As a "critic", what is your purpose or motivation?

[Vance]

You are displaying your ignorance here. The money comes from donors who want the resources provided to others.

And you are displaying your ignorance here. Money coming from donors STILL MAKES IT A MONEY MAKING operation.

The donors are not making money; they are giving money away and getting nothing of financial value in return. The donors are "losing" money in the sense that they are giving it away for the purpose of making materials freely available to people.

They are losing money, you are NOT. Materials produced in exchange for a salary, so, how does the fact that the money comes from donors change or affect the motive for the production of the material?

IRR is a non-profit organization, run on a shoestring operating budget, with a very small paid staff, none of whom are even close to being wealthy.

IF true, that still doesn't change or affect the motive for the production of said material.

Yes, I accept a salary. Yes, some of the material I produce is critical of LDS doctrine and claims.

And this is evidence (not proof) that you produce the material for money.

What evidence, other than personal testimony, do you have that you don't produce this material for money?

However, I was doing research on the LDS religion and engaging Mormons in discussion long, long before I ever got paid a cent for any work relating even indirectly to Mormonism.

So? Perhaps you saw the money that could be made.

What was my motivation then?

Perhaps you were simply honing your skills to make them more profitable.

I was also doing research and writing and speaking on Jehovah's Witnesses, and engaging them in discussion, long before I received any money for any work done in relation to that subject.

See above.

You could make a much better case for me being "anti-Witness" than "anti-Mormon": for example, I have written four books critiquing JW theology and no books critiquing LDS theology.

And how does this go to motive?

I was hired to work at IRR because I already knew a lot about such subjects and brought certain skills and values that the organization also values.

Right! Skills that were honed during your earlier years.

[Vance]

In fact, one of those values is that I absolutely will not put up with unfair, inaccurate, or prejudicial criticisms of other religions; as explained in the article I cited in an earlier post in this thread, I consider it very important that we represent other religions accurately and fairly.

Right! That is why I have found and continue to find problems with your material, although, admittedly your stuff isn't as bad as most.

Believe me, if I was motivated by money, I would not be involved in this kind of work at all.

More personal testimony.

And if I were for some reason involved in this line of work for the purpose of financial gain, I would go about it in a very different way.

More personal testimony.

I would sensationalize subjects, use lurid titles for my books and articles, write alarmist appeal letters warning about the Mormons taking over the country if people don't send me money, and so forth.

Well, you don't do ALL of those things.

I don't do these things because my intentions are to be honest, fair-minded, and accurate, even if it doesn't "sell" as well.

Well, you don't do ALL of those things. As far as motive, more personal testimony.

If you can't take my word for it, that, to be blunt, is your problem, not mine.

Not a problem at all. But it is all you have to offer. I am just point THAT out.

I still would like to know, HOW you know what you believe is true, and HOW can I know for myself.

[Vance]

As far as I know, they called themselves to write the books.

And their books are more profitable because they called themselves to Church leadership, Oh wait!

[bookofmormontruth]

Hugs not Thugs

I think a friendly demeanor for both apostates and critics offers greater dialogue when they are sincere in their position. A critique is always welcome because it produces greater and deeper thought as why one believes what one believes and how that belief is implemented. There are things my evangelical friends do that I think we in the community of Latter-Day Saints could emulate (and vice versa). Even when people disagree sincerely and forcefully, there are always mutual points of agreement that ensure the sharing of ideas. King Richard and Saladin for example had such views of each other.

Something to consider.

Thanks for sharing, I enjoyed the article.

I could have Johnson over for dinner any day. Sounds like a great man and proving by actions that he is trying to improve relationships. Plus, he gets 10 points living in my home town!

[cinepro]

And their books are more profitable because they called themselves to Church leadership, Oh wait!

As far as I can tell, Rob Bowman didn't hire himself to work at IRR. Are you sure there's really that big of a distinction?

[Vance]

As far as I can tell, Rob Bowman didn't hire himself to work at IRR. Are you sure there's really that big of a distinction?

Nah, He APPLIED for the job. Just like GA's do, Oh, wait.

[cinepro]

Nah, He APPLIED for the job. Just like GA's do, Oh, wait.

So if IRR had approached Rob and initiated the arrangement, you wouldn't have a problem with it and would accept his claim that he isn't "motivated by money"?

[bookofmormontruth]

As far as I can tell, Rob Bowman didn't hire himself to work at IRR. Are you sure there's really that big of a distinction?

