Anyone read the new Mtn. Meadows book yet?

[Solon]

I just ordered mine from Amazon. If I were landpoke, it'd be here in about 10 minutes. As it is, I'll get it by September I guess.

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/genera...=9780195160345

How does it stack up against Brooks and Bagley?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

I just ordered mine from Amazon. If I were landpoke, it'd be here in about 10 minutes. As it is, I'll get it by September I guess.

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/genera...=9780195160345

How does it stack up against Brooks and Bagley?

Looking at those authors I'm thinking apologetics.

[Levin]

And why do they entitle it the "Massacre at Mountain Meadows" when the name has always been the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It's as if they're trying to put a distinct mark on the event through a renaming. Seems presumptuous to me.

It's like saying, I wrote a book about the Boston Massacre and called it, "The Massacre at Boston."

Silly.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Looking at those authors I'm thinking apologetics.

Some of those reviewers are heavyweights and Kathleen Flake usually doesn't abide obfuscation when it comes to Mormon issues.

I'll reserve judgment until I read it.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Looking at those authors I'm thinking apologetics.

You're becoming Aaron Shaf, friend.

This is the type of effort you should encourage, not deride. I look forward to reading to determine if it is unduly biased, but my sister has met personally with the authors, and was impressed with the honesty and true contrition.

In fact, it was a meeting in Arkansas, where descendants of the Fanchers met with each the female author. Her initial meeting was not extremely friendly with some, but she broke down and cried, apologized profusely and proceeded to disabuse some of the misstatements originally promulgated by Church members about the Fanchers. Fences have begun to be mended now as in her speaking tours, members from that family attend and speak frankly about their experiences and feelings.

The author also mentioned they had unfettered access to all available records and left no stone unturned to describe in painstaking detail what happened. You may feel free to disagree, but in this event, your skepticism appears to be misplaced.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You're becoming Aaron Shaf, friend.

This is the type of effort you should encourage, not deride. I look forward to reading to determine if it is unduly biased, but my sister has met personally with the authors, and was impressed with the honesty and true contrition.

In fact, it was a meeting in Arkansas, where descendants of the Fanchers met with each the female author. Her initial meeting was not extremely friendly with some, but she broke down and cried, apologized profusely and proceeded to disabuse some of the misstatements originally promulgated by Church members about the Fanchers. Fences have begun to be mended now as in her speaking tours, members from that family attend and speak frankly about their experiences and feelings.

The author also mentioned they had unfettered access to all available records and left no stone unturned to describe in painstaking detail what happened. You may feel free to disagree, but in this event, your skepticism appears to be misplaced.

The authors are on the LDS Church payroll, and I'm like Aaron Schaf for questioning the impartiality, given the history? How about this: They give independent researchers unrestrained access to their documents, like the Vatican does. I'd rather that than have LDS employees write the book.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The authors are on the LDS Church payroll, and I'm like Aaron Schaf for questioning the impartiality, given the history? How about this: They give independent researchers unrestrained access to their documents, like the Vatican does. I'd rather that than have LDS employees write the book.

That may happen some day, but sometimes baby steps. Perhaps you can take off your Shaff glasses and let the work speak for itself.

On one hand, you and others have argued the Church should apologize for stuff, and on the other you want an organization to allow itself to be lambasted publicly.

Read the work first. Apparently you don't like positive reviews by anything LDS. How's that for bias?

Work prepared by LDS employees can raise an eyebrow as to its sincerity, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

If SEIQ, Pelagius and Adam worked together you think they would not be able to produce an academically responsible and honest piece? I do.

[pelagius]

The mp3 of the authors' Radio West interview is up:

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/ku...CLE_ID=1331264

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

That may happen some day, but sometimes baby steps. Perhaps you can take off your Shaff glasses and let the work speak for itself.

On one hand, you and others have argued the Church should apologize for stuff, and on the other you want an organization to allow itself to be lambasted publicly.

Read the work first. Apparently you don't like positive reviews by anything LDS. How's that for bias?

Work prepared by LDS employees can raise an eyebrow as to its sincerity, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

If SEIQ, Pelagius and Adam worked together you think they would not be able to produce an academically responsible and honest piece? I do.

I'm not sure why you include Adam in that list. Given Adam's demonstrable penchant to couch his unsparing observations in the most inflammatory language possible, and often resorting to the most strained interpretation possible of events to cast leaders and members in the worst light (like God bumping off Harold B Lee for being a racist pig), I see no reason to expect him to produce an academically responsible and intellectually honest document on LDS history.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by pelagius

The mp3 of the authors' Radio West interview is up:

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/ku...CLE_ID=1331264

I thought the interview was great ... Before being heavy handed about the authors' potential biases I would at the very least listen to the interview. I think even those that view LDS employed historians with suspicion will be pleasantly surprised. Sure I wish someone like Remini (I still think his biography of Joseph Smith is the best) in addition to Turley and Walker would write about the Massacre and be given the same access as Turley and Walker but after listening to the interview I expect the book to be very good.