Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DonBradley

The Latest Anti-Mormon Deception: "Futuremissionary.Com"

Recommended Posts

The point is that the "mormoninfographic" specifically says that "pillar of fire" was not mentioned in the 1832 account, but that it was in the 1835 account.

So, what does the act of crossing something out mean? Joseph did not want to include it. Technically, he is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Yes, it certainly does in my world. Of course, the creator of the graphic has been making a point of literally interpreting only what the words say, and those words only convey that one personage is a father and the other a son, but they are not named.

Of course Latter-day Saints identify them the personages are the Father and the Son, but the 1835 graphic makes a point of noting "2 personages" and then stating that there was no mention of the Father and Jesus Christ. Any Latter-day Saint reading the 1835 account will also associate the Father and Son with the two personages.

They are named as Jesus Christ and God the Father and personages in the 1838 portion of the infographic, are they not? Along with a check mark? And the 1835 account does not mention them by name. Still don't understand your point here. It doesn't matter who LDS might associate the personages with. It's what is in the accounts that the infographic is dealing with. My concern was that in your "explanation" of the 1838 portion you left out verse 17, which you could have linked to the names listed in the graphics. Why? You write that the 1838 account "only lists them as personages", but it doesn't. In verse 17 it tells you who they are.

Share this post


Link to post

My concern was that in your "explanation" of the 1838 portion you left out verse 17, which you could have linked to the names listed in the graphics. Why? You write that the 1838 account "only lists them as personages", but it doesn't. In verse 17 it tells you who they are.

Zeus and Hercules? Helios and Phaethon? Theseus and Hippolytus?

Share this post


Link to post

They are named as Jesus Christ and God the Father and personages in the 1838 portion of the infographic, are they not? Along with a check mark? And the 1835 account does not mention them by name.

Remember, this is what the author of the graphic said in post #161:

"you seem to be suggesting that I should depict something other than what is in the written record. There's nothing in the 1835 account that would indicate God or Jesus only what you are inferring from other accounts."

So, where in the 1838 written record do the names "God the Father" and "Jesus Christ" appear? The author "check marked" two items that are not present in the written record.

I agree that that "This is my beloved son" implies that the personages are God the Father and Jesus Christ, but the only way to infer that is to look at something that is not in the written (1838) record - you have to use the Bible (the account of Jesus' baptism) to make the connection.

Therefore, allowing an additional record to be used to clarify Joseph's written words from 1838 violates the author's own rules: He won't allow Joseph's words from the other accounts to be used to to clarify, yet he allows the Bible to be used to clarify.

Still don't understand your point here. It doesn't matter who LDS might associate the personages with. It's what is in the accounts that the infographic is dealing with. My concern was that in your "explanation" of the 1838 portion you left out verse 17, which you could have linked to the names listed in the graphics. Why? You write that the 1838 account "only lists them as personages", but it doesn't. In verse 17 it tells you who they are.

As Cinepro so effectively pointed out, the only thing that you can infer from verse 17 is the one Personage is the father of the other Personage.

Now, if we are going to allow the Bible to be used to clarify the identity of the Personages, then why can't that be applied to the 1835 account as well? It mentions two personages and that Jesus Christ is the son of God.

Or, better yet, why not allow Joseph's own words from the 1838 account to clarify what was said in the 1835 account? This then would identify the two personages in the 1835 account as God the Father and Jesus Christ. Of course, this is how most, even critics, already interpret it - the "mormoninfographic" has to keep the accounts segregated in order to emphasize perceived differences.

WW

Edited by Wiki Wonka

Share this post


Link to post
The last time I read anything that MormonThink had to say about FAIR was in 2009, when we responded to their "25 items that would make the Church true." Since then, we haven't bothered to read anything that they say about FAIR since we prefer to respond to the issues. We aren't going to waste energy trying to defend FAIR in some sort of back-and-forth. That's why you don't see a response to stuff that they write about FAIR. You probably never will see one. To spend time on that would simply be a distraction.

So you're not quite up to speed as you had led on. They didn't write "stuff about FAIR." What they did was they responded directly to the "stuff" you wrote about them, which did deal with the "issues."

MormonThink showed numerous errors and misrepresentations on your part. I wouldn't want to be the one having to defend that either.

Share this post


Link to post

So you're not quite up to speed as you had led on.

This, coming from someone who appears to have just gotten off the bus from 2005? Based upon your earlier comments, you seem to have little knowledge of FAIR.

