Popular Anti-Mormon Misconceptions

[sibling]

Especially considering the Church's virulent opposition to all things Feminist?

Seems like Utah was one of the first places in the US to enfranchise women. Brigham Young had a great deal to say about the importance of educating women.

Guess that shoots down your theory, Scratch. The more you talk, the less believable you seem.

Is it really that much of a leap, for enemies and critics of the Church, to make the leap from "total obedience" to "your husband decides if you're getting in"?

Yes, in fact, it is.

Who's the one being ignorant here, buddy?

That would be you, Old Scratch.

[Jerubaal]

It is the Lord who decides who gets to enter into Heaven, not the husband. It is not the veil worker who decides who is getting in, it is the Lord. Just because the husband gets to stand in as the veil worker does not mean he decides if his wife gets into Heaven.

I loved going through the veil with my husband. It was like we were entering Heaven together. I can enter the Celestial Kingdom without him. I can't be exalted without him and he can't be exalted without me. One man plus one woman equals exaltation.

Neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.

[MorningStar]

I have the entire ceremony memorised word-for-word.

What an unbelievably bold and arrogant boast. Care to prove it?

I assumed Scratch was attempting to make tongue-in-cheek humor. It never occurred to me that he might be serious until he reaffirmed in definite non-joking terms that he was, in fact, serious.

Scratch: You apparently are not LDS, and seem not to have much academic background, either. Memorizing the entirety of the LDS endowment is well within the reach of any Saint of average mental capacity. Many of us find that we have memorized large sections of the endowment presentation, fifteen minute stretches, without ever having consciously attempted to do so. Before audiovisual media began to be used in the endowment presentation, which is to say, up until about 1980 or so, every temple had multiple workers who had memorized, word for word, the entire endowment presentation from beginning to end -- and this at a time when the endowment was substantially longer than either now or 1989ish.

I am truly surprised at such a blatantly ignorant statement. I don't even know how to respond to such willful ignorance as "you cannot have memorized the temple endowment presentation".

One of my best friends has the entire script of The Princess Bride memorized. I'm absolutely certain of this because she recited the whole thing while we were camping. If that's possible, I definitely think Pahoran could have the temple ceremony memorized.

[Mister Scratch]

Especially considering the Church's virulent opposition to all things Feminist?

Seems like Utah was one of the first places in the US to enfranchise women. Brigham Young had a great deal to say about the importance of educating women.

Guess that shoots down your theory, Scratch. The more you talk, the less believable you seem.

Is that all you've got? Do you really feel that's an adequate counter to:

---The opposition to the ERA

---all the feminists who've been booted over the years

---Elder Packer's talk describing the Feminist Movement as one of the Church's "greatest enemies" (in his "Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council").

Face it: the Church is virulently opposed to Feminism. That doesn't mean that it is also "anti-women," merely anti-Feminism. What's so hard to accept about that?

[thesometimesaint]

MorningStar:

It's really not all that hard. Almost any veil worker knows it by heart. All that is really required is to pay attention, and don't fall asleep.

I've never been a veil worker, and I know it by heart.

[Scott Lloyd]

It is the Lord who decides who gets to enter into Heaven, not the husband.  It is not the veil worker who decides who is getting in, it is the Lord.  Just because the husband gets to stand in as the veil worker does not mean he decides if his wife gets into Heaven.

I loved going through the veil with my husband.  It was like we were entering Heaven together.  I can enter the Celestial Kingdom without him.  I can't be exalted without him and he can't be exalted without me.  One man plus one woman equals exaltation.

Neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.

Yes. And each has to be a worthy candidate for exaltation. It simply would not be possible for a worthy man to exclude a worthy woman on a whim. Critics who make this accusation betray their own glaring ignorance of Mormon belief.

[MorningStar]

MorningStar:

It's really not all that hard. Almost any veil worker knows it by heart. All that is really required is to pay attention, and don't fall asleep.

I've never been a veil worker, and I know it by heart.

I've never been a temple worker and I am close to having it memorized. I have parts of it memorized and it probably won't be long before I know the whole thing. I do know it well enough to know what is and what is not in it.

[Jerubaal]

Especially considering the Church's virulent opposition to all things Feminist?

Seems like Utah was one of the first places in the US to enfranchise women. Brigham Young had a great deal to say about the importance of educating women.

Guess that shoots down your theory, Scratch. The more you talk, the less believable you seem.

Is that all you've got? Do you really feel that's an adequate counter to:

---The opposition to the ERA

---all the feminists who've been booted over the years

---Elder Packer's talk describing the Feminist Movement as one of the Church's "greatest enemies" (in his "Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council").

Face it: the Church is virulently opposed to Feminism. That doesn't mean that it is also "anti-women," merely anti-Feminism. What's so hard to accept about that?

