Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Official Lies Perpetrated By 'Mormonthink' Thread

Hamilton Porter

By Hamilton Porter
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

Robert F. Smith Grand Master

Robert F. Smith

Posted
Posted

............................................

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.

I gave you a rep point on this general post, and appreciate reading comments from someone who is not a partisan of one side or the other. But, even given your evenhanded approach, are you sure that apologists embrace the all-or-nothing approach? I'd have thought that most Mormon apologists (even Nibley considered himself an apologist) held tolerant and tempered views which are more like those of Elder Holland than the hard-line love-it-or-leave-it approach. Maybe I am being naive, but I have discussed Mormon issues with a wide range of anti-Mormons and schismatic Mormons over the years and I just haven't found many of those which are either well-informed or honest. Nor have I found many so-called apologists (some do not merit the title) who are ready to kick everybody out of the Church based on lack of belief, lack of activity, or mild heresy. Elder Holland drew the line at actively inveighing against the Church, which comes under the ordinary heading of "boundary maintenance" -- which even non-Mormon scholars like Jan Shipps think is quite appropriate.

Robert F. Smith Grand Master

Robert F. Smith

Posted
Posted (edited)

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.

Do you really believe that?

What is an SP? O.K., a Stake Pres. I'm just not that fast on the uptake.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Robert F. Smith Grand Master

Robert F. Smith

Posted
Posted

Okay. Modify to "traditional apologetics." :)

Still hard to suss out just what you mean. For example, were B.H. Roberts and Hugh Nibley traditional apologists (aside from being the most important LDS apologists of the 20th century)? If not, could you point to some as examples of traditional apologetics?

canard78 Grand Master

canard78

Posted
Posted

Do you really believe that?

What is an SP? O.K., a Stake Pres. I'm just not that fast on the uptake.

Sadly this has been verified as a true story. He's a British member who was set apart as a Stake President by Elder Holland a few years ago. John Dehlin interviewed him and then decided to not publish the interview. It was published anyway by MT and RFM, as was his email exchange with Elder Holland.

The rest of his family remain active and, understandably, devastated.

For those interested in the sequence of events, most of this can be checked by googling it. I'll not give the whole thing any further publicity by linking to it.

canard78 Grand Master

canard78

Posted
Posted

For those interested in the sequence of events, most of this can be checked by googling it. I'll not give the whole thing any further publicity by linking to it.

Actually... To save you having to go on the sites yourself:

From MT:

Tom Phillips is a retired management consultant. He joined the Church as a convert in 1969 and served in most leadership positions including Bishop, Stake President and Area Executive Secretary. He also served as the Area Controller for the British Isles and Africa as well as the Financial Director for the Church’s U.K. corporate entities.

...

In late 2012, Tom took over as the managing editor of MormonThink. The last two managing editors resigned from the church after the LDS leadership called them to church courts for writing about church history and doctrine, as well as being involved with the MormonThink website.

Tom's extensive leadership experience within the LDS Church is impressive, making him very qualified to speak to the issues.

Tom writes: "I hope to be able to continue the good work that MormonThink has done thus far in spreading forth knowledge about Mormonism's unique history that few members know about. I want every faithful member, as well as critic, to know that their viewpoints are always welcome at MormonThink, even if they are not in harmony with what is generally taught in the LDS chapels. I hope others can benefit from my story and experiences within the LDS environment".

canard78 Grand Master

canard78

Posted
Posted

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)

∗ ∗ ∗

Thank you for reminding me of this excellent resource. It's a really effective way of being able to read the sources in context and make my own conclusions.

It's like watching a horror movie with the sound off.

2
tagriffy Experienced

tagriffy

Posted
Posted

Still hard to suss out just what you mean. For example, were B.H. Roberts and Hugh Nibley traditional apologists (aside from being the most important LDS apologists of the 20th century)? If not, could you point to some as examples of traditional apologetics?

Statements like "If the Book of Mormon is not ancient, then Joseph Smith was not a prophet" are what I mean by taking an all-or-nothing approach. If an apologist takes this stance (and note I'm not just talking about the Book of Mormon) implicitly or explicitly, they are embracing an all-or-noting apologetic. I'm saying MormonThink has embraced this approach.

canard78 Grand Master

canard78

Posted
Posted

Statements like "If the Book of Mormon is not ancient, then Joseph Smith was not a prophet" are what I mean by taking an all-or-nothing approach. If an apologist takes this stance (and note I'm not just talking about the Book of Mormon) implicitly or explicitly, they are embracing an all-or-noting apologetic. I'm saying MormonThink has embraced this approach.

