A challenge to the board about Mormon Think...

[_Chap]

The OP again:

Can anyone, anyone at all, find something written on the Mormon Think website that is not factually accurate?

With RayA's rather upset post in mind, ("Distinguishing between facts and truth" etc., and ignoring his psittacocoprology), perhaps the OP might be prepared to settle for an answer to this question, if "factually accurate" gives someone a problem:

Can anyone, anyone at all, find something written on the Mormon Think website that is not true?

How about it?

[_Mary]

Ray, I can only speak for myself here, not anyone else, but I sincerely believe that the church should be open and honest about its history. You and I both know that people can react in a variety of ways upon hearing the more complex history. I can only tell you that frankly I have been aghast at the number of UK members who have left in the past year because they feel betrayed by the church. That an organisation committed to truth and honesty cannot and has not been open with them. These are people that are bishops, branch presidents, relief society presidents and rm's. They aren't fair weather LDS they were strong LDS with strong testimonies with active spouses and active strong parents.

This is a problem for the church. It simply isn't fair on members in this internet age. Demonizing Mormon Think isn't the answer in my honest opinion. We may as well demonize John Dehlin, Joanna Brooks and a variety of other members as demonizing MormonThink.

I honestly don't get it. Perhaps I am being naïve?

Mary

[_RayAgostini]

Ray, I can only speak for myself here, not anyone else, but I sincerely believe that the church should be open and honest about its history. You and I both know that people can react in a variety of ways upon hearing the more complex history. I can only tell you that frankly I have been aghast at the number of UK members who have left in the past year because they feel betrayed by the church. That an organisation committed to truth and honesty cannot and has not been open with them. These are people that are bishops, branch presidents, relief society presidents and rm's. They aren't fair weather LDS they were strong LDS with strong testimonies with active spouses and active strong parents.

This is a problem for the church. It simply isn't fair on members in this internet age. Demonizing Mormon Think isn't the answer in my honest opinion. We may as well demonize John Dehlin, Joanna Brooks and a variety of other members as demonizing MormonThink.

I honestly don't get it. Perhaps I am being naïve?

Mary

Mary,

You have a different, and more honest and inquiring perspective. And yes, of course "approaches" need to be revised, and there should be more openness and honesty.

I don't view chap and Drifting as being honest inquirers, as you are.

Drifting has a bee in his bonnet.

Chap thinks everything can be explained "logically"; that there's no supernatural, no God; no afterlife, and so on and so forth.

Last I recall, your mind wasn't so dried up in dogma. I hope that hasn't changed, and I don't see a reason to believe so from your posts.

[_Drifting]

Mary,

You have a different, and more honest and inquiring perspective. And yes, of course "approaches" need to be revised, and there should be more openness and honesty.

I don't view chap and Drifting as being honest inquirers, as you are.

Drifting has a bee in his bonnet.

Chap thinks everything can be explained "logically"; that there's no supernatural, no God; no afterlife, and so on and so forth.

Last I recall, your mind wasn't so dried up in dogma. I hope that hasn't changed, and I don't see a reason to believe so from your posts.

Thanks for your insight Ray, now if only you could respond specifically to the OP...

[_Mary]

Mary,

You have a different, and more honest and inquiring perspective. And yes, of course "approaches" need to be revised, and there should be more openness and honesty.

I don't view chap and Drifting as being honest inquirers, as you are.

Drifting has a bee in his bonnet.

Chap thinks everything can be explained "logically"; that there's no supernatural, no God; no afterlife, and so on and so forth.

Last I recall, your mind wasn't so dried up in dogma. I hope that hasn't changed, and I don't see a reason to believe so from your posts.

Ray, I'm still as fascinated in Mormon History as I have always been (as well as Christian History). Just been re-reading the Price book on Joseph Smith fought Polygamy. Another bias there, but fascinating to see how the evidence can be bent to a prior viewpoint. Also read a book on Joseph Smith's Red Brick Store. (It had the Hoffman forgery in it) What was fascinating about Joseph is that he was so generous to his customers (from that book's perspective) that the business went under. He seemed to understand the plight of the poor. I say this because I do agree that sometimes 'we' can concentrate on all the bad stuff that Joseph no doubt did, without remembering all the good stuff, and there was good stuff aplenty.

Perhaps Mormon Think could also cover the good stuff as well as the controversies. Maybe that would help?

