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

[Rob Bowman]

BOMT,

I had written that "Brant raises a couple of very good points," that the DVD's use of 2 Nephi 12:7 was "inexcusably sloppy at best," that I could understand how a Mormon could view it as deliberately deceptive, that I would consider the rest of his criticisms seriously, and that "If I decide that the DVD is seriously flawed on a number of issues, I will recommend that IRR discontinue recommending it." You quoted only the last paragraph and commented:

"Flawed"? It is blatant lying!

The same standard and predictable tactics used by all anti-Mormon critics and the likes. Nothing has changed, they can never stand behind truth in any way shape or form no matter how much they try to "polish" their tarnished images.

Gee, some people are very hard to please.

You wrote:

I say keep it up on your website, I would hate to see you lose your salary/gain over something so "flawed".

No danger there. It's too bad that you are so filled with animosity toward me that you won't give me a fair chance even when I openly acknowledge good points from your side. It is regrettable that you feel you must resort to Vance's ad hominem style of personal attack. It is unbecoming in a person who professes to adhere to a religion that values charity and honesty.

I suspect that you would rather see obviously flawed criticisms of the Book of Mormon than thoughtful and fair-minded criticisms because the former are so much easier to dismiss than the latter. An evangelical critic of the Book of Mormon who candidly acknowledges when a criticism is unjustified or inexcusable doesn't fit your self-serving paradigm of all "anti-Mormons" carrying pitchforks and foaming at the mouth.

[Mudcat]

That is false logic and sheer hypocrisy. Every religion on earth exists on the basis of the assumption that it alone points the right way to God <snip remainder of paragraph>

No, it's not false logic Zerinus. As to your charge of hypocrisy, I would like you to demonstrate how I am being so. Your simple declaration is insufficient. Your just grandstanding.

Jesus preached His own religion; that did not make Him a “critic” of other religions. He was a severe critic of the scribes and Pharisees, because of their wickedness and hypocrisy, and deceit; and because they actually and proactively opposed Him (just as the Evs do with the Mormons!). But that did not make Him “opposed” to, or a “critic” of, anybody’s religion. The same was true of His Apostles and faithful disciples. They minded their own business, and preached their own gospel. They didn’t actively attack or condemn other peoples’ religions. They didn’t fight another religion; they just preached their own.

You need to reread what you have written. Underline mine, on the one hand you say Jesus wasn't a critic and on the other you say he was a severe critic.

I hope you understand that your claims to "false logic" on my part are undermined by your own inconsistency. Jesus was quite critical of those who held disagreement with his view.

Hopefully, you will at some point realize that teaching or believing that there is one way to do a thing in the best fashion possible. This same teaching/belief, is also passively or perhaps even aggressively instructing, that all other ways fall short. The fact that such a belief is actually criticism of "all other ways" relative to that thing is a criticism to "all other ways" seems apparent.

[Kevin Christensen]

In his review, Brant observes of faith LDS Book of Mormon scholarship:

That body of scholarship, which has been growing in volume and sophistication of method and detail for at least the last forty years (and presaged for perhaps one hundred years before that),[2] is completely ignored in the film. In exactly those places in which a scholarly presentation would discuss the best contrary evidence, this film opts for the propaganda technique of ignoring anything that does not support its thesis.

There are only two possible explanations for interpreting this remarkable lack of scholarly honesty. Either every person appearing in the film is unaware of that body of scholarship, or withholding that information is intentional. While the first could well be true for some of the experts in the film (particularly the archaeologists in Israel), it is extremely doubtful for others. Thomas W. Murphy (who has a PhD in anthropology), for example, appears as one of the primary experts in the film. He recently published an article in which he addresses some of the issues he so carefully ignores in this film.[3] Murphy is obviously aware of Latter-day Saint scholarship that presents a different side to the issues he discusses, yet he gives no indication of that awareness at any point in this film. The film's producers and editors should have had access to relevant information from Murphy that should have been presented. One must conclude that this magician knows more than he wants the audience to see.

