Dialogue between TBMs and Critics

[_Bob Loblaw]

Let's leave DCP out of this!

How did you know?

[_Yahoo Bot]

Here's what happens:

1. Members stumble across some troubling information about the church they were unaware of.

2. They think it has to be an anti-Mormon lie or at best "yellow journalism" as Mr. Space would say.

6. They find MormonThink or some other similar resource, who will tell them the truth and even link them to opposing positions.

7. They realize that the only people who are dealing honestly with the evidence are the apostates and critics.

Excuse me for reorganizing your bogus points a little.

Virtually every organization composed of people has its warts, weaknesses and surprises. As we read in the New Testament, the followers of Jesus were shocked and offended when He started talking about eating of his body, and many left Him right at that point. It was so foreign and contrary to Judaism, even figuratively. Moreover, we read in the New Testament how unhappy Paul was with various people for their lack of diligence and hypocrisy, including the President of the Church himself.

Now, a seminary graduate of 18 years isn't going to know this stuff, and when they hear of it it might upset them. But, people have weaknesses. There is not a person alive who does not. It is childish to hold the Prophet up to some state of perfection when he isn't that way.

And, to say that Mormon Think deals with criticism honestly is a boatload of Bandini. I've provided one extensive analysis on the other board of its misuse and mistakes dealing with the Church's claim of "neutrality" in politics. He browbeats the Church dishonestly over this issue. There are plenty more examples.

3. They go to their priesthood leaders, who say, "What? Never heard of that. Just keep praying and reading your scriptures."

4. They go to LDS.org to look for the information and there's nothing there, so the official church site is no help.

Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately. I've worked with the Historian's office. Their mandate is to preserve history and make it available to scholars and others, not to write about it. The clerks who work in the department are more clueless on some basic issues of history than I am, and that's not saying much.

5. They go over to FAIR and other apologetic resources and find out two things: the information was correct, and the apologetic "answers" are unbelievably lame (think Sam Katich's ridiculous piece about "loose dynastic" polygamy).

I certainly disagree with this. My personal experience has been that, for instance, Dr. Peterson's writings and talks have been instrumental in helping people in my stake.

When I was in management for the Church, I relied heavily upon FAIR's resources to answer basic questions. When I was a seminary teacher for the Church and kids had questions, I used FAIR to buttress my conclusions and to provide resources. I rather think that FAIR's site is neutrally written. Obviously its mission is to defend the Church. But it doesn't go out on limbs and isn't frothing at the mouth apologetic website like so many might be.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Fair is not neutral, not in this least. The proof is in their mission statement.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately.

Thanks, Bob. You never never let me down.

[_sock puppet]

3. They go to their priesthood leaders, who say, "What? Never heard of that. Just keep praying and reading your scriptures."

4. They go to LDS.org to look for the information and there's nothing there, so the official church site is no help.

Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately. I've worked with the Historian's office. Their mandate is to preserve history and make it available to scholars and others, not to write about it.

Is the Church exempt from the mandate to be truthful? It may not be under a mandate to discuss and portray its history, but if it does so is it not under a mandate, as Jesus' church, to do so truthfully?

As for this discussion and reference of truthfulness, shall we stipulate to the terms and conditions laid out by Elder Dallin H Oaks in his address, Gospel Teachings About Lying, BYU Fireside Address, September 12, 1993?

[_Bob Loblaw]

Excuse me for reorganizing your bogus points a little.

You may think they are "bogus," but I have seen this over and over.

Virtually every organization composed of people has its warts, weaknesses and surprises. As we read in the New Testament, the followers of Jesus were shocked and offended when He started talking about eating of his body, and many left Him right at that point. It was so foreign and contrary to Judaism, even figuratively. Moreover, we read in the New Testament how unhappy Paul was with various people for their lack of diligence and hypocrisy, including the President of the Church himself.

Now, a seminary graduate of 18 years isn't going to know this stuff, and when they hear of it it might upset them. But, people have weaknesses. There is not a person alive who does not. It is childish to hold the Prophet up to some state of perfection when he isn't that way.

Just as it is childish to suppose that I meant the imperfections of church leaders. I said nothing about that. For some reason, apologists always want to say we're just expecting too much of our leaders. I never have expected them to be anything more or less than human with human failings. But I do expect the church's claims to truth to hold up to scrutiny. It's not childish to expect the church to actually be true, is it?

