There is no such thing as valid criticism of the LDS Church

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Danzo said:

In my experience, faithful members are constantly criticizing the church.  Just the morning in PEC, we criticized the way certain activities were being planned. We criticized a recent boundary change, discussing whether we would add people back to the ward who couldn't travel to the new meeting location.  In Sunday school we were critical on the way we as church members were teaching and treating our children ( this was from a lesson put out by the church).  In priesthood, we were critical and there was a great discussion on improving missionary work in the ward. Afterwards, there was a brief meeting with a newly called ward missionary, a faithful member who has served as bishop and in stake presidencies. We were critical about the involvement of full time missionaries (not enough) and we decided to run our own ward mission and not rely on the full time elders .

For me criticism is part of the church. We try not to be negative about it, but we are constantly looking for things and ways to improve.

Mormons tend to be problemsolvers, criticism is part of that.

[Gray]

10 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Anti-mormons are big fans of historical "truth", they don't realize that Satan changed some historical diaries, letters, newspapers, and documents just like he did with the 116 pages.  Anti-mormons have nothing new and will never demonstrate the church is false because it is true.  

 

Look out, Satan just changed your post!

[ALarson]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

No but has gotten Jeremy too much attention for doing pretty much nothing.   Basically all he did was take a chewed up piece of gum on the bottom of a chair, repackaged it in a new wrapping and gave it out for new people to chew.

What Jeremy did was compile in one document almost all of the questions and information that many have difficulty with when they learn about them for the first time.  For someone to read this who wasn't aware of most of the information, it is overwhelming to see so much all in one place.  I think that's why it got so much attention (and continues to from what I can tell with feedback I get from members in my ward).  It's a one stop overview that members can easily read without having to research on their own or hop around to numerous different websites or purchase numberous books.

We've had discussions here before regarding his letter and most cannot find much of anything that isn't true in the document other than his conclusions.  Those are what people disagree on mainly.  

And to say that all of the questions have been answered is true, but many of those answers haven't been satisfying or convincing, IMO.  I tried to read the back and forth between Jeremy and FAIR (the "debunkings" from both sides) and they became very tiresome and nit picky (both sides) and most did not involve accusing him of posting information that was not accurate, but focused on his analysis and conclusions (which of course is fair game too).

Edited September 4, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Do you believe the changes  to the 116 pages were obvious? 

We don't know that there were changes made to the 116 pages, do we?

12 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Anti-mormons are big fans of historical "truth", they don't realize that Satan changed some historical diaries, letters, newspapers, and documents just like he did with the 116 pages.

Do you believe that documents and histories were changed regarding Joseph Smith's polygamy or do you believe that he did indeed marry over 30 women including young girls?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your analogy fails.

In a court of law, posing questions that have already been answered would draw an "asked and answered" objection from the opposing attorney, which would be sustained by the judge.

Asked and poorly answered should be the apologist response.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

The problem with the asked and answered attitude that so many defenders have is that frequently the one asking the question has just learned about that particular controversy and is met with condescension for not having embraced the apologists' arguments already.

It is not condescension to point out that a particular attack or claim is not new, that it has been raised and refuted repeatedly in the past, though I can see how some might view it as condescension. Not many people enjoy being contradicted. Most will resist it if they can. It takes a particular strength of character to say, "I stand corrected."

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Asked and poorly answered should be the apologist response.

If it has been "poorly answered," at least acknowledge that an answer has been given, then show, if you can, how the answer is deficient. It does nothing to further good faith understanding and communication to raise the same attack and pretend that no rebuttal has been offered. Nor, in the long run, is it very effective argumentation. Ultimately, it only makes the attacker appear ignorant.

Of course, good faith understanding and communication might not be the intent of some. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

For me, a non-believer, apologists are like a criminal defense attorneys trying to argue that their clients are not the perps in the video committing the crimes. To a lot of people the video hasn't been seen before and they are shocked by it. Sure, recitation of the evidence gets old from the perspective of the criminal defense attorney who has had to represent his client in numerous trials of public opinion, and it isn't very inventive to keep pointing out how the perps appear in the video from the prosecution side.

However, that is the nature of this case. The evidence is known and finally admitted by the church. Still some are in a state of denial or think that satan made up the evidence, etc. Nevertheless, Joseph Smith used seer stones and the plates were conveniently taken up by moroni. He didn't really even use the plates in his dictation of the book of mormon. He used the seer stone. He married other men's wives, etc. How else should a critic present the case?

Likening critics to zombies is a fun analogy, even though not close to reality. It must be hard having to continually defend Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I know I got tired of it.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it has been "poorly answered," at least acknowledge that an answer has been given, then show, if you can, how the answer is deficient. It does nothing to further good faith understanding and communication to raise the same attack and pretend that no rebuttal has been offered. Nor, in the long run, is it very effective argumentation. Ultimately, it only makes the attacker appear ignorant.

Of course, good faith understanding and communication might not be the intent of some. 

The apologist failure to give plausible answers has already been dismissed many times. I think this is a case of the apologist looking at reality and then putting on the critic what the apologist is actually doing. 

