And then I tuned in for his monologue tonight. He started by defending what a jerk he had been, noting the folks he was rude to deserved it.
Then he launched on me. I literally started laughing, and then arguing, and then contemplating legal action. I will keep my options open on that. But here is something without dispute:
Shawn McCraney is a liar.
Shawn accused me of lying to his call screener last week. Not true. I told her exactly who I was. She did not ask me if I had ever called before. But that is a "he said, she said" thing, and unless we locate her notes, it would be impossible to prove.
But he then said I called evangelical Christians "God's broken toys." He said look it up, I had said it, or something to that effect. I never have used that phrase at any time in my life, let alone in an argument with Evangelicals.
Now, with all due respect to Shawn's feeble, childish and one-sided attack, he then out did his childish fit-of-an-attack with a transparently self-aggrandizing mini-sermon wherein he said I was from Fruit Heights, UT. Of course, I am not. I don't live in that county. In fact, had he actually spoken with his call screener and looked at her notes, he would have seen my phone number and a note that I live in South Jordan, UT.
Like it said on his TV monitor and the television screen during the call.
"What a maroon."
He also repeated his erroneous statement that Israel was not allowed under the Law to own Israelite slaves. His says it with such conviction. Good liars are like that.
2 If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
3 If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he be married, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 If his master give him a wife, and she bear him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
5 But if the servant shall plainly say: I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free;
6 then his master shall bring him unto G-d, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.
7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath espoused her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed; to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
9 And if he espouse her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10 If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out for nothing, without money. (Jewish Bible, Exodus 21:2-11)
For lots of reading on the subject, see H. L. Elleson, “The Hebrew Slave: A Study in Early Israelite Society,” EvQ 45 (1973): 30-35; N. P. Lemche, “The Manumission of Slaves – The Fallow Year – The Sabbatical Year – The Jobel Year,” VT 26 (1976): 38-59, and “The ‘Hebrew Slave,’ Comments on the Slave Law – Ex. 21:2-11,” VT 25 (1975): 129-44. These came from the entry for Ex 21:2 at the NetBible.org website. An Evangelical source. Not LDS. So they are not trying to make Shawn look bad. He does that on his own.
I suppose it is true I am boring to Shawn, since he can't effectively argue with me. Also, I do have a few videos out there.
Did anyone else notice that after he got done running me down, he tried to make it sound like he was going to address the issue of Elijah Abel's ordination being revoked by Joseph Smith, as asserted by Harold B. Lee. I may have missed the General Conference session where LDS apostles were decreed infallible in matters of historic LDS trivia. Still, he avoided actually providing any support of his assertion, since he asserts that Joseph Smith was a racist. Read his statements around his presidential campaign. Read the editorials. Read his statement about blacks and all people worshiping together in the temple.
Elijah Abel's grave stone is here, and was dedicated by an LDS apostle. And given we have the ordination statements for Elder Abel, we know it is correct.
Making Shawn not just mistaken, but ignorant.
I think Shawn is a lying, deceptive and self-aggrandizing peacock. But he does provide good material.
279 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 279 of 279Quickly, before I leave (hopefully Bob or someone can hammer this home):
David,
You are missing the point. Scientists that discovered some the genetic makeup of the American Natives were doing science. However, individuals (like you) crossed the scientific boundaries into the realm of theology in an attempt to discredit the LDS religion. Yet, when LDS geneticists explain that the argument is only strong against a particular interpretation of the BoM text, all of a sudden it is pseudoscience because they are defending their beliefs. You crossed genres first with attacks and claims of DNA disproving the BoM. You refuse to read the actual defenses based on a blatantly obvious double standard. If you will not allow LDS to use science to defend themselves in theological discussions, then don't bring science into it to begin with.
DNA has been addressed and quite well by various geneticists. If you refuse to read them because they are LDS and because they are answering critics, that is your own problem. But you will continue to look uninformed and prejudiced as you claim science has trumped the LDS faith and that LDS defenses aren't real science.
Perhaps I should just take your approach: David is a critic of the Church. He is obviously biased. His DNA claims against the Church aren't real science.
Wow, that was much easier. No wonder you do it so much. Red herrings are a great way to avoid addressing the actual issue.
I almost forgot: Royal Skousen's meticulous research of the Book of Mormon manuscripts that was published by Yale. He is the leading expert on the BoM originals and certainly one of the leading experts of the BoM translation process.
I wonder if I should trust his opinion or the opinion of those at MRM and the like.
And what about that crazy old fool John Sorenson? Nevermind his expertise in anthropology or the fact that he recently published a paper in the Sino-Platonic Papers No. 195 entitled "A Complex of Ritual and Ideology Shared by Mesoamerica and the Ancient Near East" (Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations, University of Pennsylvania). Those people only published him to trick you into thinking he does REAL anthropology...
Okay, I have to comment on something--admitting from the get-go that when it comes to science/archeology in relationship to the Book of Mormon, I'm a mere babe in the woods. However, when it comes to the thought processes of anti-Mormons, I know them as well as I know myself, almost. You see, trying to prove something to an anti-Mormon using studies, quotes, research, or whatever from other Mormons, no matter how famous or knowledgeable they may be, dooms you from the beginning. To an anti-Mormon, Mormon beliefs, doctrine, or whatever else that may have even the slightest odor of Mormonism to it, will automatically be considered a lie. I think that's why most true anti-Mormons see absolutely nothing wrong with lying about Mormon beliefs/doctrine. Mormons lie all the time, you see, and deep down, Mormons know they are supporting a lie, so anti-Mormons honestly believe that the Lord will condone their lying about Mormons in return, especially if it cons someone into leaving the church. I've had many anti-Mormons admit to me that they think LDS are essentially good people. It's just too bad that they have such evil doctrines. What they don't understand--or refuse to understand--is that we are good people in part because of what we believe. I grew up being taught things like, being honest, doing good to others, helping those in need, being faithful to your spouse when you get married. You know, 'evil' beliefs like that. The Bible says that a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. We are a good people because our tree, our beliefs and doctrine, is a good tree. The tree that helped develop my moral foundation has certainly been a good tree for me. I find it very telling that every time I've asked anti-Mormons their opinion of LDS teachings such as I've just mentioned, they've completely brushed the question aside. Here's the dirty little secret why: there is no way they can claim that things like I mentioned above are evil. And since they absolutely, positively, can not appear to be seen agreeing, even in the slightest, with a *gasp* MORMON, they choose not to put themselves in that bind by ignoring the question. Or worse yet, they will acknowledge the question, but follow immediately with a "yes, but Mormons also believe..." as if what they claim that we "also believe" has just negated the original question and therefore rendered a reply from them unnecessary. I've had anti-Mormons tell me that when a Mormon does good for someone else, helps someone in need, etc, that the Lord considers such good works as "filthy rags". In an anti-Mormon's eyes, only Christians can do good works--a belief that I totally disagree with. Some day, I'm actually going to meet an anti-Mormon who is honest enough to admit that LDS actually do have some good and beneficial beliefs, with out tacking any but's on the end of their admission.
HA! I should live so long.
Another to add to the list:
Grant Hardy's (Professor of History and Religious Studies, University of North Carolina) "Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide," also published by Oxford. Comes out I think early February.
Those poor, unscholarly Mormon scholars...
I don't think Nathan is in any position to lecture on "love one another" or on Mormon covenants (considering his past posts which fail to understand Mormonism).
Aside from that, I don't see any reason why defending one's religion is a "bad fight." What is needed is civility.
Hey Walker,
Just to respond to your comment:
"I don't see any reason why defending one's religion is a "bad fight.""
Being civil to (respectful of) others is absolutely right but from what I've seen, the commenters on the blog become so incensed about some of the things that are written (because faith is a very personal and emotional thing) that it becomes difficult to stay civil. That's when we get the fighting and name calling and such. I've seen everyone on the blog do it.
When I read the Bible, I see what Christ commanded me to do - to love others, even enemies, to turn the other cheek, and to not judge. I like having theological discussions but I don't like telling someone they are flat out wrong about something or that they are ridiculous or that they are liars or that they are stupid or gullible, etc. etc. I see Christians talk about fighting the "good fight" against Mormons and I see Mormons saying they need to do the same against Christians. My own personal thought on it is that if Christ were here among us today, in the flesh, he would be disappointed in us for this thing we call the "good fight."
Just my thoughts.
v/r
M
"I don't think Nathan is in any position to lecture on "love one another" or on Mormon covenants (considering his past posts which fail to understand Mormonism)."
Sorry Walker but Nathan's comments are right on. And as far as understanding Mormonism, I would say that he understands it better than you do. I find that most Latter Day Saints fail to understand their religion as well as failing to learn the real history of their church. In general, if they were better informed, they wouldn't be Latter Day Saints.
David said: "I find that most Latter Day Saints fail to understand their religion as well as failing to learn the real history of their church. In general, if they were better informed, they wouldn't be Latter Day Saints."
