What's so bad about the Book of Mormon?

[smaneck]

Yes, and I highlighted in red.
Jacob 2
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. 24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Interesting. So the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy in ways that the Bible does not.

 

[smaneck]

So...? you want to commit all kind of evil in the name of God, and wants also everyone to have a closed mouth? just because you are....special?

Uh, these are not things the Mormon Church is doing today.

 

[Ironhold]

Uh, these are not things the Mormon Church is doing today.

If anything, we're more likely to see this mentality held by the "Once Saved, Always Saved" crowd within mainline Christianity.

I've dealt with more than a few OSAS types who, in essence, believed that because they were "saved" it didn't matter what they did with their lives; they already had a ticket to Heaven.

Made it that much easier for them to justify doing all sorts of wickedness in God's name.

 

[drstevej]

^^^ So that's why you guys rewrote Romasns 8:30.....

 

[Songsmith]

^^^ So that's why you guys rewrote Romasns 8:30.....

I'm sorry, but I fail to see what you are getting at. Please detail what the difference is that you see between justified and sanctified and why it's so abhorrent to you. I have ideas on that, but I'm interested in what you say in the matter.

 

[EarlyChristianresearcher]

IvancO: "contradictions"? Response: That's what Atheists & early anti-Christians also bring up. How would a Christians answer them?

IvancO: "...Mormonism is a nice ideal, but born out of lot of confusion, the main detractors of Mormonism in the time of Joseph Smith, were the disgusted members of the Mormon church itself."

Response: Christ's church, like the restored gospel, had human members in it. With humanity also comes human mistakes, emotions, bad choices, & the Bible is filled with a lot of confusion, the main detractors of early Christianity in the time of Christ & his apostles, were the disgusted members of Christ's church itself. Accepting our humanity & not expecting everyone to be perfect in this life, is the answers to many polemical arguments that uses a long list of religionists' weaknesses as "evidences" & "reasons why not to believe." Again, listing the "crimes" of Christians is also another Athestic, & early anti-Christian tactic too. So how would modern Christians answer these tactics? (John 6:51-64; Francis Legge, Forerunners And Rivals Of Christianity, (From 330 B.C. TO 330 A.D.), 2 Volumes as 1, (New Hyde Park, New York: University Books, 1964);
Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, (New York: Atheneum, 1979). W. H. C. Frend: Martyrdom & Persecution In The Early Church, (Garden City, New York: Anchor Books Doubleday & Company, 1967).

IvancO: "Most of the adventures he [Joseph Smith] took failed, The Bank, Zion, and as a result you have members who lost every thing they were very upset."

Response: The Kirtland bank failure, was not the only bank failure, for there were many all over the country, during the banking "crisis" of the 1830s. LDS Apologists have answered this issue, which is often used to vilify Joseph Smith. Again, anti-Mormon "Christians" model for someone being a prophet is that they're suppose to be perfect. They then immune the Bible prophets from this model with double standards. (For some aspects of the banking crisis during the 1830s, see: G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island, A Second Look At the Federal Reserve, (California: America Media, 1994, 5th Edition, Sept. 2010).

Ivanc0: "He [Joseph Smith] was imprisoned for burning a news paper in Nauvoo, They were criticising poligamy, and Joseph and Emma did wrote articles and deny Polygamy on those days."

Response: Again, another early anti-Christian polemical parallel on the list of "reason why not to believe" that modern Christians would also have to answer too. Celsus, 2nd cent. critic, charged that the early "...Christians nonetheless "worship a man who was arrested & died," & such worship cannot be accounted better than that of pagans." Celsus also mocked the early Christians in these words: "...The Christians put forth this Jesus not only as the son of God but as the very Logos--not the pure & holy Logos known to the philosophers,...mind you, but a new kind of Logos: a man who managed to get himself arrested & executed in the most humiliating of circumstances."1

