Lds-Authored Attacks

[LeSellers]

Even though it may be the case that new members may join a class on Gospel Principles in progress and so hear the material in chapter 47 covered before they are exposed to the earlier chapters, the manual clearly was designed to be studied from beginning to end.

Since the manual was designed for the class, and since the class is designed to be something of a pick-up game, with people entering and leaving at will and at any point in its progress, this statement is simply untrue.

Yes, we can (and, in our current Relief Society and Melchizedek Priesthood lessons, we do) study it from beginning to end, it is not its primary purpose. It does have a structure, but since few, if any of those attending the class for the first time will have a copy of the manual before hand, the clear intent is to give people the principle od the Gospel in any sequence they happen to receive it.

Moreover, the teacher in this class is one of the few who can do the lessons in any order he chooses, and can spend one, or five class meetings on any one lesson. This, too, negates your criticism.

The article points out that in both chapters the same passage from TPJS is quoted but that the early chapter presents a selective quotation that omits the salient point about God having once been a man. This observation, by itself, would not prove that the LDS Church was shielding new converts from the idea of God having once been a man, but the cumulative effect of the evidence, such as the progressive changes that have been made to the manual in its several editions and the notorious comments by Hinckley, makes a pretty strong case for this conclusion.

Let's assume that a new contact would hear these lessons in their "proper" order. It seems you believe that people should hear the most difficult material first in any case, so they can choke on it. Rather like sending first graderss to calculus class, doncha think?

Yet, in your own idol, the Bible, it clearly says that meat is for those who are of full age, and that milk is for those who have not yet attained a certain spiritual maturity. You all (not necessarily you, personally) want us to use the Bible. When we do, you clailm we're being untruthful.

Choose a position and stick with it, the double standard is nauseating.

Lehi

[Calm]

Even though it may be the case that new members may join a class on Gospel Principles in progress and so hear the material in chapter 47 covered before they are exposed to the earlier chapters, the manual clearly was designed to be studied from beginning to end.

It's not as if the later chapters of the manual are hidden from any investigator. They are generally given their own manual and since it is very easy English and it only takes at most a few hours to read, if they did proceed from front to back they will still encounter the concept quite quickly if they are interested enough in the faith to study on their own.

From discussions on the board, I wouldn't be surprised if the typical behaviour of those who get the manual and actually look at it is to turn to the last part and read it first considering how often I am providing links to those chapters for nonLDS who come onto this board to ask questions about our beliefs.

[ebeddoulos]

I have a friend (an Orthodox Presbyterian) who asked, "do you know of a book that is a direct attack of orthodox Christianity from a Mormon perspective?" Perhaps I have blinders on, but I don't know of any. I'm sure some will be inclined to suggest that the BoM is an attack, but he has read that and is looking for something that uses tactics similar to those used in books that attack the Mormon faith. Anyone have any suggestions?

Do Latter-day Saints write books that are “a direct attack of orthodox Christianity”

No.

There are a lot of things that we Latter-day Saints do not do but which appears to be A-OK with so called main-stream “Evangelical Orthodox Christianity”.

We Latter-day Saints do not try to obstruct or frustrate the work of other religious organizations.

We Latter-day Saints do not disturb another faith’s meetings, assemblies or conferences.

We Latter-day Saints do not organize demonstrations when other churches dedicate new buildings.

We Latter-day Saints do not draw cartoons, write satire or print editorials which ridicule other denominations.

We Latter-day Saints do not distribute leaflets ridiculing the beliefs, tenets, creeds or doctrines of others.

We Latter-day Saints do not open inter-net chat rooms with the specific intent of promoting “anti-Protestant” bashing.

We Latter-day Saints do not build internet web sites devoted exclusively to “anti-Evangelical” polemics.

We Latter-day Saints do not operate or fund “anti-Fundamentalist ministries.”

We Latter-day Saints do not organize lectures, conventions or seminars on the “evils” of our neighbors’ system of beliefs.

We Latter-day Saints do not teach a Sunday School class on the “Faithlessness of Fundamentalism.”

We Latter-day Saints do not publish periodicals with sensationalistic articles which “expose the false, deceptive, perverted and depraved doctrines of Protestant Fundamentalism”.

We Latter-day Saints do not buy or sell books with sensationalistic titles like “The AngelMakers” or “Forty Years an Evangelical Slave.”

We Latter-day Saints do not produce, distribute or show videos devoted to “The Crisis at the Cross: Conservative Calvanist Christianity” or similar melodramatic titles.

We Latter-day Saints do not have television or radio programs “exposing the errors” of other sects.

To my knowledge there is not a single Latter-day Saint who makes his living by being a critic of another faith.