Jedi's reply: Okay...lets dissect this, one erroneous statement at a time. "...most Latter Day Saints fail to understand their religion..." This assumption rises because of the fact that anti-Mormons fail to understand what constitutes LDS doctrine and what doesn't (some do have a basic understanding, but deliberately lie about it anyway). So, they pull quotes from non-doctrinal sources like the Journal of Discourses and present the quote as if it actually was LDS doctrine (Adam-God, blood atonement, etc). When we LDS profess not to ascribe to the quote, we are then accused of going against what [insert general authority name here] supposedly said.
Next erroneous statement: "...as well as failing to learn the real history of their church." This is a good one. I submit that LDS sources provide more real history than can be gotten from most non-LDS sources. As I've stated before on here several times, anti-Mormons see nothing wrong with lying about LDS beliefs and doctrine, so why would they see anything wrong with taking a bit of early Mormon history and painting it in as bad a light as possible? After all, they think that their lies will be justified before God if those lies have conned someone into leaving the church. So, whose history am I supposed to believe--history from LDS sources, or deliberately distorted history from anti-Mormon sources? In my opinion, it's no contest.
Last erroneous statement: "...if they were better informed, they wouldn't be Latter Day Saints." Actually, that charge does not hold water. There are many, many, good LDS in the church who are very well informed. Admittedly, you get a few who decide that because of this or that incident in early church history, the church cannot be true. These folks are in the rarest of minorities, however. As for myself, my testimony of the truth of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is not based on LDS church history, but on a spiritual witness that the restored gospel is true. Early church members were human just like anyone, and some of them made some grievous mistakes. That's between them and God, and does not affect me in the least.
I just noticed this last comment by JD. Oh, that people would pick up a history book and read the footnotes. John D. Lee was told by a local Church leader, who was also the leader of the local territorial militia, to attack the Fancher company from Arkansas. This was in direct violation of the orders issued by Brigham Young to let them pass unmolested. When the message from BY got to Haight, the person ordering the attack, I believe his words were to the effect "My soul is lost". BY had been asked what to do because local bishops had refused to participate, based on earlier direction received from leaders, and they would not get involved without a clear statement. BY said to let them pass. We have a direct, physical copy of Young's note, so we know for a FACT what his directions were. Unlike your comment based apparently on...whatever.
Catholics and Protestants blew each other up for generations in Northern Ireland. Religious wars and persecutions by non-LDS Christians are easy to find. In other words, there are idiots in every group.
As for the factual nature of "September Dawn", nobody except the producer believed it was accurate, and of course those who don't bother to fact check. The Washington Times wrote: "...a bigoted hatchet job..." Yeah, the Mormons must have gotten to them too.
Try the FAIRWIKI.ORG for a detailed review of the facts of "SD's" presentation and media reviews: http://en.fairmormon.org/September_Dawn
Anyone who would believe September Dawn is factual is a waste of time to try to reason with.
What history books have you been reading Bob? Ones written by the church and its members? More than likely. Oh, that you would actually read the real history of your church!
MRM has some comments on the subject:
"Blind Obedience and Religious Fanaticism
In a number of interviews, Christopher Cain stated that the purpose of the film was to highlight the dangers of religious fanaticism. Having listened to and read several interviews with both Cain and Voight, it was emphasized that the film was not meant to condemn the modern LDS Church. Voight often made it clear that he felt the Mormon Church of today is not at all like it was back in 1857. In fact, he often had positive things to say about the Mormon people. Still, this did not prevent many Mormons from venting their vitriol against those who would dare offer a critical view of Mormon history. When the LDS Church came out with a statement calling the film a "a serious distortion of history," Mormons immediately took to the blog sites to parrot this denunciation. Bear in mind that this was going on before the film even opened. When the film finally did open, charges of bigotry and hatred once again were put to use to excoriate any and all who might not say only "faith-promoting" things about Mormonism, and more specifically, Brigham Young. Even some non-Mormon critics of the film seemed to imply that much of the behavior and dialogue in September Dawn was a complete fabrication. Could it be that these reviewers had no idea that Young actually made these comments?
Lee Benson, a columnist for the LDS Church-owned Deseret News, actually wrote that the descendants of Brigham Young should sue the makers of September Dawn for "everything they own." Perhaps Mr. Benson could also lead the charge in getting back the tens of thousands of dollars worth of wagon train property that mysteriously disappeared after the massacre. Certainly he doesn't want us to believe that the Indians confiscated it all. Benson's unjustifiably harsh column was probably one of the worst we've read (with exception perhaps to Bob Lonsberry's ), In his piece Benson implied that somehow the emigrants may have deserved what they got, "The massacre's latest re-telling — the movie 'September Dawn' that was released nationally this week — follows a predictable script: The dead are innocent and the killers are not." The fact is, Mr. Benson, the dead were innocent, and the killers were not. Benson displayed an incredible amount of ignorance when he went on to write, "Not to mention the fact that nothing Brigham Young did in 33 years leading the church suggested so much as an inkling toward such action." Deseret News journalist Carrie A. Moore also concluded that September Dawn "erroneously portrayed Young as the one who ordered the massacre." It is amazing how these journalists can be so sure about an aspect of the massacre that expert historians still debate to this day."
continued ...
"A reader who concurred with Benson's piece stated, "The FACT that Brigham Young did NOT order the 'incident,' did not want it to occur, was angry and heartsick afterward, just doesn't make any difference to the usual suspects." As mentioned earlier, evidence does not at all clear Young from complicity in the massacre. Such comments tend to completely ignore the many fiery sermons given by Young and his associates during this same time period (some of which we cite above). Are we really expected to believe that such language was to be embraced by Mormon followers as merely playful banter, meant only to cause good will and harmony between Mormons and their Gentile neighbors? Historians are well aware that Young met with several Indian chiefs prior to the massacre and promised them that they could take the emigrant's cattle (A fact completely overlooked by Turley in his September, 2007 Ensign article). Only the most naive would conclude that this act did not have the potential for violence. Brigham Young did claim he was sick when he heard of the slaughter, but his later actions tend to show that this was just good theater. On May 25, 1861 Brigham Young finally visited the scene of the massacre. Upon seeing the cross atop the rock cairn memorial placed there in 1859 by Brevet Major James H. Carleton, Brigham Young raised his hand to the square and stated, "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, and I have taken a little!" Within five minutes the entire rock monument was torn completely down. Does this really sound like the action of a heartsick man? A heartsick man would want justice; Young did all within his power to prevent that from happening. His primary goal was to protect himself, protect the murderers, and protect his church.
Having read numerous blog comments by Latter-day Saints, it is probably safe to say that many of Christopher Cain's critics have never bothered to crack open even one book on the subject. The vehemence (and ignorance) expressed by some Mormons tend to show that blind obedience and loyalty to the leadership of the LDS Church exhibited in 1857 is still very much alive today. With this in mind, we will close with a portion of a letter sent by a Mormon to the editor of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought back in the 1970s:
"A young girl recently arose in our ward and said, 'I don't care if what Spencer W. Kimball does is contrary to scripture or the words of previous prophets. When he speaks it is truth. He is the prophet.' She was quite worked up and wept as she said those words. I wept too. She has decided on one side of the conundrum, I on the other. But regardless of what side I or she has taken, it is a solid theological question. Do we have testimonies of doctrine, history, reality, philosophy, or the positions and qualifications of men? Does it really matter what the man in the position says, as long as he holds the position that allows him the privilege of saying it ? Does our faith in the system of Mormon religion overarch true doctrine? I have heard tearful testimonies in my thirty-nine years of many things. Some testify that the shadow-leadership program a few years ago was a direct revelation from the Lord. I have heard testimonies of the divine origin of the Constitution, the Boy Scouts of America, the Adam- God doctrine, the anti-Adam-God doctrine, and godly support for various individuals touted as being called the infallible. Did the hundreds of dead in Guyana not bear terrible testimony with their own lives and the lives of their children that they believed the words of a man as being the words of their God? And it couldn't happen in Mormonism? Let's ask the Fancher party" (vol.15, No.3, p.4).""
