Ask Boylan Anything

[I Have Questions]

So MG says fine, I’ll abide by the rules. Something he has said and promised multiple times before. Why will this time be the charm? Once again this is the parent giving all the control to the child, who has already demonstrated countless times that his word is not his bond, that he cannot be entrusted with managing himself. Time for you to suggest a real consequence, and actually mean it. Or just remove the board rule about linking and running and allow everyone to do it, not just the person you appear to treat like your favourite child.

FTR I don’t want MG to stop posting (he’s a great advert for all that’s bad with Mormon apologetics, and Mormon arguments), I just want YOU Shades to put a stop to this constant rule breaking. Everybody else manages themselves, he is incapable of doing that (how many examples would you need before agreeing I’m right about that?), so time for you to step up and show it’s not MG managing the board.

Okay, next time there will be a brief suspension.

My view, for what it’s worth, is that is too little and too late. He’s earned the brief suspension already. He’ll do it again and you’re just prolonging the process (and the pain for everyone else) unnecessarily.

[MG 2.0]

In regards to the link I posted:

https://m.youtube.com/@churchhistorymat ... ast/videos

I thought it rather obvious as to why it was "worth bookmarking".

NO. It has to be obvious BEFORE one clicks on it, not after.

If you go to the link there are over 300 videos, each one of some length with various presenters, dealing with many different and interesting topics having to do with Mormonism.

Great! Then type all that BEFORE you post your link. Why is that so difficult?

Having to lay out that ONE FACT I didn't feel was necessary. But alas, yes it was.

YES, IT WAS. Why? Because here at discussmormonism.com, the POSTER does ALL the "heavy lifting," NOT the reader. The onus is NOT on the reader to click on a naked link, peruse a random sampling of all the videos at the other end, weigh the pros and cons, and then decide whether it's worth bookmarking. YOU, THE POSTER, must facilitate the reader being able to easily decide that the link is worth bookmarking (or not, as the case may be) THANKS TO YOUR DESCRIPTION, not thanks to the reader's investigative research.

Is that because readers are stupid? ABSOLUTELY **NOT**. It's because TIME IS PRECIOUS, and it's the poster's job to save the readers as much time as humanly possible. And perusing the other end of naked links long enough to make the poster's desired decision (or not) takes WAY more time than it does for the poster to simply type a description.

I posted the link from having come across it while digging a bit into another poster's comments. I hadn't even had time to actually WATCH any of the videos.

Then you don't know whether it was worth bookmarking, either.

It was the FACT that there were so many that I thought was worth posting the link so that others could see the same.

Then freakin' say as much!!

Sheesh.

Sheesh indeed, MG 2.0! Again, here at discussmormonism.com, THE POSTERS MUST DO **ALL** THE "HEAVY LIFTING," **NOT** THE READERS!!

Sorry I'm late to the party. Your post clarifies in great specificity what your expectations are in regards to the use of links and what is required in order to post links. I think I understand better what the rules of the board are saying. Your explanation in greater detail and with emphatic language may help ALL posters better monitor their behavior also in regards to being more cognizant of doing the "heavy lifting" before suggesting a link to investigate.

I will do my part to keep close watch on my own use of links and providing descriptions and/or commentary as to why I think the link might be helpful to others.

Shades, you have a board to run in a way that you believe to be fair and impartial to ALL participants. I appreciate that. It can get a bit dicey at times when there are competing voices coming from different directions and with opposing points of view that buck up against each other.

I get that.

Your board. Your rules. I will be more circumspect in monitoring my own usage of links according to the expectations and requirements of this board.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

I think I understand better what the rules of the board are saying. Your explanation in greater detail and with emphatic language may help ALL posters better monitor their behavior also in regards to being more cognizant of doing the "heavy lifting" before suggesting a link to investigate.

Can you think of any other poster (other than you) that has been posting links without substantiating them with their own thoughts, reflextions, insights, opinions etc? Because I can’t. This isn’t an “ALL posters” problem. It’s a you, just you, problem.

[Dr. Shades]

Your post clarifies in great specificity what your expectations are in regards to the use of links and what is required in order to post links. I think I understand better what the rules of the board are saying.

Okay, cool.

From this point forward, though, sort of like what I'm sure you told your kids while you were raising them, please always obey the rules even when you don't understand the purpose of the rules, not just after I explain them in detail to you.

Thanks in advance.

[Tom]

Was the AMA canceled? The page says, “This video has been removed by the uploader.”

Yes, he cancelled it since he realized people were going to ask him about his behavior and accountability in any form is kryptonite to Boylan.

I’d like to ask Mister Boylan to explain his recent blog post criticizing the Brethren. Specifically, he employs an excerpt from an uncharitable letter from Joseph F. Smith to his wife Alice Kimball Smith to take a shot at current Latter-day Saint leaders. Mister Boylan writes:

Addressing Sarah (Kimball) Gheen’s [sic] membership in the Christian Science movement, Joseph F. Smith, in a letter to his wife, wrote that he was:

Sorry about Sarah’s sickness. But wish she could get sick enough of her fragment of religion to renew her covenants before she dies. (Joseph F. Smith, letter to Alice Smith, July 29, 1912)

Would that more Latter-day Saint members, especially leaders, had this attitude towards false religions (cf. Gal 1:6-9).

(emphasis in original)

Sarah Gheen Kimball, born in 1861, was the fifth child of Heber C. Kimball and Ann Gheen. (Alice Kimball Smith was Sarah’s older sister.) Sarah married Louis Seckels in 1879. They had two children. Sarah died in Los Angeles in February 1913 (about six months after Joseph F. Smith’s letter) and was buried in Salt Lake City. A lovely photograph of Sarah and her four older siblings can be seen here.