Shaken Faith

[Storm Rider]

I think some peole leave because they believe they have found something better. As I mentioned on another thread, some people do better elsewhere; as long as they are growing closer to Jesus Christ, I tend to not get too excited. Our Father in Heaven has a plan and sometimes what looks like a bad turn is used to accomplish much good and fulfill the will of God.

[Xander]

Yes, that's right. It's called the Scientific Method. Ever heard of it? I have definitively proven that anti-mormons are not the "smart-ones".

You do not understand the scientific method if you think it has anything to do with proving a group of people you don't like, to be ignorant, dumb, inferior, or whatever.

Unlike religious and spiritual claims, facts and data that people present are easily verifiable and comparable with other claims, and so is methodology, whether it is quality scholarship, or bigoted hit pieces.

Your view is too simplistic and you generalize too much.

Any actual objective person be they LDS or not can see on a claim by simple comparison if an anti-mormon data is fully accurate, or the LDS data is fully accurate.

This is pure nonsense. No matter what the criticism and no matter what level of evidence is against a Mormon claim, someone can always claim something like "wait until all facts are known" or something akin to this. The fact is we will never have all facts, but humans make judgment calls all the time based on the facts that we have, and Mormons are not immune to this. People join the Church all the time without knowing "all the facts" but that is OK in your eyes because you trust the Church to provide the facts that it thinks you need to know before making an educated and well informed decision to join. But who should really be the judge of that, you or the Church? You think the Church obviously, because further investigation is frowned upon. Missionaries and Church authorities NEVER recommend anyone read the "other side" because that "side" has been demonized and no good can ever come from it. So just trust the Church to provide everything you need to know in two short discussions before committing you to baptism. That's making a decision based on "all the facts" right? Wrong. So Mormons are hardly in any position to complain about anti-Mormons drawing conclusions based on anything less than "all the facts." You probably think it is fine to say nothing to black investigators about the priesthood ban. LDS scholar Kevin Barney has stated that to do this would be nothing short of "missionary malpractice" because naturally a black investigator would need to know something like this before making an informed decision. But we both know missionaries don't discuss this because they are supposed to stick to the six discussions provided by the Church and the missionary discussions have never had anything to do with the "scientific method."

For example, Jewish Anti-Defamation Leagues often put out statements condemning certain anti-mormon works

So what? They condemn all forms of criticism against many religions. That does make all criticism "anti-Mormonism" and it certainly doesn't prove them wrong.

These works by the way, are no different than the things anti-mormons say all the time, so, it's not as if the works were especially immoral.

Which "works"? You're generalizing again.

They've condemned the most extreme Ed Decker and the least extreme Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ DVD put out a couple of years ago.

And they've also said nothing about dozens of other critics and organizations who you would no doubt label anti-Mormon.

There are other objective people out there

No one is objective.

who have their own beliefs and views, who don't misrepresent or lie about mormonism, and can see how anti-mormons lie.

Then maybe you will be willing to pony up and put your theory to the test. Are you willing? Let's do this.

I can provide you with numerous examples where "anti-Mormons" have presented facts that would otherwise go unnoticed, and where the LDS apologists/scholars were the ones misrepresenting the data. This throws a wrench in the popular LDS theory that all critics of Mormonism are a bunch of liars who rely on incomplete data while the defenders are always telling nothing but the objective truth.

[Xander]

Problem is, most people tend to be focused in one direction or another and having interests and lack of interest in one direction or another, and they don't sit back and objectively take and compare two sides using the scientific method. For example, those who have no interest in religion, or are already a part of a religion, they see that there was a "Priesthood Ban" in the LDS Church, and maybe a couple seeming racist or ethno-centrist quotes by an LDS leader, they then say to themselves and in public..... "Evil, the LDS Church is racist". Now, what went wrong here?

Nothing went wrong. That is their opinion and they have a right to it. The only problem I see is your intolerance towards anyone who would express something less than a rosey perception of Mormonism. Obviously jumping to conclusions based on incomplete data is acceptable to you since this is what the Church expects from all potential converts.

They made a judgment without even seeing if there was more to the story

Ridiculous. There is always "more" to the story, but people make judgments based on the data they have. Mormons and Mormon converts do the same thing all the time. No one ever has "all the facts."

Maybe at some point later they might learn a little more, but their objectivity is gone, and their bias is already set, so they see nothing else but racism.

Funny, you're doing precisely what you accuse the anti-Mormons. You're poisoning the well and making sweeping claims of victories over the entire spectrum of criticisms towards the Church, and yet I have seen you address not a single one and refute it.

That's how most people do things..... Most people, don't use the scientific method. They don't see a claim, and they don't then seek out more information from all sides on the claim to see what is the actual truth on the issue, and THEN make a judgment.

Yes, but this applies especially to LDS apologists. The scientific method wasn't designed for apologists whose only goal is to defend a certain position and interpret all evidence in a way that conforms to their predetermined conclusions. The scientific method is a thorn in their side.

I've been in various other religions, I've been a basic believing LDS, I've been an anti-mormon/anti-religion, and I've been a full and forever believer.

Sure you have.

Well, I'm considered anti-Mormon by many here even though I was an online apologist for roughly a decade. I've seen both sides up close and personal, and unlike you, I don't use a pseudonym. So I can claim to have seen both sides up close and personal, and people know I'm telling the truth. And based on my experience, what you say is entirely false.

And what did I do during that entire process? I compared and contrasted perspectives, seeing what was and wasn't from one stage to the next.

As did I. And ultimately, I was convinced that the apologetic enterprise has been projecting for the most part. At the very least it is just as guilty of the things it complains about with critics, and they love to invoke the worst of the worst by using Decker and Martin as examples, as if every critic under the sun can be thrown into that category of ignorant Evangelical anti-Mormonism. In reality, what Dan Vogel says or does cannot be undermined simply because Walter Martin lied about stuff. What Brent metcalfe or Michael Marquardt published, should not be dismissed simply because Ed Decker lied about stuff. There is nothing "scientific" in this method of poisoning the well.

You can't say I haven't proved that anti-mormons aren't the smart ones, because you haven't actually gone to the next stage of understanding to know and see how I can know and claim that.

I'm saying it, and I'm also saying you have no earthly idea what you're talking about.

During the period when I was interested in finally finding out what was really true, I had no interest or bias one way or another, I was only interested in the absolute truth

This is absurd. Investigators are sold on the Mormon story and they want it to be true. Eternal families, one true church, preexistence, becoming gods, the traditional idea of eternal hellfire gets downgraded substantially etc etc. This is an attractive religious model for many people. The whole point behind "Building Relationships of Trust" is to get people to want these same things, and for the most part they do. If people do not commit to baptism, it isn't because they don't like the selling points of Mormonism. It is usually because they can't buy into the numerous truth claims after investigating the matter beyond LDS approved materials (which never tell the "whole story" by the way). You make it seem like you were some purely objective person who was only interested in scientific facts, and then after investigating the Church, came away believing the plethora of incredible truth claims. You want us to believe the only reason people do not choose to join Mormonism is because their minds have been tainted with too much anti-Mormon bias, as if joining a Church with this much baggage is just a no-brainer for the purely objective individual. Who do you think you're kidding? How did you apply to "scientific method" to come to the knowledge that God wanted the priesthood ban, that God wanted polygamy in the Church just before he wanted it taken away again, that the concept of eternal families is in any sense coherent, that God wanted to hide all the compelling evidence foe a Nephite society to test our faith, etc. Please, do tell how every controversial issue is resolved easily via the "scientific method."

I would have been perfectly happy if the Church and other religions were false. So, after eliminating all other religions as potential reasonable candidates, I sat down, took an anti-mormon claim, and and took the LDS scholarship on the same subject, and saw clearly and easily each and every point where the anti-mormon omits important info, makes false statements and assumptions, degrades unfairly, is hypocritical, etc.

This sounds like the mock scenario presented at the end of Darrick Evenson's book, where he shoots down every anti-Mormon claim known to man. Let's see how you do in a real world scenario with a real critic.

thus I saw clearly that the anti-mormon isn't at all telling the truth.

THE anti-Mormon! As if every criticism ever presented against the Church comes from THE anti-Mormon!

Anyway, comparing data of two sides, seeing which is actually "smarter", telling the whole truth, is most certainly a "provable" exercise.

Yes, but are you willing to test your claim publicly? According to your theory, any critic of the Church can be classified as "the anti-Mormon" who lies and relies on less information, whereas the defenders are always telling teh whole story.

Not my problem if you don't actually use that ability and understanding when it comes to mormonism.

I have, and I can demonstrate that everything you have said is false. In my experience, LDS critics like Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe are infinitely more honest with the data than LDS scholars/apologists.

[Xander]

I think some peole leave because they believe they have found something better. As I mentioned on another thread, some people do better elsewhere; as long as they are growing closer to Jesus Christ, I tend to not get too excited. Our Father in Heaven has a plan and sometimes what looks like a bad turn is used to accomplish much good and fulfill the will of God.

That's a fair assumption, but it isn't true in my case. I didn't find something better.

[Libs]

Why did you leave, Xander?

[Storm Rider]

That's a fair assumption, but it isn't true in my case. I didn't find something better.

Curious, did you simply leave faith behind you? Are you saying that where you are at presently makes you less happy than where you were in the Church?

[Jeff K.]

I wasn't talking about the gospel but about what he said. What he said is a poor presentation of a poor picture of the gospel. I find the Gospel itself actually not foolish at all. Not convincing and wrong, but not foolish.

I wasn't talking about the gospel but about what he said. What he said is a poor presentation of a poor picture of the gospel. I find the Gospel itself actually not foolish at all. Not convincing and wrong, but not foolish.

Elguanteloko one is forced to make an observation. Everytime someone raises a good point, you leave an insulting remark, and then do nothing, absoluteling nothing to counter an argument. You call it "funny" and say nothing more. I would suggest that instead of doing troll work, try just try to respond if you feel the other person is incorrect in their conclusions. You have done this three or four times in the past two days. One can only presume that to be your modus operandi when you have been shown to be in error.

[staccato]

I don't know if it has been mentioned already, but in the case of mormonism, there is a little notion called covenant that I think makes people feel their faith will have more grit to it. They are promised that if they do certain things, God is bound to respond in certain ways. This two-sided negotiation (or alleged negotiation) with a divine being can give an illusion that a person can actually bind God to do what they want.

This is the not the case. One cannot negotiate with God to try to arrive at a desired outcome. Covenant mentality is without substance.

[HeatherAnn]

I don't know if it has been mentioned already, but in the case of mormonism, there is a little notion called covenant that I think makes people feel their faith will have more grit to it. They are promised that if they do certain things, God is bound to respond in certain ways. This two-sided negotiation (or alleged negotiation) with a divine being can give an illusion that a person can actually bind God to do what they want.

