Lds Exchange

[norrispenguin]

I am of the opinion that people need to be able to discuss the Church openly, freely, and candidly without reservation.

What are the pros and cons of holding Gospel discussions with those that are not of the LDS faith?

What do you think of the idea of the following website?

http://lds-exchange.com

It was made by a friend of mine and is just getting started... it seems like a good idea to me for keeping people knowledgeable about pertinent LDS information. What do you think?

[Doctor Steuss]

I am of the opinion that people need to be able to discuss the Church openly, freely, and candidly without reservation.

What are the pros and cons of holding Gospel discussions with those that are not of the LDS faith?

What do you think of the idea of the following website?

http://lds-exchange.com

It was made by a friend of mine and is just getting started... it seems like a good idea to me for keeping people knowledgeable about pertinent LDS information. What do you think?

I think your friend lost credibility by linking to UTLM.

[Josie]

What better source to get information on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, than going to the source itself. Either LDS.ORG or Momon.ORG? If a person wants accurate information about the church they should go to the source. If they want someone else's opinion, that is not necessarily accurate information, then that is another. The Church is the best place to get information about the Church.

Just my opinion

Josie

[prisonchaplain]

I went to the site and found this:

LDS.org Official LDS Church member site

Mormon.org Official LDS Church non-member site

Fairlds.org Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research

FARMS Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies

SHIELDS Scholarly & Historical Information Exchange for Latter-day Saints

JeffLindsay.com Jeff Lindsay's Unofficial Introduction to the Church

The Cumorah Project International Resources for Latter-day Saints

MormonWiki Free Encyclopedia about Mormons from the perspective of faithful members

You may or may not like the site, but it seemed honest in saying it had "pro" and "critical" links.

[Elphaba]

I went to the site and found this:

LDS.org Official LDS Church member site

Mormon.org Official LDS Church non-member site

Fairlds.org Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research

FARMS Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies

SHIELDS Scholarly & Historical Information Exchange for Latter-day Saints

JeffLindsay.com Jeff Lindsay's Unofficial Introduction to the Church

The Cumorah Project International Resources for Latter-day Saints

MormonWiki Free Encyclopedia about Mormons from the perspective of faithful members

You may or may not like the site, but it seemed honest in saying it had "pro" and "critical" links.

I don't think any of those sites are "critical."

Edit: None of those sites are considered "critical to LDS."

Elphaba

[steve354]

LDS.org is the church offical site. So why would that be a critial link or site.

<div class='quotemain'>

I went to the site and found this:

LDS.org Official LDS Church member site

Mormon.org Official LDS Church non-member site

Fairlds.org Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research

FARMS Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies

SHIELDS Scholarly & Historical Information Exchange for Latter-day Saints

JeffLindsay.com Jeff Lindsay's Unofficial Introduction to the Church

The Cumorah Project International Resources for Latter-day Saints

MormonWiki Free Encyclopedia about Mormons from the perspective of faithful members

You may or may not like the site, but it seemed honest in saying it had "pro" and "critical" links.

I don't think any of those sites are "critical."

Edit: None of those sites are considered "critical to LDS."

Elphaba

[prisonchaplain]

I was trying to point out that the site should not be discredited for having "anti" sites, since it obviously had "pro" sites as well. The site seems very open and honest. The sites I listed were obviously all the "pro" ones.

[Elphaba]

I was trying to point out that the site should not be discredited for having "anti" sites, since it obviously had "pro" sites as well. The site seems very open and honest. The sites I listed were obviously all the "pro" ones.

I see PC. Sorry for misunderstanding you.

I just looked at the "critical" sites, and they are all credible. I haven't been to any of them for years, but when I did I spent quite a bit of time at them. I would vouch for them. Though staunch LDS would probably disagree, they are not rude "anti" sites. But they are "critical."

Elphaba

[a-train]

I am one of those who are of the opinion that anti-mormonism only serves to build the Church anyway. Let them say whatever they want and let every man learn of God himself. I think there is NEVER a downside in discussing the Restored Gospel openly and honestly.

-a-train

[Elphaba]

I am one of those who are of the opinion that anti-mormonism only serves to build the Church anyway. Let them say whatever they want and let every man learn of God himself. I think there is NEVER a downside in discussing the Restored Gospel openly and honestly.

-a-train

I completely agree.

Elphaba

[Traveler]

I am one of those who are of the opinion that anti-mormonism only serves to build the Church anyway. Let them say whatever they want and let every man learn of God himself. I think there is NEVER a downside in discussing the Restored Gospel openly and honestly.