That is a general charge. For specifics, besides the misuse of Isaiah, and the failure to notice that the Book of Mormon contains no stories of horses or chariots used in battles, while explicitly claiming that for the Book of Mormon, we also have this:

Murphy provides even more damaging opinions: “The civilizations we find throughout Central America tended to peak, find their great climax, between 600 and 900 ad, well after the events described in the Book of Mormon.”

The Unmasking: There is no way to know how much information Whittington has about the Book of Mormon. Likely he was unaware of Latter-day Saint scholarship on the text. Would Living Hope Ministries have informed him? One can best read Whittington's statement as an honest evaluation from someone unfamiliar with the whole picture. It is true, however, that nothing in the New World has been found with the name Nephite on it.

Less explicable is Murphy's statement, which is completely accurate—the civilizations of Mesoamerica did reach their climax between ad 600 and 900. As Murphy claims, this period is well after the close of the Book of Mormon. The statement is not problematic, but its context is. Murphy leads the viewers to believe that the late florescence of Mesoamerican culture precludes any early Mesoamerican cultures. Murphy must know that his statement is misleading. If he knows enough to make that cautiously correct statement, he knows enough to realize that he left out significant relevant information. While the high point of Mesoamerican culture occurs later, nevertheless, there were very impressive predecessors. Archaeology clearly demonstrates that there were impressive cities during Book of Mormon times. The ruins of Nakbé and El Mirador are massive sites with very impressive architecture that flourished during Book of Mormon times. All the aspects of Mesoamerican culture and society that peak during the Late Classic—social, religious, architectural, and artistic—were present in less elaborate forms much earlier, including in Book of Mormon times. In the regions where Sorenson suggests that the Book of Mormon took place, he has identified possible candidate sites that date to the correct period for the Book of Mormon and fit the geographic descriptions in the text.[13] The pinnacle of Mesoamerican culture came later but was built on a foundation that is known to have been in the area Sorenson suggests for Book of Mormon activities and during the correct time.

Perhaps, however, Murphy's statement was pronounced innocently and was pulled out of context by the film's editors, who are certainly not above such a trick. Later in the film they pull quotations from Gordon B. Hinckley and Daniel C. Peterson out of context. Whether Murphy himself or the editors created this particular deception, someone has seriously misrepresented the situation in Mesoamerica. Either the editors or Murphy (or both) have attempted to have us see something that is not really there. With a wave of his magician's rhetorical wand, Murphy's statement has made more than a thousand years of Mesoamerican culture vanish into thin air.

Another specific claim from Murphy:

Witnesses: Wilson and Murphy (with a special and unwitting “guest appearance” by Daniel C. Peterson). The section begins with a statement by Wilson: “And so what the apologists do is they—they work at trying to help people to keep them from losing their faith and they'll use whatever means are possible.” The film cuts to a clip from a film in which Daniel C. Peterson discusses the Book of Mormon. The entire transcript of the clip is:

The Book of Mormon makes sense as plausible history. The whole thing seems right. It makes sense. There is very little in it apart from the explicitly religious events (the miracles, the visitations, and so on) that a secular historian would find at all troublesome.

Murphy replies: “Well, Dan Peterson is lying. The problem, first and foremost, with the Book of Mormon is its secular history. It gets the history wrong. The myth has been disproved again and again by archaeologists and historians on secular grounds—not religious ones.”

Examination: That Wilson would accuse Latter-day Saint apologists of “us[ing] whatever means are possible” is portentous. The sectarian anti-Mormon editors of the film could not have created a more ironic introduction to their own tactics, which really do border on “whatever means are possible.”

Peterson's statement is removed from its context as it was presented in the original FARMS video:

Another thing about the Book of Mormon that we need to keep in mind as we consider other more specific things is simply that it makes sense as plausible history. I spend a lot of time reading ancient history, medieval history, and so on, and I find the Book of Mormon to be plausible. It's not straining for effect, it's not trying to achieve some Romanticism, or some pseudo-Oriental flavor that would impress its audience. It's a very matter-of-fact narrative of what happened, and what happened seems to be a very plausible kind of thing—people behave the way people actually do behave. We have parallels for the behavior of Nephites and Lamanites from other historical cultures. So again, the whole thing seems right. It makes sense. There is very little in it, apart from the explicitly religious events (the miracles, the visitations, and so on) that a secular historian would find at all troublesome.[54]

Placed in context, is Peterson “lying” about the specific data he is discussing? Hardly. Nevertheless, Murphy claims that he is lying because the Book of Mormon gets secular history wrong. That is a bold statement, particularly since the only evidence for Murphy's statement comes from evidence that has been carefully selected and protected from any contradictory information.