Instead, we Latter-day Saints practice the admonition of Jesus: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them…” (Matthew 7:12)

In short, we Latter-day Saints practice the “Golden Rule”.

Aside from these differences, the Latter-day Saints and the anti-“Mormon”, are almost the same.

[Mike Richards]

Some quick comments:

1. The article that you are criticizing was published on IRR'swebsite two years before I became director of research.

2. I am the director of research but do not exercise unilateralcontrol over the content of our resources.

3. I don't make changes to older resources unless there is a clearneed, and prefer to make changes with the original author's agreement.

4. We have a lot of resources and there has not been time to reviewand make editorial changes to all of them.

Hi Rob,

Thanks for your reply. I wasn't certain of your roles/responsibilities at the irr. Thanks for the clarification. I can certainly understand not wanting to change an article without the original author's agreement, as well as not having the time or resources to review all the material. On this, your 4th point, I might venture to suggest that if you need help reviewing your material for accuracy or to ensure that the material is not “…unmeasured, over the top, or unfair,” that there would probably be more than one volunteer from the members of this forum who’d be happy to help with that.

You also said:

5. You seem to move rather cavalierly from thearticle being inaccurate to it being misleading and then to it being guilty of"trashing" the LDS Church.

6. Your objection to the article in question israther picayune at best.

On this sixth point, your criticism of the article doesn't putthe specific statement with which you took exception in context. Even though itmay be the case that new members may join a class on Gospel Principles inprogress and so hear the material in chapter 47 covered before they are exposedto the earlier chapters, the manual clearly was designed to be studied frombeginning to end. The article points out that in both chapters the same passagefrom TPJS is quoted but that the early chapter presents a selective quotationthat omits the salient point about God having once been a man. Thisobservation, by itself, would not prove that the LDS Church was shielding newconverts from the idea of God having once been a man, but the cumulative effectof the evidence, such as the progressive changes that have been made to themanual in its several editions and the notorious comments by Hinckley, makes apretty strong case for this conclusion.

If I seemed to you to be cavalier in my assessment, that's unfortunate. If you will reread what I wrote,you will notice that I was quit circumspect in my criticism, and only identified that statement (notice, not the entire article) as “trashing” under the conditions that the author was being deceptive. I allowed for the fact that he simply might have not understood how the class works. I’d like to know, however, what you find cavalier about the connection of a person being deceptive and your own clarification of “trashing”—unless you think deception is not, “unmeasured, over the top, or unfair”.

As for your 6^th point and your concluding remarks, I would invite you, again, to reread my post. If I were objecting to the article in its entirety, I’d agree with you that I was being rather picky. I understand that you’ve got plenty to do, so I can understand if you unintentionally misunderstood that I was criticizing that statement and not the article as a whole. However, if you did understand, you seem to be redirecting in order to avoid the legitimacy of the criticism.

[Nathair/|\]

Religious Truths

During these serious times it is important for all of us, of all faiths, to recognize these four Religious Truths:

1. Muslims do not recognize Jews as God's chosen people.

2. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

3. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian world.

4. Mormons do not recognize each other at Hooters.

[Mike Richards]

Religious Truths

During these serious times it is important for all of us, of all faiths, to recognize these four Religious Truths:

1. Muslims do not recognize Jews as God's chosen people.

2. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

3. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian world.

4. Mormons do not recognize each other at Hooters.

That's fantastic

[urroner]

4. Mormons do not recognize each other at Hooters.

Hey, I did recognize you last Saturday.

[ELF1024]

Need to add the IRR graphic...

[ELF1024]

Religious Truths

During these serious times it is important for all of us, of all faiths, to recognize these four Religious Truths:

1. Muslims do not recognize Jews as God's chosen people.

2. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

3. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian world.

4. Mormons do not recognize each other at Hooters.

Sorry, I was looking at something else.... I didn't notice you come in... pass the wings...

[ebeddoulos]

Need to add the IRR graphic...

Its there. Third one down on the right.

[Lightbearer]

mjr522,

The LDS Church doesn't publish whole books on any other religion, but it does attack the religious beliefs of other Christians.

Just as Jesus "attacked" the religions of the Jews?

(Matthew 23:13-39) "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."

Sounds like the Savior did a little attacking of the religion of the Jews... sort of similar to His "attack" of the religions in Joseph's day in the sacred grove in the First Vision...

[Rob Bowman]

mjr,

You wrote:

If I were objecting to the article in its entirety, I’d agree with you that I was being rather picky. I understand that you’ve got plenty to do, so I can understand if you unintentionally misunderstood that I was criticizing that statement and not the article as a whole. However, if you did understand, you seem to be redirecting in order to avoid the legitimacy of the criticism.

