The Shiftless, Lazy, Lying Smith Family

[rabanes]

We too have learned who is sincere over the years and one truth is self-evident - individuals who make their living (or some portion thereof) from bashing our Church, our history, and our beliefs, are not sincere seekers of truth. Their research (both methodologically and substantively) and reporting are biased by their pursuit of sales which encourages sensationalism, omissions of pertinent opposing facts, and blindness to alternative explanations.

Ahhhh, yes, the greed card. I was waiting for that one. Right.

It makes total logical sense to assume that criticisms/perspectives can't be true if it happens to be written by professional author who then gets paid for writing those criticisms/perspectives. And it also makes perfect sense that what's really going all because of "their pursuit of sales."

Okay. Sure. more power to you.

RA

[wenglund]

Hi brother Abanes,

After several years of relative silence, it good to see you back online snipping at the heals of members of the restored gospel of Christ and demonizing our charished leaders. After all, it helps us to move forward at times to get a sharp jab from the elbows of the counter-cult industry (modern-day Scribes and Pharisees).

I hope all is well with you and yours.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Ahhhh, yes, the greed card. I was waiting for that one. Right.

It makes total logical sense to assume that criticisms/perspectives can't be true if it happens to be written by professional author who then gets paid for writing those criticisms/perspectives. And it also makes perfect sense that what's really going all because of "their pursuit of sales."

Okay. Sure. more power to you. RA

Actually, the "greed card" has already been played quite often by the counter-cultists who lamely theorize that the restoration was supposedly a ruse concocted by the Smith family to make money.

I am pleased to see, though, that you deplore the use of such "greed cards".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rabanes]

Hi brother Abanes,

Hey! Wade, old friend and debater. I do hope all is well with you and yours.

After several years of relative silence, it good to see you back online snipping at the heals of members of the restored gospel of Christ and demonizing our charished leaders.

LoL. Yes, it's been too long. Well, I don't think I'm "demonizing them."

So far, in my recent posts, I have indeed: 1) raised critical points regarding Joseph's BoA translation, his early magickal practices (which I find troubling), and changes to his D&C; 2) pointed out some of the untruths offered to the public by JS during the rise of polygamy among LDS, and also noted the disingenuous remarks by LDS leaders during the Reed Smoot hearings (a matter of public record); and 3) the magickal practices of most early Mormons (but I also, it should be noted, cited modern LDS leaders favoriably in their statements regarding occultism, and sought to bring one of your own in line with their teachings).

After all, it helps us to move forward at times to get a sharp jab from the elbows of the counter-cult industry (modern-day Scribes and Pharisees).

Well, you'll probably disagree with me here, but I do not consider myself to be within the "counter-cult industry." Those involved in such a field of work usually limit their writings/work to notihing but so-called "cults." And in the case of some, exclusively to one group -- e.g. Mormons.

But if you look at my writings, you will quickly see that I am all over the place topically: Mormonism, Easter/Lent (not cult related at all - you'd actually LIKE that book), Video Games (not cult related at all - again, you'd actually LIKE that book), a political-thriller novel (fiction, not cult related at all), Rick Warren (an actual defense of an evangelical AGAINST the cult industry). I think you see my point.

I hope all is well with you and yours.

Thank you. But to be honest, my wife has been extremely ill for a while now, and it has been an ordeal. But thanks for asking. We are praying for a healing some day. Until then, we accept from our Heavenly Father what he has allowed in the way of suffering that we might learn and grow in grace.

peace Wade,

RA

[VillageSkeptic]

I am an ex-Mormon and up until a few years ago, did not do much research into the Joseph Smith story or the early beginnings of the Church. I think similar to today's spin by the media, the Church has had it's own spin in regards to Joseph Smith and his family as well as Church history. Growing up in Utah you heard the basic story with the Church spin but never the complete picture. I do not necessarily think Jostph Smith or his dad were lazy while they traveled around conning people out of money while digging for buried treasure. I do though, think shiftless and lying fits the pattern of the wild tales and complete fabrication of LDS beginnings.

