Professional Antimormons' Efforts: Do They Achieve Their Aims?

[teddyaware]

We're a culture, not an evil cult.  Some take us to be, but I know better, I'm sure the JW's aren't evil either, but if you watch one of the videos that was linked from the Watchtower website, it's a little scary how they make a toy into something it's not, and threaten that it's not loving God by keeping the toy that was referred to as having magic.  It's thought control, not teaching to rely on the spirit.  I believe we have some thought control in the church, but it's getting better.  Think MMM, they were controlled with thought control.  In their right minds that never would have happened if they had relied on the Lord instead.  Our church is loving and there are tons of good fruit, but there has been control through media, books, articles, videos, but all good things for the most part.  I'm still in favor of the church for the most part, it's hard really, wish I could make it all go away, the new information age.  I don't want to give up on a Creator, like so many ex LDS have, believe me.  But why have they?  Did they not get that personal knowledge of the Saviour in their LDS walk, can you answer that?

God was very deliberate when He created this world to be a place where our faith in Him will be tried to the utmost. In order to make this very rigorous test of faith possible, there have to be strong and persuasive arguments on both sides of the divide separating belief and unbelief, thereby making it possible for men to make choices and act as moral free agents.

it's natural for the spiritual side of man's nature to be readily persuaded and powerfully convinced by the arguments that speak in favor of belief in an all-wise God, the reality of eternal law and truth, the eventual triumph of justice, and the rich meaning and real purposefulness of life; it's also natural for the natural man to be readily persuaded and powerfully convinced by the arguments that speak in favor of unbelief, nihilism, the triumph of injustice, and the ultimate futility of life. There's nothing at all strange or unexpected about any of this: If the spiritual nature of a man is allowed to predominate, that man will believe in and trust God; but if the coexisting carnal nature of a man is allowed to predominate, that man will disbelieve in God and in the concept of eternal law and truth.

But as powerful and persuasive as the arguments presented on both sides can seem, the fact is that one side is based on truth and righteousness and the other is based on falsehood and error. While we're in the midst of the test of faith it's not always easy to determine which side is speaking the truth and which side is speaking falsehoods, but the day will come when the truth of the living God be made perfectly clear even to the most headstrong and recalcitrant.

God fervently desires that we, His children, believe in the eternal nature and divine origin of love, light, life, truth, law, goodness, kindness, compassion, faith, hope and charity, for these things are the ultimate of all realities and the very reason why all things exist. But if we give up on believing in the eternal nature of these most important things, we will have surrendered to the perverse logic of the dark side of existence and unless we repent we will reap the bitter harvest that we sowed by our unbelief.

Edited May 22, 2014 by teddyaware

[Walden]

So you agree Jerold and Sandra are liars and distorters?

 

I agree that both the Tanners and the LDS church use half-truths, exclusion of facts, and distortions of actual events in order to further their agendas.

 

That being said, I think that both the Tanners and the LDS church both consider their agendas to be God's will. I just find it funny that adherents of either side use the same type of tactics (distortion, ommission, etc.), yet neither will admit to it while both accuse the other of it......black pot, meet black kettle.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I agree that both the Tanners and the LDS church use half-truths, exclusion of facts, and distortions of actual events in order to further their agendas.

 

That being said, I think that both the Tanners and the LDS church both consider their agendas to be God's will. I just find it funny that adherents of either side use the same type of tactics (distortion, ommission, etc.), yet neither will admit to it while both accuse the other of it......black pot, meet black kettle.

Oh good so you are here to show all of us shlubs how to do it "objectively". 

 

 

You know I am just ribbing you??

 

 

BTW, I have never once read an article from the church were the writer claimed to know that "This is what JS must have been thinking". So I think what you are saying is not really accurate.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[cdowis]

It's funny you'd bring up the model of the plates at their store. At the end of the 4th podcast with Sandra, John hoists them, and in the background Sandra says they weigh 118 lbs.

There are thousands of words in the BoM, often repeated sentences or ideas over and over, where are all those words going to go on the plates, stands to reason those plates of gold or brass, would weigh that much or more. Why all the unnecessary wordage in the BoM anyway? That's why my mind would wander during scripture study.

Btw, why distort the number on how much they say they weighed, all the way to 200?

 

You will have to ask the antis why they say 200 pounds (on the youtube video).  I have a idea why, but let them speak for themselves.

 

"It stands to reason"

My BOM has that number of words and it is nowhere close to 100 pounds.  Do you judge the weight by how many words?  The fact is that the witnesses who actually handled and hefted the plates said they were about 40-50 pounds, but I guess you go by the "weight" of the words.

 

BTW, they were NOT plates of gold, but plates with the "appearance of gold"  (if you would read the statement of the eight witnesses).  Obviously we are talking about a gold alloy.

