MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_Jason Bourne]

Well I still need to buy the book and read it and in fact plan to do so soon. I just wanted to get past August and a number of family events including a lovely week at the beach in North Carolina.

And I just wanted to post on page 50....or maybe 51....of the thread. This has to be the longest one here yet.

[_harmony]

Well I still need to buy the book and read it and in fact plan to do so soon. I just wanted to get past August and a number of family events including a lovely week at the beach in North Carolina.

And I just wanted to post on page 50....or maybe 51....of the thread. This has to be the longest one here yet.

And I want you to know, in case you don't have a couple of hours to read it, that Daniel has made several hundred very important substantive on-topic posts. Really. You can check. They're all here. He hasn't erased any of them. Every one is a testament to his intelligence, his diligence, his scholarship, his logic.

We're so proud of him!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Trying to convince a class of dullards that reading is essential doesn't seem very profound or academic, but it's vitally important.

[_beastie]

Trying to convince a class of dullards that reading is essential doesn't seem very profound or academic, but it's vitally important.

I know it’s unthinkable for someone of your stature and academic pedigree, but perhaps – just perhaps, don’t get upset now – the problem is that you don’t explain yourself very well.

So try again. Let’s go with this one, for another example. You repeatedly assured us that many nonfiction texts relied on information that would not be accessible to readers.

Trevor stated:

It is impossible to evaluate fully the use of sources one cannot see.

DCP’s response:

Which, in my case -- I realize that nobody else is in this situation -- means, practically speaking, the vast majority of all of the sources used in all of the non-fiction books that I've ever read, am reading, or will read.

What, exactly, was the point of those assurances if not to demonstrate that the inability of other qualified researchers to access the same material as these authors was, in fact, not very significant at all? And, of course, if the inability of other qualified researchers to access the same material is not significant, that argues that the undermining of confidence created by the conflict of interest is not significant, either? Hmmm. That certainly would seem to present opposition to these two points:


2. the conflict of interest will undermine confidence
3. that undermined confidence can only be mitigated by the church allowing other qualified researchers access to all the same materials these authors accessed

And apparently you deny that Scott opposed even the existence of the conflict of interest?

Is there some secret code we can all access to ferret out the meaning of his words:

How could following the evidence to its conclusion amount to a conflict of interest, when the direction from senior church leaders was to do just that? To establish that there was a conflict of interest, one would have to prove that Turley, and/or the church leaders with which he conferred, were lying.

or this

Professor Peterson can speak for himself. But from the passages you have quoted here, it seems to me he is not acknowledging a conflict of interest, but rather, the perception of one by some individuals. That's quite a different thing.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I know it’s unthinkable for someone of your stature and academic pedigree, but perhaps – just perhaps, don’t get upset now – the problem is that you don’t explain yourself very well.

That's always possible.

But I've exhausted both my ideas and my patience.

I give up.

[_beastie]

But I've exhausted both my ideas and my patience.

Well, then, just give us a little clue. On which page of this thread do you think your opinion was most clearly expressed on this matter (ie, the matter of whether or not you were contesting points 2 and 3)?

[_Yoda]

OK...Without my having to read 51 pages....Has anyone actually READ the book that's being reviewed?

Just curious...

[_Daniel Peterson]

OK...Without my having to read 51 pages....Has anyone actually READ the book that's being reviewed?

Just curious...

I have.

[_beastie]

OK...Without my having to read 51 pages....Has anyone actually READ the book that's being reviewed?

Just curious...

You'll have to read the thread to first realize the book isn't being reviewed. What is being discussed isn't the content of the book (with the exception of a few posters who have read the book and then commented on the content), but whether or not there is a conflict of interest surrounding the production of the book, and whether or not that undermines confidence in the text, and whether or not that undermined confidence can best be mitigated by allowing other qualified researchers access to the same material the authors accessed.

[_antishock8]

But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... But... You haven't read the book!!!!