Massacre At Mountain Meadows

[Scott Lloyd]

I was just handed a copy of Massacre at Mountain Meadows, the long awaited book by Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard. I will be writing a piece on it for publication, but meanwhile, might post some of my observations here.

At first glance, I was struck by the book's lack of bulk. There are only 231 pages of narrative, leaving roughly half of the total 430 pages for appendices, end notes and index. Though I knew the book would be thinner than anticipated, I suppose I expected more, given how long the book has been in progress and the extensiveness of the research.

Of course, this is only the first part of a planned two-volume work, as is freely disclosed in the preface, the second part to cover the aftermath of the event. The authors write that, early on, collection of material became "an embarrassment of riches," making a second volume necessary. Also, the authors candidly state their intention for the most part not to argue with conclusions of past authors, preferring instead to let the telling of the story be at the forefront and let their findings speak for themselves.

[emeliza]

I got my copy on Saturday. I just need to find a time to read it. I feel better knowing that a lot of it is reference material because I thought it looked huge.

I am already coveting the next one though as that is where my interests lie. I would guess the second book will take far less time since the research was probably included with the previous research.

[Scott Lloyd]

I got my copy on Saturday. I just need to find a time to read it. I feel better knowing that a lot of it is reference material because I thought it looked huge.

I am already coveting the next one though as that is where my interests lie. I would guess the second book will take far less time since the research was probably included with the previous research.

I was in Rick Turley's office last year. He pointed to a shelf full off looseleaf binders and identified them as Part 2 of the book.

[emeliza]

I was in Rick Turley's office last year. He pointed to a shelf full off looseleaf binders and identified them as Part 2 of the book.

That is good to hear (read). I am going to try and start my copy this week of the first book. It appears it starts back quite aways in history.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dang you, Scott. Dang you.

But, emeliza, is the thing out in a bookstore somewhere already????

[Scott Lloyd]

Dang you, Scott. Dang you.

But, emeliza, is the thing out in a bookstore somewhere already????

Dan,

I just inquired at the Deseret Book outlet here in downtown Salt Lake and was told they expected the book to be in "within the next couple of weeks."

I would suggest the bookstore there on campus, but I'm guessing you've already checked there.

Wish I could be of more help, but our copy was sent directly from Oxford University Press in New York.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Dang you, Scott. Dang you.

But, emeliza, is the thing out in a bookstore somewhere already????

I ordered on Amazon a few months ago, it should arrive at my place on July 31. Haven't seen it in stores yet.

[emeliza]

Dang you, Scott. Dang you.

But, emeliza, is the thing out in a bookstore somewhere already????

I pre-ordered it the same time LOAP did (per a previous thread). Not sure how come it already got sent to me. I was actually in shock when I got it. I couldn't figure out what I was getting from Amazon at first as I didn't expect the book until next week sometime.

[SolarPowered]

At first glance, I was struck by the book's lack of bulk. There are only 231 pages of narrative, leaving roughly half of the total 430 pages for appendices, end notes and index. Though I knew the book would be thinner than anticipated, I suppose I expected more...

Something I noticed long ago is that the most significant books on my bookshelves, the ones that constantly get referenced for their groundbreaking work, were all very thin.

Conversely, I have noticed that the thicker a textbook is, the more likely it is to be full of incomprehensible b***s***.

Also, if a book is entitled, "An Introduction to <whatever>", you will need to make sure you've boned up on your differential equations, because at least a third of the text will be equations.

[Scott Lloyd]

Something I noticed long ago is that the most significant books on my bookshelves, the ones that constantly get referenced for their groundbreaking work, were all very thin.

Conversely, I have noticed that the thicker a textbook is, the more likely it is to be full of incomprehensible b***s***.

Also, if a book is entitled, "An Introduction to <whatever>", you will need to make sure you've boned up on your differential equations, because at least a third of the text will be equations.

I heard through the grapevine that the book went through a lot of paring down before the final draft was ready.

I'm reminded of a quotation attributed to Mark Twain: "Sorry about the length of this letter; I didn't have time to write a short one."

[kawikadave]

I pre-ordered it the same time LOAP did (per a previous thread). Not sure how come it already got sent to me. I was actually in shock when I got it. I couldn't figure out what I was getting from Amazon at first as I didn't expect the book until next week sometime.

Amazon is showing it as In Stock. Nice!

http://www.amazon.com/Massacre-Mountain-Me...2578&sr=8-1

[Pahoran]

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no cause for alarm.

The loud bang you just heard is nothing more than the window of opportunity slamming hard on the fingers of those who have been trying to exploit this tragedy for polemical purposes.

The fact that it's been a long time coming only makes it all the more satisfying.