This is the not the case. One cannot negotiate with God to try to arrive at a desired outcome. Covenant mentality is without substance.

I can see how the covenant belief of "if I do this, God must do that" & how much people give in time, energy, money etc.. can really shake one's faith, if it seems that God (or truth or the LDS church) doesn't come through as expected.

In a way, I agree with you, that covenant mentality is without substance... when one defines God as distant & demanding.

Yet, I'd disagree, if one defines God as an experience within us (as Jesus taught). It's like we're making a covenant with ourselves.... between our ego & higher self.

When we view covenants & adversity in the big picture... we realize everything happens for our good... for our progress.

There's an interesting study about how religious beliefs either helps or harms, depending on one's perspective....

Helps: if one has religious direction, & who views God as loving, one tends to cope better with adversity & had better psychological health.

Harms: Women who were most committed to church attendance found coping more difficult.

Those who considered God to be distant & demanding were more likely unhappy & spiritually dissatisfied.

http://realdoctorstu...erious-illness/

Edited July 31, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[ldsfaqs]

I do not think desired outcomes play much of a role in most people who become disaffected from the Church. I know few people who complain about such things, and those who did rarely held the Church responsible.

I feel sad when I see so many people in the Church pretend to understand what it is like to go through a crisis of faith, just because they once had doubts or briefly left the Church. This is like someone pretending to understand what it is like to suffer nine months of agonizing terminal cancer simply because he or she once had a benign tumor. This isn't to suggest apostasy is a disease, but to point out the reality that many of these people are suffering. I think this too often gets lost in the mix of LDS "explanations" as to why so many people end up leaving the faith.

If you really want to understand why some people leave the faith, why not ask them?

For me it had nothing to do with failed expectations, bitter resentment or a desire to sin.

Why don't you first come back and be a full believer and knower of the truth again, and then try to tell us that our judgments were false.

We also know very well there is an intellectual component, so stop misrepresenting us as if we only say "it's a desire to sin" that made you leave.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

It seems to me that "failed expectations" would be a factor in a lot of people who have lost their faith. But if your experience is different, then I'm curious as to the cause of your lost faith.

[ldsfaqs]

You do not understand the scientific method if you think it has anything to do with proving a group of people you don't like, to be ignorant, dumb, inferior, or whatever.

Boy, do I really have to deal with Kevin Graham?

As to your comment, I'm not the one who brought that up, your anti-mormon buddy did, I simply responded and corrected his false assumptions.

Also, the scientific method can be applied to anything to determine fact and truth. Thus, you are wrong.

Comparative reasoning and conclusive analysis are valid scientific methods. Take a statement by an anti-mormon, and take a statement by a mormon, one can easily compare the two using all the available data to see who is actually telling the truth and nothing but the truth. Not our problem if you don't understand that.

Your view is too simplistic and you generalize too much.

You may think it's more complex than it is, but I know for a fact it's not. Take Gilbert Scharff's response to the God Makers, or any other LDS responses to anti-mormon claims. There might be three columns of information. The first is the anti-mormon lie about us, then there is their claim of beliefs, and then the LDS response where they correct the lie with the full truth, and if necessary they correct the Christian belief with what the scriptures etc. actually in full teach and say on the subject, which ultimately ends up being the accurate LDS belief. While this is simplistic, it is a comparative methodology, in which one can easily see who is telling the truth, and who is lying. It doesn't need to get more convoluted and complex then that to see the actual truth. Obviously, there is the more detailed works on a subject which proves anti-mormon claims as false, but I'm making it simple for you to understand the concept.

This is pure nonsense. No matter what the criticism and no matter what level of evidence is against a Mormon claim, someone can always claim something like "wait until all facts are known" or something akin to this.

No, it's not nonsense, I see it all the time, sadly not even close to as much as I see anti-mormonism, but there ARE objective and fair people out there. Don't blame the messenger simply because you aren't one of them. Anti-mormon claims haven't changed in a 100 years, so we don't really have to "wait" for much, because they've already been answered. Even the DNA argument wasn't knew, because it was a play off the old argument which science already knew by body-typing that natives of the America's were of primarily Asiatic Decent. Mormonism had already answered that question. I laughed when Thomas Murphy told his "new" discovery to me. Sure, some things we have to wait, but that is normal. We still have plenty of evidences otherwise which proves our faith.

The fact is we will never have all facts, but humans make judgment calls all the time based on the facts that we have, and Mormons are not immune to this.

Well aware of that "fact". The question then is the degree, the accuracy of the facts, as well as what facts are even seen. I can't tell you the amount of times I've pointed out a fact to an anti-mormon like you, which debunks some fact or claim they make, and yet they act like I nor any other mormon said anything. One who has hate in them, the need to destroy other good people is something that can't see the truth. You may deny this, but it's a fact.

People join the Church all the time without knowing "all the facts" but that is OK in your eyes because you trust the Church to provide the facts that it thinks you need to know before making an educated and well informed decision to join. But who should really be the judge of that, you or the Church? You think the Church obviously, because further investigation is frowned upon. Missionaries and Church authorities NEVER recommend anyone read the "other side" because that "side" has been demonized and no good can ever come from it. So just trust the Church to provide everything you need to know in two short discussions before committing you to baptism. That's making a decision based on "all the facts" right? Wrong. So Mormons are hardly in any position to complain about anti-Mormons drawing conclusions based on anything less than "all the facts." You probably think it is fine to say nothing to black investigators about the priesthood ban. LDS scholar Kevin Barney has stated that to do this would be nothing short of "missionary malpractice" because naturally a black investigator would need to know something like this before making an informed decision. But we both know missionaries don't discuss this because they are supposed to stick to the six discussions provided by the Church and the missionary discussions have never had anything to do with the "scientific method."

People don't have to know all facts in existence in order to live life and make quality of life decisions.

Don't put words into our mouths. We've never said anything about anything being "okay" that we are to "trust the Church" etc.

People are not making an "ignorant" decision. They are presented with more information, and based on their own backgrounds, education, etc. they choose. It's the same way people choose NOT to join. Do you disparage them also for being stupid for using their free agency the opposite direction? Likely not. So, stop the double standard. If you are presented with a Candy Bar, do you need to know everything about it in order to start eating it? No.

People aren't "forced" to join. They join when they are comfortable to do so. Some need more information, others have enough, and/or learn more later. So, where do you get this idea that "the Church" is making the decision for people to join, and how much information they need? The Church is about gathering the wheat from the tares, those who are ready to harvest. Giving a basic introduction is all people who are ready to harvest need to start on the path to Eternal Life. Since when do you need to know Algebra already in order to start learning basic math??? Again, stop with the unreasonable and hypocritical expectations and standards.

Lie, further investigation is not "frowned upon". People are free to learn and know anything they need to learn and know. Life is not a one size fits all. The Church expects people to study the scriptures and anything else on their own before they join. You don't know what you are talking about.

Why would I need to read and study Fanatical Islam in order to understand the Jews? Of course Jews are not going to encourage you to study fanatical islam, so why do you expect mormons to go to the proponents of lies, propaganda, and bigotry? You are clueless to the fact that you ARE a proponent of lies and liars. The Church has every right to "discourage" going to bigots to learn about the Church. We don't ban it, we only discourage it, because anything you learn from our enemy's can be learned from us, but the difference is is we will tell you the whole truth, while the anti's will only tell you the most negative seeming, and present the most stupid, racist, immoral, non-Biblical, etc. picture they can of us.

Let me tell you a secret. There is a difference from a basic telling of facts that are true, and a basic telling of facts that are false.

Anti-mormons use a little truth and facts to lie, mormonism uses a little truth to tell the truth. It's not lying when it shows a picture of Joseph Smith at a table with the plates on it. That did in fact happen, it was ONE of several method's utilized in translation, but it's the most easiest to portray in picture form the "process" of what was occurring. Anti-mormons however lie, by saying the translation actually occurred by having his head in a hat. First, that wasn't the only method, not the primarily method either so they lie about that, and second they are trying to make the Church look stupid, that in itself is also lying. So, one basic telling, the one by the Church is still the truth, only simplified, while the other basic telling by the anti-mormon is an intentional misrepresentation, thus a lie. Anyway, there are better examples than this, but hopefully you get the idea that it's not simply the "amount" of facts that is the problem, it's also how you use the facts, whether you use them to fairly represent the truth, or whether you cherry pick them and use them to misrepresent the truth to try and make the Church look bad. When we teach our children the basics of the Gospel in Sunday School, we are not lying to them. But when you grab your picking of facts about mormonism, you are most certainly lying about it. The mormonism I believe now as a well learned and experienced intellectual in the Church, is the same exact mormonism I learned as a child. It's simply more detailed, it knows how the enemy's of the Church pervert the truth, etc. LDS don't have to know "your" truths about the Church in order to know all the facts and truths about the Church. I've seen many older members of the Church who have never dealt with anti-mormonism at all, but they are well learned in LDS theology, the scriptures, LDS history, etc., and they can shoot down any anti-mormon claim in a second. The Church and it's members DO tell the truth, because that's what we are about, the entire and full truth from where-ever it comes.

Actually, when I met a black person in or out of the Church, that's one of the first things I talk about, is the Priesthood ban. I pre-empt the anti-mormon lies with the full truth and facts. I can't tell you how many blacks in the Church and out that have been surprised by the information I present them, how they have been lied to by anti-mormons, or just didn't know the full facts from even the Church itself or other members. Of course, they know me, they know my spirit, my heart, my intellect when I'm talking to them personally. I don't get the "hand wave" like I get from anti-mormons like you on the internet. Of course, these people aren't anti-mormon, so, that makes a difference. But, even those without a bias have a problem with this issue, until they are personally informed otherwise. On the internet it's more difficult to demonstrate truth by facts alone.

The person being taught has every right to use the scientific method on anything they are learning, and are free to learn even more outside of what they are taught.

The missionary discussions are a "lesson plan". Who said anything about it being a "scientific method". Goodness!

LDS of their own free will are supposed to learn and study things out in their own minds. Guess what, the scientific method is involved in that process.

So what? They condemn all forms of criticism against many religions. That does make all criticism "anti-Mormonism" and it certainly doesn't prove them wrong.

They do not simply condemn "criticism", nice play on the words. They condemn bigotry. The fact that you don't know the difference is telling.

They haven't condemned any actual "critics", that is the respectful, the responsible, and the moral. They've only condemned anti-mormons and anti-mormon works.

Actually, it does prove them wrong, no different than Fanatical Islam or the KKK is in the wrong. Wrong is wrong, you need to remember that again. You used to be one of the good guys, and should know better.

Which "works"? You're generalizing again.

