Anti-LDS sites

[Snow]

I don't have cable MDS.

I guess looking at the community around me, I see a lot of people who aren't waiting to be spoon fed, just genuinely ignorant of what's out there. The Anti's leave flyers on cars. FARMS and FAIR don't advertize.

... just to beat it into the ground, anyone who spent 15 minutes searching LDS info on the internet would know about FARMS and FAIR.

[Snow]

I'm glad you agree with me. Not being a trained educator, yet having seen the CES Seminary program in play sans paid educators, I will leave the implementation up to those who know how to do it best.

I'll admit that to the implementation at the University level would be an interesting challenge, but certainly not beyond our inspired CES management personnel.

In my view, anyone who labors for Zion (especially those who teach the gospel) and does so for a paycheck, is a prime target for hypocracy. Case in point: Grant Palmer, author of "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins". Of course, he's not the only one, a less well known CES employee of similar vein is Richard C. Russell.

These men should have both resigned decades before they retired/were fired, yet they did not for only one reason: They were getting paid.

So. Please inform me. What is the acceptable use of the word?

HiJolly

So do you have any evidence - whatsoever - that CES employees are more prone to hypocrisy than those not employed by the CES? I doubt it.

Would you also fire all the BYU (Prove, Idaho and Hawaii) professors and instructors who teach religion?

Priestcraft - as the word clearly implies, involves the priesthood - that is, priests who use their influence to control secular or political affairs. CES teachers may or may not have the priesthood but they have no priesthood authority beyond what any member of the Church may have.

[Snow]

Point taken, and I agree.

I went to MADD (not my favorite place) to see if I could find any additional information about the miracle. I found the following:

...

Besides the obvious, what's MADD?

[Elphaba]

Besides the obvious, what's MADD?

Sorry. It should have been MADB, or Mormon Apologetics Discussion Board. It replaced the FAIR discussion board when the FAIR gods decided to get out of the message board business.

I suspect you already know about this, but my acronym threw you.

For those who enjoy apologetics, you might enjoy MADB.

I used to spend time lurking there, although, believe it or not, I rarely posted anything. Shocking, I know, given how prolific and intellectual I am on lds.net.

Eventually I couldn't stomach the worst of the worst from both sides of the aisle, and rarely visit it anymore.

Sorry for the confusion.

Elphaba

Edited June 26, 2008 by Elphaba

[pam]

What about those seminary teachers who are employees of the CES who get paid for teaching high school seminary in places such as Utah? Are they a prime target as well for hypocrasy?

[Moksha]

The only thing more frightening...than seeing you in Spirit Prison...would be having to serve my time sitting playing Dominoes with you and snow...and then realizing that Spirit Prison is a long open mic night...and the sole performer is Moksha....

Well, at least I would have a captive audience.

Ps. Leave your tomatoes in the cell that night and I will talk to PrisonChaplin about baking you a cake. Elphaba already knows what to look for in her cake.

[rameumptom]

My initial arguement is that if we take the money out of the equation, it's easier for people to deal with the problem with integrity. They can leave the position/situation without financial distress.

I know people who have 'prestigious' Church callings that lose their testimonies but choose to 'fake it' so as to not lose social or familial status, as well. I think that is very regrettable, also. I wish it never happened.

HiJolly

I do not think money has anything to do with it. It is a matter of personal integrity. If a person no longer proscribes to the faith, then they have the responsibility to leave. Grant Palmer could have obtained employment at other schools or elsewhere. He took advantage of a system that tried to work with him, and upon retiring became a disingenuous hack. Had he integrity, he should have resigned his position and membership and then been free to write and speak whatsoever he chose to do.

[Misshalfway]

I do not think money has anything to do with it. It is a matter of personal integrity. If a person no longer proscribes to the faith, then they have the responsibility to leave. Grant Palmer could have obtained employment at other schools or elsewhere. He took advantage of a system that tried to work with him, and upon retiring became a disingenuous hack. Had he integrity, he should have resigned his position and membership and then been free to write and speak whatsoever he chose to do.

