A challenge to the board about Mormon Think...

[_RayAgostini]

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.

You're right, I don't have a testimony of the "Mormon Church", and that has primarily been based on a reading of 3rd Nephi 27. I don't have a "testimony" of any organisation.

80 million Americans believe that UFOs exist.

The results are in: Seventeen percent of Americans don't believe UFOs exist, 36% think they do, and 48% aren't sure. (USA Today, June 26, 2012)

As compared to the true believers and agnostics, skeptics are a minority. It's healthy to keep an open mind rather than debunking.

[_subgenius]

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.

Oh i see! when the OP wrote "Can anyone, anyone at all, find something written on the Mormon Think website that is not factually accurate?"
the "something" was intended to exclude actual examples of stuff written on the website that were not factually accurate.
Or that factually accurate meant "written"...so, yes...it is factually accurate that it was written on that website.
Got It!

“…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),

for example, NOT factually accurate, but was written on the website.
(spoiler alert: the real clue is the clever use of the word "alleged")
So, while it may be a fact that it is an allegation, the allegation itself is not a fact, and that is what is written....ergo a valid response to the OP.

"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?

i do approve of blogging...but the FACT is that what i have cited is direct from the website noted in the OP.
and that makes it a valid example.
again, the OP said written on the Mormon Think website"..NOT.."written on the Mormon Think website's main pages"
and obviously "something" from the OP must have intended to exclude "opinions" which would have been "written" on their website.

[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:

the burden of proof is the one making the claim.
yes, they correspond to other things said...what a shock! - Is that the valid measure for a "fact" that i may use as well?

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.

spare me the grueling 4 hours...is Elder Ballard on that recording making the statements attributed to him or confirming that he said them? (cause that would actually make them factual)

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?

still speculation.....not factual
(spoiler alert: there are other TR questions that are not commandment based)

"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?

i can make no determination of whether it is the truth or not, because there are not enough actual "facts" available.
The point is, they may be or may not be...that is the issue with anecdotal evidence, etc....it is not necessarily a fact, one anecdote can easily contradict another and so their use is a simple logical fallacy.
How do you possibly know it as a fact?....a still small voice inside you has confirmed it as you read and pondered it?

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.

obviously your opinion and maybe others share the sentiment
but i gave accurate and correct answers to the OP.
Anything beyond that is simply "THIS".

[_The Mighty Builder]

Yeah, The title. Mormon Think, really?

[_SteelHead]

Saying the WOW is not a commandment is just a spurious argument in semantics. It is a "sin" considered significant enough to keep you out of the temple. As there is no sin where there is no law, obeying the modern precepts of the WOW is a defacto commandment, though you will be hard pressed to find a revelation making it so.

http://www.LDS.org/manual/gospel-princi ... h?lang=eng

We Are Commanded Not to Take Certain Things into Our Bodies

•What has the Lord commanded us not to take into our bodies?

The Lord commands us not to use wine and strong drinks, meaning drinks containing alcohol. The First Presidency has taught that strong drink often brings cruelty, poverty, disease, and plague into the home. It often is a cause of dishonesty, loss of chastity, and loss of good judgment. It is a curse to all who drink it. (See “Message of the First Presidency,” Improvement Era, Nov. 1942, 686.) Expectant mothers who drink can cause physical and mental damage to their children. Many automobile accidents are caused each year by people who drink alcohol.

The gospel principles manual says "we are commanded" so I would call it a commandment.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I congratulate subgenius on introducing a new level of stupidity into Mormon apologetics. I wouldn't have thought it possible to make even lamer arguments than standard mopologetics, but I stand corrected.

[_Tobin]

Subgenius,

I wouldn't waste my time. You can't take anything Chap and company state seriously. When you point out that facts are misused, misrepresented, misapplied and NOT how a Mormon should or would fairly and honestly apply those facts on MT, they simply are dismissive of any such citation no matter how clear it is. The questionable statements on MT in multiple locations are not in keeping with how a genuine Mormon would or should approach this information given a wealth of background information they should share with other members. Now you've stated this and provided several citations - you'll see them dance around the problem and enter denial mode despite the evidence to the contrary. It is sadly predictable and how they always approach something like this. They can't honestly or in any straightforward way discuss anything. They are incapable of reasonably responding to your points or provide thoughtful points of their own. About the only thing I expect from them are laughable denials and mischaracterizations.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Tobin, you haven't pointed out anything that has been misused, misrepresented, or misapplied. The problem with our intellectually challenged subgenius is that none of the examples he has come up with are either claims of the web site or factually incorrect. That he can't tell the difference between a cover blurb for a book and a statement intended to be taken as fact is not our fault.

I'm surprised you take this crap seriously. You seem smarter than that.

[_schreech]

The questionable statements on MT in multiple locations are not in keeping with how a genuine Mormon would or should approach this information given a wealth of background information they should share with other members.

No true scotsman...er, Mormon would approach the information this way!

Oh and your anecdote about being visited by god in a hotel room, not "factual" according to subgenius for several reasons based on his rambling (idiotic) attempt to "logically" respond...Interesting that you agree with him.

[_Tobin]

Tobin, you haven't pointed out anything that has been misused, misrepresented, or misapplied. The problem with our intellectually challenged subgenius is that none of the examples he has come up with are either claims of the web site or factually incorrect. That he can't tell the difference between a cover blurb for a book and a statement intended to be taken as fact is not our fault.

I'm surprised you take this crap seriously. You seem smarter than that.

Bob, I haven't been asked to by anyone I'm not ignoring. Mormonthink is peppered with examples of this and it takes a moment to provide an example:

http://www.mormonthink.com/transbomweb.htm#whywouldtheangel

As mentioned in the section above by David Whitmer, after the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon were translated and then lost by Martin Harris, the Angel punished Joseph by taking away the golden plates and the Urim & Thummim. After Joseph repented for allowing the plates to be lost, the angel returned the golden plates to him but he did not return the Urim & Thummim. Instead Joseph had to resort to using a common stone that he had found while digging a well in the company of his brother Hyrum, for Willard and Mason Chase.

The authors of Mormon Think seem to be oblivious of the HC. Joseph Smith states the following:

HC Vol 1 Ch 3 Pg 21

In the meantime, while Martin Harris was gone with the writings, I went to visit my father's family at Manchester. I continued there for a short season, and then returned to my place in Pennsylvania. Immediately after my return home, I was walking out a little distance, when, behold, the former heavenly messenger appeared and handed to me the Urim and Thummim again--for it had been taken from me in consequence of my having wearied the Lord in asking for the privilege of letting Martin Harris take the writings, which he lost by transgression--and I inquired of the Lord through it, and obtained the following: (D&C 3 follows)

[_sock puppet]

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.

Joe Friday is the LDS' worst nightmare.