Nothing really. The problem is that you claim it's anti-feminism somehow compels an outsider to believe that we believe that women need their husband's approval to enter heaven. And we just aren't seeing the connection Rollo.

[sibling]

Especially considering the Church's virulent opposition to all things Feminist?

Seems like Utah was one of the first places in the US to enfranchise women. Brigham Young had a great deal to say about the importance of educating women.

Guess that shoots down your theory, Scratch. The more you talk, the less believable you seem.

Is that all you've got?

No. It's merely all I need.

[Catholic Girl]

I'm not getting what the "advantage" or desire would be to NOT have paid apologists.....otherwise why would LDS constantly "brag" about not having paid apologists?

[Jerubaal]

I'm not getting what the "advantage" or desire would be to NOT have paid apologists.....otherwise why would LDS constantly "brag" about not having paid apologists?

Someone getting paid a great deal to write defenses of our faith is a common claim made by antimos. They claim that because FARMS writers are getting paid such exorbant salaries they have ample motivation to twist the facts.

[sibling]

I'm not getting what the "advantage" or desire would be to NOT have paid apologists.....otherwise why would LDS constantly "brag" about not having paid apologists?

A paid apologist need not believe what he's writing. He's doing it for a paycheck. Of course, an unpaid apologist might likewise be influenced by factors other than a search for truth and meaning, but it seems far less likely.

[Catholic Girl]

Of course someone being paid would not need to believe what he/she was writing. But that is entirely unrealistic. I think writing something as specific as apologetics that you DO NOT believe in, and in depth, would be rather next to impossible.... let alone making a career of it.

[Zakuska]

..

"There are unsually high rates of anti-depressant drug use and suicide in Mormonism."

...

This is my favorite Nugget.

I saw some guy here on this board last year, almost blow a gasket in his determination to dig something up that PROVED that Mormons had higher than normal rates of prescription drug abuse. Due to his almost blowing a gasket, I could tell that he/she/it had an agenda. Later he/she/it simply disapeared once interest in the topic diminished.

In all my 32 years in Utah I never saw anything abnormal in any of my acquaintences, as it related to drug use... (That's a LOT of people now). There so you can use me as 1 person in any *scientific sample you want.

*Please consult someone who at least has a masters in something mathematical before you bandy the word scientific in my face.

**edited for grammatical holes

Ol, sean McCarney brought this one up on his show. Maybe we should share the statistics ?

[Jerubaal]

Of course someone being paid would not need to believe what he/she was writing. But that is entirely unrealistic. I think writing something as specific as apologetics that you DO NOT believe in, and in depth, would be rather next to impossible.... let alone making a career of it.

I think my view on it is a bit more enlightening. If you are paid a good salary to write apologetics it would seem to be a good motivation to twist facts and the like in order to achieve your apologetic goals. The better you write, the better your job security.

[Catholic Girl]

Of course someone being paid would not need to believe what he/she was writing.  But that is entirely unrealistic.  I think writing something as specific as apologetics that you DO NOT believe in, and in depth, would be rather next to impossible.... let alone making a career of it.

I think my view on it is a bit more enlightening. If you are paid a good salary to write apologetics it would seem to be a good motivation to twist facts and the like in order to achieve your apologetic goals. The better you write, the better your job security.

I think someone UNPAID who is zealous enough to write apologetics should be under MORE scrutiny than a paid apologist. They are doing it for nothing and have nothing to lose, ie--meaning a career/reputation in apologetics. I would more so wonder about the "facts" in situations like these.

There is a lot to be respected of the professionals who were formally educated and truly know and care about their subject matter enough to dedicate their WHOLE lives to it. They maintain their reputations for putting out valid, reputable work for their target audience. I don't see how anyone could accuse them of not believing in what they write?

Has anyone here EVER tried to write something that your heart was not into? I seriously cannot think of a harder task.

I also am not one of the critics that thought FARMS paid through the nose for apologetic material. They're not "officially" speaking for the church anyhow, right? So what would be the point?

[Jerubaal]

Of course someone being paid would not need to believe what he/she was writing.  But that is entirely unrealistic.  I think writing something as specific as apologetics that you DO NOT believe in, and in depth, would be rather next to impossible.... let alone making a career of it.

I think my view on it is a bit more enlightening. If you are paid a good salary to write apologetics it would seem to be a good motivation to twist facts and the like in order to achieve your apologetic goals. The better you write, the better your job security.

I think someone UNPAID who is zealous enough to write apologetics should be under MORE scrutiny than a paid apologist. They are doing it for nothing and have nothing to lose, ie--meaning a career/reputation in apologetics. I would more so wonder about the "facts" in situations like these.

