Does Anybody See A Problem With This?

[zerinus]

Reference was made in another thread to an article and podcast published in the Mormon Chronicle website, titled: “The Rapture, New Order Mormons, LDS Politicians, and Church History”. In that thread I chanced to mention that after listening to that podcast, I came to the conclusion that those who organized it had questionable motives. But no one seems to have picked up on that, and commented on what was actually said in the podcast which in my opinion casts doubts on the motives of the site organizers. Since it is an audio file and not a text file, it is difficult to quote from and comment on it. I have therefore extracted an audio clip from the podcast that isolates (some of) the things that were said that in my opinion casts a negative light on their motives. The whole podcast is about 20 minutes long, so perhaps people don’t want to listen to it all. I have extracted a 3 minute clip from it that I have attached to this thread. It is an mp3 file that you can download and listen to on Windows Media Player. I would like other LDS to listen to this clip, and tell me if they see a problem with it as I do.

EDIT: The attachment didn't seem to work. You can download it form Hotfile, or directly from here.

[Ariarates]

In that thread I chanced to mention that after listening to that podcast, I came to the conclusion that those who organized it had questionable motives. But no one seems to have picked up on that

You mentioned it in post no. 22 and three posters subsequently engaged you and mercyngrace about it in posts no. 23 to 30. What do you mean, then, when you say "no one seems to have picked up on that"? Also, how are the motives of the podcast organizers relevant to the podcast's content? Isn't that poisoning the well?

[zerinus]

You mentioned it in post no. 22 and three posters subsequently engaged you and mercyngrace about it in posts no. 23 to 30.

I was banned from the thread, so I was not able to reply to their posts.

What do you mean, then, when you say "no one seems to have picked up on that"?

Although a couple of people made valid comments, and correctly recognized the questionable motive behind the site, notably Jeff K. and rcrocket, they did not specifically comment on what was said in the podcast.

Also, how are the motives of the podcast organizers relevant to the podcast's content? Isn't that poisoning the well?

The podcast was made by Ezra Taylor and Brian Mecham who are the two cofounders of Mormon Chronicle. They determine the policies and direction of the site. Their views reflects the purpose and objective of the site.

And you are not engaging the podcast either! You are skirting round it without engaging topic I am raising. Were you able to download the sound clip from the sites I had provided? Do you have any views to express on it? That is what I am really interested in discussing in this thread.

[Whiskeypete]

I listened to your excerpt and didn't find anything particularly problematic there. There are some blog entries on the website that I take issue with. And at the related conservative forum site all I can say is Wow! What an amazing collection of unscientific - urban legend - conspiracy theory bu...cra... garbage. I did learn that in addition to our government causing 9/11 or the vaccines giving my children autism, a dwarf star is going to enter our solar system this September which will cause the star Betelgeuse to go supernova.

However back to the clip you posted. While I agree with the general premise that our history is sugar coated as it is currently presented, I disagree with them that Sunday School is the place to do a detailed discussion. That is only a step up from the demands of our critics that all missionaries start their initial door approaches with a discourse that includes Kolob, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, Polygamy and a discussion of how exactly Mary became "with Child". Sunday School is a place to learn the Doctrine. Seminary, Institute, Religion Classes, Ensign Articles, etc would all be good places to be focused on the nitty-gritty of history.

[bookofmormontruth]

Reference was made in another thread to an article and podcast published in the Mormon Chronicle website, titled: “The Rapture, New Order Mormons, LDS Politicians, and Church History”. In that thread I chanced to mention that after listening to that podcast, I came to the conclusion that those who organized it had questionable motives. But no one seems to have picked up on that, and commented on what was actually said in the podcast which in my opinion casts doubts on the motives of the site organizers. Since it is an audio file and not a text file, it is difficult to quote from and comment on it. I have therefore extracted an audio clip from the podcast that isolates (some of) the things that were said that in my opinion casts a negative light on their motives. The whole podcast is about 20 minutes long, so perhaps people don’t want to listen to it all. I have extracted a 3 minute clip from it that I have attached to this thread. It is an mp3 file that you can download and listen to on Windows Media Player. I would like other LDS to listen to this clip, and tell me if they see a problem with it as I do.

EDIT: The attachment didn't seem to work. You can now download form Hotfile.

Yes, most definitely questionable motives or diminishing faith.

