Massacre At Mountain Meadows

[emeliza]

Also where there other new findings from other institutes that weren't contolled by the church?

I believe that it was stated in the book that some of the interviews allowed were done so now because the Church was sort of backing this book. I could be wrong on that, but I thought more individuals were willing to talk and provide information that weren't when they thought the book was going to be done to discredit the Church.

[gmormon]

I believe that it was stated in the book that some of the interviews allowed were done so now because the Church was sort of backing this book. I could be wrong on that, but I thought more individuals were willing to talk and provide information that weren't when they thought the book was going to be done to discredit the Church.

I am not quite following exactly what it is that you are trying to say here.

[emeliza]

I am not quite following exactly what it is that you are trying to say here.

Yeah, well that might make two of us.

I thought some families provided information from their ancestors personal diaries and such that they wouldn't provide to Bagley and Brooks because the Church was sort of backing this book a bit.

[Scott Lloyd]

That is certainly a giant leap of logic even for you and Pahoran - His real name I am guessing...

Edit ..

BTW saw this on the Huntington Library website.. sounds like they dont have a problem with access.

Every year more than 1,700 scholars come from all over the world to study these rare materials. The results of their work are published in books, journals, and textbooks for colleges and universities.

Operative word is "scholars." Huntington Library has its standards, just like any professional archives, I assure you.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott I have my book with me today so I can see what you where talking about. So...my question is now was the documents that where not available, let's say to a Bagley or a Brooks, only in the First Presidency Vault or where there other holdings in the Church History Library, Family History Library, BYU Library that where also not accessible to professional historians? Also where there other new findings from other institutes that weren't contolled by the church?

All I really know is what I read in the book. I take it from the passage in the preface (page xi) that a "careful search" of the Church Historical Department holdings uncovered Jenson's field notes, which, in turn, took them "to the full collection of Jenson materials in the First Presidency's archives."

As for new findings in other repositories, I can't say. It's possible, I suppose, that their "fresh approach based on every primary source [they] could find" took them to items that previous researchers might have missed for one reason or another.

[katherine the great]

I have often wondered if there are LDS families out there who might just have in their possession letters or diaries which could add some light to mountain meadows--maybe someone will find a dusty old box, hidden way back in a dark corner of an elderly relative's basement which will add new light to MMM.

I've wondered that too. I do know, however, that a lot of the settlers in Washington were barely literate at the time and probably did not keep diaries during that time period.

[Scott Lloyd]

That is certainly a giant leap of logic even for you and Pahoran - His real name I am guessing...

Pahoran, insofar as I know, isn't engaged in a relentless assault on the Church while at the same time demanding that the Church turn over to him every item in its archives.

As you are a frequent critic of the Church, I might find it "fascinating" to know more details about your background. I don't blame you, though, for withholding them any more than I blame the Church for being judicious about what it chooses to make accessible by the public.

[TAK]

Scott

Pahoran, insofar as I know, isn't engaged in a relentless assault on the Church while at the same time demanding that the Church turn over to him every item in its archives.

I am not asking for anything should be given to me. Just pointing out that it has the resources to make its archives more open to others. But we all know why they wont.

Scott

As you are a frequent critic of the Church, I might find it "fascinating" to know more details about your background. I don't blame you, though, for withholding them any more than I blame the Church for being judicious about what it chooses to make more accessible.

Yea I can tell you are way ok with the selectivity of the LDS Archives by its leaders. Big shock there.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott

I am not asking for anything should be given to me. Just pointing out that it has the resources to make its archives more open to others. But we all know why they wont.

Obviously you think you know.

Yea I can tell you are way ok with the selectivity of the LDS Archives by its leaders. Big shock there.

I'm OK with the concept of a private institution establishing criteria regarding accessibility of its archival holdings. I really don't see it as all that unreasonable or extraordinary.

[Scott Lloyd]

And so, ladies and gentlemen, this thread has officially hit 10,000 views.

Cue the balloons.

Somebody order a pizza.

The 50-plus page Exercise in Vacuity over at the Shady Rest hasn't even approached that feat.

Just wondering if anyone recalls off hand which MA&D/FAIR board threads have exceeded 10,000 views.

[Calm]

The board has a handy dandy thread ordering option which includes # of views, can't figure out how to make a link of it, just go to the bottom of the page choosing the views option and all topics.

