MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_harmony]

They are a cancer on the body politic. They must be eradicated. Almost without exception, that is the underlying attitude of most apostates who participate here.

So it is a battle to the death, as it were.

I personally wouldn't have it any other way. In the long run _ for believers _ there is no way to accommodate the apostate in the Kingdom of God. And for apostates, there is no way to accommodate the Kingdom of God in their world.

This is not a post that an active LDS would ever make. Wheat, I am ashamed of you.

[Guest]

Hello everyone.

This is "that DCP wannabe suckup, Scott Lloyd." (Yes, Boaz & Lidia, I enjoyed that. So much so, that I put it in my sig line over on MADB.)

I've registered here just so I could come on this thread and do my bit to boost your post count.

You see, it is amazing to me that a thread could be sustained for 30 pages based on criticism of a book that almost none of the critics on the thread has read or even seen. An astounding feat. A true inspiration. Thirty pages of discussion about nothing. I'm thinking even Jerry Seinfeld might be impressed. Although, I've noticed Beastie, for one, has taken to repeating posts. But hey, whatever works, right?

As most of you probably know, we have a thread going over on MADB about the new book, where there's some discussion about the actual content of the book (as opposed to ill-informed ruminations about the motives, intent and competence of the authors). Up to now, we've only managed 27 pages. I think we've outdone you on views (more than 8,000 so far). But I know that at least some of you are upping our count by lurking over there without posting.

So I say bravo. I may come back from time to time, although probably very infrequently. I'm not as adept as some here at posting about nothing.

[_Trevor]

You see, it is amazing to me that a thread could be sustained for 30 pages based on criticism of a book that almost none of the critics has read or even seen. An astounding feat. A true inspiration. Thirty pages of discussion about nothing. I'm thinking even Jerry Seinfeld might be impressed. Although, I've noticed Beastie, for one, has taken to repeating posts. But hey, whatever works, right?

Did you take a poll of "critics" or do you just assume that they are all represented by the participants in this thread? And, yes, your humor is sub-Peterson at best.

Nevertheless, welcome. Quite a snotty entrance, but welcome anyway.

[Guest]

When I said critics, I meant the critics on this particular thread.

Sorry that was less than clear. I've now added a clarifying phrase.

[_ScottLloyd]

And, yes, your humor is sub-Peterson at best.

I readily acknowledge that few can match the good doctor in deft and pungent wit. But that's not one of my principal goals in life.

Thanks for the welcome.

[_antishock8]

And in true Internet Mormon fashion, the topic is ignored and it's straight into the non sequitur. Bravo. Bravo.

[_harmony]

Hello everyone.

This is "that DCP wannabe suckup, Scott Lloyd." (Yes, Boaz & Lidia, I enjoyed that. So much so, that I put it in my sig line over on MADB.)

I've registered here just so I could come on this thread and do my bit to boost your post count.

You see, it is amazing to me that a thread could be sustained for 30 pages based on criticism of a book that almost none of the critics on the thread has read or even seen. An astounding feat. A true inspiration. Thirty pages of discussion about nothing. I'm thinking even Jerry Seinfeld might be impressed. Although, I've noticed Beastie, for one, has taken to repeating posts. But hey, whatever works, right?

As most of you probably know, we have a thread going over on MADB about the new book, where there's some discussion about the actual content of the book (as opposed to ill-informed ruminations about the motives, intent and competence of the authors). Up to now, we've only managed 27 pages. I think we've outdone you on views (more than 8,000 so far). But I know that at least some of you are upping our count by lurking over there without posting.

So I say bravo. I may come back from time to time, although probably very infrequently. I'm not as adept as some here at posting about nothing.

Good day to you, Scott. Do you have anything to say about:

1. the church's conflict of interest?
2. the church's historical treatment of both historians and church history?
3. the closed nature of the church's archives... closed to nonLDS historians who may not be interested in furthering a faithful church history?

If you have no comment on those topics, you might want to understand that those issues are likely to cast the content of the book into the shade. So discussion of them is entirely appropriate.

[_beastie]

Yes, it is true that I repeated certain posts in the vain hope that the defenders of the faith who cluttered this thread with frequent inane comments, and nearly doubled its size by repeated comments on its length would actually address the substance of the thread. It usually didn't work. But I'll try to repeat something of substance for Scott, since he clearly is so interested in substance. ;)

Loap

Even if it is granted that BY saw the massacre as part of the Lord's taking vengeance it does not follow that thus Brigham ordered the massacre, or that given what he knew at the time he wasn't making a statement based on what he believed happened and why, but was wrong. I suspect that is something with which you agree.

beastie

Yes, I agree it does not necessarily mean that he ordered the massacre, but the fact that he somehow saw the hand of God in it means that praying for one's enemies is not incompatible with involvement with the massacre.

Does the new book discuss BY's statement about the Lord taking a little vengeance with the massacre? I understand that, chronologically speaking, it ends with the massacre itself, but it seems a serious omission to not address this when dealing with BY's possible involvement.

I am very curious about this point, and since my book hasn't been delivered yet, can only ask those who have read the book. Does the book deal with BY's comments at the destruction of the make-shift altar or not? In my amazon search of the book, it does not appear to, but I'd like someone who read it to verify this. I find it incomprehensible that authors would be seriously addressing BY's possible involvement and completely ignore a well-established event that sheds quite a bit of light on how BY viewed the massacre itself - as part of the Lord's vengeance. How could this be legitimately ignored?

[_Dr. Shades]

I've registered here just so I could come on this thread and do my bit to boost your post count. . . I think we've outdone you on views (more than 8,000 so far). But I know that at least some of you are upping our count by lurking over there without posting.

Why the obsession with views and post counts? Do they matter in any way, shape, or form?

[_Mister Scratch]

Well, well, well. What a real pleasure it is to see Scotty Dog Lloyd turn up on this thread! I guess he has finally summoned up enough courage to leave the safe, cozy confines of the aptly named MADboard. And of course he would turn up on this thread. Good ol' Scotty Dog, after all, is the poster who was once described as being a "boob" about LDS history. He also (allegedly) has a track record of producing appallingly whitewashed articles on Church history for the Des News and whatnot.

So, why is he here, then? To make a wisecrack? Could be. I submit, however, that the real reason lies in his deep anxieties concerning Church history. Discussions on the suppression of Church history make the veins stand out in his neck, making him look even more like Morton Downey, Jr. So, of course he is here. Of course he is posting on this thread. And, most importantly, of course he is completely overlooking and avoiding this primary topic of discussion.