A challenge to the board about Mormon Think...

[_sock puppet]

Did Jesus die for, and atone for our sins? This idea can very easily be mocked as "superstition", but the older I get, the less I am inclined to treat such things as "superstition". I'd never go around dogmatically proclaiming it as "fact", but I don't dismiss the real possibility.

Are prayers answered? Is it even worth the time and effort? Various studies have reached different conclusions.

Is God found in a laboratory, or through personal experience?

Can angels walk through walls?

Can angels appear to one person in a room filled with people, so that only that selected person can see and converse with the angel? Impossible? Lunatic? Irrational?

Will computers ever think and reason?

"I believe there is no source of deception in the investigation of
nature which can compare with a fixed belief that certain kinds of
phenomena are IMPOSSIBLE." -William James

"Theories have four stages of acceptance: i) this is worthless nonsense;
ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view; iii) this is
true, but quite unimportant; iv) I always said so. -J.B.S. Haldane, 1963

"Now, my suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose... I suspect that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of, in any philosophy" - J.B.S. Haldane

Can a 23 year old "boy" produce scripture? And could it actually have come from God?

So, "Mormon Think" has "facts"? And those "facts" are indisputable?

Could gravity be an illusion?

Just because something cannot be disproven does not mean it merits serious consideration. Mormonism is so improbable it does not merit serious consideration.

[_Chap]

Here is the material that Mormonthink cites with reference to the story of Moroni's visitation. I have added underlining.

Perhaps it was just a dream.

Joseph Smith and his early followers all started out explaining Moroni as a dream, not a vision. Then after 1830 they started calling it a visitation. We can see how these things can evolve, especially if people take the earlier stories as true and want to believe it's more. Here's references that indicate it was perhaps just a dream (emphasis added):


Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon

"Consequently long before the idea of a Golden Bible entered their minds, in their excursions for money-digging, which I believe usually occurred in the night, that they might conceal from others the knowledge of the place, where they struck their treasures, Jo used to be usually their guide, putting into a hat a peculiar stone he had through which he looked to decide where they should begin to dig."

"It was after one of these night excursions, that Jo, while he lay upon his bed, had a remarkable dream. An angel of God seemed to approach him, clad in celestial splendor."

Reference: Testimonies of Book of Mormon Witnesses, John Clark, Gleanings (1842), p.226 "Martin Harris Interview"
Letter of Testimony, 26 Nov. 1830, Parley P. Pratt

"This new gospel was found in Ontario Co., N.Y. and was discovered by an Angel of Light, appearing in a dream to a man by the name of Smith"

Reference: Letter from Amherst, Ohio, 26 Nov. 1830, "BEWARE OF IMPOSTERS," The Telegraph. Reprinted in The Reflector (Palmyra NY), 14 Feb. 1831. Also see Early Mormonism: Correspondence and a New History by Dale Morgan (Signature Books, 1986)
Martin Harris Testimony

September 5, 1829, the Rochester Gem reported on the origins of Mormonism and quoted Book of Mormon Special Witness Martin Harris:

"he states that after a third visit from the same spirit in a dream he (Smith) proceeded to the spot."

Reference: A GOLDEN Bible, Gem, (Rochester, NY), 5 Sept. 1829. Source of reference: A New Witness for Christ in America, (Zion's printing and Publishing, 1951)
Report from the Palmyra Freeman in August 1829

"In the autumn of 1827, a person by the name of Joseph Smith, of Manchester, Ontario Co., reported that he had been visited in a dream by a spirit from the Almighty and. After having been thrice visited, as he states, he proceeded to the spot."

Reference: A New Witness for Christ in America, (Zion's printing and Publishing, 1951)
Joseph Smith Sr, the father of Joseph Smith

During his 1830 interview with Fayette Lapham, Joseph Smith Sr. referred to the Moroni visit as"a very singular dream" about "a valuable treasure, buried many years since."

Reference: Early Mormon Documents, Volume 1, Page 458, reprint from Fayette Lapham's original work from 1830, Interview with the Father of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet
Family living with Smith

A cousin of Emma, who stayed with Emma and Joseph Smith during the dictation of the Book of Mormon reported

"the statement that the prophet Joseph Smith made in our hearing, at the commencement of his translating his book, in Harmony (in 1828-1829), as to the manner of his finding the plates, was as follows... He said that by a dream he was informed by a ghost."

