Scott Gordon on Lying for the Church

[_charity]

I know how many e-mails Allen gets, and what the subjects of them are. It has been weeks since there was a question about polygamy that I recall. I have actual facts, as opposed to your "hundreds of e-mails he PROBABLY receives." YOu really ought to stick to what you know, instead of what you imagine in your mind.

How do you know are you his secretary monitoring his email?

Or is this more behind the scenes gossip?

Share the facts and how you came by them.

I'm on the same list.

Same list as who, Dart? What list? Who else?

The FAIR Journal goes by e-mail to anyone who subscribes to it. Just register on the FAIR Website, no cost. That is where Kevin got the article he posted.

I was referring to the list where the questions go. On the FAIR website there is a link to the "ask an apologist" line. That list. Any apologist you can name is probably on the list. And a lot more that you can't. Not big enough to make the big time. That's me.

[_dartagnan]

Just why did you leave off the first part of the e-mail piece?

Because when I cut it from my hotmail and pasted it here, it showed up like this:

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT The Mormon Problem with Honesty In the various articles, blogs, and comments related to Mitt Romney's Mormonism, the Mormon honesty problem has come up. "Why didn't Mitt Romney talk about what Mormons really believe?" asked one writer. "Mormons feel it is ok to lie about their beliefs," stated a radio caller. So do Mormons lie about their beliefs? All practicing Mormons must answer the question, "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?" in the affirmative in order to be able to attend an LDS temple, so they are often puzzled by these statements and questions. But Mormon answers aren't really the problem. The honesty problem has more to do with what Evangelical Christians are taught about Mormons than with Mormon belief itself. In a survey done by FAIR, over 65% of responding pastors said that they had sponsored classes at their Church on Mormonism. Most people love their church and their pastors. They have seen their pastor spend countless hours in helping people and doing their best to teach their congregations. But in teaching about Mormonism, only 2% of those pastors actually invited Mormons to explain their beliefs. The rest relied on anti-Mormon ministries and publications for theirinformation. The goal of these professional anti-Mormon ministries is to keep people away from Mormonism. They want to protect the flock from any Mormon "sheep-stealing" missionaries. To accomplish their goal they sensationalize, distort, misunderstand, misread, and misrepresent LDS doctrine and scripture. It is from this group that we learn that Mormonism is a cult. It is this group that provides most of the information on Mormonism on the Internet. So when Evangelicals start conversations with their Mormon acquaintances, they already "know" Mormons belong to a cult, even if they can't remember why. On the other side of this equation, we have the Mormons. Mormons have a completely different way of looking at doctrine. They tend to classify doctrine into that which is important and that which is speculation. The important things are mostly reflected in the temple recommend questions and focus on core doctrines such as Jesus is our Savior, God is our Father, keep the commandments, God speaks to us today, and the Bible and The Book of Mormon are the word of God. Other important beliefs are that we lived with God before this life and after this life we will all be resurrected and enter one of the kingdoms of glory. These are all beliefs that define Mormonism. Mormon speculation deals with doctrinal areas where there are hints in scripture, but no explanations. These areas are less sure, less defined, and frequently completely unknown. Questions in this area would include: what was it like in the pre-existence? Where did God come from? What exactly will it be like in the afterlife? Because these areas are unknown, a good practicing Mormon is free to believe and say anything he or she wants about them. We have a long history of commenting on these areas, yet most everyone understands that theseare areas of personal opinion and speculation. The honesty problem comes up when the Evangelical world and the Mormon world collide. The questions posed to Mormons come from a basis in anti-Mormonism meant to expose how the Mormons are weird and belong to a cult. Is Jesus Satan's brother? Is there a God before God? Where does God live? Will you be creating your own planet? While you can find something written by a Mormon somewhere on all these items, these questions fall into the speculative area and are not core doctrines of Mormonism. This means if you ask several different Mormons, you will likely get several different answers. And Mormons have no problem with that. When the religious issue came up for Mitt Romney, Mormon honesty became a factor. The real truth is that most of the discussions on Mormonism haven't been about Mormonism at all, but a discussion of speculation, anti-Mormon issues, and bigotry. That is where we need a little more honesty. Before closing, I would like to turn for a short time to anothertopic--the passing of President Hinckley. We all knew it was coming;we all knew this day would arrive. That doesn't change the shock andsurprise that comes with hearing the news of his passing, however. President Hinckley was, to put it mildly, an inspiration for manypeople, LDS and not. His boundless energy and eternal optimism gavevoice to the best to which we, as humans, aspire. He attempted tolive his life in concert with the will of his Father, and he showedus how to be like Christ in our everyday lives. President Hinckley will be dearly missed. --Scott GordonPresident

I tried to cut down on the labor it took dividing up all the paragraphs, by cutting out the irrelevant text. Had I known you would take this as an opportunity to read malice into it, I probably would have included the first part. You have yet to show how the first portion which was "left out" has any impact on anything I have said. Gordon still engages in straw men. I began with the relevant question and cut out the beginning about politics and the end about Hinckley. So what?

I know how many e-mails Allen gets, and what the subjects of them are.

Just shut up, you sound like an idiot. All you're doing is saying "Nuh uh, I have a testimony that these emails really exist just like Gordon says." He doesn't provide any names which is a pretty standard thing to do when answer email questions. The fact is Gordon sifts through his emails and picks up easy things to address. He then writes up a cheesy article geared to appeal to the choir. Nobody outside LDS apologia really buys this crap.

It has been weeks since there was a question about polygamy that I recall.

