How To Keep Your Mormon Testimony

[juliann]

Shades....how come you guys aren't safety tucked into your website saying vile things about us? Can you show McCue the way? He does not like to be questioned...it is just the place for him.

[Sput]

Shades....how come you guys aren't safety tucked into your website saying vile things about us? Can you show McCue the way? He does not like to be questioned...it is just the place for him.

the hamsters powering the site are on strike.

[Pahoran]

Shades,

I see that in your tagline you refer people to a hate site with the disingenuously chosen url of "mormoninformation.com." Given the content of the site, a more honest title would be "antimormonlies.com."

However, having the lies start even before the link is clicked does have a certain elegance, doesn't it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Quantum See]

Daniel Petersen said:

Native Americans are Lamanites.

I just wanted to address this one point for how utterly offensive it is.

Let Native Americans decide what they are.

Why did you even bother with the PC term "Native American."

How would you feel if people not only labelled you, but your wife, children, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins and other relatives as the modern descendents of vampires and insisted publicly that I am being literal.

It's rude.

[Chozah]

After following this thread on and off throughout the day, I think I can now summarize the salient points:

LDS apologists who take the stance that the productions of Joseph Smith are:

- not necessarily what he claimed they were, but are still good reading;

- can still justifiably form the basis for a religion;

will still be subjected to the universal derision of those illumined by more rational thoughts, but will nonetheless get invited to most of the good parties.

While the LDS apologists who insist on carefully assembling vast collections of arguments to support the literalist view will be laughed to scorn on every hand, regardless of the actual content of their theses.

As for the silly common folk who claim to have received personal communication from an unimpeachable "higher power"; revelation which has confirmed the literalist viewpoint ... well, of course they're not even permitted to speak here.

I guess I'm left wondering only one thing: how exactly do the Joseph Smith detractors explain the testimony of David Whitmer? The Whitmer question was referenced here and there, but I don't know that I was able to ascertain how exactly the rational mind dismisses it.

[cjcampbell]

How To Keep Your Mormon Testimony

Since I can tell that my brief, but immensely enjoyable, time here is drawing to a close, I thought I would leave on a positive note.

The basic problem with literalist Mormon belief is that most of the evidence is against it. I know all about what the apologists say, but consider the following exchange between cjcampbell and me.

Some positive note: To rephrase what you said, "You ignorant hicks are detached from reality. Now that I have called you a bunch of names and refused to answer your questions, I am going to turn tail and run like a wet hen."

Most of your questions can be answered simply using probability theory and the available evidence.

[juliann]

Daniel Petersen said:

Native Americans are Lamanites.

I just wanted to address this one point for how utterly offensive it is.

Let Native Americans decide what they are.

Why did you even bother with the PC term "Native American."

How would you feel if people not only labelled you, but your wife, children, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins and other relatives as the modern descendents of vampires and insisted publicly that I am being literal.

It's rude.

You mean....letting them decide they wandered over from Asia? You have got to be kidding to try this kind of grandstanding. The very essence of the countermopologist attack is that the NAs cannot determine their own ancestory. You guys have all the good DNA stuff. But then their creation narratives are just as silly and stupid and irrational as that Mormon stuff...right? So they are better off believing you.

[Chozah]

Daniel Petersen said:

Native Americans are Lamanites.

I just wanted to address this one point for how utterly offensive it is.

Let Native Americans decide what they are.

Why did you even bother with the PC term "Native American."

How would you feel if people not only labelled you, but your wife, children, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins and other relatives as the modern descendents of vampires and insisted publicly that I am being literal.

It's rude.

You mean....letting them decide they wandered over from Asia? You have got to be kidding to try this kind of grandstanding. The very essence of the countermopologist attack is that the NAs cannot determine their own ancestory. You guys have all the good DNA stuff. But then their creation narratives are just as silly and stupid and irrational as that Mormon stuff...right? So they are better off believing you.

