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

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

God approved polygamy in the Old Testament. 

Not the manner of polygamy that Joseph lived (except for his marriage to his brother Don Carlos's wife and even that is questionable as being a Levirate marriage, IMO).  And God did not approve of polyandry.

10 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

There was no deceit because the scriptures teach that by the power of the Holy Ghost we man know the truth of all things. 

No, there was most definitely deceit involved with Joseph's polygamy.  You can defend the deceit or believe it was justified, but there was deceit.

Edited September 4, 2017 by ALarson

[Pete Ahlstrom]

20 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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. 

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. 

Take a look at the link you provided. The book claims that sexual liberation is the key to social justice and equality. Are you arguing that polygamy is somehow liberating? Do you think Helen Mar Kimball was somehow sexually liberated by being told that her family's salvation would be greatly improved by marrying Joseph Smith when she was 14? I mean almost 15? It looks to me that, as practiced, polygamy would be considered sexually controlling and repressive to women. Having a harem of women who have to wait their turn to express themselves seems the opposite of liberation.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom

[RevTestament]

14 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.

I believe some good responses have been given. I'm responding just to add my voice to the fray. As an LDS who does not shy away from wading through the myriad criticisms of the Church, I feel I am familiar with the vast majority of them: seer stones, glass-looking convict, undisclosed polygamy, womanizing, secret assassination squads, alleged plagiarism, alleged fiction, and the list goes on. I do not consider myself to be a blind follower. I feel there are valid criticisms of the Church and of various statements of various leaders, and I state so myself from time to time on this site. However, my wish is not to harm the Church, but to make it truer, stronger and better. I would like to see some promulgations of the past dropped and relegated to the dust bin of error. In the end I believe that will help the Church move on - instead of trying to defend every statement made by every apostle of the Church. I believe the Church has started to realize this need, and thus has published the essays on some of these subjects, which is a step in the right direction, imho. As a critic sometimes myself, I do believe critics should not be roundly persecuted or squelched. Those who try to be objective and at least recognize the other side of the coin so to speak I believe should be treated with professional respect, and not roundly ignored. However, as has already been addressed many enter the realm of what are known as "anti-mormons." Some of these such as Jeremy Runnels do not engage in much critical analysis of the arguments they repeat, and thereby end up believing and repeating lies or mere allegations against the Church which get accepted as part of the truth. Members of the Church in turn respond to such people as spreading Satan's lies. To the extent that such allegations are merely spreading gossip and rumor, I believe they have a valid point, and myself also feel Satan works this way. As examples I would list works such as Pomeroy Tucker's, and Mormonism Unvailed.  A close analysis of the history of facts around the story of Mormonism Unvailed certainly do lend to a conclusion that a disaffected Church member, went around writing slanted affidavits which he got numerous people to sign but in the end the object of their allegations shows up in Hawaii, and now lies in the Oberlin library as strong evidence of exactly the type of lies the Church complains about being made by the general public. Nevertheless, these lies can still damage the Church. As proof I point to my own family, and my father who left the Church after reading a pamphlet book on the Spaulding manuscript, and the alleged plagiarism of Rigdon and Smith. However, a level-headed and informed analysis of the manuscript lying in the Oberlin College library leads one to the inescapable conclusion that this manuscript is the object of the affidavits of the witnesses, and yet is simply not a work from which Joseph Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon. Indeed there are many other works for which a stronger case for plagiarism might be made to the uneducated Church investigator. As with any good criticism, the quality of the evidence is important, and the Church has faced many "critics" who roundly spout every emotionally-charged allegation they can find as evidence against the Church. I feel these types of critics can be called "anti-mormons," because they are generally not interested in objective, quality evidence or in painting an even-handed picture.  I recently watched a PBS show on the Mormons. I thought it did an even-handed job on addressing the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It did not fire blanks at the Church leadership, but pointed out that the massacre was a pre-meditated event on the part of the participants, and that someone was accountable. However, it also pointed out that the massacre did not take place in an empty vacuum. The LDS had suffered a massacre at the hands of Missourians, which lingered in its memory and was determined not to suffer another. Further, the travelers were arriving from Arkansas where a well-known Church missionary had recently been killed, and the Church was on edge by the knowledge that the Federal government was sending troops to put down the Mormon resistance to its local control. So the Church was not venturing out in anger looking for someone to massacre. Some critics ignore the context, and try to portray the Church as bloodthirsty pirates looking to steal wives for Brigham's harem and other such nonsense routinely portrayed in the eastern press. Critics of the time rarely looked at the largely gentle nature of Church life and its members, nor why people continued to join the Church. Criticism was roundly emotionally-charged, negative portrayals of the Church. Through people such as Jeremy Runnels, this type of anti-Mormonism survives to this day. Jeremy clearly feels hurt and angry towards the Church for "hiding" the "whole" picture, but clearly it is not incumbent on the Church to publish the views of its critics. Further, I believe the Church is taking steps to avoid painting an overly-rosy portrait of its history - and this I applaud - as it will help to avoid the feelings of disaffection arising in the millennial generation. 