Celsus: "...If the central doctrine of Christianity bears testing, why should we not wonder whether every condemned man is an angel even greater than your divine Jesus? I mean, why not be completely shameless & confess that every robber, every convicted murderer, is neither robber nor murderer but a god? And why? Because he had told his robber band beforehand that he would come to no good end & wind up a dead man. Your case is made the harder because not even his disciples believed in him at the time of his humiliation: those who had heard him preach & were taught by him, when they saw he was heading for trouble, did not stick with him. They were neither willing to die for his sake nor to become martyrs for his cause--they even denied they had known him! Yet on the example of those original traitors, you stake your faith & profess your willingness to die."2

I've also seen anti-Mormon "Christians" forget to mention: History of the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 91-3," "Next day I was brought before the magistrate's court at Colseville, Broome county, and put upon trial...." (This is where they stop with their quote, using the ellipsis or (...). What follows is interesting to consider, for it seem to give the other side of the story of which we sometimes do not ever hear or read of in anti- Mormon publications or meetings, except in a biased way, if they ever do present it. The following is the part that the Tanners have decided not to include for some reason: (p.91) "...Several other attempts were made to prove something against me, and even circumstances which were alleged to have taken place in Broome county, were brought forward, but these my lawyers would not admit of as testimony against me; in consequence of which my persecutors managed to detain the court until they had succeeded in obtaining a warrent from Broome county, which warrent they served upon me at the very moment that I was acquitted by this court...."3

Perhaps the critics standards & tactic, would give us the following: Did Christ talk with devils? (Matt.4:1-11). Was he a perfectionist? (Matt. 5:48). Teach self mutilation? (Matt. 5:29-30). Teach people to do things in secret? (Matt.6:16-18). Talk with ghosts or dead heroes? (Matt.17:3-5). Did Christ call people bad names? (Matt. 23:23-7, 33 etc.) Lose his temper? (Mark 11:15-19). Give himself up to become a human-god sacrifice? (Mark 10:33-4).

Notes: 1- Hoffmann, Celsus On The True Doctrine, p.38, 64-6.
2- Ibid. p.65-6. Origen Against Celsus, ANF 4.
3* History of the Church Vol.1 p.91-3.

More responses to follow.

 

[A New Dawn]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see what you are getting at. Please detail what the difference is that you see between justified and sanctified and why it's so abhorrent to you. I have ideas on that, but I'm interested in what you say in the matter.

Justification is the legal aspect of salvation. Christ died for those who believed on Him, so when one comes to belief, they become saved. It is a legal reckoning.

Sanctification is the part of salvation that we participate in, in which we become conformed to the image of Christ.

Salvation has 3 tenses.
Justification - past tense of salvation. We are saved from the penalty of sin. Christ died for our sins. All our sins.
Sanctification - present tense of salvation. We are saved from the power of sin. We cooperate with the Holy Spirit to become conformed to the image of Christ.
Glorification - future tense of salvation. We are saved from the presence of sin. We will live with God in glory.

(I remember this same discussion with drstevej. 10 years ago, almost exactly! PTL!)

 

[ivanc0]

If anything, we're more likely to see this mentality held by the "Once Saved, Always Saved" crowd within mainline Christianity.

I've dealt with more than a few OSAS types who, in essence, believed that because they were "saved" it didn't matter what they did with their lives; they already had a ticket to Heaven.

Made it that much easier for them to justify doing all sorts of wickedness in God's name.

Mormon's leadership were not exception, see the polygamy practice as example.

Some people affirm that Joseph married already married woman, unfortunately I could not confirm as there is just silence in the church side about polygamy.

 

[A New Dawn]

If anything, we're more likely to see this mentality held by the "Once Saved, Always Saved" crowd within mainline Christianity.

I've dealt with more than a few OSAS types who, in essence, believed that because they were "saved" it didn't matter what they did with their lives; they already had a ticket to Heaven.

Made it that much easier for them to justify doing all sorts of wickedness in God's name.

TBH, you must have dealt with the very few who believed that because Paul is clear in the Bible that you can't do what you want because you believe you are saved. I probably know a lot more Christians than you do, and I don't know anyone who believes that. Real Christians will bear fruit of their changed heart status.

I know we have had this discussion before, but it doesn't surprise me that you continually make reference to this as being something Christians who believe in OSAS believe. If you continue to suggest that we should believe you when you say something, then ISTM that you would believe us when we say something.

