Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Official Lies Perpetrated By 'Mormonthink' Thread

Hamilton Porter

By Hamilton Porter
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

Hamilton Porter Mentor

Hamilton Porter

Posted
Posted (edited)

1. Falsely claiming he was disciplined for for publishing anti-Romney, then later admitting he did that just to get in the national media.

2. Grant Palmer cooking up some story about apostles being paid off and not believing in order to generate traffic.

3. Claiming they are mostly members of the Church, one only one attends.

...

Edited by Hamilton Porter
omni Mentor

omni

Posted
Posted (edited)

What would really be impressive is if you could accurately challenge the information on the site regarding the truth claims of the church rather than ad hominem attacks against its authors.

Edited by omni
2
canard78 Grand Master

canard78

Posted
Posted

1. Falsely claiming he was disciplined for for publishing anti-Romney, then later admitting he did that just to get in the national media.

2. Grant Palmer cooking up some story about apostles being paid off and not believing in order to generate traffic.

3. Claiming they are mostly members of the Church, one only one attends.

...

Does this site need any more publicity than it already gets?

I guess it needs to be shown for what it is.

canard78 Grand Master

canard78

Posted
Posted

What would really be impressive is if you could accurately challenge the claims on the site regarding the truth claims of the church rather than ad nominal attacks against its authors.

If MT could first show they had made a full and balanced for and against the issue they might merit some support.

Given they seem to have no sincere desire to do that, it's difficult to support a full response to them.

And I say that as one who has personal unanswered issues and questions.

1
Hamilton Porter Mentor

Hamilton Porter

Posted
  • Author
Posted

What would really be impressive is if you could accurately challenge the claims on the site regarding the truth claims of the church rather than ad nominal attacks against its authors.

Ad nominal attacks? Yes, the name "Mormonthink" really is stupid.

2
Questing Beast Veteran

Questing Beast

Posted
Posted

"Bill"? Seriously? The founder of Mormon Think goes by "Bill", says "trust us", and doesn't reveal who he is or anybody else's names/identities. If you are going to create a Website for discussing Mormon issues, you must be completely open about who you are....

tagriffy Experienced

tagriffy

Posted
Posted

I probably shouldn't do it this way, but I've edited a couple posts I wrote on the other board on my thoughts about MormonThink. There is context involved.

A problem I'm having is that even an inactive heretic like me has many same problems with MormonThink. Here is what I think Don's and my own central problem with the site is:

DonBradley wrote:The next is their claim to balance and objectivity. They certainly provide data. But they cherry pick that data, presenting overwhelmingly only what is problematic, and weighing their sources based on how much those sources can be used to criticize Mormonism rather than on how reliable or important the sources are.

Under a given topic, they'll give the critical case its best presentation, and at some length, and then follow this up, at most, with a few sentences giving a half-assed characterization of the apologetic position.

This is what saw in Book of Mormon section alone. More space is spent on the Spaulding theory--considered fringe even among most environmentalists--than is spent on trying to help readers understand what the ethnographic school is saying. I also look in vain for third ways. Hutchinson is mentioned only to criticize him for not accepting the Spaulding theory. Ostler is not mentioned at all, so far as I can tell. I think I can safely say I was able to help someone with a problem about the Book of Mormon simply by pointing out options--options he would have never been able to find at MormonThink.

My response to what I saw on MormonThink is not anger. It's disappointment. About six years ago, my wife divorced me. Life hasn't been any kinder to me since. In these years, I haven't had my ear to the ground on things Mormon. I'd heard President Hinckley and Elder Maxwell died, but when I started looking to dip my feet in Mormon waters again, I wasn't even sure President Monson was still alive. So I came across MormonThink while trying to get updated on the current state of affairs in things Mormon.

My response was, "Still?" Is this still where we are at? Black and white, critic vs. apologist? How about simply trying to understand?

And regardless of what the Church itself is or isn't doing (and I have my own complaints on the matter), it's not like we don't have the material to do this. Hence a real need to discuss more nuanced ways of addressing the big questions. A site supposedly dedicated to informing members about Mormon history fairly and objectively is simply incomplete without it. Of course no one is obligated to accept the nuanced view; I've said you either believe or you don't often enough myself. The point is that there are options, and if MormonThink can devote so much space to the Spaulding theory, it can devote space to delineating some of the other options as well.

