The Official Lies Perpetrated By 'Mormonthink' Thread

[Calm]

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

We need to do that with the Wives of Joseph website as well, let me know the week after next if you need help with that site as I have company coming tomorrow.

[Hamba Tuhan]

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.

Bruce R. McConkie:

What if those whose calling and election has been made sure thereafter commit grievous sins? Suppose they backslide and walk in the ways of wickedness? or fight the truth and rebel against God—what then?

That all men commit sin, before and after baptism, and for that matter, before and after their calling and election is made sure, is self-evident. There has been only one Sinless One—the Lord Jesus who was God’s own Son.

...

But suppose such persons become disaffected and the spirit of repentance leaves them—which is a seldom and an almost unheard of eventuality—still, what then? The answer is—and the revelations and teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith so recite!—they must then pay the penalty of their own sins, for the blood of Christ will not cleanse them. Or if they commit murder or adultery, they lose their promised inheritance because these sins are exempt from the sealing promises. Or if they commit the unpardonable sin, they become the sons of perdition.

Tom Phillips:

I prophesy, in the honorable name of Jesus Smith, that 2013 will be the beginning of the 'Mormon Apocalypse'. The gig is up.

I would not wish to be in Bro Phillips's shoes ...

Edited June 14, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Avatar4321]

Mormon Apocalypse?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Mormon Apocalypse?

I'm forbidden to link to the original site, but it makes a bit more sense in context. The thread is entitled 'The Mormons treading water', and Bro Phillips's entire post reads as follows:

As the OP states the 'smoking guns' are already out there. They cannot get educated converts because any investigator with sense will google mormon and the game will be up. Immigrants seeking social interaction and possibly welfare assistance are all they will be getting in the affluent countries. They can get any number of baptisms they want in places like Africa but that is a net cost to them.

Their real problem comes when TBMs turn on them or just stop paying tithing. Jesus Smith and wine country girl have mentioned some issues that will cause this. The Chris Ralph type letter will bring them to account eventually.

And, as Jesus Smith knows, there is more to come.

I prophesy, in the honorable name of Jesus Smith, that 2013 will be the beginning of the 'Mormon Apocalypse'. The gig is up.

Tom Phillips

Which generated this response:

Tom is a big part of why events unfurling are happening the way they are. He may become the hinge on the door that closes for them.

...

I prophesy that Tom Phillips, the new-found Korihor, will likely have his show down with the highest leaders in the coming year, when it is shown they are impotent to deal with him and his role among us. It could be the real "anti-christ" moment that members have secretly hoped for, but that results in not so glorious outcome as Alma purportedly achieved.

Again, I would not wish to be in Bro Phillips's shoes.

[canard78]

Bruce R. McConkie:

Tom Phillips:

I would not wish to be in Bro Phillips's shoes ...

I'll avoid drawing conclusions about Tom Phillips's situation. I'm a little ambivalent of the gospel according to BRM. I prefer the approach of Elder Holland/Joseph Smith:

“Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive..."

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2003/10/the-grandeur-of-god?lang=eng

I suppose that given Tom doesn't believe the warning of Elder McConkie he won't be overly concerned.

But it does at least clarify that there's probably not a membership lock after the 2nd anointing.

Edited June 14, 2013 by canard78

[Robert F. Smith]

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

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.

All good points, Tim. The apologists I know used to roll their eyes when Bill Russell would make his case, but they were always cordial and proper with him. I always enjoyed hearing what he had to say, and considered him a very nice person. The fact that we disagree doesn't mean that we need to be disagreeable. I predicted 25 years ago what would happen to the RLDS Church as a result of such opinions being accepted and promulgated among the leadership, and have so far been fully correct.

[tagriffy]

All good points, Tim. The apologists I know used to roll their eyes when Bill Russell would make his case, but they were always cordial and proper with him. I always enjoyed hearing what he had to say, and considered him a very nice person. The fact that we disagree doesn't mean that we need to be disagreeable. I predicted 25 years ago what would happen to the RLDS Church as a result of such opinions being accepted and promulgated among the leadership, and have so far been fully correct.