I have spoken with Mormons who do NOT want to hear any of the real story but want to be content in their ignorance. My mother says she too has had some problems with the impossible, bizarre, legends and tales of the early Church and Joseph Smith BUT, believes the church is true anyway and chooses to ignore the inconsistancies. That is her choice. Burying her head in the sand makes her happy.

My feeling is, if the root is bad the tree is also bad. The church may provide a certain amount of contentment and an particular lifestyle for many but it's beginnings are as bizzare as any other religions. But, to get really bizarre you need to go back to the Bible. That though is a whole other topic.

One question I have wondered about lately is this; After a time while Joseph was fabricating and conning others into the Church, did he always know he was lying or did he reach a point where he started really believing he WAS God's gift to the world and was sucked into the delusion he created?

VillageSkeptic

thevillageskeptic.com

[wenglund]

Thank you. But to be honest, my wife has been extremely ill for a while now, and it has been an ordeal. But thanks for asking. We are praying for a healing some day. Until then, we accept from our Heavenly Father what he has allowed in the way of suffering that we might learn and grow in grace.

peace Wade, RA

I am sorry to hear about your wife, and I will pray for her as well.

It pleases me, though, to see that both of you have adopted an edifying attitude in relation to the illness, and view the unwanted suffering as an opportunity for growth in faith rather than choosing to slip into the temptation of debilitating self-pity (which tends to only make matters worse).

By the way, I have given up on debating--particularly the rancorous kind. I have chosen instead to engage my energies in more fruitful and workable ways by simply focus attention on the objective of Christ's gospel in bringing us to him and enabling us to become like him. While some may wish to quibble incessantly and counter-productively whether Joseph Smith dabbled in "magic" or not, I prefer to examine whether the gospel of Christ that he restored will best enable us, as designed, to become the very best people possible and achieve a fulness of joy and love.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rabanes]

I am sorry to hear about your wife, and I will pray for her as well. It pleases me, though, to see that both of you have adopted an edifying attitude in relation to the illness, and view the unwanted suffering as an opportunity for growth in faith rather than choosing to slip into the temptation of debilitating self-pity (which tends to only make matters worse).

Scripture tells us to rejoice in our suffering. Here we might actually have a word of agreement. I did a very short post on my blog about suffering....We ALL Suffer: but Why?

peace,

RA

[wenglund]

One question I have wondered about lately is this; After a time while Joseph was fabricating and conning others into the Church, did he always know he was lying or did he reach a point where he started really believing he WAS God's gift to the world and was sucked into the delusion he created?

VillageSkeptic

thevillageskeptic.com

I can't answer your question as asked because it presupposes things that I believe to be false.

I also don't see the point in addressing it because I can't see how any real value (in terms of improving our respective quality of life) can be derived by pursuing it. Rather than enhancing the human condition, it will likely (as with similar questions explored by many throughout the ages) devolve into wasteful banter or demogoging (as evinced by many of the posts on this thread already).

Instead, why not explore questions of potentially limitless value, like whether the message of Christ that Joseph proclaimed to the world will edify our lives as intended?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wes]

I can't answer your question as asked because it presupposes things that I believe to be false.

I also don't see the point in addressing it because I can't see how any real value (in terms of improving our respective quality of life) can be derived by pursuing it. Rather than enhancing the human condition, it will likely (as with similar questions explored by many throughout the ages) devolve into wasteful banter or demogoging (as evinced by many of the posts on this thread already).

Instead, why not explore questions of potentially limitless value, like whether the message of Christ that Joseph proclaimed to the world will edify our lives as intended?

Hey Wade,

The message of Christ was around long before JS existed and has been proclaimed just fine without him for 2000 years. Furthermore, isn't this is a board about Mormon apologetics? Thus, the kind of discussion you seem to desire might be better found elsewhere.