There is a lot to be respected of the professionals who were formally educated and truly know and care about their subject matter enough to dedicate their WHOLE lives to it. They maintain their reputations for putting out valid, reputable work for their target audience. I don't see how anyone could accuse them of not believing in what they write?

Has anyone here EVER tried to write something that your heart was not into? I seriously cannot think of a harder task.

I also am not one of the critics that thought FARMS paid through the nose for apologetic material. They're not "officially" speaking for the church anyhow, right? So what would be the point?

Nearly all contributors to FARMS have doctoral degrees, and have quite a lot to lose in terms of scholarly reputation were they to be found blatantly twisting the truth.

[Pahoran]

I will concede that "one red cent" was a very slight exaggeration and therefore, given your tendency to ubercritical nit-picking, a poor choice of words.

Ok, we're all in agreement that apologists do get paid? It is minimal, but to say apologists don't get paid - is a lie.

No.

To say that apologists do not get paid is the whole truth for most of them, and mostly true for all of them.

Interesting that you, in particular, should be so willing to accuse another of telling a "lie."

To say apologists do get paid is the truth.

No.

To say apologists do get paid is completely false for most of them, and mostly false for all of them.

You previously wrote:

QUOTE (DP March 9 @ 2006)

I've occasionally received fairly minimal payments for "apologetic" articles or for certain editorial tasks (the totals of which, broken down, almost certainly don't reach minimum wage)

(I don't know how to link to specific posts in a different thread.

Well you're in luck today, because I do. Here is a link to DCP's post, in which he said:

I've occasionally received fairly minimal payments for "apologetic" articles or for certain editorial tasks (the totals of which, broken down, almost certainly don't reach minimum wage), but, typically, I don't.

Five points to the first person to tell us the difference between my quote and Who Knows'.

Now please either produce an actual paid apologist or move along.

I did, and even conceded that the amount is minimal. Do I still have to move along?

No. You didn't.

The assertion "person X is a paid Y" means, to normal people, that person X is employed to do Y. It does not mean that person X is an unpaid Y who occasionally sells an article on a Y-related subject.

I am very close to retracting my retraction. Tell me why I shouldn't.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Of course someone being paid would not need to believe what he/she was writing.

[Jerubaal]

I will concede that "one red cent" was a very slight exaggeration and therefore, given your tendency to ubercritical nit-picking, a poor choice of words.

Ok, we're all in agreement that apologists do get paid? It is minimal, but to say apologists don't get paid - is a lie.

No.

To say that apologists do not get paid is the whole truth for most of them, and mostly true for all of them.

Interesting that you, in particular, should be so willing to accuse another of telling a "lie."

To say apologists do get paid is the truth.

No.

To say apologists do get paid is completely false for most of them, and mostly false for all of them.

You previously wrote:

QUOTE (DP March 9 @ 2006)

I've occasionally received fairly minimal payments for "apologetic" articles or for certain editorial tasks (the totals of which, broken down, almost certainly don't reach minimum wage)

(I don't know how to link to specific posts in a different thread.

Well you're in luck today, because I do. Here is a link to DCP's post, in which he said:

I've occasionally received fairly minimal payments for "apologetic" articles or for certain editorial tasks (the totals of which, broken down, almost certainly don't reach minimum wage), but, typically, I don't.

Five points to the first person to tell us the difference between my quote and Who Knows'.

Now please either produce an actual paid apologist or move along.

I did, and even conceded that the amount is minimal. Do I still have to move along?

No. You didn't.

The assertion "person X is a paid Y" means, to normal people, that person X is employed to do Y. It does not mean that person X is an unpaid Y who occasionally sells an article on a Y-related subject.

I am very close to retracting my retraction. Tell me why I shouldn't.

Regards,

Pahoran

"but typically, I don't"

What are the points used for?

[AdamS]

What an unbelievably bold and arrogant boast. Care to prove it?

Why is it "unbelievably bold and arrogant" to say that I've memorised something? Why is it even a "boast?" I've also memorised a fair few scriptures, several speeches from Shakespeare plays, all the lines of all the parts I ever took in any play, and several long poems by Tennyson, Wordsworth, Poe, Tolkein and (of all people) Joaquin Miller. Is that a "boast?" Is memorising a feat that takes prodigious talent? I'd no idea.

[Pahoran]

What an unbelievably bold and arrogant boast. Care to prove it?

Why is it "unbelievably bold and arrogant" to say that I've memorised something? Why is it even a "boast?" I've also memorised a fair few scriptures, several speeches from Shakespeare plays, all the lines of all the parts I ever took in any play, and several long poems by Tennyson, Wordsworth, Poe, Tolkein and (of all people) Joaquin Miller. Is that a "boast?" Is memorising a feat that takes prodigious talent? I'd no idea.

Of course it is not "boasting" to memorize the Temple Ceremony or anything for that matter. It is only "boasting" when you state the fact that you have done so in order to try and convince others of how "smart " you think you are.

