MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm afraid that you're going to have to do the heavy lifting to keep the thread going.

You almost make me doubt my disbelief in creation ex nihilo.

[_truth dancer]

I'm still wondering what is wrong with talking about a book prior to deciding if one wants to spend ones time and money on it.

Before I purchase a book I usually read some of the reviews on Amazon and talk to someone who has read it. I often have discussions about the book prior to purchasing it. Sometimes after discussing the book with someone who has read it I decide not to spend money on the book.

What is wrong with this?

:-)


td

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm still wondering what is wrong with talking about a book prior to deciding if one wants to spend ones time and money on it.

Before I purchase a book I usually read some of the reviews on Amazon and talk to someone who has read it. I often have discussions about the book prior to purchasing it. Sometimes after discussing the book with someone who has read it I decide not to spend money on the book.

What is wrong with this?

Nothing. But virtually nobody here has even seen the book.

So let's rephrase your post:

I'm still wondering what is wrong with talking about a book prior to deciding if one wants to spend ones time and money on it.

Before I purchase a book I usually read some of the comments on MDB by people who haven't seen it and talk to someone who hasn't read it. I often have discussions about the book with people unfamiliar with it prior to purchasing it. Sometimes after discussing the book with someone who hasn't read it I decide not to spend money on the book.

What is wrong with this?

Happy to have helped.

[_beastie]

Baloney. James read the book and several of us questioned him about specifics.

Let me take this opportunity to, once again, emphasize my primary point - that the LDS church has a vested interest in the outcome of this research + funded the research + its employees are the authors + and by DCP's own admission any implication of BY would damage his credibility as prophet + the LDS church leaders have emphasized that truth that damages testimonies ought not to be shared + 2 apostles reviewed the book prior to publication = conflict of interest.

All the diversion in the world isn't going to change that fact.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Baloney. James read the book and several of us questioned him about specifics.

He read it very, very weirdly.

Let me take this opportunity to, once again, emphasize my primary point - that the LDS church has a vested interest in the outcome of this research + funded the research + its employees are the authors + and by DCP's own admission any implication of BY would damage his credibility as prophet + the LDS church leaders have emphasized that truth that damages testimonies ought not to be shared + 2 apostles reviewed the book prior to publication = conflict of interest.

All the diversion in the world isn't going to change that fact.

Fourteen pages. Will it make twenty? Thirty?

Will anybody here actually read the book?

I'm trying to imagine a lengthy thread about Batman: The Dark Knight. Virtually nobody on the thread has actually seen the film. One who has says that it advocates the murder of public officials, even though it tries to deceive its audience by giving the superficial impression to uncritical viewers that killing people is bad. Most of the discussion centers on the question of whether the director was capable of making a good movie. Most think that he lacked the capacity, but allow that it's possible that the film might be good. Who knows? One wack job on the thread asks whether any of the others plan to see the movie. "No," respond most of the thread participants. "We're just interested in questions like whether the scriptwriters had the background to come up with a good screenplay." "This is really strange," says the wack job. "Carry on."

[_beastie]

One more time for old time's sake - if a tobacco company funded a study into the health effects of smoking, and the study was conducted by people who were employees of the tobacco industry, could people rightfully raise questions about conflict of interest even without having read the study?

Here's what this thread is like: posters on a board note this obvious conflict of interest. Defenders of the tobacco industry swoop in and insist that the posters have no right to point out the conflict of interest (which they insist doesn't exist, anyway) before they even read the study.

When the posters respond that it's perfectly reasonable to point out the conflict of interest before reading the study, defenders of the tobacco industry start talking about people who make judgments about the quality of a movie they haven't seen.

[_beastie]

I’m going to flesh out my tobacco analogy to make it more precise and accurate.

Cigarette manufacturer NicStix has openly and repeatedly stated its primary objective, target, goal, and agenda is to increase its profit margin. Two of NicStix’s top executives have gone on the record declaring that not all facts are useful, and, in particular, any facts that detract from NicStix’s agenda should not be shared by any employee of NicStix. They also state that any employee of NicStix who chooses to share facts that could harm the company’s profit margin will be fired and lose their pensions.

NicStix decides to fund research into the health effects of smoking. Three NicStix employees are in charge of the research and subsequent publication of said research. NicStix CEOs review the final study before publication.

Do people who are aware of this background information have the right or duty to point out the conflict of interest?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Can you send me a link to the new book? I couldn't find it on Amazon.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

If Turley and Co found a smoking gun that implicated BrighamYoung in the murders, do you think the Church / who funded this book, would let that evidence see the light of day?

Absolutely.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Your answer is disingenuous.

I don't appreciate being called disingenuous. I meant everything I said. Your parallel was forced.

Any person with half a brain in his/her head would immediately recognize the conflict of interest and apply analytical skepticism to the study.

Good point. Analytical skepticism might include, say, reading the study!?