[_gramps]

RayAgostini wrote:

I don't view chap and Drifting as being honest inquirers, as you are.

Chap thinks everything can be explained "logically"; that there's no supernatural, no God; no afterlife, and so on and so forth.

Ray, are you saying that Chap can't be an honest inquirer because he doesn't belief that "there's no supernatural, no God,..."?

If so, you are making a pretty strong judgment about quite a lot of posters on this forum., no?

[_RayAgostini]

David seems more interested, in the words of Ezra Taft Benson, in bringing the world into the Church, than taking the Church to the world.

It (the Church) must change, according to Ark steadiers like David. Then he'd feel more comfortable attending. And this is what he does through Mormon Think.

Take for example, MT's entry and "conclusions" on Moroni's visit.

The accounts of the Moroni visitation and the paintings displayed by the church make it seem as if it was a real tangible event that anyone in the room could see if they were there. This doesn't seem to be the case if it was a vision contained in Joseph's mind. We think this should be recognized when any meaningful discussion of this event is made. We respect the church's teachings on honesty but by labeling this event as tangible, when the evidence seems to indicate otherwise, is not totally honest. On the other hand, if the church teaches that this is a real tangible event then we need to recognize the problems associated with it. Otherwise it makes it seem like we have something to hide. We believe that we, as honest Latter-day Saints, should tell everything the way it is and if they believe it fine, if not, then that's okay too - at least we can never be accused of withholding information or deceiving anyone.

You'd think from reading this that there could only be one explanation of Moroni's visitation to the young Joseph in his bedroom.

Well, think some more.

As affable an egghead as you’re likely to find, Greene engages an array of physicists in his examination of string theory, which in part blends Einstein’s theory of relativity with the complex laws governing quantum mechanics. Although mind-numbing technical terms are kept to a minimum, those of us not conversant with advanced physics might feel a bit lost at times.

Still, the subject is undeniably fascinating, and some of the conclusions are nothing short of mind-blowing: a reasoned, professional discussion of a universe encompassing 11 separate dimensions certainly calls Johnny Carson’s “I did not know that” to mind.

There's a lot more to weigh in information posted on the Internet, if anyone cares to search.

We don't understand all of the "mysteries" of our universe, nor even its origin and destiny (if such even exists), but David and his "thinking" peers seem to believe they've solved the mysteries, and the "only acceptable" course for Mormonism is to get with "reality".

That is one example of why this site is so premature and misleading.

Further reading:

The Multiverse Has 11 Dimensions.

We have all the answers?

[_Drifting]

Take for example, MT's entry and "conclusions" on Moroni's visit.

The accounts of the Moroni visitation and the paintings displayed by the church make it seem as if it was a real tangible event that anyone in the room could see if they were there. This doesn't seem to be the case if it was a vision contained in Joseph's mind. We think this should be recognized when any meaningful discussion of this event is made. We respect the church's teachings on honesty but by labeling this event as tangible, when the evidence seems to indicate otherwise, is not totally honest. On the other hand, if the church teaches that this is a real tangible event then we need to recognize the problems associated with it. Otherwise it makes it seem like we have something to hide. We believe that we, as honest Latter-day Saints, should tell everything the way it is and if they believe it fine, if not, then that's okay too - at least we can never be accused of withholding information or deceiving anyone.

You'd think from reading this that there could only be one explanation of Moroni's visitation to the young Joseph in his bedroom.

I've read that a couple of times and it seems that Mormonthink is suggesting that the Church teaches the vision as a tangible event, yet evidence suggests it wasn't. Mormonthink then suggests that the Church inform people of all the facts and let them judge for themselves.

[_RayAgostini]

RayAgostini wrote:

I don't view chap and Drifting as being honest inquirers, as you are.

Chap thinks everything can be explained "logically"; that there's no supernatural, no God; no afterlife, and so on and so forth.

Ray, are you saying that Chap can't be an honest inquirer because he doesn't belief that "there's no supernatural, no God,..."?

If so, you are making a pretty strong judgment about quite a lot of posters on this forum., no?

Well, honest inquirers after what chap would without hesitation call "superstition".

Like Darth J, who thinks that anyone who's had a close encounter of any kind was "dreaming".

Mockery, not honest inquiry, is the order of the day for the dishonest with their own agenda, who often claim that they are "truth-seekers".

Does that answer your question?

[_RayAgostini]

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?