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

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

Royal Skousen got off a good one-liner about this in the video I watched last night. 

After explaining that adieu had been borrowed from the French and was already an established part of the English vernacular by the 16th century, that the antagonists against Mormonism didn't begin raising a criticism about the presence of the word until the early 1900s when it had begun to fade from use, he said the phrase "Brethren, adieu" is not a problem. Then, he said it might have been a problem had it been "Brethren, adios!"

[Glenn101]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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

You are stretching the point with Joseph. I am going to set up a pretty far fetched scenario. A man marries a woman, gets sealed in the temple. They later divorce and she remarries to a man outside the church. The man marries again, is sealed to his new wife, then they also divorce and she marries another man outside the church. So, the man marries again and again is sealed to his new wife. Is this a polyandrous situation?

Glenn

[ALarson]

40 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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?

 I think that members would just like Joseph's story to align with what they were taught for years regarding the translation process.  One can claim anything they want to claim (ie: that placing a stone in your hat is the same practice as the use of the Urim & Thummim in ancient times), but that doesn't align with what they were taught and what they trusted and believed.  There lies the issue, IMO.

Edited September 4, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

You are stretching the point with Joseph.

Not at all.  He asked women who were already legally married to other living men to become his plural wives.  

Edited September 4, 2017 by ALarson

[strappinglad]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not at all.  He asked women who were already legally married to other men to become his plural wives.  

And in at least one instance , the current husband was at the sealing ceremony. Flag on the play!

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours 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

Heh. You should compare notes with Marginal Gains. He claims that Mormons "shun" those who fall away from the faith. That's the opposite of what you're complaining about. 

Maybe one of you could convince the other. Might be interesting to watch. 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, strappinglad said:

And in at least one instance , the current husband was at the sealing ceremony. 

Ok.  That doesn't change the facts involved (that I stated above).

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

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

Joseph Smith precluded us from making an account of everything because he coyly said that it was done by the 'gift and power of god' in his words.  He didn't explain his process so one is left guessing.  We know from others that the process consisted of Joseph burying his head in his hat and looking at a rock that supposedly had magical parchment appear with the english words under the "caracters."  When one reads the book, it looks like a dictated rough draft where the author is straining to make a point and sometimes catches himself mid-sentence to correct his thought.  The book mirrors Joseph Smith's life somewhat as well.  It has JS Sr.'s dream of the tree of life.  It has a money digging apology in Helaman where Samuel the lamanite explains why buried treasure could not be found.  Joseph dictated himself into the story in 2 Nephi where joseph, lehi's son, is made to prophesy about Joseph Smith, Jr., the great seer from the "future."  Mormon could be said to be a fictionalized Joseph Smith where Mormon sees Jesus at a young age and has all these fantastical gifts that maybe Joseph Smith fantasized about.  So, I would say Joseph Smith invented it himself.  Nevertheless, making me come up with some explanation about how the book of mormon came to be is like me making you discount my "vision" where god himself appeared to me and told me that mormonism was false.  I can't shift the burden to you.  If I make up a fantastical claim like this, the burden is on me to show that I am not making it up.

As for EmodE, my guess is that Mr. Carmack is seeing something in the clouds that is not there or misinterpreting why it is there in the first place.  Why would God have his book translated into EmodE and then later translated?  It doesn't make any sense.  However, that alone doesn't make nonsense nonreality.  However, there isn't any proof that nephites or lamanites actually existed in the americas.  So, that hurdle would seem to be where the focus should lie.  Even so, Joseph Smith obviously wanted his book to sound ancient and biblical.  He wanted his D&C revelations to also sound convincing.  He probably consulted old texts at the library near his home or some of the old spell books circulating around his treasure seeking neighbors and family.  This is probably the explanation of the supposed EmodE that Mr. Carmack sees, if it is even there.  

[Glenn101]

35 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Sophistry. Plus it assumes fats not in evidence.

Please explain. What facts are not in evidence?

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Heh. You should compare notes with Marginal Gains. He claims that Mormons "shun" those who fall away from the faith. That's the opposite of what you're complaining about. 

Maybe one of you could convince the other. Might be interesting to watch. 

Each family responds differently to church pressure to conform.  It doesn't mean that the church doesn't pressure parents to keep their children in the boat.  I know non-conformity is hard to fathom for someone like you who cedes too much thinking to the brethren.  In case you didn't realize this, when the prophet speaks, the thinking is not done.  At least it shouldn't be.

[Glenn101]

1 minute ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

As for EmodE, my guess is that Mr. Carmack is seeing something in the clouds that is not there or misinterpreting why it is there in the first place.  Why would God have his book translated into EmodE and then later translated?  It doesn't make any sense.  However, that alone doesn't make nonsense nonreality.  However, there isn't any proof that nephites or lamanites actually existed in the americas.  So, that hurdle would seem to be where the focus should lie.  Even so, Joseph Smith obviously wanted his book to sound ancient and biblical.  He wanted his D&C revelations to also sound convincing.  He probably consulted old texts at the library near his home or some of the old spell books circulating around his treasure seeking neighbors and family.  This is probably the explanation of the supposed EmodE that Mr. Carmack sees, if it is even there.

