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

[Michael Sudworth]

48 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

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

This sounds like a personal family issue.  For every story you tell me about a faithful family mistreating or disrespecting the former believer, I can tell you a story about how a faithful family was saddened by a family member's choice, but loved, respected, and supported them. 

Why not address the real problem rather than blame the LDS Church? 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

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. 

Why is this a problem?

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

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.

You missed my point.  I was responding to Samuel's statement;

Quote

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

As you state, there were no changes to the 116 pages (my question to him was a rhetorical one and I thought that was obvious....guess not ).  

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

This sounds like a personal family issue.  For every story you tell me about a faithful family mistreating or disrespecting the former believer, I can tell you a story about how a faithful family was saddened by a family member's choice, but loved, respected, and supported them. 

Why not address the real problem rather than blame the LDS Church? 

I think I am addressing the real problem.  The church isn't what it claims to be and there are still missionaries being sent out to say otherwise.  The church is misguided in claiming that families should seek out the "lost" when it is the seekers who are lost.  My family too is saddened by my choice but it really ought to be the other way around.  I am saddened at the loss of retirement savings, of misplaced belief, time, etc.  My family is full of great people, however misguided.  Too bad they are still locked in this false belief of humble superiority.  But, that is the nature of the game with religion.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why is this a problem?

Would you have a problem if I started claiming that my rock told me that mormonism was false?  Of course that was already answered when Hiram Page was told that his rock had to take a back seat to Joseph Smith's rock.  You're right, nothing wrong with magic rocks telling us God's word.  I stand corrected.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why is this a problem?

It's not for some.  But for others, this is an issue.  

Especially when they learn that Joseph used the same stones for treasure seeking that he then used in his hat to translate the Book Of Mormon.

Add to this,  learning that the plates were not even present for much of the process and that what members believed to be the Urim & Thummim weren't used for much of it either, and those details can be upsetting and even faith altering for some. 

Edited September 4, 2017 by ALarson

[Pete Ahlstrom]

15 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

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.

Do you think it is presentism to be shocked at someone marrying 14 year olds?

[Michael Sudworth]

2 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think I am addressing the real problem.  The church isn't what it claims to be and there are still missionaries being sent out to say otherwise.

Why is this any concern of yours?  It sounds like you have come to a conclusion.

The Church wants to share its message.  So what?

3 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

The church is misguided in claiming that families should seek out the "lost" when it is the seekers who are lost.

What is the moral difference between you believing LDS are "lost" and LDS believers thinking that you are "lost?"

I hope you aren't bearing the burden of thinking that you have the responsibility (or even the right, really) to "save" LDS believers from themselves.

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

My family too is saddened by my choice but it really ought to be the other way around.  I am saddened at the loss of retirement savings, of misplaced belief, time, etc.

Are you placing your personal conclusions on a moral highbrow above the conclusions of your believing family members? If so, on what rational basis are you doing so?

 

6 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

My family is full of great people, however misguided.  Too bad they are still locked in this false belief of humble superiority.  But, that is the nature of the game with religion.

Again, this sounds like a personal family issue.  I can tell you about the best man at my wedding who is gay.  His family is as TBM an can be but regularly host both he and his partner, for dinner.  My best man's parents are good people who love their son.  Religion's got nothing to do with it.

[Michael Sudworth]

Just now, Michael Sudworth said:

Are you placing your personal conclusions on a moral highbrow above the conclusions of your believing family members? If so, on what rational basis are you doing so?

Meant to type "high ground"

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Would you have a problem if I started claiming that my rock told me that mormonism was false?  Of course that was already answered when Hiram Page was told that his rock had to take a back seat to Joseph Smith's rock.  You're right, nothing wrong with magic rocks telling us God's word.  I stand corrected.

Would the problem be resolved if Joseph had exclusively used the Jaredite interpreters or had he possessed and used the ancient high priest's Urim v'tummim?

In other words, is the problem God using any seemingly magical or supernatural object, or just Joseph's seer stone?