In reading Brant's review, it seems to me that none of the blunders, misrepresentations, selective quotation, witness manipulation, and context manipulation would have happened had the producers and editors followed what I see as Biblical recommendations for seeing truth. That is (with supporting references in my FAIR study of Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets):

* Be interested

•Listen with Purposeful Intent: Seeking Knowledge of God

•Study with Open Minds and with Faith (where faith is hope for that which is not seen)

•Examine the works

•Listen to all the witnesses (not selecting to justify a desired result)

•Consider the credentials and motives of the authorities and witnesses involved

•Be as concerned with measuring yourself as with measuring the prophets

•Receive the prophets and their followers for what they are, not requiring them to be something else

•Pray

•Persist whatever the cost

There is no real interest in understanding or describing why and how an informed and committed LDS scholar might address any of the issues raised. If there was no overall decision to engage in deliberate deception, they certainly deceived themselves about the validity and integrity of what they were doing. The result often looks so transparently false to even reasonably informed LDS members, that it may as well have been deliberate falsehood. But such things happen, I notice when prophets appear:

Isa. 54:17

No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.

Jer. 20:11

The LORD is with me as a mighty terrible one: therefore my persecutors shall stumble and they shall not prevail: they shall be greatly ashamed; for they shall not prosper: their everlasting confusion shall never be forgotten.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

PIttsburgh, PA

[Gervin]

There are only two possible explanations for interpreting this remarkable lack of scholarly honesty. Either every person appearing in the film is unaware of that body of scholarship, or withholding that information is intentional.

Very naive. The third possible explanation is that LDS scholarship has been considered and found to be wanting in this area of study. That is my experience.

[Nathair/|\]

Guys, I really hate to be the one to say this, but it's really disturbing when my fellow Saints act toward Mr. Bowman the way some of our critics act toward us, eg two on this board who shall remain nameless but whose board names rhyme with a sound one might make when finding a dead, maggoty rat under one's kitchen sink. I find Mr Bowman's understanding of the world to be extremely limited and incomplete, but he is an honest, intelligent, and fair-minded person. He's not Ed Decker, guys. Even if he was, if we are what we say we are, we should be above such nonsense.

Yours under the hopefully maturing oaks,

Nathair /|\

[bookofmormontruth]

"inexcusably sloppy at best," that I could understand how a Mormon could view it as deliberately deceptive, that I would consider the rest of his criticisms seriously, and that "If I decide that the DVD is seriously flawed on a number of issues, I will recommend that IRR discontinue recommending it." You quoted only the last paragraph and commented:

Translation: They were'nt lying, they were just "sloppy" and "flawed".

Sure Rob, sure, but let us review what Brant Gardner really stated about the DVD that you "recommend". You know the article you were suppose to read? Let me help you out because Brant just didn't make a "couple of points" as you are conveniently claiming.

Geography:

it is an intentional misstatement.

The illusion is stronger because they make it appear that there is no contradictory information, even when they know there is.

Half of the statement is true.

distorts the scholarly picture by suggesting that there is no known location

Ignorance did not keep this information from the viewers but rather a choice made by the film's producers, who decided to keep the best information from the audience.

prefer to pretend that one does not exist.

Peoples and Empires:

The very evidence that contradicts their position is suppressed

he intentionally oversimplifies when he says that no traces of the Jaredites can be found

Once again, in the film, too much of what the viewer can see is controlled by the agenda and not by the substance of a scholarly discussion.

The film is more illusionist than scholarly.

Murphy leads the viewers to believe that the late florescence of Mesoamerican culture precludes any early Mesoamerican cultures.

Later in the film they pull quotations from Gordon B. Hinckley and Daniel C. Peterson out of context.

