My Work Here is Done

[_Simon Belmont]

I have read all of the Mormon books/talks in question. I have not read all of the works that you characterize as "anti-Mormon." So you are correct in your insinuation that I could be wrong. The alleged anti-Mormon works may very well be substantially more tolerant and open-minded of other beliefs than those of the LDS authors I cited.

As I said: books which promote a particular faith are not automatically against all other faiths. There is nothing anti-anything in any of the LDS books you cited.

And when are we going to start seeing examples of all these data/quotes I am supposedly taking out of context?

One need only read your posts.

For more on Darth J's line of argument, see: misdirection

[_Darth J]

I have read all of the Mormon books/talks in question. I have not read all of the works that you characterize as "anti-Mormon." So you are correct in your insinuation that I could be wrong. The alleged anti-Mormon works may very well be substantially more tolerant and open-minded of other beliefs than those of the LDS authors I cited.

As I said: books which promote a particular faith are not automatically against all other faiths. There is nothing anti-anything in any of the LDS books you cited.

You know what I liked about The Birth of a Nation? I like how it wasn't anti-black people. It was just pro-KKK.

And when are we going to start seeing examples of all these data/quotes I am supposedly taking out of context?

One need only read your posts.

Then it should be quite simple for you to pick ONE, and finally give me the public humiliation that I so richly deserve!

For more on Darth J's line of argument, see: misdirection

See, the problem is that:

1. You threw out the challenge to find works by LDS authors criticizing the faith of other denominations, and I gave you a list of exactly what you were claiming did not exist; and

2. You are still making a complete fool of yourself after over a year on this board by (among other things) continually saying that I quote mine without ever once being able to support your assertion, and after the administrator of your most sacred scripture (the FAIR wiki) told you that I am not engaging in quote mining.

So, no, directly responding to things you brought up is not changing the subject.

Simon, I have asked this before, but I never got an answer: are you deliberately trying to make Mormons look bad, or are you just completely oblivious to it?

[_Simon Belmont]

See, the problem is that:

1. You threw out the challenge to find works by LDS authors criticizing the faith of other denominations, and I gave you a list of exactly what you were claiming did not exist; and

The books you cited do not support your argument.

2. You are still making a complete fool of yourself after over a year on this board by (among other things) continually saying that I quote mine without ever once being able to support your assertion, and after the administrator of your most sacred scripture (the FAIR wiki) told you that I am not engaging in quote mining.

So, no, directly responding to things you brought up is not changing the subject.

This is off topic. It is changing the subject and it is misdirection.

Simon, I have asked this before, but I never got an answer: are you deliberately trying to make Mormons look bad, or are you just completely oblivious to it?

I don't know, but I'll bet you can find your answer in a 1977 Liahona. In fact, here's a link. Happy searching!

http://LDS.org/liahona/1977/07?lang=eng

[_Darth J]

See, the problem is that:

1. You threw out the challenge to find works by LDS authors criticizing the faith of other denominations, and I gave you a list of exactly what you were claiming did not exist; and

The books you cited do not support your argument.

Let's pick one thing from your list and one thing from my list. Here is a SHIELDS review of "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons." http://www.shields-research.org/Reviews ... ormons.htm Among other things, the reviewer talks about how this book refers to the Bible to show how Mormons are wrong to reject the Trinity, which the authors believe is taught in the Bible. The authors are showing that Mormons are wrong by contrasting it with their own beliefs, which they hold to be right.

Then on my list is a talk by Jeffrey R. Holland, wherein he mocks the doctrine of the Trinity and says that it is wrong to say that Mormons are not Christians because Mormons believe that the scriptures are "self-evident" as to the Mormon concept of God, and regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, "We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible." Holland is showing that traditional Christians are wrong by contrasting their beliefs with his own, which he holds to be right.

