Allen Wyatt a.k.a. More Good Foundation Barfs Up Another Site

[_Bond...James Bond]

Wow....really? Dang that's quite a few.

Here is a partial list: http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_fair ... _503024067

Dang....I'm a pretty meticulous type person but DAMN! I'd hate to play this guy at Battleship.

[_evolving]

First off -- I'm with CKS -- the sheep is hilarious!! a dizzy beaten sheep with a patch on it's head. what a perfect visual description of someone who just learned for the first time, the flower picking prowess of the prophet..

[_skippy the dead]

And, of course, despite the protests that members of the church do not put Jesus and Joseph Smith on equal footing, there's this statement:

The Savior was constantly opposed and so was Joseph Smith.

Because they are, after all, pretty much the same!

I'll have to peruse some of the rest of that site later. . .

[_rcrocket]

The whole original "cover story" is dragged out: the emigrants were bragging about killing "prophets," bragging about well poisoning [actually this is a new addition in MMM apologetics: usually its some stalwart pioneer who spreads the word that the evil emigrants have been poisoning wells, killing both Indians and Mormon children---NOT THE EMIGRANTS THEMSELVES CLAIMING THIS], vowing to return with the Federal Army to wipe out all of Utah, blah blah blah...

The first reported claims were found in the Los Angeles and San Francisco papers one month after the massacre, repeating the poisoining charge. By emigrants quoting Mormons.

I wonder if this bit of sleight of hand reflects the content of the still forthcoming Turley "final history?"

Please, feel free to judge a book before it even has a cover.

Haight is now the Number One Bad Guy replacing former Scapegoat Lee. Haight is the one who goes against other LOCAL LEADERS who tell their people to leave the party alone [who were these other LOCAL LEADERS?] and who persuades Lee to join his nefarious plot.

Haight and Lee were equally evil.

And that was that. It faded away. Bad thing, but over. Oh and B.H. Roberts and Juanita Brooks quietly wrote about it. [No mention of the near excommunication and shunning of Brooks and Roberts' fear of ever publishing his worries about the church.]

That sure assumes a lot. Brooks' biographer, Peterson, does not claim that Brooks was ever told by Church authorities that her membership was in jeopardy. She liked to claim it a lot.

rcrocket

[_cksalmon]

As early as 1831, the Prophet Joseph Smith knew that the Lord would command polygamy to be practiced. When the Prophet "approached the Lord and asked Him why he permitted ancient prophets like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to have multiple wives,"2 the answer came as revelation, and is now recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 132. The revelation states that only God has the authority to command men to practice polygamy and that He chooses a prophet to be in charge of it when He does. And when He chooses to remove it from the earth, He will do so through the prophet.

The Prophet did not want to teach this principle to others, not even to those whom he closely associated with. Statements recorded by Lorenzo Snow and Brigham Young, who were later to become prophets of the Mormon Church, stated that the Prophet Joseph did not want to submit to the idea at all. Not until 1839, when an angel appeared to him and ordered him to teach it and practice it, did he obey.

But the FAIRwiki tells us something different:

Probably the wife about whom we know the least is Fanny Alger, Joseph's first plural wife, whom he came to know in early 1833...

It makes little difference to me, but the RTM quotation is clearly misleading.

CKS

[_Sethbag]

Nah, that's not misleading at all. They meant "know" in the Biblical sense.

[_moksha]

Since when is being obsessively overboard and zealous crime?

[_Trevor]

It is sad to read stories of people who have lost their faith and who are now so concerned about telling other Mormons that they are wrong that they spend many hours describing in detail all their pretended "discoveries" about the Mormon Church.

Leave it to the bunch that characterizes everything they disparage and reject as "so-called" to call the information ex-Mormons have learned about their former faith 'pretended "discoveries".'

You see guys, and here I speak to the bozos who wrote this crap, if it was a discovery to the person who is writing about it, it isn't a pretended discovery. It's the real deal. And the funny thing is, it often concerns something that many active LDS people have little real knowledge about.

I would love to see someone do a survey of active LDS people to find out whether they already know some of this stuff. I would bet you would find many who do not. And, it is the case that there are people who are shocked enough when they learn it, that they do leave. This suggests to me that they did not pretend to discover anything. They discovered it alright, and then they discovered the exit door. Two profound discoveries that are in no way "pretended."

It is stuff like this that really arouses my disgust with "so-called" apologists and their "so-called" concern for the members of the LDS Church.

[_Gadianton]

The most hilarious thing about this site is:

This is our mission: a mission of love, and not of contention.

Anyone who's been around FAIR/MAD know that intense hatred and vindiction towards "antimormons" reeks with every project this group puts together. These sites not even serious efforts. The tidbits they have at this one are scraps from the much bigger resources at FAIR. There is just enough content to a) be a junk site that pulls up when someone searches for RFM b) complete a "textual mirror" RFM joke.

Crocket ought to respect this forum for at least one thing. Angry posters who hide their identity are far less annoying than onymous posters who hide their anger.

[_Trevor]

These sites not even serious efforts. The tidbits they have at this one are scraps from the much bigger resources at FAIR. There is just enough content to a) be a junk site that pulls up when someone searches for RFM b) complete a "textual mirror" RFM joke.

Yes. In other words, they are littering the internet. I feel the same way about some of the stuff out there that is critical of Mormonism. Although I am not a big fan of RfM, I have to say this--it serves an important purpose for some folks, and most of the people who post their exit stories do so out of genuine feelings of loss, personal transformation, anger, reconciliation, etc.

The More Good Foundation's plan was never about putting quality, informative, content on the internet. It was about burying opinions that they do not agree with. What matters is the sheer number of sites, not quality of the information. As you noted, the information is already out there at what is at least a quality production of a website: FAIR. I guess it sucks for them that it requires half a million dollars for more and a few cut-n-paste bandits to try to counter the genuine hurt and anger of a legion of disgruntled Mormons and former Mormons.

But rather than asking themselves what they might do to prevent people from becoming upset in the first place, they just consign the lot to hell, say they are all inspired of the devil, and try to flood the net with redundant pablum.

What do their tactics say about how they feel about the internet? My view is that it is only a group that already sees the internet as a giant trash bin, and that creates a mound of woodshavings which is their websites. Far be it from them to actually make the internet better, and to do anything truly useful with their resources!