Reference: Photocopy of letter, Photocopy in fd 8, box 149, H. Michael Marquardt Papers, Manuscripts Division, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah. Also see Mormon History, A New Chapter, by Joseph Lewis and Hiel Lewis and Early Mormon Documents, Volume 2.
Ohio Star, reporting on preaching by Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer in December 1830

"(They said) In the fall of 1827, a man named Joseph Smith of Manchester, Ontario Co., NY, reported that he had three times been visited in a dream, by the spirit of the Almighty..."

Reference: THE GOLDEN Bible, Ohio Star, (Ravenna, OH), 9 Dec. 1830, Madeline R. McQuown Papers, Marriott Library UofU, in fd 4, box 46. Also see History of the Church, Volume 1, page 118-119.

What is the problem about Mormonthink citing these pre-1830 references to Moroni appearing in a dream?

Well, in the case of RayA it may be that he has one of those things called an agenda himself. Mormonthink continues:

Ending summary by critics.

If Joseph had lived on his own then this particular criticism would not be an issue. But since he lived with 10 other people, this is an opportunity to examine whether or not the possibly verifiable parts of his divine experiences can be confirmed by other people rather than just taking Joseph's word for it. Simply put, if you were one of six brothers all sleeping in the same room and your youngest brother sleeping in your very own bed, who believed in magic and finding treasure by looking into stones, told you that an angel appeared in your room last night not once, but three times and lit up the entire room as bright as the noonday sun with his countenance as bright as lightning and conversed with him for almost the entire night whilst you and your other five brothers snoozed away for this entire time - would you believe it?

Equally puzzling is that there is no record that Joseph told any of his brothers, or the rest of his family, about his experience upon waking up. You would think that he would immediately wake up his brothers and tell them what happened. Joseph apparently didn't mention it to anyone until later that day and then perhaps only to his father.

This sounds every much like the alien abduction stories where someone swears that they were abducted in the middle of the night by aliens and taken aboard a space ship but their spouse was never woken up by this. The alleged abductee of course says that the all-powerful aliens have the ability to keep people asleep or erase their memories so their spouses can never see the aliens and verify their stories. To the spouses sleeping next to the abductee, there is no doubt that their spouse was sleeping in the bed with them the whole time, but to the abductee they still think their bizarre experiences were real despite the lack of evidence and the complete absurdity of it all.

I think the key to RayA's indignation is in the last paragraph. He may no longer have a testimony of the Mormon church (RayA will correct if I am wrong), but skepticism about visiting aliens is a redline issue for him, I recall.

[_Drifting]

It sounds as if, as well as providing the truthful facts concerning Mormonism, Mormonthink also provides readers with summaries of the main criticisms.
Thus allowing the faithful reader of the site the information with which to form their own opinion on the basis of being in full possession of the facts.

Still nobody has provided anything from Mormonthink that is a lie or misleading.

[_sock puppet]

It sounds as if, as well as providing the truthful facts concerning Mormonism, Mormonthink also provides readers with summaries of the main criticisms.
Thus allowing the faithful reader of the site the information with which to form their own opinion on the basis of being in full possession of the facts.

Still nobody has provided anything from Mormonthink that is a lie or misleading.

On the other hand, the LDS Correlated narrative is grossly misleading.

If Twede gets booted out, it will be out of group that perpetrates lies.

[_subgenius]

basically the good old tactic of "there are so many errors that I can't be bothered to point to even a single one of them, and even if I did you wouldn't accept it so it is a waste of time trying".

Reasonable provisional conclusion: no LDS poster on this board has so far found a factual error on Mormonthink. (maybe they are scared to look in case their testimony gets damaged?).

not scared to look because of danger to testimony, scared to look because that much whining and ineptitude might kill brain cells.

"claims that there are two classes of Mormons, the deceivers and the deceived. The former have induced the latter to join or remain in the LDS Church through fraudulent misrepresentations, even according to Utah law."
claims=opinion not factual
the two classes are supposition, not factual
"induced" is opinion, not factual

"Apparently, Romney is taught in his moral code that secrets are essential, especially when the information may discredit him in the eyes of the average person."
opinion = not fact

[url=http://mormonthink.com/tomphillips.htm]He said he was extending to me and my wife (she was not present), on behalf of President Hinckley, an invitation to receive a 'special blessing' in the Preston England Temple......promised me it would be a 'life changing' experience.
Elder Ballard explained what would be happening[/url]
these are examples of hearsay...not factual