Or we could talk about LeGrand Richards specifically calling core beliefs of other Christian denominations "examples of Satan’s deceptions." http://LDS.org/ensign/1973/01/strange-c ... m?lang=eng

The books/talks I cite conclusively prove my argument and disprove yours (that LDS people don't publish stuff like this). Traditional Christians don't like their beliefs being called apostate and "truly incomprehensible" and "Satan's deceptions" any more than Mormons like traditional Christians saying those kinds of things about LDS teachings.

I think it's sad that you are so bigoted against other religions that you think demeaning their beliefs and calling them Satanic is merely proclaiming the gospel.

Simon, I really think that some time with a competent therapist is a better way to deal with your neurosis and self-loathing than perpetually making a fool of yourself and creating a bad example of Mormons on this message board.

2. You are still making a complete fool of yourself after over a year on this board by (among other things) continually saying that I quote mine without ever once being able to support your assertion, and after the administrator of your most sacred scripture (the FAIR wiki) told you that I am not engaging in quote mining.

So, no, directly responding to things you brought up is not changing the subject.

This is off topic. It is changing the subject and it is misdirection.

You are the one who started talking about data mining. Why did you do that if it is off-topic?

Simon, I have asked this before, but I never got an answer: are you deliberately trying to make Mormons look bad, or are you just completely oblivious to it?

I don't know, but I'll bet you can find your answer in a 1977 Liahona. In fact, here's a link. Happy searching!

http://LDS.org/liahona/1977/07?lang=eng

Simon, when you take it upon yourself to be the knight errant on the internet defending the One True Church, why don't you follow the admonition of President N. Eldon Tanner from that issue, and start enjoying the benefit of what the Church actually teaches, instead of experimenting with apologist heresies---experimentation that this oracle of the Lord says is not needed when we have the gospel?

http://LDS.org/liahona/1977/07/pioneers ... d?lang=eng

"As we pioneer into any endeavor, we have the benefit of those who have pioneered before us. We have the gospel plan to follow, which needs no experimentation, but we must plan and work to accomplish the goal we seek—eternal life."

You know another fascinating thing about this issue of the Liahona? It proves that the Book of Mormon is plausible because a couple of researchers have found what is probably Lehi's trail, including where Nahom likely was!

http://LDS.org/liahona/1977/07/in-searc ... l?lang=eng

And a year later, the Ensign published an article telling us where Nahom almost certainly was!

http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideN ... 82620aRCRD

And it's in a different place than where the Ensign would later say Nahom almost certainly was!

http://LDS.org/liahona/2008/01/was-lehi-here?lang=eng

It's not just stabbing in the dark and finding random coincidences! It's official church publications finding evidence of the historicity of the Book of Mormon by finding the same place in two different places!

Isn't it wonderful? Isn't it marvelous?

[_Simon Belmont]

Let's pick one thing from your list and one thing from my list. Here is a SHIELDS review of "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons." http://www.shields-research.org/Reviews ... ormons.htm Among other things, the reviewer talks about how this book refers to the Bible to show how Mormons are wrong to reject the Trinity, which the authors believe is taught in the Bible. The authors are showing that Mormons are wrong by contrasting it with their own beliefs, which they hold to be right.

It's an attack book, with standard anti-Mormon talking points. For example: Joseph Smith gave conflicting accounts of his first vision (p. 20).

Then on my list is a talk by Jeffrey R. Holland, wherein he mocks the doctrine of the Trinity and says that it is wrong to say that Mormons are not Christians because Mormons believe that the scriptures are "self-evident" as to the Mormon concept of God, and regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, "We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible." Holland is showing that traditional Christians are wrong by contrasting their beliefs with his own, which he holds to be right.

This book would not have been necessary had anti-Mormons not published books which asserted that we were "wrong." No anti-Mormonism = no LDS apologetics. There is no simpler truth than that.

Or we could talk about LeGrand Richards specifically calling core beliefs of other Christian denominations "examples of Satan’s deceptions." http://LDS.org/ensign/1973/01/strange-c ... m?lang=eng

And here's another problem: which specific denomination of traditional Christianity do you believe Richards is attacking here?