Wes

[Rommelator]

I don't buy the "ancient Hebraisms" spin, it is always some complicated stretch of evidence that the LDS pundits throw in, if you want though we can discuss them, show me your evidence.

LOL. Way to prove in one sentence that you have no idea what LDS scholarship has to say on this subject. But I admire that you came out and admitted such (even if it was in some sort of round-about, egg in your face way).

Oh, as for my evidence; lets start with if/and conditional sentences. Once you can explain that one, then by all means pick apart my "complicated stretch of evidence" and "spin" on my blog:

http://americantestament.blogspot.com/2008...-of-mormon.html

What I refer to as street smart is starting out with a wild imagination, taking in the topics of the day, writing a fictional story while plagiarizing the Bible.

Yeah, who just happens to get so many authentic ancient social, geographical, religious, legal and linguistic hits.

Getting a naive hard working farmer to fund his "project"

Naive? The guy was so skeptical that he wanted scholars to authenticate the characters on the plates and he is supposed to be "naive"? Good grief. Martin Harris must be spinning in his grave.

Before you buy into things like "Hebraisms", look at it from a horse sense point of view, like why does the Isaiah text in the BOM have the same exact mistakes that the KJ translators made when it was a translation from reformed egyptian, which has no evidence of even being a real language, or why doesn't the BoM teach core LDS theology that is needed for salvation (exaltation)? The latter is a real evidence that JS rode the snowball as it accumulated LDS thought, adding to it for personal gain in both power and money.

LOL! Keep it up Markk, I'm loving it! Keep up your dazzling ignorance and stupendous stupidity.

Rom, just look at all the problems, inconsistencies, and issues in JS's history. His Egyptian alphabet, his claims to understand different languages, making himself general, the bank fiasco, the united order, convenient revelation to his wife that she would be destroyed if she didn't buy into him taking other wives...etc

You don't think I have looked at all the "problems"? I have, and I find the anti-Mormon spin rather laughable. Talk about twisting facts, selectively using sources and presenting only the information that makes the Church look bad.

Sorry, but I'm over that stuff. I've been burned too many times by anti-Mormons to just accept things like you want me to.

But no, by all means, keep loading up that shotgun of yours. Sooner or later something will work, right?

JS must have done pretty good for himself when things were good, how much did he receive for being 'the prophet'? I don't know is their a record of this, are their accounting books? I believe living the life as a prophet, and General, and hopefully president of the United States had a better appeal to JS than digging holes and busting sod.

The man was in debt his entire life. Even after his death the creditors came to Emma and demanded money that Joseph never paid.

So much for his magnificent plan to scheme people out of their money for his own personal benefit.

In the end let me just say that I find your sad little anti-Mormon caricature of the Prophet rather disappointing. I guess it is my bad for expecting too much.

[wenglund]

Hey Wade,

The message of Christ was around long before JS existed and has been proclaimed just fine without him for 2000 years.

I understand that is how you see it.

For my part, I am more than willing to let the Father and Son make that determination, and I have found it useful to take them at their word as revealed through Joseph and as personally witnessed unto me by the Spirit.

To each their own.

Furthermore, isn't this is a board about Mormon apologetics? Thus, the kind of discussion you seem to desire might be better found elsewhere.

Wes

I can think of no more edifying apologetic than to shift from all the wasteful straining at the gnats and delving unproductively into the divisive manutia, to discussing the faith-enhancing intents and purpose of the restored gospel and how it may enrich our lives.

Again, though, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

So, I'll tell you what, replace that with any BY quote you'd like, then deal with the other 200,000 words in ONUG, and the mountain of evidence that stands against JS, BY, JT, and others. You might want to start with looking beyond just that single quote from the Reed Smoot Hearings, and actually read the transcript from the entire proceedings. basically, it shows that the LDS church at that point in history was pretty much being run a a cadre of liars. Sorry, it's true.

No, it's a lie.

