MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Well, I can't count how many times believers have denied or argued what I viewed as painfully obvious. There's an excellent example right on this thread, in fact. Both you and LoaP insist that the church leaders would allow information showing that BY ordered the attack to be published, and I think it's painfully obvious that they would not. I've learned through painful experience not to assume that others accept what looks obvious to me.

So we have one opinion versus another, and we have a book that can help test our sides. Perhaps reading it would be advisable.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I estimate there have been about 30,000 words in this thread so far. (Based on a quick and low calculation of the last 5 pages.) A 300-page book averages about 90,000. In short, all the time spent here by those who haven't read it yet could have already been 1/3 finished.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Don't give up, beastie!

Nineteen is within reach!

20 by 20!

My dream would be to have this thread be longer than the main text of Massacre at Mountain Meadows.

But, sadly, your enthusiasm appears to be flagging, and I have to be realistic.

Twenty pages by or before 20 August seems to me entirely realistic.

Don't give up, beastie!

[_beastie]

Well, if we want to make it 20, I could always try to get DCP and LoaP to admit that there is no reason to trust the words of an organization whose two influential representatives (apostles) have already admitted that they believe some truths ought to be suppressed.

So while the authors may be entirely trustworthy in relaying that they were assured that no information would be suppressed, the organization reps who gave them that assurance are far less trustworthy in this particular issue.

And how would we ever know if information had been suppressed, when the authors had access to information that others will not be able to access as well?

Let the games begin!

[_Daniel Peterson]

This is a very promising new approach, beastie, to promote continued conversation about the book that's quite unrelated to any examination of the actual book itself.

Brilliant!

20 by 20!

Dare I hope that this thread actually could eventually exceed the length of the main text of Massacre at Mountain Meadows?

I dreamed a dream in times gone by,
When hope was high
And life worth living.
I dreamed this thread would never die.
I dreamed the facts would be forgiving.
Then I was young and unafraid
And dreams were made and used and wasted.
There was no ransom to be paid,
No song unsung,
No whine untasted.
But the lurkers come at night,
With their voices mute as cat's paws,
As they fail to help my hope
And they turn my dream to sham.
This thread's a summer long and snide.
It's filled my days with endless wonder.
It took its childhood in its stride.
It won't be gone when autumn's come.
And still I dream of posts to be,
That we will spend the years together.
Though there are dreams that cannot be
And there are calms we cannot weather,
I have a dream this thread will be
So different from the book I'm reading,
So different from a finite read.
No, life won't kill
The dream I've dreamed.

[_beastie]

This is a very promising new approach, beastie, to promote continued conversation about the book that's quite unrelated to any examination of the actual book itself.

What did I tell you? That's an excellent start to your dodgeball game. And you will keep it going for a very long time, so 20 is quite feasible.

Note: the topic is directly related to the conflict of interest, and to the assurances you keep repeating regarding historical integrity. I expect quick maneuvers on your end in response, and doubt I will be disappointed.

In fact, if history is a guide, your diversions could easily take us to forty pages before you finally admit that my point is legitimate.

What reason do we have to trust the assurances of an organization whose influential apostles have already proclaimed that they think some truths ought to be suppressed?

In fact, maybe the truth they're suppressing right now, with the authors, is that they're willing to suppress truth.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The integrity of the research and argumentation in a book is best judged--far and away best judged--by careful and informed examination of the book itself. And nothing else will substitute for careful and informed examination of the book itself.

If you want to dismiss statements of that indisputable and obvious truth as "dodgeball," you're entirely welcome to do so.

Have we reached nineteen yet?

20 by 20!

[_beastie]

The integrity of the research and argumentation in a book is best judged--far and away best judged--by careful and informed examination of the book itself. And nothing else will substitute for careful and informed examination of the book itself.

As previously noted, this will be difficult for anyone to do, considering the authors had access to information that others will not have access to.

So, unless and until all that information is also released to the public, we're left with assurances, and discussing whether or not those assurances are reliable is entirely justified.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Paranoia strikes deep.
Into your life it will creep.

Are we at nineteen yet?

20 by 20!

[_beastie]

Ok, let’s go back to the tobacco company, NicStix, to see if it’s paranoia.

Two top executives of NicStix have previously stated that some truths ought to be suppressed, and that any employee of NicStix who shares truths that could damage the primary objective of NicStix to increase their profits will be dismissed and lose their pension.

After public interest and media attention to the harmful effects of tobacco were being revealed by those outside the industry, NicStix funded a thorough study into the effects of tobacco. Three employees of NicStix were in charge of the study and the subsequent publication of the results. These three employees asserted that the execs of NicStix assured them that they would not interfere in any way, and that the employees should follow where the evidence led. The authors of the study submitted the study to the NicStix execs for review prior to publication, but assured us nothing changed due to that review. The authors of the study would have access to information that others, who perhaps would like to evaluate the accuracy of their claims, would not have access to.

Would it be silly paranoia to state that since the NicStix execs had already stated that they believed truths damaging to their profit margin ought to be suppressed, and therefore, their assurances that they would not interfere with this study could be regarded with skepticism?

Is this another assertion that, after ten pages of witty one-liners, DCP will finally concede to be so obvious that he didn’t need to state the obvious?