Doctrine 612 Posted May 27, 2016 Posted May 27, 2016 I have been talking with a lot of evangelical who always bring up the same old weird stories. man on Mars or moon salamader old pirate and others but where are they getting all this? all I find is quotes from anti books and websites that quote Mormon people. what do you find weird?
Bobbieaware Posted May 27, 2016 Posted May 27, 2016 1 hour ago, Doctrine 612 said: I have been talking with a lot of evangelical who always bring up the same old weird stories. man on Mars or moon salamader old pirate and others but where are they getting all this? all I find is quotes from anti books and websites that quote Mormon people. what do you find weird? They get it all from a website called throwitagainstthewallandseeifitsticks.org 4
CV75 Posted May 27, 2016 Posted May 27, 2016 1 hour ago, Doctrine 612 said: what do you find weird? People who invite missionaries under the pretense of wanting to know about the Church but asking "tricky" questions designed around what they already think they found out (and gesturing toward their laptop the whole while, LOL)!!!
jkwilliams Posted May 27, 2016 Posted May 27, 2016 (edited) If you want to have a reasonable conversation about Mormonism, you should probably not talk with an Evangelical. Edited May 27, 2016 by jkwilliams 3
JLHPROF Posted May 27, 2016 Posted May 27, 2016 It's the same old stuff that has been circulated about the church for decades. It is of no importance, and in general people that already believe the nonsense are unlikely to engage in good dialogue about the gospel.
Robert F. Smith Posted May 27, 2016 Posted May 27, 2016 3 hours ago, Doctrine 612 said: I have been talking with a lot of evangelical who always bring up the same old weird stories. man on Mars or moon salamader old pirate and others but where are they getting all this? all I find is quotes from anti books and websites that quote Mormon people. what do you find weird? Reads like the table of contents of a book from Jerald & Sandra Tanner. The more outlandish the better.
Doctrine 612 Posted May 27, 2016 Author Posted May 27, 2016 The old shock and awe strategy? i have to admit the words thing was during the conversation he started calling me Smithers I have no idea what it ment but he said it in a mean spirited way, so I called him a buffet Christian and then it got real. I like to say I usually don't get upset when talking about the scriptures, but he really made me mad, lol.
canard78 Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Reads like the table of contents of a book from Jerald & Sandra Tanner. The more outlandish the better. The irrational Tanners... They sure got it wrong on things like the Hoffman forgeries didn't they...? 1
Tacenda Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 2 minutes ago, canard78 said: The irrational Tanners... They sure got it wrong on things like the Hoffman forgeries didn't they...? I'd like to know what percentage they got wrong.
The Nehor Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, canard78 said: The irrational Tanners... They sure got it wrong on things like the Hoffman forgeries didn't they...? Ah yes, the myth that everyone was duped except for the Tanners. How appropriate for this thread. Edited May 28, 2016 by The Nehor 1
Jim Stiles Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 2 hours ago, canard78 said: The irrational Tanners... They sure got it wrong on things like the Hoffman forgeries didn't they...? CFR
canard78 Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 11 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: CFR British sarcasm. What are you CFRing? That they did or didn't?
Kenngo1969 Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 2 hours ago, canard78 said: The irrational Tanners... They sure got it wrong on things like the Hoffman forgeries didn't they...? Well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. 2
Kenngo1969 Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 8 hours ago, Doctrine 612 said: The old shock and awe strategy? i have to admit the words thing was during the conversation he started calling me Smithers I have no idea what it ment but he said it in a mean spirited way, so I called him a buffet Christian and then it got real. I like to say I usually don't get upset when talking about the scriptures, but he really made me mad, lol. Mad enough to say "Darn" and "Heck" ... ?