6 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

I didn't think Runnells was claiming any originality. I thought he was just collating standard questions, with the original goal of getting an official answer rather than rebuttals by apologists who only spoke for themselves.

I don't know if it's reasonable to expect a church to provide official answers to critical questions about its teachings, but it's understandable to want official answers. Doubting one's faith is a bit like feeling unwell and worrying that you may have a fatal disease. Reading through a string of amateur apologists whose answers may be unconvincing and are never authoritative must be like getting a series of divergent opinions from a series of doctors. You start to wish you could get a definite diagnosis from a certified specialist, even if the news will be bad.

Doctors are probably also frustrated by patients who just won't stop complaining, who insist that their medications aren't helping and they're still feeling sick. I'm sensing some frustration from apologists at how the same old questions keep getting asked over and over again, even after they've been answered—at least for some values of "answered".

Why do the questions keep coming back, though? Is it really all the fault of the questioners, for being lazy or stupid or wicked? I suppose that could be. There aren't really that many people spending time critiquing the LDS church, and maybe the ones that do are are just the inevitable fraction of embittered wackos that no church of this size can avoid. Some Mormon apologists seem to be pretty generous-minded, though, so I doubt that's the only hypothesis Mormons consider. What other problems could there be?

One that occurs to me is that apologetics in Mormonism inherently has a tougher row to hoe than in other faiths. The crucial founding events of the LDS faith all occurred less than two-hundred years ago—nearly in modern times—instead of being safely buried deep in the past. Joseph Smith is open to question in ways that Mohammed isn't. And yet Mormons don't reap the corresponding PR advantages of a modern religion that makes good sense to modern minds, because the Book of Mormon is set in ancient times. Its characters say and do things that seem problematic today. So there's a lot more tension between ancient and modern in Mormonism than I see in other faiths, and it's probably harder to offer answers that work on both sides.

I pos repped you for this Physics Guy because I feel you do bring up valid points. The Church made a great deal of its own history - perhaps moreso than any other Protestant or modern Church, one can read about the history of the Church - the good, the bad, and the ugly - to use the title of an iconic Eastwood movie. You are right that its origins being so recent made the Church much more subject to criticism of the press, and most of it was quite negative. 

As hard as it is for the general public to accept, I feel the Lord introduced the restoration in a manner which requires faith. He did it this way on purpose. Otherwise, He would have allowed more to witness the golden plates. He would have allowed Joseph Smith to show BoM places.  He would have satisfied the archaeological whims of scientists. He wanted to attract those seeking for truth, and those of faith as the first fruits. As He reveals more evidence,  He will expect more from those who reject the restored gospel. 

As archaeology unknowingly builds a case for the Book of Mormon, that makes the case for the Book of Mormon all the stronger, when the truth comes out - as horse bone and dna evidence grow closer and closer to BoM times, language studies show Semitic ties, and other evidence continues to mount. Many criticisms of the Church will fade away into obscurity, and the critic will become a member. So I welcome fellow skeptics and critics to examine the Church, and give the Book of Mormon a test. Like them I had doubts too, but the Lord is patient, and will speak to the searching heart. A closer examination may reveal that what one once thought was so fantastic, is quite within the realm of probability and scripture. 

[The Nehor]

There is plenty of valid criticism but the antis always get it wrong on what could justifiably be criticized.

They are pretty worthless.

[thesometimesaint]

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not the manner of polygamy that Joseph lived (except for his marriage to his brother Don Carlos's wife and even that is questionable as being a Levirate marriage, IMO).  And God did not approve of polyandry.

No, there was most definitely deceit involved with Joseph's polygamy.  You can defend the deceit or believe it was justified, but there was deceit.