Responsibility to leave...... in any other thing I might agree with you. Does anybody really have a responsibility to leave the church? I mean the angel didn't tell Alma to leave. Just to stop taking others down with him. The invitation of God is never "You are too sinful. Please leave." It is "How oft I would have gathered you....." If someone is far from the path, I suppose I would argue it is their responsibility to come back.

[HiJolly]

Responsibility to leave...... in any other thing I might agree with you. Does anybody really have a responsibility to leave the church? I mean the angel didn't tell Alma to leave. Just to stop taking others down with him. The invitation of God is never "You are too sinful. Please leave." It is "How oft I would have gathered you....." If someone is far from the path, I suppose I would argue it is their responsibility to come back.

No, no, no! Ram & I don't mean "leave the Church", we mean "leave the Church's employment". BIG difference.

HiJolly

[MrNirom]

Apostates have always been a problem in the Church even way back when after Christ left. The Jews would convinced the new Christian converts of the false teachings that Christ taught.. and then would now have a buddy on their side. This is not a new problem..

Ours is more expanded. Because information 1. Travels much faster.. and 2. There is more to disagree with. Not only do you have to deal with Christianity in it rarest form.. (just the gospel).. we also have to deal with the church's history.. and every member since the restoration. Ours is no easy task. 3. Every one jumps on the band wagon.. because they can. It is so easy to anonymously put down someone else's faith.. create lies about them.. twist their words.. and who is going to hold you accountable? There use to be slander laws.. I think that concept went right out the window here. You can say just about anything you want. And what can they do? Cut you off. So go get a new name with a new email address.. and press on.

It is hard to get people to consider a new way of life.. rather than something you do just on Sundays for an hour. And many Christians don't even do that because they believe that all they needed to do was believe, be baptized.. and be done. Many LDS people leave the church because they just can't endure to the end. And that is all. It isn't always about their beliefs or lack thereof. I know of someone who will join the church and their family will have an opposition to it. So they leave for the family.. not because of the doctrine. They find it too hard to live the rest of their life in opposition.. but forget about their salvation for eternity.

For most people who grow up in the Church.. and this can be any Church.. you are taught by your parents and you are taught what they believe. And most of the time.. you don't question it. Because of the Anti stuff.. it has shaken many people's belief. Because they have not studied everything about their religion.. the anti's take those things, twist it a bit to fit their needs.. and then present it unexpectedly to the person.. catching them off guard. And because they have created such a long list.. it would take a truly faithful person a lot of time to search out all the claims that are made. These anti sites are not to teach you their ways.. but to destroy yours. Totally opposite of what is Christ like. He did not destroy or criticize other people and their faith.. he only showed the correct way. That is where we and the Anti's differ. They have no regard or respect for anything but defaming what you hold so dear. So unless you are prepared to hear things that they swear are true about your faith.. and they are there to save your soul.. and share with you anything negative they can dig up on anybody in the church.. I would stay away from them.

Just my personal thoughts.. And like I have to say on so many sites.. this is in no way official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Snow]

Sorry. It should have been MADB, or Mormon Apologetics Discussion Board. It replaced the FAIR discussion board when the FAIR gods decided to get out of the message board business.

I suspect you already know about this, but my acronym threw you.

For those who enjoy apologetics, you might enjoy MADB.

I used to spend time lurking there, although, believe it or not, I rarely posted anything. Shocking, I know, given how prolific and intellectual I am on lds.net.

Eventually I couldn't stomach the worst of the worst from both sides of the aisle, and rarely visit it anymore.

Sorry for the confusion.

Elphaba

Thanks - no, I didn't know. I haven't posted on what was the FAIR board for years and didn't know there was a change.

[rameumptom]

No, no, no! Ram & I don't mean "leave the Church", we mean "leave the Church's employment". BIG difference.