The RLDS/CoC had already been on the road they were going before formally allowing freedom on the Book of Mormon. Don't forget, they pretty much rejected the Nauvoo period almost right from the beginning. Ironically, I see the Utah Church heading in the same direction, except they are embracing Evangelical/conservative side rather than mainline/liberal thought. Either way, I regard is as an attempt to tame Joseph Smith, put him in a box

In contrast to, say Grant Palmer, I would actually emphasize the heretical aspects of Joseph's teaching, double down on him if you will. I am particularly enamored of the way Elder B.H. Roberts appealed directly to Joseph's most radical teachings and used them to solve problems that vex the Christian world even today.

I wholeheartedly agree that disagreeing does not mean having to be disagreeable. The whole Isaiah discussion was a great example of that. Now I have a better way of dealing with that problem without being disagreeable.

Edited June 14, 2013 by tagriffy

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'll avoid drawing conclusions about Tom Phillips's situation.

Indeed, only God knows the full story.

I prefer the approach of Elder Holland/Joseph Smith.

I know from an almost endless catalogue of personal experiences that God is both liberal and merciful beyond measure. I still wouldn't wish to be in Bro Phillips's shoes.

I suppose that given Tom doesn't believe the warning of Elder McConkie he won't be overly concerned.

No, I don't get the vibe that Bro Phillips is even remotely concerned. Instead, he seems rather filled with a heady, manic glee at what he's convinced himself is the imminent demise of the Church and his possible role in its fall. I'm reminded of reading in one of the books about Mark Hoffman that he sat in the Salt Lake Temple during his own endowment and thought, paraphrasing, 'I'm going to be the man who brings this whole institution down'.

I wonder sometimes if Hoffman still harbours his revenge fantasy in gaol or if he's had to reconcile himself with reality.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[canard78]

Indeed, only God knows the full story.

I know from an almost endless catalogue of personal experiences that God is both liberal and merciful beyond measure. I still wouldn't wish to be in Bro Phillips's shoes.

No, I don't get the vibe that Bro Phillips is even remotely concerned. Instead, he seems rather filled with a heady, manic glee at what he's convinced himself is the imminent demise of the Church and his possible role in its fall. I'm reminded of reading in one of the books about Mark Hoffman that he sat in the Salt Lake Temple during his own endowment and thought, paraphrasing, 'I'm going to be the man who brings this whole institution down'.

I wonder sometimes if Hoffman still harbours his revenge fantasy in gaol or if he's had to reconcile himself with reality.

I didn't realise Hoffman was even still alive. That's odd to think of him sat contemplating what might have been.

I was always taught to give people the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps Tom Phillips is still has sincere motives. No I don't like his approach. But if he sincerely believes the church to be a manipulative fraud and genuinely feels he's doing people a service by exposing his perceived evidence of fraud then maybe it's not 'heady manic glee' and is actually a genuine desire to do good.

Or maybe not...

[Wiki Wonka]

We need to do that with the Wives of Joseph website as well, let me know the week after next if you need help with that site as I have company coming tomorrow.

Good idea. Right now I'm working on FutureMissionary.com (although the prose is so sparse on that site that it practically only consists of quotes from the 1800's and 1950's).

WW

[The Nehor]

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.

Ad hominem assumes you are discrediting the argument by attacking the character of the person saying it. If the argument is already discredited it is not an ad hominem to point out that the arguer was lying and shows a complete lack of integrity and character.

[Thinking]

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.

How could any LDS apologist NOT take an all-or-nothing approach?

"Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing." Gordon B. Hinckley, April 2003 GC

[Pandorian]

I can tell you right out that the Mormon Think guy is NOT trying to be balanced and ahem...fair to the Church, but it is a tool to get unsuspecting members to question their faith.

