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

[bookofmormontruth]

What I have learned about Rob Bowman from his following words:

But I am trying to do exactly what Mosser and Owen argued that evangelical scholars like me should be doing.

In order to represent accurately what another religion teaches, it is important to listen to what its members actually say and to study any literature they publish that speaks for that religion.

As it turns out, I recently posted an article entitled "Love, Honesty, and the Defense of the Faith" that explains how honesty (concern for truth telling) and love should motivate us to engage the religious and theological issues that divide us in a serious, careful, and fair-minded way.

It should go without saying that the only proper and legitimate way to defend the truth is to speak the truth. This is simply another way of saying that we should be scrupulously honest in the way that we stand up for what we believe. Unfortunately, people of all religious and nonreligious belief systems are susceptible to the temptation to cut corners on the truth in their zeal to defend what they believe. For that reason, we should take a moment to think about the implications of the Christian value of honesty in our efforts to share the truth about God with other people.

1. If we are truly honest, we will represent what others believe as fairly and accurately as possible.

On the other hand, not all evangelicals have done the best job they can in communicating the truth about the LDS religion. Most evangelicals who seek to educate both Mormons and non-Mormons about the historical and theological issues that divide us from them strive to represent the facts about the LDS faith accurately. However, I must acknowledge that not everyone on the evangelical side has made a sufficient effort in this regard. Some evangelical critics of Mormonism are notorious for their cheap shots, their sensationalized depictions, and their disregard for what most Mormons really believe

Our goal is not to attack other people. We do not seek to tear down anyone’s faith in God or in Jesus Christ.

Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, walked away from traditional anti-Mormon approaches, namely: belittling, quote manipulations, ignorance, half truths, and flat-out lying. They continued the debate openly and honestly and are respected for their refreshing approach.

In complete contrast of the examples of Carl Mosser and Paul Owen:

Rob Bowman, the “director of research” for IRR (Institute for Religious Research) “recommends” the exact traditional anti-Mormon regurgitation that Carl Mosser and Paul Owen walked away from.

Namely:

• The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon (DVD)

• • Described as: "There is a truth to be told, but it is not found in this film" stated by one of our prestigious scholars, Brant Gardner. My link

• The Lost Book of Abraham (DVD) (which Rob has been completely silent about since IRR (anti-Mormon organization according to FAIR) produced the film).

• • Described as: “this movie brings to mind the old saying that Satan will tell you a thousand truths to get you to believe a single lie". My link

• IRR’s quote manipulation: (Rob is silent about). My link

• The same genre of DVDs "The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned the distribution of an anti-Mormon DVD...This is the same kind of plain, old-fashioned Mormon-bashing that Jim Robertson and his group have been spewing for over a quarter-of-a-century....It was wrong then, and it's wrong now

Rob, wants everyone to believe that his approach to criticism is "honest"and his motivation is based on "truth" and "love".

Sounds very appealing and refreshing to the LDS faithful.

I also sincerely believed Rob until investigating “behind the scenes” on what IRR “recommends” to its readers on their website.

Now, Rob has stated “I have agreed to review Brant's critique of the DVD The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon". Sounds very honest on the surface, yet in complete contradiction to what Rob has said on his website. You just can't have it both ways.

Frankly, the thought of embarrassing myself by misconstruing others has been a major motivation to me personally to work very hard to understand what people of other religions believe and why they believe it. In order to represent accurately what another religion teaches, it is important to listen to what its members actually say and to study any literature they publish that speaks for that religion……the best resources by outsiders will document their analysis ofthe religion’s teachings from the primary sources of that religion’s most authoritative or representative literature.

I have a simple test to determine if I have understood what other people think correctly: I ask them. Sometimes, I find out that I have misunderstood them. When that happens, I thank them for their help, because they truly have provided a service to me by clarifying what it is they think.

So instead of following Rob’s own words in asking us what we believe and why certain DVDs are completely dishonest, Rob states he will "review" it and come to his own conclusion. Completely disregarding the conclusion of Brant Gardner and LDS member's views.

And to top everything off, here is a predicted example of Rob’s embarrassing contradictions:

As faithful LDS members we hold our Holy Temples very sacred. Most faiths respect this and understand our devotion to the most High. As the scripture state: “not to cast our pearls before swine”, we keep what goes inside the Temple in our hearts, not disclosing the sacredness to the world.

The worst form of criticism in all its forms is a full mockery of our sacred rites. To actually support this in any way is un-Christ-like in its truest sense. It is described as “spiritual pornography” by the Anti-defamation League who have come to our defense when anti-Mormons use these same disgusting tactics which IRR uses.