Regards,

Pahoran

[urroner]

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no cause for alarm.

The loud bang you just heard is nothing more than the window of opportunity slamming hard on the fingers of those who have been trying to exploit this tragedy for polemical purposes.

The fact that it's been a long time coming only makes it all the more satisfying.

Regards,

Pahoran

But Pahoran, it's written by a bunch of mind-numbed robots, owned and controlled by the nefarious and odious Mormon Church, may their souls burn brightly and hotly in the squalor of Hell forever. I would state that you only deceive yourself, but I know you are Mormon, therefore you are incapable of self-thought, hence you can't deceive yourself. You poor fool - - and to think that it's your people killing a bunch of seagulls. I'm disgusted.

[Doctor Steuss]

I pre-ordered it the same time LOAP did (per a previous thread). Not sure how come it already got sent to me. I was actually in shock when I got it. I couldn't figure out what I was getting from Amazon at first as I didn't expect the book until next week sometime.

I haven't received my copy yet.

Harumph!

I must admit that I'm a bit depressed at how short it is. I guess I will forgive them if the book has footnotes instead of endnotes. If it has endnotesâ?¦

[Scott Lloyd]

I haven't received my copy yet.

Harumph!

I must admit that I'm a bit depressed at how short it is. I guess I will forgive them if the book has footnotes instead of endnotes. If it has endnotesâ?¦

Hate to break it to you, but the end notes are part of the ancillary material in the last half of the book.

Use two bookmarks; that's what I do.

[Doctor Steuss]

Hate to break it to you, but the end notes are part of the ancillary material in the last half of the book.

Use two bookmarks; that's what I do.

Stu mad... Stu SMASH!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hate to break it to you, but the end notes are part of the ancillary material in the last half of the book.

Use two bookmarks; that's what I do.

Crap. Can someone please pass it along that endnotes rather than footnotes is a huge hassle?!?!??!!

[Doctor Steuss]

Crap. Can someone please pass it along that endnotes rather than footnotes is a huge hassle?!?!??!!

Given the alternative (William Dever-esque use of nothing more than a bibliography), I suppose we should (begrudgingly) count our blessings...

Maybe.

Maybe not.

<---- Still mad.

[Scott Lloyd]

Crap. Can someone please pass it along that endnotes rather than footnotes is a huge hassle?!?!??!!

For the reader.

From a publishing standpoint, it's probably the other way around. Which translates into the book costing more.

[Scott Lloyd]

Given the alternative (William Dever-esque use of nothing more than a bibliography), I suppose we should (begrudgingly) count our blessings...

That would be terrible. With some authors (Daniel Peterson is one), the notes are ofttimes nearly as interesting as the text itself.

[Alf O'Mega]

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no cause for alarm.

The loud bang you just heard is nothing more than the window of opportunity slamming hard on the fingers of those who have been trying to exploit this tragedy for polemical purposes.

The fact that it's been a long time coming only makes it all the more satisfying.

"Read it? I haven't even reviewed it!"

(That said, I fully expect this to be the new high-water mark in MMM scholarship. Its utility or futility as a weapon against the Church's truth claims does not figure into my expectations.)

[Scott Lloyd]

"Read it? I haven't even reviewed it!"

(That said, I fully expect this to be the new high-water mark in MMM scholarship. Its utility or futility as a weapon against the Church's truth claims does not figure into my expectations.)

That's as it should be, as this is not a polemical account.

[LifeOnaPlate]

For the reader.

From a publishing standpoint, it's probably the other way around. Which translates into the book costing more.

I'd gladly pay more for footnotes before endnotes. No problem.

[Alf O'Mega]

That's as it should be, as this is not a polemical account.

That's my expectation as well, which is why I find it so distasteful (and not a little ironic) when Pahoran dragoons it into service of his own polemical agenda.

[Pahoran]

That's my expectation as well, which is why I find it so distasteful (and not a little ironic) when Pahoran dragoons it into service of his own polemical agenda.

What "polemical agenda" was that?

Do you really believe that the non-polemical nature of this book will render it entirely irrelevant to the hitherto booming MMM mini-industry?

Do you deny that the MMM has been grist for anti-Mormon polemics until now?

Do you deny that Will Bagley's hatchet job exploited the MMM for his polemical purposes?

Do you deny that a desperately bad movie about the MMM was recently released, and that EV's have used it for their polemical purposes?

Do you take issue with my view that the book under discussion will provide an effective rebuttal to such polemics?

Oh, and just BTW: should the authors of said book subsequently turn their attention to deconstructing the Danite myth you so triumphantly flicked into Scott's face in another thread, will you likewise strike the simon-pure pose of scholarly objectivity, which pose will fool precisely no-one?

Regards,

Pahoran