Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Latest Anti-Mormon Deception: "Futuremissionary.Com"


Recommended Posts

Love, love this board, when the truth is truth, and this infographic is exactly that, but it will hurt testimonies, especially very raw opened wounded ones. Is there a purpose for all of this? I know the JS Papers Project outlined all of this in a faith promoting way in one of their programs. I guess that's why we have apologists to counteract this inforgraphic and other facts.

We have differing purposes between critics and apologists. For the critic it is to cast doubt about the lds church. For the apologist, it is to protect faith and defend the lds church. Unfortunately, regardless of the facts that the church presents, the interpretation of those facts will be the battleground for critics. They seem to wish to dictate their interpretations.

Link to comment

In your 1832 section, you have an X by "Pillar of fire". However, in the 1832 account, Joseph was attempting to describe what he was seeing. He first described it as a "pillar of fire." Then, he crossed out the word "fire" and replaced it with "light."

From Joseph's 1832 account: "a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day"

For the two 1835 accounts, it should be noted that they were both written in Joseph's journal within a few days of each other.

9 November 1835: "a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"

14 November 1835: "I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14. years old and also the visitations that I received afterward"

The term "angel" was also commonly used to refer to deity It is unlikely that Joseph forgot what he said he saw only five days after he had just described seeing two personages that were distinct from the other angels he saw. We see a similar thing in two talks given by John Taylor on the same day. There are two discourses by John Taylor recorded for 2 March 1879. In each of these, Taylor refers to the first vision:

John Taylor (2 March 1879): "None of them was right, just as it was when the Prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it." (Journal of Discourses, 20:167)

John Taylor (2 March 1879): "When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith . . ." (Journal of Discourses, 20:257)

In your first 1835 graphic, the one with the guy standing in the fire,

Joseph's 1835 account: "a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon me head, and filled me with Joy unspeakable, a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first"

The fire was "spread all around" and also "rested down upon" Joseph's head. In other words, it wasn't wrapped around one guy, and there is no reason to exclude the second personage, or Joseph Smith, from the fire/light.

Also, for the 1835 graphic, saying the Joseph saw "2 personages" but saying that he didn't see God the Father or Jesus Christ doesn't make sense, especially when the "official" 1838 account graphic marks both the "2 personages" AND "God the Father" and "Jesus Christ." The official 1838 account never explicitly mentions that the personages were God and Jesus either. It is simply implied since one personage introduces the other as his "beloved son.

I'm afraid that's all I have time for at the moment. More later.

WW

I love it. This is why I like the people from FAIR. I just hope that the person has time to change the t-shirts. But what I find amazing is the poor interpretations that critics have. Unfortunately, they are still able to lead members away with their versions of the truth and their interpretations of that truth.

Link to comment

The church has 18 years to inoculate and prepare its army of missionaries for the difficult issues this sight shares...If the church prepares them, teaches them the truth then none of the so called revelations on this sight will come as a surprise to these young men and women. If taught and exposed to these difficult issues these young people will shrug rather than implode when exposed. So then why if the church is doing Such a great job of teaching its members this information and havent hidden or whitewashed it is this web site of any concern? Unless they have failed to share this information....which those who are leaving the church have claimed to be the case....and posters here have denied is happening. So which is it...the church doesn't hide it's history and shares it with its members and the information on this sight is harmless or the information is harmful because these young people can lose testimonies when they become exposed to it on this sight for the first time?

Sight is related to vision, site is related to a spatial location, a specific area, or a website. Just a soapbox before I pull my hair out. This type of error is like fingernails on a chalkboard when reading. I will get down off my box now; carry on.

Link to comment

The above Points amount to an attempt at spinning the tale.

For my own peace of mind, I sincerely hope you are historiographically ignorant rather than self-consciously deceptive.

Just this week, I was reviewing a chapter in my PhD thesis wherein I explore three separate accounts of a single event written by the same Jesuit missionary. My treatment considers how audience and purpose altered the content of each account and influenced the voice each one assumes. Anyone with any genuine experience dealing with historical accounts knows that this is simply the nature of the craft.

The only real spin, therefore, is your implication that there is something unusual about Joseph's multiple accounts and consequently something sinister or deceptive.

Link to comment

Conclusion

The above Points amount to an attempt at spinning the tale. I'm not open to making changes that aren't documented in the written accounts simply to make this more faith promoting. I'm only interested in the truth.

Conclusion:

You are only interested in your own interpretation of the vision accounts and putting them out there as truth. You are not interested in truth but in interpretation. You should be honest.