 

[Albion]

If anything, we're more likely to see this mentality held by the "Once Saved, Always Saved" crowd within mainline Christianity.

I've dealt with more than a few OSAS types who, in essence, believed that because they were "saved" it didn't matter what they did with their lives; they already had a ticket to Heaven.

Just to be clear, however, we cannot condemn a valid Biblical doctrine just because some people have abused it or misunderstood it. If that were fair, we'd have to condemn most of the teachings of the Bible...because, obviously, we can find some people somewhere who misrepresent or twist those teachings to their benefit.

 

[Ironhold]

IvancO: "...Mormonism is a nice ideal, but born out of lot of confusion, the main detractors of Mormonism in the time of Joseph Smith, were the disgusted members of the Mormon church itself."

Response: Christ's church, like the restored gospel, had human members in it. With humanity also comes human mistakes, emotions, bad choices, & the Bible is filled with a lot of confusion, the main detractors of early Christianity in the time of Christ & his apostles, were the disgusted members of Christ's church itself. Accepting our humanity & not expecting everyone to be perfect in this life, is the answers to many polemical arguments that uses a long list of religionists' weaknesses as "evidences" & "reasons why not to believe." Again, listing the "crimes" of Christians is also another Athestic, & early anti-Christian tactic too. So how would modern Christians answer these tactics? (John 6:51-64; Francis Legge, Forerunners And Rivals Of Christianity, (From 330 B.C. TO 330 A.D.), 2 Volumes as 1, (New Hyde Park, New York: University Books, 1964);
Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, (New York: Atheneum, 1979). W. H. C. Frend: Martyrdom & Persecution In The Early Church, (Garden City, New York: Anchor Books Doubleday & Company, 1967).

Don't forget that a lot of these individuals were folks like Philastus Hurlbut (who was kicked out of the church for misconduct) and Simmonds Ryder (who lost his faith when someone accidentally misspelled his name in an official document).

 

[Ironhold]

Some people affirm that Joseph married already married woman, unfortunately I could not confirm as there is just silence in the church side about polygamy.

There's a debate as to the nature of some of these marriages, especially since records seem to indicate that a few took place after his death.

It's a rather complicated issue, one that isn't helped by oversimplification.

 

[skylark1]

Don't forget that a lot of these individuals were folks like Philastus Hurlbut (who was kicked out of the church for misconduct) and Simmonds Ryder (who lost his faith when someone accidentally misspelled his name in an official document).

Hi Ironhold,

I read your post, and was very surprised that anyone would leave a church because someone had misspelled their name. I had never heard of Symonds Ryder. I didn't know if he was alive today, or long ago. So, an internet search revealed that he was an early Mormon, and that what you stated is often told to LDS evidently to show that people left the LDS Church for trivial reasons.

After read this, I still had a hard time believing that anyone would leave a church for that reason, and I came across the following. It is better to read the entire article. I don't know anything about this website, but they seem to have researched the historical record.

Ryder’s commission with the misspelling of his name took place in June 1831 and may account for his not going to Missouri, but as noted he did not leave the church until Ezra Booth’s return in September. In the meantime, Ryder became concerned about other developments. In a letter to A.S. Hayden he wrote:

“But when they [Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon] went to Missouri to lay the foundation of the splendid city of Zion, and also of the temple, they left their papers behind. This gave their new converts an opportunity to become acquainted with the internal arrangement of their church, which revealed to them the horrid fact that a plot was laid to take their property from them and place it under the control of Joseph Smith the prophet. This was too much for the Hiramites, and they left the Mormonites faster than they had ever joined them, and by fall the Mormon church in Hiram was a very lean concern.” (Symonds Ryder, “Letter to A. S. Hayden,” February 1, 1868, cited in Hayden, op. cit., pp. 220, 221.)​

It seems that the coming threat of enforced consecration might have been more of a problem for Ryder than the misspelling of his name. The influence of his disaffected friend Ezra Booth must have also had an effect upon Symonds.