Here is the real truth: at every point in LDS Church history, the "counter-cult" (i.e. anti-Mormon) "ministries" (a.k.a. businesses) have not merely been "run" but have been dominated--numerically, ideologically, and every other way--by liars.

That was true when D. P. Hurlbut started collecting affidavits. It was true when John C. Bennett wrote his book. It was true when Henry Caswall sidled into Nauvoo.

And it is true today.

Present company not excepted.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Kevin Christensen]

Richard said to CI, regarding my comments about there being around thirty Bible tests for prophets, and over seventy arguments provided in the Bible provided by those who rejected true prophets, etc.

Do you actually believe this is not ground already covered a bazillion times since Mormonism's founding? I don't mean that in a negative way, but CI, it's been done, and done, and done. It's old ground, just to be covered again and again. Look, my views on both LDS history and LDS doctrine have been summed up in two major works.

From all that bazillion times, where is ONE that seriously attempts to survey 30 Bible tests for prophets before launching into a dismissal of Joseph Smith on arbitrarily selected grounds, or at most a reference to the test on prophecy, or two or three other Bible passages? Where is one that surveys the mistaken approaches to avoid, as illustrated by those who rejected Biblical prophets? Where is one that notes that the most commonly used test, the one for fulfillment of prophesy is the one most qualified by Biblical practice and precept, that is, the one easiest to abuse. I saw nothing like that in ONUG, nor in its parent, Shadow or Reality, nor in Mormonism Unveiled, nor in Alexander Campbell. From my perspective, the critics never address the Mote-Eye rule before launching forth.

It may take a few weeks, but I'll get my material reconstructed the best I can in a nicely hypertexted format, so that interested parties can navigate the themes and Bible references quickly. Then I'll see if FAIR will put it up.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[ttribe]

Ahhhh, yes, the greed card. I was waiting for that one. Right.

It makes total logical sense to assume that criticisms/perspectives can't be true if it happens to be written by professional author who then gets paid for writing those criticisms/perspectives. And it also makes perfect sense that what's really going all because of "their pursuit of sales."

Okay. Sure. more power to you.

RA

Problems with your statement - 1) you, again, fail to acknowledge the irrefutable fact that it is human nature for a person to protect one's livelihood and the subject matter of your writings on Mormonism demand objectivity; something you (or anyone in your situation) is extremely unlikely to provide; 2) the fact you can't admit such an inherent systemic bias in the approach of the anti-Mormon industry (of which you are undoubtedly a part), is further evidence of your failure to apply intellectual honesty; and 3) the mere fact that you happen to write for a living does not, by default, make you a "professional"...in fact, judging by your behavior around here, professionalism is duly lacking.

Until you step up and properly answer (i.e. no dodging, no twisting, no snarky remarks) the rebuttals of Pahoran, Juliann, and Kevin Christensen, you continue to prove my point.

[Pahoran]

Yes, Pahoran, whatever you say Pahoran. I've learned over the years who is listening and who is not, and to divide my time accordingly.

peace to ya, P.,

RA

So, IOW, you think the purpose of this forum is for you to hold forth, and for us to "listen;" is that right?

Do you really believe it exists for no other purpose than to enable you to proselyte for your hate ideology?

Just how arrogant is that?

Regards,

Pahoran

[ttribe]

So, IOW, you think the purpose of this forum is for you to hold forth, and for us to "listen;" is that right?

Do you really believe it exists for no other purpose than to enable you to proselyte for your hate ideology?

Just how arrogant is that?

Regards,

Pahoran

I do hope that last one was a rhetorical question!

[Rommelator]

Please no more fairy tales.

Yes, no more anti-Mormon fairy tales about the Book of Abraham, please Richard.

And scholarly replies? Let's gather up all the secular non-LDS scholars now, per Juliann's desires, and see just how many of them would say that the funerary texts aren't REALLY just funerary texts, but they're REALLY filled with hidden meanings that Joseph decoded by revelation and were accurately written as the Book of Abraham -- i.e., words, phrases, meanings that no one else can see. Yes, very scholarly.