The works like the God Makers and the lesser inflammatory Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ DVD.

Both make the same false and immoral arguments that all anti-mormons make, one being "nicer" than the other doesn't excuse the lying and immorality of it.

No, I wasn't generalizing, I had examples.

And they've also said nothing about dozens of other critics and organizations who you would no doubt label anti-Mormon.

They have condemned a majority of the major and popular works and actions by anti-mormons. Just because they don't waste their time condemning every single idiot out there, doesn't mean an idiot is not being an idiot, and a duck doesn't quack like a duck.

No one is objective.

Maybe that's your problem. A person can most certainly be objective, if they think it and do it. It's not that hard, I've done it, and I do it every day still. I still sometimes have to turn off my own judgments, and just look at the facts, comparing them, and patiently studying deeper, to discover the actual truth on an issue. Fortunately, I still prove mormonism and conservatism true every day, because both are on the side of right and truth, while the other side is in fact the perversion of it.

Then maybe you will be willing to pony up and put your theory to the test. Are you willing? Let's do this.

I can provide you with numerous examples where "anti-Mormons" have presented facts that would otherwise go unnoticed, and where the LDS apologists/scholars were the ones misrepresenting the data. This throws a wrench in the popular LDS theory that all critics of Mormonism are a bunch of liars who rely on incomplete data while the defenders are always telling nothing but the objective truth.

I have never said that every single LDS addresses or has seen every single thing on an issue. I sometimes read an LDS book in which I wish the LDS writing it had said more on a subject, clarified it more, addressed some of the anti-mormon claims etc. That's normal human fallibility. But, I can assure you, one or a few other LDS have addressed the so-called missing thing you claim, and you are still wrong in your judgments. Anti-mormonism lies and misrepresents basically everything concerning mormonism, that's not normal human fallibility, that's something else entirely. I'm okay with the rare humanness of a mormon, but I'm not okay with anti-mormons who don't tell the whole truth on anything.

But, fell free to give me a couple of your examples. I must warn you however, if other LDS have delt with the issues you present, then you don't have a case. Only if LDS acted like anti-mormons and lied about everything or even some of your claims, then maybe you would have a case. But, we don't, so you don't. But, feel free. I'm always open to being corrected on anything.

[ldsfaqs]

Nothing went wrong. That is their opinion and they have a right to it. The only problem I see is your intolerance towards anyone who would express something less than a rosey perception of Mormonism. Obviously jumping to conclusions based on incomplete data is acceptable to you since this is what the Church expects from all potential converts.

Makes me wonder if you are reading my words?

Something did go wrong, they didn't objectively compare and seek out the actual truth. They learned some drive-by quotations and then assume that's the truth, rather than seeking out the truth themselves by using any sort of objective methodology. Maybe you think it's a good thing to be tossed around by the whims of some agenda be it good or bad, but to me it shows the state of the culture, and more importantly with our discussion the state of anti-mormonism.

And that is simply not true. People are being taught the necessary and important data, and it's the truth also. As I explained in the previous post, there is truthful basic data, and there is false basic data.

Children are not being lied to simply because they are taught the basics of the Gospel in a way they can understand. An individual isn't being lied to because they are taught basic math before they are taught algebra. You don't ignore learning basic math simply because you have to wait to learn the Algebra. Thus, your example and reversal onto us is false and out of it's appropriate context.

Further, I've never said learning isn't a process, line upon line, precept upon precept. The question is, is whether someone is getting FAIR and accurate information, or unfair and inaccurate information.

LDS give fair and accurate info, while anti-mormons give unfair and inaccurate information.

Ridiculous. There is always "more" to the story, but people make judgments based on the data they have. Mormons and Mormon converts do the same thing all the time. No one ever has "all the facts."

I'm well aware of that..... What you are not aware of, is that a wise and intelligent person, when they come upon something that challenges their perceptions, they will seek more information and be patient, humble and wise about it, and not so easy to judge. LDS who are intellectual and scholarly minded do this all the time, without ever having to leave the Church. Me, I didn't have a good support system, so I was momentary dumb and left the Church. But, unlike most, I was smart enough to put away my judgments, and then when I was ready, and kept learning. And THEN just like the saying goes (Faith precedes the miracle), I was able to learn and see things I hadn't before.

Further, I'm speaking of "all the facts" about a particular subject. When someone joins the Church, the are presented with a basic introduction of the Gospel. They as individuals can see for themselves what is true, what they've learned by living life, by being in other religions, etc. etc. Thus, of course they can make a reasonable judgement based on that small amount of information. If you take the Priesthood ban as an example, when someone learns about that, that is one subject, one issue. They then if smart, since it will likely be an issue for them, will delve into it, and understand it. That is one issue. One doesn't have to know all of Mormonism in order to understand one issue.

Funny, you're doing precisely what you accuse the anti-Mormons. You're poisoning the well and making sweeping claims of victories over the entire spectrum of criticisms towards the Church, and yet I have seen you address not a single one and refute it.

Sorry, no I'm not. And please pray tell what relevance does your statement have to our discussion? Oh, I know, just your anti-mormon posturing and belittling of the little mormon. We aren't talking about any single particular "criticism", I'm simply addressing the statements you and others make. If you are interested in a particular issue, create a thread like you all normally do, and if I'm interested I will add my 2 cents. Also, I've been doing this for many years. You have your sweeping victory, and I have mine. Difference is, yours is of your own warped mind, while mine is the actual truth and facts of Mormonism. Of course, that's my experience and opinion, you have yours.

Yes, but this applies especially to LDS apologists. The scientific method wasn't designed for apologists whose only goal is to defend a certain position and interpret all evidence in a way that conforms to their predetermined conclusions. The scientific method is a thorn in their side.

No it doesn't. I know you think that, but you're wrong, just as you are wrong about everything with Mormonism. The scientific method was designed for ANYONE to seek out the actual truth and facts on an issue. Your "personal" belief that LDS scholars don't use the scientific method simply because we are mormon, is a fantasy of your own mind, not actual reality. I know this for a fact because I've compared anti-mormon claims and LDS responses to such for years and years, and LDS methodology is far more objective, and far more scientific in methodology. Not everyone is like you in which they can't put their science cap on and do an objective analysis. If your ideology was correct, we might as well not have a Jury System, we might as well not have Police, Judges, or even Scientists, and on and on, because NO ONE according to you can't set aside their personal biases to do any sort of job or objective analysis on an issue that they might have some connection to. Please.... Get in the real world will you? People can know their biases, and they CAN work around them, and the rest is based on their professionalism, their skills and knowledge of the subject, etc. etc. Anti-mormons don't even compare to LDS scholars in actual professional and objective scholarship. You've mentioned people like Dan Vogal, Brett Metcalfe, etc., well they are the exception, but even they fall for the same simple misrepresentations of mormonism, they are just more scholarly looking about it.

Sure you have.

Well, I'm considered anti-Mormon by many here even though I was an online apologist for roughly a decade. I've seen both sides up close and personal, and unlike you, I don't use a pseudonym. So I can claim to have seen both sides up close and personal, and people know I'm telling the truth. And based on my experience, what you say is entirely false.

Well, since I've been you, and I've been beyond you as someone who was in other religions and no religion prior to being mormon, and reconverting after being anti-mormon and anti-religion, I would say that my "up close and personal experience" far outweighs your "up close experience" and and that what you say from it is "entirely false". I remember what it's like to be anti-mormon and anti-religion, thinking I knew it all, and was superior to those brainwashed, gullible, and idiot religious folk. Of course, I was lucky to not be the degree of anti-mormon you've become, but had more sense, recognizing quickly the stupidity of it. If you want to know who I am, look up "ldsfaqs", and if you have any internet skills, you will know who I am. You've known me for years.

As did I. And ultimately, I was convinced that the apologetic enterprise has been projecting for the most part. At the very least it is just as guilty of the things it complains about with critics, and they love to invoke the worst of the worst by using Decker and Martin as examples, as if every critic under the sun can be thrown into that category of ignorant Evangelical anti-Mormonism. In reality, what Dan Vogel says or does cannot be undermined simply because Walter Martin lied about stuff. What Brent metcalfe or Michael Marquardt published, should not be dismissed simply because Ed Decker lied about stuff. There is nothing "scientific" in this method of poisoning the well.

That's just your anti-mormonism speaking, not reality. I was intellectually minded also before I left the Church, so I'm not impressed by your easy slander of LDS scholarship after your leaving it.

Dan Vogal, Metcalfe, etc. are certainly "better" intellectuals, and they even provide some useful scholarship. But, in nearly everything else they say, it all comes down to many of the same simpleton arguments that any anti-mormon makes. Take Chris Tolworthy, when I compare what he used to write and create as a faithful LDS, and then when I compare what he writes now, it's like a petulant low class child, saying all the classic low class cliques, just like you often do. Of course, Metcalfe and Vogal are much better than either of you, but wrong conclusions are wrong conclusions. Misrepresenting the data is still misrepresenting the data.

I'm saying it, and I'm also saying you have no earthly idea what you're talking about.

You can say it, but you're the one that doesn't know what he's talking about, because you haven't gone to the next stage of understanding yet. Similar to the "Stages of Faith".

You're not me. You're still wallowing in your contempt for mormonism, religion, and conservatives. Until you realize that maybe you are on the wrong side in trying to destroy faith and the righteous, and put away your judgments, you aren't going to learn anything. And before you say it, I put away my judgments every day. I study various religious works, Christian history, other religions, anti-mormon works, etc. I put on my objective hat. And because the Church is actually true, nothing else phases that testimony, and actually it is only strengthened.

This is absurd. Investigators are sold on the Mormon story and they want it to be true. Eternal families, one true church, preexistence, becoming gods, the traditional idea of eternal hellfire gets downgraded substantially etc etc. This is an attractive religious model for many people. The whole point behind "Building Relationships of Trust" is to get people to want these same things, and for the most part they do. If people do not commit to baptism, it isn't because they don't like the selling points of Mormonism. It is usually because they can't buy into the numerous truth claims after investigating the matter beyond LDS approved materials (which never tell the "whole story" by the way). You make it seem like you were some purely objective person who was only interested in scientific facts, and then after investigating the Church, came away believing the plethora of incredible truth claims. You want us to believe the only reason people do not choose to join Mormonism is because their minds have been tainted with too much anti-Mormon bias, as if joining a Church with this much baggage is just a no-brainer for the purely objective individual. Who do you think you're kidding? How did you apply to "scientific method" to come to the knowledge that God wanted the priesthood ban, that God wanted polygamy in the Church just before he wanted it taken away again, that the concept of eternal families is in any sense coherent, that God wanted to hide all the compelling evidence foe a Nephite society to test our faith, etc. Please, do tell how every controversial issue is resolved easily via the "scientific method."