HiJolly

In some ways I DID mean to also leave the Church. If we are not willing to continue in the covenants we've made, then we need to reconsider our membership. Otherwise, we are living a lie.

Some people stay in the Church simply for social reasons. Others actually try to subvert it from the inside, such as Mark Hoffman.

If Grant Palmer has a testimony of Christ and of the Restoration, but has issues with some of its history, then he has the choice of keeping quiet on the issues and retaining his membership; or choose to print his historical views and possibly leave/be removed from the Church.

The Church is not a social club, though some try to make it one. It is where we make covenants to follow Christ through living prophets. Covenants made at baptism and in the temple are sacred, and to mock them by walking a thin line between membership and apostasy is to choose to be two-faced.

Nothing ruins a great Church faster than allowing apostates to retain membership.

Then, if a person truly repents and renounces their past sins (including apostasy), they should be welcomed back in with open arms.

[Maureen]

Palmer is the epitome of hypocrisy.

...a very biased, and one-sided book, antagonistic towards the Church, that he had been working on for the previous 20 years while employed by the very Church he sought to harm. What's more he did it under a false and assumed identity to protect himself from what would have been the just displeasure of his employer.

I've met Palmer and talked to him at length about his beliefs and his book. I found him to be full of it. He applied a standard to the Church that he refused to apply to historical Christianity. I pressed him about the his Golden Pot theory. He refused to say that he thought that JS plagiarized it, merely that he included in his book because he thought it interesting. He was passive-aggressive and refused to stand behind his work, instead hiding behind rumor, possibility and innuendo.

We're going to have to disagree about Mr. Palmer.

I read his book and heard him speak in a podcast interview and I judge his character quite differently.

I believe he is a honest and sincere man.

M.

[Dale]

... just to beat it into the ground, anyone who spent 15 minutes searching LDS info on the internet would know about FARMS and FAIR.

With some critics i read you can tell when they did not spend any time researching on FARMS or FAIR. An uninformed critic will raise issues that have been answered on those websites. They will raise issues they got from researching LDS critics only. And i know of only a few instances where critics have tried to take FAIR, or FARMS on. Most arn't read in anything but critics.

[Elphaba]

Elphaba already knows what to look for in her cake.

Johnny Depp?

Elphie

[Elphaba]

There use to be slander laws.. I think that concept went right out the window here.

There are still slander laws. I don't think you understand them, however.

Slander is when someone maliciously says something about another person with the intent to cause him harm. “Harm” means you must show a verifiable loss, such as being fired from your job because of what was said about you.

However, if what was said about you is accurate, then it is not slander.

People who are openly critical of the Church could not be sued for slander, as the Church would not be able to show a verifiable loss. And you, personally, would most likely not win a slander case, because the "antis," as you refer to them, are not talking about you personally.

So, it is wrong to say there are no more slander laws. There are, but very few people bring suit as it's extremely hard to prove.

Regarding your comments about “antis,” when people like you speak in such extremes, I wonder if you understand that not everyone who is no longer a member, and who has a site about Mormonism, is an anti.

There a real “antis" out there, and while I suspect they have no illusions they’re going to bring the Church down, their express goal is to bring as many people out of it as possible.

However, some of the information these sites have is, technically, accurate. I would not recommend these sites to anyone. However, just because information is on an "anti" site does not necessarily mean it is wrong.

I suspect, however, that you consider a number of websites to be “anti,” when they are not.

In fact, some of these sites are an excellent resource for historical information about the Church. But because the site owner is no longer a member, it’s easier for you to blame it on one of the tired claims that people leave the Church because it’s hard to endure to the end. While I’m sure this is true for many, it certainly is not true for many others.

It isn't always about their beliefs or lack thereof. I know of someone who will join the church and their family will have an opposition to it. So they leave for the family.. not because of the doctrine. They find it too hard to live the rest of their life in opposition.. but forget about their salvation for eternity.

