Is The Internet Good Or Bad For The Church?

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

I never said I was polite, though I do try to be.

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/chapter1.htm

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/chapter2.htm

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

I never said I was polite, though I do try to be.

http://www2.ida.net/...il/chapter1.htm

http://www2.ida.net/...il/chapter2.htm

Am I supposed to wade through through that incoherent mess to find evidence to support your charge that the Tanners are/were dishonest?

I guess I was wrong to expect a clean clear example of dishonesty.

[HiJolly]

Am I supposed to wade through through that incoherent mess to find evidence to support your charge that the Tanners are/were dishonest?

I guess I was wrong to expect a clean clear example of dishonesty.

I don't suppose you've ever heard of the Brown's and their dealings with trying to keep the Tanners honest...

HiJolly

[Jaybear]

I don't suppose you've ever heard of the Brown's and their dealings with trying to keep the Tanners honest...

HiJolly

Look, I get it. Calling the Tanners liars, who take things out of context, is a very effective way to minimize people who are trying to disseminate historical information that faithful members might be troubled by.

You have heard it so many times, that you believe its not only true, but established indisputable fact. So you, and others here join in the chorus, make the same allegations.

However, the fact that that the Tanners were openly skeptical about Hoffman's collection, leads me to conclude that they are far more careful in their approach to historical documents that you would portray.

[thesometimesaint]

My goodness expecting people to actually read is now the problem.

:rofl:

Edited April 4, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Rivers]

I can't believe there is even a discussion.

If we were to make a list of the worst things to happen to the Church in the last 182 years, the list would look like this:

1. The Internet

2. The Internet

3. The Internet

4. Everything else put together (mob violence, apostatizing apostles, Reed Smoot hearings, The Godmakers, etc.)

The Church may survive the internet, and like a cancer survivor, we may feel "stronger" for having done so. But ultimately, we will end up being the Lance Armstrong of churches, having survived, but at the cost of part of our testicles and brain.

This comparison is in poor taste Cinepro. -Ares

If the Catholic church could survive the printing press, the LDS church can survive the internet.

[Rivers]

The internet can be used for things that impact Mormon claims but make no mention of the Mormons

eg

http://tcmam.wordpre...ans-use-wheels/

The wheel is mentioned. Other searches can involve searching for origins of horses and other animals brought to America

Also the origin of the American Indians

http://voices.yahoo....gin-694240.html

"

According to Gibson; "Ancestors of the American Indian may have reached the New World from several directions at various times in the past, but evidence mustered thus far strongly supports the thesis that the first important access into the western Hemisphere was from Asia via Beringia. This archaeological evidence from eastern Siberia, Alaska, and along the ice free corridor into North America's continental interior indicates that Beringia was the principal sources of migration."

Gibson further quotes evidence that Archaeologists have found artifacts that trace the migration route through the Bering Straits. However, it possible there is missing evidence yet to be discovered. Moreover, these artifacts could have been disrupted by the glacier movements. This occurred in New England. Many Indian artifacts that were found in this area were damaged or miss dated due to glacier movements."

I actually didn't need the internet to learn any of this stuff. I learned about all of this in school. Jefflindsay.com actually helped me find asnwers to questions this information raises.

[Jaybear]

My goodness expecting people to actually read is now the problem.

:rofl:

I read the article. It was not responsive. Skirts did not accuse let alone show that the tanners lied or were dishonest.

Again you (not Kerry Skirts) are accusing the Tanners of being dishonest.

If you are not prepared to back up an allegation of dishonesty, with facts, you shouldn't make it.

[LeSellers]

Skirts did not accuse let alone show that the tanners lied or were dishonest.

Again you (not Kerry Skirts) are accusing the Tanners of being dishonest.

It's "Shirts", not "Skirts".

Lehi

[cinepro]

What in-context information is damaging to the church that is available because of the internet (and was not available before the internet)?

This should be good...

From the LDS I've known that have had "faith issues", it's my observation that the details of Joseph Smith's polygamy (especially being sealed to women who had LDS husbands) and the Book of Abraham vs. the papyrii tend to be the most damaging issues.

Obviously, these issues don't bother every LDS, but those two seem to be the most shocking for some reason (polygamy more so for women, BoA more so for men).