They are implying that the leaders of the Lord's Church have not been "honest" in portraying the facts in regards to the history of the Church.

As an example, they brought up the use of the seer stones and complained how it isn't portrayed accurately in "pictures". That is a dead give away that they have surrounded themselves with anti-Mormon material since that lamest of lamest issue is only in the circles of ex-mormons and anti-Mormons.

We never hear this made-up and desperate conspiracy issue within the Church from its faithful members. This same issue was discussed thoroughly on this thread Can the Church admit some fault...... which also shows how faithful members laugh at this non-issue and is only an issue with critics and those who are not faithful members (yet they will claim to be except their negative posts shed negative light on the Church or leaders, tell otherwise).

[zerinus]

I listened to your excerpt and didn't find anything particularly problematic there. . . .

However back to the clip you posted. While I agree with the general premise that our history is sugar coated as it is currently presented, I disagree with them that Sunday School is the place to do a detailed discussion. That is only a step up from the demands of our critics that all missionaries start their initial door approaches with a discourse that includes Kolob, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, Polygamy and a discussion of how exactly Mary became "with Child". Sunday School is a place to learn the Doctrine. Seminary, Institute, Religion Classes, Ensign Articles, etc would all be good places to be focused on the nitty-gritty of history.

Thank you. You hit the nail on the head with the second paragraph. That is the kind of thing I was referring to. That proves that Mormons aren't dumb! Right? These folks must think that Mormons are stupid enough to fall for this kind of thing. I am glad that the responses to this thread so far has proved that they are wrong. Nobody falls for this kind of thing—with the possible exception of a tiny minority of gullible folk. There are other clips in the podcast that are giveaways that expose their true motives. I will extract a few more clips and post them up for discussion.

[zerinus]

Yes, most definitely questionable motives or diminishing faith.

They are implying that the leaders of the Lord's Church have not been "honest" in portraying the facts in regards to the history of the Church.

As an example, they brought up the use of the seer stones and complained how it isn't portrayed accurately in "pictures". That is a dead give away that they have surrounded themselves with anti-Mormon material since that lamest of lamest issue is only in the circles of ex-mormons and anti-Mormons.

We never hear this made-up and desperate conspiracy issue within the Church from its faithful members. This same issue was discussed thoroughly on this thread Can the Church admit some fault...... which also shows how faithful members laugh at this non-issue and is only an issue with critics and those who are not faithful members (yet they will claim to be except their negative posts shed negative light on the Church or leaders, tell otherwise).

Thank you, exactly! I have uploaded another (1.5 minute) clip from the podcast that you can download from here. I would like to know what other LDS think about this one. Notice that he starts by mocking the "rapture" guy (whose prediction failed), and then he proceeds to mock the LDS Church for "bragging" that they had "100 logos!". I have an issue with both of his mockings. The Church never mocks other people's beliefs. While I have no problems with making a light-hearted comment or a joke about it on a forum such as this; doing it when (supposedly) producing a serious content aimed at members and non-members alike is problematic from my point of view. His mocking of the LDS Newsroom article is even more telling. That article is not "bragging" about anything. It is simply presenting an interesting piece of information, which I think is indeed interesting. The guy must have a very large chip on his shoulder to interpret that as some kind of "bragging". I think the guy has more than a chip on his shoulder. He and his buddy have a problem with the Church, and the entire set-up is intended to undermine the church in subtle ways. Notice how the site is designed to mimic the design of the Church's official website—but with a "coffee" colored background! How interesting! Just whom these guys are trying to fool?

At the start of the podcast he tries to portray himself as a friend and true believer in the Church; but the rest of his words and actions give his game away as a sinister and subtle attempt at undermining the faith of Church members. LDS are not going to fall for that. They are not fooling anybody except themselves.

[Minos]

Start a thread to discuss content not motives unless the authors have disclosed them.

[zerinus]

I ain't done with that site yet! LOL!

In the other thread reference was also made to another article on the site where the writer sees Mormon "apologists" and "apostates" as two sides of the same coin! Too bad he doesn't mention any particular names, or any particular articles, with reference to which his claims can be verified. If he is really smart, why doesn't he take the bull by the horn, and come here (where most LDS I think would identify themselves as "apologists"), and present his arguments so that they can be challenged? What is he afraid of?

I fear that those guys on the Mormon Chronicle are the ones who are on the road to "apostasy," not Mormon apologists.