Actually God does approve of polyandry. David took Saul's wives as his own.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

22 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Take a look at the link you provided. The book claims that sexual liberation is the key to social justice and equality. Are you arguing that polygamy is somehow liberating? Do you think Helen Mar Kimball was somehow sexually liberated by being told that her family's salvation would be greatly improved by marrying Joseph Smith when she was 14? I mean almost 15? It looks to me that, as practiced, polygamy would be considered sexually controlling and repressive to women. Having a harem of women who have to wait their turn to express themselves seems the opposite of liberation.

Okay you originally said, "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." 

I told you about two secular university books (one endorsed by an American pediatrician) that argue 16-17 year marriage is okay. Now you are changing the subject, but the authors of the Book published by Duke Univ have no problem with polygamy. I strongly disagree with both books because they promote sinful behavior. Is your issue 16-17 year old marriage or polygamy? Please clarify so we can talk about it. Has for Helen Smith didn't lived with her at age 15, probably never.  

For your information the brain doesn't fully form until your mid 20s, saying that 16-17 can't get married because their brain isn't fully formed is nonsense according to secularists. According to secularists there is no scientific or medical basis for 18 years. 

Edited September 4, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Bernard Gui]

40 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.  

 

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. 

Fine, but that's not what I'm asking. 

[thesometimesaint]

17 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Take a look at the link you provided. The book claims that sexual liberation is the key to social justice and equality. Are you arguing that polygamy is somehow liberating? Do you think Helen Mar Kimball was somehow sexually liberated by being told that her family's salvation would be greatly improved by marrying Joseph Smith when she was 14? I mean almost 15? It looks to me that, as practiced, polygamy would be considered sexually controlling and repressive to women. Having a harem of women who have to wait their turn to express themselves seems the opposite of liberation.

Your Presentism is showing. A product of the Victorian Era.The age of consent has varied over the years. It is still legal in New York to marry a 14 year old. 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Actually God does approve of polyandry. David took Saul's wives as his own.

That wasn't polyandry. 

[ALarson]

47 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Fine, but that's not what I'm asking. 

I answered what you asked except for this question possibly:

Quote

If the bottom picture is consistent with the actual use of the urim v'tummim, would that make it more palatable?

But my answer given applies to that question as well.  That's a big "if", but:

Quote

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

ETA:

Do you believe the interpreters (that Joseph stated were with the plates) were placed in Joseph's hat rather than the seer stones he'd used for treasure seeking?  I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Edited September 4, 2017 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;
15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;
16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites.

You seem to be saying that the means is the problem rather than the message. If the stone in the hat were more consistent with the actual way the urim v'tummim functioned, would that ameliorate your problem somewhat? 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 minute ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Okay you originally said, "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." 

I told you about two university books (one endorsed by an American pediatrician) that argue 16-17 year marriage is okay. Now you are changing the subject, but the authors of the Book published by Duke Univ have no problem with polygamy. I strongly disagree with both books because they promote sinful behavior. Is your issue 16-17 year old marriage or polygamy? Please clarify so we can talk about it. Has for Helen Smith didn't lived with her at age 15, probably never.  

For your information the brain doesn't fully form until your mid 20s, saying that 16-17 can't get married because their brain isn't fully formed is nonsense according to secularists. 

Maybe I am in the clutches of ole scratch and don't understand, but from the link you provided, the book from Duke University is about sexual liberation.  I don't see how polygamy can be liberating, even if the authors supposedly do.  I'd like to see the quotes, in context as well, where the authors are supposedly o.k. with polygamy.  My guess is that if they are, they are still against marrying 14 year olds. 

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

48 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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. 

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. 

Re-posting because I don't want to be quoted out of context and made some changes, I strongly disagree with 16-17 year marriage because they need to go on a mission first. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I answered what you asked except for this question possibly:

But my answer given applies to that question as well.  That's a big "if", but:

 

So it appears that any attempt to align Joseph's story with other scriptural practices is futile or to explain it in any non-scientific way is unacceptable from the start? That leaves the believer no recourse. Perhaps that's your point?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

10 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Your Presentism is showing. A product of the Victorian Era.The age of consent has varied over the years. It is still legal in New York to marry a 14 year old. 

So what? Calling something presentism is merely a dodge to support the unsupportable.  Would you say Jeffs got a raw deal in the court of public opinion?

[Glenn101]

49 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And God did not approve of polyandry.