For a person having problems trying work out the big questions, MormonThink is the last place I'd send them. The only options the site seems to offer readers are believe anyway, stay in the Church even though you really don't believe, or leave. This is still the same all-or-nothing approach embraced by apologists. If the site does not want to be characterized as anti-Mormon, if it wants to be seen as objective and balanced, then it needs to do some rethinking about it's approach.

2
omni Mentor

omni

Posted
Posted

Ad nominal attacks? Yes, the name "Mormonthink" really is stupid.

Auto correct mistake fixed, now back to the ad hominem attacks.

omni Mentor

omni

Posted
Posted

"Bill"? Seriously? The founder of Mormon Think goes by "Bill", says "trust us", and doesn't reveal who he is or anybody else's names/identities. If you are going to create a Website for discussing Mormon issues, you must be completely open about who you are....

The current site administer is very open about his identity. I don't necessarily agree with his approach, but he's certainly not trying to hide anything.

omni Mentor

omni

Posted
Posted

I probably shouldn't do it this way, but I've edited a couple posts I wrote on the other board on my thoughts about MormonThink. There is context involved.

A problem I'm having is that even an inactive heretic like me has many same problems with MormonThink. Here is what I think Don's and my own central problem with the site is:

DonBradley wrote:The next is their claim to balance and objectivity. They certainly provide data. But they cherry pick that data, presenting overwhelmingly only what is problematic, and weighing their sources based on how much those sources can be used to criticize Mormonism rather than on how reliable or important the sources are.

Under a given topic, they'll give the critical case its best presentation, and at some length, and then follow this up, at most, with a few sentences giving a half-assed characterization of the apologetic position.

This is what saw in Book of Mormon section alone. More space is spent on the Spaulding theory--considered fringe even among most environmentalists--than is spent on trying to help readers understand what the ethnographic school is saying. I also look in vain for third ways. Hutchinson is mentioned only to criticize him for not accepting the Spaulding theory. Ostler is not mentioned at all, so far as I can tell. I think I can safely say I was able to help someone with a problem about the Book of Mormon simply by pointing out options--options he would have never been able to find at MormonThink.

My response to what I saw on MormonThink is not anger. It's disappointment. About six years ago, my wife divorced me. Life hasn't been any kinder to me since. In these years, I haven't had my ear to the ground on things Mormon. I'd heard President Hinckley and Elder Maxwell died, but when I started looking to dip my feet in Mormon waters again, I wasn't even sure President Monson was still alive. So I came across MormonThink while trying to get updated on the current state of affairs in things Mormon.

My response was, "Still?" Is this still where we are at? Black and white, critic vs. apologist? How about simply trying to understand?

And regardless of what the Church itself is or isn't doing (and I have my own complaints on the matter), it's not like we don't have the material to do this. Hence a real need to discuss more nuanced ways of addressing the big questions. A site supposedly dedicated to informing members about Mormon history fairly and objectively is simply incomplete without it. Of course no one is obligated to accept the nuanced view; I've said you either believe or you don't often enough myself. The point is that there are options, and if MormonThink can devote so much space to the Spaulding theory, it can devote space to delineating some of the other options as well.

For a person having problems trying work out the big questions, MormonThink is the last place I'd send them. The only options the site seems to offer readers are believe anyway, stay in the Church even though you really don't believe, or leave. This is still the same all-or-nothing approach embraced by apologists. If the site does not want to be characterized as anti-Mormon, if it wants to be seen as objective and balanced, then it needs to do some rethinking about it's approach.

You seem like someone who would be an excellent choice to create a resource for exactly what your requesting. From what I've read, you have a strong grasp of the issues regarding the church without any real observable agenda. I'm not sure what your background is, but if you could find some like minded individuals it would be a great project to take on!

tagriffy Experienced

tagriffy

Posted
Posted

You seem like someone who would be an excellent choice to create a resource for exactly what your requesting. From what I've read, you have a strong grasp of the issues regarding the church without any real observable agenda. I'm not sure what your background is, but if you could find some like minded individuals it would be a great project to take on!

From the standpoint of LDS orthodoxy, many of my "solutions" to the "problems" would be considered apostate. And I do have an agenda--to explicate those views and put them out there for consideration. I try to be fair, but I'm moving forward with what I'm doing. So I'm not so sure that what I would do would be much appreciated.