Edited September 4, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It's not for some.  But for others, this is an issue.  

Especially when they learn that Joseph used the same stones for treasure seeking that he then used in his hat to translate the Book Of Mormon.

Add to this,  learning that the plates were not even present for much of the process and that what members believed to be the Urim & Thummim weren't used for much of it either and those details can be upsetting and even faith altering for some. 

Would the problem be resolved if Joseph had exclusively used the Jaredite interpreters or had he possessed and used  the ancient high priest's Urim v'tummim?

In other words, is the problem God using any seemingly magical or supernatural object, or just Joseph's seer stone?

Edited September 4, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would the problem be resolved if Joseph had exclusively used the Jaredite interpreters or had he possessed the ancient high priest's Urim v'tummim?

In other words, is the problem god using any seemingly magical or supernatural object, or just Joseph's seer stone?

The problem is that members were taught this was the truth:  

And then learn that this is the truth:

I think if members had been taught the truth from the beginning, most would have accepted it and had no issue.  

Once again, some can still learn the truth and be just fine with it.  But, others can't and struggle with it.

[Tacenda]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am not sure that namecalling ("zombies") is helpful.

However, I think the proposition that "critics of the LDS Church endlessly repeat 'same old claims'" is, in the main, very true.  It is quite rare for me to come across a criticism or argument that I have not seen dozens upon dozens of times before.  Jeremy Runnells is a textbook example of a critic who indulges in nothing but lazy thinking.  His CES letter is nothing more than a protracted exercise involving

• A) googling websites critical of the Church;
• B) exercising tremendous skill in the use of CTRL+C and CTRL+V;
• C) compiling complaints and criticisms (the "same old claims") into an incredibly longwinded diatribe dishonestly presented as a sincere request for information; and
• D) studiously ignoring (as in acting as if they do not exist) the many, many treatments of these claims from various resources (FAIR, Jeff Lindsay, Daniel Peterson, and oh so many more).

The problem here is that Mr. Runnells was provided answers to the questions he asked.  Extensively.  Take a look at FAIR's responses to the letter.  And Mr. Runnells knew about and extensively responded to FAIR's treatment of his letter well before his disciplinary council.  Kevin Christensen also responded extensively to the letter (at least twice, in fact), and Mr. Runnells responded to that as well (well, sorta - he had a fellow critic write the response for him).  Daniel Peterson has also addressed the letter (not in a point-by-point kind of way, but rather from a "let's take a step back and look at the broader picture" kind of way), and Mr. Runnells responded to that as well.  

In other words, here is where I think we can detect some bad faith in Mr. Runnells.  He is plainly not looking for answers.  He is looking for argument.  He is not looking for information.  He is looking for validation.  If Mr. Runnells was really interested in a good faith discussion about his letter, he would not have written the letter in such a deliberately offensive, risible, and profane manner.  He would not have written it in such a mishmash, throw-it-all-against-the-wall-and-see-how-much-of-it-sticks, death-by-a-thousand-paper-cuts kind of way.  He would not have been so demonstrably hostile and angry to the responses he claims to have wanted to receive.  

Mr. Runnells is not alone this repeating-ad-nauseam-the-same-old-claims-and-not-engaging-LDS-scholarship-and-responses schtick.

As for "disregard{ing} evidence," that is a bit more arguable.  I think it would perhaps be better to day that critics do not find evidences favoring the LDS position to have sufficient probative value.  That is, they do not necessarily "disregard" such evidences wholesale (although certainly some critics do that), but instead do not attribute the same amount of probative value to such evidences as faithful Latter-day Saints do.  That's pretty much to be expected.  It is human nature to interpret evidence in ways most favorable to our preconceived notions.  In law school, I had a professor who regularly and strongly cautioned us against the tendency to use "rose colored glasses" when looking at the factual elements of, or legal authorities about, a particular legal dispute.  I think the same concept applies to both Latter-day Saints and their critics.