Symonds Ryder and a Crisis of Faith | Mormon Matters​

Later the article stated:

Such a view boils the disaffection of these individuals down to a single, easily dismissed anecdote rather than acknowledging the difficult and complex issues they faced. This practice encourages members today to dismiss the very real concerns confronted by members who question aspects of the Church. “If you have questions, you must be sinning,” the party line goes. In reality, there are multiple tangled and tortuous reasons why someone may develop a crisis of faith. Not only should we look deeper into the available documents to discover the motivations of historical figures, we should listen, and listen, and listen some more to come to a greater understanding of our friends and associates who question.​

I think that it is likely that when someone leaves a faith that their reasons do not boil down to single trivial thing, and that their reasons are usually much more significant and complex.

FWIW.

 

[Ironhold]

TBH, you must have dealt with the very few who believed that because Paul is clear in the Bible that you can't do what you want because you believe you are saved. I probably know a lot more Christians than you do, and I don't know anyone who believes that. Real Christians will bear fruit of their changed heart status.

I know we have had this discussion before, but it doesn't surprise me that you continually make reference to this as being something Christians who believe in OSAS believe. If you continue to suggest that we should believe you when you say something, then ISTM that you would believe us when we say something.

Back in the late 1970s, two members of the Christian counter-cult movement became overly bold. One man, D. J. Nelson, challenged everyone to test his academic credentials to prove if he was real or fake. The other man, Walter Martin, declared that "cultists" were every bit as fair game as the message they were delivering.

Unfortunately for the entire movement, the late 1970s / early 1980s represented a cohort shift among LDS apologists. Rather than play defense (as what took place under the Talmage and Nibley cohorts), this cohort wanted to play offense. To them, the words of these two individuals was a call to arms.

To the Christian counter-cult movement, it was the death knell.

Robert and Rosemary Brown decided to investigate D. J. Nelson's credentials, and found that he was a bold-faced liar. His vaunted degree in Egyptology - which he claimed as his basis for criticisms of the LDS faith - was a fraud, purchased from a diploma mill. His supposed field work never happened. Once the Browns published their findings, Nelson's career disintegrated overnight.

But the Browns didn't simply shine a spotlight on one individual. They kicked over a rock and sent all of the insects underneath scurrying.

Martin? His first religious ordination was revoked, and the Browns could find nothing to confirm a subsequent ordination. They also could not evidence to indicate that the college he supposedly got his doctorate in theology from had an accredited doctorate program at the time.

J. Edward Decker? Decker's ex-wife eventually surfaced with her copy of the divorce paperwork. While Decker claims that he had a conversion experience that led him out of the LDS faith, his wife claimed that Decker faced excommunication for a string of extra-marital affairs.

Alberto Rivera? Although Rivera claimed to have fled Spain because the Catholic church was hunting him down, it was discovered that he was actually fleeing an arrest warrant for fraud.

Loftes Tryk? He didn't leave the LDS faith willingly. He was a convicted sex offender who was excommunicated for his crime.

Et cetra.

The 1980s and early 1990s saw many individuals who were luminaries in the world of the Christian counter-cult shot down in flames as background checks of the type called for by Nelson and Martin showed a shameful display of falsehoods and wickedness.

This "background check" approach was eventually re-mated with Nibley-style intensive research into the claims made by these individuals. In the end, it was determined that many of the allegations made by these individuals against various "cults" were false, with some representing overt lies made up by these people.

By the time this period was over, we were looking at Sodom & Gomorrah. Not only were these individuals exposed - often in serious sin - others imploded (such as John Todd, who was convicted of rape and molestation, and Rick Ross, who lost his original ministry over a kidnapping case).

Things got worse for the counter-cult movement in the 1990s, as individuals like FARMS, FAIR, SHIELDS, and Jeff Lindsay from the next cohort began to emerge. Thanks to the internet, these people were able to leave online repositories of facts to counter the allegations made by the counter-cult movement and leave testimonies - including picture galleries - showing the misdeeds and even full-fledged wickedness of the individuals involved in the counter-cult movement.