Joseph did not practice polyandry.

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You seem to be saying that the means is the problem rather than the message. If the stone in the hat were more consistent with the actual way the urim v'tummim functioned, would that ameliorate your problem somewhat? 

First of all, the urim and thumin (however it is spelled) was just a dodge, created by Clayton, to move the infant church away from the magic world view of seer stones and buried treasure.  Nevertheless, it is a fantastical claim that seer stones or urim and thumin (two stones instead of one) were part of the story at all.  The book of moses was straight from Joseph Smith.  I guess he learned from a skeptical audience and changed things up a little bit. 

Here is the bottom line for me.  Both are hard to believe.  However, if one could actually show that there were nephites and lamanites, then I might reconsider the fantastical and seemingly contradictory origin story.

[cdowis]

del

 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2017 by cdowis

[Glenn101]

24 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Actually God does approve of polyandry. David took Saul's wives as his own.

But Saul was dead at the time. Also David did not actually take the wives, they were given to him by God. (2 Samuel 12:8)

 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Joseph did not practice polyandry.

Correct, some of his wives did.  Some of Joseph's (and other church leader's) marriages were polyandrous.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

25 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Maybe I am in the clutches of ole scratch and don't understand, but from the link you provided, the book from Duke University is about sexual liberation.  I don't see how polygamy can be liberating, even if the authors supposedly do.  I'd like to see the quotes, in context as well, where the authors are supposedly o.k. with polygamy.  My guess is that if they are, they are still against marrying 14 year olds. 

I haven't read the apostate books entirely because they are Satan's lies. However, if you read the summaries you will get the idea. Book by  Duke Univ,  and book Univ of Minn and it's author. 

No, the authors don't have a problem with plural marriage. I assume they do have a problem with polygamy from God, but not multiple spouses the secular way which is disgusting. 

Anyways, you are changing the issue, that is not what you originally told me.  

Edited September 4, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[thesometimesaint]

I've never supported 14 year old's getting married in our modern civilization, polygamy, or polyandry. I just recognize that it happened, and to a lesser extent that it is happening. To deny history's errors is to repeat its tragedies.

Mr. Jeff's violated the law. Let him suffer the consequences. I think a reasonable argument can be made for legally allowing polygamy between consenting adults. But for myself I wouldn't engage in it.

[thesometimesaint]

12 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

But Saul was dead at the time. Also David did not actually take the wives, they were given to him by God. (2 Samuel 12:8)

 

Sophistry. Plus it assumes fats not in evidence.

[Glenn101]

6 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Here is the bottom line for me.  Both are hard to believe.  However, if one could actually show that there were nephites and lamanites, then I might reconsider the fantastical and seemingly contradictory origin story.

So, how then did Joseph produce the Book of Mormon? Please account for everything that we have learned about the Book of Mormon. You may need to start a new thread for that. There is no contradictory origin story. It was produced by the power of God. The details are pretty consistent as to the translation process.

Maybe you could start by explaining coherently the presence of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon that predates the Bible. You would need to check out Stanford Carmack's articles on the subject. So far the response from the critics has been all over the place with no coherent, evidence based theory. The final answer that they all really have produced is that "I don't believe it and don't have to do anything else." Maybe you can do better. So far, being produced by some power beyond the ken of anyone of that era is a more plausible explanation than the one any critic has proposed.

Glenn

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Okay you originally said, "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." 

I told you about two secular university books (one endorsed by an American pediatrician) that argue 16-17 year marriage is okay. Now you are changing the subject, but the authors of the Book published by Duke Univ have no problem with polygamy. I strongly disagree with both books because they promote sinful behavior. Is your issue 16-17 year old marriage or polygamy? Please clarify so we can talk about it. Has for Helen Smith didn't lived with her at age 15, probably never.  

For your information the brain doesn't fully form until your mid 20s, saying that 16-17 can't get married because their brain isn't fully formed is nonsense according to secularists. According to secularists there is no scientific or medical basis for 18 years. 

We have to choose a cutoff and it will be in some sense arbitrary. Either that or having to pass some battery of tests in order to marry. Or just set it at puberty but that would probably be unwise.

The reality is that society's best form of marriage we have tried is the one we are using now. Love matches between people 18+ who choose their own mate. Started in Northern Europe a few centuries back. It has been very stable and has worked well.

We should change it because "secularists" say so?