Wikipedia on the SD review:
"Boo Allen of the Denton Record-Chronicle gave the movie 3 out of 5 stars, saying that "director Christopher Cain renders a suspenseful, gripping tale."[22] Linda Cook of the Quad-City Times calls the movie "interesting."[23] Ted Fry of the Seattle Times writes that the movie is a "mix of poetry and polemics" that despite "theocratic elements that come unnervingly close to the spirit of Mormon-bashing" is nevertheless "a mildly effective dramatic tale of period Western strife."[24] Pete Hammond of Maxim gives the movies 2½ stars, saying that Cain has made "a pulse-pounding movie experience reminding us that a terrorist act can happen anywhere, anytime, by anyone."[25] David Tianen of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel writes that the script's "great strength" is that Voight's character, Samuelson "is a zealot who behaves logically within his own belief system" in that he believes in "a theology that sees non-Mormons as wicked and degenerate." Consequently, "when Bishop [Samuelson] says things like 'May these children of Satan go to hell,' or, 'We have been honored above all others to be the chosen instrument of death," the hatred is more than mere craziness.[26]
In a piece written for FrontPage Magazine, Ken Eliasberg states that: "I found the film to be artistically pleasing, theatrically well done, and, based on my less-than-exhaustive research, historically correct. [...] While the Mormon hierarchy denies any effort to directly or indirectly sabotage the film, it seems possible much of the criticism dealing with the film is derived from some common blueprint. [...] I hope that this notion is mistaken, and that there is no effort on the part of the Mormon establishment to do this film in. If there is such an effort, I have to believe it emanates from certain individuals who are acting on their own, who have so little faith in the power of their religion that they think a mere film about one isolated historic incident could do it harm."[27]"
Chris said: "I have to believe it emanates from certain individuals who are acting on their own, who have so little faith in the power of their religion that they think a mere film (September Dawn) about one isolated historic incident could do it harm."[27]"
Ahhh, the truth is that the church did not do the film in. The film was done in by it own merits (or lack there-of). I noticed that you chose to quote only the FEW reviews that were favorable to the film, while ignoring the MANY that recognized the film for what it was, blatant stretching of the facts and in some cases, outright lies. A "see what those dirty Mormons did" type of film. Well, most folks were not interested in seeing something as blatantly antagonistic as September Dawn. SD got MOSTLY bad reviews. That's why it did so poorly at the box office. Over 11 million to make and did barely 1 million at the box office. In other words, IT BOMBED! Michael Medved said of the film, "I tried to imagine the type of group that would like to see this film, and every time I get close, it scares me."
"John D. Lee was told by a local Church leader, who was also the leader of the local territorial militia, to attack the Fancher company from Arkansas."
Bob, John D. Lee was a Danite along with Wild Bill and Porter Rockwell. They were among the group of men that *was* Brigham Young's terrorist militia. They took orders and reported directly to Brigham Young. To claim that Brigham Young didn't order the Mountain Meadows Massacre is the same as claiming that Hitler didn't order the holocaust. It's absurd.
"To claim that Brigham Young didn't order the Mountain Meadows Massacre is the same as claiming that Hitler didn't order the holocaust."
Good analogy JD. That's exactly right.
"While the Mormon hierarchy denies any effort to directly or indirectly sabotage the film, it seems possible much of the criticism dealing with the film is derived from some common blueprint."
This is exactly right. The film itself, regardless of the bad acting, is historically accurate, except for maybe a few minor details. The Mormon church, while not openly protesting the film, had everything to do with its demise. If it uses underhanded methods in recruiting its members (i.e. lying for the Lord - I can show you a Bob Millet video that proves this), then it uses underhanded methods in other areas of its PR campaign. You can kick and scream about it all you want, JediMormon, but those are the facts.
"This assumption rises because of the fact that anti-Mormons fail to understand what constitutes LDS doctrine and what doesn't (some do have a basic understanding, but deliberately lie about it anyway). So, they pull quotes from non-doctrinal sources like the Journal of Discourses and present the quote as if it actually was LDS doctrine (Adam-God, blood atonement, etc). When we LDS profess not to ascribe to the quote, we are then accused of going against what [insert general authority name here] supposedly said."
Your comments are just another example of the LDS being ignorant of their history. They are not misunderstanding anything JediMormon. David, along with many who have studied Mormonism, know what the church holds as official canon and what it doesn't. There is a reason for that. It's because the church knows how to survive. It knows when to discard something if it isn't working anymore, is illegal, or results in a high percentage of members leaving the church. If the Journal of Discourses, which was once considered canon, were today considered the same, many Latter Day Saints would leave the church. Because there is a push in the Mormon Church today to appear more Christian, and this in order to recruit more converts, the modern church has discarded certain elements of its past that were once taught as doctrine and/or practiced (i.e. Adam-God doctrine, Blood Atonement, Polygamy, etc.). In short, the Mormon church is really a church that is trying to run away from its own history.
"This is a good one. I submit that LDS sources provide more real history than can be gotten from most non-LDS sources. As I've stated before on here several times, anti-Mormons see nothing wrong with lying about LDS beliefs and doctrine, so why would they see anything wrong with taking a bit of early Mormon history and painting it in as bad a light as possible? After all, they think that their lies will be justified before God if those lies have conned someone into leaving the church. So, whose history am I supposed to believe--history from LDS sources, or deliberately distorted history from anti-Mormon sources? In my opinion, it's no contest."
They're not lying JediMormon. Many of the sources out there (The Tanners, MRM, ExMo, LVHM etc.) use official church documents (many of which the church has tried to conceal) and legitimate sources for the material they present regarding the history of the church. They are not "using any means" (i.e. lying) to get people to leave the church. They are putting the truth out there for people to read. The church has more of an incentive to lie and it does, all the time. I can give you video examples of this. The church will use any means, and this especially includes lying, in order to keep its members locked in and from straying away or leaving. This is the whole concept behind home and visiting teaching, reporting it to the bishop, who in turn, reports it to the higher ups. It's also why they keep such tight control over the missionaries and why they have to report the number of converts to SLC. It's also why people call the religion a cult. In my opinion, it is a multi billion dollar business that employs a strong missionary force that is out there trying to sell a gospel that has been proven to be false.
If you look at the "official" church history, as taught by the church and compare it with some of the documents you can find on, say, the Tanners website and in their books, you see clearly that the official church history is a well doctored, cleaned-up, white washed, Disneyland version of the true history of the Mormon church. It's evident also when you watch that Joseph Smith movie that came out a few years ago. There are tons of aspects of Mormon church history that are totally ignored in that movie.
""...if they were better informed, they wouldn't be Latter Day Saints." Actually, that charge does not hold water.
Actually it does.
"There are many, many, good LDS in the church who are very well informed."
David's statement was:
"I find that most Latter Day Saints fail to understand their religion as well as failing to learn the real history of their church. In general, if they were better informed, they wouldn't be Latter Day Saints."
There may be those who are well informed but they are few and far between. I know. I've been there to see it. They may know a few things but choose to remain ignorant of the rest simply because they don't want to learn more and face the truth. It is too psychology difficult for them. So they bury their heads in the sand and pretend like it isn't there. Or they come up with skewed or illogical reasoning and rationalize the facts away. I have seen this happening all over this blog in fact.
"Admittedly, you get a few who decide that because of this or that incident in early church history, the church cannot be true. These folks are in the rarest of minorities, however."
They are the rarest minorities inside the church, that is true, because the ones who have discovered the truth have left. The ones who have left are not a minority. There are droves of people who send in their resignation letters everyday but of course the church doesn't tell you about that does it? There are droves of people who discover that it is all nonsense and just stop attending, forgetting that they were ever Mormon even though their names are still on the records, but of course the church doesn't exactly publish those numbers either. The church only publishes the numbers that are positive, that show how much the church is growing (which is a lie, btw). They want to show how much people love the church and want to be a part of it because, after all, if all these people want to join, it must be true, right?
JD...You seem to have skipped over the part of Bob's attempt to educate those who wrongly believe that Brigham Young personally ordered the attack on the Fancher party, so I'm quoting it here for the benefit of any who didn't want to be bothered with the truth: "John D. Lee was told by a local Church leader, who was also the leader of the local territorial militia, to attack the Fancher company from Arkansas. This was in direct violation of the orders issued by Brigham Young to let them pass unmolested. When the message from BY got to Haight, the person ordering the attack, I believe his words were to the effect "My soul is lost". BY had been asked what to do because local bishops had refused to participate, based on earlier direction received from leaders, and they would not get involved without a clear statement. BY said to let them pass. We have a direct, physical copy of Young's note, so we know for a FACT what his directions were."
True to form, the discussion taking place concerning the MMM is typical of anti-Mormon tactics. No one is arguing the reality that the massacre took place. But, anti-Mormons can't be happy just sticking with the facts. They can't be satisfied admitting that the massacre was ordered by a local church authority. Instead...they have to shove aside the total lack of evidence that BY was complicit in the massacre, and pin it directly on him, using whatever phantom "evidence" they have conjured up in their imaginations.
Years ago, stuff like this (made-up evidence, ignoring facts, accusations of Mormons not knowing their own history, etc.) used to surprise me. Not any more. Now, I expect those kind of tactics from them, and I've yet to be disappointed.
Okay...I know I'm wasting keystrokes in asking, but a statement was made that "John D. Lee was a Danite along with Wild Bill and Porter Rockwell. They were among the group of men that *was* Brigham Young's terrorist militia. They took orders and reported directly to Brigham Young." What I'm asking for is some actual evidence to support that statement. And please, spare me the usual anti-Mormon follow-up of accusing me of not knowing my own church's history. That kind of tactic is a cop-out as well as an admission that no evidence for the statement exists.
Your move, antis. :o)
"We have a direct, physical copy of Young's note, so we know for a FACT what his directions were."
I am certain that this note was written by Brigham Young, or someone else in the church, after the fact, when they realized they were in trouble.