And with the loss of my library (moan), I no longer have all resources I would need to begin such a work. I can find some of it online, but there really is not replacement for having a book or journal article in my hand to refer to. That's why I keep getting stuck on just having to rely on memory even posting here. Once I've rebuilt my library more, that would be the time to seriously get to work on creating the kind of resource I'd like to see.

CA Steve Grand Master

CA Steve

Posted
Posted

From the standpoint of LDS orthodoxy, many of my "solutions" to the "problems" would be considered apostate. And I do have an agenda--to explicate those views and put them out there for consideration. I try to be fair, but I'm moving forward with what I'm doing. So I'm not so sure that what I would do would be much appreciated.

And with the loss of my library (moan), I no longer have all resources I would need to begin such a work. I can find some of it online, but there really is not replacement for having a book or journal article in my hand to refer to. That's why I keep getting stuck on just having to rely on memory even posting here. Once I've rebuilt my library more, that would be the time to seriously get to work on creating the kind of resource I'd like to see.

You could call it Rethinking Future Mormon Missionaries.com 8)

tagriffy Experienced

tagriffy

Posted
Posted

You could call it Rethinking Future Mormon Missionaries.com 8)

Ugh. I think I'll just stick to my little blog.

ALarson Grand Master

ALarson

Posted
Posted (edited)

1. Falsely claiming he was disciplined for for publishing anti-Romney, then later admitting he did that just to get in the national media.

2. Grant Palmer cooking up some story about apostles being paid off and not believing in order to generate traffic.

3. Claiming they are mostly members of the Church, one only one attends....

So...these are the "Official Lies"? Any "Unofficial Lies"? Just thought I'd ask because the 3 things you listed above are pretty vague.

Is the first one being perpetuated on the site? I rarely go over there, so I'm sincerely asking.

#2 has not been proven or disproven...and is it also perpetuated on the site?

#3 is probably not technically a lie. I do believe most associated with that site are still members of the church, but are no longer active (the manager has been ex'd though, I believe).

So....anything of substance on that site that you can state is a lie? I actually have no issues with the facts that are presented, it's the conclusions and and analysis that I take issue with.

Edited by ALarson
canard78 Grand Master

canard78

Posted
Posted

You seem like someone who would be an excellent choice to create a resource for exactly what your requesting. From what I've read, you have a strong grasp of the issues regarding the church without any real observable agenda. I'm not sure what your background is, but if you could find some like minded individuals it would be a great project to take on!

Everyone has an agenda. Especially on the 'bloggernacle.'

I agree though that a more balanced approach of presenting both perspectives in a more balanced way would be a valuable resource.

It would need a mixed editorial board, agreed standards of language/rhetoric, clear sources and the right to reply.

As such, probably the closest we could ever come to that is Wikipedia. I know FAIR has issues with it as the weight of opinion tends to be against rather than for. But at least it has to be fully sourced and can be disputed.

2
canard78 Grand Master

canard78

Posted
Posted

So...these are the "Official Lies"? Any "Unofficial Lies"? Just thought I'd ask because the 3 things you listed above are pretty vague.

Is the first one being perpetuated on the site? I rarely go over there, so I'm sincerely asking.

#2 has not been proven or disproven...and is it also perpetuated on the site?

#3 is probably not technically a lie. I do believe most associated with that site are still members of the church, but are no longer active (the manager has been ex'd though, I believe).

So....anything of substance on that site that you can state is a lie? I actually have no issues with the facts that are presented, it's the conclusions and and analysis that I take issue with.

The last manager (who got the Romney PR) resigned his membership.

The new editor is a former SP from the UK who is still on the membership records. He claims to have had the 'second anointing' so apparently can't be ex'd. So technically still a member. He seems to revel a little in that.

Brian 2.0 Veteran

Brian 2.0

Posted
Posted

He claims to have had the 'second anointing' so apparently can't be ex'd.

I don't know why, but the idea of that sounds so funny to me. Like it's the start of a movie trailer... "A man goes so deep into the Mormon Church, that he can never get back out, no matter how hard everyone tries."

2
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted
This is still the same all-or-nothing approach embraced by apologists.