Yet, Rob and IRR “recommend” to its viewers the same spiritual pornography that is found on their very own website. A "word for word" description of the endowment ceremony is found

As an LDS member in the Lord's Church, this is by the far - the most offensive. I am sure, most members would agree. Yet, even with this knowledge in how offensive this is to LDS members, Rob will leave it on his website or state he will "review" it to make his conclusion on how offensive it is, completely disregarding our views on the matter.

Rob and IRR have a right to claim they are following Paul Owens and Carl Mosser in the hopes to elude the truth and their real motivations, but their words and anti-Mormon material confirm they have no integrity or credibility, at all. It is all an illusion.

But at least you have your salary to back you up, right Rob?

[Gervin]

So instead of following Rob’s own words in asking us what we believe and why certain DVDs are completely dishonest, Rob states he will "review" it and come to his own conclusion. Completely disregarding the conclusion of Brant Gardner and LDS member's views.

I don't believe Brant Gardner is a "prestigious scholar" as you describe him, certainly not in the world of archaeology or anthropology. I'd be glad to retract if he comes here and defends your description of him. I don't think he conducts research or publishes anything outside of LDS-sponsored publications. He informed me on the Archaeology thread that one must first have an assumption about the translation of the Book of Mormon before proceeding with an analysis of how the book matches with real world finds. What a show-stopper. I've seen little or no agreement about such assumptions on this board among LDS. He chastises the DVD claims but his own interpretation of Book of Mormon historicity is narrowly defined for an LDS-believing audience.

[bookofmormontruth]

I don't believe Brant Gardner is a "prestigious scholar" as you describe him, certainly not in the world of archaeology or anthropology. I'd be glad to retract if he comes here and defends your description of him. I don't think he conducts research or publishes anything outside of LDS-sponsored publications. He informed me on the Archaeology thread that one must first have an assumption about the translation of the Book of Mormon before proceeding with an analysis of how the book matches with real world finds. What a show-stopper. I've seen little or no agreement about such assumptions on this board among LDS. He chastises the DVD claims but his own interpretation of Book of Mormon historicity is narrowly defined for an LDS-believing audience.

Of course, "turn a blind eye" in regards to Rob Bowman and what he does behind the scenes. How predictable.

We would hate for you to lose your focus on the Lord's Church or its members and not finding a way to criticize it/us.

[mfbukowski]

If I can speak for Mr Bowman, I got the feeling he was saying that praying to ask God only works when you're praying about Christ.

The Book of Mormon, preaching a different Christ, wouldn't qualify as something that we could pray to God about.

I think.

He's smarter than to come up with a circular argument like that one.

That's why I deliberately brought up the situation where one is in an Evangelical meeting and an altar call is made.

Something must be happening in that moment in which the person feels the inspiration that they should go forward and "accept Christ".

THAT is "personal revelation" or a "testimony" or whatever you want to call it- and I am certainly willing to call it "legitimate". Any inspiration which brings one closer to Christ, I am convinced, is from the Lord.

We can only speculate, but I suppose that Rob would say something like "but in this case, the inspiration was one way- the individual did not take an active position and pray for the revelation - it was a free gift from God".

And he may be right about that. God definitely inspires and directs us without "solicitation" in many instances, I am convinced.

But I am also convinced that he hears and answers prayers and teaches us "wisdom" - and I don't see how Rob can deny that since such things are said on Evangelical websites by the hundred.

The reason I personally know that the Bible preaches the "right Christ" is because I have had that testimony (I am convinced) which Rob talks about.

The difference is that I also have a testimony that the BOM and LDS church are "true".

For me, if the LDS church preaches a "false Christ" then so does the Bible. Besides, the Bible is an ancient document which is full of who knows what. One could not possibly know it was "doctrinal" for anything without a testimony.

You can make all the historical arguments you want (incidentally, all of which are defective) about the "truth" of the Bible but none of those can prove that Jesus was in fact the Son of God, that he died for our sins, or that repentance and belief in him will allow us to return to our Father.

You can only know that by personal revelation.

[mfbukowski]

What I have learned about Rob Bowman from his following words:

Dude

I suggest you get rid of that link to temple content before the mods get rid of YOU.

But I agree with you. That is totally unacceptable and really says a lot about his sincerity here.

[bookofmormontruth]

I apologize for the link.

[mfbukowski]

He informed me on the Archaeology thread that one must first have an assumption about the translation of the Book of Mormon before proceeding with an analysis of how the book matches with real world finds. What a show-stopper. I've seen little or no agreement about such assumptions on this board among LDS.

Well then you haven't been around long enough, and don't understand the BOM at all.

But I don't want to further derail this trainwreck. I am only here still because I told Rob I would not start a new thread until tomorrow.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

I am sorry your plate is full. Of course you understand that that can be interpreted as "avoidance", which is a pet peeve of mine.

Yes, I know. I can respond to you ten times a day, but if you don't like one of my answers, you will claim that I am avoiding answering your brilliant questions because it is just too doggone hard for me.