Whether Murphy himself or the editors created this particular deception, someone has seriously misrepresented the situation in Mesoamerica

Machines:

Murphy allows a viewer's modern perceptions to color the way the word machinery is read

Cities:

The illusion continues that such scholarship does not exist

Murphy's statement is correct for Palenque but deceptive for its implications about the actual time periods of the Book of Mormon.

Flora and Fauna:

The only reasonable conclusion is that they intended to deceive.

The deception continues in the narration:

The statement is absolutely incorrect

Nothing like it appears in the text of the Book of Mormon

One would think that the film's "Latter-day Saint experts" would have corrected such an error of fact

Unfortunately, the expert quoted makes the very same factual error

Language and Literacy:

Murphy is either ignorant of important texts on Mesoamerican history or is intentionally misrepresenting the effect of a lack of textual history

Coins:

They fail to mention that they are also anachronistically present in the Bible

They show an excerpt of the Book of Mormon, but they display a header that was added in 1981 rather than the actual text!

The film at this point does not tell the viewer a number of things

Various Conclusions:

It would not have taken much research for Murphy to discover how inaccurate such a criticism is.

Either he did not do the research, or he is intentionally concealing the evidence.

Is Murphy lying? I am sure that he sees the data differently than I do.

Nevertheless, the section becomes a poster child for "us[ing] whatever means are possible." Ironically, what Wilson claims for the apologists is precisely what this film's editors do in presenting their message. They remove statements from context. They suppress contrary data. They present incorrect statements as though they were fact.

Are the film's editors lying? They are at least using any means possible to make their case, even when those means distort the real picture.

Wilson's performance continues to caricature rather than to accurately represent his reference.

These are amazing statements in a film that is designed to hide contradictory evidence.

Given the tactics of the film, I would recast Wilson's statement: If the film is based on a lie, then I cannot condone it.

Conclusion:

If this were a magic show, we might be entertained. However, this film produced by Living Hope Ministries presents itself as much more than illusion. In this case, we cannot ignore those behind the curtain. 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.

Yet, you only question my "charity" and "honesty" right Rob?

No danger there. It's too bad that you are so filled with animosity toward me that you won't give me a fair chance even when I openly acknowledge good points from your side. It is regrettable that you feel you must resort to Vance's ad hominem style of personal attack. It is unbecoming in a person who professes to adhere to a religion that values charity and honesty.

Of course, throw out the ad hominem card.

Poor Rob. I understand. You are projecting yourself.

I suspect that you would rather see obviously flawed criticisms of the Book of Mormon than thoughtful and fair-minded criticisms because the former are so much easier to dismiss than the latter. An evangelical critic of the Book of Mormon who candidly acknowledges when a criticism is unjustified or inexcusable doesn't fit your self-serving paradigm of all "anti-Mormons" carrying pitchforks and foaming at the mouth.

I would rather have the anti-Mormons carrying pitchforks and foaming at the mouth. They at least don't hide behind an illusion.

Speaking of anti-Mormons.

fairlds.org gives The Institute of Religious Research (IRR) the label of anti-Mormon. Wow! How could they do such a thing?

The Institute of Religious Research (IRR), an anti-Mormon organization, is currently promoting and showing a film entitled The Lost Book of Abraham: Investigating a Remarkable Mormon Claim. (What? IRR is promoting another lie and even selling it on their website? Say it ain't so Rob)

While touted as a documentary and passed off as a scholarly production, the sole purpose of this production is to attack The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the beliefs of it's members. Much of the film is quite accurate, but much is also misleading.

For those who understand the latest in scholarship about the Book of Abraham, this movie brings to mind the old saying that Satan will tell you a thousand truths to get you to believe a single lie. Read the full article: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/LBOA.pdf

Let us not forget IRR's "quote manipulation": My link

In addition, all you have to do is perform a simple search on fairlds.org to see what else IRR is "recommending" and "promoting".

Now why would fairlds.org do such a horrible thing in labeling your "honest" and "charitable" organization?

I was wrong about you Rob.