Anti-Mormons attack a very specific people, not a large and vague set of people that contains thousands of subsets (trad. Christianity). It is one thing to say "red pens are of the devil," it is quite another to say "medium thickness red pens manufactured by Paper Mate under the Write Bros. brand are of the devil." Likewise, it is one thing to say that "African Americans generally don't like chocolate," but quite another to say "Darius Gray doesn't like Chocolate."

You know another fascinating thing about this issue of the Liahona? It proves that the Book of Mormon is plausible because a couple of researchers have found what is probably Lehi's trail, including where Nahom likely was!

http://LDS.org/liahona/1977/07/in-searc ... l?lang=eng

And a year later, the Ensign published an article telling us where Nahom almost certainly was!

http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideN ... 82620aRCRD

And it's in a different place than where the Ensign would later say Nahom almost certainly was!

http://LDS.org/liahona/2008/01/was-lehi-here?lang=eng

It's not just stabbing in the dark and finding random coincidences! It's official church publications finding evidence of the historicity of the Book of Mormon by finding the same place in two different places!

Isn't it wonderful? Isn't it marvelous?

This is way off topic, but I will say this: who cares where Nahom was?

[_Equality]

This is way off topic, but I will say this: who cares where Nahom was?

Apparently, the folks who publish the Ensign magazine. Who are they, again?

[Guest]

Christians have been attacking each other much longer than the birth of Mormonism. The religious wars in europe which lasted well over a hundrend years is proof of that.

Indeed. So why is it the Mormons act as if their's is the only religious sect that has been attacked? Because JSJr realized how powerful developing and using a persecution complex for the Mormon people could be, both within Mormon ranks and in dealing with civil authorities.

[_Equality]

The Latter-day Saints have never attacked anyone's beliefs.

I guess Simon never went to the temple before 1990. Check out the Temple Endowment ceremonies from the late 19th century up to 1990. They put the lie to the statement that the Latter-day Saints have never attacked anyone's beliefs. It's lies like these, asserted with no evidentiary support because none is available, that really damage the credibility of proponents of the Mormon religion.

[_Darth J]

Let's pick one thing from your list and one thing from my list. Here is a SHIELDS review of "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons." http://www.shields-research.org/Reviews ... ormons.htm Among other things, the reviewer talks about how this book refers to the Bible to show how Mormons are wrong to reject the Trinity, which the authors believe is taught in the Bible. The authors are showing that Mormons are wrong by contrasting it with their own beliefs, which they hold to be right.

It's an attack book, with standard anti-Mormon talking points. For example: Joseph Smith gave conflicting accounts of his first vision (p. 20).

The LDS attack talks/books/curricula also give numerous reasons why every other Christian denomination should be rejected as being man-made and not inspired.

And the reason that is a standard talking point is that it is indisputably true. A standard talking point in history books is that the Declaration of Independence is dated July 4, 1776. A standard talking point in chemistry books is that water molecules are made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

Then on my list is a talk by Jeffrey R. Holland, wherein he mocks the doctrine of the Trinity and says that it is wrong to say that Mormons are not Christians because Mormons believe that the scriptures are "self-evident" as to the Mormon concept of God, and regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, "We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible." Holland is showing that traditional Christians are wrong by contrasting their beliefs with his own, which he holds to be right.

This book would not have been necessary had anti-Mormons not published books which asserted that we were "wrong." No anti-Mormonism = no LDS apologetics. There is no simpler truth than that.

That was a talk in General Conference, not a book. And Holland specifically says in that talk, "In addressing this we do not need to be apologists for our faith, but we would like not to be misunderstood." http://LDS.org/general-conference/2007/ ... t?lang=eng

Or we could talk about LeGrand Richards specifically calling core beliefs of other Christian denominations "examples of Satan’s deceptions." http://LDS.org/ensign/1973/01/strange-c ... m?lang=eng

And here's another problem: which specific denomination of traditional Christianity do you believe Richards is attacking here?

