Seeking A Solid Response

[Jane_Doe]

Again you dodge the fact that they are QUOTING LDS SOURCES!

You are still attempting to get people to not pay attention through poisoning the wells!

Doctrines, joey smith sermons, pearl of great
Price, encyclopedia of Mormonism are sources

Do the research and get
Back to me , don’t rinse and repeat!

Was God a man before he became God? Was Adam a God? If you reject those claims you are not following the teaching of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young respectively.

I have done all the research.

Now, are YOU willing to hear the results and have a factual dialogue where you learn about actual LDS beliefs?

 

[Uber Genius]

Actually, there *are* issues with various colleges these days. Institutions that are functionally nothing more than diploma mills, institutions where the professor's personal beliefs are taught as fact, institutions where dissenting opinions are silenced under threat of expulsion or even arrest, institutions where activism and unrest are promoted ahead of actual academics, et cetra.

while I agree with your point it is a non-sequitur.

I was simply pointing out the emtailments of Jane Doe’s refutation of experts and that it is hard to limit the damage to knowledge when you destroy expertise. Unless of course you are just trying to poison the wells to one expert without any research!

 

[Uber Genius]

I have done all the research.

Now, are YOU willing to hear the results and have a factual dialogue where you learn about actual LDS beliefs?

So my 39 years has got me covered thanks! My hundreds of hours studying your texts should suffice. Do you think your beliefs are going to be different than the hundreds of hours meeting with local and regional directors in Ohio?

If you believe differently than your sources why call yourself
LDS?

But I’m curious as to if you agree that God was a man.

 

[HitchSlap]

The OP has been hotly debated for a couple weeks now, so not sure what I could add, but I do have a question for the OP:


Are there any non-Mormon critics that you consider to be fair and unbiased in their Mormon critique?

I've brought this up several times before, including here on CF, and it's rare for me to get a solid response either way.

So, here it goes.

The incident in question happened about 10 years ago.

A used to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, what most people know as the "Mormons". I was one of several people conversing with her on an online forum dedicated to discussing religion.

During the conversation, she name-dropped the author whose works brought her out of the church. This caused a number of people - myself included - to be rather alarmed. The author in question is known by both Mormon and non-Mormon alike to be so agenda-driven that he's more than willing to lie if it achieves his ends. That's right: the author proclaims himself a "Good Christian", yet it takes minimal effort to find outright lies in his works. Basically, he's willing to use the Devil's tactics in God's name.

When we explained this to her, she was alarmed and said that she would take things under consideration.

A week later, she came back. She had investigated the author and his works from both sides, and found that his material was indeed wanting. Based on this, she was going to investigate the LDS faith a second time over.

In response to this, Minister P - yes, he had "Minister" in his user title and had been claiming to be the minister of a Baptist congregation - fired off a scathing open letter to B, A's husband. In the letter, Minister P literally declared that if B did't use "any means necessary" (direct quote) to prevent A from re-joining the LDS faith, then he would be a failure as both a husband and a Christian.

A made one final response a day or two after the letter was posted. As she explained, B was just as furious about the letter as A was. Neither person wanted to be a member of any church that would have Minister P as a minister, and so this incident made their minds up: A and B were, indeed, going to become Mormon.

I've brought this up in an effort to explain how overly-aggressive and overly-hostile ministers can do more harm than good, yet if I'm not being ignored I'm having people try to explain how in their eyes Minister P didn't do anything wrong.

Are Minister P's actions in keeping with what is acceptable in mainline Christianity?

Yes or no?

 

[Jane_Doe]

So my 39 years has got me covered thanks! My hundreds of hours studying your texts should suffice. Do you think your beliefs are going to be different than the hundreds of hours meeting with local and regional directors in Ohio?

If you believe differently than your sources why call yourself
LDS?

But I’m curious as to if you agree that God was a man.

The sources you've been quoting on this forum are proganda, nothing more. If that's all you want to hear, I'll leave you to it.

If at any time you're wanting something more and to learn about actual LDS beliefs, feel free to give me a ping.

May Christ be with you on your walk through life.