Cohort 6 represents folks like me who went wild weasel against the counter-cult movement during the early 2000s. A lot of us saw absolutely hideous things in the process, as members of the counter-cult movement found themselves having to deal with Mormons who were bold enough to defend the faith and knowledgeable enough to succeed in doing so. I've been threatened with physical violence. I've been personally targeted by a counter-cult ministry. I had an anti-Mormon minister / author personally insult me in a public forum. I've seen counter-cult members blame Mormonism for a whole host of evils, including various murderers. I even saw an ordained minister sanction spousal abuse as a means for men to keep their wives from becoming Mormon. The worst individuals here don't even come close to the foulness I witnessed originating from the Christian counter-cult back then. But in the end, folks like us served as a shield wall against which the Christian counter-cult broke itself; we humiliated or even took down more than a few individuals back then, ranging from rank-and-file haters to big-name leaders.

We wound up paving the way for cohort 7, the "I'm a Mormon" crowd. As much damage as we did to the Christian counter-cult by delving deeper into its dark underbelly, the charm offensive represented by modern efforts has had the effect of finishing the job. Those members of the Christian counter-cult who haven't been forced to re-evaluate what they're doing have radicalized themselves almost to the point of self-parody. If you don't believe me, try making your way through this, an open letter written by one such self-parodic Christian counter-cult member in response to an independent Protestant church attempting a charm offensive of its own.

So no matter what certain individuals would have you guys believe, as the Mosser-Owen Report warned all the way back in '97, we're winning. And it's in large part because the whole "God's on our side, so whatever we do is just fine!" mentality the Christian counter-cult has seen fit to adopt.

 

[drstevej]

Have you investigated my credentials yet?

 

[Ran77]

Back in the late 1970s, two members of the Christian counter-cult movement became overly bold. One man, D. J. Nelson, challenged everyone to test his academic credentials to prove if he was real or fake. The other man, Walter Martin, declared that "cultists" were every bit as fair game as the message they were delivering.

Unfortunately for the entire movement, the late 1970s / early 1980s represented a cohort shift among LDS apologists. Rather than play defense (as what took place under the Talmage and Nibley cohorts), this cohort wanted to play offense. To them, the words of these two individuals was a call to arms.

To the Christian counter-cult movement, it was the death knell.

Robert and Rosemary Brown decided to investigate D. J. Nelson's credentials, and found that he was a bold-faced liar. His vaunted degree in Egyptology - which he claimed as his basis for criticisms of the LDS faith - was a fraud, purchased from a diploma mill. His supposed field work never happened. Once the Browns published their findings, Nelson's career disintegrated overnight.

But the Browns didn't simply shine a spotlight on one individual. They kicked over a rock and sent all of the insects underneath scurrying.

Martin? His first religious ordination was revoked, and the Browns could find nothing to confirm a subsequent ordination. They also could not evidence to indicate that the college he supposedly got his doctorate in theology from had an accredited doctorate program at the time.

J. Edward Decker? Decker's ex-wife eventually surfaced with her copy of the divorce paperwork. While Decker claims that he had a conversion experience that led him out of the LDS faith, his wife claimed that Decker faced excommunication for a string of extra-marital affairs.

Alberto Rivera? Although Rivera claimed to have fled Spain because the Catholic church was hunting him down, it was discovered that he was actually fleeing an arrest warrant for fraud.

Loftes Tryk? He didn't leave the LDS faith willingly. He was a convicted sex offender who was excommunicated for his crime.

Et cetra.

The 1980s and early 1990s saw many individuals who were luminaries in the world of the Christian counter-cult shot down in flames as background checks of the type called for by Nelson and Martin showed a shameful display of falsehoods and wickedness.

This "background check" approach was eventually re-mated with Nibley-style intensive research into the claims made by these individuals. In the end, it was determined that many of the allegations made by these individuals against various "cults" were false, with some representing overt lies made up by these people.

By the time this period was over, we were looking at Sodom & Gomorrah. Not only were these individuals exposed - often in serious sin - others imploded (such as John Todd, who was convicted of rape and molestation, and Rick Ross, who lost his original ministry over a kidnapping case).

Things got worse for the counter-cult movement in the 1990s, as individuals like FARMS, FAIR, SHIELDS, and Jeff Lindsay from the next cohort began to emerge. Thanks to the internet, these people were able to leave online repositories of facts to counter the allegations made by the counter-cult movement and leave testimonies - including picture galleries - showing the misdeeds and even full-fledged wickedness of the individuals involved in the counter-cult movement.