[Rain]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Yes.  If I criticize my boss at work for a decision or action she has taken, that does not mean I think she is a bad boss or that she does not make good decisions.  I think it is possible to criticize the Church on an issue here and there while sustaining the leaders of the church and the church as a whole.  The issue is really the intent of the criticism.  It is simply to tear down or to seek to make good changes to make things better.  Also those who make criticism must be willing to take criticism in return. 

I didn't answer the question in some part because this is how I feel. I'd have to know which connotation of criticism was meant.

To go along with what carbon said - if you want to tell me I am a slob that may be a valid tear down criticism, but it doesn't serve a useful purpose. If you see that I am struggling to keep organized, you've seen the whole picture of why I am that way and you want to help, then your criticism may serve a useful purpose. 

I can't answer to anything on Jeremy Runnels as I haven't read his stuff. 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

The apologist failure to give plausible answers has already been dismissed many times. I think this is a case of the apologist looking at reality and then putting on the critic what the apologist is actually doing. 

I agree.

People here will never agree on what "plausible answers" are.  For some who learn about difficult issues for the first time and then read the responses from apologists, these answers are plausible.  Many do not find that their questions have been answered plausibly or convincingly at all.

The church is slowly getting the information out there (with their essays and in other material) and the leaders are at least attempting to help the members when they are struggling with the issues.  I find that to be a big change from just labeling everything anti-Mormon that isn't flattering to the church and its history.  And many times their answer just has to be "we don't know why that was done or taught".  Once again, some are able to accept that and some don't feel that is a good answer.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

The apologist failure to give plausible answers has already been dismissed many times. I think this is a case of the apologist looking at reality and then putting on the critic what the apologist is actually doing. 

If the answer that was given is not plausible, then show how it is not plausible, if you can. 

Instead, what I see attackers doing is merely ignoring the response that has been given and repeating the same attack as though it had never been addressed. You yourself did that just now ("seer stones" "conveniently taken up by Moroni," "other men's wives," etc.) 

And when that happens, well, the zombie analogy is very apt and applicable. It's not just "fun," it's deft. 

I've found that most attacks against Mormonism can be answered with content readily accessed on FairMormon.org if not elsewhere. I often wonder whether the attackers have bothered looking there. If they have, why don't they deal with what's presented there. 

Edited September 4, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Michael Sudworth]

15 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

However, that is the nature of this case. The evidence is known and finally admitted by the church. Still some are in a state of denial or think that satan made up the evidence, etc. Nevertheless, Joseph Smith used seer stones and the plates were conveniently taken up by moroni. He didn't really even use the plates in his dictation of the book of mormon. He used the seer stone. He married other men's wives, etc. How else should a critic present the case?

Likening critics to zombies is a fun analogy, even though not close to reality. It must be hard having to continually defend Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I know I got tired of it.

The easiest thing in the world is to defend truth.  How can one "tire" of supporting eternal principles?  Critics can make all the noise they want but at the end of the day, it is the outside critic who has decided they have nothing more important to do than tear down the faith of others.  Other options may include moving on, joining a new religion, starting a hobby...  Lots of options.  But for some reason some folk like to hunker down and repeat the same tired critiques.

It isn't so much a matter of "asked and answered" as believers saying "asked and I don't care." I just don't understand why critics let LDS believers in peace to practice their religion and have their beliefs.  What a waste.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

 I tried to read the back and forth between Jeremy and FAIR (the "debunkings" from both sides) and they became very tiresome and nit picky (both sides) and most did not involve accusing him of posting information that was not accurate, but focused on his analysis and conclusions (which of course is fair game too).

Peterson accuses him of ignoring the published research and analysis on some of these issues ==  he is totally unaware of "asked and answered", or, at least,  no indication that he is engaging with those who offer an answer. 

 

Edited September 4, 2017 by cdowis

[Rain]

Another thing to note is that all of your answers that say critics may have a valid point have the added, "thereby serve a useful purpose". This adds another element to the answers and let's out anyone that might choose that there is valid criticism, but that it doesn't serve a useful purpose." 

I can tell my husband not to leave his socks on the floor till I am blue in the face, but if I ignore either his agency, ignore why he is doing it or I lack information then my criticism will never serve a useful purpose. 

Edit: So to try to answer what I think is the idea of your poll. Yes, as a temple recommend holding LDS, i think that critics may have valid criticism and may serve a useful purpose, but I think that a lot of the criticism that is praised for being valid does not often serve a useful purpose. I can't make a determination on where everything falls without recognizing and dealing with the other points I made.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Rain

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Peterson accuses him of ignoring the published research and analysis on some of these issues ==  

I've watched that and do not find it convincing.  Others may however.

From what I read in the "debunkings", both sides did this (accused the other of ignoring published research and analysis).  In the end, a person just needs to study and research on their own and come to their own conclusions, IMO.  Both sides had valid points from what I read.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Rain said:

Another thing to note is that all of your answers that say critics may have a valid point have the added, "thereby serve a useful purpose". This adds another element to the answers and let's out anyone that might choose that there is valid criticism, but that it doesn't serve a useful purpose." 