Edited May 22, 2014 by cdowis

[cdowis]

I agree that both the Tanners and the LDS church use half-truths, exclusion of facts, and distortions of actual events in order to further their agendas.

 

That being said, I think that both the Tanners and the LDS church both consider their agendas to be God's will. I just find it funny that adherents of either side use the same type of tactics (distortion, ommission, etc.), yet neither will admit to it while both accuse the other of it......black pot, meet black kettle.

 

Please see post #92.  I am issuing that same CFR to you since you have made the same assertion.  This is a formal request and to be dealt with in the manner proscribed in the forum rules.

Edited May 22, 2014 by cdowis

[Walden]

Please see post #92.  I am issuing that same CFR to you since you have made the same assertion.  This is a formal request and to be dealt with in the manner proscribed in the forum rules.

 

Really, you need a CFR?

 

cdowis, I apologize for not having access to the teaching manuals issued by the LDS church in the 80s or 90s....all I can relate are the experiences that I've had in being raised in the LDS faith and what it is that I was taught.

 

Seeing as you have over 10,000 posts on this board, I am assuming that you do not really need a CFR to understand the issue we are discussing with regard to the church's teachings regarding the BoM translation method, Mountain Meadows massacre, etc.

[cdowis]

Really, you need a CFR?

 

cdowis, I apologize for not having access to the teaching manuals issued by the LDS church in the 80s or 90s....all I can relate are the experiences that I've had in being raised in the LDS faith and what it is that I was taught.

 

Seeing as you have over 10,000 posts on this board, I am assuming that you do not really need a CFR to understand the issue we are discussing with regard to the church's teachings regarding the BoM translation method, Mountain Meadows massacre, etc.

 

The rules of the forum is that when you make an assertion that you provide the references when a cfr is requested.  Telling me that I don't "need" references is not a valid response.  "Everybody already knows....." is also not a response.

 

But you have the option is to indicate that you are merely expressing a personal opinion and we can then simply ignore you.

Edited May 23, 2014 by cdowis

[USU78]

I agree that both the Tanners and the LDS church use half-truths, exclusion of facts, and distortions of actual events in order to further their agendas.

 

That being said, I think that both the Tanners and the LDS church both consider their agendas to be God's will. I just find it funny that adherents of either side use the same type of tactics (distortion, ommission, etc.), yet neither will admit to it while both accuse the other of it......black pot, meet black kettle.

 

Ob

 

Fu

 

Sca

 

Tion.

 

Answer the friggin' question:  Do you or do you not agree that Jerold and Sandra Lie and Distort?

[Walden]

The rules of the forum is that when you make an assertion that you provide the references when a cfr is requested.  Telling me that I don't "need" references is not a valid response.  "Everybody already knows....." is also not a response.

 

But you have the option is to indicate that you are merely expressing a personal opinion and we can then simply ignore you.

 

If you insist....

 

Here is what the Primary manual was teaching about the BoM translation as recent as 2011:

 

"Explain that the writing on the plates was in a language that Joseph could not read. Joseph received a special tool to help him translate the writing on the plates.

• Do any of you know what the Urim and Thummim are?

Explain that the Urim and Thummim are like special glasses through which Joseph could look to help him translate the ancient writing on the plates. With Heavenly Father’s help and by using the Urim and Thummim, Joseph was able to translate the words on the gold plates into words we could understand.

When the translation into English was completed, the book was printed. It was called the Book of Mormon.

Hold up a Book of Mormon. Point out that this book is what Joseph translated from the gold plates.

After he translated the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith returned the plates to Moroni.(Lesson 15, page 73)"

 

or this.....

 

Teach the children about the Urim and Thummim:

The Urim and Thummim is a sacred tool given by God to help prophets receive revelations from the Lord and translate languages (see Bible Dictionary, “Urim and Thummim”).

Joseph Smith described the Urim and Thummim as “two stones in silver bows … fastened to a breastplate” (Joseph Smith—H 1:35). The Prophet stated that when he was humble and prayerful, he could look into these stones and read the strange language on the gold plates. He could also look into these stones and get Heavenly Father’s word about certain things he ought to know and do.

Help the children find and discuss the following scriptures that refer to the Urim and Thummim:

Exodus 28:30

Mosiah 28:11, 13

Ether 3:23–24, Ether 4:4–5

Doctrine and Covenants 17:1 (Lesson 5)

 

Yet no mention of the peepstone or the head in the hat translation method, only that the Urim and Thummin were used for translating the BoM.

 

A previous board conversation in which a number of active members here discuss the issue of an SS teacher presenting the "head in the hat" method of BoM translation to a perplexed/confused adult LDS audience who had never heard of the translation technique................http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/41150-teaching-how-bom-was-really-translated/

 

I'll be back in a moment with more of those requested CFRs.....