I understand where you're coming from. There are some within the apologetic movement who seem to defend everything 'to the last man standing' and then, once the last one falls they do a rapid u-turn and wheel out the tried and trusted pairing of 'not everything said by a leader constitutes doctrine' plus 'speaking/not speaking as a prophet and you don't expect infallibility do you???'

But... LDS apologetics is a very broad 'church.' I don't think even Bill Hamblin, who you quote, would call himself a 'typical' or 'traditional' apologist. He's about as tough as they come and seems proud of it.

So yes, I agree some apologists are all or nothing. And you're right that many critics are too. But both 'camps' also have a long tail that meets somewhere in the middle.

Somewhere near a fence I suppose...

(Where is the Interpreter crowd these days? The board's not the same without some of their crushingly scathing ripostes that could send me crying for my mama in a line or two.)

1
tagriffy Experienced

tagriffy

Posted
Posted

I understand where you're coming from. There are some within the apologetic movement who seem to defend everything 'to the last man standing' and then, once the last one falls they do a rapid u-turn and wheel out the tried and trusted pairing of 'not everything said by a leader constitutes doctrine' plus 'speaking/not speaking as a prophet and you don't expect infallibility do you???'

But... LDS apologetics is a very broad 'church.' I don't think even Bill Hamblin, who you quote, would call himself a 'typical' or 'traditional' apologist. He's about as tough as they come and seems proud of it.

So yes, I agree some apologists are all or nothing. And you're right that many critics are too. But both 'camps' also have a long tail that meets somewhere in the middle.

Somewhere near a fence I suppose...

(Where is the Interpreter crowd these days? The board's not the same without some of their crushingly scathing ripostes that could send me crying for my mama in a line or two.)

Apologetics in general is a broad brush. Broadly speaking, the field can be broken down into two main categories: "hard" and "soft." The hard approach tries to actively prove something (the Bible is/isn't inerrant, the Book of Mormon is/isn't ancient). The soft approach tries to demonstrate the rationality of belief without necessarily asserting logical justification. Nowadays, I generally prefer the soft approach.

Sometimes I'm not sure what to make of Bill Hamblin. In the same article, he also says, "Historical traditionalists are not here denying the usefulness of an examination of the Book of Mormon in a nineteenth-century context. This would be valuable even if the book is ancient." So he certainly not a "typical" apologist. He is probably more on the "hard" side than he is on the "soft" side, but I wouldn't make any arguments beyond that.

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted

(Where is the Interpreter crowd these days? The board's not the same without some of their crushingly scathing ripostes that could send me crying for my mama in a line or two.)

School's out, they are having fun....

There is actually a different flavour to summer on the board and the rest of the year, though we used to be able to mark both the beginning of summer and then beginning of the school year by the appearance of a young enthusiastic man or woman eager to try out what he has just picked up in his "How to Witness to Mormons" class, sure he would be converting hundreds away from the false faith (hyperbole there, but not by much for some of them).

Kenngo1969 Grand Master

Kenngo1969

Posted
Posted

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)

∗ ∗ ∗

This should be pinned to the top of the page. :)

Robert F. Smith Grand Master

Robert F. Smith

Posted
Posted

Sadly this has been verified as a true story.

............................

I was thinking only of the Second Annointings claim that he could therefore not be excommunicated. Do you really believe that?

ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

I was thinking only of the Second Annointings claim that he could therefore not be excommunicated. Do you really believe that?

I think he is mistaken and can be excommunicated but he certainly has some rough times ahead of him.

Robert F. Smith Grand Master

Robert F. Smith

Posted
Posted

tagriffy, on 13 June 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

Statements like "If the Book of Mormon is not ancient, then Joseph Smith was not a prophet" are what I mean by taking an all-or-nothing approach. If an apologist takes this stance (and note I'm not just talking about the Book of Mormon) implicitly or explicitly, they are embracing an all-or-noting apologetic. I'm saying MormonThink has embraced this approach.

I understand where you're coming from. There are some within the apologetic movement who seem to defend everything 'to the last man standing' and then, once the last one falls they do a rapid u-turn and wheel out the tried and trusted pairing of 'not everything said by a leader constitutes doctrine' plus 'speaking/not speaking as a prophet and you don't expect infallibility do you???'