Cohort 6 represents folks like me who went wild weasel against the counter-cult movement during the early 2000s. A lot of us saw absolutely hideous things in the process, as members of the counter-cult movement found themselves having to deal with Mormons who were bold enough to defend the faith and knowledgeable enough to succeed in doing so. I've been threatened with physical violence. I've been personally targeted by a counter-cult ministry. I had an anti-Mormon minister / author personally insult me in a public forum. I've seen counter-cult members blame Mormonism for a whole host of evils, including various murderers. I even saw an ordained minister sanction spousal abuse as a means for men to keep their wives from becoming Mormon. The worst individuals here don't even come close to the foulness I witnessed originating from the Christian counter-cult back then. But in the end, folks like us served as a shield wall against which the Christian counter-cult broke itself; we humiliated or even took down more than a few individuals back then, ranging from rank-and-file haters to big-name leaders.

We wound up paving the way for cohort 7, the "I'm a Mormon" crowd. As much damage as we did to the Christian counter-cult by delving deeper into its dark underbelly, the charm offensive represented by modern efforts has had the effect of finishing the job. Those members of the Christian counter-cult who haven't been forced to re-evaluate what they're doing have radicalized themselves almost to the point of self-parody. If you don't believe me, try making your way through this, an open letter written by one such self-parodic Christian counter-cult member in response to an independent Protestant church attempting a charm offensive of its own.

So no matter what certain individuals would have you guys believe, as the Mosser-Owen Report warned all the way back in '97, we're winning. And it's in large part because the whole "God's on our side, so whatever we do is just fine!" mentality the Christian counter-cult has seen fit to adopt.

Excellent post.

 

[Albion]

So no matter what certain individuals would have you guys believe, as the Mosser-Owen Report warned all the way back in '97, we're winning. And it's in large part because the whole "God's on our side, so whatever we do is just fine!" mentality the Christian counter-cult has seen fit to adopt.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the day of the interventionists and the near-hysteria over mind control-type cults has passed. But then, so have most of the cults that were fingered during the era of hippies, Asian gurus, and flower-selling.

However, many people became aware of the meaning of "cult" as used by such people and now are able to discern the difference between a branch of Christianity and a religion that partakes of some of the Christian style or belief while, at the same time, denying one or more essentials of the Christian faith. This has passed into the mainstream of Christian awareness.

For example, when I was young, a typical Christian's impression of Mormonism was likely to be that of an unfamiliar church which had really nice, family-oriented members. Today, it's more likely that the first thing to greet a Mormon missionary knocking at one's door is a comment about Mormons having a different God and their own book of "scripture."

 

[drstevej]

Last two Mormon missionaries to visit me after a 2 hour discussion told me I knew more about Mormonism than most folks in their church. They have not been back.

 

[A New Dawn]

Back in the late 1970s, two members of the Christian counter-cult movement became overly bold. One man, D. J. Nelson, challenged everyone to test his academic credentials to prove if he was real or fake. The other man, Walter Martin, declared that "cultists" were every bit as fair game as the message they were delivering.

Unfortunately for the entire movement, the late 1970s / early 1980s represented a cohort shift among LDS apologists. Rather than play defense (as what took place under the Talmage and Nibley cohorts), this cohort wanted to play offense. To them, the words of these two individuals was a call to arms.

To the Christian counter-cult movement, it was the death knell.

Robert and Rosemary Brown decided to investigate D. J. Nelson's credentials, and found that he was a bold-faced liar. His vaunted degree in Egyptology - which he claimed as his basis for criticisms of the LDS faith - was a fraud, purchased from a diploma mill. His supposed field work never happened. Once the Browns published their findings, Nelson's career disintegrated overnight.

But the Browns didn't simply shine a spotlight on one individual. They kicked over a rock and sent all of the insects underneath scurrying.

Martin? His first religious ordination was revoked, and the Browns could find nothing to confirm a subsequent ordination. They also could not evidence to indicate that the college he supposedly got his doctorate in theology from had an accredited doctorate program at the time.