[zerinus]

Start a thread to discuss content not motives unless the authors have disclosed them.

Are we allowed to "read between the lines" of the contents? That is where the "motives" are disclosed.

What are we to make of the fact that their "words" belie their "declared motives"?

[blarsen]

. . . . . . . . .And at the related conservative forum site all I can say is Wow! What an amazing collection of unscientific - urban legend - conspiracy theory garbage. I did learn that in addition to our government causing 9/11 or the vaccines giving my children autism, a dwarf star is going to enter our solar system this September which will cause the star Betelgeuse to go supernova.

I just signed up here after learning about the site from a post on the LDSFreedomForum discussing the reaction to some articles post on Mormon Chronicles. Thought I'd drop in and see what there was to see.

It may be useful to know that LDSFreedomForum could probably be regarded principally as a political site for LDS Conservative/libertarian types and is not devoted exclusively to LDS/Mormon topics. I've known Brian for 6 years and really haven't and don't see any tendencies toward apostasy or anti-Mormonism. Quite the contrary. Many times he has reigned people in on his blog and defended the Church and the brethren, and I don't think Brian would mind me mentioning he sat at the feet of Cleon Skousen studying Constitutional issues. That is where I met him.

However, LDS Freedom forum is a very open one, with many participants leaning toward the libertarian end of the political spectrum. It is a site where people feel fairly comfortable in airing controversial topics and happenings. Most of its denizens aren't put off by the name-calling opprobrium that has been attached to the word 'conspiracy' or the phrase 'conspiracy theory' or theorist. They tend to redeem the charge made by Hugh Nibley, where he said something like (paraphrasing): LDS in general avoid controversial topics. That has a tendency to make for a decided lack of candor among them.

Many participants will wade in and take issue with different topics presented, including speculation about the comet Elena, etc. But at least these things won't be totally ignored and swept under the rug with anyone bringing them up labeled and ostracized as nut jobs.

Many of the habitues of the site have also undergone what they regard (taken from Ether as 'having waked up to our awful situation'. They realize that President Benson was correct when he said in his 'I Testify' conference talk, Fall of 1988, that secret combinations are rampant even in his day, with a preeminent one gaining control and power in both this country and many of the countries of the world. This of course, is beyond the pale to many LDS at the present time.

And WhiskeyPete, you're right, the various issues of 9/11 and its implications have been discussed pro and con almost ad nauseam. And yes, there are those who will jump to blanket accusations that the government did it. Others stick to the actual facts, evidence and testimony indicating the official story has large holes in it, and that the WTC buildilngs (including Building 7) were likely brought down with incendiaries/explosives. But at least LDS people can delve into this controversial issue on this site. I think that is wonderful. What do you think? Can you tell me without using disdain and name calling??

As for the Mormon Chronicle site, I've read only one article, so far: an article on passages from the Book of Mormon making the case for why 'preemptive' warfare is evil, which has a LOT of relevance to what is going on today, especially with our government.

I hope this adds some clarification to at least one of Brian's web sites.

[blarsen]

(taken from Ether as 'having waked up to our awful situation'.

That was Ether 8 . How do you edit a post here?

[Calm]

That was Ether 8 . How do you edit a post here?

I think you need a few more posts, but then the edit option shows up in the bottom righthand corner.

Thanks for taking the time to respond, welcome to the board!

[zerinus]

I just signed up here after learning about the site from a post on the LDSFreedomForum discussing the reaction to some articles post on Mormon Chronicles. Thought I'd drop in and see what there was to see.

It may be useful to know that LDSFreedomForum could probably be regarded principally as a political site for LDS Conservative/libertarian types and is not devoted exclusively to LDS/Mormon topics. I've known Brian for 6 years and really haven't and don't see any tendencies toward apostasy or anti-Mormonism. Quite the contrary. Many times he has reigned people in on his blog and defended the Church and the brethren, and I don't think Brian would mind me mentioning he sat at the feet of Cleon Skousen studying Constitutional issues. That is where I met him.

However, LDS Freedom forum is a very open one, with many participants leaning toward the libertarian end of the political spectrum. It is a site where people feel fairly comfortable in airing controversial topics and happenings. Most of its denizens aren't put off by the name-calling opprobrium that has been attached to the word 'conspiracy' or the phrase 'conspiracy theory' or theorist. They tend to redeem the charge made by Hugh Nibley, where he said something like (paraphrasing): LDS in general avoid controversial topics. That has a tendency to make for a decided lack of candor among them.