You and your "charitable" and "honest" organization is just another anti-Mormon mill "recommending" the same regurgitation and predictable tactics (blatant lies, half truths, and quotes out of context) that have been around for 100s of years. Of course these anti-Mormon "recommendations" will never leave your website so let's not pretend that they ever will.

The "polished" nicey-nice image of Rob Bowman and IRR is just an illusion.

[volgadon]

I don't see what difference that makes?

Volgadon has not posted in this thread.

Truth be told, I couldn't figure this out either. I think he means a question to Thews I posted in a different thread. I'm not going to browbeat anyone into answering.

[volgadon]

It is unbecoming in a person who professes to adhere to a religion that values charity and honesty.

Completely agree.

[Calm]

Guys, I really hate to be the one to say this, but it's really disturbing when my fellow Saints act toward Mr. Bowman the way some of our critics act toward us, eg two on this board who shall remain nameless but whose board names rhyme with a sound one might make when finding a dead, maggoty rat under one's kitchen sink. I find Mr Bowman's understanding of the world to be extremely limited and incomplete, but he is an honest, intelligent, and fair-minded person. He's not Ed Decker, guys. Even if he was, if we are what we say we are, we should be above such nonsense.

Yours under the hopefully maturing oaks,

Nathair /|\

Nathair, if you are disturbed, the best thing to do is to report such behaviour to the mods. This is the only response that is likely to accomplish anything besides pulling a topic off topic.

[bookofmormontruth]

Guys, I really hate to be the one to say this, but it's really disturbing when my fellow Saints act toward Mr. Bowman the way some of our critics act toward us, eg two on this board who shall remain nameless but whose board names rhyme with a sound one might make when finding a dead, maggoty rat under one's kitchen sink. I find Mr Bowman's understanding of the world to be extremely limited and incomplete, but he is an honest, intelligent, and fair-minded person. He's not Ed Decker, guys. Even if he was, if we are what we say we are, we should be above such nonsense.

Yours under the hopefully maturing oaks,

Nathair /|\

Yes, let's just pretend that two known anti-Mormon DVDs are not sold on Rob's website and that they are not given as "recommendations" for those that are being "wooed by Mormons". Let's pretend that quote manipulation doesn't happen on Rob's website either.

Let's just be silent on it and never question the purpose or motivation of a "critic". Let's just turn a blind eye and just label the anti-Mormon rhetoric DVDs as "flawed" and "sloppy".

So sorry to point that our for you Rob. I know it is an inconvenience.

And I apologize if I tarnished that "honest", "intelligent" and "fair-mindedness" that this forum makes you out to be. I have no idea what I was thinking.

[Calm]

Yes, let's just pretend that two known anti-Mormon DVDs are not sold on Rob's website and that they are not given as "recommendations" for those that are being "wooed by Mormons". Let's pretend that quote manipulation doesn't happen on Rob's website either.

Let's just be silent on it and never question the purpose or motivation of a "critic". Let's just turn a blind eye and just label the anti-Mormon rhetoric DVDs as "flawed" and "sloppy".

We are intelligent people for the most part on this board. One can point out the deceptions and errors and even state they are lies, etc. without attacking the individual directly stating he is a liar, etc. I think readers can connect the dots quite well enough on their own.

I have a problem with talking about someone else's motivation or purpose since to know that requires a lot more personal interaction than happens generally on this board or some significant mind reading. As far as I'm concerned, why a person does something is between him and God, the only one who knows the truth of that for sure. Pointing out inconsistencies, manipulations etc. should be sufficient.

[zerinus]

We are intelligent people for the most part on this board. One can point out the deceptions and errors and even state they are lies, etc. without attacking the individual directly stating he is a liar, etc. I think readers can connect the dots quite well enough on their own.

I have a problem with talking about someone else's motivation or purpose since to know that requires a lot more personal interaction than happens generally on this board or some significant mind reading. As far as I'm concerned, why a person does something is between him and God, the only one who knows the truth of that for sure. Pointing out inconsistencies, manipulations etc. should be sufficient.