You wrote:

I find this discussion to be of incredible importance.

In fact all the claims of Mormonism rest on whether or not personal revelation is legitimate. If you think other questions are more important, of course, that is your decision.

It is not the question of this thread, but you and the others here seem to have successfully derailed it.

You wrote:

I really feel that you have not yet answered this question:

How does one make a decision to "accept Christ" without "personal revelation" (call it what you will) that it is the right thing to do?

Well, if I can call it what I will, then you won't mind if I don't call it "personal revelation," right?

A person makes a decision to accept Christ because the Holy Spirit moves that person to do so. That is, the Holy Spirit convicts the individual of his or her sin and of the need for salvation, brings the individual to a point of being convinced not just about facts concerning Jesus but convinced to put faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, and so changes that person's mindset from unbelief to faith. If you want to call that "personal revelation," fine.

You wrote:

I will be willing to wait for your reply, but I am not going anywhere on this issue until it is resolved. I have been trying to get this resolved now for months and months.

What, the above question? Whatever happened in the past, you have my answer now. Don't say that I am avoiding the question or that I won't answer it.

You wrote:

Incidentally, I would accept an answer that we cannot resolve this issue because of alternate, unresolvable interpretations of the Bible. I can live with that as long as you acknowledge that our understanding of the Moroni "Promise" can indeed be seen as a possible "Biblical" interpretation.

If you see it that way, it is possible for someone to see it that way. That doesn't make it right, of course.

You wrote:

But I don't think you will see it that way, and yet, in light of those other Evangelical sites, I cannot see how it is at all different.

As I predicted, you don't see the difference. Somehow in your mind, an evangelical praying for God to give them wisdom in making a decision about what job to take, what ministry calling to pursue, or other life decisions requiring wisdom is no different than a Mormon asking God to give them a private revelation that the Book of Mormon is true.

Likewise, I had written: "No biblical text, for example, suggests that an unbeliever ask the Holy Spirit for a revelatory experience to prove to them that Jesus is the Savior. The initiative is all on the side of the Holy Spirit, not of us." But I had also written: "But I didn't say that evangelicals never take the initiative to ask God for anything." You commented:

Perhaps you can see why I am confused and why you appear to be avoiding the question? Do they take the initiative or not? You can't have it both ways. If they EVER take the initiative, it is the same as the Moroni Promise.

I agree that you are confused, but the problem is not that I am avoiding any question. The difference is obvious to me. A person who is a believer already in Jesus Christ and in the Bible as God's Word is invited by the Lord to ask him for wisdom in handling difficult decisions and trials. I agree with that idea. A person who is not a believer in Jesus Christ or in the Bible as God's Word is not invited by the Lord to read the Bible and ask the Father for a private revelation that will be the sole convincing basis for accepting Christ as Savior or the Bible as God's Word. That is a totally different idea and one that I reject. A person who doesn't yet believe in Christ can't pray with sincere faith in Christ (as the Moroni test instructs) because he doesn't yet have faith in Christ!

You wrote:

Yes, I agree with "checking with God's word" which is precisely why I follow those Bible verses cited by the other Evangelicals on those sites for following advice God has given me. The Bible is indeed the standard, and what it tells me repeatedly is to "ask God" for direction. And yes, I obey what God tells me when he answers me. That is why I am LDS.

All you are doing here is taking the CBN.com article's teaching out of context, just as you do the Bible's teaching. "Checking with God's word" means seeing if what you are doing agrees with the Bible. It presupposes that the Bible is our final authority for knowing what God's truth and will are, not what we feel we know from our private religious or spiritual experience. This is a standard point in evangelical belief, and you clearly do not agree with it.

Now, I am asking you to stop claiming that I am avoiding your questions. If you say this again, I will notify the moderators that you are harassing me with constant and false claims that I am avoiding answering you. I will then REALLY avoid answering you, by simply ignoring your posts, knowing that whenever I do answer you I can expect you to try to pull me into a never-ending exchange in which you will keep claiming that I avoid answering you no matter what I say.

[Gervin]

del

[Rob Bowman]

BOMT,

You wrote:

Now, Rob has stated “I have agreed to review Brant's critique of the DVD The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon". Sounds very honest on the surface, yet in complete contradiction to what Rob has said on his website. You just can't have it both ways.

You then quote me as saying that "it is important to listen to what members actually say" and that "I have a simple test to determine if I have understood what other people think correctly: I ask them," and you then comment:

So instead of following Rob’s own words in asking us what we believe and why certain DVDs are completely dishonest, Rob states he will "review" it and come to his own conclusion. Completely disregarding the conclusion of Brant Gardner and LDS member's views.