 

[HitchSlap]

The sources you've been quoting on this forum are proganda, nothing more. If that's all you want to hear, I'll leave you to it.

If at any time you're wanting something more and to learn about actual LDS beliefs, feel free to give me a ping.

May Christ be with you on your walk through life.

Did you read Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven?

 

[Jane_Doe]

The OP has been hotly debated for a couple weeks now, so not sure what I could add, but I do have a question for the OP:


Are there any non-Mormon critics that you consider to be fair and unbiased in their Mormon critique?

The best person to ask "What to LDS believe" is a LDS person. Just like "What to Catholics believe" is best addressed to Catholic person, or Just like "What to atheists believe" is best addressed to atheists person. It's simply getting things from direct sources.

However, not all non-LDS folks are junk-- not by any stretch! I'm particularly a fan of Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen H. Webb's work.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Did you read Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven?

I am familiar with that book, yes.

 

[HitchSlap]

The best person to ask "What to LDS believe" is a LDS person. Just like "What to Catholics believe" is best addressed to Catholic person, or Just like "What to atheists believe" is best addressed to atheists person. It's simply getting things from direct sources.

However, not all non-LDS folks are junk-- not by any stretch! I'm particularly a fan of Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen H. Webb's work.

In my experience, those most closely involved in a belief system are least likely to provide critical analysis of their religion. In particular, the LDS are repeat offenders when it comes to protecting their parishioners from disparaging facts.

I suggest you read Krakauer's book, it's heavily sourced and quite unbiased.

 

[Jane_Doe]

In my experience, those most closely involved in a belief system are least likely to provide critical analysis of their religion. In particular, the LDS are repeat offenders when it comes to protecting their parishioners from disparaging facts.

It depends on what you're looking for in the way of critique.

If we're talking about a person who just attends a church (aka sits there butt on the pew Sunday morning and nothing else) doesn't have a very deep knowledge base. No argument from me there. After all, the purpose of church is to communion with deity, not to have college class on history/comparatives/philosophies etc. Plus, every church will give parishioners homework to do (scripture reading, better practices, etc) but if a person doesn't do the homework they get little (if any) benefit from it. This applies for all schools of thought, religious and non.

Now the people I was talking about before was a person who does do their homework, does live the faith, and does read deeply. I would say that's the best person to ask about that denomination's doctrine and faith.

In regards to LDS in particular: I'm not denying that there are some LDS Sunday bench warmers. We as a church try our best to make a person more than that, but aren't always successful. I actually do find the LDS church is great as far as opportunities to learn about stuff and deepen faith roots. But you got to be more than a bench warmer.

Of course, I will also happily acknowledge that other faiths can also be really good about opportunities to learn about their beliefs as well-- I quite applaud all people learning and personally enjoy the opportunity to learn about other faiths myself.

 

[HitchSlap]

It depends on what you're looking for in the way of critique.

If we're talking about a person who just attends a church (aka sits there butt on the pew Sunday morning and nothing else) doesn't have a very deep knowledge base. No argument from me there. After all, the purpose of church is to communion with deity, not to have college class on history/comparatives/philosophies etc. Plus, every church will give parishioners homework to do (scripture reading, better practices, etc) but if a person doesn't do the homework they get little (if any) benefit from it. This applies for all schools of thought, religious and non.

Now the people I was talking about before was a person who does do their homework, does live the faith, and does read deeply. I would say that's the best person to ask about that denomination's doctrine and faith.

In regards to LDS in particular: I'm not denying that there are some LDS Sunday bench warmers. We as a church try our best to make a person more than that, but aren't always successful. I actually do find the LDS church is great as far as opportunities to learn about stuff and deepen faith roots. But you got to be more than a bench warmer.

Of course, I will also happily acknowledge that other faiths can also be really good about opportunities to learn about their beliefs as well-- I quite applaud all people learning and personally enjoy the opportunity to learn about other faiths myself.

For instance, do you accept that Joseph Smith was at one point a "treasure hunter" in his early life?

 

[Jane_Doe]

For instance, do you accept that Joseph Smith was at one point a "treasure hunter" in his early life?

