The More mans religion is, of course, about the man, more of them.
They don't have logic.
Let's push aside what is felt about them (weird, sexist, perverted, crime-ridden, mafiaesque) and look at what they say about themselves - or rather, what they don't (refuse to) say.
Take for example this ditty written by one of their mans about Jon Krakaeur's book, Under the Banner of Heaven. Now, if you haven't read the book, I suggest that you do. Read it for yourself. Seriously, I do not believe that mans (author of the ditty) read it. I do not believe that he read it because what he says the book is about - is not what the book is about.
Most book critics read the books they write about - like 'em or not like 'em. They do read them. Dwight Gardner - critic - writes for the New York Times (reads what he talks about). Another critic, Janet Maslin - writes for the New York Times (again - reads what she talks about).
But this mans is different. He's not an objective literary critic or academician. He is a voice of the mans religion. And as such a voice of the so called saints of latter, his job is not to read or try to comprehend any truths in Krakauer's book - his purpose is to condemn it.
And he does condemn it.
He says (and I loosely quote and emphasize - trying to not out and out plagiarize):
The book . . . tells the story of two . . . fundamentalists who brutally murdered Brenda Lafferty and her infant daughter, claiming they acted on divine revelation. Krakauer attempts to prove that such behavior has roots in the history of . . . [more mans religion], and compares faithful [more mans] to extreme muslim terrorists.
Mans is absolutely correct that in Krakauer's book, he does tell the factual account of two mans of the saints of latter who did brutally murder Ms. Lafferty and her innocent infant daughter. The murderers did in fact claim they acted on divine revelation. They were in fact rooted in the more mans religion. The murderers were compared to faithful extreme muslim terrorists.
And, the problem here is what?
Two things.
Number one. The book does talk about that murder and roots and etc. The book tho, largely (which mans omits) discusses the terrifying ongoing polygamy child rapist kidnapping (need I go on) crisis of the more mans fundamentalists - that is all over the news most every day.
Number two. Mans does not defend the murders. Mans does not defend any perversions and crimes that are factually presented in the book.
He condemns the book but refuses to condemn what the book is about - how certain beliefs of faith, particularly the more mans religion (which does have its roots based in sex and the domination of women - a man who simply wanted more and founded a "religion" to legitimize his behavior).
The truth.