When I was in my apostate mode and a regular poster at RFM, I remember this person coming out and saying that he would DESTROY the church by appearing to present both sides, but the main purpose was to get people who may have already had questions to question more and lose their faith. The balance is just a ploy. I remember reading about it years ago on RFM. At the time I thought it would be a great tool to throw at all you 'evil' people.

[Wiki Wonka]

I can tell you right out that the Mormon Think guy is NOT trying to be balanced and ahem...fair to the Church, but it is a tool to get unsuspecting members to question their faith.

When I was in my apostate mode and a regular poster at RFM, I remember this person coming out and saying that he would DESTROY the church by appearing to present both sides, but the main purpose was to get people who may have already had questions to question more and lose their faith. The balance is just a ploy. I remember reading about it years ago on RFM. At the time I thought it would be a great tool to throw at all you 'evil' people.

That would be this guy:

I fantasize about a full-blown faith-destroying session. In real life, I did put the bishop in his place over polygamy. He kept saying I was wrong about Joseph having other wives and being illegal and such. I proved him wrong and he ate crow. twas fun.

MormonThink's first managing editor, posting as "SpongeBob SquareGarments" in the thread "Anyone Fantasize About a Showdown with SP or Bishop?" on Recovery from Mormonism, Feb. 21, 2012, 12:50PM.

He later deleted that quote from the thread.

Were you around on RFM when he posted his Sunday School lesson on the Holy Ghost?

The Holy Ghost is an unreliable method to learn the truth. I used all church sources and personal experiences to demonstrate that relying solely on the Holy Ghost to seek the truth can often lead to error.

I told the class I was going to read them 3 stories and that one was true, one was false and that the other one could be true or false. I told them to use the prompting of the spirit to determine which ones were true and which were false.

The voting was decisive. After reading the stories, every class member (14 students) definitely said that story # 1 was true. It was false. 11 out of 14 said that story # 2 was true. It was false. 13 out of 14 said that story #3 was false. It was true.

These were actual results and the stories were not manipulated by me.

I then asked the class what they thought about using the holy ghost as a reliable method of discerning truth. They whole-heartedly said that the spirit was simply not reliable.

I showed how emotion can be confused with the Holy Ghost and that you never really know if feelings are really from the HG or just your own emotions. I quoted from Elder Boyd K. Packer in an address that was printed in the 1983 LDS Ensign magazine in an article titled “Candle of the Lord”:

“The spiritual part of us and the emotional part of us are so closely linked that it is possible to mistake an emotional impulse for something spiritual. We occasionally find people who receive what they assume to be spiritual promptings from God, when those promptings are either centered in the emotions or are from the adversary.”

I also quoted from Packard’s same talk about how promptings can also come from Satan:

“Be ever on guard lest you be deceived by inspiration from an unworthy source. You can be given false spiritual messages. There are counterfeit spirits just as there are counterfeit angels. Be careful lest you be deceived, for the devil may come disguised as an angel of light.”

I then had one of the students read from the book Comprehensive History of the Church by B.H. Roberts to show how Joseph was deceived by Satan and the point being if even, the great prophet Joseph Smith couldn’t tell what promptings came from God and what promptings came from Satan, then how could the rest of us mere mortals possibly be able to discern what really is from the HG:

David Whitmer:

Brother Hyrum said it had been suggested to him that some of the brethren might go to Toronto, Canada, and sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon for considerable money: and he persuaded Joseph to inquire of the Lord about it. Joseph concluded to do so. He had not yet given up the stone. Joseph looked into the hat in which he placed the stone, and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon. Hiram page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto on this mission, but they failed entirely to sell the copy-right, returning without any money. Joseph was at my father’s house when they returned. I was there also, and am an eye witness to these facts. Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada. Well, we were all in great trouble; and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: “Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil.” So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man. When a man enquires of the Lord concerning a matter, if he is deceived by his own carnal desires, and is in error, he will receive an answer according to his erring heart, but it will not be a revelation from the Lord.