First, I wasn't an investigator. My comment was referring to the stage of my learning experience when I had come back to studying to see if their was or wasn't a true Church or otherwise on the earth.

Sure, things are attractive, I don't deny that. Something wrong with that? Yes, some people don't join because they read some lying anti-mormon malarkey people like you put out. I don't call that a good thing, I call you working for the wrong side. Even if you don't believe in a religion have your own views or whatever, one thing you are, is you're on the wrong side between light and darkness.

LDS approved materials do tell the whole basic story. And if you want more, you study LDS scholarship. So, saying the whole story isn't there for anyone that wants to learn it, is false. Your presentation however is not the whole story, it's misrepresenting and lying about the story. Yes, after I had been on all sides of the issue, I most certainly was interested in the whole truth and scientific facts and it was objectively so. I had no interest in the Church or any allegience to anything or anyone. I didn't have family or anything tying me to the Church. And absolutely, many people don't join the Church because anti-mormon deception and lies. Many good and smart people who I know for a fact if they only understood mormonism and the actual truths about us, they would join in a heartbeat.

I came to a knowledge that God wanted the Priesthood ban by studying the issue, studying the full history, studying the scriptures on related subjects, comparing what anti-mormons stated compared to LDS scholarship, etc. The ban wasn't because of racism within the Church, it was because of the racism outside of it, and so much more related to making me realize that the actual truth about the ban wasn't racism, it was things much more complex. Yes, God has given both Plural Marriage and the Priesthood according to his Will. There is scriptural precedence in the Bible and history for both. Ironically, the only two things in the Church to have changed that are doctrine related, are almost the only two things that have changed in history with God's dealings with man. Why should I be bothered by something that has precedence? What's wrong with the Doctrine of Eternal Families? I don't think "God" hid Nephite society, I think time and environmental conditions of Central/South America did. I can't remember the actual number now, but recently I read some huge number, something like 500,000 known cultural sites had still yet to be explored in just I think it was Peru alone. That's not to mention the unknown sites. Central/South American archelogical research is 2,000 years behind the Bible comparatively speaking, of all that has still yet to be learned of those areas. That research is in it's beginning "infancy" phase. Thus, when you anti-mormons try and say, blah blah blah, you don't know what you are talking about. You further don't know what you are talking about, because you ignore the plethora of internal and external evidences related to the BOM, things which shouldn't exist if it was a false record, from Lehi's journey, to cultural markers, to language, to all the things that science has verified since that the book of mormon states compared to what science knew when the book came out, on and on. When I came back and restudied the Church and it's scholarship, and this was before the internet, so I actually read books, I came to see that there was so much evidences concerning Restoration claims in all science and intellectual respects, that only someone not actually interested in the truth, or someone who just doesn't objectively study it, could deny the truth claims of the Church. 1,000's of evidences for the restoration, things which don't exist for any other religion to the same degree, especially for a religion that's new on the scene and doesn't have a connected history.

Yes, nearly every single issue related to the Church is and has been resolved by using the scientific method and or otherwise.

I can take say a FAIR webpage on a subject, and then take an anti-mormon webpage on the same subject, and I can put the two side by side and mark and circle, etc. and see clearly and unequivocally who is actually telling the truth and the whole truth. Yes, anti-mormons use "facts" in their claims, but they don't use the truth, because they omit important information which would make a different conclusion.

This sounds like the mock scenario presented at the end of Darrick Evenson's book, where he shoots down every anti-Mormon claim known to man. Let's see how you do in a real world scenario with a real critic.

He's actually a good example one thing, that is what you now look like as an anti-mormon. Of course, to be fair, you are him about 10 years ago when he first started being anti. He's gone off the deep end now, and I see a similar progression in you.

But, as to shooting down claims, there is some validity in it. It's not hard to take a falsehood and then correct it with the actual truth. One doesn't need a long convoluted "real critic" or "real LDS scholared" article for many issues. Obviously, the more detailed articles get more into the evidences, backing etc. of a claim, so they have their use also. Sorry, "real critics" are nothing compared to LDS scholars. Sure, they "mimic" the professionalism, but the claims are usually just elaborte versions of the same simple misrepresentations. It's like Simon Southerton, he really said nothing different than Thomas Murphy, just with more scholarly flare. He was still seriously wrong and misrepresented both the DNA science and mormonism to make his claims.

THE anti-Mormon! As if every criticism ever presented against the Church comes from THE anti-Mormon!

Pretty much so. Obviously, many also come from those who've left the Church or in the process of leaving it in some form. Someone can be in the Church and still be anti-mormon on issues. You are well familiar with Consiglieri. He holds to many anti-mormon positions, yet he's supposedly fully faithful, which frankly amazes me if really true. I suspect he's much less faithful than he claims, while still remaining faithful per-se. Anyway, the point is Mormons aren't entirely free from sometimes being deceived by anti-mormon false ideology and conclusions. Anti-mormon ideology is still anti-mormon ideology, no matter who it comes from.

Yes, but are you willing to test your claim publicly? According to your theory, any critic of the Church can be classified as "the anti-Mormon" who lies and relies on less information, whereas the defenders are always telling teh whole story.

I never said any "critic" is classifiable as anti-mormon, don't put words into my mouth. There are critics who actually tell the truth and honestly and accurately represent mormonism, even if they don't believe in it or otherwise. Of course, few of them exist, and even fewer of them exist who "never" cross the line and become anti-mormon oftentimes.

But when it comes to anti-mormons, certainly, I would be happy to test it publicly. Of course, kind of a dumb exercise, because testing anti-mormon claims with LDS claims occur all the time on this forum and everywhere else. I also already clarified in my previous post in responding to you, that I know that not every single LDS scholar has mentioned every single detail on an issue. Anyway, read above what I said about that.

I have, and I can demonstrate that everything you have said is false. In my experience, LDS critics like Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe are infinitely more honest with the data than LDS scholars/apologists.

No you can't. And your experience would be flawed. Those critics/anti-mormons while some of the better ones, still don't tell the truth compared to LDS scholars. Anti-mormons pervert everything concerning this religion, thus all of their conclusions are tainted, thus false. But anyway.

[Xander]

As to your comment, I'm not the one who brought that up, your anti-mormon buddy did, I simply responded and corrected his false assumptions.

I don't have any anti-Mormon buddies here, and I am responding to your abject ignorance on the issue of scientific method. You clearly have no idea what it is if you think it is used to prove all truths, or that it could be used in any way to validate the Mormon truth claims.

You may think it's more complex than it is, but I know for a fact it's not.

No you don't. You mere beat your chest with wild assertions.

Take Gilbert Scharff's response to the God Makers, or any other LDS responses to anti-mormon claims.

How about the latter. Let's take John Gee's attempt to explain the KEP in his 2001 publication. Are you willing to test your claims or aren't you? Gee was shown to be wrong by the critics and eventually admitted it. His predecessor, Hugh Nibley, proposed numerous arguments regarding the KEP that turned out to be baseless. But because the data was not accessible to the general public, they could get away with saying practically anything they wanted, and eventually we had to rely on the critics to tell the truth. For example, they refuted Nibley's rubrics argument. These are just minor examples, but all I really need is one example to refute your entire premise since you seem to be dead set on believing this nonsense that all anti-Mormons lie and all apologists tell the truth. In reality, as an apologist, I began to realize that the quality of anti-Mormon arguments had improved dramatically when compared to Decker and Martin, whereas the quality of apologetic responses began to fall through the floor. You say apologists have provided answers to every concern, but this is demonstrably false. You seem to think that so long as an apologist comes up with some creative response, that this is all that is needed. But this avoids any proper methodology of determining teh validity of such responses. You make it clear that you do not judge an argument based on its merits,; rather you judge an argument based on who is presenting it. If it is a critic, it is a lie by default. If it is someone from BYU then it is a truth teller. To say this is simplistic and unwarranted is an understatement, and demolishing yoru entire argument is as easy as providing examples where the critics were the ones telling the truth, and providing "more data" than the apologists or the Church were willing to share at the time.

Or how about this, going way back to the beginning. A group of concerned members came to the knowledge that the Prophet had been secretly practicing polygamy. Mormons like you accused them of lying, but history would go on to prove that they were in fact telling the truth. To add insult to injury, the Prophet Joseph Smith address the matter publicly and lied about it. This isn't a matter of historical interpretation, it is a matter of historical fact. So how do you reconcile this with your warped theory of one side always lying and the other always telling the truth? And do we really need to get into the subject of Paul H. Dunn, the General Authority who spent years making up lies for the purpose of inspiring his audience?

There might be three columns of information. The first is the anti-mormon lie about us, then there is their claim of beliefs, and then the LDS response where they correct the lie with the full truth, and if necessary they correct the Christian belief with what the scriptures etc.

And you say you're not generalzing. You keep throwing out these blanket claims without addressing any specific points. I know folks like you love to rely on Walter Martin and Ed Decker to prove some anti-Mormons are really creepy people, but your attempt to malign all critics simply becvause it is convenient for you to throw everyone into the same boat, really says more about you than it does us.

While this is simplistic, it is a comparative methodology, in which one can easily see who is telling the truth, and who is lying.

But you have not engaged any such methodology.

It doesn't need to get more convoluted and complex then that to see the actual truth.

But you're not dealing with what's true. You're dealing with a standard apologetic myth that hasn't an ounce of credibility.

Obviously, there is the more detailed works on a subject which proves anti-mormon claims as false, but I'm making it simple for you to understand the concept.

I understand your argument perfectly, but I simply do not know whether you're serious or not. I'm actually wondering if you're a critic posing as an apologist just to make apologists look bad. Seriously, none of my Mormon friends think like you, and this includes numerous high profile scholars and apologists.

No, it's not nonsense, I see it all the time

Prove your case with the "scientific method"? Stop arguing via assertion based on what you claim to have experienced. This means nothing coming from an anonymous poster.

Don't blame the messenger simply because you aren't one of them. Anti-mormon claims haven't changed in a 100 years, so we don't really have to "wait" for much, because they've already been answered. Even the DNA argument wasn't knew, because it was a play off the old argument which science already knew by body-typing that natives of the America's were of primarily Asiatic Decent.

