LDS

[Foster Zygote]

In books alone, criticism of the LDS Church, some of it poorly researched, could fill a large U-Haul truck. Have some critics relied on some of these books to denigrate the LDS Church? A person would have to be incredibly naïve to answer in the negative. In fact, echoes of some of the wording used in some of the books shows up in posts on this forum--without attribution.

Here's a fraction of the "library":

The Mormon Mirage: Seeing Through the Illusion of Mainstream Mormonism, Hank Hanegraaff; Trouble Enough: Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, Ernest H. Tares; Mormonism: One Nation Under Gods, Richard Arbanes; The Kingdom of the Cults, Walter Martin; Covering Up the Black Hole and Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?, Jerald and Sandra Tanner; Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism, Norman L. Geisler; Behind the Mask of Mormonism, John Ankerberg and John Weldon; Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record, H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters.

There is much more, some of it brim with religious bigotry.

FAIR reviews each book, pointing out misrepresentations and outright distortions. The reviews are available at FAIR Wiki under the heading "Criticism of Mormonism Books." I recommend it for those interested in discovering "the rest of the story."

And what about the mountains of scientific material that outright contradict the claims of the BoM? Are scientists brim with religious bigotry? Why are you so reluctant to address this issue?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I'm not sure why someone who's going to treat all scientific and historic evidence as anti-Mormon, would start this on a skeptics forum. Skeptics aren't anti-Mormon, as seems to be a common theme in the thread, they're inquisitive about things from their own fields, or things they happen to have an interest in. One who studies archaeology, for example, may know that horses were extinct in the Americas about 11,000 BC, so to read that in 600 BC the Jaredites had horses, would seem odd to him/her. It's not that they're anti, they're just inquisitive.

In the process of putting away books the other day, that I had out for this thread, I was getting ready to put away the Book of Mormon institute manual when I decided to see what it might say about barley, horses, etc. I didn't see anything on barley, but the Church's stance on horses is they were non-existant at the time of Lehi's arrival.

It's been extremely painful to me to watch something that I treasure and love look like trash because people couldn't, or wouldn't, defend it. I knew instantly what would happen, and I was not surprised when it did. For someone who claims that all questions are anti-Mormon, I'm not sure why she chose to cast her pearls before the swine (no insult intended, of course). To me, this thread has caused more harm to the Church than good, and that's what I feared would happen. Edited to add that I don't think people who question the church are anti-Mormon or swine if they're asking honest questions, just that if others think people are anti-Mormon, why would they choose to post here?

While I owe no explanation to Janadele, my Stake Patriarch told me that I have a special gift from Heavenly Father, an "analytical mind." If this is a gift, then why should I hide it under a bushel? Why should I be afraid to study things out in my mind? What I write on this thread is either church doctrine or teachings, or the church takes no stand on (i.e. evolution, and that sort of thing).

Totally nominated. Thank you, Cat Tale!
:

 

[LashL]

I have moved the discussion about the taxing of churches to an existing thread on that subject; it can be found here.

Posted By: LashL

 

[dafydd]

deleted.

 

[dafydd]

In fact, echoes of some of the wording used in some of the books shows up in posts on this forum--without attribution.

No. Anybody would use more or less the same words to point out that Mormonism is a crock. I've never read any books on Mormonism but I'm smart enough to understand that JS made the whole thing up.

 

[RandFan]

In books alone, criticism of the LDS Church, some of it poorly researched, could fill a large U-Haul truck. Have some critics relied on some of these books to denigrate the LDS Church? A person would have to be incredibly naïve to answer in the negative. In fact, echoes of some of the wording used in some of the books shows up in posts on this forum--without attribution.

What is your point? Are some people malicious toward the Mormon Church? Of course. But the entire world isn't. Most critics are not malicious. But even if they were, that doesn't invalidate their arguments.

The problem with your argument is that it relies on playing the victim card. It's self serving, ad hoc and it's special pleading. The world isn't a conspiracy theory against Mormons anymore than it is against Scientology.