What would you have this person do? Abandon his wife and children to stay in the Church?

the anti's take those things, twist it a bit to fit their needs.. and then present it unexpectedly to the person.. catching them off guard. And because they have created such a long list..

Why do you think they’ve created such a long list? The answer: because there is much to add to it. But historical accuracy is what needs to be added, and the fact is, there are a number of sites out there, run by ex-Mormons, who address these issues accurately.

As bad as you think these sites are, many people have learned a lot about the Church that was not taught in official venues. And when you label it as anti-Mormon, accusing them of twisting the truth, etc., then you are, at times, going to be guilty of misrepresentation. Calling something anti-Mormon is a thought-stopping cliche when dialogue is what is needed.

The truth is the Church's history is rich and complex, inspiring and profound, but sometimes does not put the Church in the best light. But if it is accurate, then it is accurate.

I will say I do believe you can find this rich history, from LDS sites, far more today then you could even a couple of years ago. In fact, I think anything you could have discovered on any website is readily available, meaning there is no longer a need to find some of the more problematic issues about the Church at a person's website.

Finally, because I have spent years looking at boards discussing the Church, and have only come across a few websites that are truly “anti,“ I think you are incorrectly painting many sites with the same brush.

Elphaba

[rameumptom]

Whether you agree with her theology or not, you surely see that her answer makes sense? What if, as a member, she did sense something that seemed really positive and assuring, when she embraced the LDS faith. Then, over time, she comes to believe it is not true, that she was wrong. She's going to believe that at best she was deceived by her own runaway desire to embrace the LDS faith, and at worse that it was a spirit, but not THE Spirit. So, her natural inclination at this point would be to look to the Bible, rather than trust her own unreliable feelings.

P.S. I doubt that outside the context of a discussion about LDS beliefs, she would say she never seeks the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Also, it's this very problem of believing that feelings/spirits mislead, that cause some who leave your church to stay away from religion all together.

A friend of mine went in to see Sandra Tanner a few years ago. He asked her, what if archaeologists found a sign in Mesoamerica that said, "10 miles to Zarahemla"; would she then believe?

She paused for a moment, and then answered, "it would be a point of discussion."

The reality is, for many anti-Mos, it isn't just a matter of not believing the LDS Church is true; they DON'T want the Church to be true. The location of Nahom has been found, yet many of them still insist that no Book of Mormon location has ever been found. I must tell you, I feel that they place the evidence bar extremely high for Mormons to high jump over. At the same time, they do not require the same stringent level of evidence of their own faith. As I've said before, if I were to reject Mormonism, I'd also have to reject Judaeo-Christian belief altogether, as the claimed holes in Mormonism would look cavernous when placed against the Bible.

Just the Documentary Hypothesis could topple many Christians' beliefs. Teachings in the Dead Sea Scrolls could destroy Christian and Jewish concepts of being separate and unique (baptism and holy communion in Qumran, for example, as being pre-Christian). Yet, the book of Mormon supports both the Documentary Hypothesis (Plates of Laban as the source for E), and pre-Christian ordinances!

While I respect others' beliefs, and know there is much truth in what they believe, I'd really like people to be as aggressive in considering their own religion as they are on mine.

Which is why I do respect Elphaba's stance. She has not yet found a testimony, and it has led her to an agnosticism. But it is honest, because she applies her criteria not just to Mormonism, but to religion as a whole. The day she does find that witness, I know she is the type to embrace it fully, and yet still strongly consider each aspect of that experience.

[mike_uk]

A friend of mine went in to see Sandra Tanner a few years ago. He asked her, what if archaeologists found a sign in Mesoamerica that said, "10 miles to Zarahemla"; would she then believe?

She paused for a moment, and then answered, "it would be a point of discussion."