This is ridiculous. I promised to review Brant's criticisms of the DVD, which means I will not be disregarding Brant's conclusion! When I wrote that I ask members of another religion what they believe, I did not mean, nor should I mean, that we should accept whatever those members tell us without question. I am under no obligation to agree with what members of another religion claim. I am under obligation, as a researcher, to listen to what they say and consider their claims honestly, but I have the right to disagree with them if I think the evidence does not support their claims.

The rest of your post is just as bad if not worse. Perhaps it's time to start questioning the sincerity, honesty, and integrity of some of the loud-mouths here that hide behind pseudonyms or don't use their full names while they attack anyone who dares to disagree with them.

[bookofmormontruth]

BOMT,

You wrote:

You then quote me as saying that "it is important to listen to what members actually say" and that "I have a simple test to determine if I have understood what other people think correctly: I ask them," and you then comment:

This is ridiculous. I promised to review Brant's criticisms of the DVD, which means I will not be disregarding Brant's conclusion! When I wrote that I ask members of another religion what they believe, I did not mean, nor should I mean, that we should accept whatever those members tell us without question. I am under no obligation to agree with what members of another religion claim. I am under obligation, as a researcher, to listen to what they say and consider their claims honestly, but I have the right to disagree with them if I think the evidence does not support their claims.

The rest of your post is just as bad if not worse. Perhaps it's time to start questioning the sincerity, honesty, and integrity of some of the loud-mouths here that hide behind pseudonyms or don't use their full names while they attack anyone who dares to disagree with them.

Of course, discount the rest of my post especially mocking the sacredness of our Temples. So predictable!

The last time I used my real name in a forum with LDS material, I received multiple death threats, with my computer being hacked for standing for my beliefs from those who called themselves "critics". Imagine that.

I know you don't have those kind of problems, let alone people lying about and mocking your sacred beliefs, but it is a reality for some of us so I am more careful these days.

Okay Rob, I get the point - I will be "hush-hush" now in questioning your motives and your "honorable" profession, but know that not all of us are fooled by your illusion. Your bigoted (especially with the mockery of our sacred Temple rites) website exposes who you really are - not what you appear online.

[Calm]

I don't believe Brant Gardner is a "prestigious scholar" as you describe him, certainly not in the world of archaeology or anthropology. I'd be glad to retract if he comes here and defends your description of him. I don't think he conducts research or publishes anything outside of LDS-sponsored publications. He informed me on the Archaeology thread that one must first have an assumption about the translation of the Book of Mormon before proceeding with an analysis of how the book matches with real world finds. What a show-stopper. I've seen little or no agreement about such assumptions on this board among LDS. He chastises the DVD claims but his own interpretation of Book of Mormon historicity is narrowly defined for an LDS-believing audience.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brant_Gardner, includes a list of his published work.

Gardner received a B.A. in University Studies from Brigham Young University in 1975, and an M.A. in Anthropology from the State University of New York, Albany (SUNY) in 1978.^[2] From 1978–80, Gardner continued at SUNY, completing all the course work, but not exams or a dissertation,^[2] toward a Ph.D. in Mesoamerican ethnohistory.^[3]...

In Mesoamerican studies, Gardner has published on classical Nahuatl kinship terminology, ethnohistoric investigation of Coxoh in southern Mexico, and the Aztec Legend of the Suns.^[3] He has published with the New World Archaeological Foundation and the Institute for Mesoamerican Studies.^[2]

IIRC, he had to quit his studies due to the financial necessity of providing for his family rendering what he was planning to make his career into an obsessive hobby.

[Vance]

So, Bowman's IRR posted private material that they acquired through nefarious means.

Yup. The self proclaimed paragon of virtue, honesty, truth and love strikes again.

[Rob Bowman]

BOMT,

You wrote:

Of course, discount the rest of my post especially mocking the sacredness of our Temples. So predictable! ... Your bigoted (especially with the mockery of our sacred Temple rites) website exposes who you really are - not what you appear online.

I cannot issue a CFR on this criticism, since a link to any web page that includes content from your Temple ceremonies is prohibited by list rules. So I will just say that to the best of my knowledge there is nothing on our website that could fairly be described as "mocking" your Temples. We do have a web page that presents the text of the endowment ceremony. I realize that this offends your religious sensibilities, but the fact is that providing the text of the ceremony is not the same think as "mocking" it. We also have a couple of articles on the subject of temples that argue that the LDS temple system is not biblical, but again, these articles do not mock the temples.

You wrote:

The last time I used my real name in a forum with LDS material, I received multiple death threats, with my computer being hacked for standing for my beliefs from those who called themselves "critics". Imagine that.

I know you don't have those kind of problems, let alone people lying about and mocking your sacred beliefs, but it is a reality for some of us so I am more careful these days.