"What I'm asking for is some actual evidence to support that statement."
There is evidence. I will get it for you.
"What I'm asking for is some actual evidence to support that statement."
JediMormon, have you ever read the 300+ page journal of Ann Eliza Webb, the 19th wife of Brigham Young? I can send it to you if you want. In it she describes Mormon life back during that time (from Nauvoo to Utah). She also says that Brigham Young was in direct control of the Danites and not only did he order the MMM, it was his idea. No one knows a man better than his wife, or in this case, wives.
Also, a time capsule was found, in either Ogden or Provo (I can find the details of it for you) where an English man living there in the 1850s, who was writing a letter to his sister, decided to slip the letter into the capsule at the last moment. In the letter he describes the horrors (murders) he witnesses under the reign of Brigham Young and he describes Brigham Young's relationship to the Danites. In the letter, he is lamenting to his sister ever having moved to Utah to live under the rule of "this false prophet". He also says that he is trapped there because anyone who disagrees with the "false prophet" or anyone who tries to leave, gets killed. If you want, I can find out where you can research more into this letter and actually read it.
So there, is that enough evidence for you? Do you need more?
JediMormon, you might want to take a look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZQJc5SxnVs
Finally, a Latter Day Saint who gets it!
"Sorry Walker but Nathan's comments are right on"
Well, allow me to retort:
Sorry David but Nathan's comments are not right on.
"I would say that he understands it better than you do"
I doubt it.
"In general, if they were better informed, they wouldn't be Latter Day Saints"
Spare me your arrogant form of rhetorical non-argument.
"More than likely."
And the problem with this would be what? The experts of LDS history and writings are most likely going to be LDS.
"MRM"
MRM is your source for "real" Church history? McKeever and Shafovaloff are scholars and experts in your view?
JediMormon, you also might want to read up on that supposed letter of Brigham Young:
"Critics charge that Brigham Young's letter telling Mormons in southern Utah to leave the immigrants alone is of dubious providence, since "the actual text of Brigham Young's letter remains in some doubt, because the original has disappeared (along with almost every other official document pertaining to the Mountain Meadows massacre....[A] purported draft of the letter...didn't surface until 1884, when an LDS functionary came upon it in the pages of a 'Church Letter Book'" (p. 221n). "
"That's exactly right"
Funny, Juanita Brooks didn't draw that conclusion and her work was considered the authority on the subject until recently. "Massacre at Mountain Meadows" (published by Oxford) is the most modern study of the event. The 2nd volume will deal with the aftermath.
I'll take Oxford-published studies and scholars who understand (and have education in) proper historical methodology over the likes of the Tanners, McKeever, and Abanes.
"In short, the Mormon church is really a church that is trying to run away from its own history."
Hence, the recent publications of the Joseph Smith Papers and the Oxford work I just mentioned regarding the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Makes perfect sense.
"The Tanners, MRM, ExMo, LVHM"
Well, you keep referencing the Tanners and MRM and I'll keep quoting actual scholars.
The least you could do is actually branch out and start using sources like "The New Mormon Challenge" (though LDS scholars have largely answered this as well).
"No one knows a man better than his wife, or in this case, wives"
Emma Smith certainly believed her husband Joseph was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon was a divine book.
Does your methodology apply in all cases or only when it suits you?
"Ann Eliza Webb"
I'm glad you've read it. I hope then that you've read Nibley's "Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass."
JediMormon: JediChristian, huh? What’s the saying about imitation begin the sincerest form of flattery? Not the first time that someone who disagrees with my views has tacked “Jedi” onto the front of whatever moniker they were using at the time. But, on to business. I’m going to address your charge that “The church will use any means, and this especially includes lying, in order to keep its members locked in and from straying away or leaving. This is the whole concept behind home and visiting teaching, reporting it to the bishop, who in turn, reports it to the higher ups.”
No offense intended, but you obviously have absolutely no concept of the true purpose of home teaching and visiting teaching. I should know—I’ve been a home teacher probably longer than you’ve been alive. “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” (James 1:27) That is what the home teaching program of the church—and the visiting teaching program as well—is all about: helping those who need it. Thus one of the reasons for the church’s welfare program. As the financial clerk for my ward, I’ve written literally hundreds of checks to landlords, utility companies, phone companies, etc. to help members—and in some cases, non-members—who needed it because of unemployment. Ever heard of Welfare Square in Salt Lake City? I’ll bet you were not aware that about 80% of those who receive goods from Welfare Square are not LDS.
"Emma Smith certainly believed her husband Joseph was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon was a divine book."
Is that right, Walker? Well, in case you didn't know, in November 1845, the New York Sun printed a letter to the editor, signed by Emma, saying, "I must now say, that I have never for a moment believed in what my husband called his apparitions and revelations, as I thought him laboring under a diseased mind."
You can also read the whole letter here at the very end of this page,
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA/adam1830.htm
"And the problem with this would be what? The experts of LDS history and writings are most likely going to be LDS."
Right, that's kind of like saying that the experts on the effects of alcohol are the liquor companies. Any organization that writes its own history or does its own research is going to skew facts (or lie) to put themselves in the best light, or to make the most money. It amazes me that you can’t see this.
"MRM is your source for "real" Church history? McKeever and Shafovaloff are scholars and experts in your view?"
Anyone who provides authentic documentation and/or solid evidence, coupled with sound arguments, to me, is a reliable source.
“Funny, Juanita Brooks didn't draw that conclusion and her work was considered the authority on the subject until recently. "Massacre at Mountain Meadows" (published by Oxford) is the most modern study of the event. The 2nd volume will deal with the aftermath.”
You might want to get your facts straight. Juanita Brooks was a Latter Day Saint who published her work in 1950. It was the first account of the massacre using modern research methods. Much more research on the subject has been done since then – more documentation found and evidence presented – by reliable non-LDS sources. You also fail to note that she did say Brigham Young was “an accessory after the fact” charging him with obstructing the investigation and with provoking the attack using his rhetoric and propaganda.
“I'll take Oxford-published studies and scholars who understand (and have education in) proper historical methodology over the likes of the Tanners, McKeever, and Abanes.”
And you call me arrogant?? Careful, Walker, that you don’t fall into the grave that you have dug for your opponents. You think that just because a particular piece of work has an Oxford or an Ivy League pedigree, that that guarantees its validity or authenticity? If that’s the case, then you are also a bigger fool than I thought … and arrogant to boot. That’s a really bad combination.
Truth is truth and honest research is honest research. When someone presents a document that is authentic or a piece of evidence that is solid or an argument that is sound, that document is authentic, that evidence is solid, and that argument is sound regardless of where it came from. There are people who have devoted their entire lives to researching the Mormon church and its history, whose work does not have the “Oxford Seal of Approval” and yet to any individual of sound mind and body, their work is 100 percent just as valid as others, and in many cases, more so. In my experience, I have studied work done by Ivy Leaguers that was the biggest pile of horse manure I have ever seen. Some of that manure, I have seen in articles put out by the spin doctors at FARMS. Much of their work is bad apologetics and yet you site it all the time on this blog. I find that so ironic.
“"In short, the Mormon church is really a church that is trying to run away from its own history."
Hence, the recent publications of the Joseph Smith Papers and the Oxford work I just mentioned regarding the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Makes perfect sense.”
It does make perfect sense. The Mormon church is trying to run away from its history by re-writing it in such a way that it makes the church look good.
“Well, you keep referencing the Tanners”
The Mormon church has yet to answer the issues presented in “Mormonism – Shadow or Reality?” So far, they have cowered from it.
“The least you could do is actually branch out and start using sources like "The New Mormon Challenge" (though LDS scholars have largely answered this as well).”
LDS Scholars? That’s kind of an oxymoron, isn’t it?
“I hope then that you've read Nibley's "Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass.”
I don’t waste my time or intelligence on the garbage that has been published by Hugh Nibley, a man whose own children wouldn’t have anything to do with him, whose own children, in fact, wrote books on him discrediting his character. His work, among many of the spin doctors at FARMS, is bad apologetics at its finest.
“JediChristian, huh? What’s the saying about imitation begin the sincerest form of flattery?”
JediMormon, I really don’t think JediChristian was trying to flatter you but if it makes you feel better, you can keep telling yourself that.
“No offense intended, but you obviously have absolutely no concept of the true purpose of home teaching and visiting teaching. I should know—I’ve been a home teacher probably longer than you’ve been alive.”
First of all, how do you know that? Do you know JediChristian personally? Answer: no.
““Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” (James 1:27) That is what the home teaching program of the church—and the visiting teaching program as well—is all about: helping those who need it.”
You can look at it that way … if you are foolish. If you are someone, like JediChristian, who can see the organization for what it is, a money making machine that doesn’t want to lose its members because it makes money off of them, than you will see it correctly. If what you say is true, then how come they only visit church members? How come they do not send the “teachers” (not missionaries because they recruit which is not the same thing) out to all people, members and non-members, helping those who need it? Answer: because they want to monitor their members and keep them from straying. Sending out the “teachers” to “help” anyone who needs it, member or non-member, would be a waste of their time and money on people who are not paying into the organization. Also, they are constantly encouraging members to go to the temple because, if you want to attend the temple, you have to keep paying money. The whole concept behind it is business.