Thanks,

-Smac

Have you read the newer info on the Council of Fifty minutes? I'll bet it would be labled anti until someone see's it in the JSP's project, or something else anti until one see's it on the Gospel Topic Essay's page. I wonder where the rabbit hole ends.

And most people out there that aren't Jeremy Runnells don't get answers when they go to the Stake President or even as high up as a GA. So now Fair Mormon is the answer? They are the Prophet/Apostles? Fair Mormon just has apologetics, is that the same?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would the problem be resolved if Joseph had exclusively used the Jaredite interpreters or had he possessed and used the ancient high priest's Urim v'tummim?

In other words, is the problem God using any seemingly magical or supernatural object, or just Joseph's seer stone?

It is the claim that someone communicates to some unseen being through a common object when the unseen could simply just appear and communicate like anyone else does. Why the extra step of inserting the seer stone, or dowsing rod, or any other object? It looks like a magician applying his craft to delude the credulous. Also, of note, this magician deemphasized seer stones when speaking to a more skeptical crowd.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

The best answer I think is to just have faith. It doesn't work for me but does for my stake president brother.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

8 hours ago, cdowis said:

And who is going to look at the pages and verify that the handwriting is not authentic?  Why not be clever and, for the purpose of inspection,  some pages of  the entire document was re-written, instead of making changes on the original document???  That would be stupid and too obvious.

It would be a simple thing to simply PUBLISH the completely re-written 116 pages and the public would accept it.  

If that was the case they wouldn't need the 116 pages, after the publication of the Book of Mormon they could have claimed to have the manuscripts of the first book of Nephi. D&C says "Satan hath put it into their hearts to alter the words which you have caused to be written, or which you have translated, which have gone out of your hands" , it says nothing about making a new document. Notice that  verse 14 says, "Verily, I say unto you, that I will not suffer that Satan shall accomplish his evil design in this thing." 

God allowed evil men to create a false affidavits (Spaulding) because it wasn't a big deal, it is now dead and didn't do much. God did have a plan ready for the 116 pages because it was something big. There is a big difference. Notice verse 23 says, "And thus he has laid a cunning plan, thinking to destroy the work of God" so either Satan did change the 116 with his power, or he is very stupid for thinking that a false copy was going to do much.  Verse 43 "I will not suffer that they shall destroy my work; yea, I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil." The changes to the 116 pages had the capacity to discredit Joseph Smith, something that the false Spaulding affidavits never did. 

I am going to get into greater details of why I think your theory simply doesn't work. It is a good theory, but it has some problems. 

Let me just say one more thing here, if Satan has the power to create serpents and other miracles, why doesn't he have the power to change historical documents? 

49 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

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.

I am creating a new thread 

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

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

the scriptures teach he has power, see new thread 

Edited September 4, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Pete Ahlstrom]

27 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Why is this any concern of yours?  It sounds like you have come to a conclusion.

The Church wants to share its message.  So what?

What is the moral difference between you believing LDS are "lost" and LDS believers thinking that you are "lost?"

I hope you aren't bearing the burden of thinking that you have the responsibility (or even the right, really) to "save" LDS believers from themselves.

Are you placing your personal conclusions on a moral highbrow above the conclusions of your believing family members? If so, on what rational basis are you doing so?

 

Again, this sounds like a personal family issue.  I can tell you about the best man at my wedding who is gay.  His family is as TBM an can be but regularly host both he and his partner, for dinner.  My best man's parents are good people who love their son.  Religion's got nothing to do with it.

I know you want to privilege the church in this but it is hard to escape the fact that the church promotes missionary work and "saving" so called "lost" sheep.  So, it isn't merely a family issue.  However, I see the sun shining but you somehow do not.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

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?

I do believe he practiced polygamy because the D&C and the church verify it. You see nothing wrong with gay marriage, why do you have a different standard for 16-17 year old? See the gay marriage thread. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I do believe he practiced polygamy because the D&C and the church verify it. You see nothing wrong with gay marriage, why do you have a different standard for 16-17 year old? See the gay marriage thread. 

