldy for a single book. I have this from a conversation I had with author Turley while in his office on another matter a couple of weeks ago.

I agree with Dr. Peterson that, given the organization of the two-volume work, it would have been awkward to include discussion of the cairn incident in the first volume.

I look forward to volume two, which will have to deal with the cover-up and lack of church censorship against known murderers, until they were forced to deal with it by the federal gov’t. I do hope it will appear despite the skepticism voiced on the common consent thread on the topic. (linked earlier on this thread)

I have a hard time imagining how referring to one simple, well-known and contestable event would have been hugely problematic in the chronological format of the book. But, given the fact that it isn’t discussed, I can only hope that the authors didn’t make any pretense of offering insight into BY’s attitude towards the event.

[TAK]

ScottLloyd
But I don't work for the Church.

Oh Please ..
Unless you have lost your job - you write ChurchNews for Deseret News..
a private LDS enterprise.

[ScottLloyd]

Beastie might be interested to know that volume 2 is already in second draft, this because the book was initially conceived as one complete treatment and only became two volumes when the amount of material became unwieldy for a single book. I have this from a conversation I had with author Turley while in his office on another matter a couple of weeks ago.

I agree with Dr. Peterson that, given the organization of the two-volume work, it would have been awkward to include discussion of the cairn incident in the first volume.

I look forward to volume two, which will have to deal with the cover-up and lack of church censorship against known murderers, until they were forced to deal with it by the federal gov’t. I do hope it will appear despite the skepticism voiced on the common consent thread on the topic. (linked earlier on this thread)

I have a hard time imagining how referring to one simple, well-known and contestable event would have been hugely problematic in the chronological format of the book. But, given the fact that it isn’t discussed, I can only hope that the authors didn’t make any pretense of offering insight into BY’s attitude towards the event.

The approach of the authors, as expressed in the preface and elsewhere, was not to argue with past conclusions about the massacre, but rather, to take a fresh look at the research and go where it took them. That is why your supposition about this being an "apologetic" work is so far off the mark.

Since the authors did not set out to debate anybody, or to refute anyone's theory about Brigham Young being the instigator, it is a natural course that they would deal with the events roughly in chronological order. Since this has evolved into a two-volume project, that logically leaves the cairn incident to volume 2, which is devoted to discussion of events following the massacre.

Incidentally, I don't concede the accuracy of your rendition above of the alleged "coverup and and lack of church censorship [sic] of the known murderers." But I too eagerly await volume 2 and expect it will be enlightening. Of course, you have the reading of volume 1 before you, which you have yet to do despite having plenty to say on the subject.