They didn't write "stuff about FAIR." What they did was they responded directly to the "stuff" you wrote about them, which did deal with the "issues."

MormonThink showed numerous errors and misrepresentations on your part. I wouldn't want to be the one having to defend that either.

Of course they wrote "stuff about FAIR." MormonThink has a page that responds to FAIR. I can see the link to it in Google, and I can see the traffic it drives to the FAIR Wiki in Google Analytics:

From a Google search of "mormonthink":

How fair is FAIR?

You might be surprised at how little of what FAIR says about MT is ...

This page doesn't interest me. I've never read the page. FAIR does not have a response posted to that page. FAIR will never post a response to that page. It is a waste of energy and resources for FAIR to write articles defending FAIR. MormonThink may say whatever they wish about FAIR. I don't care what they say about FAIR. However, the MormonThink FAIR article drives people to the FAIR Wiki. Once folks are there, they can evaluate FAIR for themselves.

I only care about what comes up in Google. Try typing the word "mormonthink" into Google.

MormonThink has numerous pages dealing with issues. FAIR has posted responses to many of those pages. If there are errors on those pages, then someone can point them out. (Because you seemed not to understand that what you called "boilerplate" was actually a summary and link to a subarticle, I have modified it to be more clear: it now says "click here for full article")

Example:

FAIR has also posted a number of pages which are "spin free" reviews of MormonThink pages. These types of pages are starting to become popular. The "spin free" pages include all of the source quotes used on the MormonThink pages, with all critical and apologetic commentary removed. The quotes are placed in context, and linked back to their original sources whenever possible.

Example:

Edited by Wiki Wonka

Share this post


Link to post

Does this guy remind anyone else of Rob Bowman's tactics and style?

Share this post


Link to post

Does this guy remind anyone else of Rob Bowman's tactics and style?

Grindael? I've gone the rounds with him in the past. He is associated with Rocky and Helen Hulse. Rob Bowman has a lot more class.

Share this post


Link to post

Grindael? I've gone the rounds with him in the past. He is associated with Rocky and Helen Hulse. Rob Bowman has a lot more class.

Having had a pleasant face-to-face conversation with Rob Bowman in the past, I would agree.

Share this post


Link to post

I can add my 2 cents, I checked out the site and even the illustrations are Anti-Mormon. It does not take a scholar to figure this out. I usually do not pull my punches on suspected critics but I can say this site reads like an Anti-Mormon playbook. if the person who made this sight was an LDS Missionary then I would say they are now an apostate. Yes I used the "A" word! So what big deal I just call em as I seem them.

Now as for serving a Mission, I am the first to say it is not a bed of roses, it is not for the faint hearted, it is not the place to gain a testimony... although it is possible to do but it is not the purpose of a Mission. While I have heard the cliche that a Mission is the "best two years of your life" that is not exactly true. I would say it more like this; "It was the best of times, it was the worst to times" it certainly was not easy. It is hard spiritually, emotionally, and physically... but it is also the most rewarding experience of my life... at least until I got married in the Temple. There were times when I was attacked by Anti-Mormons and had to Bible bash and defend myself, until I realized that the truth of the restored Gospel will speak for itself to the Lord's elect. There is no way to make a web site or even a book that will help prepare future missionaries... that must be done by prayer, faithfulness, keeping worthy, repenting, and living the Gospel before sending in one's papers. You do not need to read Anti-Mormon trash to know how to answer questions. The spirit of the Lord is what is necessary to bear witness of the truth, if it is done by any other way it is not of God. My suggestions to aspiring Missionaries is to live the Gospel, pray and fast until you have a testimony. Study the Book of Mormon, New Testament, and Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. Other books that could be helpful is Jesus the Christ by James E Talmage. Also the Articles of Faith by the same author is good too. Going on splits with the Missionaries is also a good idea too. Get involved in Missionary work before going. Missionary work is both inspiring and heartbreaking. It is a work of love more than learning because if you have not charity you can do nothing.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not associated with Helen & Rocky Hulse. You guys are funny.

Share this post


Link to post

Zeus and Hercules? Helios and Phaethon? Theseus and Hippolytus?

Perhaps Isis and Min?

Share this post


Link to post

Grindael? I've gone the rounds with him in the past. He is associated with Rocky and Helen Hulse. Rob Bowman has a lot more class.

I was thinking of FutureMissionary and only of Bowman's performance here vis-a-vis his own site.