Robert F. Smith Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 2 hours ago, canard78 said: The irrational Tanners... They sure got it wrong on things like the Hoffman forgeries didn't they...? Jerald declared one document a forgery (as had Rhett James of USU, Logan), while Sandra disagreed with him -- in print. It wasn't until the murders and the fallout from that when we could all begin to understand what had really happened. Then everyone had twenty-twenty hindsight. Because they had no academic training, the Tanners frequently used very poor judgment about what was a valid or invalid argument, as well as what sort of evidence could legitimately be used to make a case. Many of their key assumptions were either fallacious, or were inimical to their own evangelical belief system. The single thing of importance which they did do, and which the LDS Church should thank them for, is their constant reprinting of early LDS documents -- documents which are characterized by great dynamism and spiritual power. That is why, at the end of the day, their life's work strengthened Mormonism.
Coreyb Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 (edited) I ran into Sandra Tanner at Deseret Industries the other day. It felt ironic. Edited May 28, 2016 by Coreyb 1
flameburns623 Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 1 hour ago, Coreyb said: I ran into Sandra Tanned at Deseret Industries the other day. It felt ironic. How tanned was she? Those ultraviolet rays cauae melanoma, y'know.
Coreyb Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 29 minutes ago, flameburns623 said: How tanned was she? Those ultraviolet rays cauae melanoma, y'know.
Atheist Mormon Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 18 hours ago, jkwilliams said: If you want to have a reasonable conversation about Mormonism, you should probably not talk with an Evangelical. How so? They are my favorite people to talk about Mormonism.
jkwilliams Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 1 minute ago, Atheist Mormon said: How so? They are my favorite people to talk about Mormonism. I like EVs, but my experience is that many seem to have a polemical and distorted view of Mormonism. Probably an overstatement, so I'm sorry for stereotyping. 1
Jim Stiles Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 10 hours ago, canard78 said: British sarcasm. What are you CFRing? That they did or didn't? Documentary evidence that the Tanners were indeed duped by Hoffman. The same Hoffman who duped the LDS leaders.
Jim Stiles Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Jerald declared one document a forgery (as had Rhett James of USU, Logan), while Sandra disagreed with him -- in print. It wasn't until the murders and the fallout from that when we could all begin to understand what had really happened. Then everyone had twenty-twenty hindsight. Because they had no academic training, the Tanners frequently used very poor judgment about what was a valid or invalid argument, as well as what sort of evidence could legitimately be used to make a case. Many of their key assumptions were either fallacious, or were inimical to their own evangelical belief system. The single thing of importance which they did do, and which the LDS Church should thank them for, is their constant reprinting of early LDS documents -- documents which are characterized by great dynamism and spiritual power. That is why, at the end of the day, their life's work strengthened Mormonism. I have no academic training in history, but I can still identify baloney. Can you point to a situation where their key assumptions were fallacious or inimical to evangelical belief? Okay.
Atheist Mormon Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: I like EVs, but my experience is that many seem to have a polemical and distorted view of Mormonism. Probably an overstatement, so I'm sorry for stereotyping. You are not stereotyping they are....And so blatantly clueless they are about basic christianity, they think The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses who were Apostles with real names.....
Jim Stiles Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 Just now, Atheist Mormon said: You are not stereotyping they are....And so blatantly clueless they are about basic christianity, they think The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses who were Apostles with real names..... The gospels of Matthew and John were written by Apostles with real names.
jkwilliams Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Jerald declared one document a forgery (as had Rhett James of USU, Logan), while Sandra disagreed with him -- in print. It wasn't until the murders and the fallout from that when we could all begin to understand what had really happened. Then everyone had twenty-twenty hindsight. Because they had no academic training, the Tanners frequently used very poor judgment about what was a valid or invalid argument, as well as what sort of evidence could legitimately be used to make a case. Many of their key assumptions were either fallacious, or were inimical to their own evangelical belief system. The single thing of importance which they did do, and which the LDS Church should thank them for, is their constant reprinting of early LDS documents -- documents which are characterized by great dynamism and spiritual power. That is why, at the end of the day, their life's work strengthened Mormonism. The Tanners were polemical from the start, and their interest in researching and publishing was never academic. Their selective quoting and overuse of all caps and italics (often both at the same time) drives me crazy. That said, while their stuff is sensationalistic, they did a great service in reprinting early documents and opening avenues of discussion. The old guard at FARMS was certainly more academically skilled, but no less polemical.
Recommended Posts