Not all apologists, I think you would be surprised at the wide range of opinions among those involved in producing apologetics.
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted

You seem like someone who would be an excellent choice to create a resource for exactly what your requesting. From what I've read, you have a strong grasp of the issues regarding the church without any real observable agenda. I'm not sure what your background is, but if you could find some like minded individuals it would be a great project to take on!

I agree...him and canard would make a great team.
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)

It would need a mixed editorial board

ZLMB offered something like this in a message board and worked really well for a time till civility became too much of an issue plus there was the inherent problem of those coming to attack LDS while not exposing their own beliefs to criticism (plus many LDS aren't interested in criticising others' beliefs) so that LDS felt constantly under attack....which led to this board's creation that has been able to keep the believing LDS around for many years and enough critics and investigators to make it interesting.

The right to reply would, imo, need to be limited to those who took the time to educate themselves due to the problem with overload that can happen with either a pile on of believers or critics.

There have been some sites that did well in presenting balanced approaches such as saintswithouthalos (which may be now defunct my memory says which would be a tragedy) but a site that dealt with all issues and presented all sides in clear and uninflammatory language would be very interesting in my view.

Edited by calmoriah
tagriffy Experienced

tagriffy

Posted
Posted

Not all apologists, I think you would be surprised at the wide range of opinions among those involved in producing apologetics.

Okay. Modify to "traditional apologetics." :)

tagriffy Experienced

tagriffy

Posted
Posted

ZLMB offered something like this in a message board and worked really well for a time till civility became too much of an issue plus there was the inherent problem of those coming to attack LDS while not exposing their own beliefs to criticism (plus many LDS aren't interested in criticising others' beliefs) so that LDS felt constantly under attack....which led to this board's creation that has been able to keep the believing LDS around for many years and enough critics and investigators to make it interesting.

That is pretty much what happened back on AOL, leading to the creation of FAIR. There were fun days back then. I suspect I was tolerated on the basis of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," especially since I could get into heated discussions with my fellow LDS as easily as with Evangelicals. Then I had an epiphany of sorts and decided that debating was not really what I wanted to be doing.

The right to reply would, imo, need to be limited to those who took the time to educate themselves due to the problem with overload that can happen with either a pile on of believers or critics.

There have been some sites that did well in presenting balanced approaches such as saintswithouthalos (which may be now defunct my memory says which would be a tragedy) but a site that dealt with all issues and presented all sides in clear and uninflammatory language would be very interesting in my view.

Saints Without Halos seem to be defunct. That is a shame.

omni Mentor

omni

Posted
Posted (edited)

I agree...him and canard would make a great team.

Maybe we should start a petition to gently nudge them to start it up. :)

Edited by omni
tagriffy Experienced

tagriffy

Posted
Posted

Maybe we should start a petition to gently nudge them to start it up. :)

I would still have a resource problem even if you did make such a petition.

Wiki Wonka Rising Star

Wiki Wonka

Posted
Posted (edited)

I actually have no issues with the facts that are presented, it's the conclusions and and analysis that I take issue with.

Which is precisely why FAIR offers the option to read MormonThink source quotes in their original context and without MormonThink's (or FAIR's) commentary:

  • MormonThink's "The Witnesses" source quotes without critical or apologetic commentary—
    This is the "no spin" version of the web page. We provide all of the complete primary and secondary source quotes without any "Critic's comment," "Apologetic rebuttal" or "Our Thoughts" or "Editor comments" sections. We don't give you our interpretation of the quotes, but we do provide links to online primary sources of the quotes and provide additional context whenever possible. (Link)

  • MormonThink's "The First Vision" source quotes without critical or apologetic commentary—
    This is the "no spin" version of the web page. We provide all of the complete primary and secondary source quotes without any "Critic's comment," "Apologetic rebuttal" or "Our Thoughts" or "Editor comments" sections. We don't give you our interpretation of the quotes, but we do provide links to online primary sources of the quotes and provide additional context whenever possible. (Link)

  • MormonThink's "The Kinderhook Plates" source quotes without critical or apologetic commentary—
    This is the "no spin" version of the web page. We provide all of the complete primary and secondary source quotes without any "Critic's comment," "Apologetic rebuttal" or "Our Thoughts" or "Editor comments" sections. We don't give you our interpretation of the quotes, but we do provide links to online primary sources of the quotes and provide additional context whenever possible. (Link)

∗ ∗ ∗

Edited by Wiki Wonka
1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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