"Secular" scholars like John A. Wilson of the Oriental Institute?

"We Egyptologists can claim no inspiration. We can only scrape the surface meaning. If Joseph Smith was a prophet, he was an instrument of divine authority, so that he might find the deepest meaning. Although our work deals with fact, we must respect faith. As the Protestant world survived the Higher Criticism of the Bible three generations ago, the Mormons will survive this criticism."

John A. Wilson, Thousands of Years: An Archaeologists Search for Ancient Egypt [1972, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons], 177

In other words, that was a major "Ooops."

Do you think that I care about the erroneous assumptions and opinions of Moser and Owens over the facts? Nope.

Look, I am truly sorry, but these are basic, standard, old, well-known, common, funerary texts like many others that can be found all over the world.

There it is again. Yup, just standard, run of the mill, ordinary, pagan, common nonsense.

Talk about a dodge.

My previous challenge stands; care to show that you are familiar with the significance of these documents (and their owner) in relation to the Book of Abraham?

The ancient Egyptians would be highly offended by this gross caricature of their sacred literature. But its not unlike "counter cultists" like yourself to revert to such caricature for anyone else's sacred texts other than your own.

Like the Jackal headed Anubis, where you all have a bald Elkanah

1. Christian Leitz in his Lexikon der

[LifeOnaPlate]

One question I have wondered about lately is this; After a time while Joseph was fabricating and conning others into the Church, did he always know he was lying or did he reach a point where he started really believing he WAS God's gift to the world and was sucked into the delusion he created?

VillageSkeptic

thevillageskeptic.com

Have you stopped picking your nose yet, or simply decreased the amount of time dedicated to the practice?

[Markk]

Hi Rom.

I'm not going to get into a bash, but I will discuss my view with your view, I will ignore the "way ward" jabs...fair

I believe and it is 100% possible and more than likely the case that what you call " ancient Hebraisms " are nothing more that Smith coping the bible. Like I said that explains why mistakes in the KJ version translation were also in the BoM.

So given this is my view, is it possible, Iam no asking you to believe it, just to see that if JS did plagiarize from the Bible, or Biblical sources would that explain the "Hebraisms".

Is that fair?

Naive? The guy was so skeptical that he wanted scholars to authenticate the characters on the plates and he is supposed to be "naive"? Good grief. Martin Harris must be spinning in his grave.

http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.p...R=973&REC=8

Harris was mixed up and I believe naive in wanting spiritual truth, see the attachment and read about Harris and the Shakers and with Strang. So when I say that Harris was Naive, and given the evidence like his wife new his nature for doing dumb stuff, that it is very possible that Harris was a man that would be subject to be taken advantage of... right or wrong is that a possibility.

You don't think I have looked at all the "problems"? I have, and I find the anti-Mormon spin rather laughable. Talk about twisting facts, selectively using sources and presenting only the information that makes the Church look bad.

Sorry, but I'm over that stuff. I've been burned too many times by anti-Mormons to just accept things like you want me to.

But no, by all means, keep loading up that shotgun of yours. Sooner or later something will work, right?

I disagree, it would be very easy for me to become LDS again if all the evidence for it being false wasn't out there. Most the people who I really care about are LDS, my parents are LDS, my brothers and sister are also LDS, all most all my relatives are LDS. What you are calling anti Mormon spin is really LDS history. Like the above http, I didn't say that Harris was a flake, Mormons did, I didn't put a spin on the fact that KJ translation mistakes are in the BoM, it's just a fact, no spin, it's just the plain and simple truth. I didn't make a alphabet up and say it was Egyptian, when it wasn't, JS did. These are real issues and problems that bring attention to themselves.

How and in what way have you been burned? I would never want to burn anyone, I believe what I say and we can review the evidence?...Fair?

The man was in debt his entire life. Even after his death the creditors came to Emma and demanded money that Joseph never paid.