I don't think you are thinking this through.  Teenage brains aren't fully formed and so society should protect them.  Hence, marrying young teens is shocking and should not happen.  Adults consenting to a relationship is quite another matter.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I do believe he practiced polygamy because the D&C and the church verify it. You see nothing wrong with gay marriage, why do you have a different standard for 16-17 year old? See the gay marriage thread. 

I have no problem with consenting adults living polygamy (even today if they choose to).  However, I do have issues with marrying other men's legal wives and marrying young girls (as young as 14 years old), when I learn about the deceit that was involved in order for Joseph to marry these wives.  It's the details regarding some of the polygamy (from church history) that are troubling, IMO.

[SamIam]

23 hours ago, Five Solas said:

On another thread an LDS poster alleged critics of the LDS Church endlessly repeat “same old claims” and disregard evidence.  He cited Jeremy Runnells as an example to demonstrate critics lack originality and any thoughtfulness.  He went on to liken critics of the LDS Church to “zombies.”

In the face of my challenge, he enjoyed significant support from fellow LDS and many likes/rep points were given.  So I thought it would be worth a poll to the broader audience here.  How do you feel about critics?  Are they like zombies and the only surefire way to neutralize them by complete physical destruction of their brains?  Or might they serve an occasional useful purpose (besides kindling)?  Have a go & don’t hold back.  We critics know how some of you feel already.

The real issues with critique are in principle very similar to the issues with forgiveness.  Most will acknowledge that when we cannot forgive another, the one who suffers greatest is the one who cannot forgive especially in the case of a serious event.  A canker can build in their souls.  They suffer overwhelming angst in their lives agonizing daily over the offense.  Yet we extol individuals such as the young bishop who suffered the loss of members of his family in a collision because he forgave the drunken young man immediately. He takes an event that could literally destroy him as a person and in the letting go of it he finds freedom.  Was the young man guilty? Absolutely.  Was the father benefited by making it his life's goal to see the young man suffer as the father did? Absolutely not. He found the ability to live again independent of angers claim on him as an individual by forgiving.

Criticism is little different as it seeks to make an accounting of others, an institution in this case, along lines of personal evaluation. However, it may be more insidious in it's effects for the fact that identifying and commenting to perceived inefficiencies lacks the emotional trauma of serious offenses that require forgiveness to be free of the damaging effects. Criticism has that sense of the benign that deludes of no risk of personal harm thus it parades about our persona without the perceived sense of threat of destruction.  Brigham Young speaks to the very real but so often completely ignored risks of critique.

Quote

I can tell the people that once in my life I felt a want of confidence in brother Joseph Smith, soon after I became acquainted with him. It was not concerning religious matters—it was not about his revelations—but it was in relation to his financiering—to his managing the temporal affairs which he undertook. A feeling came ever me that Joseph was not right in his financial management, though I presume the feeling did not last sixty seconds, and perhaps not thirty. But that feeling came on me once and once only, from the time I first knew him to the day of his death. It gave me sorrow of heart, and I clearly saw and understood, by the spirit of revelation manifested to me, that if I was to harbor a thought in my heart that Joseph could be wrong in anything, I would begin to lose confidence in him, and that feeling would grow from step to step, and from one degree to another, until at last I would have the same lack of confidence in his being the mouthpiece for the Almighty, and I would be left...upon the brink of the precipice, ready to plunge into what we may call the gulf of infidelity, ready to believe neither in God nor His servants, and to say that there is no God, or, if there is, we do not know anything about Him; that we are here, and by and by shall go from here, and that is all we shall know. ... It will weaken a person quicker to lose confidence in those who dictate the affairs of God's kingdom on the earth, than to say “I do not know whether there is a God or not, and I care nothing about Him.” A man or woman will not be prepared to be taken by the enemy, and led captive by the devil so quickly for disbelieving in a being they do not know about, as for disbelieving in those whom they do know. (Young, Brigham, JOD vol. 4, pp. 295-302)

How wise for Brigham to realize the personal risks of criticism.  For us it is no different.  We may choose to critique the institution of the Church and its leaders and surely in the process find our grandstanding points of legitimacy to provide supposed merit for our efforts. However, do we count the costs? Do we notice that all the while we are undermining the institution we are changing in our feelings towards the institution and its leaders.  Do we realize that with each revelation or criticism of the church upon which our focus pauses we dim the lights of the revelations upon which it was established.  Until in the end we have lost it all.  How often those who engage so willingly in the effort for the claim of only seeking truth find the truth of the moment, and will in doing so sacrifice the truths of eternity.