The reality is, for many anti-Mos, it isn't just a matter of not believing the LDS Church is true; they DON'T want the Church to be true. The location of Nahom has been found, yet many of them still insist that no Book of Mormon location has ever been found. I must tell you, I feel that they place the evidence bar extremely high for Mormons to high jump over. At the same time, they do not require the same stringent level of evidence of their own faith. As I've said before, if I were to reject Mormonism, I'd also have to reject Judaeo-Christian belief altogether, as the claimed holes in Mormonism would look cavernous when placed against the Bible.

Just the Documentary Hypothesis could topple many Christians' beliefs. Teachings in the Dead Sea Scrolls could destroy Christian and Jewish concepts of being separate and unique (baptism and holy communion in Qumran, for example, as being pre-Christian). Yet, the book of Mormon supports both the Documentary Hypothesis (Plates of Laban as the source for E), and pre-Christian ordinances!

While I respect others' beliefs, and know there is much truth in what they believe, I'd really like people to be as aggressive in considering their own religion as they are on mine.

Which is why I do respect Elphaba's stance. She has not yet found a testimony, and it has led her to an agnosticism. But it is honest, because she applies her criteria not just to Mormonism, but to religion as a whole. The day she does find that witness, I know she is the type to embrace it fully, and yet still strongly consider each aspect of that experience.

When you say Nahom has been found are you referring to the discovery in Yemen. The stone which bares the inscription NHM?

[Dale]

If the site has no relation to the Book of Mormon site it is an interesting coincidence. That was not the only coincidence with the geography features, but one of a list. It makes the book look more plausable than it would be without such external things to match up the text with. But i am not sure we can yet say for certain NHM is that place mentioned in the text.

When i first encountered Anti-Restoration material i found LDS scholarship and apologetic crummy. I found some answers really not answering the critics objections. FAIR and FARMS has got into more sophisticated answers, but i see room for improvement. But the lack of a great current answer does not mean the Anti-LDS type arguments are right in that area. It usually just means scholars and apologists might be dumb in not creating a better answer.

[MrNirom]

Regarding your comments about “antis,” when people like you speak in such extremes, I wonder if you understand that not everyone who is no longer a member, and who has a site about Mormonism, is an anti.

Elphaba

Elphaba,

I guess we need to define the word anti.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

an·ti /ˈæntaɪ, ˈænti/

[an-tahy, an-tee] Pronunciation Key

–noun, plural -tis. a person who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc.

American Heritage Dictionary

(ān'tī, -tē) Pronunciation Key

n. pl. an·tis

A person who is opposed to something, such as a group, policy, proposal, or practice.

adj. Opposed: "Douglas MacArthur had a coterie of worshipers, balanced off by an equal number . . . who were vehemently anti" (Joseph C. Harsch).

prep. Opposed to; against.

WordNet

adjective

1. not in favor of (an action or proposal etc.) [ant: pro]

noun

1. a person who is opposed (to an action or policy or practice etc.); "the antis smelled victory after a long battle"

My point here is that the word Anti.. is not a derogatory thing. It is was it is. If someone decides to make a website that is critical of the church.. that is Anti. To me it is going outside the bounds. They have their free agency to do so. What is the purpose of their site? To enlighten the members of their ward to their disappointment in the Church? Maybe to tell the world how they were wronged? To openly discuss church history? What positive thing is gained from this except them getting it off their chest?

You said:

What would you have this person do? Abandon his wife and children to stay in the Church?

Ouch! I don't think I mentioned wife and children. Personally I was thinking of a 21 year old male who lives on his own.. joined the church and his "family" is opposed to it. And in this case.. the "family" creates excuses that he is needed every Sunday. What are their intentions? Anti.

The truth is the Church's history is rich and complex, inspiring and profound, but sometimes does not put the Church in the best light. But if it is accurate, then it is accurate.

I have no problem with discussing Church history. But I can tell you this. Those that have the websites.. write their interpretation of the history. They do not "update" their sites with new information received. Here is an example of statements that are made.. what I call twisting:

How could anyone believe in the Mormondumb church when their leader Jo Smith had 34 wives, who some were children or were all ready married?