My problem with those guys or gals is that they didn't know Mormon doctrine to begin with (and by the way I am not referring to McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, which I have never used), and seem a whole lot like opportunistic partisans who have no independent, deep-seated belief in Mormonism. Brigham talked about them as living on "borrowed light." In my experience, they are the first to apostatize.

But... LDS apologetics is a very broad 'church.' I don't think even Bill Hamblin, who you quote, would call himself a 'typical' or 'traditional' apologist. He's about as tough as they come and seems proud of it.

You'll notice that Bill removed his old motto about "kicking anti-Mormon butt" since whenever, and replaced it with a kinder and gentler motto.

...................................................

(Where is the Interpreter crowd these days? The board's not the same without some of their crushingly scathing ripostes that could send me crying for my mama in a line or two.)

They are apparently busy with serious matters and have no time for us small fry.

Robert F. Smith Grand Master

Robert F. Smith

Posted
Posted (edited)

Statements like "If the Book of Mormon is not ancient, then Joseph Smith was not a prophet" are what I mean by taking an all-or-nothing approach. If an apologist takes this stance (and note I'm not just talking about the Book of Mormon) implicitly or explicitly, they are embracing an all-or-noting apologetic. I'm saying MormonThink has embraced this approach.

I understand what you mean, Tim, but am not aware of that stance being widely taken. Most apologists are far more circumspect and well-mannered -- not wanting to offend those friendly neighbors who might not believe in angels and gold plates.

Naturally most Mormons believe that they are members of the only true Church and that the Book of Mormon is authentic history, but (unlike the evangelicals) they do not militantly attack others as members of false churches, nor do they condemn others for not immediately accepting the BofM as historical and authentic.

On the other hand, it is unlikely that the average Mormon is going to temporize by accepting Bill Russell's claim that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction (Prof. Russell is RLDS). To that extent, perhaps, there is an all-or-nothing approach.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
1
tagriffy Experienced

tagriffy

Posted
Posted

I understand what you mean, Tim, but am not aware of that stance being widely taken. Most apologists are far more circumspect and well-mannered -- not wanting to offend those friendly neighbors who might not believe in angels and gold plates.

As I mentioned, I've been out of touch for a number of years. Back in the day, the all-or-nothing attitude was so easily found as to make it seem ubiquitous. The outsized publicity the more polemical authors received probably accounts for much of it.

Naturally most Mormons believe that they are members of the only true Church and that the Book of Mormon is authentic history, but (unlike the evangelicals) they do not militantly attack others as members of false churches, nor do they condemn others for not immediately accepting the BofM as historical and authentic.

On the other hand, it is unlikely that the average Mormon is going to temporize by accepting Bill Russell's claim that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction (Prof. Russell is RLDS). To that extent, perhaps, there is an all-or-nothing approach.

Speaking of which, it is precisely because of the Evangelical/Fundamentalist all-or-nothing attitude toward biblical inerrancy that I shy away from that approach. When I ultimately had to reject biblical inerrancy, I found out just how wrong the all-or-nothing attitude could be. I couldn't deny the Bible had errors, and I couldn't deny God still spoke to me through them. What to do? In some ways, I'm still working out the implications nearly twenty years later.

I wouldn't deny that Russell's approach is unlikely to be accepted by the average Mormon. I would only suggest to those have sufficient problems with BoM historicity that they consider that approach. IOW, focus on the really important question of whether God is speaking to you through the work. Everything else is just details.

1
canard78 Grand Master

canard78

Posted
Posted

I was thinking only of the Second Annointings claim that he could therefore not be excommunicated. Do you really believe that?

Oh I see. I guess the church can revoke that and still remove his name anyway.

Given the second anointing is something I've not really engaged much thought or study of I don't know the implications of receiving it. The idea of it being a 'guarantee' is probably a misrepresentation. As something I respect as being sacred I've not read his account.

Wiki Wonka Rising Star

Wiki Wonka

Posted
Posted

That's a good idea!

The concept has worked out so well (the idea of producing a true, "no spin" version of a critical web page) that I'm going to start applying it to other web sites that we analyze.

The other effect that it has is that if you Google one of the quotes on the MormonThink page, the search results tend to also bring up the FAIR "no spin" page.

WW

1
tagriffy Experienced

tagriffy

Posted
Posted

The concept has worked out so well (the idea of producing a true, "no spin" version of a critical web page) that I'm going to start applying it to other web sites that we analyze.

The other effect that it has is that if you Google one of the quotes on the MormonThink page, the search results tend to also bring up the FAIR "no spin" page.

WW

And an effective strategy to boot!

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...