It is possible though to look at a piece of work that is produced, and come to the conclusion that it is not just “sloppy,” but positively dishonest. It is perfectly legitimate for someone to pass such a judgement on such a work. Where that leaves producer of that work is not the primary motivating factor, but the nature of the work. It is perfectly possible and legitimate for someone to look carefully at that those videos, and come to the conclusion that they are not just sloppy, but dishonest pieces of work—and if that says something about the producers of such works, then so be it. In the New Testament the Lord warn us to beware of “false prophets” who come in “sheep’s clothing,” but inwardly are “ravening wolves”. How can we distinguish between sheep and wolves if we cannot pass judgement on their motives and actions? As it says, we will recognize them by their fruits. If their fruits are dishonest, then they must be dishonest. I don’t see how you can get away from that.

[Ceeboo]

eg two on this board who shall remain nameless but whose board names rhyme with a sound one might make when finding a dead, maggoty rat under one's kitchen sink.

EwwBoo????

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Nathair/|\]

EwwBoo????

Peace,

Ceeboo

Well, you got the sound right, bro, but I don't think the two I have in mind have a sense of humor. Besides, I must have been mispronouncing your name. I thought your first syllable rhymed with a sound a civilized person might make while standing on a chair after seeing a cute little mouse on the floor.

[Vance]

Guys,

Obviously a sexist.

I really hate to be the one to say this,

Motivated by hate.

but it's really disturbing

Mentally disturbed,

when my fellow Saints

And self righteous. He thinks he is a saint or something.

act toward Mr. Bowman the way some of our critics act toward us,

Like I am doing now.

eg two on this board who shall remain nameless

Ok, how about giving us their initials?

but whose board names rhyme with a sound one might make when finding a dead, maggoty rat under one's kitchen sink.

Hey, I resemble that remark!

Why the personal attack?

I find Mr Bowman's understanding of the world to be extremely limited and incomplete,

WHY the personal attack against Bowman?

but he is an honest, intelligent, and fair-minded person.

First you insult him and then flatter him. You do realize, don't you, that he will see thru this?

He's not Ed Decker,

Right! He is much much more handsome.

guys.

Sexist.

Even if he was,

Hey, wouldn't that take a lobotomy or something?

if we are what we say we are,

Good thing I haven't said what I am, so nobody here knows.

we should be above such nonsense.

What, are we birds, that we should fly?

[Jeff K.]

EwwBoo????

Peace,

Ceeboo

When you kill a rat, do you say "cheff cheff cheff" or as a crow "caw caw caw".

Jeff( who is too dense to figure this stuff out because he almost never looks at names just posts).

[Calm]

It is possible though to look at a piece of work that is produced, and come to the conclusion that it is not just “sloppy,” but positively dishonest. It is perfectly legitimate for someone to pass such a judgement on such a work.

I have no problem with labeling a work "dishonest" as long as one has provided the evidence along with the accusation. As I said above, people on this board are intelligent, they can connect the final dots on their own and limiting one's comments to the actual material helps avoid endless derails of threads.

[zerinus]

I have no problem with labeling a work "dishonest" as long as one has provided the evidence along with the accusation. As I said above, people on this board are intelligent, they can connect the final dots on their own and limiting one's comments to the actual material helps avoid endless derails of threads.

That doesn't really answer my question. If it is legitimate to label a video dishonest, then it is legitimate to identify the producers of that video dishonest. The Lord didn't say, "Beware of false videos," or "beware of false websites;" but "beware of false prophets". It is the man behind the mask that is being identified, not just the mask.

[cdowis]

Yes, let's just pretend that two known anti-Mormon DVDs are not sold on Rob's website and that they are not given as "recommendations" for those that are being "wooed by Mormons". Let's pretend that quote manipulation doesn't happen on Rob's website either.

Perhaps Rob would be willing to post Brant's review on his website, and let his customers decide for themselves whether it was just "sloppiness". I think such a gesture would demonstrate his honesty and sincerity.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

Perhaps Rob would be willing to post Brant's review on his website, and let his customers decide for themselves whether it was just "sloppiness". I think such a gesture would demonstrate his honesty and sincerity.

An interesting suggestion. However, since the DVD is not something that IRR produces but simply lists on our website as one of many recommended outside resources, I don't know that posting Brant's review on our site would be appropriate. Furthermore, as I have already stated, I am looking into the issues that Brant raised with the possible outcome that we will no longer recommend the DVD at all.