Your reply ignores one of the basic precepts of the "countermopologist". (A term of recent coinage, I presume?)

At least I must assume that it is one of their basic precepts.

From my unlearned perspective, it appears to me that it is not a requirement for them to maintain a logical consistency from post to post. They are permitted to attack the Fortress LDS from all angles with no thought ever given to whether or not the current argument undermines or contradicts one given earlier or later in the thread.

In their final analysis, if ANY of them is true, the Fortress must fall. And that is, after all, their primary, if not exclusive, objective. Is it not?

Now, back to the men who claim they physically saw, touched, and "hefted" the actual plates of and objects mentioned in the Book of Mormon: how are they explained away in the syllabus of current anti-Mormon thought? That remains unclear in my simple mind.

[Jarrod]

The only way you are going to be able to shed the obvious is to stop harrassing other people because they believe something you do not.

Juliann, you've just made an excellent case for the abandonment of the missionary program.

[juliann]

Your reply ignores one of the basic precepts of the "countermopologist". (A term of recent coinage, I presume?)

Refering to them as antiMormons hurts their feelings. And antiMormonapologist is too clunky.

That remains unclear in my simple mind.

We are all simple. That is why we can't figure it out either.

[juliann]

Juliann, you've just made an excellent case for the abandonment of the missionary program.

You guys crack me up. You just gave our newest member a good demonstration of a favored countermopologist word spin. But you can't quite seem to grasp that even though you have not accurately represented missionaries, by golly..if they were the spawn of satan and vampires gone wild....it would not change your situation one bit.

[Dr. Shades]

Shades....how come you guys aren't safety [sic] tucked into your website saying vile things about us?

My website isn't safe at all. There are no moderators to ban posters or close threads. Any Mormon on the face of Planet Earth--FAIR denizens included--is perfectly free to go there and mercilessly refute all us critics.

My forum is about as "safe" as Ed Decker at a Danite reunion.

As for the rest of your sentence, "true" and "vile" are not synonymous, contra your usage.

Can you show McCue the way? He does not like to be questioned...it is just the place for him.

He is no safer from being questioned on my forum than he is here.

I see that in your tagline you refer people to a hate site with the disingenuously chosen url of "mormoninformation.com."

Two points:

First, the name is not disingenuously chosen. It is extremely aptly chosen.

Second, it is not a hate site. There is not a trace of hatred to be found anywhere on the site.

Given the content of the site, a more honest title would be "antimormonlies.com."

I challenge you to back up that baseless assertion. I defy you to discover even one, single, solitary lie anywhere on the site.

However, having the lies start even before the link is clicked does have a certain elegance, doesn't it?

I wouldn't know.

[Daniel Peterson]

Daniel Petersen said:

Native Americans are Lamanites.

I just wanted to address this one point for how utterly offensive it is.

Let Native Americans decide what they are.

Why did you even bother with the PC term "Native American."

How would you feel if people not only labelled you, but your wife, children, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins and other relatives as the modern descendents of vampires and insisted publicly that I am being literal.

It's rude.

It's not going to work, QS. I'm not going to play your silly, self-serving and quite false game of "I'm-more-culturally-sensitive-than-you-are." I think I've established my willingness to show respect to cultures and faiths other than my own beyond any reasonable doubt, over many years.

Besides, my view of the Book of Mormon is that it is a specimen of Amerindian self-definition. Just because you disbelieve that doesn't mean that I do.

