FAIR Journal - Message from Gordy

[_harmony]

I see you stated your situation as a cultural Mormon. Next time I read "cultural Mormon" I will read "inactive."

The question still stands. As a cultural Mormon you consider yourself to have left the Church?

No, a cultural Mormon is not necessarily inactive. Actually, most cultural Mormons are active, calling-holding members. I'm not sure why you'd think a cultural Mormon would be inactive, but it shows a remarkable ignorance about members in general.

[_harmony]

I agree with you about hate. I haven't seen any "hate" even in the caustic posts. I know one person whom you might call "caustic." Another couple come to mind that I don't know personally. The one I know does not hate ex-Mormons or critics, but does not "suffer fools gladly." If you want to make an anti-argument around this person, there had better be no chinks in your armor or you will get an arrow in a soft spot.

I don't like bad behavior on either side. We agree.

When you start calling Juliann on the carpet, you'll gain a lot of credibility, charity (you'll be banned, but you will gain credibility). Right now, you have very little, since there is no one on MAD who contributes as much to the hate that simmers there than Juliann.

[_charity]

C'mon, runtu. If I say, "everyone in the room who believes in little green men in space ships is a little loony" why would someone jump up and say, "How dare you call me loony?" Do you see the problem here. With the response, they have identified that they believe in little green men in space ships. They are the ones who made the tacit agreement that the believe in little green men. That si self-identificaiton.

I see your point, but I agree with Zoidberg that the clear implication is that those who disagree with the church are crackpots and yahoos with rehashed anti-Mormon arguments. The FAIR folks seem to be saying they only have time to deal with some of the crackpots and yahoos, but not all.

So, the self-identification is that Zoidberg disagrees with the church.

I think it means there are crackpots and yahoos with old rehashed anti-Mormon arguments, and there are those who are NOT crackpots and yahoos. It seems logical to me that only those who think they are crackpots and yahoos have any call at all to be offeneded. Thus self-identification plays a part in being offended.

[_charity]

Charity, and Scott if you're reading this, there's a whole early Mormon history that clearly is the history of a church invented and lead by Man and not by God, which you'd have to go back and erase or alter, in order to make it easier for people to continue believing that Joseph Smith was a true prophet.

Trying to "help" people continue to believe in a thing that is simply not true is no help at all, IMHO.

Credible belief or dismissive denial.

Harking back to the paradigm thread, do you think there is any chance at all that you are wrong about any of your allegations? No?

Well, then why would I say anything to you if your belief is not falsifiable?

[_guy sajer]

Charity, and Scott if you're reading this, there's a whole early Mormon history that clearly is the history of a church invented and lead by Man and not by God, which you'd have to go back and erase or alter, in order to make it easier for people to continue believing that Joseph Smith was a true prophet.

Trying to "help" people continue to believe in a thing that is simply not true is no help at all, IMHO.

Credible belief or dismissive denial.

Harking back to the paradigm thread, do you think there is any chance at all that you are wrong about any of your allegations? No?

Well, then why would I say anything to you if your belief is not falsifiable?

You seem to be confusing "received" truth with empirical evidence. Sethbag's belief is based on evidence, which overwhelmingly demonstrates that Mormonism is false. His position is the same as mine, we are open to evidence we are wrong, but the evidence simply doesn't exist, or what does exist is completely overwhelmed by contrary evidence. There is a chance we are wrong, but that chance, based on the evidence, is no better than, say, .001, or so small it approaches 0. Give us more evidence, and we will reassess the probability and our position.

You simply do not have strong evidence to show us to cause us to change our position.

Your position, however, is based on "received" truth, and as you've demonstrated time and time again, it is impervious to evidence. You started with the conclusion, and you've never changed it, nor are you willing even to reconsider it, regardless of the evidence.

We were once where you are now, but we are, unlike you, open to evidence, and we remain so. And it is precisely that which differentiates us from you. That we haven't seen sufficient evidence to change our mind again doesn't mean we're closed minded, it means that there's no evidence.

You are far more closed minded than Sethbag. It is YOU who holds the unfalsifiable position, not him.

It's time to crap or get off the pot. Show us the evidence or quit yapping about unfalsifiable positions.

[_Runtu]

I think it means there are crackpots and yahoos with old rehashed anti-Mormon arguments, and there are those who are NOT crackpots and yahoos. It seems logical to me that only those who think they are crackpots and yahoos have any call at all to be offeneded. Thus self-identification plays a part in being offended.

OK, then.

I will admit that the hate spewn at me on FAIR/MAD (which I outlined above) has offended me. One of my major character flaws is that I take things too personally. But then those things, which you apparently hadn't noticed, seemed designed to hurt and offend.

[_Sethbag]

Charity, and Scott if you're reading this, there's a whole early Mormon history that clearly is the history of a church invented and lead by Man and not by God, which you'd have to go back and erase or alter, in order to make it easier for people to continue believing that Joseph Smith was a true prophet.

Trying to "help" people continue to believe in a thing that is simply not true is no help at all, IMHO.

