Rich's Website

[_Simon Belmont]

If you object to word print studies being conducted to challenge or determine Book of Mormon authorship, why aren't you openly critical of Jockers and Witten?

I don't object.

But Criddle is hostile toward the Church (remember, he said that LDS deceive his LDS family, and we are the real anti-Mormons), and Rich's link on his "links" page was to an essay written by Criddle. That is the point. It is an anti-Mormon essay, and Rich is happy to link to it.

1. Please tell me why you are content to forward lies or half truths regarding Criddle's role in the authorship studies and attack the man's character and if you are so strongly opposed to the authorship studies, why you aren't ragging on Jockers and Witten?

I do not oppose fair criticism. I do not oppose word print studies or serious scholarship of any kind. I oppose Rich's anti-Mormonism because it isn't fair. Looking at his links site provides a 20% ratio of LDS friendly or neutral links. The vast majority of them are to anti-Mormon sites and essays. That is not fair criticism. That is not giving the audience information from both sides and letting them decide. That is deciding for them.

2. Tell me too, Belmont, why you dismiss out of hand, Criddle's statement of his position regarding the label "anti-Mormon"?

I sincerely hope you can see how condescending and hateful it is towards the church.

3. Don't you think his statement was sincere? If not, why not?

I think it helps my position that he is, in fact, anti-Mormon.

4. Tell me too, Belmont, if you are so strongly opposed to the authorship studies, why you aren't informing yourself of the topic matter and hacking away at the thread in the CF?

The only thing I oppose in this thread is Rich and his anti-Mormon website which just regurgitates other anti-Mormon articles, and links to anti-Mormon websites.

As I said, I don't oppose fair criticism. Rich's website is not fair criticism.

[_Jersey Girl]

But Criddle is hostile toward the Church (remember, he said that LDS deceive his LDS family, and we are the real anti-Mormons),

Criddle isn't "hostile" to the Church, he is critical of the church. There is a difference. Here is what he stated in it's entirety:

"The term anti Mormon"

How many times have we heard the terms "Anti-Mormon" or "Pro-Mormon" on this or other web sites?

Some who consider themselves "pro-Mormon" (perhaps even some leaders of the Church) believe that Mormon myths must be preserved at all cost. They reason that even if the myth is false, it nevertheless provides the moral and economic foundation for Mormon society. The myth is needed for social cohesion.

Of course, underlying this argument is a profound lack of confidence in the people - it basically assumes that in the absence of myth, civil society will collapse into a vacuum of dog-eat-dog selfishness and despair.

Perpetuating the myth can thus be justified as a morally correct act. And those who reject the myth become a threat. They must be labeled as "Anti-Mormons", so that members know to avoid them, or at least to close their ears to them.

But who is the real "Anti-Mormon"? Is it the myth maker who has found ways to justify a perpetuation of lies? Or is it the myth breaker who has confidence in the inherent capacity of the people to make good decisions without a myth?

There is another way to think about this.

Who do we consider to be our "friends"? Most of us would answer that question with a list of attributes that define friendship. One attribute that would likely appear on the list is the idea that a real friend does not deceive us.

I refuse to be labeled Anti-Mormon. I am Pro-Mormon. Those who would deceive my Mormon loved ones and associates are the Anti's.

Criddle is no more anti-Mormon than I am.

[_Jersey Girl]

I do not oppose fair criticism. I do not oppose word print studies or serious scholarship of any kind.

Yes, you do oppose fair criticism. The only reason Craig Criddle that quote exists is because he was responding to being labeled by TBM's in the first place on account of the word print studies. He was labeled "anti-Mormon" as soon as the first study was published and he continues to be labeled by folks like you, Belmont.

Criddle is a good man who loves his LDS family, loves LDS as a group because he views the Saints as his tribe. His character is solid. He has used available expert resources to investigate the veracity of the S/R theory while others have given it simple lip service. He acts on his convictions and here you are, Belmont, criticizing a man you do not know and whose work you are admittedly unfamiliar with.

[_Jersey Girl]

The only thing I oppose in this thread is Rich and his anti-Mormon website which just regurgitates other anti-Mormon articles, and links to anti-Mormon websites.

Belmont, aren't you yourself regurgitating anti-Criddle statements that you have seen online and condemning a man whose work you are admittedly unfamiliar with?

[_rich kelsey]

The only thing I oppose in this thread is Rich and his anti-Mormon website which just regurgitates other anti-Mormon articles...

Belmont, aren't you yourself regurgitating anti-Criddle statements that you have seen online and condemning a man whose work you are admittedly unfamiliar with?

The one thing I have not done is to regurgitate other people’s works on Mormonism. I used primary source material. I tried not to read what other people wrote because I wanted to bring a fresh perspective.

One man said about my latest work:

“Rich, you have presented a genuinely fresh perspective on these events, by connecting them in ways that I believe are original. ‘Those Mysterious Golden Plates’ is exciting to read, because your frankly brilliant linkages from what Joseph said and did at various times, as well as what was reported by and about him, allowed me to witness the peeling of the many layers of falsehood covering the avarice at the heart of Mormonism’s drab origin.”

I took me about three years to write that article because of all the research involved.