Just my unscientific observation after a decade of online and IRL interactions.

I would be most curious to know what experiences the missionaries are having in the age of the internet. On my mission in the pre-internet days to the Bible-belt of the American South, I can recall 5 investigators (out of many) that stopped taking the discussions because of anti-mormon literature or tracts that were given to them by friends or family (or their church leaders).

Other than that, we taught dozens and dozens of people who never encountered the negative view of the Church (as far as we knew). I wonder what kind of research people do now between meetings with the missionaries, and how that influences them...?

Edited April 4, 2012 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

From Kerry Shirts "For instance, polygamy. The only way to heaven. Well now today’s leaders say not so. Hence a doctrinal contradiction and change. But is it? Granted the practice has been suspended, but is this a doctrinal change? I don’t see it that way. What I see is that for now, because the United States would not let Mormons practice polygamy, then it won’t be… for now. And again, I may be wrong. But after all this is my commentary, and I call it as I see it. That’s what it is to me. It honestly is not a big deal either so far as I care. It matters not to me a whit for now, so why worry? Well, because see…. The Tanners are trying to build up an image of Mormonism which is nasty. This Mormonism thing…. Oh! It changes. Well……so? I hate to act as if it is no big deal, but after all, the scriptures say we learn line upon line and precept by precept. God hasn’t revealed everything yet. And just because he reveals a truth does not mean he can’t take it away. He kept it hidden for centuries didn’t he? After all, just whose show is this anyway? God says Thou shalt not kill on one occasion, and yet on another he commands killing, of men, women, children, dogs, cats, mules, even plants! Joshua is commanded to salt the very ground of the cities he destroys".

Kerry is far more polite than I am. To me this is but one example of the Tanners dishonesty.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

...

Kerry is far more polite than I am. To me this is but one example of the Tanners dishonesty.

What did the Tanners say that was dishonest? I presume they provided a quote from an LDS prophet who said that only saints who enter into the practice may have entry to the celestial kingdom.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/ldsleadersbelievepolygamyinheaven.htm

[Jaybear]

What in-context information is damaging to the church that is available because of the internet (and was not available before the internet)?

This should be good...

The internet provide struggling members with a vast support group former members who will validate their concerns, and help ease their exit from the LDS Church.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

IOW you support the throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Wiki Wonka]

My impression is that this "out of context" charge is grossly overstated.

Here is an example of out of context:

Obama: "John McCain says, and I quote "If we keep talking about the economy we are going to lose.'"

Romney: Obama "If we keep talking about the economy, we are going to lose."

Do you have an example of the Tanners providing a quote out of context as egregiously and dishonestly as Mitt Romney?

Please refrain from bringing politics into this discussion.

From The Changing World of Mormonism, p. 150.

James B. Allen, who now serves as assistant church historian, frankly admitted that the story of the first vision "was not given general circulation in the 1830's." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, p. 33). Dr. Allen makes some startling concessions in this article. He admits, for instance, that "none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830's, none of the publications of the Church in that decade, and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story of the first vision...." Dr. Allen goes on to state that in the 1830's "the general membership of the Church knew little, if anything, about it."

Allen actually claimed that the story had "at best" received "limited circulation," which was omitted by the Tanners. Instead, the Tanners make it appear that Allen claimed that it was not circulated at all.

The fact that none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830s, none of the publications of the Church in that decade, and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story of the first vision is convincing evidence that at best it received only limited circulation in those early days.

WW

[cinepro]

Please refrain from bringing politics into this discussion.

From The Changing World of Mormonism, p. 150.

Allen actually claimed that the story had "at best" received "limited circulation," which was omitted by the Tanners. Instead, the Tanners make it appear that Allen claimed that it was not circulated at all.

WW

I'm not a fan of the Tanners (I've never read any of their publications) but from what the Tanners say in the first quote, it seems to fully acknowledge that there was at least some awareness of the First Vision in the 1830s.

If the Tanners were trying to argue that there was no awareness of the First Vision at that time, then the omission would certainly be material. But since they already acknowledge that it was known to some people, the point that the story received at best limited circulation only reinforces what they've already said, and it hardly seems egregious to not include that comment. In fact, including it would only seem to strengthen their argument.