“Ever heard of Welfare Square in Salt Lake City? I’ll bet you were not aware that about 80% of those who receive goods from Welfare Square are not LDS.”
Well, this would be totally incorrect. Either someone gave you a piece of bad information or you are lying. I have family who live in Salt Lake and work in the church Welfare Program. Its purpose is mainly to help church members, and in some cases, non-members but they are few. Also, it doesn’t just give out money, or charity in other forms, for nothing or without something in return. In many cases, those who receive aid are expected to work for it, if they can.
"that's kind of like saying that the experts on the effects of alcohol are the liquor companies."
Not really. It is kind of like saying Christians are most likely going to be the experts on Christian history, theology, New Testament, etc. Not in all cases, but in a good amount. I certainly hope that you aren't reading any Christian scholars when it comes to New Testament authenticity. They could be biased...
"modern research methods"
Which the newest book I mentioned does.
"And you call me arrogant??"
Yes. I could call you many other things, but that would be unproductive.
"that guarantees its validity or authenticity"
No, but it certainly carries more weight than rabid counter-cultists.
"I have studied work done by Ivy Leaguers that was the biggest pile of horse manure I have ever seen. Some of that manure, I have seen in articles put out by the spin doctors at FARMS."
Well, I'll be sure to toss that Ivy League manure to the side and accept David on Bob's blog's opinion instead. By the way, I like how one the reasons you dismiss FARMS is because they cite academic material. That certainly makes me want to take you seriously.
"re-writing it in such a way that it makes the church look good."
This just demonstrates that you aren't even aware of the material that has been produced.
"So far, they have cowered from it."
No, they haven't.
"That’s kind of an oxymoron, isn’t it?"
Not according to scholars like Paul Owen and Carl Mosser. But I'm sure they are just manure-like Ivy Leaguers...
"whose own children wouldn’t have anything to do with him"
More like one daughter, who is now gay and was opposed by the rest of the family.
One of Nibley's daughters recently presented during a lecture series on Hugh Nibley's work.
"The few evangelicals who are aware of Hugh Nibley often dismiss him as a fraud or pseudo-scholar. Those who would like to quickly dismiss his writings would do well to heed Madsen's warning: "Ill-wishing critics have suspected over the years that Nibley is wrenching his sources, hiding behind his footnotes, and reading into antique languages what no responsible scholar would ever read out. Unfortunately, few have the tools to do the checking." The bulk of Nibley's work has gone unchallenged by evangelicals despite the fact that he has been publishing relevant material since 1946. Nibley's attitude toward evangelicals: "We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes."
No doubt there are flaws in Nibley's work, but most counter-cultists do not have the tools to demonstrate this. Few have tried. It is beyond the scope of this paper to critique Nibley's methodology or to describe the breadth of his apologetic. Whatever flaws may exist in his methodology, Nibley is a scholar of high caliber. Many of his more important essays first appeared in academic journals such as the Revue de Qumran, Vigilae Christianae, Church History, and the Jewish Quarterly Review. Nibley has also received praise from non-LDS scholars such as Jacob Neusner, James Charlesworth, Cyrus Gordon, Raphael Patai and Jacob Milgrom. The former dean of the Harvard Divinity School, George MacRae, once lamented while hearing him lecture, "It is obscene for a man to know that much!"
Nibley has not worked in a cloister. It is amazing that few evangelical scholars are aware of his work. In light of the respect Nibley has earned in the non-LDS scholarly world it is more amazing that counter-cultists can so glibly dismiss his work."
"It seems that there exists an unfounded presupposition among evangelicals that there are no respectable LDS biblical scholars. This often blinds people from noticing the work LDS scholars have done. Yet, as with the above mentioned theologian, evangelicals quote Mormon scholars for support more than they know. This is not to say that the practice is wrong per se (it's not), or that Mormon scholars might not sometimes make valid points. (There is an analogy here with evangelical quotation of liberal, Catholic or Jewish scholars.) The point we want to make is this: It is inconsistent for evangelicals to insist that heterodox groups like the Mormons have no legitimate biblical scholars, and then utilize the very scholars whose existence they deny."
From Carl Mosser, Paul Owen, "Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" Evangelical Theological Society Far West Annual Meeting, 25 April 1997.
Your immature approach to LDS scholarship is part of the reason why I don't really miss commenting here. Your approach is to dismiss any and everything that disagrees with your hatred for Mormonism, even though scholarship in these areas largely disagrees with many of your assertions.
You are a perfect example of the ignorant and unhelpful "counter-cultist" that Mosser and Owen reference. By all means, continue to ignore the growing body of scholarship and cling to the Tanners and MRM. It doesn't hurt my position one bit.
"November 1845"
I'll take Emma's later testimony:
"I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it."
- Emma Smith, Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Advocate 2 (Oct. 1879): 51
David said: (quoting me) “No offense intended, but you obviously have absolutely no concept of the true purpose of home teaching and visiting teaching. I should know—I’ve been a home teacher probably longer than you’ve been alive.”
David: First of all, how do you know that? Do you know JediChristian personally? Answer: no.
JediMormon: I don't need to know JediChristian to know that he has no concept of the true purpose of home and visiting teaching. After your comments, I could, and will, make the same statement about you. Both of you need to do some honest research. Welfare Square does indeed use about 80% of it's goods in helping those who are NOT LDS. Most of that 80% is sent to victims of disasters, which I don't think you took into account when you said that the church's welfare plan "is mainly to help church members, and in some cases, non-members but they are few." As you know yourself, in case of disasters, the church always sends help in the form of food, supplies, and even people. And we're not the only organization by any means. Every little bit helps.
As a side note, my experience with true anti-Mormons has been that they will go to great lengths to keep from having to admit that the LDS church does a lot of good in the world. I expected the same of you two, and you have not disappointed me thus far.
"As a side note, my experience with true anti-Mormons has been that they will go to great lengths to keep from having to admit that the LDS church does a lot of good in the world. I expected the same of you two, and you have not disappointed me thus far."
That's nice Jedi, but you still haven't answered the question about the home/visiting teaching. Nice dodge.
""November 1845"
I'll take Emma's later testimony:
"I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it."
- Emma Smith, Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Advocate 2 (Oct. 1879): 51"
Walker, it is a known fact that Emma lied to her children to protect them. For example, she lied to them about his extra wives. When David, his youngest, challenged the church leaders to a debate, he was nearly destroyed emotionally when he found out about the 30+ wives that Joseph had had. Personally, I believe Emma's statement in the letter she wrote to the New York Sun. I think those were her true feelings toward it.
"I'll take Emma's later testimony:
"I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it."
- Emma Smith, Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Advocate 2 (Oct. 1879): 51"
Walker, Emma also told her sons in her last testimony that their father did not have any other wives besides her. I think lying had become so ingrained in her, as it is in so many Latter Day Saints, that it got to the point where she did it without even thinking and in many cases, lied even to herself.
"Welfare Square does indeed use about 80% of it's goods in helping those who are NOT LDS. Most of that 80% is sent to victims of disasters, which I don't think you took into account when you said that the church's welfare plan "is mainly to help church members, and in some cases, non-members but they are few." As you know yourself, in case of disasters, the church always sends help in the form of food, supplies, and even people. And we're not the only organization by any means. Every little bit helps.
As a side note, my experience with true anti-Mormons has been that they will go to great lengths to keep from having to admit that the LDS church does a lot of good in the world. I expected the same of you two, and you have not disappointed me thus far."
I don't think anyone was trying to say that the church doesn't do good things for people in the world who are not members of the church. It is a fact that they help others all the time and that they send aid out when there are natural disasters. The church is charitable. But it is also true that many commercial and private businesses do the same thing and yet they are not claiming that that makes them the one and only true church of Jesus Christ. The point David and JediChristian were trying to make is that the church is a multi-million dollar corporation whose business involves sending missionaries out to sell a gospel to the world. This is a fact.
To sit there and say, "Oh these anti-Mormons are all the same and they will say anything because of their hatred for Mormonism, therefore I can completely ignore and dismiss any valid question or issue they presnt" I'm sorry, but this attitude is a cop-out.
"Well, I'll be sure to toss that Ivy League manure to the side and accept David on Bob's blog's opinion instead."
Walker, not all Ivy Leaguers disagree with what David is saying. In fact, it is the opposite. Many of them do.
""re-writing it in such a way that it makes the church look good."
This just demonstrates that you aren't even aware of the material that has been produced."
I think an example of what he means is the history that is taught officially by the church. It is completely white washed and biased and leaves much information out. John Dehlin gave a presentation on it that was quite good in fact. Also, another example of the church changing their history to make it look good is the Joseph Smith movie that came out in 2005 (Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration).