And this is the problem. Someone gave you a different interpretation but you were not interested because you saw it as spin. But is it? I think that we are dealing with a couple of interpretations of the event and you have one of them. And someone else has another. But you choose to believe that one that conforms to your own bias and label the other interpretation as spin.

This is one reason why it would be very difficult to present facts or interpretations about the lds church. The church will become involved in an ongoing debate over history. It would be endless.

Edited by why me
Link to comment

For my own peace of mind, I sincerely hope you are historiographically ignorant rather than self-consciously deceptive.

Just this week, I was reviewing a chapter in my PhD thesis wherein I explore three separate accounts of a single event written by the same Jesuit missionary. My treatment considers how audience and purpose altered the content of each account and influenced the voice each one assumes. Anyone with any genuine experience dealing with historical accounts knows that this is simply the nature of the craft.

The only real spin, therefore, is your implication that there is something unusual about Joseph's multiple accounts and consequently something sinister or deceptive.

Are these accounts available online somewhere? I'm curious what they say.

Link to comment

Wiki Wonka,

I am the author of "A Letter to a CES Director". I plan to deliver a response.

I also plan to update my letter with a direct link to FAIR's response. Will you and FAIR provide me the same courtesy and respect by posting my response link in the "A Letter to a CES Director" section on FAIR? I believe our readers deserve to see both responses.

Failure to provide an answer to my question will be interpreted as a refusal to provide my response link to your readers on FAIR.

Link to comment

Wiki Wonka,

I am the author of "A Letter to a CES Director". I plan to deliver a response.

I also plan to update my letter with a direct link to FAIR's response. Will you and FAIR provide me the same courtesy and respect by posting my response link in the "A Letter to a CES Director" section on FAIR? I believe our readers deserve to see both responses.

We will provide the http address to your response, just like we do for the MormonThink and FutureMissionary pages, but the link will not be live.

Failure to provide an answer to my question will be interpreted as a refusal to provide my response link to your readers on FAIR.

You are free to interpret or portray it however you wish. MormonThink throws that line at us all the time on the message boards ("FAIR is afraid to link to us"), but it actually has to do with SEO. Therefore, we provide the http addresses for anyone wanting to visit the site.

And, it will take a while, because that project isn't in any particular rush. The only reason we are responding to it at all is because it is embedded in the FutureMissionary page. Same for the "mormoninfographics" stuff - we are only responding to it because it is embedded in your letter.

WW

Link to comment

Thank you. I will provide the link to my response when it's completed.

One question - I deliberately left your name off of the FAIR page because your terms of use seemed to prohibit it. If you do not want it there, then that's fine. If you do want your name listed as the author, then please let me know and I'll add it, otherwise I will leave it as is.

WW

Link to comment

The above Points amount to an attempt at spinning the tale. I'm not open to making changes that aren't documented in the written accounts simply to make this more faith promoting. I'm only interested in the truth.

Here's the response to the one I mentioned earlier:

Mormoninfographic.error.1832.fire.light.2.jpg

Link to comment

The above Points amount to an attempt at spinning the tale. I'm not open to making changes that aren't documented in the written accounts simply to make this more faith promoting. I'm only interested in the truth.

Here's the one that has been corrected on the "mormoninfographics" site. However, this response is to the uncorrected version that is embedded in "A Letter to a CES Director."

Mormoninfographic.first.vision.errors.2.jpg

Link to comment

One question - I deliberately left your name off of the FAIR page because your terms of use seemed to prohibit it. If you do not want it there, then that's fine. If you do want your name listed as the author, then please let me know and I'll add it, otherwise I will leave it as is.

I appreciate it. It's fine as-is.

Link to comment

The above Points amount to an attempt at spinning the tale. I'm not open to making changes that aren't documented in the written accounts simply to make this more faith promoting. I'm only interested in the truth.

Here's the fourth one:

Mormoninfographics.error.1838.personages.jpg

Link to comment

It seems that our friends don't like to be called out. I think that they were caught giving a false impression to harm the church. Good to keep them in line. I also don't believe that they were presenting information to help perspective missionaries or members. And hopefully, the people at FAIR continue to watch the information that they are publishing.

Link to comment

It seems that our friends don't like to be called out. I think that they were caught giving a false impression to harm the church. Good to keep them in line. I also don't believe that they were presenting information to help perspective missionaries or members. And hopefully, the people at FAIR continue to watch the information that they are publishing.

There are three different things we are are responding to here, and they are all a bit different:

1) FutureMissionary.com, which is run anonymously and appears to be designed to deliberately sabotage prospective missionaries. There is deception at work on that site.