When did you stop defending LDS leaders and start defending leaders of other faiths? Just curious.

[cinepro]

When did you stop defending LDS leaders and start defending leaders of other faiths? Just curious.

It just seems odd to me to try and marginalize Rob Bowman by claiming that, because he gets money from his activities, therefore "money must be the real motive" when LDS GA's are also paid a salary and make money by writing books that are almost exclusively sold to LDS.

Were the situation reversed and Rob were accusing GA's of being "motivated by money", it would be just as odd in the reverse direction, and I would point it out as well.

I have no problem accepting that (from what I have seen) LDS leaders serve primarily out of sincere belief and dedication, and have no problem ascribing the same motivations to people of other endeavors unless convincing evidence presents itself.

[Rob Bowman]

BOMT,

Before I go to the trouble of reading the entire lengthy review of The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon (which I'm willing to do), please name for me one of the "deceptive lies" of the DVD that Brant exposes. And please make sure it is a lie, not simply a difference in interpretation.

That is the beauty of the message that the representatives of the Lord share. You don't have to accept it. You are only encouraged to listen to the message and take it to the source of all truth. Everyone in the world, including those who believe in the Lord will have that opportunity and on their own free will, reject or accept the message.

Rob, again I like you. I appreciate you trying to make the effort in "cleaning" up the attacks on the Lord's Church. I appreciate your desires even though I believe they are completely wrong and still fall in the same deceptive tactics used by fellow EVs.

Here is why I believe that. I checked out your website and under the section "Is Someone You Care About Being Wooed By Mormons?" The books and DVDs that you recommend are considered anti-Mormon material. Not all, but one in particular caught my eye.

"The Bible vs The Book of Mormon" was the DVD that was used as the "trap" that was set for me at my friend's home. On the surface, it was a well produced "nicey-nice" video. But under the surface, the same deceptive lies were used as been shown by our own Brant Gardner who describes the video as an "illusion". My link

Please tell me that this isn't the "new tactic" of EVs? To appear on the surface to be "nicey nice", but underneath still use and recommend the same deception? You say you use no tactics, but only speak truth - then show us by action and not by mere words and remove the "recommendation" to view a known and proven lie.

I understand this won't happen. Regardless, keep it up on your website and continue with the recommendation to prevent the "wooing". It does more good than harm for honest truth seekers see through the lies and do find the truth by relying on the "source of all truth", not relying on the philosophies of men - mingled with scripture. They are then baptized into the Lord's Church with your help. Strange how that works, but we thank you.

Here is a free pro-tip: If you truly feel you want to improve relationships with the LDS faithful and be completely honest in your "work" of finding fault with our sacred beliefs. Then I would first start by listening to our own church leaders and by calling us by our official name (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and using "LDS" instead of "Mormons".

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

More personal testimony....

More personal testimony....

As far as motive, more personal testimony.

Nice to see how little stock you put in a man's personal testimony as to his own personal motives. Since I know what my motives are and have expressed them clearly, the burden of proof is on you to show that I am lying about my motives. I will not take the burden of proof to show that I am telling the truth about my motives.

You wrote:

I still would like to know, HOW you know what you believe is true, and HOW can I know for myself.

Vance, when you start showing some courtesy and respect for me (a guest in this forum, invited by one of your own), I will be happy to discuss that or any other question with you. But not before.

[bookofmormontruth]

BOMT,

Before I go to the trouble of reading the entire lengthy review of The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon (which I'm willing to do), please name for me one of the "deceptive lies" of the DVD that Brant exposes. And please make sure it is a lie, not simply a difference in interpretation.

Trust me, It shouldn't be any "trouble" reading the truth about the deceptive anti-Mormon DVD that you and your website "recommend".

Brant Gardner said it best in his conclusion: "I find myself echoing (in a very different context) one of Murphy's statements:'Let the truth be told.' There is a truth to be told, but it is not found in this film".

[Vance]

Nice to see how little stock you put in a man's personal testimony as to his own personal motives.

Oh, please!

If it were an LDS leader making those statements, you wouldn't believe him either.

Since I know what my motives are and have expressed them clearly, the burden of proof is on you to show that I am lying about my motives.

Nah, that isn't how it works!

You are insisting that your motives are pure. Other than your witness, what evidence do we have?

I will not take the burden of proof to show that I am telling the truth about my motives.

OK. Then your motives remain in question. No problem.