So much for his magnificent plan to scheme people out of their money for his own personal benefit.

In the end let me just say that I find your sad little anti-Mormon caricature of the Prophet rather disappointing. I guess it is my bad for expecting too much

.

Being in debt and not having money may not always lend to each other. He had everything thing he needed, he was king, general, and prophet, when the saint thrived, he did, it's really that simple.

Rom I don't want to call each other names, lets discuss our view and weigh the evidence.

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

[LifeOnaPlate]

It really does baffle me that these folks are so convinced the Bible is solid, and spend so much time tearing away at the Book of Mormon, seemingly unaware of all the folks who do the same to the Bible. Very strange.

[rabanes]

ttribe: 1) you, again, fail to acknowledge the irrefutable fact that it is human nature for a person to protect one's livelihood and the subject matter of your writings on Mormonism demand objectivity; something you (or anyone in your situation) is extremely unlikely to provide

RA: Some reeality....

1. Whew! Good thing that writing about Mormonism for me has nothing to do with "protect one's livelihood." Writing about Mormonism for me is just part of a larger, broader field of writing.

2. If you want to say that I am somehow a liar about Mormonism because of some greedy, sick, desire on my part to spin falsehoods for cash, then go ahead and also say the same thing about the books I've written: a ) against racism/anti-Semitism in the teachings of neo-nazis and the Klan; and/or b ) my critiques of evangelical/fundamentalists, including prophecy pundits who have falsely predicted the world's end (one of the most lucrative areas of evangelicalism, BTW, which I rejected being a part of and advancing because it's false and harmful).

ttribe: 2) the fact you can't admit such an inherent systemic bias in the approach of the anti-Mormon industry (of which you are undoubtedly a part), is further evidence of your failure to apply intellectual honesty

RA: I'm not part of any anti-Momron industry. That is laughable. Two of my books out of twenty have been on Mormonism. Do your research. And I have no newsletter dedicated to Mormons. Nor do I produce any pamplets, brochures, or flyers about Mormons. I also do not picket. And my scope of researchj and writing extends far beyond Mormonism.

ttribe: 3) the mere fact that you happen to write for a living does not, by default, make you a "professional"

RA: Actually, it does. I suggest you do a word study the word "professional."

RA

[Stargazer]

Pahoran = ignore button.

Excellent. Exactly what I was looking for -- Pahoran comes up with the best arguments contra Abanes, and Abanes puts him on "ignore". That confirms the zing.

"... words ..."

Priceless.

[Zakuska]

Nice Post Rom. :thumbs: I'll have to save that one. Ouch... Richard thats got to hurt.

[Rommelator]

I believe and it is 100% possible and more than likely the case that what you call " ancient Hebraisms " are nothing more that Smith coping the bible. Like I said that explains why mistakes in the KJ version translation were also in the BoM.

So given this is my view, is it possible, Iam no asking you to believe it, just to see that if JS did plagiarize from the Bible, or Biblical sources would that explain the "Hebraisms".

Is that fair?

No. Not fair. This explanation is too simplistic and ignores the fact that most of the Hebraisms in the Bible were edited out when translated into English. Take, for example, If/And conditional sentences. The Hebrew Bible has them in its text, but the English text does not. Why? Because If/And conditional phrases are impossible English. But they are good Hebrew and acceptable Egyptian. If/And conditional phrases also appear in the Book of Mormon 1830 text.

As I said before; care to explain that one?

This also assumes that Joseph Smith copied - not plagiarized - from the KJV English. A textual dependency on the KJV is not the same as copying the KJV. Matt Roper and John Tvedtnes discussed this in their review of Jerald and Sandra Tanner's book [Answering Mormon Scholars] in the 1994 FARMS Review and elsewhere.

