Is this possible? How?

[_wenglund]

What crappy members. They are obviously too lazy to do any research.

That is un-characteristically judgemental of you. My parents and several of my siblings are likewise unfamiliar with much of the list, but it isn't because of laziness or crappy membership, but because their lives have been filled with improving themselves, living good and descent lives in accordance with their beliefs in the gospel, supporting, raising, and taking care of their families, charitable service in the communities, doing their home and visiting teaching, etc.. In other words, they have other priorities than researching the thinks on the list.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, Blixa was merely channeling the collective voices of MAD apologists. But then you knew that didn't you?

I don't know if the words you put into Blixa's mouth are accurate or not, but as the ultimate authority for what I know, I can assure you that the words you just put into my mouth (via the presumption of your rhetorical question) are not correct. I knew no such thing.

Who of us hasn't been told the same thing when we stated that there were certain facts of the restoration of which we were unaware?

Now, whether the collective "us" has been told by the so-called "collective voices of MAD apologists" the thing you claim, I can again only speak for myself. And, as a member of both so-called "collectives", I can assure you that I have been told no such thing and I have said not such thing. So, at least in regards to me, your steroetype is inaccurate, and you are again mistakenly putting words into my mouth.

Also, my experience would suggest something far remote from your seemingly universal claim--though, admittedly, I have seen isolated instances where critics were faulted for not knowing earlier the listed things, though typically said in response to equally mistaken assertions faulting the Church with members not knowing.

Perhaps it would be best were pertinent members of either so-called "collective" to refrain from pointing the finger of fault, rather than resorting to tranperant tu quque, if not also respectfully letting each person speak for themself. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Blixa]

What crappy members. They are obviously too lazy to do any research.

That is un-characteristically judgemental of you. My parents and several of my siblings are likewise unfamiliar with much of the list, but it isn't because of laziness or crappy membership, but because their lives have been filled with improving themselves, living good and descent lives in accordance with their beliefs in the gospel, supporting, raising, and taking care of their families, charitable service in the communities, doing their home and visiting teaching, etc.. In other words, they have other priorities than researching the thinks on the list.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Uh, sorry Wade. I thought it would be evident that my response was a parody (if simple reproduction constitutes parody) of some of the well known responses given to explain why those who don't know things about the history of Mormonism don't know them. As other's have pointed out, it should be pretty easy to spot the sources...Nehor even found himself!!!

Perhaps smilies are a sad necessity?

Either way, I would never say such things seriously.

[_JAK]

Tarski, did you happen to ask about the age of the earth?

I've recently taken to surveying people (relatives, missionaries, etc.), asking what they believe about things such as evolution, the flood, age of the earth, LGT, and the existence of a large non-Lehite population that absorbed the Lamanites. I do it in a non-confrontational way, so I don't bring up Book of Abraham issues or Smith's polygamy. It's strictly information gathering, to gauge where most LDS believers are in comparison to Internet apologists. So far there is a wide gap.

Krose,

What do your findings tell you about beliefs or any religious dogma?

JAK

[_wenglund]

What crappy members. They are obviously too lazy to do any research.

That is un-characteristically judgemental of you. My parents and several of my siblings are likewise unfamiliar with much of the list, but it isn't because of laziness or crappy membership, but because their lives have been filled with improving themselves, living good and descent lives in accordance with their beliefs in the gospel, supporting, raising, and taking care of their families, charitable service in the communities, doing their home and visiting teaching, etc.. In other words, they have other priorities than researching the thinks on the list.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Uh, sorry Wade. I thought it would be evident that my response was a parody (if simple reproduction constitutes parody) of some of the well known responses given to explain why those who don't know things about the history of Mormonism don't know them. As other's have pointed out, it should be pretty easy to spot the sources...Nehor even found himself!!!

Perhaps smilies are a sad necessity?

Either way, I would never say such things seriously.

That is good to hear. I so much wanted to keep you on my list of admirred people (not that a single instance like this would affect a change), and I am pleased that my high opinion of you is no longer the least bit in question.

As for Nehor....well, I still think very highly of him as well. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_BishopRic]

PS- I could be convinced that being willing called to be a Bishop is a sign of genetic inferiority. Care to argue for that point?

Hey, I (rep)resent that!

