Perpetual motion in regards to Mormonism.

[_mentalgymnast]

That's pretty much the scenario that Joseph Smith put into writing, although he put God at the center of the whole thing:

So long as you see that it isn't a one-way street.

Yes, that's always a possibility.

Regards,
MG

[_harmony]

He sort of nailed it, huh?

Regards,
MG

Not if he made it all up.

Even if that was the case he still nailed it.

Regards,
MG

If he made it all up, he deserved everything he got. And still does.

[_mentalgymnast]

The FLDS should be a good object lesson as to what happens to people when an uncritical eye is cast on a cult. The Mormon church, no doubt at all, would be similar in nature and operation if it weren't for the critics of the world.

How can you be so sure? Why is it a given that the LDS church would have evolved into an organization similar to the FLDS church? From the POV of the LDS church, the FLDS church is an apostate organization not privy to the mind and will of the Lord and so not subject to his course correction. From the POV of the LDS church the priesthood keys and authority to receive further light and knowledge regarding the kingdom of God on earth reside within the SL church. From that perspective it would not seem logical to assume that the nature and operation of the LDS church would be similar in nature to the FLDS church since one would assume that God would not let abusive practices to continue unabated without intervening at some point.

Regards,
MG

[_Scottie]

What about the TBM that just found out about some disturbing aspect of Mormon history and needs to ask about it?

[_Mercury]

That's pretty much the scenario that Joseph Smith put into writing, although he put God at the center of the whole thing:

No, he put himself at the center and told everybody he spoke "for god". There is a big difference.

[_The Nehor]

That's pretty much the scenario that Joseph Smith put into writing, although he put God at the center of the whole thing:

No, he put himself at the center and told everybody he spoke "for god". There is a big difference.

Which is?

[_mentalgymnast]

The role of critic v defender is often a matter of prospective. While they are apologists when it comes to Mormonism, they are definiately critics of generally accepted logic, reason and science.

Anti-shock said "no doubt at all" and now you're saying "definitely". Can you defend this position of absolute judgment? Sounds a bit black and whitish to me.

And who is they? And how can you be in a position to say that someone else's logic, reason, and science doesn't fall into a generally accepted stance/outlook on things?

Ever heard of John Polkinghorne? Are his views "generally accepted logic, reason, and science"? Would a majority of LDS apologists outright reject his worldview?

What is this generally accepted worldview you're referring to anyway? Polkinghorne believes that Jesus Christ is literally the moral center/gravity of the universe. Many LDS apologists would agree with that. Does that make them absent/separate from the mainstream?

Regards,
MG

[_Mercury]

That's pretty much the scenario that Joseph Smith put into writing, although he put God at the center of the whole thing:

No, he put himself at the center and told everybody he spoke "for god". There is a big difference.

Which is?

One exists and the other is made up by people who control others.

[_The Nehor]

That's pretty much the scenario that Joseph Smith put into writing, although he put God at the center of the whole thing:

No, he put himself at the center and told everybody he spoke "for god". There is a big difference.

Which is?

One exists and the other is made up by people who control others.

Yes, but unfortunately Joseph then made a fatal mistake. He failed in every way to establish that he was the only way to communicate with God. He actually let the unwashed masses do it too. Luckily Warren Jeffs stepped up to the plate and did away with that nonsense.

[_mentalgymnast]

What about the TBM that just found out about some disturbing aspect of Mormon history and needs to ask about it?

I think whenever possible it would be well to get them as close to original first person sources as possible. Second hand, third hand information has a tendency towards becoming corrupted. Not necessarily so, but possibly so. Result? Hard to trust.

Critics are automatically removed from being a first person source unless they are using unadulterated primary sources and using them in context. Same thing holds true for apologists. I think the Joseph Smith Papers project is going to be a great resource for those that are interested in getting unfiltered primary source material.

But for the newbie into Mormon studies I would recommend Bushman's RSR. He does a pretty good job of relying upon primary sources and makes efforts to be up front and non-judgmental/conclusive either way. Most people I think would be in a agreement with that.

I wouldn't send them to a critic who has already made up his/her mind and as a result has a closed mind as to the possibilities.

Regards,
MG