 

[Pup]

FAIR reviews each book, pointing out misrepresentations and outright distortions. The reviews are available at FAIR Wiki under the heading "Criticism of Mormonism Books." I recommend it for those interested in discovering "the rest of the story."

The problem is that as long as you're comparing secondary sources, you're just skimming the surface. The actual data is what every conclusion in a secondary source is based on, and any person can interpret the data for themselves, just like book authors do, and form their own conclusions. At the level of data, pro- or anti-Mormon doesn't even enter into it.

I encourage anyone who's interested in history to focus mainly on the primary sources underlying any modern author's argument, and always come to their own conclusions.

For example, when I posted excerpts from period books--all easily findable online; I'm not putting much work into this--that described popular dietary recommendations in the late 18th and early 19th century, one can see that the question of pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon becomes moot. How could someone writing a health guide in the 1820s, before the Word of Wisdom was ever published, who had never heard of Joseph Smith, be either pro or anti? It's data. People are free to interpret it how they wish.

The evidence-based conclusion is that the Word of Wisdom contains health advice which was already being promoted by others at the time, but does not contain things which were only discovered later, like germ theory. That's as much as one can conclude from the evidence.

A pro-Mormon religious interpretation might be that God was already starting to reveal this information to mankind in various ways and the Word of Wisdom was to be the culmination. Or that God instructed Joseph Smith to tell people only health advice they would find believable. But there's no actual evidence of God's involvement; those interpretations are based on faith.

A non-Mormon interpretation would be that it's because Joseph Smith was not receiving any information from a supernatural source, so like most religious advice on health, the Word of Wisdom was only his own personal guess at what was best.

But note that the actual data is the same, whether interpreted in a pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon way.

 

[tyr_13]

That is impressive. Is gestation for Mormons shorter than for the rest of us?

Praise be!

I meant 'got pregnant.

 

[dafydd]

That is impressive. Is gestation for Mormons shorter than for the rest of us?

Having a plethora of wives speeds things up.

 

[Cat Tale]

I get the feeling that any book or source that criticize the LDS church is immediately bigoted, and hateful. Only sources that show the LDS church as being true are accurate, right?

FAIR is like FARMS, it has an agenda, which is to study the evidence and present it in Church publications (books, magazines, online sources, etc.). I was burned bad by FARMS on the Salemander Letter, they took it hook, line and sinker, and then I was out amongst members and non defending a fraudulent paper. Here's the thing, from my point of view.

Let's just say for argumental sake here that an atheist scientist goes out to try to find the landing site of Lehi. He spends years and years looking. He can conclude that Lehi never landed in the Americas, and to him that's okay. Science is self-correcting.

The LDS scientist, on the other hand, sets out to prove Lehi's landing spot, he spends years and years looking. He can't conclude that Lehi didn't land in America because it would prove the Book of Mormon wrong. It's self limiting.

I almost lost my testimony believing in FARMS, it ain't worth it. I'll just offer caution when relying upon "Mormon" archaeologists. Because among other things Sorenson himself says that one reason they believe Lehi landed in Mesoamerica is because "The Book of Mormon suggests a temperate climate (for growing such things as 'wheat' and 'barley') and never mentions snow or cold in a New World setting."

 

[RandFan]

The evidence-based conclusion is that the Word of Wisdom contains health advice which was already being promoted by others at the time, but does not contain things which were only discovered later, like germ theory. That's as much as one can conclude from the evidence.

A pro-Mormon religious interpretation might be that God was already starting to reveal this information to mankind in various ways and the Word of Wisdom was to be the culmination. Or that God instructed Joseph Smith to tell people only health advice they would find believable. But there's no actual evidence of God's involvement; those interpretations are based on faith.

A non-Mormon interpretation would be that it's because Joseph Smith was not receiving any information from a supernatural source, so like most religious advice on health, the Word of Wisdom was only his own personal guess at what was best.

But note that the actual data is the same, whether interpreted in a pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon way.