And, to say that Mormon Think deals with criticism honestly is a boatload of Bandini. I've provided one extensive analysis on the other board of its misuse and mistakes dealing with the Church's claim of "neutrality" in politics. He browbeats the Church dishonestly over this issue. There are plenty more examples.

I think it's demonstrably fairer and more honest than FAIR or LDS.org.

Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately. I've worked with the Historian's office. Their mandate is to preserve history and make it available to scholars and others, not to write about it. The clerks who work in the department are more clueless on some basic issues of history than I am, and that's not saying much.

Did I say the Church has a mandate to portray its history accurately? No. Do I expect them to? No.

I certainly disagree with this. My personal experience has been that, for instance, Dr. Peterson's writings and talks have been instrumental in helping people in my stake.

My personal experience is that FAIR has been instrumental in confirming to people I know that the problems with the church's truth claims are just as bad as, if not worse than, they thought. I mentioned the Katich piece, which is wholly unconvincing to just about everyone I know who has read it. The piece John Clark wrote about points of convergence falls apart like wet kleenex when given any scrutiny.

When I was in management for the Church, I relied heavily upon FAIR's resources to answer basic questions. When I was a seminary teacher for the Church and kids had questions, I used FAIR to buttress my conclusions and to provide resources. I rather think that FAIR's site is neutrally written. Obviously its mission is to defend the Church. But it doesn't go out on limbs and isn't frothing at the mouth apologetic website like so many might be.

I don't think it's "frothing at the mouth" and did not say it was. What I did say is that the answers they give are not helpful or convincing, and for people who are really struggling, they often confirm that the problems are real. When people ask me about church problems, which happens once in a while, I send them to FAIR, FARMS, and MormonThink. I've yet to meet someone who said, Gee, the FAIR stuff makes a lot of sense, but those MormonThink guys are out to lunch.

[_sock puppet]

I've yet to meet someone who said, Gee, the FAIR stuff makes a lot of sense, but those MormonThink guys are out to lunch.

Actually, Loblaw, I think Gee has said that.

[_Yahoo Bot]

The piece John Clark wrote about points of convergence falls apart like wet kleenex when given any scrutiny.

I've not read this piece so I don't know what it concerns, but given it is Clark it must be about MesoAmerican archaeology. I am of the personal view that LDS apologetic work that attempts to argue a MesoAmerican site for the Book of Mormon is the kind of tissue paper what magicians use which vanish when a flame is put to it. There are a whole lot of good people, including BYU professors, who think that the MesoAmerican work is a bunch of silliness based upon a lack of faith in the Book of Mormon.

But, I can also say that FAIR attempts to appear to be neutral on this issue. Although most of its writers attempt to hold the defenses against an assault upon MesoAmerican speculation, I can see where FAIR has attempted neutrality on this.

Apologists are not the Church. FAIR is not the Church. There is some material that is terribly wrong. But, as to FAIR, not much.

When people ask me about church problems, which happens once in a while, I send them to FAIR, FARMS, and MormonThink. I've yet to meet someone who said, Gee, the FAIR stuff makes a lot of sense, but those MormonThink guys are out to lunch.

I've read Mormon Think's stuff. It is frothing at the mouth anti-Mormonism. It is not neutrally written, as is most of FAIR's Wiki stuff. At this point, I don't expect frothing at the mouth anti-Mormons to be objective, so I would anticipate them slapping Tweedle-Dee's back and saying, "well done, my fiend."

[_lulu]

Your impression was certainly correct. I can no longer be a General Authority. That can't happen if you sit around every week with no calling.

I coulda been a contenda'

[_sock puppet]

I've not read this piece so I don't know what it concerns, but given it is Clark it must be about MesoAmerican archaeology. I am of the personal view that LDS apologetic work that attempts to argue a MesoAmerican site for the Book of Mormon is the kind of tissue paper what magicians use which vanish when a flame is put to it. There are a whole lot of good people, including BYU professors, who think that the MesoAmerican work is a bunch of silliness based upon a lack of faith in the Book of Mormon.

But, I can also say that FAIR attempts to appear to be neutral on this issue. Although most of its writers attempt to hold the defenses against an assault upon MesoAmerican speculation, I can see where FAIR has attempted neutrality on this.

Bob,

What do you make of the fact that the LDS Church published Sorenson on the MesoAmerican siting in the Ensign in 1985 (after McConkie's death)?