Popular Anti-Mormon Misconceptions

[phaedrus ut]

What's the big deal with paying people at FARMS or FAIR? With the amount of time and effort I know the authors of articles utilize it would seem perfectly reasonable to at least have some sort of grant support for the regular contributors.

I know many like Dr. Peterson are employed by BYU but I wouldn't be surprised if he could make much more at another university and have more free time if he didn't trouble himself with apologetics. The people that do it without specific support do it out of a admirable dedication.

Phaedrus

[Scott Lloyd]

No. That is a mistaken inference on your part.

I don't know why the changes were made, but I have no reason to suspect it is because of what you suggest.

Fair enough.

I'd just like to see the apologetic POV, but oh well.

I don’t know that I can provide the "apologetic POV" you are seeking, but perhaps I can explain to you why the very notion of a husband excluding his wife from the celestial kingdom on a whim seems so ludicrous as to not merit serious consideration.

Suppose for a moment that after the final judgment, over process of time and growth, your wife not only retains all the positive characteristics you cherish in her now but in every way has become the sort of creature you always wished she could be and has been refined and improved in ways you never dreamed of. Meanwhile, you yourself have undergone a great deal of change. Every unwholesome or unrighteous proclivity or preference or unappealing tendency or quirk has been rooted out of your soul. You are magnificent in every way imaginable. In short, the two of you have become perfected and glorified.

Under such conditions, it is inconceivable that a man would bar his wife from admission to the celestial kingdom and the resulting eternal association and companionship with him, even if he could. And a man who, for some reason, would do that would not be celestial material anyway, so the very idea is moot.

This is why I think those who make this accusation against Mormon belief show themselves to be acutely myopic in their own view of things.

[Who Knows]

Scott - hey, i agree you. It seems a bit silly.

I'm more interested in why there had to be a change. The only thing I can think of is what I noted above - that some were (perhaps wrongly) interpreting the wording as women being subject to men. I can't think of any other reason for a change.

[Doctor Steuss]

Scott - hey, i agree you. It seems a bit silly.

I'm more interested in why there had to be a change. The only thing I can think of is what I noted above - that some were (perhaps wrongly) interpreting the wording as women being subject to men. I can't think of any other reason for a change.

Perhaps it was men who were wrongly interpreting it and using it as a

[liz3564]

Scott - hey, i agree you.  It seems a bit silly.

I'm more interested in why there had to be a change.  The only thing I can think of is what I noted above - that some were (perhaps wrongly) interpreting the wording as women being subject to men.  I can't think of any other reason for a change.

Perhaps it was men who were wrongly interpreting it and using it as a

[Zakuska]

Ah come on now... Everyone who has ever held a calling knows the Releif Society President runs the show.

[sibling]

As a former patron in the Provo temple I can confirm the 1990 changes regarding women in the temple are not "Bull caca".

And I confirm that you are wrong, as have several others. Believe whom you will.

The pre 1990 language implied that women held a "subservient" role in their personal exaltation regarding their husband and god.

It implied no such thing. This is purely your own inference, not the endowment presentation's implication. Quit trying to push off responsibility for your own inability to understand by claiming that's what was presented.

[Catholic Guy]

Ah come on now... Everyone who has ever held a calling knows the Releif Society President runs the show.

I thought it is was the Bishop's wife

[Doctor Steuss]

Ah come on now... Everyone who has ever held a calling knows the Releif Society President runs the show.

My dad often makes statements along the lines of:

"I don

[liz3564]

Ah come on now... Everyone who has ever held a calling knows the Releif Society President runs the show.

My dad often makes statements along the lines of:

"I don

[Who Knows]

Perhaps it was men who were wrongly interpreting it and using it as a

[kawikadave]

I still think it wouldn't hurt to have more classes taught in our youth program emphasizing the importance of treating both sexes with respect.

There are efforts being made.

I believe the young men in many places are memorizing and reciting the purposes of the Aaronic priesthood every week in quorum meetings. The last line states:

"Show proper respect for women, girls, and children."

Memorizing and reciting the idea that young men should respect women and children is not enough by itself, but I know via personal experience that it opens up conversations and teaching on that subject.

[Zakuska]

Ah come on now... Everyone who has ever held a calling knows the Releif Society President runs the show.

I thought it is was the Bishop's wife

She comes in a close second...

But every Bishop Knows that keeping the RSP happy makes for a smooth sailing ward. I know that she was always considered highest priority when ward budgets where set in correlation meetings etc. While groing up. When ever cuts where needed to fit in other things they always came from scouting and other male activities, which could make up the difference by doing fund raisers etc.

[Scott Lloyd]

I still think it wouldn't hurt to have more classes taught in our youth program emphasizing the importance of treating both sexes with respect.

There are efforts being made.

I believe the young men in many places are memorizing and reciting the purposes of the Aaronic priesthood every week in quorum meetings. The last line states:

"Show proper respect for women, girls, and children."