We are not talking about what God would or would not have done. All I am asking is for you to provide some type of evidence based explanation of how the Early Modern English appears in the Book of Mormon. Your dismissal of the work that Stanford Carmack and Royal Skousen have done on the subject does not bode well for you having an informed opinion on the subject.

Glenn

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Please explain. What facts are not in evidence?

 

That there is a God. I fully believe there is the LDS concept of a Christian God, but that belief doesn't make it a fact. Doesn't make it false either. Faith is the evidence of unseen things, and science is the evidence of seen things. 

[Glenn101]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not at all.  He asked women who were already legally married to other living men to become his plural wives. 

And I am sure that you know the rest of the story concerning that chapter.

You did not respond to my scenario. 

 

33 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I am going to set up a pretty far fetched scenario. A man marries a woman, gets sealed in the temple. They later divorce and she remarries to a man outside the church. The man marries again, is sealed to his new wife, then they also divorce and she marries another man outside the church. So, the man marries again and again is sealed to his new wife. Is this a polyandrous situation?

Glenn

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

We are not talking about what God would or would not have done. All I am asking is for you to provide some type of evidence based explanation of how the Early Modern English appears in the Book of Mormon. Your dismissal of the work that Stanford Carmack and Royal Skousen have done on the subject does not bode well for you having an informed opinion on the subject.

Glenn

You are assuming that there is any validity to what they are doing in the first place.  Since there are no nephites or lamanites, one has to assume there are clouds in sky and not stripling warriors marching to save missionaries in the MTC from satan's armies or however the tall tail, MTC rumor went.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

4 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

 I am going to set up a pretty far fetched scenario. A man marries a woman, gets sealed in the temple. They later divorce and she remarries to a man outside the church. The man marries again, is sealed to his new wife, then they also divorce and she marries another man outside the church. So, the man marries again and again is sealed to his new wife. Is this a polyandrous situation?

 

Glenn

No, because the church marriages do not have any validity.  The women get divorced according to law.

[Michael Sudworth]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

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.

I think you have misunderstood the essence of my questions.

You are arguing that:

A) Mormonism promotes missionary work, including full time missionaries and informal "member missionaries"

B) This focus on missionary work causes believing LDS to become aggressive/annoying/uncaring in regard to former members who have left the LDS Church

C) Therefore, believing LDS being aggressive/annoying/uncaring in regard to former members who have left the LDS Church.  A, therefore, has a causal relationship to C via B.

If I can disprove C, then I also disprove B. Which then nullifies any causal link between LDS missionary work and individual believing members being jerks.

I've already disproven C with the example I provided about my best man. I could rattle off many others.  But in any case, your assertion B is still very much in doubt. 

So until you can prove B, I don't think your conclusions have a rational basis.

And of course, we haven't even talked about your sense of moral superiority over believers because you "can see the sun shining."  All while you claim it is members who believe they are morally superior to you.  You seem to appreciate reason and yet in this instance, you a seem to have left it at the door.

[Michael Sudworth]

Just now, Michael Sudworth said:

C) Therefore, believing LDS being aggressive/annoying/uncaring in regard to former members who have left the LDS Church.  A, therefore, has a causal relationship to C via B.

This should read: "Therefore, believing LDS are aggressive/annoying/uncaring towards former members who have left the LDS Church.  A, therefore, has a causal relationship to C via B.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

And I am sure that you know the rest of the story concerning that chapter.

?  

10 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

You did not respond to my scenario. 

 

45 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I am going to set up a pretty far fetched scenario. A man marries a woman, gets sealed in the temple. They later divorce and she remarries to a man outside the church. The man marries again, is sealed to his new wife, then they also divorce and she marries another man outside the church. So, the man marries again and again is sealed to his new wife. Is this a polyandrous situation?

Well, I had to read it several times to keep track...ha!     You gave a very confusing scenario 

You don't specify if the divorces involved sealing cancellations and if so, all of them or just some of them?

 

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

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

 

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

I am not talking about you, but quoting Peterson regarding the CES author specifically and critics in general.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Edited September 4, 2017 by cdowis

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

 I think that members would just like Joseph's story to align with what they were taught for years regarding the translation process.  One can claim anything they want to claim (ie: that placing a stone in your hat is the same practice as the use of the Urim & Thummim in ancient times), but that doesn't align with what they were taught and what they trusted and believed.  There lies the issue, IMO.

There is a big difference between finding an error and correcting it and beating someone over the head with it.