Honestly, I cannot imagine that you would receive death threats if you used your own name in this forum. Several rather high-profile Mormons here use their full names and don't seem to have a problem in this regard. I don't know in which forum you had this experience, but I also cannot imagine evangelical Christians, even those most harshly critical of Mormonism, issuing you death threats for standing up for your beliefs. I realize there are some idiots out there who don't understand what they are criticizing and who are not respectful or circumspect in the way they go about criticizing Mormonism, but I simply don't believe that an evangelical Christian would threaten any Mormon with death for standing up for his beliefs.

Furthermore, I have no objections to individuals choosing to participate in an online forum anonymously. That is your right. However, I have the right to object when you or others ridicule or harass me with all sorts of silly and mean accusations while hiding behind pseudonyms. I was invited by a Mormon to participate in this forum. I am therefore a guest and should be treated with respect, even if you don't like what I say. I have come here using my own name, doing nothing to hide who I am or what I do. I am under no obligation to be here at all. I am here because I care about truth and think that interacting with Mormon apologists is one of the best ways I can make sure that I am being accurate and using sound reasoning in my handling of LDS issues. Just as you would no doubt like me to give you the benefit of the doubt and treat you as a sincere individual, you should also treat me in that way (Matt. 7:12). I don't think that's too much to ask.

[cdowis]

The last time I used my real name in a forum with LDS material, I received multiple death threats, with my computer being hacked for standing for my beliefs from those who called themselves "critics". Imagine that.

Interesting. I have used my real name for the past XXX years in this forum and elsewhere, and have been very sharp in my comments. It's not hard to find me.

And no problems at all.

But if I were to get such a threat, I would report it to the FBI. Terroristic threats are very high on their list of priorities. They get bonus point for putting such individuals in prison.

I know you don't have those kind of problems, let alone people lying about and mocking your sacred beliefs, but it is a reality for some of us so I am more careful these days.

Okay Rob, I get the point - I will be "hush-hush" now in questioning your motives and your "honorable" profession, but know that not all of us are fooled by your illusion. Your bigoted (especially with the mockery of our sacred Temple rites) website exposes who you really are - not what you appear online.

Your comments bring down the atmosphere of this forum to a bar room brawl, rather than a spirited and respectful discussion.

I strongly disagree with his views, but he is a guest here, by personal invitation.

Again, I suggest that you use the ignore function.

[Eldwynn]

This may sound clever to you; but to those of us who have received that answer, and know that the Book of Mormon is true, things look different, as you might expect. I cannot “unknow” what I already know—your scepticism notwithstanding. It is a bit like a blind man mocking a sighted man for claiming to see things that he himself is not able to see. I cannot make you see what I can see; neither does your skepticism alter the reality of that vision for me.

This isn't true. When you refer to "those of us", you at the most mean, people who have "received" some sort of spiritual answer AND are still members. There are plenty of people in my life who have reported to receive such an answer, and would describe it exactly as you do- who later realized that they were wrong and left the church. When I lived in Salt Lake City, I attended an "atheist/agnostic/non-believer" discussion group at a coffee house. We didn't talk about religion that often, but simply took the time to interact with people who weren't religious. Every couple of weeks, a new member would show up, and talk about his struggle with the church. Two people really had an impact on me.

Both of them were in their late 20's, return missionaries, newly wed, starting families etc. The stereotypical LDS. Both of them came to us, saying that although at one time they had profound beliefs that the church was true, they had been questioning their experiences. Both of them had wives, children, and a very active LDS family. One of them was a pretty active LDS apologist. Despite having to give up interactions with their families, their children etc. they wanted out of the church- because they no longer believed.

Frankly, I don't blame them. It's a tough sell to convince people that a young man translated a document by peering into a hat with magic stones and was rather neurotic about not letting people cross a curtain, and you're supposed to be 100% sure, even to the point that you PAY?

It's not nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Oh but of course, you could say "well they didn't actually get a *real* answer" but of course you never would have made that objection until you learned that they had left the church.

I don't know if you are familiar with cognitive dissonance, but it's the only thing the Moroni promise "proves". I have little doubt that if you were to have been born in a middle eastern country, and instead read the Koran every day, and lived your entire life in their culture, that you would be saying the exact same thing about Allah, with identical feelings. In fact, modern neuroscience can induce such feelings in subjects by stimulating the brain! (I would LOVE to read a Mormons account of wearing Persinger's "God helmet") Why is that? There are two explanations:

1) God uses a well known psychological phenomena that is naturally built into our brains to let us know he is there. Many people have this experience for "false" reasons, but only Mormons are actually receiving the stimulation from God.

2)A well known psychological phenomena that is naturally built into our brains allows us to have unique experiences. Many people have this experience for different reasons (you get it in prayer, I get it when I ponder how neurotransmitters are released from vesicles) but they all just show a common brain mechanism.

We are of course limited to language to describe our experiences, so we can never know "for sure". However, I find it far more plausible to believe number 2, and it highly unlikely that number 1 is correct.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

BOML,

You wrote:

"Years ago"? When did you first have reason to find fault with me, and what was the issue? Have we had contact in the past?