Vance, when you start showing some courtesy and respect for me (a guest in this forum, invited by one of your own), I will be happy to discuss that or any other question with you. But not before.

Right. Since we "know" from your personal witness (from your link) that you are a paragon of virtue, honesty, truth and love. Oh wait, we DON'T know that.

[Vance]

When did you stop defending LDS leaders and start defending leaders of other faiths? Just curious.

Can't stop something he has never started.

[Gervin]

Is this Rob Bowman's house or IRR HQ?

[Vance]

It just seems odd to me to try and marginalize Rob Bowman by claiming that, because he gets money from his activities, therefore "money must be the real motive" when LDS GA's are also paid a salary and make money by writing books that are almost exclusively sold to LDS.

Who is saying that "money must be the real motive"?

And what we are really talking about is motive for the production of material (less than honestly) critical of the faith of others.

If Bowman were simply promoting his own faith, and not tearing down others, then there would be no question about motive. But as it is, his motive is in question. And ALL he has as evidence of his motive is his personal witness and his paycheck. (I won't even bring up his unwillingness to forgo the use of misleading language/words, oh, wait.)

Do GA's produce material specifically disparaging of Baptists? Jehovah Witnesses? Lutherans? Catholics? Do they disparage the leaders of these organizations by name or position? Do they encourage the distribution of this material to Bishops for propaganda nite at the church?

Sorry, cinepro, apples and oranges.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I will now try to go back to ignoring your posts.

[Vance]

Vance,

I will now try to go back to ignoring your posts.

Right! And stay upset when people ignore your criticism.

[Gervin]

Trust me, It shouldn't be any "trouble" reading the truth about the deceptive anti-Mormon DVD that you and your website "recommend".

Brant Gardner said it best in his conclusion: "I find myself echoing (in a very different context) one of Murphy's statements:'Let the truth be told.' There is a truth to be told, but it is not found in this film".

"Truth" with a capital T gets used alot around here - and as a foil against a Lie. But Truth is not the domain of the LDS, and beyond our comprehension, to the extent that it can't be approached objectively. So, what is the lie that Bowman promotes?

[Daniel2]

As a "critic", what is your purpose or motivation?

As I've mentioned in the past, my motivation of the "critiques" that I offer of Mormonism on this board are best illustrated by two literary passages:

The first:

The Bridge Builder

An old man, going a lone highway,

Came at the evening, cold and gray,

To chasm, vast and deep and wide,

Through which was flowing a sullen tide.

The old man crossed in the twilight dim;

The sullen stream had no fears for him;

But he turned when safe on the other side

And built a bridge to span the tide.

"Old man," said a fellow pilgrim near,

"You are wasting strength with building here;

Your journey will end with the ending day;

You never again must pass this way;

You have crossed the chasm, deep and wide --

Why build you the bridge at the eventide?"

The builder lifted his old gray head:

"Good friend, in the path I have come," he said,

"There followeth after me today

A youth whose feet must pass this way.

This chasm that has been naught to me

To that fair-haired youth may a pit-fall be,

He, too, must cross in the twilight dim;

Good friend, I am building the bridge for him."

Will Allen Dromgoole

And the second:

[10] And it came to pass that I beheld a tree, whose fruit was desirable to make one happy.

[11] And it came to pass that I did go forth and partake of the fruit thereof; and I beheld that it was most sweet, above all that I ever before tasted. Yea, and I beheld that the fruit thereof was white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen.

[12] And as I partook of the fruit thereof it filled my soul with exceedingly great joy; wherefore, I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also; for I knew that it was desirable above all other fruit.

[13] And as I cast my eyes round about, that perhaps I might discover my family also, I beheld a river of water; and it ran along, and it was near the tree of which I was partaking the fruit.

[14] And I looked to behold from whence it came; and I saw the head thereof a little way off; and at the head thereof I beheld your mother Sariah, and Sam, and Nephi; and they stood as if they knew not whither they should go.

[15] And it came to pass that I beckoned unto them; and I also did say unto them with a loud voice that they should come unto me, and partake of the fruit, which was desirable above all other fruit.

[16] And it came to pass that they did come unto me and partake of the fruit also.

[17] And it came to pass that I was desirous that Laman and Lemuel should come and partake of the fruit also; wherefore, I cast mine eyes towards the head of the river, that perhaps I might see them.

--First Nephi, Chapter 8

In other words, the same missionary spirit which possessed my body while an active member of the LDS Faith doeth possess my body, now.