"Your immature approach to LDS scholarship is part of the reason why I don't really miss commenting here. Your approach is to dismiss any and everything that disagrees with your hatred for Mormonism, even though scholarship in these areas largely disagrees with many of your assertions."
The fact is Walker, that this simply isn't true. Many secular scholars DO NOT agree with LDS scholars on many subjects. There is a LARGE body of scholarship out there that supports the assertions that David makes. And the fact is that when it comes to archaeology and scientific evidence, the LDS are really on their own because practically no one in the secular world agrees with them. As for Nibley, he is respected for some of the work that he has done but it was work that was not religion related. There are many Mormon scholars who have been recognized for their work when it wasn't related to their religion. Nibley, because much of his work was tied into his faith (like One Eternal Round or No, Ma'am That's Not History), he was looked upon as being an LDS apologist rather than an academic scholar. Most of the FARMS apologists fall into this category as well. Nibley's critics have, not wrongly I think, accused him of being a parallelist - finding parallels in anything to support his faith.
So, in conclusion, if you are going to talk about scholarship, at least be honest about it.
David,
I understand the points you are making but I think you are being a little harsh on them. Tone it down, bud.
~M
"she lied to them about his extra wives"
She sure did. She hated polygamy.
"not all Ivy Leaguers disagree with what David is saying"
I don't recall saying that all did.
"officially by the church"
I didn't realize their was an "official history" taught by the Church. Considering their support of the Joseph Smith Papers, I fail to see how that works out. But if you mean that Joseph Smith's wives aren't mentioned in a Gospel Doctrine lesson, I guess that could be considered "white washing".
"Many secular scholars DO NOT agree with LDS scholars on many subjects"
Most secular scholars aren't even aware of LDS scholarship.
"LDS are really on their own because practically no one in the secular world agrees with them"
Considering the fact that LDS scholars draw from secular sources, I fail to see how this works out. Just because the secular scholar doesn't see, for example, the Mesoamerican practice of cutting off arms of enemies as evidence for the BoM (in this case, Ammon among the Lamanites) is really irrelevant. It is the fact that the practice is acknowledged that is important. Secular implies that the supernatural is left out of the equation. I doubt any secular scholars agree with the resurrection of Christ. Those that do aren't really secular anymore, now are they? But there are certainly some first-class Christian scholars who do great work on the historicity of the Gospels that I find convincing, despite the fact that many of them are considered Christian apologists (Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, etc.).
"work when it wasn't related to their religion"
But when these individuals bring their expertise to their religion, all of the sudden the quality supposedly goes down.
I don't see how an apologist can't be a scholar. There are reasons you defend a particular position.
"So, in conclusion, if you are going to talk about scholarship, at least be honest about it."
I don't see how quoting from a presentation by two evangelical scholars that I happen to agree with is dishonest.
Emma also denied the New York Sun letter:
"To the Editor of the Sun; Sir: I wish to inform you, and the public through your paper, that the letter published Tuesday morning, December 9th, is a forgery, the whole of it, and I hope that this notice will put a stop to all such communications."
See Linda King Newell, Valeen Tippetts Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, 2nd Ed. (University of Illinois Press: 1994)
Totally put the wrong "there"...
Whether or not Shawn has any truth to his statements or not he is getting quite to following, even outside of Utah. I live just outside of Portland Or. and there is a local Ministry out here called Ephesians 2 Ministry that uses a lot of his material. From what I understand they are quite successful. Who knows how many more groups there are.
"David,
I understand the points you are making but I think you are being a little harsh on them. Tone it down, bud.
~M"
No, M, I'm not going to tone it down. You think these guys would? Not a chance!
"But when these individuals bring their expertise to their religion, all of the sudden the quality supposedly goes down."
We already had a discussion about this, do you remember?
“Most secular scholars aren't even aware of LDS scholarship.”
Well, that would be wrong. Work done by the LDS, that is not related to their religion, has been widely recognized. Take Thomas Ferguson’s work for example. Work done by the LDS that is specifically designed to defend their religion, is not respected in the secular world. They do not consider that scholarship or true science for reasons of bias and partiality. I think we’ve been over this before on this blog.
“She sure did. She hated polygamy.”
Understandably so.
“Emma also denied the New York Sun letter:
"To the Editor of the Sun; Sir: I wish to inform you, and the public through your paper, that the letter published Tuesday morning, December 9th, is a forgery, the whole of it, and I hope that this notice will put a stop to all such communications."
See Linda King Newell, Valeen Tippetts Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, 2nd Ed. (University of Illinois Press: 1994)”
Emma did write that letter, Walker. A Latter Day Saint named James Arlington Bennet confirmed it (http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/miscNYC2.htm#121945):
“Sir: You have intimated that I pronounced the letter of Mrs. Emma Smith, widow of Joseph the Prophet, published by you some [days] since, genuine. When Mr. Beach presented that letter to me for my opinion of its character, I told him that I had no other means of judging of its authenticity than that it expressed facts respecting myself which were known to no other person than Mrs. Smith, and, consequently, that it must have emanated from her, or some person in her confidence.
That the letter expresses the true sentiments of that very talented lady, I think quite probable; but as regards her saying there are no schools in Nauvoo, I presume she means at the present time, when everything is in disorder. I can myself bear testimony that not long since there were several schools in Nauvoo, on successful operation, including a very superior one, conducted by Mr. Orson Pratt, brother to the celebrated Parley P. Pratt.”
Also, there is a reason why she would have tried to deny it (http://sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/sign1846.htm):
“We are of opinion that Emma wrote the first letter, but was compelled to write the second one denying the first, by threats of violence. We csnnot conceive what earthly object any person, either friend or foe, could have in committing such a forgery, for they must have known exposure was inevitable. Be it as it may, we are satisfied that if Emma was not the authoress some person, intimately acquainted with her views and sentiment, was. Since the publication of the letter we have heard some facts which lead us inevitably to this conclusion.”
I think JD is right when he says:
“I think lying had become so ingrained in her, as it is in so many Latter Day Saints, that it got to the point where she did it without even thinking and in many cases, lied even to herself.”
It seems to me that deception is a way of life for Latter Day Saints. Lying to themselves, lying to others and lying for the Lord. If you don’t believe me, ask Bob Millet. There is a video of him on youtube that I can show you.
"I didn't realize their was an "official history" taught by the Church. Considering their support of the Joseph Smith Papers, I fail to see how that works out. But if you mean that Joseph Smith's wives aren't mentioned in a Gospel Doctrine lesson, I guess that could be considered "white washing"."
There is an official history taught by the church - just go church every Sunday and listen. Also, go to the website - lds.org:
http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/history
Did you not know this? You are a Latter Day Saint, correct?
Also, you may want to read the website on the Joseph Smith Papers very closely (http://josephsmithpapers.org/AboutTheProject.htm):
"The Joseph Smith Papers Project is not a “documentary history” project comprising all important documents relating to Joseph Smith. Instead, it is a “papers” project that will publish, according to accepted scholarly and documentary editing standards, documents created by Joseph Smith or by staff whose work he directed. The project also includes papers received and “owned” by his office. These key documents include, especially, the diaries, outgoing and incoming correspondence, revelations, contemporary reports of discourses, editorials, and notices."
So it is not a "documentary history". And it is not official - it is (http://josephsmithpapers.org/ProjectOrganization.htm):
Published by The Church Historian's Press
An *imprint* of the Church History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
This way it cannot be directly tied to the church officially.
"Considering their support of the Joseph Smith Papers, I fail to see how that works out."
"Considering the fact that LDS scholars draw from secular sources, I fail to see how this works out."
"I don't see how an ... scholar."
"I don't see how quoting from ... to agree with is dishonest."
You fail to see a lot, don't you? Also failing to see that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction.
JD said: "I don't think anyone was trying to say that the church doesn't do good things for people in the world who are not members of the church. It is a fact that they help others all the time and that they send aid out when there are natural disasters. The church is charitable. But it is also true that many commercial and private businesses do the same thing and yet they are not claiming that that makes them the one and only true church of Jesus Christ. The point David and JediChristian were trying to make is that the church is a multi-million dollar corporation whose business involves sending missionaries out to sell a gospel to the world. This is a fact."
JediMormon: Very commendable, JD! I was not kidding when I said that my experience has been that true anti-Mormons will go to great lengths to keep from having to admit that the LDS church does a lot of good in the world. You're the first! However, I have to disagree with your assertion that we LDS think because we do much good in the world, that's what makes us the only true church. Good works proves good hearts, but it does not necessarily prove truth. As LDS, we believe we are the only true church, not because our good works, but because we can claim a personal witness from the Holy Ghost that ours is indeed the restored church of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, I don't dismiss valid (or what they consider to be valid) questions or issues that they come up with. Disagreeing is not necessarily a sign of dismissal. For example, you believe that the church is "a multi-million dollar corporation whose business involves sending missionaries out to sell a gospel to the world." You claim that statement as a "fact". From my perspective, and due to my experience of actually having been on a two year mission (Scotland, by the way), I think your "fact" is base on faulty premises. True, the church is a multi-million dollar corporation, and we do send missionaries into all parts of the world that will let them in. However, that's where we part company in our thinking. Missionaries are not "selling a gospel". What they are doing is presenting LDS beliefs and doctrine to the world, and saying "here's how you can find out for yourself if what we've been telling you is true or not.