Here's what I was saying: the point with which you took issue is a valid point when taken in the context of the article as a whole. Therefore, by claiming that this one point "trashes" the LDS religion while ignoring how that point fits with the rest of the article, your criticism of that one point was unjustified. So no, I didn't misunderstand you to be criticizing the whole article. I understood you to be criticizing only one point in the article. But I found your criticism unjustified precisely because that point was not meant to stand alone.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

Yet, in your own idol, the Bible....

I'm adopting a "zero-tolerance" stance toward such asinine comments. I won't answer a post that includes comments like these. This life is just too short.

[Rob Bowman]

Lightbearer,

You misunderstand me. I have no problem with Jesus attacking someone's religious beliefs. I have no problem with Joseph Smith or you doing so. To me, the issue is not whether what someone says is an "attack" but whether it is true.

Just as Jesus "attacked" the religions of the Jews?Sounds like the Savior did a little attacking of the religion of the Jews... sort of similar to His "attack" of the religions in Joseph's day in the sacred grove in the First Vision...

[Vance]

Lehi,

You wrote:

I'm adopting a "zero-tolerance" stance toward such asinine comments. I won't answer a post that includes comments like these. This life is just too short.

Lehi,

You sly dog. By inserting that sentence, you avoided the serious and devastating response that Bowman would otherwise have posted. But now your point remains unrefuted.

You old trickster you.

[zerinus]

Lightbearer,

You misunderstand me. I have no problem with Jesus attacking someone's religious beliefs.

Jesus never attacked anyone's "religious beliefs". He attacked the religious ministers of the Jews for their hypocrisy, which are two different things.

I have no problem with Joseph Smith or you doing so.

Joseph Smith did not attack other people's religious beliefs either. Don't try to justify your own behavior by casting aspersions on Joseph Smith.

To me, the issue is not whether what someone says is an "attack" but whether it is true.

Whether someone's religious beliefs are true or not, and whether one should attack them or not, are two different things. Don't mix them up.

[Mike Richards]

Here's what I was saying: the point with which you took issue is a valid point when taken in the context of the article as a whole. Therefore, by claiming that this one point "trashes" the LDS religion while ignoring how that point fits with the rest of the article, your criticism of that one point was unjustified. So no, I didn't misunderstand you to be criticizing the whole article. I understood you to be criticizing only one point in the article. But I found your criticism unjustified precisely because that point was not meant to stand alone.

Rob,

What I was saying is that I don't see how it can be a valid point when the idea it's based on (that new members won't see the last lesson until they've been attending church for at least a year) is simply not true--putting it in context doesn't make it any less false. As I've previously said twice, I only consider this to be "trashing" if, in fact, the author was intentionally being deceptive. I don't understand why you don't agree with this. Since my criticism seems to be accurate it should be fairly easy for you to say, "Oh, look at that, you are right. I know this author and I don't think he would intentionally mislead, so it looks like he misunderstood his friend, the bishop. I'll contact him and let him know his mistake and see if he would like to correct his article." Or, "Thanks for bringing this to my attention. We at irr pride ourselves on being factual/accurate in our statements. I don't know what the author's intention was, but I'm unable to contact him. I will, however, add a link/footnote that identifies the mistake he's made so that people who read the article will recognize that this specific point doesn't actually support his thesis." Why not something like that?

[ebeddoulos]

Rob,

What I was saying is that I don't see how it can be a valid point when the idea it's based on (that new members won't see the last lesson until they've been attending church for at least a year) is simply not true--putting it in context doesn't make it any less false. As I've previously said twice, I only consider this to be "trashing" if, in fact, the author was intentionally being deceptive. I don't understand why you don't agree with this. Since my criticism seems to be accurate it should be fairly easy for you to say, "Oh, look at that, you are right. I know this author and I don't think he would intentionally mislead, so it looks like he misunderstood his friend, the bishop. I'll contact him and let him know his mistake and see if he would like to correct his article." Or, "Thanks for bringing this to my attention. We at irr pride ourselves on being factual/accurate in our statements. I don't know what the author's intention was, but I'm unable to contact him. I will, however, add a link/footnote that identifies the mistake he's made so that people who read the article will recognize that this specific point doesn't actually support his thesis." Why not something like that?

What a novel concept. IRR elevating the Golden Rule at the expense of its historical roots in anti-Mormon propaganda. I am not going to hold my breath. That said, I sincerely hope that Rob Bowman proves me wrong.

[Lightbearer]

Lightbearer,

You misunderstand me. I have no problem with Jesus attacking someone's religious beliefs. I have no problem with Joseph Smith or you doing so. To me, the issue is not whether what someone says is an "attack" but whether it is true.