Oh, thank goodness that's not what I was doing, then.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Who Knows]

No.

To say that apologists do not get paid is the whole truth for most of them, and mostly true for all of them.

Interesting that you, in particular, should be so willing to accuse another of telling a "lie."

Please show me my 'lie'.

To say apologists do get paid is the truth.

No.

To say apologists do get paid is completely false for most of them, and mostly false for all of them.

I can't agree nor disagree with that. Sounds fairly accurate.

You previously wrote:

QUOTE (DP March 9 @ 2006)

I've occasionally received fairly minimal payments for "apologetic" articles or for certain editorial tasks (the totals of which, broken down, almost certainly don't reach minimum wage)

(I don't know how to link to specific posts in a different thread.

Well you're in luck today, because I do. Here is a link to DCP's post, in which he said:

I've occasionally received fairly minimal payments for "apologetic" articles or for certain editorial tasks (the totals of which, broken down, almost certainly don't reach minimum wage), but, typically, I don't.

Five points to the first person to tell us the difference between my quote and Who Knows'.

'Typically, I don't' = occasionally = same thing. What's your point? Do those last few words detract from anything I've posted? And FYI, I didn't include the 'typically, I don't' because it wouldn't have made sense unless I posted what I wrote before that.

Now please either produce an actual paid apologist or move along.

I did, and even conceded that the amount is minimal. Do I still have to move along?

No. You didn't.

The assertion "person X is a paid Y" means, to normal people, that person X is employed to do Y. It does not mean that person X is an unpaid Y who occasionally sells an article on a Y-related subject.

Good thing I never asserted that.

I am very close to retracting my retraction.  Tell me why I shouldn't.

oooh, scaaaaryyy. I'm not here to tell you what you should and shouldn't do. I'm just pointing out where you're wrong. You're free to retract whatever you want to retract. If you want to embarrass yourself, go ahead.

Regards,

Pahoran

In the words of Joseph Smith:

Yours with utter contempt, Who Knows.

[Pahoran]

You previously wrote:

QUOTE (DP March 9 @ 2006)

I've occasionally received fairly minimal payments for "apologetic" articles or for certain editorial tasks (the totals of which, broken down, almost certainly don't reach minimum wage)

(I don't know how to link to specific posts in a different thread.

Well you're in luck today, because I do. Here is a link to DCP's post, in which he said:

I've occasionally received fairly minimal payments for "apologetic" articles or for certain editorial tasks (the totals of which, broken down, almost certainly don't reach minimum wage), but, typically, I don't.

Five points to the first person to tell us the difference between my quote and Who Knows'.

'Typically, I don't' = occasionally = same thing.

No, they are not.

The statement "I've occasionally received fairly minimal payments for 'apologetic' articles or for certain editorial tasks" could be taken to mean something equivalent to "I occasionally do these things, for which I am always paid." Especially knowing that the bulk of Dan's work is teaching Islamic studies and doing research in ancient texts. That "typically, I don't" removes the ambiguity.

And you quite deliberately removed the phrase that removes the ambiguity.

What's your point?  Do those last few words detract from anything I've posted?  And FYI, I didn't include the 'typically, I don't' because it wouldn't have made sense unless I posted what I wrote before that.

Not a good enough excuse. Sorry.

Now please either produce an actual paid apologist or move along.

I did, and even conceded that the amount is minimal. Do I still have to move along?

No. You didn't.

The assertion "person X is a paid Y" means, to normal people, that person X is employed to do Y. It does not mean that person X is an unpaid Y who occasionally sells an article on a Y-related subject.

Good thing I never asserted that.

What, you never asserted that Dan was a paid apologist?

In which case, you haven't produced one. Okay, fine.

In the words of Joseph Smith:

Yours with utter contempt, Who Knows.

I suppose I should feel insulted, or something.

But that's okay. The important point is that LDS apologists, whether publishing for FARMS or otherwise, are unpaid.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mbh26]

Why?  Especially considering the Church's virulent opposition to all things Feminist?  Is it really that much of a leap, for enemies and critics of the Church, to make the leap from "total obedience" to "your husband decides if you're getting in"? 

I don't see how you can blame the Mormon Church for it's enemies misunderstanding it's doctrine. The doctrine is what it is. At least that's how this Mormon thinks it should be.

I can understand your point that the critics may have honestly misunderstood the doctrine to be that way. Yet the critics are still wrong. The Church did what it did, not what the critics thought it did. We here Priesthood talks every Sunday about righteous dominion. As far as I've heard, the Brethren have always taught that Jesus will not employ any servant on judgment day but will do that Himself.

The fact that the Church is against most things feminist increases my testimony of its truthfullness. I haven't seen very many Christlike things in feminism at all.

!