Yesterday, in priesthood, the story of Ammon's Mission to the lamanites came up.  The teacher was telling how Ammon was sent to take care of the King's Sheep. I pointed out that the Story never mentions sheep.  After I made this comment, there was a fun discussion on what animals could have composed this flock. Some people said it could have been geese others thought about turkeys.  It was fun and a common misconception was corrected (if they remember the class at all).

On the other hand, many here seem to think that I should have made a big issue on how the church deceived them, tricked them by commissioning someone to paint a picture with sheep in it.  I should have told them that they can now no longer trust the church that it is only out to deceive, trick them and take their money.  Everything good thing, every spiritual experience they had was fake because the church taught them there were sheep in the Ammon Story.

In the end they are not criticizing to improve, be helpful or bring light and knowledge, but they are criticizing to destroy, cast doubt and tear down.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

I disagree with 18+ marriage because our young men and women need to go on a mission. I am only for 20+ year marriage because the brain fully develops until the mid 20s, for me 20+ years is the line. 

I don't understand what you mean by "society's best form of marriage we have tried" because in many states 16-17 years is legal. However, there are many problems with our system because a 19 year old can get arrested and registered as an offender for dating a 16 year. I think there are serious flaws with the system because too many people go to prison for stupid stuff. So it is obviously not the best system. Both University books I was mentioning do point to that problem 

 So to confirm I don't agree with 16-17 year old marriage because our young need to go on a mission,  I was simply defending our prophet Joseph Smith and pointing out that even secular scientists, law scholars, and psychologists are okay with 16-17 year marriage.  Some states are okay with it, even some successful European countries are also okay with 16-17 year. 

Our system is also making our young men and women get married older. The median age for marriage is now 25 years because everything is costing most including education. So, the main problem is the system in my view. 

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

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.

Yes, Mr. Jeffs was a crazy and evil man.

Edited September 4, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Atheist Mormon]

18 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would agree that Jeremey Runnells lacks original criticism.  At least in his CES letter what exactly is in that letter that is not found found in other anti-LDS sources?  If it is all the same, it is not original. 

I do appreciate critical viewpoints of the Church as it can stimulate thought and discussion.  My testimony is much stronger as a result of looking at critical views and looking at all the different ways to look at an issue.  If people are simply given softball topics and answers, they will never be prepared for difficult issues when they arise.  I would call a critic and even an LDS member a zombie if all they do is repeat a response on an issue that has not been thought out first.  Usually they can be called a zombie when they can't speak beyond a few sentences of a talking point. 

I don't consider myself partial too either Church or jeremy on this matter but in his webpage Jeremy wrote;

It has become very clear to me that the church does not have answers to a truth crisis. The questions that I have asked the stake president over and over for the last year and a half have been:

• What errors or mistakes are there in the CES letter or on my website that I can publicly correct?
• If there are no errors or mistakes, why am I being punished for seeking and sharing the truth?
• What questions am I being punished for?

And he never answered any of those questions once.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

That there is a God. I fully believe there is the LDS concept of a Christian God, but that belief doesn't make it a fact. Doesn't make it false either. Faith is the evidence of unseen things, and science is the evidence of seen things. 

Okay. I'm with you there. Have to amend my narrative to "the Bible tells me so."

 

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I don't consider myself partial too either Church or jeremy on this matter but in his webpage Jeremy wrote;

It has become very clear to me that the church does not have answers to a truth crisis. The questions that I have asked the stake president over and over for the last year and a half have been:

• What errors or mistakes are there in the CES letter or on my website that I can publicly correct?
• If there are no errors or mistakes, why am I being punished for seeking and sharing the truth?
• What questions am I being punished for?

And he never answered any of those questions once.

It is not the responsibility, or the burden  of a SP to answer your questions.   It is your burden and something between yourself and God.  I suggest you start by following Peter's example in answering this question ==>>

Matt 16 [15] He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
[16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Edited September 4, 2017 by cdowis

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

You are assuming that there is any validity to what they are doing in the first place.  Since there are no nephites or lamanites, one has to assume there are clouds in sky and not stripling warriors marching to save missionaries in the MTC from satan's armies or however the tall tail, MTC rumor went.

I have read Stanford's articles. I can follow his logic although I am not a linguist. His early Modern English examples from the Book of Mormon can be easily verified using the Oxford English Dictionary. He lists his sources for anyone to verify or refute. Now, if you do not feel it is valid please show us and Stanford where he is wrong. It doesn't matter in this case whether there were Nephites and Lamanites since you ado not believe the Book of Mormon to be divinely inspired. I am only asking that you provide an alternative, evidence based theory on how Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon himself. That explanation needs to account for the things that have been discovered about the Book of Mormon over the years. I was trying to make it easy on you by starting with just one. If the Book of Mormon was not produced by the power of God, there should be a perfectly logical explanation for the presence of substantive Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon. If you can provide that evidence you will become an instant hero to so many who have had to resort to "I don't have to prove my assertions" because they have no evidence based answers.

Glenn