"Totally put the wrong "there"..."
What are you trying to say here, Walker?
"Walker: In light of the respect Nibley has earned in the non-LDS scholarly world it is more amazing that counter-cultists can so glibly dismiss his work.""
"Walker: Most secular scholars aren't even aware of LDS scholarship."
So which is it Walker? If secular scholars aren't even aware of LDS scholarship, then how is it that so many of them know about Nibley?
"Whether or not Shawn has any truth to his statements or not he is getting quite to following, even outside of Utah. I live just outside of Portland Or. and there is a local Ministry out here called Ephesians 2 Ministry that uses a lot of his material. From what I understand they are quite successful. Who knows how many more groups there are."
Elijah, this is true. The LDS don't like to hear or admit that though. Shawn's ministry is becoming widely accepted and influential. He has saved many Latter Day Saints from the twisted gospel of the Mormon church by bringing them straight to Jesus. Once they are born again, they realize that the church, that they are in, is a fraud and they leave. It's a beautiful thing.
"Whether or not Shawn has any truth to his statements or not he is getting quite to following, even outside of Utah."
His shows are being watched by millions around the world and are now being translated into Spanish.
Chris said: (speaking of Shawn's ministry)"He has saved many Latter Day Saints from the twisted gospel of the Mormon church by bringing them straight to Jesus."
JediMormon: (choking on my non-caffeinated drink here...) Now I think I've heard it all! How in heaven's name can a self-professed, unrepentant adulterer, bring anyone "straight to Jesus"? Justify that line of reasoning with the Bible, and I might be willing to change my mind about the gullibility of anti-Mormons. Personally, it looks to me like there's a little proverbial camel-swallowing going on among the anti-Mormons who post in here.
The only reason I know of Shawn is because of this "ministry". Bob is used to battling Shawn. I, however and fairly new to the Church and am trying to figure out what it is I need to say. Even though this group doesn't bother me I wish they would just quit. Hey Bob, maybe you could look into it?
OK, first I have to admit receiving so many comments has confused me. I didn't realize there was a page 2 of comments, so I have not been responding for quite a while on this line.
Furthermore, I have essentially decided to not engage Shawn's issues any longer. I think I have pretty thoroughly responded to all of his issues in the past. He results in a lot of wasted time and non-resolution due to his paralytic fear of engaging real Mormon scholarship and evidence in favor of his distorted and baseless polemical diatribes.
That being said, Elijah has a question about Shawn's ministry, and there was a statement about how much his assaults on the Church are impacting the Church.
Well, the truth is Shawn has virtually no impact on the Church. This is easy to see from things like the attendance at his public events, such as his summer tent preaching event. Most everyone there is either already a disaffected and inactive member, or never were LDS. I literally don't know of a single active LDS person who left Mormonism due to Shawn's stuff, though there are probably examples. Most are doctrinally ignorant, inactive and non-believers who never bothered to study the LDS faith, and don't want to be bothered by facts or scripture. Shawn's brand of confused theology is repeated repudiated by the Bible, which I have generously pointed out on many occasions.
Secondly, IF Shawn's Alethea Ministries was doing well, he would not be aggressively begging for money, as he now does, and not on the verge of going off the air, as he noted this past summer was going to be the case. Shawn said from the earliest episodes of his show that he would not solicit donations. That path has gotten him nearly broke. All those supposedly "active" Mormons, now saving 10% of their incomes in their apostasy, feel no need to send money his way. As of a few months ago, Shawn acknowledged he still works as a parking attendant at a California park writing tickets to keep his financial head above water. I think he still lives with his parents, at least he did not that long ago. Calvary Chapel pays for his weekly flights between Los Angeles and Salt Lake. He used to regularly sleep on a cot in channel 20's studios, though he may now stay with Kevin or others, now that Kevin has a home in Utah.
So while HOTM creates some visibility for the brand of anti-Mormonism Shawn spews, even with a weekly show in the heart of Utah and three services at three Utah colleges every week, his impact over the past 4 years is maybe a few hundred folks leaving the LDS faith, and that is a liberal guess. By contrast, in the same period of time more than 40,000 people have joined the Church in the same area. So his direct impact is less than 1/2 of 1% compared to converts. If you want to say he has gotten even 20 active members, his impact is less than .0002% of the active members in Utah.
If you have specific questions, drop me a note. Happy to respond. But feel free to read through the blog, as many of Shawn's silly issues have been addressed.
Thanks,
Bob
"Furthermore, I have essentially decided to not engage Shawn's issues any longer."
Well, yeah that's because he exposed you Bob. It had something to do with you making a derogatory comment about certain people being Santa's broken toys. Remember that?
"The only reason I know of Shawn is because of this "ministry". Bob is used to battling Shawn. I, however and fairly new to the Church and am trying to figure out what it is I need to say. Even though this group doesn't bother me I wish they would just quit. Hey Bob, maybe you could look into it?"
Elijah, if you are new to the church, I would really recommend investigating it further. Here are some links you can go to:
http://mormonstories.org/?page_id=102
http://www.utlm.org/
http://sourceflix.com/
Other websites:
http://www.utlm.org/navotherwebsites.htm
Books:
http://www.utlm.org/navbooklist.htm
A few books I recommend are:
An Insider's View to Mormon Origins
No Man Knows My History
Mormonism, Shadow or Reality?
Born Again Mormon
By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri
In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith
Reasoning from the Scriptures with Mormons
Anonymous,
Your assessment of why I stopped dealing with Shawn assumes I am lying. I am not. I have written at length that I don't believe, nor do I recall, that I ever said the 'broken toys' comment, at the very least in the context Shawn asserted. In any case, I actually do have a life, and more importantly, a great wife who encouraged me to drop the conversation about Shawn. She did so without even being aware of the silly tempest in a teapot over the broken toys comments. She just thinks the guy behaves like a pompous, addicted person who has no interest in truth and represented too much time being wasted by me. I agree with her. How many times can I point out his doctrinal and factual errors and expect he might someday change his story to the truth? It becomes an exercise in insanity, repeating the behavior and thinking it will yield different results.
So believe what you want. But once again the "good Christians", writing in anonymously, assume the Mormons are liars when the stated reasons are so much more logical.
Shows why not everyone will become a Mormon.
To Anonymous said: "Well, yeah that's because he exposed you Bob. It had something to do with you making a derogatory comment about certain people being Santa's broken toys. Remember that?"
JediMormon replies: Among the less than honorable traits among true anti-Mormons I've dealt with over the years, is that of doggedly sticking with a false story, long after the evidence--or lack thereof, whichever the case may be--has failed to support the anti-Mormons' position. In this case, it has to do with the much debated and false "Santa's broken toys" claim made by certain anti-Mormons who post in here. I recall very clearly challenging someone, anyone, to come up with actual PROOF that the incident occurred as claimed. NONE OF YOU ANTI-MORMONS EVER DID! And now you're trying to dig it up again! Perhaps you've found new evidence that is more credible than the previous evidence was? If so, I'm sure we'd all like to see it. Years ago, tactics like this irritated me. Now, they simply amuse me, because I expect anti-Mormons to act the way they do. If my attitude is irritating to some, so be it. Dishonesty on the part of anti-Mormons isn't exactly a character trait that commands my respect, or the respect of any honest person, for that matter. And, contrary to what seems to be popular belief among anti-Mormons, the only thing that false evidence exposes, is the dishonest character of the one who knowingly uses such false evidence.
Chad;
A lot of the stuff you listed is used by Ephesians 2 Ministry. Their website is full of it. Where I am getting frustrated is that I know of at least 4 people here in the Metro area that have left as a result of them. I personal don't see a need to minister to a group who is already Christian.
"In this case, it has to do with the much debated and false "Santa's broken toys" claim made by certain anti-Mormons who post in here. I recall very clearly challenging someone, anyone, to come up with actual PROOF that the incident occurred as claimed. NONE OF YOU ANTI-MORMONS EVER DID!"
Go back and read the blog on it, Jedi. They did have proof. Someone spoke to the witnesses that night who confirmed Shawn's story. Sorry but Bob is one the who is lying.
Kevin said: (quoting me) In this case, it has to do with the much debated and false "Santa's broken toys" claim made by certain anti-Mormons who post in here. I recall very clearly challenging someone, anyone, to come up with actual PROOF that the incident occurred as claimed. NONE OF YOU ANTI-MORMONS EVER DID!"
Then responds: Go back and read the blog on it, Jedi. They did have proof. Someone spoke to the witnesses that night who confirmed Shawn's story. Sorry but Bob is one the who is lying.