Many participants will wade in and take issue with different topics presented, including speculation about the comet Elena, etc. But at least these things won't be totally ignored and swept under the rug with anyone bringing them up labeled and ostracized as nut jobs.

Many of the habitues of the site have also undergone what they regard (taken from Ether as 'having waked up to our awful situation'. They realize that President Benson was correct when he said in his 'I Testify' conference talk, Fall of 1988, that secret combinations are rampant even in his day, with a preeminent one gaining control and power in both this country and many of the countries of the world. This of course, is beyond the pale to many LDS at the present time.

And WhiskeyPete, you're right, the various issues of 9/11 and its implications have been discussed pro and con almost ad nauseam. And yes, there are those who will jump to blanket accusations that the government did it. Others stick to the actual facts, evidence and testimony indicating the official story has large holes in it, and that the WTC buildilngs (including Building 7) were likely brought down with incendiaries/explosives. But at least LDS people can delve into this controversial issue on this site. I think that is wonderful. What do you think? Can you tell me without using disdain and name calling??

As for the Mormon Chronicle site, I've read only one article, so far: an article on passages from the Book of Mormon making the case for why 'preemptive' warfare is evil, which has a LOT of relevance to what is going on today, especially with our government.

I hope this adds some clarification to at least one of Brian's web sites.

Thank you for your reply, although most of it is unrelated to the subject of the thread.

[blarsen]

Thank you for your reply, although most of it is unrelated to the subject of the thread.

It was simply an attempt to vouch for Brian. Mecham and clarify some of Whiskey Pete's rather disparaging comments about one of Brian's web sites. Is this kind of thing disallowed in this forum??

[blarsen]

I think you need a few more posts, but then the edit option shows up in the bottom righthand corner.

Thanks for taking the time to respond, welcome to the board!

Hey, thanks!

[zerinus]

More Fun with the Podcast! LOL!

Talking about “motives,” at the start of the podcast the cofounder, Ezra Taylor, declares the aims and objectives (the motives, if you like) of the site, which I have extracted as a 30 second clip which can be downloaded here. Since it is a tiny clip I have transcribed it in writing below (although listening to the clip is better because the tone and intonation of the voice adds something to the content that is lost in the transcription):

The Mormon Chronicle is dedicated to building truth and correct principles based on the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a news and information outlet for all things Mormon. Though this is not an official outlet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we support its mission as Christ’s Church. The Mormon Chronicle debunks falsehood from both the enemies of the Church

as well as its apologists

. The Mormon Chronicles slaughters sacred cows! The Mormon Chronicle is not responsible for anyone being offended

by the truth

.

Wow! I am really impressed by all the blood running down the street from the slaughter of all those poor “sacred cows”. Well, if these guys have such a gripe with “Mormon apologists,” they should come here and debate with the Mormon, show us what they are made of, prove their metal, instead of shouting from behind their “coffee-colored” smokescreen.

[Calm]

It was simply an attempt to vouch for Brian. Mecham and clarify some of Whiskey Pete's rather disparaging comments about one of Brian's web sites. Is this kind of thing disallowed in this forum??

Nope, but if it is off topic, you might want to open a new thread instead of derailing someone else's (some people are sensitive about that ). You have to have 25 posts to start a new thread in this forum. If you don't want to go through and make comments on all the other threads here to up your body count, you can go to Social Hall, start a thread and then just keep talking to yourself...someone else might chime in to help you out as well. The "Three word" story thread would be a quick way to up your post count as well if you are semi-creative (don't have to read the whole thread, just a page or two to get going).

[blarsen]

Nope, but if it is off topic, you might want to open a new thread instead of derailing someone else's (some people are sensitive about that ). You have to have 25 posts to start a new thread in this forum. If you don't want to go through and make comments on all the other threads here to up your body count, you can go to Social Hall, start a thread and then just keep talking to yourself...someone else might chime in to help you out as well. The "Three word" story thread would be a quick way to up your post count as well if you are semi-creative (don't have to read the whole thread, just a page or two to get going). My first post was hardly an attempt to hijack this thread. Simply a response to WhiskeyPetes' comments. This is a Memorial Day excursion for me. But I'll have to confess, I'm impressed with some of the posts in the threads I've looked at. Alas, I may find myself spending more time here.