I ran across you years ago in a LDS apologetics Yahoo group- where I and another guy (Mike) were the two non-LDS Book of Mormon Believers and you were the ever dilligent anti-Mormon theologian. But we did have a common enemy in a member who had dubbed himself "Avenging Angel Eternal", but whom we commonly referred to as "Venge".

Ah, the memories.

[Mars]

Eldwynn, your condescending tone is offputting.

Yes, cognitive dissonance is discussed many times on this board. You're not the first to come at us with this.

Secondly, your biting portrayal of the translation of the Book of Mormon is just as irksome your portrayal of how modern Mormon prophets try to sell Adam and Eve as an incestuous pair with their children to populate the human race. (From here) You're picking out words and themes that are offensive to describe the creation story of modern Christianity as well as the details surrounding the translation of the Book of Mormon - these are two complex issues with a lot of historical context and detail to support them. Reducing them down to an absurd description involving incest in the former and bilking people for money in the latter is the wrong way to critique the issues.

And now for the last one - that spiritual experience is all in our heads. Then everything is in our heads, right? Free will, sensory input, all of it, right? Just neurons firing? You're not any surer of what you know than I am of what I know, if we're going to play that game. You chose to draw your conclusions about spirituality, and I get to draw mine.

You're really coming off as a young university student who is learning a lot of cool and new things and suddenly has all the answers that all these still active Mormon fools just haven't considered or aren't bright enough to consider.

[Eldwynn]

Eldwynn, your condescending tone is offputting.

Yes, cognitive dissonance is discussed many times on this board. You're not the first to come at us with this.

Secondly, your biting portrayal of the translation of the Book of Mormon is just as irksome your portrayal of how modern Mormon prophets try to sell Adam and Eve as an incestuous pair with their children to populate the human race. (From here) You're picking out words and themes that are offensive to describe the creation story of modern Christianity as well as the details surrounding the translation of the Book of Mormon - these are two complex issues with a lot of historical context and detail to support them. Reducing them down to an absurd description involving incest in the former and bilking people for money in the latter is the wrong way to critique the issues.

And now for the last one - that spiritual experience is all in our heads. Then everything is in our heads, right? Free will, sensory input, all of it, right? Just neurons firing? You're not any surer of what you know than I am of what I know, if we're going to play that game. You chose to draw your conclusions about spirituality, and I get to draw mine.

You're really coming off as a young university student who is learning a lot of cool and new things and suddenly has all the answers that all these still active Mormon fools just haven't considered or aren't bright enough to consider.

If by condescending, you mean that I think I know something that you have not considered, then I apologize, because that was unintentional. I was not delicate in the way I put things, because honestly, I don't think religion should be discussed any "nicer" than any other discussion. Just a personal feeling. So, I apologize, and I have a feeling were we talking in person, rather than a message board, you would find me kinder than others on the board (me apologizing can be the first bit of evidence of this). We all want others to see our points of view, and I just wanted to show that- on the face of it- it CAN look rather silly.

However, facts are facts, and I don't think I portrayed any incorrectly, I just didn't sex them up with apologist spin (because I don't personally believe the spin). We can discuss any of these further in a different thread if you want- so as not to derail this one.

So, let's start with Adam and Eve. Both past and present prophets (Mormon or biblical) have never recanted the literal interpretation of the bible. However, apologists often do. No matter how you look at it, if Adam and Eve were the first two people, and were responsible for multiplying and replenishing the earth, then incestuous relations were going on. Your god had no problem with this, so why do you? If you are still upset about this, let me remind you of Lot and his daughters, and we can just agree to disagree. The REAL point of that post was the location of the origin of mankind. Why did Joseph Smith (and Brigham Young) say it was in Missouri, when we have clear evidence that it was in Africa? The overarching point was not to take a "cheap shot", but merely to point out that it is not unreasonable to doubt your church's revelation from god, when they can't get simple facts like "who were the first people on earth".

I find it to be personally offensive, because of the racism that a biblical "curse" on Cain caused his skin to turn black. This is merely because of a personal experience of mine, living in Utah, of the stupid things high schoolers say, using religious justification to back it up. So, I will admit, that I personally love telling racist (Christian) white people that science has clearly shown that the first humans had "dark" colored skin, and that "We are all Africans".

As for the translation of the Book of Mormon, I am pretty sure I am describing it accurately. The plates were in a hat, with the seer stones. Joseph Smith sat on the other side of the curtain and dictated what it said. Again, I merely pointed out that I can sympathize with those that doubt the story.