In the meantime, you're entirely free to declare your own firm belief that the Hopi were created by Tawa, the Sun God (and his offshoot Muiyinwuh, God of All Life Germs), and Spider Woman, the Earth Goddess (along with her double Huzruiwuhti, Woman of the Hard Substances, Goddess of all hard ornaments of wealth such as coral, turquoise, silver and shell), by means of the Magic Twins -- Puukonhoya, the Youth, and Palunhoya, the Echo, etc. You're also free to advocate the Maya story, from the Popul Vuh, of the creation of humans by the yellow, black, red, and colorless gods, and to argue for the origin of the Lakota as the children of Wanblee Galeshka, the great spotted eagle, somewhere in Wyoming. But, in order to be consistent and in order to thoroughly trounce me in your cultural sensitivity sweepstakes, you're going to need to attack not only the evil Mormons but all those nasty, culturally imperialistic DNA scientists who claim that the Amerindians came from Asia rather than emerging from a Southwestern sipapu into this Fourth World. Please keep us posted on your exploits.

I'm sure the Jehovah's Witnesses advance several well-written, sensible, and erudite apologetics for the reason behind the failure of their world-will-definitely-end-in-1975 prophecy.  But the fact remains that their prophecy failed, so only one real conclusion can be drawn, regardless of the quality of their evidence and the logic they advance.

Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. I've never read any, and apparently you haven't either. There are all sorts of defenders of all sorts of ideas -- scientific, political, economic, historical, philosophical, literary, etc. Many of them are, no doubt, incorrect. But it seems rather a stretch to conclude that all those who defend or advocate propositions or worldviews are equally incorrect, or that defending or advocating a proposition or worldview is, on that account, intrinsically suspect.

If that isn't what you're saying, feel free to explain precisely what it is that you are saying. And/or please explain how you aren't advocating a worldview, and how you are exempt from the general mistrust that should attach to those who hold, advocate, or defend a position.

I don't discount arguments simply because of the identity of the person advancing them.

Even if the identity of the person is "Bob McCue?"

You're pushing me to the extreme, and implicitly asking me to devote a substantial portion of my life to actually reading his effusions, but, yes, even then. If he can come up with something cogent and coherent, and if I can be persuaded to wade through it, I'll accept it as cogent and coherent.

I always attempt to draw the best conclusion consistent with the evidence and the logic.

[Uncle Dale]

My website isn't safe at all. There are no moderators to ban posters or close threads. Any Mormon on the face of Planet Earth--FAIR denizens included--is perfectly free to go there and mercilessly refute all us critics.

My forum is about as "safe" as Ed Decker at a Danite reunion....

Speaking of reunions -- you're invited to the 1st Annual Sidney Rigdon Seminar

in SLC, on or about the 4th of July.

Here's a preview of my topic (should I be called to give a paper):

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/books/Brew1945.htm

You can go back to talking about your terrible, old anti-Mormon web-site now.

Uncle Dale

[Greg Smith]

I've seen no "apologist" here arguing that the Witnesses saw the plates with "spiritual eyes" rather than physical eyes.  That seems to be a position beloved of certain critics (e.g., Dan Vogel).  My position, the position of Richard Lloyd Anderson (the foremost expert on the Witnesses), and the position of every other serious "apologist" I know, is that the Witnesses really saw (and, in some cases, really "hefted") real, entirely non-metaphorical plates and related objects, and that they said so, repeatedly and clearly.

I'm not sure what you mean by "spiritual eyes" in connection with the Book of Abraham.

I do not see a surge in metaphorical understandings of scripture and early Restoration history.  I don't even see a minor trend in that direction.

And, indeed, those who try the rather silly "spiritual eyes" slight of hand ignore how both early and modern Mormons think about spiritual things.

As Erastus Snow said:

Joseph [smith, Jr.] taught that the spirit of the Lord underlies all our natural senses, that is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching. The spirit communicates with the spirit of man and enlivens all the other senses. - Erastus Snow, BYU Special Collections, MSS. 44, Folder 5.

Critics overlook (if they ever knew) that matter/spirit are not totally "other" in LDS thought. To speak of spiritual seeing or touching is not to deny the physicality of an event, but to simply add to that event. (cf D&C 131:7-.

A spiritual event is not non-material, it is material with interest, in LDS thought.