Which specific denomination of the Mormon movement (LDS, FLDS, Community of Christ, Bickeronites, etc.) do you believe is being attacked by discussing varying accounts of the First Vision, since they all believe that Joseph Smith had that vision? Which specific denomination of the Mormon movement do you believe is being attacked by talking about problems with the Book of Mormon, since they all believe that the Book of Mormon is scripture?

Anti-Mormons attack a very specific people, not a large and vague set of people that contains thousands of subsets (trad. Christianity). It is one thing to say "red pens are of the devil," it is quite another to say "medium thickness red pens manufactured by Paper Mate under the Write Bros. brand are of the devil." Likewise, it is one thing to say that "African Americans generally don't like chocolate," but quite another to say "Darius Gray doesn't like Chocolate."

Yes, much like the KKK is not racist, because they attack blacks (and other ethnic groups) in general, not one specific black person.

Latter-day Saints attack a very broad people, not a small, specific subset of certain denominations. Latter-day Saints are analogous to those who say, "red pens are of the devil."

You know this wonderful master's in philosophy you have said you have? Did you learn about sets, subsets, and supersets at all?

You know another fascinating thing about this issue of the Liahona? It proves that the Book of Mormon is plausible because a couple of researchers have found what is probably Lehi's trail, including where Nahom likely was!

http://LDS.org/liahona/1977/07/in-searc ... l?lang=eng

And a year later, the Ensign published an article telling us where Nahom almost certainly was!

http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideN ... 82620aRCRD

And it's in a different place than where the Ensign would later say Nahom almost certainly was!

http://LDS.org/liahona/2008/01/was-lehi-here?lang=eng

It's not just stabbing in the dark and finding random coincidences! It's official church publications finding evidence of the historicity of the Book of Mormon by finding the same place in two different places!

Isn't it wonderful? Isn't it marvelous?

This is way off topic, but I will say this: who cares where Nahom was?

You mean besides the church that publishes the Ensign, or your heroes at the Maxwell Institute?

I would say nobody outside of this tiny group of people gives a crap where Nahom allegedly was.

[_Simon Belmont]

The LDS attack talks/books/curricula also give numerous reasons why every other Christian denomination should be rejected as being man-made and not inspired.

Where do they say other Christian denominations should be exterminated, their leaders tarred and feathered, their people driven out of their homes, their sacred texts drug on the street?

And the reason that is a standard talking point is that it is indisputably true.

And you can tell an anti-Mormon publication by its fruits. If it mentions the standard anti-Mormon talking points, there is the red flag.

True or not, it raises the red flag.

That was a talk in General Conference, not a book. And Holland specifically says in that talk, "In addressing this we do not need to be apologists for our faith, but we would like not to be misunderstood." http://LDS.org/general-conference/2007/ ... t?lang=eng

Would the talk have been given had there been no criticisms of our faith?

Which specific denomination of the Mormon movement (LDS, FLDS, Community of Christ, Bickeronites, etc.) do you believe is being attacked by discussing varying accounts of the First Vision, since they all believe that Joseph Smith had that vision?

That is plainly obvious and hyperbole on your part.

Yes, much like the KKK is not racist, because they attack blacks (and other ethnic groups) in general, not one specific black person.

Latter-day Saints attack a very broad people, not a small, specific subset of certain denominations. Latter-day Saints are analogous to those who say, "red pens are of the devil."

It is the difference between saying "[group of people] are sexual predators," and "[specific person] is a sexual predator." The second could be actionable libel.

You know this wonderful master's in philosophy you have said you have? Did you learn about sets, subsets, and supersets at all?

[/quote]

Russell's Paradox is well known to me. But that's off topic.

You mean besides the church that publishes the Ensign, or your heroes at the Maxwell Institute?

I would say nobody outside of this tiny group of people gives a s*** where Nahom allegedly was.

I will leave it to the people who are interested in such things. For me, the Book of Mormon speaks for itself.