DNA evidence has thrown a devastating blow to LDS claims for the simple reason that Joseph Smith believed the American Indians were Lamanites. In fact, this was traditional belief up until the time the "critics" pointed out how DNA poses problems for these positions. All the apologists did in response was change the argument, effectively reducing it to a matter of personal interpretation of the Book of Mormon. But the embarrassing thing about this is that you attack the critics for telling lies when all they are really doing is interpreting the BoM the same way the Prophet Joseph Smith did. The goal posts were shifted intentionally because to address these concerns honestly would have been counterproductive. All you're left with is the usual "well that was the opinion of a fallible human being." Joseph Smith was just a fallible man when he claimed to know via divine revelation that the remains of an American Indian belonged to a Lamanite named Zelph. Smith's revelation concerning Zelph was quite detailed, even mentioning his name and profession. And so the apologetic argument needs Joseph Smith and more than a century's worth of LDS leadership to be dead wrong in their views regarding the American Indians being Lamanites. They deal with it by throwing them under the bus and the Church responds by changing the preface of the Book of Mormon so people wouldn't think it supported the notion that the Book of Mormon people were the "principal ancestors of the American Indians." But according to you, this entire DNA thing was a tremendous victory for the apologists because a few LDS scientists pointed out a few technical errors in some of the arguments by Murphy? Talk about not dealing with all the facts.

Well aware of that "fact". The question then is the degree, the accuracy of the facts, as well as what facts are even seen. I can't tell you the amount of times I've pointed out a fact to an anti-mormon like you, which debunks some fact or claim they make, and yet they act like I nor any other mormon said anything. One who has hate in them, the need to destroy other good people is something that can't see the truth. You may deny this, but it's a fact.

Yes, we get it. You're the anonymous master apologist who has experienced everything I could ever hope to experience, you have debunked all criticisms and have proven that all anti-Mormons like me are liars because you're an expert on some mysterious methodology that is so powerful that even you are unable to explicate in coherent terms. After several posts, however, you're still unable to progress beyond these bald assertions. When do you plan to actually make an argument on specifics? I provided a half dozen specifics. Have fun with them, and be sure to demonstrate how the "scientific method" proves me wrong.

[Ahab]

Actually, they are just words, with attached meaning, which varies with each unique individual's interpretation.

Define God.

Define Jesus.

Define Christ.

I'd guess how I define these are very different from how you do.

I"d guess we'd agree on the essence of what we're talking about even though we may use different words to express what we mean.

See? Words influence us more than we may think.

Oh, I know that. I'm just saying our words are not "just" words because they actually mean or represent something other than just the symbols we use which we call "words".

FAITH is never sure... but HOPING & striving for what we think is best, through trial & error (which is also LOVE).

Faith is to be sure or to have an assurance about something. That's what the word "faith" actually means or represents.

When I say I have "faith" in something, or someone, I am using the word "faith" for another way of saying I have "an assurance" of something, or someone.

In other words, when I say I have "faith" that God lives, I mean the same thing as if I had said I have "an assurance" that God lives.

At that point the question then becomes who gave me that assurance, or where did that assurance come from, at which point I would say I got it from God, himself, because I am sure (or I have faith) he is the one who gave it to me.

Your experience of God is within you (as Jesus explained in Luke 17)...

Not just within, but all around me. I can see God at work in this world in many ways other than in just me.

Yet I do believe we can resonate with BOTH masculine & feminine energies that also constitute God.

"constitute" God? What do you mean by that?

When I say "God" I am usually referring to our Father in heaven, although I do realize there are other persons who are God and some of them are females.

[ldsfaqs]

I don't have any anti-Mormon buddies here, and I am responding to your abject ignorance on the issue of scientific method. You clearly have no idea what it is if you think it is used to prove all truths, or that it could be used in any way to validate the Mormon truth claims.

Your false opinion of others, but I know what I do and how I do it. You don't. You just assume in your negative warped mind.

No you don't. You mere beat your chest with wild assertions.

And you don't make assertions? We are in a discussion making assertions from our own views and experience. Or did you forget that?

How about the latter. Let's take John Gee's attempt to explain the KEP in his 2001 publication. Are you willing to test your claims or aren't you? Gee was shown to be wrong by the critics and eventually admitted it. His predecessor, Hugh Nibley, proposed numerous arguments regarding the KEP that turned out to be baseless. But because the data was not accessible to the general public, they could get away with saying practically anything they wanted, and eventually we had to rely on the critics to tell the truth. For example, they refuted Nibley's rubrics argument. These are just minor examples, but all I really need is one example to refute your entire premise since you seem to be dead set on believing this nonsense that all anti-Mormons lie and all apologists tell the truth. In reality, as an apologist, I began to realize that the quality of anti-Mormon arguments had improved dramatically when compared to Decker and Martin, whereas the quality of apologetic responses began to fall through the floor. You say apologists have provided answers to every concern, but this is demonstrably false. You seem to think that so long as an apologist comes up with some creative response, that this is all that is needed. But this avoids any proper methodology of determining teh validity of such responses. You make it clear that you do not judge an argument based on its merits,; rather you judge an argument based on who is presenting it. If it is a critic, it is a lie by default. If it is someone from BYU then it is a truth teller. To say this is simplistic and unwarranted is an understatement, and demolishing yoru entire argument is as easy as providing examples where the critics were the ones telling the truth, and providing "more data" than the apologists or the Church were willing to share at the time.

I don't agree with your analysis. Progressing analysis and sometimes errors and mistakes occur, that doesn't make the majority of what they have done anything close to false, but the majority of anti-mormon works ARE false. Further, many of your claimed mistakes aren't mistakes at all, you just think they are. I've never claimed infallibility in LDS scholarship, but you don't recognize your absolute fallibility in almost everything you say and believe about mormonism and mormons. One example doesn't refute my premise, because I've never claimed total infallibility in LDS scholarship. Sometimes making mistakes is not the same as your side which makes mistakes in almost everything you say.

Nope, I make no such claim that if there is response then the question is settled. I have a brain and can compare the quality of responses myself. Anti-mormon claims are always lacking. The fact that they can on rare occasion add something useful, or help us make our responses better doesn't somehow make them on the quality side.

If 99% of what an LDS scholar says is the truth and the whole truth, and 99% of what an anti-mormon says is false, then obviously I'm going to generally trust the LDS scholar. Plus, I'm not "trusting" anyone, I still study and compare arguments. It's just like most of what you have said to me in our discussion. Almost everything you've said about "people like me", is completely false. I know me, I know what I do, my beliefs, how I arrive at them etc. the negative fantasy's of the anti-mormon mind are not reality concerning mormonism or mormons. What' so hard to understand about that?

Or how about this, going way back to the beginning. A group of concerned members came to the knowledge that the Prophet had been secretly practicing polygamy. Mormons like you accused them of lying, but history would go on to prove that they were in fact telling the truth. To add insult to injury, the Prophet Joseph Smith address the matter publicly and lied about it. This isn't a matter of historical interpretation, it is a matter of historical fact. So how do you reconcile this with your warped theory of one side always lying and the other always telling the truth? And do we really need to get into the subject of Paul H. Dunn, the General Authority who spent years making up lies for the purpose of inspiring his audience?

Which is a falsehood. The rumor mill isn't fact.

No, history proves that Joseph was practicing a Religious Sealing Ordinance, a type of marriage, but not polygamy.

No, Joseph didn't lie about it, he told the truth, because he wasn't practicing polygamy which was the charge. He did however omit what he was doing, which was practicing a Marriage Sealing Ordinance.

Yes, it is historical fact, and you twist it for your own means.

History shows Joseph told the truth and the anti-mormons were in fact lying.

And you say you're not generalzing. You keep throwing out these blanket claims without addressing any specific points. I know folks like you love to rely on Walter Martin and Ed Decker to prove some anti-Mormons are really creepy people, but your attempt to malign all critics simply becvause it is convenient for you to throw everyone into the same boat, really says more about you than it does us.

Stop applying your own fantasy's onto people. I'm well aware there are "levels" of anti-mormons and critics. That doesn't mean most still aren't anti-mormon.

Owen and Mosser are more on the "critic" side, without much to any actual anti-mormonism. Vogal & Metcalfe are certainly way better, but they still have their anti-mormon tendacy's.

Creepy is creepy, it doesn't matter if it's more intelligent creepy or less intelligent creepy.

But you have not engaged any such methodology.

Stop saying wild irrelevant things, so as to simply degrade. Do I have to say it again that we are having a discussion here, not actually scientifically dealing with a particular subject?

But you're not dealing with what's true. You're dealing with a standard apologetic myth that hasn't an ounce of credibility.

Nope.... I know what I do with information, you don't.

I understand your argument perfectly, but I simply do not know whether you're serious or not. I'm actually wondering if you're a critic posing as an apologist just to make apologists look bad. Seriously, none of my Mormon friends think like you, and this includes numerous high profile scholars and apologists.

Spare me. There isn't a single LDS scholar which wouldn't admit that anti-mormons use some truth and facts to lie, which is omitting information, etc. to make false conclusions.

Prove your case with the "scientific method"? Stop arguing via assertion based on what you claim to have experienced. This means nothing coming from an anonymous poster.

Again, boring.... Are we having a discussion here or not?

DNA evidence has thrown a devastating blow to LDS claims for the simple reason that Joseph Smith believed the American Indians were Lamanites.

Nope..... Natives of the America's are STILL "Lamanites". Lamanite in the Book of Mormon was primarily a term to describe any and all non-Nephite, similar to how Gentile is used in the Bible. And no, before you say it, I knew this BEFORE your "DNA".

Yes, there has always been a segment of the Church who might have thought that the Natives of the America's had some blood relation to Lehi, but even that hasn't been proven false. As LDS scholar's have shown, Lehi's DNA could easily be within every single native of the America's and the Islands, thus the Spiritual Father of those peoples, it's just not the dominate strand of DNA, so obviously it wouldn't show. Further problem, your DNA doesn't even know what Jewish and Lehi DNA actually looked like. You make assumptions. Your DNA arguments have proven nothing.

In fact, this was traditional belief up until the time the "critics" pointed out how DNA poses problems for these positions.

Nope, it was one belief within mormonism, certainly not the only or dominate. Further, it still could be true. Lehi's DNA could be in every single person, just not the dominate strand.

So, either way, your argument fails with the actual facts.

All the apologists did in response was change the argument, effectively reducing it to a matter of personal interpretation of the Book of Mormon.

Nope, they've also showed how you've misused and abused the DNA science, and how also ignored important factors related to the science.

This whole issue even started by Thomas Murphy's anti-mormon misrepresentation of the BOM Intro. Lamanites in the BOM is the equivalent of the Bibles "Gentiles".

But the embarrassing thing about this is that you attack the critics for telling lies when all they are really doing is interpreting the BoM the same way the Prophet Joseph Smith did.

False, Joseph interpreted it BOTH ways..... Not simply the one you use, your little truth to tell a great lie.