-a-train

I have played this game enough - for me it is not just about saying and speaking in openness - it is about hearing and listening in openness. I am through listening to anti-ness, be it anti-ness of this religion or that religion. I know enough about flaws - having made plenty myself. I desire to hear the gospel (good news) of Christ - I and done hearing those preach another gospel that they do not believe or understand. If you think you believe and understand the truth of Christ then I will listen but if you speak of any religion in the anti - you have lost my ears and my respect.

The Traveler

[a-train]

ahhh. Now you've defined openly and honestly!!!

-a-train

[Doctor Steuss]

<div class='quotemain'>

I was trying to point out that the site should not be discredited for having "anti" sites, since it obviously had "pro" sites as well. The site seems very open and honest. The sites I listed were obviously all the "pro" ones.

I see PC. Sorry for misunderstanding you.

I just looked at the "critical" sites, and they are all credible. I haven't been to any of them for years, but when I did I spent quite a bit of time at them. I would vouch for them. Though staunch LDS would probably disagree, they are not rude "anti" sites. But they are "critical."

Elphaba

Hi Elphaba. You would vouch for UTLM? I know they have a lot of useful info, and have reprinted a lot of books that are of interest to antiquity, but I would hardly view their creative quote editing, and lauding of such books as Mormonism Unvailed [sic] as being "credible."

Maybe I just have a personal grudge against the Tanners though (may Gerald rest in peace)...

[shanstress70]

I know there are a lot of anti sites that are just ridiculous in their LDS bashing. But there are also some sites with credible info on LDS history.

You guys are saying that if you want to get info on the LDS church, you should only go to LDS.org. If you want to find out more about a school, would you go to that school's website only? Or might they be a bit biased and omit some issues with their school that may not be very attractive?

[CrimsonKairos]

If you wanted to know what a medical school's curriculum was, you'd go to their website or office.

You wouldn't go to another college's website. Well I guess you could but...why on earth would you?

[Elphaba]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

I was trying to point out that the site should not be discredited for having "anti" sites, since it obviously had "pro" sites as well. The site seems very open and honest. The sites I listed were obviously all the "pro" ones.

I see PC. Sorry for misunderstanding you.

I just looked at the "critical" sites, and they are all credible. I haven't been to any of them for years, but when I did I spent quite a bit of time at them. I would vouch for them. Though staunch LDS would probably disagree, they are not rude "anti" sites. But they are "critical."

Elphaba

Hi Elphaba. You would vouch for UTLM? I know they have a lot of useful info, and have reprinted a lot of books that are of interest to antiquity, but I would hardly view their creative quote editing, and lauding of such books as Mormonism Unvailed [sic] as being "credible."

Maybe I just have a personal grudge against the Tanners though (may Gerald rest in peace)...

Hi Stuart,

You know, I was lying in bed thinking about this last night. No, I would not vouch for UTML, and am sorry I did not catch that before I wrote my post above.

I do not have a grudge against them (now her), and do respect their extensive collection of documents. I also believe they started the phenomenon of bringing non-whitewashed Mormon history to light, though they were not the first.

However, their goal of converting Mormons to non-LDS Christians always put me off. And, as you say, they were not as careful as they should have been in their editing and productions.

The sheer volume of their material also made them suspect to me. I often had no way to verify it. On the other hand, the fact that Gerald knew the Salamander Letter was a forgery while others were vascillating was very telling.

Thank you for bringing the issue up as it gives me a chance to clarify my position. How did you know?

Elphaba

[shanstress70]

If you wanted to know what a medical school's curriculum was, you'd go to their website or office.

You wouldn't go to another college's website. Well I guess you could but...why on earth would you?

Right, I wouldn't go to another college's website, but I may go to a reputable, unbiased website that discusses other colleges.

As far as the LDS example, I wouldn't go to another church's website to get info about LDS, but maybe a website on religions.

[Doctor Steuss]

The sheer volume of their material also made them suspect to me. I often had no way to verify it. On the other hand, the fact that Gerald knew the Salamander Letter was a forgery while others were vascillating was very telling.

I always found it impressive that Jerald (just realized I spelled his name wrong in my previous post) didn’t jump on the band-wagon with that one. But then again, Quinn did believe it to be real. Such is life. We win some, and we lose some.

But, I am grateful for them as I do think they were one of the reasons such places as FARMS got up and running. Before that time, all we really had to deal with was Martin (although he did end up becoming more scholarly in later years) and Decker.

Mostly, I just tire of the Tanner's style. Reading one of their books gives me headaches (I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. Elipses, caps, underline, etc.).

How did you know?

Cuz you're too reasonable and smart to jump on the Tanner band-wagon.

Hugs,

Stu