Until or unless something is later discovered, as far as I can tell there is no evidence Sanford was motivated by the shooting of Kirk.

Right at the top it says theory.

Of course I DON'T have 'credible evidence'. I posted a thought on a message board not a godammed legal document.

Over 5000 people were killed in retaliation... including hundreds of children.

One of the worst retaliatory massacres in history.

And that's without getting into the fact that Mormonism had zip zero nada to do with the motive for Tyler Robinson.

Maybe this is a futile attempt to get inside a maga brain.

His God is greater than the other guys God...

To be honest... it's been this way for THOUSANDS of years.

In your OP you say "theory" applied to your connection between church burning and Nazis. That is a theory based on the observation that Sanford burnt a church with people inside and the Nazis did the same.

Your theory about the connection does not require that Sanford to be motivated by Kirk's killing. I did not discuss your theory, but I do now at the end.

The speculation without facts about Kirk has been repeated enough times that people are beginning to believe it like fake news. That's how fake news and conspiracy theories get started. Idle speculation is repeated enough times that people lower their guard.

There are no facts regarding Sanford's motive with regard to Kirk. Plenty of facts regarding his hatred of Mormons.

There ARE facts prompting your theory comparing the involvement of churches in Sanford's and Nazi's crimes. So it is a reasonable theory you have, because the terror and cruelty involved are similar.

I'm guessing he hated LDS for while Why start shooting and killing now?

He is not testifying in court. It is not a PhD dissertation examination.

This is a discussion forum and people are supposed to discuss things.

The speculation on Kirk's killing as motivation is (at the moment) factless but it is being repeated so many times by so many posters that it is starting to take on a life of its own. That is how fake news and bogus conspiracy theories are born and take hold. People let their guard down and just ingest it.

The speculation on Sanford's motive re Kirk is not in any way necessary to canetoad's theory about the methodology of church fires, a theory that has some merit.

I'm discussing the idea that Sanford-Kirk has no merit (unless something unknown is discovered) and discussing that the connection between church fires has merit (based on the terroristic similarities).

That is how we know if we should move forward with the ideas, tinker with it,
or throw it out altogether.

I think you raise good points. This is how it should be done.
Not telling people to sit down and shut up.

Ideas are great, but the junk notion (absent some hidden revelation forthcoming) of motive is not a great idea and definitely not worthy of being called a theory.

1. Every single modern invention you enjoy, started with someone speculating
off the top of their head. Maybe using observation, maybe not.
THEN testing it out. And getting feedback.

2. Lay people use the word theory all the time in an inaccurate way.
It is fine, we know what they mean. They are thinking out loud.

3. People speculate about motive all the time.
Humans are information seekers and want answers.
They always want to figure out what happened when tragedy strikes.
You cannot stop human nature.

4. I think it is wrong to stop people from thinking, making educated guesses,
and even talking out their ass a bit. It is important to hear all sides of an issue.
Even if it is far out. I grew up as a military kid and this is how it is done.
If there is a crisis, you hear all sides, everyone gets to give input.
No matter how wild an idea. Then the top dog makes the decision.
Discussion ends and mission is a go.

5. I like to hear what people are thinking. No matter how far out.
I keep an open mind.
I just hate to see people squashed.

Calling factless idle speculation a "theory" gives it more weight than it is due. That is how fake news and junk conspiracy theories begin. The speculation about Kirk's killing re Sanford has begun to take hold and is being repeated and promoted. Best to nip this one in the bud and wait for more information while there is no information on motive other than simple hatred of mormons.

I do not object to speculation. You can find posts of mine that are speculation. Speculation does not require facts or observations. I object to speculation being given the weight of theory. Sure, people are inaccurate about "theory", but I promote careful writing in myself and others. I do not have to accept a speculation as a theory. Many people say "Who'da thunk it", which is poor colloquial English with a folksy twang, including me. We know what they mean and it is not inaccurate or misleading.

I squashed the Kirk "theory" as a not a theory, not the person. I asked for evidence and then I stated there is no evidence (yet) regarding Sanford-Kirk.

I see no possibility at all.

I think it's a far right lunatic religious bigot who is biased against Mormons.

Some people think only "their book" is the real book and the others are the "antichrist"

How many Evangelical/Fundamentalist Religious Right influencers were egging on their audiences to entertain similar thoughts of mayhem?

is that they send everybody looking for some meaning, some interpretation.

This one is a particular stretch, but even the ones that aren't a stretch are a waste of time.

I’m a history buff and I see the Michigan church shootings differently from many DU’ers. I see it as a sign that the current bunch of Republicans, either through indifference or design, has allowed Fundamentalist/Evangelical bigots to start trashing the Latter-Day Saints the way many Christian sects were wont to do in the mid-19th century. This is one of the first times in recent decades that the sotto voce whispers have turned to bloodshed.

IMO, the Saints’ leadership and many of their church members have been living in an illusion that they’re accepted as full members in the reactionary Religious Right crusade. They’ve ignored the rumblings that many Fundamentalists would be happy to start persecuting them, too. And they’re still asleep at the switch.

So why should Democrats of our stripe care? Mormons tend to be socially conservative and vote that way. And so they have, including the 2024 election.

We should care not only because of our values but because IMO LDS’ers need a reminder that they’re on the edge of a persecution directed at them. Those Republican politicians they’ve given a free pass to are likely as not going to let them be future targets.

I don’t think that the LDS’ers are likely to make good Democrats. But if we can heighten their awareness that they risk persecution themselves, they might consider staying at home next elections, and in states like Utah, Nevada and Arizona, that could make a difference.

I doubt it was based on WWII.
He doesn't appear to be the type to have read history in any detail?

In Charlevoix County, that allegedly by another Mormon..

Will investigate now. Thanks