A suggestion: those of you who take issue with articles appearing on Mormon Chronicle might find it entertaining to present your critiques on LDS Freedom Forum and see if you can get any response; or at least invite participation to your discussions of these articles, etc., on this blog.

Also, it would be curious to me to start a new thread here dealing with maybe the issue of Ether 8 and the evidence or lack thereof that we are well into the time foretold and warned about by Moroni; even bringing issues of 9/11, and how that has been a watershed for some rather dangerous precedents in this country, including preemptive warfare and torture, both explicitly/implicitly forbidden by our LDS scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon, in my strongly held view.

[blarsen]

Uh oh, my inability to edit leaves my actual post hung up in the quote of foregoing post. I thought the ending 'quote' designator was in the right place. My words start with: "My first post . . . " Not being able to edit a post until a certain number have been entered seems a bit odd.

[Calm]

Uh oh, my inability to edit leaves my actual post hung up in the quote of foregoing post. I thought the ending 'quote' designator was in the right place. My words start with: "My first post . . . " Not being able to edit a post until a certain number have been entered seems a bit odd.

Some other new guy was doing this. Keep trying, if it keeps doing the same thing, report it to a mod as it may be a glitch. You can also ask a mod to edit (use the report button on your post) if it really bothers you, but since you pointed out where it starts, I wouldn't worry about it.

The not being able to edit (if this is indeed a fact) is to deal with trolls I believe, same reason for not allowing them to start threads in the main forum right away. Just makes sure someone is a serious poster before granting all privileges.

[blarsen]

Some other new guy was doing this. Keep trying, if it keeps doing the same thing, report it to a mod as it may be a glitch. You can also ask a mod to edit (use the report button on your post) if it really bothers you, but since you pointed out where it starts, I wouldn't worry about it.

The not being able to edit (if this is indeed a fact) is to deal with trolls I believe, same reason for not allowing them to start threads in the main forum right away. Just makes sure someone is a serious poster before granting all privileges.

Makes sense. Windows 7, 64-bit seems to create some odd effects on other sites. Maybe here as well, though.

[volgadon]

I ain't done with that site yet! LOL!

In the other thread reference was also made to another article on the site where the writer sees Mormon "apologists" and "apostates" as two sides of the same coin! Too bad he doesn't mention any particular names, or any particular articles, with reference to which his claims can be verified. If he is really smart, why doesn't he take the bull by the horn, and come here (where most LDS I think would identify themselves as "apologists"), and present his arguments so that they can be challenged? What is he afraid of?

I fear that those guys on the Mormon Chronicle are the ones who are on the road to "apostasy," not Mormon apologists.

He mentioned Richard Bushman, IIRC. Not that he is an apologist, but the writers thinks him such.

[zerinus]

He mentioned Richard Bushman, IIRC. Not that he is an apologist, but the writers thinks him such.

Bushman is not mentioned in either article, but only in the comments; and then not as an "apologist," but as but as a kind of "counter-apologist" whom Tailor admires! Tailor voices admiration for Bushman because he considers him good scholar who does not engage in "apologetics;" but he doesn't make it clear what he means by an "apologists". He appears to have a gripe with Mormons who regularly engage in religious debate, and therefore like to defend their faith when challenged. I don't consider myself as an "apologist". I am just a guy who enjoys discussing religion, with both Mormons and non-Mormons alike. But if my religious beliefs are challenged by a critic, then of course I will defend it, which would put me in an "apologetic" position. But this guy seems to have a problem with that. Well, who the heck is he! If he has a gripe, let him come here and present his argument and defend it; not shout abuses at "apologists" from behind the safety of his "coffee-colored" smokescreen.

[jo1952]

It appears to me that they are guilty of what they are accusing others of doing. And the comment about "truth" seems a bit high and mightyish if they think they are the only ones who can discern it.

I understand that there are some posters here who know Brian and are fond of him. But even our friends can be led astray - it isn't the first time, and won't be the last. I have a bad feeling about this website. I'm even seeing that Church leaders may not like what is being done there.

I'm also having trouble understanding some of the things they are saying - they just aren't making much sense to me. But this could be just me; I'm not the brightest person on the block. I just don't see much real light being shared there.

my two cents....

jo