Here is what another man said:

"Rich Kelsey's article on Joseph Smith's 'gold plates' is thoroughly researched, systematically analysed and logically presented. The historical position existing at the time of Smith is accurately depicted as Kelsey takes us on a 'journey to 19th century America, to experience the Mindset and lifestyle of Joseph Smith and his colleagues' giving us a clear insight into the mystical environment in which Smith was born and raised.

The true background of Smith's early life is firmly established, laying the foundation of the origin of his hoax 'gold plates' which he pretended to translate, from which he hoped to make money by selling the resulting book. It was an almost inevitable and natural extension of his earlier confidence tricks.

Kelsey's analysis of the facts leads to only one possible conclusion; God would never have been involved with such nonsense. What the Mormon Church now presents as the case leaves out almost all of the historical narrative that Kelsey here presents and instead portrays an almost entirely fictional perspective. Kelsey asks all the right questions and provides the answers - and the evidence."

Link: http://richkelsey.org/STORY%204.htm

And, please check out the new photo of a painting in process on the title page.

[_Simon Belmont]

The one thing I have not done is to regurgitate other people’s works on Mormonism.

Yes, you most positively have! It isn't as if your information is anything new! It's been tried for 180 years, and by much more talented people than you. Yet the Church is still strong. Nothing has come from 180 years of anti-Mormonism. Your "ministry" is a hateful waste of your time. You could be using that time to build up your own particular brand of Christianity instead of tearing down others'.

I used primary source material.

I don't think you understand what primary source material means.

I tried not to read what other people wrote because I wanted to bring a fresh perspective.

Oh, then what are all of your citations from?

One man said about my latest work:

I don't care how many other anti-Mormon's like your work.

[_Simon Belmont]

Yes, you do oppose fair criticism. The only reason Craig Criddle that quote exists is because he was responding to being labeled by TBM's in the first place on account of the word print studies. He was labeled "anti-Mormon" as soon as the first study was published and he continues to be labeled by folks like you, Belmont.

Criddle is anti-Mormon, Jersey Girl. Let us look at the quote you provided, and I'll underline a few things:

"The term anti Mormon"

How many times have we heard the terms "Anti-Mormon" or "Pro-Mormon" on this or other web sites?

Some who consider themselves "pro-Mormon" (perhaps even some leaders of the Church) believe that Mormon myths must be preserved at all cost. They reason that even if the myth is false, it nevertheless provides the moral and economic foundation for Mormon society. The myth is needed for social cohesion.

Of course, underlying this argument is a profound lack of confidence in the people - it basically assumes that in the absence of myth, civil society will collapse into a vacuum of dog-eat-dog selfishness and despair.

Perpetuating the myth can thus be justified as a morally correct act. And those who reject the myth become a threat. They must be labeled as "Anti-Mormons", so that members know to avoid them, or at least to close their ears to them.

But who is the real "Anti-Mormon"? Is it the myth maker who has found ways to justify a perpetuation of lies? Or is it the myth breaker who has confidence in the inherent capacity of the people to make good decisions without a myth?

There is another way to think about this.

Who do we consider to be our "friends"? Most of us would answer that question with a list of attributes that define friendship. One attribute that would likely appear on the list is the idea that a real friend does not deceive us.

I refuse to be labeled Anti-Mormon. I am Pro-Mormon. Those who would deceive my Mormon loved ones and associates are the Anti's.

He is calling Mormons mythmakers, liars, deceivers, social usurpers, and a tribe -- how condescending and hateful. I say again, with even greater resolve, that Craig Criddle is an anti-Mormon.

Criddle is a good man who loves his LDS family, loves LDS as a group because he views the Saints as his tribe.

How condescending. As if we are the primitive tribe, and he is sent to study us under the Petri dish, as his little experiments.

His character is solid. He has used available expert resources to investigate the veracity of the S/R theory while others have given it simple lip service. He acts on his convictions and here you are, Belmont, criticizing a man you do not know and whose work you are admittedly unfamiliar with.

Rich and Criddle are both anti-Mormons. I'm sorry you don't agree, but I imagine there is much we don't agree on.

[_Buffalo]

15 pages of unmitigated whining from Belmont. Simon, don't you think it's time to put on your big boy pants?

[_Yoda]

He is calling Mormons mythmakers, liars, deceivers, social usurpers, and a tribe -- how condescending and hateful. I say again, with even greater resolve, that Craig Criddle is an anti-Mormon.

I don't read it that way, Simon. There are a lot of "Mormon myths" or "Mormon legends" out there.

Some were told by Paul Dunn. Others have been circulated as faith promoting stories. I don't really have time to go into all of them at the moment, because I'm on my way out to a meeting, but you can't honestly tell me that they don't exist.

I'm not sure how old you are. I think you're about 10 years younger than me...but, even so, I'm sure you are familiar with some of these "Mormon myths".

That is what I think Criddle was referring to...not the gospel in general, or the gospel as a whole.

[_Chap]

Yes, you most positively have! It isn't as if your information is anything new! It's been tried for 180 years, and by much more talented people than you. Yet the Church is still strong. Nothing has come from 180 years of anti-Mormonism.

The CoJCoLDS claims a whole 1.4% share of the US population in surveys of the religion that people identify themselves with when asked, and over most of the last decade it has remained just where it was. That is despite relentless missionary work, and larger than average families.

Maybe without all those wicked anti-Mormons it might be just a wee bit bigger, or even increasing its share?