J. Edward Decker? Decker's ex-wife eventually surfaced with her copy of the divorce paperwork. While Decker claims that he had a conversion experience that led him out of the LDS faith, his wife claimed that Decker faced excommunication for a string of extra-marital affairs.

Alberto Rivera? Although Rivera claimed to have fled Spain because the Catholic church was hunting him down, it was discovered that he was actually fleeing an arrest warrant for fraud.

Loftes Tryk? He didn't leave the LDS faith willingly. He was a convicted sex offender who was excommunicated for his crime.

Et cetra.

The 1980s and early 1990s saw many individuals who were luminaries in the world of the Christian counter-cult shot down in flames as background checks of the type called for by Nelson and Martin showed a shameful display of falsehoods and wickedness.

This "background check" approach was eventually re-mated with Nibley-style intensive research into the claims made by these individuals. In the end, it was determined that many of the allegations made by these individuals against various "cults" were false, with some representing overt lies made up by these people.

By the time this period was over, we were looking at Sodom & Gomorrah. Not only were these individuals exposed - often in serious sin - others imploded (such as John Todd, who was convicted of rape and molestation, and Rick Ross, who lost his original ministry over a kidnapping case).

Things got worse for the counter-cult movement in the 1990s, as individuals like FARMS, FAIR, SHIELDS, and Jeff Lindsay from the next cohort began to emerge. Thanks to the internet, these people were able to leave online repositories of facts to counter the allegations made by the counter-cult movement and leave testimonies - including picture galleries - showing the misdeeds and even full-fledged wickedness of the individuals involved in the counter-cult movement.

Cohort 6 represents folks like me who went wild weasel against the counter-cult movement during the early 2000s. A lot of us saw absolutely hideous things in the process, as members of the counter-cult movement found themselves having to deal with Mormons who were bold enough to defend the faith and knowledgeable enough to succeed in doing so. I've been threatened with physical violence. I've been personally targeted by a counter-cult ministry. I had an anti-Mormon minister / author personally insult me in a public forum. I've seen counter-cult members blame Mormonism for a whole host of evils, including various murderers. I even saw an ordained minister sanction spousal abuse as a means for men to keep their wives from becoming Mormon. The worst individuals here don't even come close to the foulness I witnessed originating from the Christian counter-cult back then. But in the end, folks like us served as a shield wall against which the Christian counter-cult broke itself; we humiliated or even took down more than a few individuals back then, ranging from rank-and-file haters to big-name leaders.

We wound up paving the way for cohort 7, the "I'm a Mormon" crowd. As much damage as we did to the Christian counter-cult by delving deeper into its dark underbelly, the charm offensive represented by modern efforts has had the effect of finishing the job. Those members of the Christian counter-cult who haven't been forced to re-evaluate what they're doing have radicalized themselves almost to the point of self-parody. If you don't believe me, try making your way through this, an open letter written by one such self-parodic Christian counter-cult member in response to an independent Protestant church attempting a charm offensive of its own.

So no matter what certain individuals would have you guys believe, as the Mosser-Owen Report warned all the way back in '97, we're winning. And it's in large part because the whole "God's on our side, so whatever we do is just fine!" mentality the Christian counter-cult has seen fit to adopt.

I am not sure what any of this has to do with my comment (which I assume it is in response to, since you quoted me and then posted this.) If you want to respond to my question, then respond to it with a response that actually responds to it. If you don't like to be treated like someone who can't define his own religion, then neither do I. If you respond to us here, and none of us have claimed it, then it is nothing more than a red herring that you have thrown out at us because you have nothing of worth to say.

 

[Ironhold]

However, many people became aware of the meaning of "cult" as used by such people and now are able to discern the difference between a branch of Christianity and a religion that partakes of some of the Christian style or belief while, at the same time, denying one or more essentials of the Christian faith.

Thing is, just about any definition of "cult" can easily be pivoted around to either:

1. Hammer mainline Christianity.

2. Hammer something perfectly innocent.

As it is, the constant re-definition of "cult" has moved the word so far away from its sociological roots as to make it essentially a buzzword.

In that sense, it has become a perfect example of what author George Orwell warned against in his "Politics And The English Language".