I object to the blanket statement of "MAD myth." Since I am a participant there I would fall under its general name, and I have never held that "members who are taken aback by this stuff are just lazy and ill-informed."
Well, then you reject the MAD myth, but I’ve seen it stated or implied over there enough that I feel justified in using the term.
Other than the explicit assertions of the actual authors that there was absolutely no change of the manuscript, content, etc. on the basis of trying to hide anything or protect the image of the Church, etc.
You don’t get it, do you? This isn’t about whether or not BY actually ordered the attack, or whether the information existed and was suppressed. BY may not have ordered the attack and there is no information out there in the first place. The point is about conflict of interest, and whether or not the church leaders really would have allowed anything to be printed. Their own words say that they would not, regardless of what they may have told the authors. And why should I trust the words of men who have already stated that some truths ought to be suppressed, anyway?
The fact, (yes, the explicit fact) that you have no facts to back up your belief that the Church, leaders, or authors of this book are hiding a smoking gun speaks for itself.
See above. The point isn’t a smoking gun. I have no idea if a smoking gun exists. The point is conflict of interest.
How about the Fancher's and the other emigrants as the "bad guys" then? Exactly.
Like I said, I will be paying particular attention to that portion of the book. I know, based on their interview, that the authors stated the Fanchers did NOT provoke the attack. And yet you have seemingly intelligent people reading the book and walking away thinking that they really DID do something provocative. Why?