DiscussMormonism.com

This question has been asked enough times recently for it to justify its own thread:

Can anyone, anyone at all, find something written on the Mormon Think website that is not factually accurate?


Edited to add: Please can someone start this exact thread on MDD and see how far it gets? (I am persona non grata there...)

Yeah, anything quoted from the Book of Mormon.

Nothing? Really?

Drifting wrote:Nothing? Really?

just all of the hearsay and outlandish conclusions
otherwise i do not really have the desire or patience to verify dates and the like, so i just assume they are accurate enough.

Yeah, I agree with sub. It isn't the facts that are usually in dispute as much as the conclusions, interpretations, and representations of the facts that is the BIG problem with MT. I actually view the site as valuable and have learned a number of things. However, I am not surprised to see Church leaders go after the individuals responsible for the website because of the approach they take to the material. In many ways, I do not believe it is either an inspired or a fair representation of the material and many of the statements and conclusions reached strike me as anti-Mormon in tone.

Tobin wrote:"...In many ways, I do not believe it is either an inspired or a fair representation of the material and many of the statements and conclusions reached strike me as anti-Mormon in tone.

What does "anti-Mormon in tone" really mean? Is anything negative about the church "anti-mormon" even if it is true? Is anything anyone says about the MMM anti-mormon?

If it is not "faith promoting" does that mean it is "anti-mormon" even if it is a documented fact?

Tobin wrote:Yeah, I agree with sub. It isn't the facts that are usually in dispute as much as the conclusions, interpretations, and representations of the facts that is the BIG problem with MT. I actually view the site as valuable and have learned a number of things. However, I am not surprised to see Church leaders go after the individuals responsible for the website because of the approach they take to the material. In many ways, I do not believe it is either an inspired or a fair representation of the material and many of the statements and conclusions reached strike me as anti-Mormon in tone.

Give us an example from Mormon Think that shows its content being 'unfair'.

subgenius wrote:

Drifting wrote:Nothing? Really?

just all of the hearsay and outlandish conclusions
otherwise i do not really have the desire or patience to verify dates and the like, so i just assume they are accurate enough.

Give us a specific example of Mormon Think being 'outlandish' or using 'hearsay'.

son of Ishmael wrote:

Tobin wrote:"...In many ways, I do not believe it is either an inspired or a fair representation of the material and many of the statements and conclusions reached strike me as anti-Mormon in tone.

What does "anti-Mormon in tone" really mean? Is anything negative about the church "anti-mormon" even if it is true? Is anything anyone says about the MMM anti-mormon?

If it is not "faith promoting" does that mean it is "anti-mormon" even if it is a documented fact?

I view as anti-Mormon as anything that discredits the claims that the gospel is inspired of God, that God is real, that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, that the scriptures are true, and that tries to dissuade one from seeking and speaking with God to learn the truth regarding these matters. Views and attacks on God and these beliefs are chiefly the purview of the anti-Mormon (and anti-God) critic. It is certainly not how an honest and humble follower of God would act and investigate these claims.

So something can be anti-moron even if it is true?