Never having had such experiences, or having since denied them, the critics are ill-equipped to analyze them, and so fall back on categories more in common with conventional Christian or Greek philosophical ideas about mind/spirit/soul than the LDS ideas.

But, that doesn't (as evidenced) keep them from droning on for pages on the subject.

[Chozah]

Unless someone can effectively impeach the witness of those men who have unambiguously confirmed the physical reality of gold plates with apparently ancient engravings, together with "two stones in silver bows", a breastplate, a sword, and a curious-looking brass ball corresponding to the description within the text of the Liahona, then all the circular debate regarding pre-columbian horses, wheat, barley, etc., etc., etc., is rendered utterly irrelevant in my estimation.

History teaches us that frauds perpetrated by multiple individuals are virtually impossible to perpetuate for any significant period of time. To insinuate that Joseph Smith was able to engage and then retain the devotion of all these individuals (most of whom later renounced him as a fallen prophet), is one of the least tenable positions any interlocutor could ever assume.

Taken in conjunction with the formidable nature of the text itself, I pity those who have made their life's work the attempt to destroy the testimony of the Latter-day Saints in the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

Far better to just throw their hands up, admit "yes, it may be true, but I don't care ... I choose differently ...", than to endlessly kick against the pricks of an unassailable bastion.

But, I'm sure they'll keep trying.

[Serious]

D&C 121: 16-17

16 Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.

17 But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.

[juliann]

Incidentally, I hope your message board gets back up soon.  The world is a much poorer place without all of the high quality, insightful commentary that many of the posters there emit.  I know I've been deeply impressed.

I responded there because they were talking about me. I guess it does not need to be said that hatred does not do justice in describing their wounded feelings. They really take FAIR seriously. From what I saw...the entire website seemed to revolve around venomous commentary about FAIR and its posters. It was bizarre. I invited them to come here if they wanted to actually talk to me instead of about me. But that was some time ago so I can't be blamed for this sudden invasion....I suspect that they have had little success in luring LDS posters in there for target practice.

[The Dude]

Unfortunately, most people on this board are relatively ignorant of the JWs.

You shouldn't assume. I spent years defending JWs on the AOL message board.

Of course you are the exception.

You need to look at your "non-religious self" just as thoroughly because changing religion does not change the self.  

Agreed. But I take it you are not speaking to me, personally, since you don't really know me that well.

Countermos cannot walk away from a definition of fundamentalist just because they don't like the sound of the word. [] The only way you are going to be able to shed the obvious is to stop harrassing other people because they believe something you do not.

(Emoticon added to express The Dude's gut-reaction)

Maybe you are talking about LDS missionaries? No, I take it you are preaching to people generally on this board when you say "you." Which is moot, since everyone comes to this message board for entertainment purposes and if anyone happens to feel harassed (Five and Cacheman were the two to most recently leave...), they can just walk away.

The degree to which you really believe your Church (be it LDS or JW) is the one and only True Church is the measure of your fundamentalism.

The degree to which you really believe your worldview is the one and only true worldview is the measure of your fundamentalism.

Agreed. My worldview isn't the only one and only; how about yours? There is a big difference here that you are glossing over as part of your rhetoric. The Mormon worldview is represented by a handful of men who make fundamentalistic proclamations, and who utilize ranks of lesser leaders and teachers to further proclaim fundamentalistic world views. One example that immediately comes to mind: the claim that gender roles are divinely determined is fundamentalisitc, as is the implication that those who have a different view are under the influence of Satan. Feel free to suggest something equally fundamentalistic in my world view.

[japanguy]

So Ray,

What do you say about the accounts that have the Gold Plates either under a bed, covered by cloth or a partition between the Plates and the Witnesses?