I acknowledge that fact and have actually studied the culture around that time/place in that regard as well. (I kind of feel like this is stating the obvious)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Mormonism crumbles on it’s own merits. Why use lies when the truth will suffice.

?
Propaganda works ! ? for any number of reasons, people love darkness instead of the truth.

 

[HitchSlap]

I acknowledge that fact and have actually studied the culture around that time/place in that regard as well. (I kind of feel like this is stating the obvious)

Would you consider the following quote to be unbiased and factual in content?



"In March 1826 a court in Bainbridge, New York, convicted a twenty-one-year-old man of being "a disorderly person and an impostor." That ought to have been all we ever heard of Joseph Smith, who at trial admitted to defrauding citizens by organizing mad gold-digging expeditions and also to claiming to possess dark or "necromantic" powers. However, within four years he was back in the local newspapers (all of which one may still read) as the discoverer of the "Book of Mormon." He had two huge local advantages which most mountebanks and charlatans do not possess. First, he was operating in the same hectically pious district that gave us the Shakers and several other self-proclaimed American prophets. So notorious did this local tendency become that the region became known as the "Burned-Over District," in honor of the way in which it had surrendered to one religious craze after another. Second, he was operating in an area which, unlike large tracts of the newly opening North America, did possess the signs of an ancient history."

 

[Jane_Doe]

Would you consider the following quote to be unbiased and factual in content?

other people's bibles.


"In March 1826 a court in Bainbridge, New York, convicted a twenty-one-year-old man of being "a disorderly person and an impostor." That ought to have been all we ever heard of Joseph Smith, who at trial admitted to defrauding citizens by organizing mad gold-digging expeditions and also to claiming to possess dark or "necromantic" powers. However, within four years he was back in the local newspapers (all of which one may still read) as the discoverer of the "Book of Mormon." He had two huge local advantages which most mountebanks and charlatans do not possess. First, he was operating in the same hectically pious district that gave us the Shakers and several other self-proclaimed American prophets. So notorious did this local tendency become that the region became known as the "Burned-Over District," in honor of the way in which it had surrendered to one religious craze after another. Second, he was operating in an area which, unlike large tracts of the newly opening North America, did possess the signs of an ancient history."

You asked about "other people's Bible" and then quote a source which is not a Bible. So I'm a little confused in that regard.

As to address the quote you did provide, I'll say this as a studier of history: early 1800's American courts were in no way unbiassed. Furthermore, the records we have of these proceedings are incomplete.

So I'll acknowledge this record exists and have read it. Am I automatically going to accept it's conclusion? No, I'm instead going to do my own investigation and think for myself.

 

[HitchSlap]

You asked about "other people's Bible" and then quote a source which is not a Bible. So I'm a little confused in that regard.

Sorry, the "other people's Bible" was a mistake and I've edited it out.

As to address the quote you did provide, I'll say this as a studier of history: early 1800's American courts were in no way unbiassed. Furthermore, the records we have of these proceedings are incomplete.

Do you accept that Joseph Smith's locale was rife with new religions and supernatural claims?

So I'll acknowledge this record exists and have read it. Am I automatically going to accept it's conclusion? No, I'm instead going to do my own investigation and think for myself.

If you don't accept the summation of the above quote, what specifically to take exception to?

 

[Jane_Doe]

If you don't accept the summation of the above quote, what specifically to take exception to?

It is a matter of conducting my own analysis and doing my own thinking, rather than having a single 1800's quote do it all for me.

 

[HitchSlap]

It is a matter of conducting my own analysis and doing my own thinking, rather than having a single 1800's quote do it all for me.

I understand.

I'm asking what specifically you object to? For instance, do you accept that Joseph Smith participated in "organizing mad gold-digging expeditions and also to claiming to possess dark or "necromantic" powers," per Bainbridge court records?

 

[Jane_Doe]

I understand.

I'm asking what specifically you object to? For instance, do you accept that Joseph Smith participated in "organizing mad gold-digging expeditions and also to claiming to possess dark or "necromantic" powers," per Bainbridge court records?

For what effect?

 

[HitchSlap]

For what effect?

I'm trying to understand what your current personal beliefs are about Joseph Smith.