The goal posts were shifted intentionally because to address these concerns honestly would have been counterproductive. All you're left with is the usual "well that was the opinion of a fallible human being." Joseph Smith was just a fallible man when he claimed to know via divine revelation that the remains of an American Indian belonged to a Lamanite named Zelph. Smith's revelation concerning Zelph was quite detailed, even mentioning his name and profession. And so the apologetic argument needs Joseph Smith and more than a century's worth of LDS leadership to be dead wrong in their views regarding the American Indians being Lamanites. They deal with it by throwing them under the bus and the Church responds by changing the preface of the Book of Mormon so people wouldn't think it supported the notion that the Book of Mormon people were the "principal ancestors of the American Indians." But according to you, this entire DNA thing was a tremendous victory for the apologists because a few LDS scientists pointed out a few technical errors in some of the arguments by Murphy? Talk about not dealing with all the facts.

The intro was changed to help eliminate confusion from the gullible and non-scholarly minded like you.

We already know that Moroni likely traveled from Central/South America to New York, thus Zelph existing is not a surprise.

Further, since when has personal intellectual opinions had anything to do with the Church itself, it's actual doctrines etc.???

Joseph once assumed Nephite battles took place in New York etc., but he realized prior to his death that was wrong, and he believed BOM events took place in Central/South America, where most LDS scholars believe it did.

Mormonism hasn't changed, our views haven't changed. You anti-mormons just "cherry-pick" facts and history in order to tell your lie.

I know what I knew before the DNA malarkey, for it didn't phase me a bit, because I had already been through the issues. And guess what guy, I knew most of what I knew from LDS scholars. We had already dealt with your claims, DNA was simply your same old arguments, only a new tactic.

Yes, we get it. You're the anonymous master apologist who has experienced everything I could ever hope to experience, you have debunked all criticisms and have proven that all anti-Mormons like me are liars because you're an expert on some mysterious methodology that is so powerful that even you are unable to explicate in coherent terms. After several posts, however, you're still unable to progress beyond these bald assertions. When do you plan to actually make an argument on specifics? I provided a half dozen specifics. Have fun with them, and be sure to demonstrate how the "scientific method" proves me wrong.

You've done nothing of the sort. And this discussion hasn't been to show you my methodology, even though I have showed you it, you just weren't paying attention.

This discussion has been you making claims, and me correcting them, and you thinking you're doing the same to me.

Can you stop "projecting" things that aren't what's involved in this discussion?

Edited August 1, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Xander]

And you don't make assertions? We are in a discussion making assertions from our own views and experience. Or did you forget that?

I do not make sweeping generalizations accusing every LDS defender of lying, as you have done with every critic of the Church. Also, i back up my assertions with evidence. All you have done is rely on your own say-so, which means nothing since no one knows who you are. You post anonymously. People know who I am. They know I am telling the truth when I say I was an apologist who left the faith. For all we know, you could be Dr. Scratch playing a prank on us all. So the point is your anecdotal evidence is valid only for you, since none of it can be verified. I mean, you wouldn't seriously expect anyone to just take your word for all yoru aassertions right? What, with your claim that you rely strictly on the "scientific method" and all. LOL!

I don't agree with your analysis. Progressing analysis and sometimes errors and mistakes occur, that doesn't make the majority of what they have done anything close to false, but the majority of anti-mormon works ARE false.

You clearly operate from a double standard. When critics make mistakes, it is evidence they are lying. When LDS members make mistakes, it just proves they are human. Tell us, what in the "scientific method" supports this assertion?

Further, many of your claimed mistakes aren't mistakes at all, you just think they are

Another bald assertion. If you knew the subject matter you would be able to demonstrate how these mistakes were just honest mistakes. In fact, they have been shown to be everything you claim from the critics.

I've never claimed infallibility in LDS scholarship

Infallability isn't the issue. The issue is who is always telling lies and who is always telling the truth based on a more data. In this specific case, the critics were the ones who had to reveal the truth because they were willing to share more information, whereas the LDS side was obfuscating and concealing crucial facts in order to pass their misrepresentative arguments on to their readers. This is an established fact and you're not going to be able to spin it as a simple matter of fallability. You are the one who set the standard. One side always lies and the other always tells the truth. I just blew that little piece of nonsense out of the water and you're in no position to debate this subject.

One example doesn't refute my premise, because I've never claimed total infallibility in LDS scholarship.

You claimed that LDS always represent the truth whereas the critics always lie. You made no qualification on this point, and pushed the point several times. Now you're trying to backtrack and reinvent your own argument.

Nope, I make no such claim that if there is response then the question is settled. I have a brain and can compare the quality of responses myself.

But you don't, because if you did then you would be familiar enough with this subject to know that the critics have been mopping the floors with the apologists for a decade now. Just recently the leading LDS scholar gave a presentation at FAIR that indicates just how desperate they've become. After a decade, they're still left with misrepresenting the data. That seems to be all they can do.

The fact that they can on rare occasion add something useful, or help us make our responses better doesn't somehow make them on the quality side.

Nice spin, buut the fact is the critics have forced the apologists into corners. That is what happens, and that is why the arguments are constantly changing. The apologists have to try anything they can and hope something sticks. In any other context this would be viewed as desperate apologetics, not scholarship.

If 99% of what an LDS scholar says is the truth and the whole truth, and 99% of what an anti-mormon says is false, then obviously I'm going to generally trust the LDS scholar.

But this is an "if" that you haven't even begun to substantiate. You're going to believe the LDS scholar simply because he is LDS and he is probably going to speak to your expectations from a faith-promoting perspective. You will naturally like what he has to say and you'll naturally dislike what the critic has to say. What is actually "true" becomes irrelevant. You're not interested in what is true, you are only interested in getting that cognitive reinforcement and good feeling and support that your presuppositions are true. You confuse these feelings with objective truth. Again, what were you saying about the scientific method?

Plus, I'm not "trusting" anyone, I still study and compare arguments

So far you have provided no evidence that you understand critical arguments. All I see is binary thinking as you have done nothing but offer sweeping judgments, no evidence or analysis.

Which is a falsehood. The rumor mill isn't fact.

No, history proves that Joseph was practicing a Religious Sealing Ordinance, a type of marriage, but not polygamy.

No, Joseph didn't lie about it, he told the truth, because he wasn't practicing polygamy which was the charge. He did however omit what he was doing, which was practicing a Marriage Sealing Ordinance.

OK you just lost all credibility. There is no point in trying to talk to an anonymous person who doesn't understand basic facts, or half of the things he pretends to know about (i.e. objectivity, scientific method) For you all lies by LDS apologists are mistakes, and all mistakes by critics are lies based in the "rumor mill." We get it. So no amount of evidence will suffice. I've already refuted your premise that only critics lie and all apologists tell the truth.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

I think Xander makes a valid point when suggesting that if the faithful wish to learn why people have lost faith, to ask them.

This is not to suggest that those who have lost faith will necessarily fully comprehend why they lost faith. After all, loss of faith may be indicative of a lack of at least some understanding of faith. In other words, those who continue to pass the tests of faith may, in some respects, be in a better position to understand faith, and how to retain or lose faith, than those who have failed the test, so to speak. However, it is prudent to let people speak for themselves, even if some of those people are dis-inclined to do the same in reverse.

With that in mind, as intimated earlier, growth or loss of faith in Christ and his restored gospel, tends to be contingent upon at least these three things:

1) The object of one's faith (Christ or man)

2) The method of faith (be it of Christ or man)

3) The end to which ones faith is directed (towards godliness or the things of man)

Growth in faith tends to occur when Christ is the object of one's faith, and his methods of faith are employed towards achieving the end of godliness.

Loss of faith tends to occur when man becomes the object of one's faith, and/or when the method of one's faith is man-made, and/or when the end to which one's faith is directed is towards the things of man.

Take, for example, Xander's mention of DNA and the Book of Mormon. Here, instead of having faith in God, one places one's faith in oneself and one's ability to understand and judge the various intricate complexities of the issue. And, instead of using the methods of faith ordained of God (Moroni 10, Alma 32, etc.), one places faith in man-made methods like DAN and history to test the verity of spiritual claims. It is uncertain to what end one may have had when putting one's faith in oneself and DNA/history, but it seems unlikely that it would be godliness given how man has become so prioritized above Christ in this case. As such, is it any wonder that loss of faith in Christ and his restored church, and increased faith in man and the things of man, would be the result?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 2, 2011 by wenglund

[One Clear Voice]

I remember a Stake Priesthood meeting one Saturday night when a General Authority spoke, I had never heard any in all my years in the church exclaim that our lives are "Micro" managed by the Lord. Since then I put all things in his hands!

[wenglund]

Loss of faith tends to occur when man becomes the object of one's faith, and/or when the method of one's faith is man-made, and/or when the end to which one's faith is directed is towards the things of man.

With this in mind, one may well ask whether it is always wrong to place faith in man instead of God. For example, is it wrong to rely on modern medicine more so than on the healing power of God?

I would answer, yes, and offer this explanation: In the scriptures there is an implied delineation between the temporal and the spiritual, secular and religious, the things of man and the things of God. Christ once declared that we should render unto Caesar the things of Caesar, and unto God the things of God. In some respects I take this to mean that in regards to the things of man, it is appropriate and even advised that we put our faith in man more so than God, and regarding the things of God, we are to put our faith in God more so than man.

Accordingly, we rightly put our faith in man more so than God in terms of everyday tasks like getting out of bed, putting on and making our clothes, cutting and combing our hair, earning and cooking our food, building and driving our cars, managing and staffing our businesses, developing and administering medical treatment, etc. etc. Whereas, we rightly put our faith in God more than man in terms of spiritual guidance, discernment, and learning.

Where it may becomes a problem for LDS faith is when we render faith unto man in the things of God.

What can make this somewhat challenging to understand is the fact that the delineations between the things of man and the things of God isn't always discrete or hard and fast. Instead, there is oft more than a little overlap. In terms of the things of man, it is advised that we appeal to God for guidance and intercession when choosing a spouse or career path, making important family decisions, when putting the lives of a loved-ones in the care of doctors, etc. Likewise, with the things of God, we at times rightly place our faith in man to pass the sacrament, collect fast offerings, pay tithes, visit the sick and the widowed, spread the gospel message, lead God's kingdom on earth, etc. This, I believe, is as God intended. It is living in the world but not of the world.

Besides, as mentioned in Moroni 7, all good cometh of God, including among the things of man. It is not unreasonable to consider the marvels of modern medicine as of God, and as such, when we put our trust in man's medical treatments, we are also putting our trust in God.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Craig Paxton]

Yes, that's right. It's called the Scientific Method. Ever heard of it? I have definitively proven that anti-mormons are not the "smart-ones".

Unlike religious and spiritual claims, facts and data that people present are easily verifiable and comparable with other claims, and so is methodology, whether it is quality scholarship, or bigoted hit pieces.

Any actual objective person be they LDS or not can see on a claim by simple comparison if an anti-mormon data is fully accurate, or the LDS data is fully accurate.