2) "A Letter to a CES Director." The author of the letter is not anonymous, and the intent of the letter appears to be to get someone in the Church to respond to a number of troubling issues. I don't see any deception on the part of the author - he's pretty up front about where he is at, and you have to give him credit for that. Our response is to the issues raised, not the author. We are only responding to it because it is posted on the FutureMissionary site. We normally don't review or respond to exit stories.

3) "mormoninfographics," which is used in the CES letter. That site is obviously anti-Church, since it consists of a set of mocking graphics. We wouldn't even bother reviewing them under normal circumstances, because it is obvious to anyone who visits the site where they are coming from (unlike FutureMissionary). As it stands, we will only respond to the graphics that are used in the CES letter. I don't see any deliberate deception here either - just a really poor analysis of the sources used.

Edited by Wiki Wonka
Link to comment

FairWiki,

Joseph actually uses the words "pillar of fire/flame" in the 9th of November account:

I kneeled again, my mouth was opened and my tongue loosed; I called on the Lord in mighty prayer. A pillar of fire appeared above my head; which presently rested down upon me, and filled me with unspeakable joy. A personage appeared in the midst of this pillar of flame, which was spread all around and yet nothing consumed. Another personage soon appeared like unto the first: he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee. He testified also unto me that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I saw many angels in this vision. I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication....

He did cross out the word "fire" in the 1832 History and kept the word "light". Then, a few years later, he said pillar of fire & pillar of flame. I don't get your point here.

Edited by grindael
Link to comment

How exactly is this any different from FAIR's Allen Wyatt purchasing numerous domain names trying to redirect people looking for information critical of the Church, to apologetic hit pieces on certain critics? You know, websites like "SAVEGRANTPALMER.ORG" and "SAVEGRANTPALMER.COM" and "supportgrantpalmer.com" were purchased by Mr. Wyatt back when Palmer had published his book and FARMS was desperately trying to get readers to avoid reading his book. The threat of excommunication led to a huge online controversy and Wyatt thought he'd trick his supporters by redirecting them to the FARMS hit jobs. The same people who are now stunned by this "latest anti-Mormon deception" certainly had no problem when one of their own was doing it. In fact, we saw tons of defenses on behalf of Wyatt from a lot of you folks, claiming he was justified because what he did wasn't illegal, and the end justified the means.

Besides, I remember on my mission we were told to pass out this video that was advertised on TV by the Church. The way the Church set up the commercial made it almost seem like it had nothing at all to do with religion, but rather an amazing breakthrough in knowledge about the afterlife from first hand accounts. It was during a time when the Time Life Books "Psychic Experiences" was all the rage. My companion and I couldn't figure out why half of the people who received a copy were upset to find out it was from a Church. But that was until we actually saw the advertisement ourselves and realized how easily they were misled. The Church didn't care. They just figured they'd trick viewers and then leave it up to these teenage missionaries to pull some kind of magic to get them interested in religion. I remembered the clip at the end saying it was a message from the LDS Church, lasted like half a second.

So give me a break with all this righteous indignation about anti-Mormon trickery. In my experience the apologetic side is just as likely to engage in "deception" so long as they think they can get away with it. A great example, which I brought up in another thread, is Kerry Meuhlstein's comment in a DVD published by FAIR saying there is an Egyptian papyrus referring to Abraham in a Lion Couch scene just like that in the Joseph Smith papyri. He said it translated to "Abraham upon his couch," which proves he is not interested in telling the truth. Even his predecessor, John Gee, was never crazy enough to make that claim. But Kerry knew Mormon listeners hypnotized by his PhD will just accept his claim without question because it makes them feel good about supposed "plausibility" that supports the Book of Abraham. But ultimately he is being just as deceptive as any anti-Mormon you can think of. SO I have to laugh when FAIR apologists start preaching about truth, when they care so little about the truth that they don't even bother to fact-check their own publications.

In any event, Mr. Wyatt was getting away with this deception for awhile until some evil "critic" ruined the party by taking the time to research who was buying up all these domain names. So what it really boils down to is that lying and deception are perfectly fine for apologists so long as it is done to support the Church. Anything else is cause for public outrage. This is hypocrisy at its finest.

Link to comment

FairWiki,

Why did you not quote verse 17, which reads:

One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is MyfBeloved gSon. Hear Him!

That specifically identifies them as God and Jesus Christ, does it not? Or is this referring to someone else?

Yes, it certainly does in my world. Of course, the creator of the graphic has been making a point of literally interpreting only what the words say, and those words only convey that one personage is a father and the other a son, but they are not named.

Of course Latter-day Saints identify them the personages are the Father and the Son, but the 1835 graphic makes a point of noting "2 personages" and then stating that there was no mention of the Father and Jesus Christ. Any Latter-day Saint reading the 1835 account will also associate the Father and Son with the two personages.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...