LSD

Emma herself never saw the plates. She knew the plates were once under a bed but was under instructions from Joseph not to look at them, and she didn't. We have no way of knowing if they were actually there. Oliver Cowdery did see the plates, not only as they were shown to him by the angel, but he wondered why they were "translating" when the plates were not even in sight. I have a different view of the plates than most Mormons, and I think they were no more relevant to the "translation" process than the papyri were to the BoA. David Bokovoy holds a similar view, if you view his comments on this thread in reply to Jon Haugo:

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=14299&st=120

Not that you will accept that. It is also clear that the BoM came by revelation, not literal translation. If it did the BoM would not have "modernisms", nor anachronisms. For me that does not distract from the content.

Yes and this ablility to solve the problem of no plates or the papyri not matching the Egyptian translation is exactly what Bob was talking about. Many of us invest so much in things that when evidence to the contrary pops up we go to great lengths to explain why it is still OK. That is what the creation science people have done, that is what believers in pyschics do and on and on and on.

A few years ago I was into UFO's, conspiracy theories, various aternative health ideas and a conservative mormon. Then some question came up about my religion and I read the apolagists works and it made me feel better and I was able to shelf the problems. But as time went on I came across other things and then one day I thought "What if it really isn't true?" And I quickly cast it out but then one day I decided that I didn't really know and that I needed to look at all the evidence for and against. I did so and came to the conclusion that logically the church isn't true. That the evidence is against it. But it still could be true but that I didn't know one that it was. So I went witht the evidence. But what I didn't realize is that my entire world view had change when I started to look at things critically. It changed my policital leaning to some degree, my view of conspiracy theories(most bunk), UFO, alternative medicine(I wanted to work in the field at one time but I feel that most of it is misinformation now). The world just changed. While I do not feel that the church is true I also realize that I may be wrong. I haven't had any life changing spirital experiences in my life but others may have. But one thing that I am sure of is that we can each create our own truths in our world views. I have read so many books on controversial topics and it is amazing how convincing some theories can appear until you start digging and doing your own investigating.

I know that I may be wrong and the LDS church may be what it claims but I do not know that. I have followed the churches teachings for all of my life but have not received the so called "witness of the spirit". I may be just finding what I really desire in my studies of mormonism etc but I at least admit that I may be wrong and I am just doing the best that I can with the info that I have. What I find problematic and troubling is when others try to impose their world views on others and think that they know the "truth". I think that we all need to be willing to admit that we only believe and don't know anything especially when dealing with religion.

Japanguy

[juliann]

No, I take it you are preaching to people generally on this board when you say "you." Which is moot, since everyone comes to this message board for entertainment purposes and if anyone happens to feel harassed (Five and Cacheman were the two to most recently leave...), they can just walk away.

That plural you is a bummer. Cacheman felt harrassed? He was a nice guy.

Agreed.  My worldview isn't the only one and only; how about yours?  There is a big difference here that you are glossing over as part of your rhetoric. 

The big difference is that I am not the one following people around who hold different beliefs for the sole purpose of ridiculing them and their beliefs. It isn't about "rhetoric", Dude...it is about observable and quantifiable behavior.

The Mormon worldview is represented by a handful of men who make fundamentalistic proclamations, and who utilize ranks of lesser leaders and teachers to further proclaim fundamentalistic world views. 

So there is a unilateral "Mormon worldview" now? I thought we had that chapel/internet schism (which I just found out was ripped off from Douglas Davies' temple/chapel model...but nevermind). What are those fundamentalistic views? That the Bible is errant? That a foundation of continuing revelation guarantees change? That all religions have goodness and truth? How long do you think you can keep calling that "fundamentalistic" and not look bonkers?

One example that immediately comes to mind: the claim that gender roles are divinely determined is fundamentalisitc, 

Now that is funny considering what women have had to put up with just to get to that point. In the 1st century women were considered underdeveloped males. And then here comes along a religion that ackowledges a mother in heaven with an eternal gender in the image of God. ACK! Can't have that. "Satan" is not fundamentalistic or almost all religion would be fundamentalistic. It is dualistic perhaps. You, on the other hand, use "the church" as a euphemism for "satan".

Feel free to suggest something equally fundamentalistic in my world view.