Let see if this makes sense (the list of over 10,000 views threads):

Lamanite Prophet To Come 123

119 brightpath 60363 10th June 2008 - 12:56 AM

Last post by: Hestia

Historicity Of Bom 1234

What do non-LDS historical scholars say?

149 Makarios 33159 28th March 2008 - 01:06 PM

Last post by: The_Monk

Another Church Vandalized. 123

[Calm]

And here are the threads that are longer then this one (the "123" means "pages 1, 2, 3...28 in the first case and 1, 2, 3...16 in the last):

Universal Apostasy Or Not? 123

[Scott Lloyd]

The board has a handy dandy thread ordering option which includes # of views, can't figure out how to make a link of it, just go to the bottom of the page choosing the views option and all topics.

Let see if this makes sense (the list of over 10,000 views threads):

Lamanite Prophet To Come 123

119 brightpath 60363 10th June 2008 - 12:56 AM

Last post by: Hestia

Historicity Of Bom 1234

What do non-LDS historical scholars say?

149 Makarios 33159 28th March 2008 - 01:06 PM

Last post by: The_Monk

Another Church Vandalized. 123

[Pahoran]

Scott

I am not asking for anything should be given to me. Just pointing out that it has the resources to make its archives more open to others. But we all know why they wont.

I'm not sure who "we all" are. "We" who know that an archive is by definition a repository of documents that are out of general circulation, and who understand how fragile and valuable old, original, unique documents are, do indeed know why they won't.

Maniacs with idiotic conspiracy theories probably imagine that they "know" something different. I won't tell them what brobdingnagian fools they make of themselves every time they mouth off if you won't.

Scott

Yea I can tell you are way ok with the selectivity of the LDS Archives by its leaders. Big shock there.

Of course it's not a shock; Scott is a reasonable man.

And as a reasonable man, he understands that the Church has exactly the same right that you and I have to decide who gets to see what of its private information, and that no reasonable, intelligent person is going to leap to any idiotic conclusions based upon nothing more than the mere fact that it chooses to exercise that right.

Regards,

Pahoran

[alter idem]

It's not a matter of "in other words." The First Presidency vault is a physical location separate and apart from the Church Archives. While the Church Historical Department controls access to its own holdings, the items in the First Presidency vault are under the control of, well, the First Presidency.

Actually, I think I was correct in saying "in other words". I realize there is an actual first presidency vault. However, I do not believe that all the Prophets' papers are kept there--there are certainly too many to fit! What I was referring to was that the propets' papers are restricted, just like the items that are physically housed in the first presidency vault.

Just curious: Did someone from the Church say that there would be no access to the letters, or is that just what the family surmised in deliberating whether to make the donation?

No, the family did not surmise it. We asked a church archives representative and it was confirmed that the papers would go under the control of the First Presidency and would not be accessible.

This was some 15 or so years ago and so the policy could be different now, but I do not know.

[gmormon]

For those of you who keep calling for the church to open up all the documents for public review, please respond in kind. Otherwise your under suspicion of all crimes commited since your birth. It doesn't matter whether logic says you were not there we want empirical data that proves you where not there, and if in reviewing said documents we can not prove you where there (added for clarity) you will be under immediate suspicion of holding documents back or of destroying them . Please start forwarding your documents now

[TAK]

For those of you who keep calling for the church to open up all the documents for public review, please respond in kind. Otherwise your under suspicion of all crimes commited since your birth. It doesn't matter whether logic says you were not there we want empirical data that proves you where not there, and if in reviewing said documents we can not prove you where you will be under immediate suspicion of holding documents back or of destroying them . Please start forwarding your documents now

Yes I see.. It now makes perfect sense...

Church leaders do not want to expose too much faith promoting history. Thanks!

[ttribe]

Yes I see.. It now makes perfect sense...

Church leaders do not want to expose too much faith promoting history. Thanks!

Why is your default position that there must be something sinister the Church is hiding? Given what's already out there on the Internet, etc., could it really be any worse even if there was something "damning" in there?

[gmormon]

Yes I see.. It now makes perfect sense...

Church leaders do not want to expose too much faith promoting history. Thanks!

