Mark Butler is without question showing himself forth as one of the most accomplished and brilliant narcissists on the Bloggernacle. In only a couple of months he has effectively hijacked Millennial Star and turned it into his own bully pulpit of egomania, spreading forth all sorts of wacky doctrine ex cathedra, deleting all comments he doesn't like and editing the heck out of the ones that fail to praise his maniacal brilliance. It is only a matter of time before Mark starts banning anyone who dares question him, and why shouldn't he? That is what any good narcissist would do, and Mark is good.

What Bloggernacle newbie couldn't learn a few things from this master of craftsmanship? Geoff B has got to be cursing the day he invited him to join, having lost grip of M*'s reins as Mark wrenched them from his hands. And Clark Goble is presumably cursing his fate having at the very least tacitly approving his addition, and perhaps even endorsing it, given Mark's prior activity of Clark's philosophy page. Oh, cruel twists of fate!

Now, I know what you all are thinking, Mark Butler isn't real. He just can't be. Yes, on this anniversary of the demise of the Banner of Heaven, people suspect Mark Butler in fact the incarnation of none other than Aaron B. Cox come back to harangue us all with his prophetic wisdom. Could it be? Is Mark Butler the Aaron B. Cox doppleganger? If so, it would be a birthday present of such epic systems proportions no software engineer could possibly imagine, anyone who pulled such a hoax would have to have all human knowledge available at their fingertips, a veritable repository to store all knowledge in one model, which takes advantage of cURL too. Is this butlerm's xmission? To stage a man in the middle dot net attack?


danithew said... @ October 28, 2006 at 9:34 AM

I have thought of BOH a few times while trying to get through Mark's posts. They are so over-the-top, that it's hard to believe. Would M* so embrace someone who doesn't actually exist? I don't know.

If he's real, then it proves once and for all that truth is stranger than fiction.

I spoke of his style and he used that as an excuse to delete my comments. However, my whole point was that his style was overwhelming his content or hiding the fact that no actual content existed in the first place. He uses and abuses scriptural and philosophical terminology to such an extreme degree ... but is he saying anything?

He seems to think so. But I'm convinced 99% of those who try to read him have no idea what the heck he is talking about.

I can't figure out what he's trying to achieve. Nate Oman uses a lot of big words, but if you work at it you can figure out that he's saying real things and making interesting points. Maybe Mark Butler thought if he regularly used words like "metaphysics" that he'd end up in the same league.

But then again, I have to ask, is he real? Sometimes you sincerely have to wonder if it's someone operating under a pseudonym, creating the biggest 'Nacle scam yet.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ October 28, 2006 at 7:44 PM

Daniel, Mark Butler is a real person, not a fake. We've done the research.

I'm convinced 99% of those who try to read him end up not caring what he is talking about.

Jack "Marlboro Man" Mormon said... @ October 30, 2006 at 9:27 AM

Butler's brilliance and versatile verbosity must be directly proportional to the distance from his house to the adjacent church building in the majestic yet quiet hamlet of Fruit Heights, Utah.

Surely God loves the residents of Davis County more than any other county in Utah. Yea, even Mark Butler above them all!

I still shiver when I read this response in one of his posts (http://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/2006/10/27/height_of_patriarchy#c45433):

"Please read what I said again. I speak according to the spirit in me, as does every other man, whether for good or for evil. And every neutral observer knows those nations are struggling with a deadly disease that infects them both body and spirit. And I see little but cowardice among the not already infected, with a number of notable exceptions."

And this one, too (http://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/2006/10/27/height_of_patriarchy#c45443):

"Note to all:

Political correctness is Aristotle's revenge for taking him too literally, seeing everything in black or white., when the meaning of every term should be perceived in the the best possible light, even the light of the Spirit.

To paraphrase Brigham Young, He who takes offense where it is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense where none is intended is a greater fool.

The spirit of truth is neither bivalent, nor one dimensional, nor categorical, except to mathematicians and sophomores. Only to freshmen does the word tar with the blackest brush, and only to the sophomoric is the Spirit about all things ambivalent."

It's no wonder Mark Butler is assailed by sNarcissist!! He is insanely jealous!!

Anonymous said... @ October 30, 2006 at 6:51 PM

Unfortunately, it is the Mark Butlers of the world who rise up to be General Authorities. Do you have any doubt Bruce R. McConkie or Boyd K. Packer were any different at Butler's age? Their confidence is only matched in degree by their intollerance.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ October 31, 2006 at 4:51 AM

Anonymous (a.k.a. Steve EM), Mark Butler is nothing like McConkie or Packer. Butler is a little bit of learning mixed with a lot of sophistry with a whole lot of arrogance. The only thing Butler is intolerant of is people pointing out he is full of himself and little else. Butler will not rise to anything, he will collapse in a self-made funeral pyre of his own ego and everyone stands around gawking at his loony nonsense.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ October 31, 2006 at 4:52 AM

Oh, and stop badmouthing General Authorities. This forum is for badmouthing the Bloggernacle, not the GAs.

Mark Butler said... @ January 28, 2007 at 7:31 AM


If I ever deleted one of your comments (I do not recall), it was likely part of a series of comments that were completely off topic. The comments should be about the article, not the author.

I might suggest that the proper response to a post that you do not appreciate, but can find no substantive objection to, is to ignore it.

Post a Comment