For some, learning the truth is serving a "useful purpose" (and some of that truth is not flattering for the church).  However, I do not believe a person should use that information to publicly preach against or criticize the church (in church meetings for example).  

[Pete Ahlstrom]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If the answer that was given is not plausible, then show how it is not plausible, if you can. 

Instead, what I see attackers doing is merely ignoring the response that has been given and repeating the same attack as though it had never been addressed. You yourself did that just now ("deer stones" "conveniently taken up by Moroni," "other men's wives," etc.) 

And when that happens, well, the zombie analogy is very apt and applicable. It's not just "fun," it's deft. 

I've found that most attacks against Mormonism can be answered with content readily accessed on FairMormon.org if not elsewhere. I often wonder whether the attackers have bothered looking there. If they have, why don't they deal with what's presented there. 

I have a problem believing that seer stones work.  They seem to be props in a fraud.  Combined with plates that were not publicly disseminated for all to examine seems fraudulent still.  Further, he didn't use the plates in his dictation.  That seems highly suspect as well.  I've read FairMormon responses on these issues and they don't do it for me.  How can one explain these troubling historical facts?  How do you personally explain it?  I was instructed to move past these troubling issues to moroni's promise when I was a missionary, but that is not satisfying if one believes a god who doesn't use trickery as a test of faith. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

17 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

The easiest thing in the world is to defend truth.  How can one "tire" of supporting eternal principles?  Critics can make all the noise they want but at the end of the day, it is the outside critic who has decided they have nothing more important to do than tear down the faith of others.  Other options may include moving on, joining a new religion, starting a hobby...  Lots of options.  But for some reason some folk like to hunker down and repeat the same tired critiques.

It isn't so much a matter of "asked and answered" as believers saying "asked and I don't care." I just don't understand why critics let LDS believers in peace to practice their religion and have their beliefs.  What a waste.

Tell my family to leave me alone and I will do the same.  However, that cannot be done by the faithful.  The faithful believe that they know what is best for the non-believer and must evangelize.  Missionaries are still being sent out.  So, you are going to have to continue to deal with criticism

[cdowis]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've watched that and do not find it convincing.

But don't pretend that no answer is offered.  As a critic and the writer of this CES letter, he has a duty to at least say "Your answer does not convince me" and perhaps offer a reason.  

 

Edited September 4, 2017 by cdowis

[ALarson]

26 minutes ago, cdowis said:

But don't pretend that no answer is offered.

That's a false accusation.  I have not done that.  Quite the opposite:

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

And to say that all of the questions have been answered is true, but many of those answers haven't been satisfying or convincing, IMO.

 

51 minutes ago, ALarson said:

People here will never agree on what "plausible answers" are.  For some who learn about difficult issues for the first time and then read the responses from apologists, these answers are plausible.

Where in any of my comments have I pretended "that no answer is offered"?

Edited September 4, 2017 by ALarson

[Physics Guy]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it has been "poorly answered," at least acknowledge that an answer has been given, then show, if you can, how the answer is deficient. It does nothing to further good faith understanding and communication to raise the same attack and pretend that no rebuttal has been offered. Nor, in the long run, is it very effective argumentation. Ultimately, it only makes the attacker appear ignorant.

Of course, good faith understanding and communication might not be the intent of some. 

Hasn't Runnells done that? He has posted a run-down of what FAIR people said in response to his original Letter. Maybe he somehow failed to appreciate some of the FAIR arguments, but I didn't see him simply ignoring them.

I don't think critics ignore answers just because the answers aren't satisfying. I mean, who would ignore an opposing argument because they thought it was bad? Few things are more fun for the argumentative than kicking down an opponent's bad argument, and for kicking purposes, it's the worse, the better. 

I think it's more specific. My bet is that the arguments that critics mainly ignore are the ones that are long. Everyone feels that a good answer has to be short, and that the only reason for giving a long answer is that you don't have a good one. Dealing with a long answer, moreover, is like accepting a challenge to mud wrestle with an opponent who is well hunkered down in their home patch of mud. Who wants to do that?

[Atheist Mormon]

10 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Anti-mormons are big fans of historical "truth", they don't realize that Satan changed some historical diaries, letters, newspapers, and documents just like he did with the 116 pages.  Anti-mormons have nothing new and will never demonstrate the church is false because it is true.  

I don't consider myself "antimormon", or ""critic". How is it possible Satan changing anything, let alone "historical diaries" ?

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

The problem with the asked and answered attitude that so many defenders have is that frequently the one asking the question has just learned about that particular controversy and is met with condescension for not having embraced the apologists' arguments already.

How many times does one have to answer the "why is the French word 'adieu'"in the Book of Mormon?" 

The answers are readily available.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

We don't know that there were changes made to the 116 pages, do we?

Do you believe that documents and histories were changed regarding Joseph Smith's polygamy or do you believe that he did indeed marry over 30 women including young girls?

There were no changes to the 116 pages of the Book of Mormon. The information was already on a different part of the plates.

Your Presentism is showing.