"Today’s Word of Wisdom is seen as a ‘law of obedience’ for members. Once accepted as advice from God, it is now considered a commandment. "
Speculation...not factual

"Source: personal experiences of many contributing members of this site, conversations with many members in various wards throughout the USA and Gospel Doctrine classes which we've attended."
this is an example of anecdotal evidence and hearsay evidence, valid for supporting various conclusions...but not factual.

i stand by my initial response, and the mormonthink website supports my response with "facts", by examples given herein.

interestingly enough the introduction to mormonthink reads:
"The purpose of this site is to generate discussion about little-known topics of church history to those interested in increasing their knowledge about these kinds of interesting, historical Mormon issues. We encourage people to think objectively about issues involving the doctrine, practices and history of the LDS church."
yet it is easy for any reader to conclude that the purpose of that site is actually just to levy criticism with regards to controversial topics...edification, discussion, exploration are seldom, if at all, the goal.
this is further buttressed by their statement on the same page:
"Why would faithful Latter-day Saints want to look at this information?
You can become a better missionary by understanding the viewpoints of critics."
yet no counter heading is offered for why a "critic" should view this information, etc.
Instead of mormonthink it should be called what it is...mormoncritic.

and please, spare me the complaints, i have no issue with the website being in existence nor do i have any issue with it publishing facts and anecdotes. However, to pretend that the website's authors/contributors are not offering conclusions and opinions of a bias nature is naïve. Whether pro-church or anti-church or somewhere in-between a more honest adherence to their claims on the "about us" page would be to keep it simple and keep it like Sgt Friday as played by Jack Webb in Dragnet. Why not let people just have the facts and spare us your whiny diatribes and soap box condemnations because you have an ax to grind over some "insult" you suffered over fruit jello...geez.


otherwise you are just assuming that anyone reading your site will not "think" for themselves.

[_Fence Sitter]

Why not let people just have the facts

otherwise you are just assuming that anyone reading your site will not "think" for themselves.

Oh the irony!

[_Drifting]

Well, given the news of David Twede's disciplinary reprieve, it seems the Church can't find anything factually wrong with Mormonthink either!

[_Chap]

"claims that there are two classes of Mormons, the deceivers and the deceived. The former have induced the latter to join or remain in the LDS Church through fraudulent misrepresentations, even according to Utah law."
claims=opinion not factual
the two classes are supposition, not factual
"induced" is opinion, not factual

This is a book review, describing the views of Kay Burningham. You omit the first words of the paragraph:

The Author, an experienced trial attorney who has tried cases in San Diego and argued before the Utah Supreme Court, claims that there are two classes of Mormons, the deceivers and the deceived. The former have induced the latter to join or remain in the LDS Church through fraudulent misrepresentations, even according to Utah law.

“…not only was The Book of Mormon a fraud and the Mormon Religion based upon fraudulent origins (something alleged by Mormonism’s critics since it all began), but that the continued representation of the Joseph Smith story—that quintessential Mormon fable, complete with heavenly visitations, golden plates, priesthood restoration and temple covenants and ordinances as the God-given truth, for almost two centuries—that was the real fraud. Fraud in the inducement had been committed by each collective group of Mormon leaders against every rising generation of born-in-the-church Mormons and innumerable unsuspecting investigators of the Religion who ultimately became converts to the Church.” (An American Fraud, p. 180).

The description of the opinions of the author reviewed seems accurate. And your problem is what?

"Apparently, Romney is taught in his moral code that secrets are essential, especially when the information may discredit him in the eyes of the average person."
opinion = not fact

Well, given that you are citing a blog (rather than any of the main pages of mormonthink dealing with specific issues) in which the whole object, clear to every reader, is to express the blogger's opinion, it seems quite appropriate and proper for the blogger to do just that. Don't you approve of blogging?

[url=http://mormonthink.com/tomphillips.htm]He said he was extending to me and my wife (she was not present), on behalf of President Hinckley, an invitation to receive a 'special blessing' in the Preston England Temple......promised me it would be a 'life changing' experience.
Elder Ballard explained what would be happening[/url]
these are examples of hearsay...not factual

You were asked for examples of statements that were not factually accurate, or (in other words) which were untruthful. Do you have any evidence that Philips did not make the statements quoted? In fact they correspond to things he has actually said in his own voice:

Note: John Dehlin of mormonstories elected to not air the interview due to pressure from the Church, however Tom Phillips decided that he would make it available himself. This is the unedited 4+ hr version provided by Brother Phillips. (note: Tom Phillips is still a member of the church).

