MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I really don't think our opinions 'cancel each other out'. I think your opinion is frankly disconnected from reality, and I seriously doubt you read anything in Arrington's book that would justify such an opinion.

Another example of why I'll not be discussing it further with beastie. This is called shifting the goalposts. After beastie spoke of Brigham Young's general leadership I asked:

What have you read about BY's leadership? Specific titles and authors preferred.

That's it, folks.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

They involve people who have actually read the things they are talking about,

Yeah, like how DCP read the God Delusion before commenting on it, and how Scott Lloyd read Bagley's book before commenting on it.

by the way, have you read The Mormon Conflict, The Lion of the Lord, or Quinn's hierarchy books?

No to the 2nd. You are a very angry person.

[_beastie]

Another example of why I'll not be discussing it further with beastie. This is called shifting the goalposts. After beastie spoke of Brigham Young's general leadership I asked:

This response of yours made absolutely no sense. Shifting what goalpost? I answered your question about what I had read. You've made other statements besides just asking me for my book titles. Again, this response of yours makes no sense.

No to the 2nd. You are a very angry person.

OMG! ROFLMAO! You just can't make this stuff up. LoaP, I have not had one second of anger anywhere on this thread. I've had very few moments of anger on this entire board, and the few that I've had are unmistakable.

Hey, earlier you said you hoped I'd have some fun today. This latest bit with you has been tremendous fun. I admit that it always delights me when defenders of the faith pull out the "you're an angry person", or "you have no life", or "you're too biased", or "you're too negative" or (fill in the pejorative blank). If I have to explain why that delights me, you wouldn't get it even if I explained, so I won't ruin it by trying. But, seriously, many thanks for the laughs and fun.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Yeah, like how DCP read the God Delusion before commenting on it

I'm guessing that you're insinuating that I've commented significantly on The God Delusion somewhere without having read it?

Could you please supply a reference to this reprehensible behavior of mine?

[_beastie]

I'm guessing that you're insinuating that I've commented significantly on The God Delusion somewhere without having read it?

Could you please supply a reference to this reprehensible behavior of mine?

No, that's not what I'm insinuating. I'm stating that you "talked about" the book without reading it.

by the way, I have no problem with you doing so, as long as you didn't pretend to deal with the content, but evidently LoaP has a problem with people talking about books they haven't read.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

So Scratch, here I am before you on your own turf, a proverbial sitting duck, and the best you can do is rerun tired insults from your "dossier" entry? Don't you think if I was going to shrink and cower in mortification from that, I would have done so long ago?

Hey, come on now, Scotty-dog. You *were* hiding. For ages. You had a comment of mine in your sig line for, like, months. Then, your feelings got hurt real bad by the dossier entry, and you lashed out in a blind rage, altering your sig line yet again. Now, you have calmed down once more, and are back to discussing your fave subject: suppression of Church history. Of course, as you publicly stated, you are "uncomfortable" with the word "suppression." I have to ask you, though: would *I*, or any other non-hardcore-TBM be able to access all of the materials that Turley & et. al. were permitted to view?

As for "deep anxieties concerning Church history," that hardly seems warranted, given the candor and thorough research in the book that has just been published.

What are you talking about? It's not as if you were the one who wrote the book, Scotty-dawg.

That I want the truth given full exposure is precisely the reason I am discussing the book in this and other venues.

Oh, really? Because it seems to me that you are here in order to try and diffuse criticism of the Church's sealed-off archives, and to deflect accusations of bias.

In that vein, I could hardly do better than quote the authors themselves from the preface: "Church leaders supported our book by providing full and open disclosure" (p. xi).

Which, of course, is beside the point. Church leaders provided "full and open disclosure" to a trio of hardcore TBMs. No one critical of the Church has access, and thus, the material therein cannot be verified.

You are scared of engaging this problem for much the same reason that you are fearful of honestly addressing TAK's questions.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm stating that you "talked about" the book without reading it.

To what extent? Did I utter the book's title? Did I serve as master of ceremonies for a 30-page-plus thread devoted to it, dominated by people who'd never seen it?

[_Daniel Peterson]

his deep anxieties . . . the veins stand out in his neck, making him look even more like Morton Downey, Jr. . . . Scotty-dog. You *were* hiding. For ages. . . . your feelings got hurt real bad . . . you lashed out in a blind rage. . . Scotty-dawg. . . . You are scared . . . you are fearful of honestly addressing TAK's questions.

Typical high quality Scartchian discourse.

[_beastie]

DCP, if you really want to delve into this, you need to talk to LoaP. I was referring to his comment:

They involve people who have actually read the things they are talking about,

So if you're curious about to what degree people are allowed to talk about a book they haven't read, ask him. I'm sure his standard for you will be far different than the standard he'd set for critics, so you'll be on safe ground, no doubt.

[_beastie]

Oh, and one more thing, DCP:

To what extent? Did I utter the book's title? Did I serve as master of ceremonies for a 30-page-plus thread devoted to it, dominated by people who'd never seen it?

I'm sure you inadvertently left out the fact that the 30-page-plus thread is not devoted to the content of the book (which you have no interest in discussing with those who have read it), but rather to the underlying conflict of interest and inaccessibility of materials that would mitigate that conflict of interest. I mean, your statement, as is, could be construed to mean people who haven't read it were actually talking about the content of the book, and I'm sure you would never mean to imply such a thing.