Also, it assumes that Joseph Smith knew what parts of the English text of the Bible were legitimate Hebraisms and which ones were not. How do you know that he knew thus? Are we once again seeing the Idiot-Savant theory rear its ugly head? Joseph Smith gets it with Hebraisms but makes a total blunder with everything else? And please, don't give the "million arrows" argument either.

Harris was mixed up and I believe naive in wanting spiritual truth, see the attachment and read about Harris and the Shakers and with Strang. So when I say that Harris was Naive, and given the evidence like his wife new his nature for doing dumb stuff, that it is very possible that Harris was a man that would be subject to be taken advantage of... right or wrong is that a possibility.

This is a complete mischaracterization of Martin Harris's character. Just because you have been associated with multiple faith groups that does not make one naive. Notice too, that Martin NEVER denied his testimony in the Book of Mormon but repudated his associations with these other groups.

And, again, coming back to my earlier point, the fact that the man was so skeptical of the claims of Joseph Smith that he not only wanted the characters authenticated by a third party but also on some occasions tried to see if Joseph Smith was making it up - like the time when he switched Joseph's Seer Stone with an ordinary rock - shows that he was anything but naive.

Richard L. Anderson covers the life of Harris pretty well in his book on the witnesses.

What you are calling anti Mormon spin is really LDS history. Like the above http, I didn't say that Harris was a flake, Mormons did, I didn't put a spin on the fact that KJ translation mistakes are in the BoM, it's just a fact, no spin, it's just the plain and simple truth. I didn't make a alphabet up and say it was Egyptian, when it wasn't, JS did. These are real issues and problems that bring attention to themselves.

And there is the crux of my beef with anti-Mormon methodology and historiography. You and other critics assume that it is all "just the facts" and that there is no spin on the part of anti-Mormons. Everything is as clear as crystal and it is all the "plain and simple truth". This is totally false.

1. History is NOT and objective pursuit. The historical sources are often biased and a lot of personal interpretation goes into historical analysis. As was explained by Mark Hopkins:

If History were wholly objective, Japan and China would not argue about Japan's actions during World War Two. There would be no controversy over whether President Truman was right to use the 'A' bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No one would try to defend Britain's policy of Appeasement towards Hitler 1937-8. The French analysis of Napoleon or of Joan of Arc would be the same as the British.

History is not 'just the facts'. It requires interpretation, argument based on evaluation of the evidence. That is one reason why there is inevitably bias and why full objectivity can not be achieved.

http://www.helium.com/items/365987-why-his...er-be-objective

Peter Novak in That Noble Dream: The "Objectivity Question" and the American Historical Profession has an excellent discussion on historiographical methodology and why history can never be unbiased.

2. I take particular umbrage at the anti-Mormon claim that Mormon history has been completely settled and all that remains is the "facts". And that there is no debate left with things like Book of Mormon authorship or Book of Abraham historicity, to name just a few things. This is the pseudo-scholarly Tanner method of historiography which holds no water. You ignore the Mormon response to these issues with a wave of the hand and delude yourself into thinking that all the questions have been answered.

This smug triumphalism on the part of anti-Mormons can become rather enraging. It gets frustrating when people assume that they have all the answers and that the debate has been settled.

3. Anti-Mormons DO spin LDS history more often than not. To pretend that they don't is rather, how shall I say, naive. Look at the documented problems with the Tanner's research. As Lawrence Foster observed:

Every bit of evidence, even if it could be most plausibly presented in a positive way, is represented as yet another nail in the coffin being prepared for the Mormon church. . . . Even when they backhandedly praise objective Mormon historical scholarship, they do so primarily as a means of twisting that scholarship for use as yet another debater's ploy to attack the remaining--and in their eyes insurmountable--Mormon deficiencies... one is amused at the exaggerated sense of self importance that the Tanners' rejoinder reveals. . . . The Tanners' own response would seem to be the best possible vindication of the argument . . . that they lack a sense of balance and perspective.