As for spiritual experience being in our heads. Are you suggesting that you can interpret sensory information without using your brain? If that's the case, you could win a Nobel prize if you could prove it, and revolutionize neuroscience at the same time. I guess I assumed that when religious people say "God talked to me", they really mean that they experienced him with their brains. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, let's see it. If not, then I am going to assume that we experience religion with the same organ that we experience all other emotions with- our brain.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I have little doubt that if you were to have been born in a middle eastern country, and instead read the Koran every day, and lived your entire life in their culture, that you would be saying the exact same thing about Allah, with identical feelings.

Is that why everyday 1000's of people throughout the world are reading the Book of Mormon and coming to a witness that it is true and that Jesus is Lord, even in countries where they weren't raised in "Mormonville" or anything close (non-Christian nations)?

[Mars]

Eldwynn,

My point is that you're using language and a tone to elicit a specific reaction and conclusion from your reader. No Mormon leader has spelled out in the certain terms you're alluding that the Adam and Eve story went down exactly the way you're describing. The record we have is reflective of the creation story by ancient Israelites, and as such will use language, metaphor, and descriptive terms that would have made sense to their intended audience. Ditto the one about Lot and his daughters. You're picking up a story written by authors with a specific audience in mind. You would be better served in your critique to investigate who those authors might have been, what their cultural, historical, and intellectual context was, who their audience was, what the point of their message might have been, and then make your judgments. Right now it appears you are picking up on a few storylines that have questionable content, using the word 'incest' to describe them, and then pointing out how stupid they are and then discrediting the stories' divine source.

The same could be said for the context of translating the Book of Mormon. Describing it the way you do, without the so-called 'spin,' is what I would categorize as a straw man. Your one sentence retelling leaves a lot of background and detail out. Perhaps you could strengthen your claim with reliable historical sources and background information, and then attempt to illustrate Joseph's would-be lucrative motives with substantive historical accounts rather than a quick accusation.

And as for the last part, I am suggesting that if you're going to lance the accusation that all of my religious experiences are the results of neurons firing, then all of my experiences are the results of neurons firing. All of it would be 'in my head,' right? The way I feel about love, music, my children, and reality TV. That mud sticks on you as well. In the face of the question "How do I know it's real?" I suggest the answer is "You get to choose." I don't downplay your experiences with whatever you've done in life because it was all neurons firing, and I don't appreciate you downplaying my spiritual experiences for the same reasons. It's disrespectful.

[ozpoof]

A critic is anyone who expresses a value judgement.

Informally, criticism is a common aspect of all human expression and need not necessarily imply skilled or accurate expressions of judgement. Critical judgements, good or bad, may be positive (in praise of an object of attention), negative (in dispraise), or balanced (weighing a combination of factors both for and against). Since all criticism must be regarded as having a purpose, a critic may also be definable by his or her specific motivation. At its simplest, and for whatever reason, a critic may have either constructive or destructive intent. My link

Granted, this forum has more "honest critics" than what I have seen in other forums and being rare are very welcomed. Yet, I continue to see "cheap shots" toward our sacred faith with "questions" disguised as "gotchas" or the elusive trail to the "nail in the coffin" for the Lord's Church.

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

I only ask because I know of no one in the LDS Church who plays the role as a "critic" for other's beliefs and I completely don't understand the need to be one. I am open to understand.

The LDS church has taught for it's entire existence that other faiths are abominations, their teachings are incomplete, false, twisted, lies, and that only Mormonism has they truth.

What is my purpose as a so-called "critic"? To make Latter Day Saints who make sweeping generalizations about how perfect their religion is, how persecuted they are, and how nasty everyone is to them for no good reason, become aware of how completely out of touch with reality AND their own church's teachings they are.

It's not personal attacks, or hating, or Satan. It's FRUSTRATION with the way Mormons change where the goal post is, then state it's always been there. Claiming Mormons never attack other faiths is just one example. Mormons who actually know their own history should not make such a claim, yet it pops up all the time.

You know what else is frustrating? The way Latter Day Saints state that documents from their own church that make them uncomfortable, or contradict the contemporary church position, are lies created by haters who are possessed by Satan. Think about where you are in your thinking. If you claim facts are evil and truth should not be discussed in church, rather the edited, or outright distorted "faith promoting" history must be taught, true or false.

Do you expect people who know what actually happened by way of studying early church documents to sit there and allow distortions to be taught as truth, and say nothing? When people do say "wait a minute, that's not what actually happened" they are labelled "apostates", "haters", "or even "evil". What kind of organization calls people "evil" who state facts that are available in black and white?

Since many who experience this can't tolerate attending church because of this treatment, their only outlets for discussion are forums such as this. Their motivation is to TEACH people who are unteachable in church, because they practically stick fingers in their ears and shout "lalalalalalalalalalala", or the person at the front of the room refuses to allow any real discussion, or allow anyone to speak who will not simply nod and accept the correlated lesson manual as gospel.

Many people who are honestly trying to find the truth find such an environment toxic.