Don't forget the bit of data that is missing. That bit of data about god telling Mormons to boil their water. Cholera deaths of the Mormon Pioneers were particularly tragic and unnecessary. It's even possible (though unfalsifiable) that had Mormons boiled their water to make coffee some of them might not have gotten sick. We don't know but we know that the Word of Wisdom does not contain such an important instruction.

 

[Brainache]

FAIR is like FARMS, it has an agenda, which is to study the evidence and present it in Church publications (books, magazines, online sources, etc.). I was burned bad by FARMS on the Salemander Letter, they took it hook, line and sinker, and then I was out amongst members and non defending a fraudulent paper. Here's the thing, from my point of view.

Let's just say for argumental sake here that an atheist scientist goes out to try to find the landing site of Lehi. He spends years and years looking. He can conclude that Lehi never landed in the Americas, and to him that's okay. Science is self-correcting.

The LDS scientist, on the other hand, sets out to prove Lehi's landing spot, he spends years and years looking. He can't conclude that Lehi didn't land in America because it would prove the Book of Mormon wrong. It's self limiting.

I almost lost my testimony believing in FARMS, it ain't worth it. I'll just offer caution when relying upon "Mormon" archaeologists. Because among other things Sorenson himself says that one reason they believe Lehi landed in Mesoamerica is because "The Book of Mormon suggests a temperate climate (for growing such things as 'wheat' and 'barley') and never mentions snow or cold in a New World setting."

But if the claims about the ancient history of North America in the Book Of Mormon are demonstrably false, isn't losing your testimony a good thing?

Why would you want to testify to something that is false?

 

[Pup]

Don't forget the bit of data that is missing. That bit of data about god telling Mormons to boil their water. Cholera deaths of the Mormon Pioneers were particularly tragic and unnecessary. It's even possible (though unfalsifiable) that had Mormons boiled their water to make coffee some of them might not have gotten sick. We don't know but we know that the Word of Wisdom does not contain such an important instruction.

Imagine how many lives could have been saved, if God had dictated something like this:

Rain water, collected in clean vessels, is light, sweet and limpid; for that part of the water attracted by the sun, which produces rain, is the finest, and lightest of the whole. But this water is apt to grow putrid, by having a great many foreign particles mingled with it, to prevent which it will be proper to boil and strain it for use.

That was written by James Mackenzie, a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in Edinburgh, in 1758. Such advice crops up occasionally, but without the germ theory to explain exactly why contaminated ground water was a cause of disease and the correct solution, people didn't consistently pay attention.

 

[RandFan]

I almost lost my testimony believing in FARMS, it ain't worth it. I'll just offer caution when relying upon "Mormon" archaeologists. Because among other things Sorenson himself says that one reason they believe Lehi landed in Mesoamerica is because "The Book of Mormon suggests a temperate climate (for growing such things as 'wheat' and 'barley') and never mentions snow or cold in a New World setting."

To me a testimony is a strong and or even certain conviction that something is true without a priori/objective/external evidence. The 9/11 Hijaakers had a testimony of Allah and they put their faith to the test.

It takes faith to follow faith healers. Even though many of them have been exposed as frauds (see below), their followers don't care. Their followers will give up their heart medication and blood medication to demonstrate their faith. Faith is impervious to reason.

James Randi exposes the lies and fraud of faith healers including Peter Popov and Benny Hinn.

 

[RandFan]

Imagine how many lives could have been saved, if God had dictated something like this:

Rain water, collected in clean vessels, is light, sweet and limpid; for that part of the water attracted by the sun, which produces rain, is the finest, and lightest of the whole. But this water is apt to grow putrid, by having a great many foreign particles mingled with it, to prevent which it will be proper to boil and strain it for use.

That was written by James Mackenzie, a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in Edinburgh, in 1758. Such advice crops up occasionally, but without the germ theory to explain exactly why contaminated ground water was a cause of disease and the correct solution, people didn't consistently pay attention.