Still, I like the general idea. Perhaps FAIR would be willing to have an arrangement whereby our two organizations would jointly publish certain resources of a "point-counterpoint" nature on both sites. I would be very open to such an arrangement.

[bookofmormontruth]

Perhaps Rob would be willing to post Brant's review on his website, and let his customers decide for themselves whether it was just "sloppiness". I think such a gesture would demonstrate his honesty and sincerity.

If our "critics" stood behind truth and were not threatened and afraid then they would give a link to a free copy of the Book of Mormon with a sincere statement:

"We believe and adamantly reject the Book of Mormon as being the word of God for theses reasons..................., but we don't want you to take our word for it or anyone else's' words for that matter. We invite everyone to read the Book of Mormon themselves, ponder its message and pray to the source of all truth (God) if the Book of Mormon is true".

[mfbukowski]

If our "critics" stood behind truth and were not threatened and afraid then they would give a link to a free copy of the Book of Mormon with a sincere statement:

"We believe and adamantly reject the Book of Mormon as being the word of God for theses reasons..................., but we don't want you to take our word for it or anyone else's' words for that matter. We invite everyone to read the Book of Mormon themselves, ponder its message and pray to the source of all truth (God) if the Book of Mormon is true".

Or as it says, "not true".

[Gervin]

If our "critics" stood behind truth and were not threatened and afraid then they would give a link to a free copy of the Book of Mormon with a sincere statement:

"We believe and adamantly reject the Book of Mormon as being the word of God for theses reasons..................., but we don't want you to take our word for it or anyone else's' words for that matter. We invite everyone to read the Book of Mormon themselves, ponder its message and pray to the source of all truth (God) if the Book of Mormon is true".

And FAIR Wiki could post:

"We believe and adamantly endorse the Book of Mormon as being the word of God for theses reasons..................., but we don't want you to take our word for it or anyone else's' words for that matter. We invite everyone to read the Book of Mormon themselves, ponder its message and pray to the source of all truth (God) if the Book of Mormon is true and also investigate the claims against the book by reviewing the materials found at the Institute for Religious Research (link)".

If the "believers" stood behind truth and were not threatened and afraid then they would give a link to a IRR with the sincere statement, above.

[bookofmormontruth]

And FAIR Wiki could post:

"We believe and adamantly endorse the Book of Mormon as being the word of God for theses reasons..................., but we don't want you to take our word for it or anyone else's' words for that matter. We invite everyone to read the Book of Mormon themselves, ponder its message and pray to the source of all truth (God) if the Book of Mormon is true and also investigate the claims against the book by reviewing the materials found at the Institute for Religious Research (link)".

If the "believers" stood behind truth and were not threatened and afraid then they would give a link to a IRR with the sincere statement, above.

No comparisons.

Please show us anywhere (not what the Lord has stated) where the Lord's Church and His servants tear down and lie about other's beliefs? Well?

Show us anywhere on lds.org where there are DVDs, pamphlets, books that criticize and blatantly lie about other's beliefs. Well?

The only reason why FAIR exists is because of critics. The egg came before the chicken. If people were confident in their own beliefs and not desperately trying to re-afirm them by tearing down our sacred beliefs - there would be no need for FAIR to be in existence to answer the questions.

In addition, we stand behind truth. We take the message into the homes of the children of God. We are even bold enough to leave it between them and God. Please tell me if anyone else does that? Well?

It is absolutely ridiculous to compare the tactics of the critics and the faithless to the Lord's Church.

[LeSellers]

since the DVD is not something that IRR produces but simply lists on our website as one of many recommended outside resources, ... I am looking into the issues that Brant raised with the possible outcome that we will no longer recommend the DVD at all.

Here is, in my mind, the test that would demonstrate the honesty of your ministry: if you find that the DVD is dishonest, would you not only stop recommending it, but request in the spirit of Christian brotherhood that the producers stop all production and distribution? Would you post a counter recommendation on your site that people shy away from this disingenuous propaganda?

Lehi