Share this post


Link to post

I can add my 2 cents, I checked out the site and even the illustrations are Anti-Mormon. It does not take a scholar to figure this out. I usually do not pull my punches on suspected critics but I can say this site reads like an Anti-Mormon playbook. if the person who made this sight was an LDS Missionary then I would say they are now an apostate. Yes I used the "A" word! So what big deal I just call em as I seem them.

Here is how it appears to me:

MormonThink used to be designed to appear non-threatening to members. The purpose of this, as was widely discussed on ex-Mormon message boards by MormonThink's first managing editor, was to prevent members from immediately perceiving it as an anti-Mormon site. That way they could introduce the member to a large number of troubling issues without overtly appearing to be hostile to the Church.

Where MormonThink went awry was when the Church somehow identified the managing editor and scheduled him for Church discipline. The founding editor resigned from the Church, and turned the reigns over to the second editor, David Twede. When the Church went after Twede, he created a media spectacle. He also made the MormonThink site appear antagonistic toward the Church. When Twede resigned and the new guy took over, they continued to talk about how they were going to expose corruption of Church leaders. They turned MormonThink into a openly snarky anti-Church activist site. (Just look at the photo "Remain Calm! All is Well!!!" on their page that talks about the Terryl Givens "Crucible of Doubt" firesides in Europe, or their links to Twede's "mormondisclosures" blog which tries to expose monetary or property dealings of the General Authorities). They openly talk on ex-Mormon message boards about how they are going to take the Church down this year. They claim that they don't allow any of their open bias against the Church to affect the MormonThink site. Yeah...and politicians don't allow their bias to affect how impartial they are either....

Where the MormonThink guys went wrong was that they acted like members on their site, but they "broke character" on the message boards and blogs, openly bragging about how they were influencing members.

So FutureMissionary now comes along just like the MormonThink of a few years ago. They created a fake identity for the site owner called "Jason Christensen," just like MormonThink created the fake identity of it's owner "Bill Johnson." This time, the owners of the site are not going to "break character." FutureMissionary is doing for MormonThink what J.J. Abrams supposedly did for Star Trek - going back in time to see if they can do it differently this time. I would be willing to bet that you will never see the editors of FutureMissionary bragging about what they are doing on ex-Mormon boards.

When FAIR first reviewed MormonThink back in 2009, we had many people writing to us asking whether the site was pro- or anti-Mormon. After the "Twede event" of 2012, nobody ever wrote to ask us that question again. Instead, they started writing and thanking us for reviewing the site. MormonThink did to itself in a few short weeks what FAIR had not been able to do in three years. So, I expect FutureMissionary to "play the role" as long as they can. However, everybody seems to be on to them a lot quicker this time - they aren't being fooled, and they learned that lesson from MormonThink. People are looking at the site, and simply assuming that MormonThink is behind it (even though they say they are not responsible for it). It looks that similar in its methods and tone.

WW

Edited by Wiki Wonka

Share this post


Link to post

Wiki, you do realize that they have an account here? They've been posting in the social hall lately.

Edited by TAO

Share this post


Link to post

Wiki, you do realize that they have an account here? They've been posting in the social hall lately.

"They" being whom? The mormonthink crowd? I'd not noticed any threads from them?

Edited by canard78

Share this post


Link to post

"They" being whom? The mormonthink crowd? I'd not noticed any threads from them?

No. Futuremissionary. The Mormonthink guy had an account here too, but it got banned.

Share this post


Link to post

Wiki, you do realize that they have an account here? They've been posting in the social hall lately.

Yes, I am quite aware of that. I've responded to them directly in this forum twice with lists of things that I found wrong on their website. That was before we did the FAIR Wiki response.

They also posted on the FAIR Facebook page: "Even though it's not a particularly positive review, I really appreciate you having taking the time to assess futuremissionary."

"Not a particularly positive review" is a severe understatement.

WW

Edited by Wiki Wonka

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I am quite aware of that. I've responded to them directly in this forum twice with lists of things that I found wrong on their website. That was before we did the FAIR Wiki response.

They also posted on the FAIR Facebook page: "Even though it's not a particularly positive review, I really appreciate you having taking the time to assess futuremissionary."

"Not a particularly positive review" is a severe understatement.

