Brigham Young’s businesses

[IWMP]

It's this kind of Brigham hatred that makes Six Days in August a vital necessity for believing Saints. See!

Indeed. Mr. Type-B Personality was so laid back over these posters listing the facts about BY's business holdings that he obsessed over it while on vacation at the Shakespeare Festival in Cedar City, *and* he went to the trouble of emailing a Mopologist-friendly BY scholar who essentially gave a non-committal response: i.e., "Well, it's really hard to separate BY's wealth from the wealth of the Church...."

I suppose if he puts his name on it then there is an assumption that it is his as an individual right?

[Markk]

They forgot Deseret Winery. I will butcher this story, it's been a long time since I read about it. But it goes something like, BY started a winery around St. George, and soon the members down there were drinking up too much profit, so BY ordered them to only bottle by the gallon or keg?, but that soon became a mistake when the members would drink even more. There was a classic remark by one of the members I will have to look for it when I get a chance....

I found it...Classic

"During one of the winters Brigham much perplexed by the indiscriminate tippling among many of the local Saints. To solve this dilemma he recommended that the municipal government pass an edict that wine could not be purchased in quantities smaller than five gallons. This, he
reasoned, would put an end to the tippling. Not long after the passage of this ordinance Brigham Young chanced to meet Brigham Lamb on
the street. Brother Lamb was more than moderately intoxicated. As he approached his Church leader and before President Young could reprimand him, Brother Lamb said, "President Young it is utterly impossible to drink five gallons of wine and stay sober."

[Rivendale]

Some eyebrow-raising comments over at SeN:

Why mix personal and church accounts? according to Arrington early church leaders, "skillfully contrived artifices to circumvent confiscatory federal legislation." Given early persecutions of the church, these efforts were justified. Ignoring circumstances is a method to present correct and misleading information.

So, Church leaders deliberately lied in order to cheat the federal government out of money? Okay! This elicits the following response from The Proprietor:

Awww. There ya go again, lettin' cold, hard, dispassionate facts interfere with a good, serviceable slander. Spoken like an economist.

lol….Wut??? Perhaps the Mopologists *still* believe that “skillfully contrived artifices to circumvent confiscatory federal legislation” is the way to go when (e.g.) preparing Interpreter’s tax forms? It would certainly confirm a lot of suspicions and explain how and why someone can afford so many expensive vacations. Quite a telling admission here, I daresay.

Quinn isn't safe in the comments either.

Quinn citing spurious sources doesn't help your case. From what I've read, Quinn was very messed up. His homosexuality was only part of it. If I was to try to write stuff like Quinn did, it would be necessary to take into account my paranoid schizophrenia when evaluating what I wrote.

[Doctor Scratch]

Well, congrats, I guess, to Dr. Peterson? This is exactly what he was trying to do decades ago--i.e., to get his "fans" to think that Quinn's sexual orientation was grounds for dismissing his scholarship. And here's Michael Hoggan, having fully bought into that nonsense. This is a text book example of the ad hominem fallacy, and yet the Mopologists, over the years, have distorted what that fallacy means so thoroughly that even an avid "disciple" like Hoggan seems totally flustered and confused by it.

As for what he said: No, I don't need to take any diagnosis into account. Either what he says is true or false; it's either supported by evidence, or it isn't. There are a number of people who believe that Dr. Peterson authentically has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Does this affect whether his claims about getting paid for apologetics are true or not? No: all you need to do is look at the relevant FARMS tax forms to see that, in fact, he *was* paid to do apologetics. Part of the issue here is that the Mopologists don't have persuasive evidence to support their principal claims, so they have always--since the beginning--relied on ad hominem attack: "See? You can't trust him/her! They're a sinner! And an anti! Oh, and they're 'messed up,' too!" They dislike having their own arguments dismissed on the grounds that their faith/allegiance to the Church blinds them to the truth, and yet, they never seem to hesitate when it comes to applying similar judgments to critics.

[Rivendale]

Unless he apologizes in one of his next posts for accusing me of lying, he's going to go away.

Oy vey. https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/c ... orced_to/

[drumdude]

Wow they get so upset that literally no one knows or cares who Blake Ostler is.

The only way I know about Ostler is because Boylan mentions him in every one of his inane blog posts.

God that was 7 years ago and Mormon apologetics is still a clown show!