We discussed the burning in bosom. We agreed that even this was not a reliable means to discern truth as ‘heart-warming’ feelings result from watching fictional movies. I then quoted Elder Oaks talk (Ensign, Mar ’97) where he admits to never having a burning in the bosom.

I decided to incorporate Jesus in there somewhere using something Grant Palmer taught: I told them how Jesus never invited anyone to know him by a religious feeling. Instead of advocating a controversial and highly subjective spiritual feeling methodology to know him and his teachings, Jesus taught: “If any man will do his [Father’s] will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”

I encouraged the members to follow the Golden Rule and to live a life worthy of receiving revelation but to realize the extreme limitations of the Holy Ghost and to not rely on revelation as a definitive guide to truth. The class seemed to have gotten the message.

Teaching the truth in Sunday School is a tough job but somebody’s got to do it.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Wiki Wonka

[canard78]

That would be this guy:

He later deleted that quote from the thread.

Were you around on RFM when he posted his Sunday School lesson on the Holy Ghost?

-SNIP-

Teaching the truth in Sunday School is a tough job but somebody’s got to do it.

What a thoroughly unpleasant individual. And if ad hominem is "attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument," then yes I'm being ad hominem.

The way they keep banging the 'objective' drum is laughable. Sadly though, people continue to be taken in by it.

[Kevin Christensen]

How could any LDS apologist NOT take an all-or-nothing approach?

"Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing." Gordon B. Hinckley, April 2003 GC

For the record, I don't take an all or nothing approach. I do it like this:

Like it or not, people within the Mormon tradition can and do enjoy the full range of all the experiential and historic aspects of religion, along with access to rich symbolism. Each aspect becomes like a thread in a rope: awe at the creation, numinous and mystic encounter, moments of reorientation of the mind, and reconciliation of the heart, moral obligation, the likening of scriptures to ourselves, making ancient stories into personal biography, dipping into the common mythic experience of humankind, or any number of individual historic events that define and bind our community. Like it or not, when you look at the Mormon community and the Mormon faith at this level of core experience, all that defines religion anywhere exists here. Therefore, like it or not, at the outset, any assessment of the religious value of Mormonism should admit that here the fountain of living waters flows briskly. In assessing Mormonism, in dealing with questions raised about any particular thread in what can be a complex bundle of threads of varied strengths, some more significant than others, but no single thread carrying all the weight, keep in mind that the validity of Mormon spiritual life must be accepted as a given.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22100469/model_of_experience.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[omni]

Ad hominem assumes you are discrediting the argument by attacking the character of the person saying it. If the argument is already discredited it is not an ad hominem to point out that the arguer was lying and shows a complete lack of integrity and character.

Um yes, I'm quite aware of what an ad hominem attack is. The OP was trying to discount mormonthink and in turn it's arguments against the church by attacking the character of the site's contributors. The statements made in the OP may be true (I don't know, nor do I really care about the contributors) but it has no baring on their arguments regarding the BoA, polygamy, BoM, etc.

[The Nehor]

Um yes, I'm quite aware of what an ad hominem attack is. The OP was trying to discount mormonthink and in turn it's arguments against the church by attacking the character of the site's contributors. The statements made in the OP may be true (I don't know, nor do I really care about the contributors) but it has no baring on their arguments regarding the BoA, polygamy, BoM, etc.

How delightfully fair of you. Do you also listen to North Korean propaganda with the same fair and balanced approach and not let the source taint your appraisal of the information?

I think we can deal with both issues. I have:

The arguments of those on MormonThink are calculated misleading propaganda.

The contributors at MormonThink are self-satisfied deceivers without an ounce of integrity. In any society that valued honesty they would be shunned and avoided like plague carriers.

See? Just have to keep the issues separate.