WW

Meh! It's said in many quarters that there's no such thing as bad publicity! ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Meh! It's said in many quarters that there's no such thing as bad publicity! ;)

I don't actually have any problem with people visiting either FutureMissionary or MormonThink, because most people figure out both of those sites pretty quickly. However, with regard to "publicity," I'm more interested in Google searches for both mormonthink and futuremissionary.com driving traffic to the FAIR Wiki (which they both do quite well - that's what Google Analytics tells me).

Share this post


Link to post

I don't actually have any problem with people visiting either FutureMissionary or MormonThink, because most people figure out both of those sites pretty quickly. However, with regard to "publicity," I'm more interested in Google searches for both mormonthink and futuremissionary.com driving traffic to the FAIR Wiki (which they both do quite well - that's what Google Analytics tells me).

True. At the very least it provides those who might struggle a way of hearing "the other side of the story."

I don't mean MT or FMiss give that other side properly, just that it's one more chance for someone to stumble upon fairmormon.

Share this post


Link to post

True. At the very least it provides those who might struggle a way of hearing "the other side of the story."

I don't mean MT or FMiss give that other side properly, just that it's one more chance for someone to stumble upon fairmormon.

Reading the FAIR responses to either MormonThink or FutureMissionary actually makes more sense if you have read the corresponding MT or FM article first.

Here are some interesting statistics. Of the number of referrals (other web sites that drive traffic to the FAIR Wiki) since 2009:

#1 is the FAIR Web site

#2 is Facebook

#3 is the FAIR Blog

#4 is Reddit (these are primarily from the ex-Mormon subreddit - they link people to the wiki to demonstrate how stupid our arguments are)

#5 is Google (these are keyword searches for subjects related to LDS apologetics)

#6 is Recovery from Mormonism (they like to link people to the FAIR Wiki to demonstrate how stupid our arguments are)

#7 is Wikipedia

#8 is MormonThink

A total of nine articles from MormonThink frequently direct people to FAIR, with the most popular being the Book of Mormon witnesses page, the Polygamy page and the Book of Mormon translation page.

The most popular article in 2013 that directs people to the FAIR Wiki from MormonThink right now is "A Letter to a CES Director."

Since FAIR began constructing a response to "A Letter to a CES Director," accesses to that page are becoming more frequent (moving up). In fact, FAIR's "under construction" response to "A Letter to a CES Director" is the #2 most accessed page in the FAIR Wiki for the last seven days (with the FAIR Wiki main page being #1). FAIR's response to FutureMissionary is the #6 most popular Wiki page accessed within the last week.

FAIR's wiki page responding to MormonThink is the 17th most popular FAIR Wiki page in the last three years.

WW

Edited by Wiki Wonka

Share this post


Link to post

I was banned from another thread for hi-jacking. I failed to find the right topic to post a concern I had. I know of an instance of an individual that pre paid his mission. I don't know the circumstances as to why he did it. But apparently he was unable to receive it back when he didn't finish the mission. I went to LDSTech and researched it a little and asked the question, since I found it hard to believe that the church wouldn't refund his money. I would paste my exact conversation but it has my real name listed and I don't want to be hunted down and shot, JK'g. But did paste another pertinent conversation about someone overpaying by $2,000.00 and not able to get it back for reasons that it is considered a donation rather than a payment, as in a bill. Here is the conversation and the paragraph from wiki that was present. http://tech.lds.org/...5b2d29&start=10#

"It is important for donors to understand that any missionary funds they supply are purely donations. As with any other donations, once the money is given to the Church, it is not refundable under any circumstances. Donors may also not direct what happens with any donated funds. If the mission ends prematurely for any reason, any donations made to that point, even if they may amount to the full 18-24 months of support for the missionary, may not be returned to the donors."

Me: I'm totally fine with it being a donation. And if you'll read the conversation on the forum at LDSTech they also mention how when a family cannot afford the whole monthly $400.00 donation, then some members of the ward will kick in the money.

Share this post


Link to post

WW

Dear Mr. Wiki Wonka,

Regarding your response to the CES Letter

I found a technical URL error under your page for the Book of Abraham.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director/Book_of_Abraham_Concerns_%26_Questions

The following image says .org when it should be .com

The correct URL for my blog is MormonInfographics.com (not .org)

Thank you.

1000px-Mormoninfographic.min.the.ithyphallic.god.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Me: I'm totally fine with it being a donation. And if you'll read the conversation on the forum at LDSTech they also mention how when a family cannot afford the whole monthly $400.00 donation, then some members of the ward will kick in the money.

So you no longer believe the church was being dishonest by not returning the money?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×