Found here: http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=2&id=161

But that's not all. I also find it highly agitating that many anti-Mormons are completely comfortable with using double standards against the Church; standards that, when used against them, are devastating. The whole DNA and the Book of Mormon thing is a prime example. I can't fathom how evangelical critics of the Church can use DNA to attack the Book of Mormon when that exact same DNA data is being used to attack evangelical assumptions about Genesis. Heck, the very same DNA data being used by evangelical anti-Mormons like Joel Kramer is being used to bolster evolutionists' claims. And Kramer, not surprisingly, never bothers to tell his viewers - most of whom are like minded Evangelicals - that the DNA data he is using dates from.... wait for it.... 20,000-10,000 BCE.

Talk about a double standard.

I remember laughing when Sandra Tanner on a radio interview said that "science has caught up with Mormonism." The gall that she has to effectively ignore that science has not been used against fundamentalist Protestants such as herself is unbelievable.

As Dan Peterson pointed out:

Anti-Mormonism of the evangelical kind has come, with a few exceptions, to bore me intensely. It is not only that it tends to be repetitious and uninteresting. (My friend and colleague William Hamblin and I have laughed about doing an autobiographical film entitled Bill and Dan's Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell.) It is not merely that the same arguments reappear ad nauseam, no matter how often they have been refuted, and that reviewing essentially the same book for the thirty-second time grows tiresome. (One definition of insanity is that the insane one keeps doing the same thing over and over and over again and expects to get different results.) It is also the deep streak of intellectual dishonesty that runs through much of the countercult industry, the triumphalism that exaggerates and even invents problems on the Mormon side while effectively pretending that no problems remain to be addressed on the so-called "Christian" side. (This could not possibly be more clearly illustrated than in recent evangelical and fundamentalist Protestant use of DNA data to cast doubt on the Book of Mormon. In what can only be described as a display of either stunning ignorance or appalling cynicism, these anti-Mormon crusaders ignore the fact that the assumptions fundamental to current deep-historical DNA studies flatly contradict traditional and widely held conservative Protestant understandings of the book of Genesis.)

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=2&id=591

How and in what way have you been burned?

Gee, where to start...

I can't count how many times triumphant claims of anti-Mormons have turned out to be resting upon trumped up evidence, selective presentation, half truths, distortions, mischaracterizations or downright lies. However, for me the biggest thing was with the Book of Abraham. I had read the critical material, and, on the surface, it seemed convincing. Then I started doing more research and seeing the Mormon responses. To use the words of Jeff Lindsay, "as I started digging up information on the Book of Abraham to understand the issues raised by critics, I soon felt CHEATED AND BETRAYED. Not by Joseph Smith, but by the anti-Mormons who had conveniently left out some of the most important information about the Book of Abraham."

The critics had not bothered to discuss the evidence FOR the Book of Abraham and, as I soon discovered by checking the notes of critics like Charles Larson, had on several occasions misrepresented or mischaracterized what LDS scholars were advocating and arguing. Like you, Markk, they had announced with great hubris that, to quote Charles Larson, "Its all over! Its all over! Its all over!" without showing the Mormon side of things and giving all the relevant information.

This is just one example of many of how I have been burned by anti-Mormonism, and thus why I am skeptical of anti-Mormon claims on the surface.

And, thus far, I have found that most criticisms do not hold any water and that in fact many anti-Mormons are nothing more than glorified ferris wheel operators. I grant that there are still some criticisms that I think have legitimacy and I don't have completely satisfactory answers for, but I am not about to lose faith in what I do know because of what I don't know.

[Zakuska]

And, thus far, I have found that most criticisms do not hold any water and that in fact many anti-Mormons are nothing more than glorified ferris wheel operators. I grant that there are still some criticisms that I think have legitimacy and I don't have completely satisfactory answers for, but I am not about to lose faith in what I do know because of what I don't know.

Ah... I wouldn't go that far... rumor has it the LDS critics hold quite a bit of water and their not apposed to using it as a defense in public.

Q-Music: I want my... I want my... I want my port-a-potty!