For example, Jewish Anti-Defamation Leagues often put out statements condemning certain anti-mormon works. These works by the way, are no different than the things anti-mormons say all the time, so, it's not as if the works were especially immoral. They've condemned the most extreme Ed Decker and the least extreme Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ DVD put out a couple of years ago. There are other objective people out there, who have their own beliefs and views, who don't misrepresent or lie about mormonism, and can see how anti-mormons lie.

Problem is, most people tend to be focused in one direction or another and having interests and lack of interest in one direction or another, and they don't sit back and objectively take and compare two sides using the scientific method. For example, those who have no interest in religion, or are already a part of a religion, they see that there was a "Priesthood Ban" in the LDS Church, and maybe a couple seeming racist or ethno-centrist quotes by an LDS leader, they then say to themselves and in public..... "Evil, the LDS Church is racist". Now, what went wrong here? They made a judgment without even seeing if there was more to the story, if the info was really the whole truth of the matter. Maybe at some point later they might learn a little more, but their objectivity is gone, and their bias is already set, so they see nothing else but racism. That's how most people do things..... Most people, don't use the scientific method. They don't see a claim, and they don't then seek out more information from all sides on the claim to see what is the actual truth on the issue, and THEN make a judgment.

I've been in various other religions, I've been a basic believing LDS, I've been an anti-mormon/anti-religion, and I've been a full and forever believer.

And what did I do during that entire process? I compared and contrasted perspectives, seeing what was and wasn't from one stage to the next.

You can't say I haven't proved that anti-mormons aren't the smart ones, because you haven't actually gone to the next stage of understanding to know and see how I can know and claim that.

During the period when I was interested in finally finding out what was really true, I had no interest or bias one way or another, I was only interested in the absolute truth. I would have been perfectly happy if the Church and other religions were false. So, after eliminating all other religions as potential reasonable candidates, I sat down, took an anti-mormon claim, and and took the LDS scholarship on the same subject, and saw clearly and easily each and every point where the anti-mormon omits important info, makes false statements and assumptions, degrades unfairly, is hypocritical, etc., thus I saw clearly that the anti-mormon isn't at all telling the truth. It's not just a couple of issues, it's almost every single issue and statement they make as I would very quickly learn. At the time, I did the same process with about 3 other issues, and the same pattern emerged. Anti-mormons did nothing but use a little truth to tell great lies, misrepresented statements and facts, omitted facts, etc.

Anyway, comparing data of two sides, seeing which is actually "smarter", telling the whole truth, is most certainly a "provable" exercise.

Not my problem if you don't actually use that ability and understanding when it comes to mormonism. And if you think you do, you don't, because your contempt and bias is already strongly set, your glass is all FULL, and you don't see any other information and connections other than that bias.

It is obvious that your search for so-called truth was neither all-encompassing nor exhaustive.

#1 You lump all claims that are critical to LDS truth claims as anti-Mormon, using this pejorative tips your hand and your bias. You paint with too broad a brush. A true seeker of truth has no agenda or bias yet your post is full of both.

#2 Truth does not take sides…is neither anti or pro…it just IS.

Sorry but your methodology was neither scientific, exhaustive or it’s conclusion valid (beyond convincing yourself)

Anyone using the same flawed slant that you used would easily conclude that Mormonism claims are true…Oh if it were all so easy to bend truth to one’s own preconceived desired conclusion.

[ldsfaqs]

I do not make sweeping generalizations accusing every LDS defender of lying, as you have done with every critic of the Church.

I've seen you do so many times, so how does that statement help you?

Further, you claiming that would be false, but my claiming anti-mormons do it would be the truth. I've seen it for 20 over years now.

You use some truth to lie in nearly everything. I call that a problem, sorry. Anti's don't make the "rare" scholarly error, they don't tell the truth about nearly anything related to mormonism.

Also, i back up my assertions with evidence.

You keep posturing, patting yourself on the back saying that, yet you've done nothing of the sort in our discussion.

We have BOTH been making assertions from our own experiences. There has been no discussion of a particular subject where we are providing FACTS back and forth to each other. Don't know what fantasy's are in your head, but certainly not in the current reality.

All you have done is rely on your own say-so, which means nothing since no one knows who you are. You post anonymously. People know who I am. They know I am telling the truth when I say I was an apologist who left the faith. For all we know, you could be Dr. Scratch playing a prank on us all. So the point is your anecdotal evidence is valid only for you, since none of it can be verified. I mean, you wouldn't seriously expect anyone to just take your word for all yoru aassertions right? What, with your claim that you rely strictly on the "scientific method" and all. LOL!

So, no one tells the truth simply because they use a username huh? I've already provided the information you need to find out who I am if it's so important to you. This forum also knows who I am, because you have to give your real name when you register. I've been a faithful LDS for 20 years. You knowing who I am will not change or verify "who I was" before those 20 years. So, your challenge is just petty and childish. I'm relaying my personal experiences, if you aren't interested in understanding them, then why are you even talking to me? You KNOW IT ALL already..... Just like anti-mormons think they do.

You clearly operate from a double standard. When critics make mistakes, it is evidence they are lying. When LDS members make mistakes, it just proves they are human. Tell us, what in the "scientific method" supports this assertion?

It's like you don't even read what I write. Critics, specifically anti-mormons (not just any critic) don't simply "make mistakes", they make mistakes in almost everything they say. That is something more than normal human error, that is a moral and mental disorder. When LDS make mistakes, it's within a normal and healthy human error ratio. That's not a double standard, that's the simple facts. You completely misrepresent my words, in order to try and make me look stupid. I was quite clear the degree of mistakes of both parties. Thus even in this discussion, you the anti-mormon use a little truth in order to lie.

As to methodology, I've already told you and that other guy, in this thread or another the methodology I've used to compare the sides. It's really simple to put to two sides side by side, go down the list and compare claims. Basically every single issue the anti-mormon omits facts, distorts facts, etc. in order to make their false claim about the Church. Take the so-called "false prophecies of Joseph Smith" anti's love. Comparing each one with the full facts the LDS side provides, and one clearly sees the lying by the anti-mormon. It's not brain surgery buddy. I know you want to think it is because of all your "vast" mormon studies. But, knowing truth is actually easier than you think. In fact, when I first started re-studying religion, the task seemed so huge, that I wondered if I could ever know the truth. But, that's what Faith does, you do the work in Faith, and the answers come, and they came quickly and amazingly easy once I was truly objective and used objective methodology like I've described.

Another bald assertion. If you knew the subject matter you would be able to demonstrate how these mistakes were just honest mistakes. In fact, they have been shown to be everything you claim from the critics.

I didn't say they were mistakes. What I said was that one of the aspects of anti-mormon ideology, is that they claim mistakes by mormons when a mistake actually wasn't made. The anti-mormon distorts the facts, etc. in order to make their claim.

Infallability isn't the issue. The issue is who is always telling lies and who is always telling the truth based on a more data. In this specific case, the critics were the ones who had to reveal the truth because they were willing to share more information, whereas the LDS side was obfuscating and concealing crucial facts in order to pass their misrepresentative arguments on to their readers. This is an established fact and you're not going to be able to spin it as a simple matter of fallability. You are the one who set the standard. One side always lies and the other always tells the truth. I just blew that little piece of nonsense out of the water and you're in no position to debate this subject.

You need to learn to read better. I've said nearly, basically, and almost the anti-mormon always lies about everything concerning mormonism. I know well on "rare" occasion, you actually bring something useful to the table. Like I've already said. You telling the truth 1% of the time doesn't somehow make you compare to LDS who tell the truth 99% of the time. And don't confuse the fact that in all of your claims you use "facts" to make your claim. Facts are not "truth". It's how you present the facts, what facts you omit and use, what facts you pervert or don't pervert which tells if you are being truthful or not. We LDS aren't dumb. You know you guys use "facts" in your claims. But, you use some truth to lie, not tell the actual truth.

So, you haven't "blown" anything out of the water. Further, we aren't dealing with the actual issue you are using here, so I don't know if you are telling the truth or not, if it's just another example of anti-mormon posturing and the LDS would have a different position of what actually happened. That's not the issue. I've already stated several times now that LDS CAN make errors, or they can not include information that might be necessary on a particular subject. However, it wasn't intentional, and most other LDS who discuss the same subject make up for that one humans omission. No compare anti-mormons, they simply regurgitate the same exact thing from each other, like zombie viruses, and tell falsehoods in basically every subject. That's again not normal human error, that's a disorder.

You claimed that LDS always represent the truth whereas the critics always lie. You made no qualification on this point, and pushed the point several times. Now you're trying to backtrack and reinvent your own argument.

Read more carefully.... You lie as usual.

But you don't, because if you did then you would be familiar enough with this subject to know that the critics have been mopping the floors with the apologists for a decade now. Just recently the leading LDS scholar gave a presentation at FAIR that indicates just how desperate they've become. After a decade, they're still left with misrepresenting the data. That seems to be all they can do.

You are confused. LDS have been mopping you guys with the floor. Rather than mormonism being proved false, it's being proved true. I re-converted 20 years ago. Then I had to read books, etc. to compare the ideology's. Even then, I was so amazed the amount of evidences for the Restoration in all subjects, good evidences, as well as yes, some not absolute, but even then there was a plethora, enough to convince anyone of reasonable and objective mind. 20 years later, LDS scholarship and evidences for the restoration have quadrupled. Today there really is no excuse. You are simply so invested in your hate, you can't and won't see anything. You aren't objective anymore. It is you anti-mormons who misrepresent the data.

Nice spin, buut the fact is the critics have forced the apologists into corners. That is what happens, and that is why the arguments are constantly changing. The apologists have to try anything they can and hope something sticks. In any other context this would be viewed as desperate apologetics, not scholarship.

First, I'm not going to deny that anti-mormons haven't provided a "small" degree of LDS improving their arguments, and dealing with things undealt with before. But, you far overstate your case.

Take the DNA issue. I wasn't phased a single bit by the DNA issue, because the anti-mormon arguments and claims had already long existed on the issue, DNA was simply another "tactic" of the same arguments and claims, claims and arguments, LDS scholars and I had long refuted already by the BOM and LDS theology. Further, the anti-mormon as they always did, misrepresents mormonism, and the DNA sciences in order to make their claims. I'm not going to deny a "few" LDS scholars fell for the anti-mormon lie, just accepting it, and then felt like that had to explain away some beliefs as being wrong, i.e. that natives are genetically from Lehi. They didn't need to do that, and most didn't. Mormonism always taught that "Lamanites" was not a genetic heritage, but a peoples similar to Gentiles. Further, through DNA drift, Lehi's DNA more likely than not WOULD be in basically every native, just not the dominate DNA thus non-detectable (if we even knew what Lehi's DNA was, which we don't). So many problem with the anti-mormon case, to where you have no case. Just more lying to try and destroy the Church.