[mnn727]

Let's see, I attended seminary for 4 years and spent my first 25 years in the church, attending regularly and taking on any number of callings, and did not hear one single lesson taught from church education material (you know, those guys who publish all the teaching, seminary, priesthood manuals) regarding Joseph Smith's polygamy, the use of the head in the hat method for translation, any mention of Mountain Meadows.....I could go on an on. Of course, I attended in the 80s and 90s, so hopefully improvements have been made since then.

 

When I was investigating the Church in 1986-1987. I learned of JS polygamy before ever having an internet connection. I also learned of the MMM. I don't really know what you expected; for someone to hold your hand and lead you to this information?

The fact is, that you have to read and study about your religion yourself rather than expect to be hand fed everything in a 40 minute Sunday School class.

[Walden]

When I was investigating the Church in 1986-1987. I learned of JS polygamy before ever having an internet connection. I also learned of the MMM. I don't really know what you expected; for someone to hold your hand and lead you to this information?

The fact is, that you have to read and study about your religion yourself rather than expect to be hand fed everything in a 40 minute Sunday School class.

 

Yes, blame the "apostate", it can't possibly be anything that the church has ever done.

 

Regarding your question about what I expected? I expected that during 25 years of regular attendance in the LDS church, which equate to roughly 5000 hours of instruction, teaching, participation and activity, I might hear from someone in a position of authority, or at least someone teaching from a church manual, the truth about things like the head in the hat, MMM, etc. I certainly heard countless hours about the Urim and Thummin translation method, about the absolute persecution of the benevolent saints during their trek westward, etc. 

 

Imagine that, 5000 hours of participation and not one mention of these things; there was certainly enough time to teach and teach and then teach some more about the Urim and Thummin, the persecution of the saints, Brigham Young's polygamy.....but they couldn't take one lesson to discuss the peep stone translation method (which was used just as regularly as the Urim and Thummin, if not more so), Joseph's plural wives, or MMM? Really, not one mention in roughly 5000 hours of participation?

 

As one can see from the board discussion that I linked to above from a few years back, I am not the only one who feels this way, nor am I far from being the only one who spent a lifetime in LDS church without ever being taught the real history of the church.

[The Nehor]

Yes, blame the "apostate", it can't possibly be anything that the church has ever done.

This but unironically.

[CA Steve]

Why is the Church publishing the essays?

[Walden]

This but unironically.

sounds about right....not sure why I'd expect anything less

Edited May 23, 2014 by Walden

[cdowis]

In those 10,000,0000,000 hours in church, how much time did they spend on details on church history, evolution, BOM geography, revisions in the BOM,, loose vs tight translation, etc.

 

You don't comprehend the difference between teaching how the BOM was translated, and MMM?  May I suggest that you attend a formal church history class, rather than expecting SS to delve into such issues.

 

"Inconceivable!"   Vizzini in Princess Bride

Edited May 23, 2014 by cdowis

[Walden]

Have you attended BYU church history classes?  When someone attends the Southern Baptist church, do they discuss its role in slavery, and how they separated from the northern Baptist over the issue?

 

You want church history, go take formal lessons.  Attending church is to get you into the Celestial Kingdom, not to answer all the issues of creation, fossil record, JS polygamy, how many Hill Cumorahs that exist, whether the gates of heaven slide or swing open.  That is not the job of the SS teachers, the bishop, the quorum president.

 

Attend formal classes that address such issues, my friend.

 

Yes, we should all travel to Provo, UT for church history lessons to find out the real history of the LDS church. Because there is very little room in the year spent studying D&C/Church History in seminary to spend one lesson teaching the actual facts regarding the translation method. There is no room to discuss the peep stones and the head in the hat, but interestingly, there is more than suffcient room to discuss the Urim and Thummin. Plenty of room to discuss Brigham Young's polygamy during my approx. 5000 hours in LDS services, but not a minute to spare regarding Joseph's polygamy. And yes, I remember plenty of stories during those years of seminary, and in countless hours in SS lessons, regarding the persecution of the saints, yet not one second to discuss MMM?

 

But again, this apostate didn't study hard enough.

 

And no, I don't expect the Southern Baptist church to be completely honest regarding their history, but then again, I hold God's one and only true church on Earth to a higher standard than the Southern Baptist church. If you want to hold the LDS faith to the same standards as the Southern Baptist faith or any other generic faith, than that is your perogative.

[The Nehor]

sounds about right....not sure why I'd expect anything less

 

Because you have been blinded by the craftiness of men into believing apostates are still people and not demons clothed in flesh. Accept this new truth and all will become clear to you.

[Walden]

Because you have been blinded by the craftiness of men into believing apostates are still people and not demons clothed in flesh. Accept this new truth and all will become clear to you.

 Nehor, you crack me up.....your ability to cut through the drama and get to the pithy, succint heart of the matter without losing your sense of humor is quickly growing on me

[mnn727]

 

 

But again, this apostate didn't study hard enough.