I hope that you can see why many people can "leave the church but not leave it alone". They feel they have things to say that should be said, especially if there are still people they love in the church.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

I accidentally overlooked your post. You had written:

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.

I very much appreciate your kindness and recognize that it took some courage and integrity to make such a statement in contrast to the angry accusations of some of your brethren. Thanks.

[mfbukowski]

If by condescending, you mean that I think I know something that you have not considered, then I apologize, because that was unintentional. I was not delicate in the way I put things, because honestly, I don't think religion should be discussed any "nicer" than any other discussion. Just a personal feeling. So, I apologize, and I have a feeling were we talking in person, rather than a message board, you would find me kinder than others on the board (me apologizing can be the first bit of evidence of this). We all want others to see our points of view, and I just wanted to show that- on the face of it- it CAN look rather silly.

However, facts are facts, and I don't think I portrayed any incorrectly, I just didn't sex them up with apologist spin (because I don't personally believe the spin). We can discuss any of these further in a different thread if you want- so as not to derail this one.

So, let's start with Adam and Eve. Both past and present prophets (Mormon or biblical) have never recanted the literal interpretation of the bible. However, apologists often do. No matter how you look at it, if Adam and Eve were the first two people, and were responsible for multiplying and replenishing the earth, then incestuous relations were going on. Your god had no problem with this, so why do you? If you are still upset about this, let me remind you of Lot and his daughters, and we can just agree to disagree. The REAL point of that post was the location of the origin of mankind. Why did Joseph Smith (and Brigham Young) say it was in Missouri, when we have clear evidence that it was in Africa? The overarching point was not to take a "cheap shot", but merely to point out that it is not unreasonable to doubt your church's revelation from god, when they can't get simple facts like "who were the first people on earth".

I find it to be personally offensive, because of the racism that a biblical "curse" on Cain caused his skin to turn black. This is merely because of a personal experience of mine, living in Utah, of the stupid things high schoolers say, using religious justification to back it up. So, I will admit, that I personally love telling racist (Christian) white people that science has clearly shown that the first humans had "dark" colored skin, and that "We are all Africans".

As for the translation of the Book of Mormon, I am pretty sure I am describing it accurately. The plates were in a hat, with the seer stones. Joseph Smith sat on the other side of the curtain and dictated what it said. Again, I merely pointed out that I can sympathize with those that doubt the story.

As for spiritual experience being in our heads. Are you suggesting that you can interpret sensory information without using your brain? If that's the case, you could win a Nobel prize if you could prove it, and revolutionize neuroscience at the same time. I guess I assumed that when religious people say "God talked to me", they really mean that they experienced him with their brains. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, let's see it. If not, then I am going to assume that we experience religion with the same organ that we experience all other emotions with- our brain.

Your understanding of the Bible is immature.

It can be understood on many levels, all of which are compatible with each other. Yes it may be taken literally, as you are or it can be seen as a story about our own falling from innocence, and turning to God, recognizing the need for changing our lives for bad things we have done and a need to receive forgiveness. The crucifixion and resurrection can be seen as types of our self-destruction of our old selves and the beginning of new life. Even the ancients saw these themes in the solstices and applied them to their lives. Humans create symbols- otherwise we would not be speaking. That is what we do. Speech is precisely that- the creation of a symbolic world which helps us culturally to deal with the world.

Does that mean it "didn't happen"? Who knows and who cares? What matters is that we recognize that we have done wrong and are in need of forgiveness.

Was there a historical Jesus who died for our sins? I believe there was, of course- but no one can know that in any way except if the Spirit reveals it to us. But what is important in my life is the knowledge that I can be forgiven for all the wrong I have done if I change my life for the better, and I can become the best human being I can in this life and in the next. That is really the bottom line.

Could God have actually done it "that way" if he wanted to? Are you prepared to tell me miracles don't ever happen?

I have seen enough to know better. I have seen miracles. If you don't believe that, there isn't much I can do about it is there?

[Vance]

<SNIP>

Here, let me fix that for you.

The LDSEvangelical church has taught for it's entire existence that other faiths are abominations, their teachings are incomplete, false, twisted, lies, and that only MormonismEvangelicalism has they truth.

What is my purpose as a so-called "critic"? To make Latter Day SaintsEvangelicals who make sweeping generalizations about how perfect their religion is, how persecuted they are, and how nasty everyone is to them for no good reason, become aware of how completely out of touch with reality AND their own church's teachings they are.

It's not personal attacks, or hating, or Satan. It's FRUSTRATION with the way MormonsEvangelicals change where the goal post is, then state it's always been there. Claiming MormonsEvangelicals never attack other faiths is just one example. MormonsEvangelicals who actually know their own history should not make such a claim, yet it pops up all the time.

There, that should be enough to show that your post is just an ignorant rant.