Credible belief or dismissive denial.

Only in the virtual reality world of Mormonism are your beliefs credible. The belief that Joseph Smith actually translated the Egyptian papyrus into the Book of Abraham, for example, is simply not credible to anyone who hasn't got the requirement hard-wired into their brains that Joseph Smith have been a true prophet.

You can say what you want, but it's just not credible. It's also not credible that God wanted Joseph Smith to call one of his apostles, Orson Hyde, to go dedicate the Holy Land, and then have Joseph Smith proposition, marry (in a farcical secret ceremony), and then have sex with his wife while he was away. There is nothing about this episode, coming from the TBM apologists, which has one shred of credibility.

Harking back to the paradigm thread, do you think there is any chance at all that you are wrong about any of your allegations? No?

Given the state of the evidence, I highly doubt it. Have you got anything new to add to the conversation? Or are your attempts at diverting the damning evidence of Joseph Smith's true character and deeds just as lame as ever? You just don't seem to understand that your lame mopologetic excuses for Joseph Smith, the Book of Abraham, etc. are only credible in the eyes of the true believer, who has a need for the church to be true. To anyone else in the entire universe, they are lame, pathetic, and intellectually bankrupt.

Well, then why would I say anything to you if your belief is not falsifiable?

I don't know. I suppose it makes you feel good, like you're defending God or something. You're Saturday's Warrior, Charity! Keep standing up and taking one for the team. I'm sure Sky Daddy adds another brick of gold to your mansion on high every time you stand up and offer up some inane defense for the church.

My belief is that the LDS church is not true. You speak of whether my belief is falsifiable. That means, you wish to falsify the notion that the church is not true. This is possible only if you prove that the church is in fact true.

Can you prove that the church is true, Charity? If you can't, then no, you cannot falsify my belief that the church is not true.

[_charity]

Only in the virtual reality world of Mormonism are your beliefs credible. The belief that Joseph Smith actually translated the Egyptian papyrus into the Book of Abraham, for example, is simply not credible to anyone who hasn't got the requirement hard-wired into their brains that Joseph Smith have been a true prophet.

You obviously believe that the claim is that Joseph Smith looked at the characters on the papyri and translated them into English, as my husband takes poetry in English and translates it into Spanish. Maybe some people make that claim, but there is another just as credible explanation: That Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Abraham as he apparently did the Book of Mormon. By some other means. Or the Book of Moses where there was no physical inscription at all. So see, your assertion about the only claim possible is just plain wrong.

You can say what you want, but it's just not credible. It's also not credible that God wanted Joseph Smith to call one of his apostles, Orson Hyde, to go dedicate the Holy Land, and then have Joseph Smith proposition, marry (in a farcical secret ceremony) her, and then have sex with her while her real husband was away. There is nothing about this episode, coming from the TBM apologists, which has one shred of credibility.

You have no proof at all that there were any physical relations between Joseph Smith and the wife of Orson Hyde. Or any of the plural wives. I am not saying there weren't, but you don't have any proof. Would you be willing to bet your life that you are right? Oh, wait. You actually are. And the funny thing is, being right isn't going to help you one bit in your scheme of things. On the other hand, if you are wrong, you are in a world of hurt.

Harking back to the paradigm thread, do you think there is any chance at all that you are wrong about any of your allegations? No?

Given the state of the evidence, I highly doubt it. Have you got anything new to add to the conversation? Or are your attempts at diverting the damning evidence of Joseph Smith's true character and deeds just as lame as ever? You just don't seem to understand that your lame mopologetic excuses for Joseph Smith, the Book of Abraham, etc. are only credible in the eyes of the true believer, who has a need for the church to be true. To anyone else in the entire universe, they are lame, pathetic, and intellectually bankrupt.

Your absolute arrogance that only your point of view is credible is breathaking. Tell you what, you bring your notes with you to the other side, and we can compare when we get there. We can ask Joseph how he got the Book of Abraham into English.

Well, then why would I say anything to you if your belief is not falsifiable?

I don't know. I suppose it makes you feel good, like you're defending God or something. You're Saturday's Warrior, Charity! Keep standing up and taking one for the team. I'm sure Sky Daddy adds another brick of gold to your mansion on high every time you stand up and offer up some inane defense for the church.

My belief is that the LDS church is not true. You speak of whether my belief is falsifiable. That means, you wish to falsify the notion that the church is not true. This is possible only if you prove that the church is in fact true.
Can you prove that the church is true, Charity? If you can't, then no, you cannot falsify my belief that the church is not true.

The Church is true whether or not I can prove it. The argument that truth is only truth if a specific individual can prove it is not the brightest thing you have ever said.

[_Jason Bourne]

He makes a few good points and a few bad ones. Some comments.

There was a recent article in Arizona where a brother was
excommunicated from the church for apostasy. He told the newspapers
about losing his belief when he discovered that Joseph Smith had more
than one wife. Again, I am puzzled. His misunderstanding is that it is
ok to know that Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff had
more than one wife and to believe they were prophets, but it means
Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet if he did.