Now.. this statement is absolutely TRUE in its basic form. Wouldn't you agree? No slander here. Each statement is a fact that can be documented.

I can tell you this.. if you explain everything to this person.. they never correct their error and update their site to tell the "whole" truth. So again.. what is their intent? Sharing Truth with the world? Anti.

there are a number of sites out there, run by ex-Mormons, who address these issues accurately.

Again.. what is their purpose here?

To teach the world the Truth? Is the type of truth they are teaching important to our salvation? I think NOT.

I say.. it is better to just stay away. My advice.

[rameumptom]

NHM IS accepted by LDS scholars as THE location for Nahom. It is in the correct spot, has a cemetary located with it, dates to the correct period, etc.

The point was, there ARE places that can be found in the book of Mormon; and so the claims from the anti-group are wrong.

[bytor2112]

Sandra Tanner and her ilk are not seekers of truth. She was deceived long ago by her late husband and he was deceived by...... well I think we can all agree on who is the Father of all lies. Much of the Evangelical movement and indeed much of Christendom have been deceived and lulled into believing that God has spoken and will speak no more. The only information that they adhere to regarding the Restored Gospel is what ever has been spewed forth by our detractors and researched by people who are spiritually deaf and blind. It is so disheartening that some groups who are not even full time Mormon bashers like Focus on the Family asked that the LDS not pray during the National Day of Prayer because we are not Christian. I have read one of Dr. Dobson's books, "Bringing up boys" and it was excellent. It is too bad that he doesn't understand that God hears all prayers not just whoever Dobson thinks are Christians. The Southern Baptist Convention has labeled the LDS a cult and"just like the Muslims and Jews, if they are not saved will go to hell." I live in the deep South and am surrounded by this irrational way of thinking. My son went to church with a friend after a Saturday sleepover. This is a rare occurrence but we know the parents and they know our faith. A week or so later some ladies from that church stopped by our home to ask us if we had a church to attend, my wife said yes and told them where we attend. They were reviled by us, they physically looked ill and took a step back and promptly left our home. While behavior like that might be rare, I think the information that is disseminated is so pernicious and awful and so completely untrue that honest discourse and a search for truth so that we may all come to a unity of the faith is seriously impeded. My wife and I are former Baptists, I was never active, but I was "saved":D. She was very active and they had anti-LDS classes and showed the "Godmakers". Do you know that most of the people being interviewed and telling horror stories about the church in the Godmakers are paid actors. Sandra Tanner appears in the movie, but to her credit has denounced the films. The Godmakers II made me physically sick. Ed Decker's in some real trouble and better figure it out quick.

Satan is hard at work!! He knows his days are numbered and is seeking to deceive any and all. Finally, I personally believe that the anti's that were former members of the church were looking for the Exit sign and some misunderstanding about history just lit the sign brighter for them. As for archaeological evidences...... mankind has had thousands of years to uncover Biblical sites and evidences and less than 180 years

to unearth BOM evidences. The evidences and proof of the BOM are written in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. If Zarahemla were found tomorrow, people would still not believe. People still challenge the Bible-evidences or not. If we are to believe only after seeing, we would not need to walk by faith in this life. Heavenly Father gave us the key to the mystery of whether or not the BOM is true.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

Edited June 27, 2008 by bytor2112
grammar, spelling

[mike_uk]

NHM IS accepted by LDS scholars as THE location for Nahom. It is in the correct spot, has a cemetary located with it, dates to the correct period, etc.

The point was, there ARE places that can be found in the book of Mormon; and so the claims from the anti-group are wrong.

It's certainly an interesting discovery. So far my research has unearthed valid evidence but equally, research that disproves it. At this stage I am on the fence regarding this piece of evidence.

[MrNirom]

So far my research has unearthed valid evidence but equally, research that disproves it.

Care to share the disproving research?

[Dale]

I recall reading a critic who sought to prove the external location was unrelated to the text. I just caution with a critics research no matter how well presented does not mean they are right.