Wikipedia did it for me. The minute you step in to scream "false prophet" at someone you have eliminated yourself from the "liberal" or "tolerant" category and it goes rapidly downhill from there.

[The Dude]

A few years ago I was into UFO's, conspiracy theories, various aternative health ideas and a conservative mormon.  Then some question came up about my religion and I read the apolagists works and it made me feel better and I was able to shelf the problems.  But as time went on I came across other things and then one day I thought "What if it really isn't true?"  And I quickly cast it out but then one day I decided that I didn't really know and that I needed to look at all the evidence for and against.  I did so and came to the conclusion that logically the church isn't true.  That the evidence is against it.  But it still could be true but that I didn't know one that it was.  So I went witht the evidence.  But what I didn't realize is that my entire world view had change when I started to look at things critically.  It changed my policital leaning to some degree, my view of conspiracy theories(most bunk), UFO, alternative medicine(I wanted to work in the field at one time but I feel that most of it is misinformation now).  The world just changed.  While I do not feel that the church is true I also realize that I may be wrong.  I haven't had any life changing spirital experiences in my life but others may have.  But one thing that I am sure of is that we can each create our own truths in our world views.  I have read so many books on controversial topics and it is amazing how convincing some theories can appear until you start digging and doing your own investigating. 

I know that I may be wrong and the LDS church may be what it claims but I do not know that.  I have followed the churches teachings for all of my life but have not received the so called "witness of the spirit".  I may be just finding what I really desire in my studies of mormonism etc but I at least admit that I may be wrong and I am just doing the best that I can with the info that I have.  What I find problematic and troubling is when others try to impose their world views on others and think that they know the "truth".  I think that we all need to be willing to admit that we only believe and don't know anything especially when dealing with religion.

Japanguy

A wonderful, heartfelt post, Japanguy. Of course someone is going to come along and point out that you are describing a "conversion experience" using a certain brand of "narrative" which is no different (by some models) from conversion to Mormonism, and is therefore potentially meaningless. But I know where you are coming from. It sounds like more than anything you were converted to un-fundamentalism.

[Dr. Shades]

There are all sorts of defenders of all sorts of ideas -- scientific, political, economic, historical, philosophical, literary, etc.  Many of them are, no doubt, incorrect.  But it seems rather a stretch to conclude that all those who defend or advocate propositions or worldviews are equally incorrect, or that defending or advocating a proposition or worldview is, on that account, intrinsically suspect.

That's not the point. Arguing a position is one thing; Bob is simply decrying the apologetics for a proposition which 49% or less of the evidence favors.

If that isn't what you're saying, feel free to explain precisely what it is that you are saying.  And/or please explain how you aren't advocating a worldview, and how you are exempt from the general mistrust that should attach to those who hold, advocate, or defend a position.

Let's put this entire argument into its proper context, shall we? Here

[juliann]

What I find problematic and troubling is when others try to impose their world views on others and think that they know the "truth". I think that we all need to be willing to admit that we only believe and don't know anything especially when dealing with religion.

When stepping out of your personal zone all that is available for debate is a social construction of reality. But that is not where spirituality resides. The problem the countermos have with your philosophy is that believing Mormons lose nothing by admitting to a social construction of reality for the purposes of debate. The countermos cannot maintain their attack position if they admit that their social construction is no more "true" than anyone else's.

[The Dude]

The problem the countermos have with your philosophy is that believing Mormons lose nothing by admitting to a social construction of reality for the purposes of debate.

For the purpose of debate? So it's all a sham when Mormon's (well, you anyway) do this? Gee, I'm pretty sincere with my postion...that's a weakness somehow.

The countermos cannot maintain their attack position if they admit that their social construction is no more "true" than anyone else's.

Heh, no one can maintain an attack postion when they admit that. The Church can no longer say that there is a Divine Ideal of Marriage--or anything else! This positon of yours is such a sham.