Chap wrote:This is a book review, describing the views of Kay Burningham. You omit the first words of the paragraph:
The Author, an experienced trial attorney who has tried cases in San Diego and argued before the Utah Supreme Court, claims that there are two classes of Mormons, the deceivers and the deceived. The former have induced the latter to join or remain in the LDS Church through fraudulent misrepresentations, even according to Utah law.
Oh i see! when the OP wrote "Can anyone, anyone at all, find
something written on the Mormon Think website that is not factually accurate?"
the "something" was intended to exclude actual examples of stuff
written on the website that were not factually accurate.
Or that factually accurate meant "written"...so, yes...it is factually accurate that it was written on that website.
Got It!
Chap wrote:“…not only was The Book of Mormon a fraud and the Mormon Religion based upon fraudulent origins (something alleged by Mormonism’s critics since it all began),
for example, NOT factually accurate, but was written on the website.
(spoiler alert: the real clue is the clever use of the word "alleged")
So, while it may be a fact that it is an allegation, the allegation itself is not a fact, and that is what is written....ergo a valid response to the OP.
Chap wrote:Well, given that you are citing a blog (rather than any of the main pages of mormonthink dealing with specific issues) in which the whole object, clear to every reader, is to express the blogger's opinion, it seems quite appropriate and proper for the blogger to do just that. Don't you approve of blogging?
i do approve of blogging...but the FACT is that what i have cited is direct from the website noted in the OP.
and that makes it a valid example.
again, the OP said written on the Mormon Think website"..NOT.."written on the Mormon Think website's
main pages"
and obviously "something" from the OP must have intended to exclude "opinions" which would have been "written" on their website.
Chap wrote:subgenius wrote:[url=http://mormonthink.com/tomphillips.htm]He said he was extending to me and my wife (she was not present), on behalf of President Hinckley, an invitation to receive a 'special blessing' in the Preston England Temple......promised me it would be a 'life changing' experience.
Elder Ballard explained what would be happening[/url]
these are examples of hearsay...not factual
You were asked for examples of statements that were not factually accurate, or (in other words) which were untruthful. Do you have any evidence that Philips did not make the statements quoted? In fact they correspond to things he has actually said in his own voice:
the burden of proof is the one making the claim.yes, they correspond to other things said...what a shock! - Is that the valid measure for a "fact" that i may use as well?
Chap wrote:Note: John Dehlin of mormonstories elected to not air the interview due to pressure from the Church, however Tom Phillips decided that he would make it available himself. This is the unedited 4+ hr version provided by Brother Phillips. (note: Tom Phillips is still a member of the church).
Available for download here:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/tempstash/TomP ... edited.mp3 Also available here and here.
spare me the grueling 4 hours...is Elder Ballard on that recording making the statements attributed to him or confirming that he said them? (cause that would actually make them factual)
Chap wrote:subgenius wrote:Speculation...not factual
It was, as you know, once explicitly labelled as 'not by commandment'. But nowadays you won't get your endowments in the temple, essential for exaltation unless you tell your bishop in the temple recommend interview that you keep the WOW. And you don't think that is treating the WOW as a commandment that has to be obeyed?
still speculation.....not factual
(spoiler alert: there are other TR questions that are not commandment based)
Chap wrote:This is the section from which your quote comes. I fail to see the problem you have with the explicit statement of sources that it includes. The authors are simply giving you the facts concerning what members have said to them in conversation. Are you saying they are not telling the truth?
i can make no determination of whether it is the truth or not, because there are not enough actual "facts" available.
The point is, they may be or may not be...that is the issue with anecdotal evidence, etc....
it is not necessarily a fact, one anecdote can easily contradict another and so their use is a simple logical fallacy.How do you possibly know it as a fact?....a still small voice inside you has confirmed it as you read and pondered it?
Chap wrote:What the OP was clearly asking for was some kind of evidence that the site in question made statements that were factually incorrect or untruthful, e.g. "Joseph Smith stole $50 from Martin Harris". All you seem to be able to do is to complain that in some places on the site we have explicit statements of opinion by named people, or explicit statements of what people say they have heard others say on issues under discussion. Your point seems quite tangential to the OP.
obviously your opinion and maybe others share the sentimentbut i gave accurate and correct answers to the OP.
Anything beyond that is simply "THIS".