The problem is that everytime the church releases documents there is always a naysayer out there that says church isn't be honest and forthcoming, and that it has more documents that it won't release and then they want more. At what point in full disclosure does the actual truth out ways out(makes more sense in this order) those who thinks there is more? Cann't there honestly be documents that are just private and are nobody else business but the individual or organization that owns them?

[Scott Lloyd]

The problem is that everytime the church releases documents there is always a naysayer out there that says church isn't be honest and forthcoming, and that it has more documents that it won't release and then they want more. At what point in full disclosure does the actual truth out ways out(makes more sense in this order) those who thinks there is more? Cann't there honestly be documents that are just private and are nobody else business but the individual or organization that owns them?

On another message board, TAK has said that after reading the new Mountain Meadows book, he finds it "apologetic" in its approach. It strikes me that he would find "apologetic" anything that doesn't shore up the conspiracy theories of Bagley & Co., regardless of how even-handed and objective the treatment actually is.

By the same token, I fear that TAK and those who share his attitude will never believe anything friendly to the Church constitutes fair and honest disclosure, no matter how open and forthcoming.

[TAK]

TTribe

Why is your default position that there must be something sinister the Church is hiding? Given what's already out there on the Internet, etc., could it really be any worse even if there was something "damning" in there?

Gmormon

The problem is that everytime the church releases documents there is always a naysayer out there that says church isn't be honest and forthcoming, and that it has more documents that it won't release and then they want more. At what point in full disclosure does the actual truth out ways out(makes more sense in this order) those who thinks there is more? Cann't there honestly be documents that are just private and are nobody else business but the individual or organization that owns them?

Scott

On another message board, TAK has said that after reading the new Mountain Meadows book, he finds it "apologetic" in its approach. It strikes me that he would find "apologetic" anything that doesn't shore up the conspiracy theories of Bagley & Co., regardless of how even-handed and objective the treatment actually is.

By the same token, I fear that TAK and those who share his attitude will never believe anything friendly to the Church constitutes fair and honest disclosure, no matter how open and forthcoming.

This has been hashed over a million times for years and I can think of better ways to spend time. I just trying to convey a belief that there must be some great history in the archives.. OK, maybe not 100% faith promoting â?? but interesting and ultimately beneficial. I suppose some have the belief that if it is negative it is bad. I am not sure the Authors would agree with that. If you have the truth then there is no reason to hide anything.

[ttribe]

If you have the truth then there is no reason to hide anything.

And that's the point - you are ASSUMING that by not granting access they are, by definition, hiding something (hence my "sinister" reference); when, in fact, it may simply be a matter of document preservation and ability to handle access requests (logistically).

[Scott Lloyd]

This has been hashed over a million times for years and I can think of better ways to spend time. I just trying to convey a belief that there must be some great history in the archives.. OK, maybe not 100% faith promoting â?? but interesting and ultimately beneficial. I suppose some have the belief that if it is negative it is bad. I am not sure the Authors would agree with that. If you have the truth then there is no reason to hide anything.

In addition to the recent book on Mountain Meadows, I think an initiative such as the massive Joseph Smith Papers Project currently going on indicates your notion that the Church is locking up its history is based more on legend, lore and supposition than on fact.

[gmormon]

This has been hashed over a million times for years and I can think of better ways to spend time. I just trying to convey a belief that there must be some great history in the archives.. OK, maybe not 100% faith promoting â?? but interesting and ultimately beneficial. I suppose some have the belief that if it is negative it is bad. I am not sure the Authors would agree with that. If you have the truth then there is no reason to hide anything.

Whom would you send into the church archives to find all this truth. Despite the authers claim at automony you and others from the site that won't be mention claim comspiracy to hide and mislead by general authorities. You want to send in your own; however if said individual is restricted from any section of the archive again conspiracy; should we send in Sandra Tanner? Maybe we could just send you in, and by the way why you are at it could get into the Vatican's archives, or US Goverments archives, or even the Russian goverments archives I,m sure there is some great history in those archives also? And what about your personal records...possible some great history there?

[TAK]

And that's the point - you are ASSUMING that by not granting access they are, by definition, hiding something (hence my "sinister" reference); when, in fact, it may simply be a matter of document preservation and ability to handle access requests (logistically).

And that was my original point.. The Church has the resources to make available millions of birth and death records from all over the world. It ought to be able to make journals from Mormon pioneers that are in its archives.