Exactly. The Jews had purification rituals that date back thousands of years. They actually washed their hands. God could have told the Saints to wash their hands. Know what Jesus thought of ritual cleansing?

²Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

...

¹¹Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Okay, I get that Christ is not instructing the deciples not to wash their hands. I realize that by "defileth" Christ is clearly speaking in metaphor meaning spiritual impurity as he states:

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

But why NOT take a moment to say, "it's still a very good idea to wash your hands"?

 

[dafydd]

How did this post spark a 1700+ post thread in such a short time frame?

Blinkered religion.

 

[Pup]

It takes faith to follow faith healers. Even though many of them have been exposed as frauds (see below), their followers don't care. Their followers will give up their heart medication and blood medication to demonstrate their faith. Faith is impervious to reason.

I think that's a slightly different use of "faith" (though of course it may not seem that way to those who believe in faith healers). Faith healing is subject to evidence, no different from any other kind of medicine, and therefore evidence can be produced to show it doesn't work. A five-year cancer survival rate can be produced for a faith healer just like it can for any other treatment, and the numbers compared.

In that case, faith means believing something despite evidence.

There's also the god-of-the-gaps kind of faith, which results in believing something that's unfalsifiable. Or, like I mentioned earlier, faith in the correctness of moral truths, like believing slavery to be wrong.

Those kinds of faith can seem just as silly, if one has to keep adding attributes to explain why the invisible dragon in the garage is unfalsifiable, and they can be just as dangerous, if the moral truth causes harm to others (like believing slavery is right), but I do think they have an underlying difference in that they don't require actively denying positive evidence.

 

[RandFan]

I think that's a slightly different use of "faith" (though of course it may not seem that way to those who believe in faith healers). Faith healing is subject to evidence, no different from any other kind of medicine, and therefore evidence can be produced to show it doesn't work. A five-year cancer survival rate can be produced for a faith healer just like it can for any other treatment, and the numbers compared.
In that case, faith means believing something despite evidence.
There's also the god-of-the-gaps kind of faith, which results in believing something that's unfalsifiable. Or, like I mentioned earlier, faith in the correctness of moral truths, like believing slavery to be wrong.

Those kinds of faith can seem just as silly, if one has to keep adding attributes to explain why the invisible dragon in the garage is unfalsifiable, and they can be just as dangerous, if the moral truth causes harm to others (like believing slavery is right), but I do think they have an underlying difference in that they don't require actively denying positive evidence.

I grant you the premise with a provisional, IMO, aside from Deism there is copious amounts of evidence that many if not most religions are false. But let's set that aside for a moment. I'm not sure how that rescues believing without evidence. My salient points are as follows:

• One must trust a con-man before one succumbs to the scam.
• Once the leap of faith is made without evidence, in most cases, no amount of evidence will change the person's mind.

"What a man has not been reasoned into he cannot be reasoned out of" --(attribution is generally to Swift I believe)

 

[Cat Tale]

To me a testimony is a strong and or even certain conviction that something is true without a priori/objective/external evidence.

Exactly, and that was my point in my last post. Actually, it didn't rock my faith that much, but what it did was teach me that I can't rely on evidence to prove what I believe. I believe what I believe because I believe it. It actually, in the long run made me stronger, and I can look at things from a different perspective. And recently I moved to the strongest I've ever been. I'm in a position now where I can study things out in my mind not having to worry about where I arrive, and at the same time have the Church, so I'm extremely happy where I am.

 

[pakeha]

....I almost lost my testimony believing in FARMS, it ain't worth it. I'll just offer caution when relying upon "Mormon" archaeologists. Because among other things Sorenson himself says that one reason they believe Lehi landed in Mesoamerica is because "The Book of Mormon suggests a temperate climate (for growing such things as 'wheat' and 'barley') and never mentions snow or cold in a New World setting."

But if the claims about the ancient history of North America in the Book Of Mormon are demonstrably false, isn't losing your testimony a good thing?

Why would you want to testify to something that is false?

I'll second that question.
Why bind your faith and honour to something you know to be false?