Darin

[Daniel2]

Dup post

[cinepro]

Who is saying that "money must be the real motive"?

In post #66 you said:

Well, IF they make a comfortable lifestyle from the material they sell, isn't that prima facie evidence that money is the real motive? They aren't giving it to the poor.

I understood you to be saying that, based on someone making money from selling "material", we should assume that money is their real motive, despite any statements they might make indicating otherwise. If I misunderstood you, I apologize.

And what we are really talking about is motive for the production of material (less than honestly) critical of the faith of others.

The content of the material is really irrelevant to the motive. If you had three people, and one paid to publish a Book of Mormon, the other paid to publish an anti-Mormon book, and another paid to publish Dianetics, it is entirely possible for all three to be motivated by the exact same thing: a desire to publicize the message of the book.

A few years ago, I sat on a jury for a case involving a car accident. The defendant was a large insurance company, and their lawyer brought in several excellent expert witnesses that spoke about car-wreck physics, handwriting analysis (to show forged medical records) and ER logistics and practices. The bumbling plaintiff's attorney tried to discredit each expert witness solely by asking each of them if they were paid to be there. They were. That was it. No further cross examination or expert witnesses of his own. We, the jury, still considered their testimony valid in spite of their paid status. Some posts in this thread remind me of the bumbling attorney's ham-fisted efforts at discreditation.

If Bowman were simply promoting his own faith, and not tearing down others, then there would be no question about motive. But as it is, his motive is in question. And ALL he has as evidence of his motive is his personal witness and his paycheck. (I won't even bring up his unwillingness to forgo the use of misleading language/words, oh, wait.)

People do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. Our own personal opinion about what it is they're doing doesn't really speak to the likelihood of their doing something for a particular reason, and the fact that someone is paid to do something doesn't necessarily indicate the priority that payment has among their other motivations. The accusations against Bowman involve a little too much mind-reading (and, when compared to LDS GA's, goal-post moving).

Do GA's produce material specifically disparaging of Baptists? Jehovah Witnesses? Lutherans? Catholics? Do they disparage the leaders of these organizations by name or position? Do they encourage the distribution of this material to Bishops for propaganda nite at the church?

I'm still not sure why the content of the material is relevant to divining the motivation for the person who produced it.

Why is someone who writes a book critical of another religion more likely to be motivated by money than someone who writes a book complimentary to their own religion?

[bookofmormontruth]

"Truth" with a capital T gets used alot around here - and as a foil against a Lie. But Truth is not the domain of the LDS, and beyond our comprehension, to the extent that it can't be approached objectively. So, what is the lie that Bowman promotes?

And truth should be used more "around here".

He promotes on his website "The Bible vs The Book of Mormon" DVD to people who are being "wooed by Mormons". My link

The lies of the DVD can be examined here. My link

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, I accept a salary.

As well as you should. I for one do not think you are motivated by money here. I think you are a sincere person that has some objections to my faith and you see some issue with it. I really doubt you took up this profession solely for money. At least your posts do not bear this out.

Anyway, I hope you do not feel the need to justify the money you do make. It really does not matter. The only thing that matters and should matter is the criticism that you bring up.

[Vance]

If I misunderstood you, I apologize.

Apology accepted.

The content of the material is really irrelevant to the motive.

Are you saying motive doesn't influence content?

Does the quest for money not affect the accuracy?

Is the love of money not a root of evil?

A few years ago, I sat on a jury for a case involving a car accident. The defendant was a large insurance company, and their lawyer brought in several excellent expert witnesses that spoke about car-wreck physics, handwriting analysis (to show forged medical records) and ER logistics and practices. The bumbling plaintiff's attorney tried to discredit each expert witness solely by asking each of them if they were paid to be there. They were. That was it. No further cross examination or expert witnesses of his own. We, the jury, still considered their testimony valid in spite of their paid status.

If that is all they had, then you did the right thing.

And if the defendant only had a personal testimony, rather than "expert witnesses" with "physics" etc, then what would you have done.

People do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons.

Yup! Money being one of them.

The accusations against Bowman involve a little too much mind-reading (and, when compared to LDS GA's, goal-post moving).

:rofl:

Mind reading (of the dead) is Bowman's expertise.

If you can provide evidence, other than his personal witness about himself, feel free to present it.

Perhaps a note from his mother telling us how honest and loving he is.