JediMormon: Okay, I went back and read the blog. There was no proof, just claims. What we have is David quoting from one of Shawns' videos where Shawn is telling the story of what supposedly happened. The two who were with him at the dinner who Shawn claimed on the video could supposedly back up what happened, never uttered a word about it. I would think that if the incident really happened, Shawn would have had the two on his show as proof that he was not making the whole incident up. Where were they? So what we have now, is essentially what we've had all along: Shawns' word against Bobs', and only unprovable accusations from you antis. The only thing you can really prove, is that Shawn told the story on his show. That's it. Anything beyond that is here-say.
And, by the way, I found nothing in the blog stating that someone spoke to the witnesses that night who confirmed Shawn's story. All I found was a single comment that the two who were with Shawn could verify that it happened. Doesn't say that they were called upon to do so, however.
For what it is worth, I made a concerted effort this week to try to find Kevin Kennington, who was Althea Ministries, Shawn's 501.C.3 tax free ministerial corporation treasurer, and ask him to tell me what he recalls. He has dropped off the face of the planet. No insult intended, but I don't trust 3rd parties representing that they had a discussion with one of the witnesses to the conversation, and he fully supported the view that I was sliming non-LDS, when I know that is not how the conversation went. It is inconceivable to me that I would insult former Mormons for seeking comfort in other faiths when I had Nathan sitting across from me exactly in that role, and he and I have become good friends. Unfortunately I don't have his phone number either. But Shawn commented how arrogant I was to say to everyone at the table that I thought it was good for people to have a faith, any faith, as it acted as preparation for them to eventually accept the truth. Which would make a negative reading of the alleged "broken toys" comment absurd.
In any case, Kevin seems to have fallen off the face of the planet. He is no longer listed in Shawn's ministry as a co-pastor anywhere. You can find his old recorded sermons on the Calvary Campus website, but he is no longer listed as a pastor. Something is happening here. Since I don't watch HOTM any longer, Shawn may have announced where Kevin and his other assistant pastor went to. However, it seems odd to me. In any event, I want to talk with Kevin, so if one of you has his phone number, send it to me. I won't publish the number on the blog, I will just call him and have a conversation, and if he gives permission, I will post his comments.
Thanks,
Bob
Hey Bob, recently found your blog and I love watching Shawn's show as well. But, you mention that there is no infallibility rule for the Mormon leaders. I don't know if you have watched the PBS documentary on the Mormons, but in it Dallin H Oaks says "It's wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true." now that is a direct quote, and I know this does not represent infallibility but it does mean that the congregation of the Church should not question what the leaders say, whether they be right or wrong. What are your thoughts on this?
Anonymous,
Thanks for the comment about infallibility and LDS obedience.
I believe dissent is a sacred obligation. Brigham Young may have said it best:
"I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually."(JofD, Vol. 9, page 150).
Joseph Smith presented changes to the Church which were voted down on two or three occasions. And the membership was correct.
If we do not believe our leaders are correct in their position, our dissent should be in terms of a discussion of our personal beliefs, not the "errors" of our leaders. It is not an insignificant difference. I personally support the brethren, yet I think there are areas of my life which they do not have enough understanding to be precisely on point.
The issue is getting the Spirit into our lives. That allows me to understand that they can be good people, priesthood leaders, even inspired and be in error as I see the issue. Harry Reid, for example, seems a contradiction to many LDS members because of his partisan Democratic views. But I assume he is trying as best he can to have the Spirit in his life, and to be guided to live according to that interpretation.
I have interpreted this to be about blind obedience. To cut closer to the source, Joseph Smith himself said that a prophet is only a prophet when acting in the office of a prophet. I have seen them act in that office. And I have seen them act in painfully human ways. I believe Elder Oak's intent was that dissenting from an opinion or pronouncement of a Church leader should never be made in the manner of an attack on the leader personally. There is a channel to respond to leaders we feel are in error. I can go to the stake president about an errant bishop, after trying to clarify with the bishop. The D&C outlines an appeal process which leads all the way to the 1st presidency.
During the expulsion of so-called "intellectual Mormons", they were never disciplined for their thoughts, but for their actions outside the channel for registering dissent, and publicly urging or advocating positions which undermine the Church. I believe there are many examples of decisions which have been less than optimal by leaders of the Church. That in no way, in my mind, means they are not inspired. In fact, the opposite. I believe that God requires leaders to come to discern his will, as they too are growing in their position.
In the end, I think those who feel dissent is not allowed have generally not looked at LDS history to see the co-existence, even at the highest councils of the Church, of diametrically opposed views as they seek to understand the issues before them in the context of the inspiration they receive. That makes them human, not inerrant. It also demands I use discernment in interpreting the applications of their pronouncements as they apply to me. In doing so, there is no need to criticize a leader.
Those are my quick thoughts. Thanks again for the question.
Bob
PS. See FAIR's article on Blind Obedience for additional relevant statements on the subject.
Why is it that a Mormon can quote from the JoD to try and prove their point and yet when someone who isn't Mormon quotes from it you say it isn't "official doctrine" and they are labeled anti-mormon? Just curious.
Anonymous,
Mormons use JofD as a survey tool of opinions of leaders to represent the abundance of statements which are consistent around doctrine.
Critics typically use JofD as a way to look for anomalous statements which can be used to define LDS doctrines in ways the speakers did not intend, or, in ways no one can reasonably state what the "answer" is about their beliefs.
Examples are conversations about obedience and faith, which are everywhere in the JofD. As a Mormon I recognize they statements are contextually to be construed that we all must develop faith and act from faith through the inspiration of the Spirit. Not just Brigham Young's statement, but probably dozens if not hundreds of similar statements could be garnered. By contrast, in the 1940's a non-ecclesiastical leader wrote the statement "when the brethren speak, the thinking is done" in a home teaching news letter. To this day critics will cite that news letter, and not the official statement of the Church after that statement that such a statement is NOT reflective of LDS doctrine. The newsletter writer was wrong, it was a personal opinion by "A" Mormon, not the LDS faith.
So when you tell me, as one anti-Mormon website asserts, that members of the LDS faith were unaware of the 1st Vision until the 1870's, and he cites JofD talks by a few Church leaders, I can immediately know he is not interested in truth, because the abundance of statements within and without the JofD, by those same Church leaders and others, puts statements of descriptions of the 1st vision to at least 1821, and that in the mouth of critics. We have JS hand written 1832 account, which we know Oliver Cowdery had in 1834 as he wrote articles on Church history, and we have the Parley P. Pratt 1840 tract, the first published account of the 1st vision, meaning it was common knowledge long before.
I don't have a problem looking at critical reviews of LDS history if they are founded in history, and not cherry picking "gotcha" statements which for typical LDS, who lack access to JofD, are difficult to respond to or put into context. It is usually (but not always) used by critics in a deceitful manner, in my opinion.
Mormons, by contrast, typically use JofD for illustration purposes of widely held beliefs. Because critics often accuse Mormons of 'saying anything' today to trick people into the faith, using JofD is normally done to show the continuity of beliefs from pioneer days through today.
The reality is one can cite many sources aside from JofD, but since I am not seeking to attach the near scriptural authority critics try to attach to the statements, then I am fine so long as I do use representative statements.
In the case of blind obedience, FAIR lists nearly a dozen such statements, and dozens more could be given. They are adequate for my point, I think.
Hey Bob!
Yeah, I checked out that show of Heart of the Matter. Joseph Smith never did revoke Elijah Abel's priesthood. In fact, Elijah Abel was one of the first men to be a member of the Quorum of the 70 (which I have seen photos of the original ordination). I heard Darius Gray (an LDS researcher in racism in the LDS Church) and he said while Harold B. Lee did say that Elijah Abel's priesthood was revoked by Joseph Smith, the evidence shows that in Church records that Joseph Smith signed and approved the ordination of Elijah Abel to Elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood. Elijah Abel also received a patriarchal blessing from father Joseph and his anointing in the Kirkland temple. The biggest problem with racism creeping into the Church was American culture and a disagreement with the Brothern as to whether blacks were to receive the temple endowments (which Joseph Smith never mentioned anything about and Brigham Young would not allow). Blacks were being given the priesthood well into the 1930s (Elijah's grandson was ordained to an elder in 1935). Although, as some historians have pointed, Brigham had banned blacks from the priesthood sometime before 1852 (possibly due to William McCary's actions or due to Brigham's own personal views). So, there was a priesthood ban although it wasn't always followed through, but the 1978 revelation prevented any ban on priesthood from ever occurring again. I think it Shawn wants to be credible, he needs to do more research besides hanging out at the UTLM website.
///As far as John D. Lee and his men when they were ordered by the leaders of the church to kill those people from Arkansas?///
Sorry, but Brigham Young did not order them to do anything. In fact, he tried to stop them, which is made clear by how that one guy wept and said it was too late.
///
My roommates and I (M included) just watched September Dawn. I checked the historical background of the movie and it was pretty accurate////
That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.
Get educated:
http://amateurldsapologist.blogspot.com/2009/05/hollywood-hate-response-to-christopher.html
Post a Comment