;)

[_beastie]

That is good to hear. I so much wanted to keep you on my list of admirred people (not that a single instance like this would affect a change), and I am pleased that my high opinion of you is no longer the least bit in question.

Have you expressed disapproval to the believers who have frequently espoused the idea behind Blixa's parody?

[_BishopRic]

...a host of other historical issues that are irrelevant to belief in the restored gospel of Christ

Heh. Tarski's items are EXACTLY the sort if things that ARE relevant to testing the claims of the otherwise unfalsifiable claims of a given religion.

Can you test whether Joseph Smith actually saw god? no. But can you test whether he was trustworthy? Yes. Can you test whether Jesus turned water into wine? no. But can you test whether there was a global flood? Yes.

And when those 'testable' claims turn out to be false, what does that say about the rest of the 'untestable' claims?

I agree that the listed items can be used as "tests". Where we likely may disagree is on what the listed items may actually be "testing", how much weight the listed items may be given in "testing" whatever, whether the "test" is worthwhile or a priority, and what inductive conclusions, if any, may be drawn from the "test" regarding other things.

Clearly, the fact that familiarity with the items on the list have influenced some members to leave the Church, and have either unaffected or positively influenced the faith of other members, and points inbetween, gives credence to what I am suggesting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But I think the principle that is often overlooked is "establishing the character of the witness," or in this case, Joseph. So for many of us exmos, we see the list, and it has an effect on whether we will believe any of Joseph's magical claims (since he has been caught in so many lies), and see a pattern that most of the "challenging" bits of history are either:

1) purposely hidden from the members (or at least the members are discouraged from reading the "anti-Mormon" materials that discuss it; or

2) is ignored or minimized by many members so the positive and faith-promoting aspects of the church only are focused on...ie, we try to avoid the cognitive dissonance that accepting this material may cause us.

I think the OP makes the point that it is common (if in fact the premise is true, which I would think highly possible since my own active, temple working family members would be in line with) for active, intelligent members to not even be aware of these issues...and when the points are pushed, they DO admit that if true, it would be problematic for them. They just don't believe they are true, probably because of one of the two reasons I listed above.

[_moksha]

1. None of them could name more than one of Joseph Smith's wives (Emma) and some were unwilling to admit that he even had more than one wife. The others said his other wives were few and only "on paper". The idea that Emma and members were at one point unaware was called an antimormon lie.
2. None had ever heard of any issues connecting the Book of Abraham to funeral scrolls. All accepted a simple translation theory.
3. All of them were steeped in anti-evolution creationist propaganda of the most inane type and were skeptical that a member in good standing could accept evolutionary theory. They all thought that there was literally no death before Adam and Eve.
4. All believed in a world-wide flood that covered even tall mountains. My discussion of geology only revealed anti-scientific emotional backlash and denial.
5. All believed in the hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon and had never heard of the LGT ("so then where was the narrow neck of land?" they demanded"). They all thought it (the LGT) was clearly incompatible with the text itself. They also said that it was “well known” that there was tons of evidence for the Book of Mormon in archeology (ancient America speaks!!)
6. Almost none had heard about any Book of Mormon/DNA issues and said it was doctrine that American Indians were simply the descendents of Book of Mormon Lamanites and denied any Bering Straight /Asian connection (calling it a mere theory).
7. None were aware of any issues concerning metallurgy, elephants or horses in the Book of Mormon.
8. None believed the "head in the hat" translation processes. They said it was an antimormon lie.

None of these issues are ever discussed at Church and many members avoid getting a good liberal education because of the word liberal being disliked by the same members. This unfortuately creates a disconnect between those able to use the internet and those who are more legend bound.

[_Infymus]

What crappy members. They are obviously too lazy to do any research. This was all discussed years ago. Do they expect this trivia to be covered in church instead of important gospel doctrines? Actually Tarski, you're probably making the whole thing up. And oh, yeah, you're an anonymous coward...

(Who Knows is only 34? Yikes)

LOL beat me to it.

Yep, it is their fault for not researching or questioning. The information is right before their eyes. And if they learned anything that really turned out to be FPRS, well, then they are "idiots" for not knowing the difference.

Yay Mormonism!

[_Who Knows]

(Who Knows is only 34? Yikes)

I just saw this. Why 'yikes'?