 

Correct, you didn't study hard enough. This (then) investigator (me) found all you're complaining that the Church  didn't teach you in a short period of time even before becoming a member in the days before the internet (the info is much more available now).

I was curious as I wanted to find out what I was getting into - too bad some life long members just cruise through Church expecting to be spoon fed everything

[Buzzard]

Yes, we should all travel to Provo, UT for church history lessons to find out the real history of the LDS church. Because there is very little room in the year spent studying D&C/Church History in seminary to spend one lesson teaching the actual facts regarding the translation method. There is no room to discuss the peep stones and the head in the hat, but interestingly, there is more than suffcient room to discuss the Urim and Thummin. Plenty of room to discuss Brigham Young's polygamy during my approx. 5000 hours in LDS services, but not a minute to spare regarding Joseph's polygamy. And yes, I remember plenty of stories during those years of seminary, and in countless hours in SS lessons, regarding the persecution of the saints, yet not one second to discuss MMM?

 

But again, this apostate didn't study hard enough.

 

And no, I don't expect the Southern Baptist church to be completely honest regarding their history, but then again, I hold God's one and only true church on Earth to a higher standard than the Southern Baptist church. If you want to hold the LDS faith to the same standards as the Southern Baptist faith or any other generic faith, than that is your perogative.

You don't have to go to Provo-although it's a nice place this time of year-because every Institute of Religion I have ever run into was glad to have non-University students take it's religion classes. You might not get the variety that you would get at BYU, but there will be, every semester, or if not, every other one, a class on church history.

However, you might be dismayed to learn that many of the students are not there to lose their testimony, but to study the history of the Restoration. 

BTW, I learned about Joseph Smith's polygamy, MMM, peep stones, and many other such subjects in Seminary, during my high school years. And the head in the hat thing was discussed in Institute, during my Freshman year at college. Were you asleep or something? BTW, although his credentials are more impressive than mine, I choose to disagree with Brother Bushman somewhat about the head in the hat. It makes sense for translating proper names and such, but my personal opinion is that for the most part, and with the help of the spirit, JS learned to read Reformed Egyptian. The speed with which the BOM was translated does not line up with the technique described by the head in the hat crowd. But that;s another thread, I suppose. 

[Ahab]

Nehor, you crack me up.....your ability to cut through the drama and get to the pithy, succint heart of the matter without losing your sense of humor is quickly growing on me

Yeah, and he tells the truth, too.

[Walden]

Correct, you didn't study hard enough. This (then) investigator (me) found all you're complaining that the Church  didn't teach you in a short period of time even before becoming a member in the days before the internet (the info is much more available now).

I was curious as I wanted to find out what I was getting into - too bad some life long members just cruise through Church expecting to be spoon fed everything

The church certainly thought it important to "spoon feed" me the Urim and Thummin story, BY's polygamy, persecution of the saints, etc. These were all taught on multiple occassions as part of the teachers manual and church education material....I likely spent many dozen's, if not hundreds, of hours during my time in the church discussing such things, but not one second to spare to discuss the use of peepstones/head in a hat translation method, Joseph Smith's polygamy, etc.

[Walden]

You don't have to go to Provo-although it's a nice place this time of year-because every Institute of Religion I have ever run into was glad to have non-University students take it's religion classes. You might not get the variety that you would get at BYU, but there will be, every semester, or if not, every other one, a class on church history.

However, you might be dismayed to learn that many of the students are not there to lose their testimony, but to study the history of the Restoration. 

BTW, I learned about Joseph Smith's polygamy, MMM, peep stones, and many other such subjects in Seminary, during my high school years. And the head in the hat thing was discussed in Institute, during my Freshman year at college. Were you asleep or something? BTW, although his credentials are more impressive than mine, I choose to disagree with Brother Bushman somewhat about the head in the hat. It makes sense for translating proper names and such, but my personal opinion is that for the most part, and with the help of the spirit, JS learned to read Reformed Egyptian. The speed with which the BOM was translated does not line up with the technique described by the head in the hat crowd. But that;s another thread, I suppose. 

 

No, I am not "dismayed to learn that many of the students are not there to lose their testimony," as it was not the church's half-truths regarding it's own history that pushed me out of the church....I didn't really dig into that stuff until after I had already left.

 

My leaving was more directly related to the failure of Moroni's Promise than anything else, but that is a topic for another day.

 

I guess you just had better seminary and institute teachers than I did, but no, there was no sleeping in seminary....the teacher was my father, so actually, more was expected of me than others.

[Walden]

Yeah, and he tells the truth, too.

Now don't go getting crazy Ahab.

 

Plus, we both know truth is relative....

[cdowis]

If you insist....

 

 

 

 

Forget it.  There is no point in continuing this discussion.

Edited May 24, 2014 by cdowis