It was really not this simple. Why did he make it look like it was?

I don't mean to say that we should only be reading whitewashed
histories that leave out the mistakes and faults of men. But it makes
me ask what history these people are reading.

Does the history they read include the lives, histories, and
testimonies of the witnesses who said over and over again that they
had seen the plates and they had seen an angel?

Does it include the story of Martin Harris complaining how heavy the
plates were as he held them on his lap for an hour and a half?

Does it include Martin Harris saying, "Well as sure as you see my hand
so sure did I see the angel and the plates"?

Does it include Oliver Cowdery speaking of the Book of Mormon
translation from his deathbed and saying, "I know that whereof I
testified is true. It was no dream, no vain imagination of the
mind--it was real"?

Does it include the story of Katharine, Joseph Smith's sister hiding
the plates in her bed under her legs?

Does it include the quote from John Whitmer as he says, "I handled
those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides"?

Does the history include the many reports from others who also saw
angels?

Does the history include the 121 independent eyewitness accounts of
the mantel of Joseph Smith being passed on to Brigham Young on August
8, 1844, such as the one from nine-year-old William Van Orden who
suddenly said, "The Prophet [is] not dead, for I [see] him on the
stand"?

Yes. Did he read the the histories that state the witnesses did not see with natural eyes but spiritual, that the plates were covered when they handled them, that the transfiguration of Brigham was inserted into the history after the fact.... that the accounts of the event may be dubious?

Did he read that the way the priesthood is taught to have been restored is nothing like what really happened, that there is no mention of John the Baptist's visit before 1832? That the MK priesthood ideas were not there till 1835 and then we here about Peter, James and John and not before? Where in the histories that the Church sponosrs is anything about polyandry and Helen Mar Kimball? How about anything in the LDS sponsored histories that cover the fact that the first Manifesto was a subterfuge and that it really confused the hell out of the members? How about the Changes to the D&C as well?

I suspect that the histories they are reading aren't complete. I
suspect this incompleteness because I have read many of those
histories.

I suspect he is wrong.

In reading them I find there are things often left out,
there are things included that aren't relevant, and there are things
included of suspect authenticity.

Can he enlighten us as to what it not relevant in his mind and what is suspect?

To be fair, all histories leave
things out and get some things wrong. There simply isn't enough room
for all of history in any one book, and research is always expanding
and subject to human error.

Is this reason to leave most of the difficult issue out?

But it is interesting to observe what is
strategically left in or taken out. Some histories use facts and
quotes to paint a picture that shows Joseph Smith as a flawed man and
therefore not a prophet; however, they leave out facts and quotes that
show that he was a prophet. Yet, when you see all of the facts and
quotes and their textual and historical contexts, you see both
pictures and come to understand that Joseph Smith was flawed man who
was also a prophet of God.

And some histories paint him as nothing but a hero that you cannot but help to love and know as a prophet because he appears near to perfection.

It is sometimes argued that Church history books and lesson manuals
leave out pertinent facts. They tend to leave out the flaws of early
Church leaders. But, these facts aren't pertinent to the question of
whether these men were called of God because the Church teaches that
all men have flaws including prophets. And yet, God uses those flawed
men to bring about His work.

This is the dumbest thing he said and the dumbest argument anyone can make. "It does not matter that Joseph Smith lied to his wife about plural marriagem married other mens wives and told teenagers that they would gain exaltation by marrying him." He was a prophet damn it.

Ands not only do the tend to leave out the flaws they deliberately leave out the flaws. And what they did and their charecter is pertinent in deciding if we can trust the fact they claimed to speak directly to God.

If one is going to make a life changing decision such as leaving a
church, it should be based on more than one disturbing fact, or on
reading one disturbing book, or worse, a few articles from an Internet
web site. More research is always necessary to understand the
historical and textual context of the history you have read.

]

Oh come now. If one is going to commit their life to a Church in time, money, devotion etc like one does who is LDS one should expect the Church to be forthright and provide disclosure to difficult issues. Would Mr Gordon invest $10,000 or more on such flimsy material as one gets in the missionary discussions? Yet he expects people to devote their life and that of their families without disclosure.

And by they way my guess is for most it more then "one disturbing fact, or on
reading one disturbing book, or worse, a few articles from an Internet
web site." Can you say straw man?

If you are struggling and seeing only the negative picture of the
Church and Church history, these books might help you see the other
picture and understand that both pictures can peacefully coexist,
providing a richness to our history. Good and bad often coexist as
humans make both good and bad decisions. Additionally, sometimes what
we call bad is simply our misunderstanding of God and how He works.
The true miracle is that God uses us as flawed human beings to carry
out His flawless work

.



I have no problem with God using flawed men and women. Why does the Church seem to need to paint them as not flawed?

[_Jason Bourne]

The LDS historians know about Mormon
history--warts and all--and don't leave.

yes this is a constant argument. What about the ones that do leave Or are there other reasons why they stay? What about Catholci historians who know the warts and stay Catholic? It is is silly argument.