Memorizing and reciting the idea that young men should respect women and children is not enough by itself, but I know via personal experience that it opens up conversations and teaching on that subject.

Interesting that children are included in the phrase. I certainly can see how it's needed, given the propensity in society of violence and abuse against children.

Many men, young and old, who would never consider striking women would have no qualms at all about assaulting children or consider it disrespectful.

[KevinG]

As a former patron in the Provo temple I can confirm the 1990 changes regarding women in the temple are not "Bull caca".

And I confirm that you are wrong, as have several others. Believe whom you will.

The pre 1990 language implied that women held a "subservient" role in their personal exaltation regarding their husband and god.

It implied no such thing. This is purely your own inference, not the endowment presentation's implication. Quit trying to push off responsibility for your own inability to understand by claiming that's what was presented.

IMO this is exactly why some wording was adjusted. Because some were making bad assumptions and failing to understand the proper role of a husband towards his spouse and family.

A quick look at D&C 121 would clear up any misconception that anyone had about the proper role of a husband and priesthood holder towards women.

Hint: It's not unrightous dominion.

[Zakuska]

Yep pop them in the chops everytime they open their mouths in public guys!

1 Cor. 14: 35

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

By ZUES I think the Bible contains an error! Would some one please call the SBA!

[Pahoran]

Well, Pahoran, I guess I just don't understand your opinion then.  What is your opinion of people who criticize the church?  You say that ALL Anti-Mormon arguments are lame.  And on another post you say that those who keep passing the arguments around are stupid.  That TO ME seems to say that you think that anyone who criticizes the church is an idiot. 

If I am wrong about your position well then I apoligize.  But before I do so - show me I am wrong - don't just tell me I am.

Please tell me how what you have said on this board  should lead me to a different opinion of what you think.  I noted a couple of things above and I have noticed other things you have written in other posts.  All an average person has to do is read your posts to feel the contempt you have for anyone who criticizes the church in any manner.

Adam,

I am not going to account for my statements to you. Nor do I consider it incumbent upon me to explain myself or try to persuade you that I really do understand my own position.

So I shall invite you to try again. Would you like me to tell you what my position is? If you would like me to tell you what my position is, I will do so.

And you will accept that that is my position.

You will demand no explanations.

You will make no further misrepresentations.

If indeed I do decide that I am the least articulate participant in this forum, and that I therefore need someone else to tell others what my positions are, I will ask someone to do so. You will not need to volunteer.

Is that clear?

Are there ANY legitimate reasons to criticize the Church for anything?  If so, what are they?  If not, why? I am interested in your opinion.

That is a topic for another thread. Indeed, I believe you have started one on that subject. Please do not attempt to derail this one.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

As a former patron in the Provo temple I can confirm the 1990 changes regarding women in the temple are not "Bull caca".  If someone wants to PM me I'll refresh your memory(but only in the very broadest terms).  You can find specifics on your own with quick google.  There was plenty of coverage in the NY Times, SL Tribune, Arizona Republic and other newspapers.

As a former ordinance worker in the Sydney Australia and Hamilton New Zealand temples, I can tell you that the claim that the pre-1990 Endowment taught that men decided whether or not their wives would go to heaven is complete "Bull caca". I can further tell you that no-one could get that false idea from the pre-1990 Endowment any more than they could from the current presentation.

The pre 1990 language implied that women held a "subservient" role in their personal exaltation regarding their husband and god.  Women now don't feel such a strict burden of obedience is used in the language.

Whether or not that is the case, it nowhere implied that men held a "deciding" role in determing their wives' exaltation. That is the material point here.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Just curious:

Since, after 13 pages, there has been no meaningful attempt to defend these lame anti-Mormon misconceptions identified by Pahoran, can we conclude that anti-Mormons (at least the ones that frequent this board) are abandoning them?

[Pahoran]

In the last analysis, all anti-Mormon arguments are lame.

What are you referring to?

Still waiting for Pahoran's answer.

And you can keep right on waiting. The question is off-topic for this thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

[AdamS]

Well, Pahoran, I guess I just don't understand your opinion then.

[Who Knows]

In the last analysis, all anti-Mormon arguments are lame.

What are you referring to?

Still waiting for Pahoran's answer.

And you can keep right on waiting. The question is off-topic for this thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

Well, it's your thread, and you brought it up. It's fair of me to ask for documentation.

If you don't have it, you can admit to it - it's ok, i'll understand. Or, you can PM it to me if you don't want to 'pollute' this thread.

[Who Knows]

Just curious:

Since, after 13 pages, there has been no meaningful attempt to defend these lame anti-Mormon misconceptions identified by Pahoran, can we conclude that anti-Mormons (at least the ones that frequent this board) are abandoning them?

See most post a couple pages back. I doubt any knowledgable critics who frequent this board has brought these up.

[sibling]

My dad often makes statements along the lines of:

"I don

[Doctor Steuss]

My dad often makes statements along the lines of:

"I don