There may be good examples of malfeasance on the part of the Tanners, but I hope that's not the best one.

[Pahoran]

And speaking of dishonesty...

The internet provide struggling members with a vast support group former members who will validate their concerns, and help ease their exit from the LDS Church.

Actually the way to "support" people who are "struggling" is to help them to win, not discourage them to the point where they surrender. Calling a network of hate propaganda sites a "support group" is a startlingly dishonest and manipulate use of language.

Pretty much in the ignoble tradition of a gang of worthless apostates claiming to be "recovering" from something.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jaybear]

Please refrain from bringing politics into this discussion.

From The Changing World of Mormonism, p. 150.

Allen actually claimed that the story had "at best" received "limited circulation," which was omitted by the Tanners. Instead, the Tanners make it appear that Allen claimed that it was not circulated at all.

WW

I don't think you understand what "at best" received "limited circulation" means. Otherwise, you would not use this as your best example.

Tanner is right. That statement your quoted is a clear admission by Allen that the story was not given general circulation.

Tanner did not say, or imply, as you suggest that Allen claimed it was not circulated at all, though Allen by the phrase "at best" conceded the possiblity that it may not have been circulated at all.

Frankly, considering who it was that used the phrase "at best", and "if anything" that is pretty stark concession. He is clearly has no evidence that it was circulated, but is not willing to let go of the possibility that some others did hear about the story some how.

I hope this is not your best example.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Jaybear

[Pahoran]

My impression is that this "out of context" charge is grossly overstated.

I'm sorry to hear that, but we can't be responsible for your impressions.

Snip attempted derail.

Do you have an example of the Tanners providing a quote out of context as egregiously and dishonestly as Mitt Romney?

There are numerous examples of the Tanners surpassing anything any politician anywhere has ever said.

But I've seen some posters who could give them a run for their money.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jaybear]

I'm sorry to hear that, but we can't be responsible for your impressions.

Snip attempted derail.

There are numerous examples of the Tanners surpassing anything any politician anywhere has ever said.

But I've seen some posters who could give them a run for their money.

Regards,

Pahoran

Only asked for one example.

If you can provide it, and refrain from spewing insults, that would be great.

Thanks.

[Calm]

Only asked for one example.

If you can provide it, and refrain from spewing insults, that would be great.

Thanks.

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/misc/ask-the-apologist-did-early-lds-leaders-misunderstand-the-first-vision

[Jaybear]

http://www.fairlds.o...he-first-vision

From the article:

The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him.” (Journal of Discourses 2:170-171)

So, now we get the full picture. Brigham doesn’t say that the Lord didn’t come ever; he says that He didn’t come with the “armies of heaven, in power and great glory.” In other words, He didn’t come with a bunch of pomp and circumstance. And, as a matter of fact, when you look closer with the entire quote, Brigham specifically says that the Lord did come. It was the Lord who “informed him,” not the angel. Read the sentence, “But He did send His angel…AND [He, the Lord] informed him [Joseph]…” So the quote from Brigham takes on a whole new meaning when you look at the whole thing.

The statement is, at best, ambiguous. I can see how both could honestly draw different conclusions from the same quote.

My personal opinion is that Tanners interpretation is probably more accurate ... "send" has a clear meaning distinct from "came with", and there a alot of words separating "Lord" from "told him".

Of course, if you can find other sermon or writing from BY stating that the Lord appeared and spoke to Smith, the disptue would be rendered moot.

Sorry, but this is not an example of dishonesty. At best, its a honest disagreement over a poorly written run on sentence.

[Mark Beesley]

From The Changing World of Mormonism:

The Mormon people are now faced with a serious dilemma; if they really believe Brigham Young was a prophet, then it follows from his statement that the church has lost the priesthood, been put under "the curse" and is going to destruction! In spite of Brigham Young's emphatic warning against giving blacks "all the blessings God has given us," the present leaders have announced that blacks will now receive "all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords" (Deseret News, June 9, 1978).

Page 312

This is a lie. We really believe Brigham Young was a prophet, and the Church has not lost the Priesthood.

[Mark Beesley]

See http://www.lds-mormon.com/compton.shtml for Todd Compton's view on Tanner honesty.