Sorry, LDS scholarship is not hoping something sticks, it's the whole and absolute truth. Anti's however like you do throw the trash out and hope something sticks like a banana to the wall.

But this is an "if" that you haven't even begun to substantiate. You're going to believe the LDS scholar simply because he is LDS and he is probably going to speak to your expectations from a faith-promoting perspective. You will naturally like what he has to say and you'll naturally dislike what the critic has to say. What is actually "true" becomes irrelevant. You're not interested in what is true, you are only interested in getting that cognitive reinforcement and good feeling and support that your presuppositions are true. You confuse these feelings with objective truth. Again, what were you saying about the scientific method?

See, there you go lying again. If I have a child that I love, and he ends up being evil and a rapist, he is no longer going to be my child. Just because I know the Church is true and generally trust LDS scholarship, doesn't mean I rest on my laurels and stop using the scientific method I've used forever. I've already said every single day I still compare LDS claims with anti-mormon claims, still study history, LDS history, other religions history, etc. Everyday I read your anti-mormon claims, and then compare that to LDS scholarship, and I can clearly see who tells the truth and who misrepresents/perverts it.

The fantasy's of your own mind about mormons, how they are just ignorant sheep going along with the flow having their little "cognitive dissonance" is not reality, they are the fantasies of your own warped mind.

Because you can't explain why LDS believe what they believe, even though they know all the facts you know, that it just must be due to their being blind and foolish sheep. It doesn't enter into your mind, that maybe, just maybe LDS see something MORE than you do, see things MORE accurately than you do. As a former anti-mormon, I know this for a FACT. You can degrade me as "lying" all you want because you don't know my name, that I might be the moron Dr. Scratch, but this is who I am, and I know what I've done, how I've done it, and where YOU have went wrong.

So far you have provided no evidence that you understand critical arguments. All I see is binary thinking as you have done nothing but offer sweeping judgments, no evidence or analysis.

You know, it really doesn't help you, when you misrepresent the other person, as well as misrepresent the discussion itself.

We are having a discussion here relaying our own perspectives. If you think as you, someone who's been in no other religion, not a convert to mormonism, and someone who hasn't returned to the Church, has a superior perspective to someone who has been in those places, as well as done what you have done, being mormon and leaving it being anti-mormon and anti-religion, then all the power to you. I'm sharing some things with you that you simply aren't aware of. Fine if you don't like it, but stop with the irrelevant posturing statements such as this.

OK you just lost all credibility. There is no point in trying to talk to an anonymous person who doesn't understand basic facts, or half of the things he pretends to know about (i.e. objectivity, scientific method) For you all lies by LDS apologists are mistakes, and all mistakes by critics are lies based in the "rumor mill." We get it. So no amount of evidence will suffice. I've already refuted your premise that only critics lie and all apologists tell the truth.

I understand basic facts well. Your believing the "rumor mill" is not basic facts. I look at the facts alone. There is little evidence Joseph practiced Polygamy, and a lot against it. What he did practice was the Sealing Ordinance. Not only do we have Emma's testimony of her forbidding it, and always denying Joseph practiced it, but a good portion of the Church left the Church believing he didn't practice it. I know not all LDS agree on this, but that's okay. There are other issues we do agree upon, which is nearly all.

As to your statement, you've refuted nothing. You've only refuted me, by misrepresenting me, just as you do with mormonism. I made clear several times, including the statements you made your claim, that it was "most" of what anti's say is lying. I NEVER said "all" and "only all". Thus, you refute by lying about others.....

[ldsfaqs]

It is obvious that your search for so-called truth was neither all-encompassing nor exhaustive.

Yes it was. I actively attended many religions for many years, before coming upon mormonism, seeing it was the only one that actually in full and accurately fit the Bible, and followed it's pattern.

I also have deeply studied Eastern Philosophy's, and basically all other religions. I still study things outside of Mormonism.

I could go on and on. So, don't tell me how all encompassing and exhaustive my search for truth was. It was/is far more than 99.99% of most people including most mormons.

#1 You lump all claims that are critical to LDS truth claims as anti-Mormon, using this pejorative tips your hand and your bias. You paint with too broad a brush. A true seeker of truth has no agenda or bias yet your post is full of both.

I have long since found the truth, and am well experienced in identifying falsehood and lying.

My experience and knowledge giving me the ability to classify things doesn't mean I'm not a truth seeker nor objective.

I am well able to put on my "objective hat" every time I study something.

Further, I do not "lump all claims" against the Church as anti-mormon. I know very well there are respectful, honest, and moral critics such as Owens and Mosser who are mostly so, and many others out there. Of course, 99.9% of people and materials against the Church IS actually on the immoral side, and anti-mormon. Take over on Christianforms.com. Of the 8 other non-LDS that don't believe in the Church there that post on the particular forum, only one isn't anti-mormon. In fact, she actually corrects the anti-mormons all the time, and yet she's doesn't believe in mormonism at all, having her own christian beliefs. Of course, she is the exception to the rule. Normally anywhere else, you have 100's of anti-mormons, and then maybe the rare fair and objective critic.

A true seeker doesn't somehow not become a true seeker simply because he has found truth and knows error.

Sure, I'm not the same man I was 20 years ago, when I was anti-mormon and anti-religion, and then put away that judgment to study again all the religions to see which one if any could be true. Yes, I've since then found the True Church, and am forever a believer. But, that still doesn't mean I don't know how to put on my thinking cap, turning on my objective mind, for every and any issue I study every day. Maybe once a year I come upon an issue concerning mormonism (usually some anti-mormon claim) that I either don't remember the answer, or it gives me pause (the anti-mormon seems to have said something accurate). Rather than waving it away with my hand, or judging it one way or another pro-LDS or anti-LDS, I instead patienty explore the issue. I pull up 50 articles on the subject, study them carefully from all sides. Eventually, I discover the real truth, the connection that makes it all right, and it ends up supporting the LDS side. Why? Because the Church IS literally true. That couldn't happen if it was false with the methodology I use. Back when I was re-studying religion again, I had no interest in being in man-made religion, no interest nor need to "feel good" in some religion. I was happy as an Atheist/Agnostic, save the part of me that wanted to be a better person, and the part of me that really wanted to know what was true, and if there was a true path to follow in life, that would bring the most reward. But, I was mentally prepared for no religion or path to be true, and just be a "spiritualist" of sorts.

Anyway, I understand your concern, but it is a false one. Doesn't apply to me.

#2 Truth does not take sides…is neither anti or pro…it just IS.

Wrong. If Truth is on a particular side, then it does take sides.

Both anti-mormons and Mormons aren't both lying and both telling the truth.

Since mormonism is true, truth can most certainly be on it's side, and likewise anti-mormonism can be Satan's counterfeit and perversion of the truth as related to Mormonism.

Yes, truth just is..... But relativism is not truth. Truth is always on a side. Sure, depending on the subject both sides can have truth. For example, if you are comparing to false religions, both would have truth and falsehoods in them. But, if you're comparing most atheist arguments against Christianity, or anti-mormonism against Mormonism, then one side is perverting the truth, while the other stands for it.

Again, I understand your intention and point, but it's not accurate in this case.

Sorry but your methodology was neither scientific, exhaustive or it’s conclusion valid (beyond convincing yourself)

Anyone using the same flawed slant that you used would easily conclude that Mormonism claims are true…Oh if it were all so easy to bend truth to one’s own preconceived desired conclusion.

Again false..... Is Evolution a "Truth"? Thus, those who teach evolution (the basic idea (not the ape/man version), as being false, are in fact not telling the truth, are they not?

You make a conclusion on the side of science, while some others make a false conclusion on the side of religion/faith.

So, just because you've made a true and accurate conclusion and truth on the side of science, that doesn't mean you are somehow not actually objective.

Truth does stand on it's own. But in any issue, any subject, there is only one truth and only one side that has it.

If anti-momonism perverts everything about mormonism, then clearly they aren't on the side of truth. Get it???

The methodology I actually use to gain ALL of my conclusions and judgments most certainly IS scientific based, is exhaustive, and is conclusively valid. I have no interest in personal perceptions or the boxes men put themselves into. Mormonism is true, and I've proved it. And so can anyone else if they are actually objective and have faith, instead of leaning on their own current perceptions.

[Libs]

With this in mind, one may well ask whether it is always wrong to place faith in man instead of God. For example, is it wrong to rely on modern medicine more so than on the healing power of God?

I would answer, yes, and offer this explanation: In the scriptures there is an implied delineation between the temporal and the spiritual, secular and religious, the things of man and the things of God. Christ once declared that we should render unto Caesar the things of Caesar, and unto God the things of God. In some respects I take this to mean that in regards to the things of man, it is appropriate and even advised that we put our faith in man more so than God, and regarding the things of God, we are to put our faith in God more so than man.

Accordingly, we rightly put our faith in man more so than God in terms of everyday tasks like getting out of bed, putting on and making our clothes, cutting and combing our hair, earning and cooking our food, building and driving our cars, managing and staffing our businesses, developing and administering medical treatment, etc. etc. Whereas, we rightly put our faith in God more than man in terms of spiritual guidance, discernment, and learning.

Where it may becomes a problem for LDS faith is when we render faith unto man in the things of God.

What can make this somewhat challenging to understand is the fact that the delineations between the things of man and the things of God isn't always discrete or hard and fast. Instead, there is oft more than a little overlap. In terms of the things of man, it is advised that we appeal to God for guidance and intercession when choosing a spouse or career path, making important family decisions, when putting the lives of a loved-ones in the care of doctors, etc. Likewise, with the things of God, we at times rightly place our faith in man to pass the sacrament, collect fast offerings, pay tithes, visit the sick and the widowed, spread the gospel message, lead God's kingdom on earth, etc. This, I believe, is as God intended. It is living in the world but not of the world.

Besides, as mentioned in Moroni 7, all good cometh of God, including among the things of man. It is not unreasonable to consider the marvels of modern medicine as of God, and as such, when we put our trust in man's medical treatments, we are also putting our trust in God.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think that last sentence is the kicker. Besides the fact that many people believe that putting their faith in the LDS Church is putting faith in men (like Joseph Smith and other LDS Prophets), some might feel that being given information that shows they may be false prophets IS from God...not from man.

I'm not saying that's my view, but just giving you the other side of the coin.

Putting faith in something that cannot be proven (other than very subjectively) will always be a bit risky. That's why a "real" connection with God, on a personal level, is very important. Even then, we can all make mistakes, putting faith in things we shouldn't or not putting faith, where we should. It's all trial and error, which is why we are here, I suspect.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Libs