Available for download here:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/tempstash/TomP ... edited.mp3 Also available here and here.

"Today’s Word of Wisdom is seen as a ‘law of obedience’ for members. Once accepted as advice from God, it is now considered a commandment. "
Speculation...not factual

It was, as you know, once explicitly labelled as 'not by commandment'. But nowadays you won't get your endowments in the temple, essential for exaltation unless you tell your bishop in the temple recommend interview that you keep the WOW. And you don't think that is treating the WOW as a commandment that has to be obeyed?

"Source: personal experiences of many contributing members of this site, conversations with many members in various wards throughout the USA and Gospel Doctrine classes which we've attended."
this is an example of anecdotal evidence and hearsay evidence, valid for supporting various conclusions...but not factual.

This is the section from which your quote comes. I fail to see the problem you have with the explicit statement of sources that it includes. The authors are simply giving you the facts concerning what members have said to them in conversation. Are you saying they are not telling the truth?

What most Latter-day Saints have been taught in church and believe as truth.

Most Latter-day Saints are fully aware that black men were excluded from the priesthood from its inception till 1978. It was largely taught in the Church that up through the 1980s blacks were denied the priesthood because they were from the lineage of Cain, who was cursed with a black skin after killing his brother Abel. People were born black because they were less valiant in the pre-existence.

The ban on blacks holding the priesthood was reversed due to revelation received by the prophet Spencer W. Kimball in 1978 and was not due to the civil rights movement.

Prospective converts, even black ones, are not told about the prior priesthood ban on blacks. The Church doesn't deny it but prefers not to discuss it.

The Church has not admitted that the original ban was a mistake nor has it offered any form of apology. The leaders say the 1978 proclamation took care of that.

Some current members believe that the ban was wrongly instituted by Brigham Young and was not really God's will. Others believe it was God's will and the reasons were as many of the leaders taught for 150 years, that blacks were cursed and less valiant in the pre-existence. Many other Latter-day Saints believe it was God's will but they do not know the reason. Since 1978, the Church has avoided publicly commenting on the reasons for the ban in the first place.

Source: personal experiences of many contributing members of this site, conversations with many members in various wards throughout the USA and Gospel Doctrine classes which we've attended.

What the OP was clearly asking for was some kind of evidence that the site in question made statements that were factually incorrect or untruthful, e.g. "Joseph Smith stole $50 from Martin Harris". All you seem to be able to do is to complain that in some places on the site we have explicit statements of opinion by named people, or explicit statements of what people say they have heard others say on issues under discussion. Your point seems quite tangential to the OP.

[_schreech]

"claims that there are two classes of Mormons, the deceivers and the deceived. The former have induced the latter to join or remain in the LDS Church through fraudulent misrepresentations, even according to Utah law."
claims=opinion not factual
the two classes are supposition, not factual
"induced" is opinion, not factual

CFR that the 2 classes don't exist. You do realize that opinion can be factual right?

"Apparently, Romney is taught in his moral code that secrets are essential, especially when the information may discredit him in the eyes of the average person."
opinion = not fact

CFR that this is not both an opinion and a fact. You do realize that opinion can be factual right?

He said he was extending to me and my wife (she was not present), on behalf of President Hinckley, an invitation to receive a 'special blessing' in the Preston England Temple......promised me it would be a 'life changing' experience.
Elder Ballard explained what would be happening
these are examples of hearsay...not factual

CFR that these examples are not factual. You do realize that hearsay can be factual right?

"Today’s Word of Wisdom is seen as a ‘law of obedience’ for members. Once accepted as advice from God, it is now considered a commandment. "
Speculation...not factual

CFR that the statement is not factual...You do realize that speculation can be factual right?

[_LDS truthseeker]

If there be errors, they be the errors of men.

Whenever someone informs us of an error, we fix it.

Whenever someone suggests linking to an argument supporting the opposing side, we add it. I personally have added many arguments and links sent to us from FAIR apologists and true believers.

Reminds of an email I got requesting a change to some minor issue. I fixed it immediately and wrote him back informing him. He said he had a bet with his brother that if both MormonThink and FAIR were informed of an error, who would acknowledge it and fix it first. Guess who won?