But they do come in and Gordon doesn't address these types of questions. That is my point. IF he really wanted to prove Mormons aren't dishonest in answering questions, he should tackle two or three of teh most common accusations. But he only deals in generalities, never specifics. He can't afford to for the same reason he can't afford to ever debate specifics at MADB. In his silly "statements" in these FAIR Journal issues, he simply chooses his own softball questions so he can knock them out of the park. It makes it even easier when he knows that nobody is in the outfield to catch his pop-ups, because he is not arguing in a forum where critical feedback is permitted.

I have actual facts, as opposed to your "hundreds of e-mails he PROBABLY receives."

Oh, he doesn't receive hundreds of emails? Your so-called "facts" aren't worth squat unless you share the details. What are these emails saying, who writes them, when, what is the context, etc.. Bearing your testimony about emails is pathetic.

[_charity]

I tried to cut down on the labor it took dividing up all the paragraphs, by cutting out the irrelevant text. Had I known you would take this as an opportunity to read malice into it, I probably would have included the first part. You have yet to show how the first portion which was "left out" has any impact on anything I have said. Gordon still engages in straw men. I began with the relevant question and cut out the beginning about politics and the end about Hinckley. So what?

You ought to at least get juno. The FAIR Journal come in nice paragraphs.

I know how many e-mails Allen gets, and what the subjects of them are.

Just shut up, you sound like an idiot. All you're doing is saying "Nuh uh, I have a testimony that these emails really exist just like Gordon says." He doesn't provide any names which is a pretty standard thing to do when answer email questions. The fact is Gordon sifts through his emails and picks up easy things to address. He then writes up a cheesy article geared to appeal to the choir. Nobody outside LDS apologia really buys this crap.

I see the questions that come in, with the names or at least e-mail names and the actual questions they ask. The answers go back to the individual who asked. The FAIR Journal is for anyone who is interested. You must be, or else you would have unsubscribed so as not to be bothered.

It has been weeks since there was a question about polygamy that I recall.

But they do come in and Gordon doesn't address these types of questions. That is my point. IF he really wanted to prove Mormons aren't dishonest in answering questions, he should tackle two or three of the most common accusations. But he only deals in generalities, never specifics. He can't afford to for the same reason he can't afford to ever debate specifics at MADB. In his silly "statements" in these FAIR Journal issues, he simply chooses his own softball questions so he can knock them out of the park. It makes it even easier when he knows that nobody is in the outfield to catch his pop-ups, because he is not arguing in a forum where critical feedback is permitted.

I checked my mail list again, (I check several times a day) and out of today's 175 or so e-mails, there were two questions on Joseph Smith. One asked where and when Joseph got the authority for plural marriage. The other addressed the issue of whether or not a prophet should be infallible.

You obviously haven't read many of the FAIR journals. So you are arguing a position from ignorance. Plural marraige, blacks and priesthood, women and the priesthood, questions of history, etc. have all been addressed in FAIr Journals in the 3 years I have been getting them.

I have actual facts, as opposed to your "hundreds of e-mails he PROBABLY receives."

Oh, he doesn't receive hundreds of emails? Your so-called "facts" aren't worth squat unless you share the details. What are these emails saying, who writes them, when, what is the context, etc.. Bearing your testimony about emails is pathetic.

The e-mail list generates about 175 e-mails a day, not by actual count but my estimate based on how many I get every time I open my e-mail box. A good share of them are internal. A question comes in, two or three people send back answers to the questioner and the answer is cc'd to everyone. Then list members ay take the opportunity tocomment on the answers others have given to each other, but these are not sent out. There are questions from members about what a source is, where to find something, a book they just found that was information, etc.

As I said, today's questions included only two on Joseph Smith. There were several political topics going on, some about the Westboro situation. I will not tell you the names of people who write in with questions. They didn't agree to have their names published.

[_harmony]

The e-mail list generates about 175 e-mails a day, not by actual count but my estimate based on how many I get every time I open my e-mail box.

Holy Moses! When do you people find time to sleep? Take a shower? Shop for groceries? WORK?

[_charity]

The e-mail list generates about 175 e-mails a day, not by actual count but my estimate based on how many I get every time I open my e-mail box.

Holy Moses! When do you people find time to sleep? Take a shower? Shop for groceries? WORK?

Harmony, I will tell you a secret if you promise not to tell anyone. Shhhh. I don't read a lot of them. If the topic doesn't interest me, I delete without reading. Shhhhh.

[_skippy the dead]

The e-mail list generates about 175 e-mails a day, not by actual count but my estimate based on how many I get every time I open my e-mail box.

Holy Moses! When do you people find time to sleep? Take a shower? Shop for groceries? WORK?

Harmony, I will tell you a secret if you promise not to tell anyone. Shhhh. I don't read a lot of them. If the topic doesn't interest me, I delete without reading. Shhhhh.

Apostate! Apostate!

(I would add a smiley to indicate a joke, but I wouldn't want it to appear drunken) (here would be another good place for an un-drunken smiley)

[_bcspace]

Romney really screwed up the youtube.com Bible question. When asked "Do you believe every word in this book?" Romney hemmed and hawed, obviously thinking of "as long as it is translated correctly". Many of us LDS would've had the same problem.

The only right answer to the question is a resounding "Yes!" (keeping in mind the context of such a question which allows one not to worry about such verses as pi equals exactly 3 or Melchizadek's lack of father and mother, etc.).

1 Nephi 13 specifies exactly how the Bible is corrupted. It is because stuff was removed from it which does not mean there is a problem with what exists.

This is just one example of the answer to the dilemma posed by Scott G. That answer being that LDS simply need to be knowledgable about what their own scriptures teach and what their own Church teaches about what is and is not doctrine. There are very simple rules to follow when dertermining what is doctrine in the LDS Church. Many LDS apologists and virtually all antiMormons do not seem to want to see or know them.