Actually He was not attacking the religion of the Jews, (as already stated by zerinus)He was attacking the apostasy from those true beliefs. If the Jews had not been in a state of apostasy they would have recognized their Messiah and He would have been the heir to the throne of David. But they had allowed the precepts of men and the corruption of the teachings of the Law of Moses to blind them to the fullness of the Gospel when it came to them. Joseph Smith did not attack anyone for their beliefs either, what I was pointing out was that Jesus Christ was just as harsh with the hypocritical jews as he is with apostate christianity when He denounced the apostate condition of those churches who claimed to teach the Gospel in Joseph's day. Yes I agree that what someone says being is true is more important than if it is preceived as an attack.

[Rob Bowman]

mjr522,

You wrote:

Rob,

What I was saying is that I don't see how it can be a valid point when the idea it's based on (that new members won't see the last lesson until they've been attending church for at least a year) is simply not true--putting it in context doesn't make it any less false. As I've previously said twice, I only consider this to be "trashing" if, in fact, the author was intentionally being deceptive. I don't understand why you don't agree with this. Since my criticism seems to be accurate it should be fairly easy for you to say, "Oh, look at that, you are right. I know this author and I don't think he would intentionally mislead, so it looks like he misunderstood his friend, the bishop. I'll contact him and let him know his mistake and see if he would like to correct his article." Or, "Thanks for bringing this to my attention. We at irr pride ourselves on being factual/accurate in our statements. I don't know what the author's intention was, but I'm unable to contact him. I will, however, add a link/footnote that identifies the mistake he's made so that people who read the article will recognize that this specific point doesn't actually support his thesis." Why not something like that?

When I get a chance to talk to the author about the article (he's out of the country), I will. But I'm sure he was not intentionally misleading, so this isn't an instance of "trashing."

Now, how about the substance of the article as a whole? Do you or do you not agree that there is good evidence to support the article's overall conclusion?

[Rob Bowman]

ebed,

Your signature reads,

Where offence is not intended, none should be taken.

So, was any offense intended by your remarks?

What a novel concept. IRR elevating the Golden Rule at the expense of its historical roots in anti-Mormon propaganda. I am not going to hold my breath. That said, I sincerely hope that Rob Bowman proves me wrong.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

ebed,

Your signature reads,

So, was any offense intended by your remarks?

Ha, good one Rob.

[Sargon]

Without reading any part of this thread, two Mormon authors who wrestle with orthodox Christianity in a sophisticated way include Lou Midgley in this article and Blake Ostler throughout the 3 volumes of his "Exploring Mormon Thought" series.

Also, this entire issue of the FARMS Review is important for anyone interested in LDS/Evangelical dialogue: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=11&num=2

Those are good places to start.

[zerinus]

Now, how about the substance of the article as a whole? Do you or do you not agree that there is good evidence to support the article's overall conclusion?

Not at all. That article's conclusions are not only false, but also defamatory. It accuses the Church of dishonesty, misleading investigators, and of cover-ups, none of which is true. The King Follett discourse is not canonized scripture, and the idea that God was once a man, and progressed to become God is not official doctrine. The fact that Joseph Smith taught it, as a result of which it gained wide acceptance in the early history of the Church, doesn't make it official, or canonized. Just because the early Saints made a mistake, the Church does not have to perpetuate it. We teach investigators (and members) the doctrines that are revealed in the standard works, as commanded by the Lord, which contain the official doctrines of the Church.

[ebeddoulos]

ebed,

Your signature reads,

Where offence is not intended, none should be taken.

So, was any offense intended by your remarks?

What a novel concept. IRR elevating the Golden Rule at the expense of its historical roots in anti-Mormon propaganda. I am not going to hold my breath. That said, I sincerely hope that Rob Bowman proves me wrong.

Not really. If I was trying to be offensive I would have very carefully couched my language as follows:

I think irr.org is nothing more than a deceitful, propaganda laden, electronic rag whose sole purpose is to deliberately derail young testimonies and mislead honest seekers. I have yet to find anything on that site that can be described as anything other than intellectual flatulence. I just hope that Rob Bowman might be able to change the course and direction of that puss filled, maggot laden, anti-Christ inspired Rocky Mountain sized mound of male-bovine-feces that tries to pass itself off as a Christian Ministry. However, I am not going to hold my breath just because Rob seems to be infected by a kinder, gentler form of anti-Mormon virulence.

Now that is me deliberately being offensive. Rob, do you see the difference? By the way, I do sincerely hope that you prove me wrong. I do so hope you can turn irr.org into a Christ fearing, golden rule abiding, honesty and integrity striving web-site. Forgive me for my doubts but I do not think you have the desire or the political capacity to take on a project of such magnitude.