 

Edited September 5, 2017 by SamIam

[Bernard Gui]

34 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The problem is that members were taught this was the truth:  

And then learn that this is the truth:

I think if members had been taught the truth from the beginning, most would have accepted it and had no issue.  

Once again, some can still learn the truth and be just fine with it.  But, others can't and struggle with it.

So now that the truth is widely known, isn't it time to move on? Is the problem the use of stones/interpreters/urim v'tummim or other material objects? If the bottom picture is consistent with the actual use of the urim v'tummim, would that make it more palatable?

Edited September 4, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Amulek]

I pulled the lever for the second option: I’m LDS with a temple recommend. I believe critics occasionally make valid points and thereby serve a useful purpose.

However, I largely agree with Smac's post back on the first page. While it's true that critics occasionally make valid points, it's also true that much of what I see from critics could reasonably be characterized as "endlessly repeat[ing] [the] 'same old claims.'"

And while I think critics can serve a useful purpose, I'm not certain that they are necessary for those useful purposes to be achieved. 

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

So now that the truth is widely known, isn't it time to move on? 

Once again, some are able to do this and some aren't.  It just opens the door to search and find other details regarding what they've been taught that wasn't accurate.  It doesn't even matter where the blame lies (IMO), it's that members feel deceived.  One can point to a few random places where the truth could have been found, but the fact remains that the overall narrative regarding some events and details that were taught for years has turned out to not be accurate.  

 

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is the problem the use of stones/interpreters/urim v'tummim or other material objects? If the bottom picture is consistent with the actual use of the urim v'tummim, would that make it more palatable?

I've already stated where I think the issues are regarding learning about the seer stones (they were used for treasure seeking, etc.) and the incorrect narrative taught and illustrations used that were not accurate.

Add to that when one learns that Joseph never even used the terms "Urim & Thummim" until after 1833 (and he wasn't the first to use them) and that they were substituted for the words "seer stones" and weren't even in the first edition of the Book of Commandments but were added to the 1835 edition, it feels like more deception took place.

Some can come to terms with this and be fine.  Others simply cannot and they struggle over it. 

Edited September 4, 2017 by ALarson

[SamuelTheLamanite]

42 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I don't think you are thinking this through.  Teenage brains aren't fully formed and so society should protect them.  Hence, marrying young teens is shocking and should not happen.  Adults consenting to a relationship is quite another matter.

Naturalism teaches "historically (and evolutionarily) this almost certainly .... the case...Evolutionary psychologists have found repeatedly that markers of youth correlate highly with perceptions of beauty and attractiveness" by Scientific American. 

Duke University published a book arguing that 16-17 year marriage is okay. It is a book I strongly disagree with because it promotes sinful behavior, but I am pointing out that secular psychologists, scientists, and scholars don't agree with you. Another secular book also argues for 16-17 year marriage, a book by Univ Of Minnesota Press.  In many US states 16-17 year marriage is legal. In many European countries it is lower. I don't agree with 16-17 year marriage because our young men and women need to go on a mission first, so it should never happen in my view, but secular state laws and psychologists disagree with you. 

41 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 when I learn about the deceit that was involved in order for Joseph to marry these wives.  It's the details regarding some of the polygamy (from church history) that are troubling, IMO.

God approved polygamy in the Old Testament.  There was no deceit because the scriptures teach that by the power of the Holy Ghost we can know the truth of all things. It was God, not Joseph Smith. 

Edited September 4, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite