Former Stake President managing MormonThink

[_why me]

Tell me how it attempts to harm the Church in any way other than presenting fact and reasonable conclusions based on fact. The site is extremely lopsided on the side of the critics because objective reality is extremely lopsided on the side of the critics.

Prove me wrong. Show me these factual or logical errors I've been waiting so long for you to demonstrate.

What conclusions were in that link? Here is what I saw: testimonies of the witnesses found in the book fo Mormon and then a host of critic arguments against these witnesses. None of which refuted the witnesses at all. But left room for doubt. Any critical analysis of the link would uncover flaws in how the information is presented and just how lopsided it is.

But of course since you are out of the church it just may be hard for you to see it because you applaud the goal of the site: to lead members out so that they can join the happy campers on this board in their bitterness.

[_Darth J]

Tell me how it attempts to harm the Church in any way other than presenting fact and reasonable conclusions based on fact. The site is extremely lopsided on the side of the critics because objective reality is extremely lopsided on the side of the critics.

Prove me wrong. Show me these factual or logical errors I've been waiting so long for you to demonstrate.

What conclusions were in that link? Here is what I saw: testimonies of the witnesses found in the book fo Mormon and then a host of critic arguments against these witnesses.

The site explicitly indicates that Martin Harris and David Whitmer continued to claim to have seen the Golden Plates, and Oliver Cowdery possibly at some point denied it, but was in the process of re-joining the LDS Church at the end of his life (yet he had a Methodist funeral). The site also indicates that Martin Harris and David Whitmer were inconsistent as to whether their claimed experience was physically real or a vision of some kind. There are summaries of the lives of each of the Three Witnesses and details about other supernatural experiences they claim to have had. You are not accurately characterizing what is on that page.

You are also still failing to demonstrate a factual or logical error. You're acting as if it is self-explanatory that if the evidence is overwhelmingly one-sided, it is "biased," when the issue itself is whether the evidence is overwhelmingly one-sided. Tell me a claim of fact made on the page about the Book of Mormon witnesses that is not true.

None of which refuted the witnesses at all. But left room for doubt.

The issue is not how sincerely the Three Witnesses were convinced that they had some supernatural experience, but whether their claims have any bearing on objective reality---i.e., that the Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites were real civilizations that really existed in the pre-Columbian Americas somewhere.

Any critical analysis of the link would uncover flaws in how the information is presented and just how lopsided it is.

Then let's see your critical analysis.

But of course since you are out of the church it just may be hard for you to see it because you applaud the goal of the site: to lead members out so that they can join the happy campers on this board in their bitterness.

How are they happy campers if they are bitter?

[_SteelHead]

Why me,
How about the true history of how the plates were translated that most members do not know, or the practice of polyandry that most members are not aware of. Is the truth helpful or harmful to the current narrative?

[_hobo1512]

Once again, why me, the issue is: FACTUAL OR LOGICAL ERRORS IN THIS Mormon THINK ARTICLE.

Please point them out.

What about an illogical leap? To infer that the witnesses to the Book of Mormon can not be reliable because others have also been witnesses to other events is illogical.

Do you really want to get into illogical leaps when it comes to Mormonism?

1. How many versions of the first vision?
2. Smith running with the plates and fending off 3 attackers.
3. Head in the hat translation
4. Funeral scroll is Book of Abraham

And you're questioning their "illogical leap"?

[_Philo Sofee]

Why Me,
Is the truth inherently harmful to the church?

Oh goodness.......may I please beg of a forgiving pass of elaborating on why this just happens to be the case? Lets call it in the interest of politeness shall we?

[_Tobin]

Do you really want to get into illogical leaps when it comes to Mormonism?

1. How many versions of the first vision?
2. Smith running with the plates and fending off 3 attackers.
3. Head in the hat translation
4. Funeral scroll is Book of Abraham

And you're questioning their "illogical leap"?

Oh my!!!

1. Such a stupid criticism on its face. The assumption is there must be one version of the story. How many versions of the Gospels are there exactly and do they all agree? Hint: There are hundreds and NO!!!
2. Ah, here is another stupid expectation, Joseph Smith isn't allowed to embellish or tell interesting stories ever because he was a prophet of God.
3. Urim and Thummim were to be used covered, usually with a veil. Hat seems just as logical and yet the critics trot this out as a problem again and again. Amazing.
4. The Book of Breathings (at least part of it that was there) is an Egyptian corruption of the teachings of Abraham. Joseph Smith restored Abraham's original writings, but that never occurs to the critic.

Really, if this is the best the critics can muster, Mormonism has little to worry about.

[_hobo1512]

Do you really want to get into illogical leaps when it comes to Mormonism?

1. How many versions of the first vision?
2. Smith running with the plates and fending off 3 attackers.
3. Head in the hat translation
4. Funeral scroll is Book of Abraham

And you're questioning their "illogical leap"?

Oh my!!!

1. Such a stupid criticism on its face. The assumption is there must be one version of the story. How many versions of the Gospels are there exactly and do they all agree? Hint: There are hundreds and NO!!!
2. Ah, here is another stupid expectation, Joseph Smith isn't allowed to embellish or tell interesting stories ever because he was a prophet of God.
3. Urim and Thummim were to be used covered, usually with a veil. Hat seems just as logical and yet the critics trot this out as a problem again and again. Amazing.
4. The Book of Breathings (at least part of it that was there) is an Egyptian corruption of the teachings of Abraham. Joseph Smith restored Abraham's original writings, but that never occurs to the critic.

Really, if this is the best the critics can muster, Mormonism has little to worry about.

1. Did you not notice the Gospels are all by different authors? Smith had at least 9 versions by himself.....LOL That the best you got?

2. Haven't seen anywhere that morg central said he embelished the story, have you? LOL

3. If it is so logical, why is morg central moving away from it? Quite quickly I might add. There are alot of younger Mormons that don't know that part. LOL

4. And it never occurs to morg central that there is no such thing as "reformed egyptian", or the fact he mistranslated a funeral scroll......LOL

Wanna talk about the Kinderhook plates, garden of eden in missouri, or any others?

Keep going, you're doing great.

[_Tobin]

1. Did you not notice the Gospels are all by different authors? Smith had at least 9 versions by himself.....LOL That the best you got?

By ONLY four authors (or so it is claimed - that is up to debate) that can't agree about the events among themselves and even contradict themselves. Again, your whole premise is stupid as I said.

2. Haven't seen anywhere that morg central said he embelished the story, have you? LOL

3. If it is so logical, why is morg central moving away from it? Quite quickly I might add. There are a lot of younger Mormons that don't know that part. LOL

4. And it never occurs to morg central that there is no such thing as "reformed egyptian", or the fact he mistranslated a funeral scroll......LOL

Wanna talk about the Kinderhook plates, garden of eden in missouri, or any others?

Keep going, you're doing great.

And the rest of your response boils down to nobody has told you how stupid your position is. Guess what? I'm telling you that it is completely absurd. Anyone that takes a moment to think about these issues can address them just as readily. These are not serious problems for Mormonism.

[_hobo1512]

By ONLY four authors (or so it is claimed - that is up to debate) that can't agree about the events among themselves and even contradict themselves. Again, your whole premise is stupid as I said.

At least I can tell the difference between one person and four people. Maybe you should take remedial math to help you out. So, as you can see, it is your premise that is "stupid", because simple math is not your strong suit.

Good try though.

And the rest of your response boils down to nobody has told you how stupid your position is. Guess what? I'm telling you that it is completely absurd. Anyone that takes a moment to think about these issues can address them just as readily. These are not serious problems for Mormonism.

Yet you fail to show where they are incorrect....LMAO

All you've got is name calling, how predictable. LMFAO

They must be a "serious problem" for the morg, or you would be able to provide irrefutable proof to the contrary. I haven't seen it yet. Especially from you. LMAO

Shalom

[_Tobin]

By ONLY four authors (or so it is claimed - that is up to debate) that can't agree about the events among themselves and even contradict themselves. Again, your whole premise is stupid as I said.

At least I can tell the difference between one person and four people. Maybe you should take remedial math to help you out. So, as you can see, it is your premise that is "stupid", because simple math is not your strong suit.

Good try though.

Actually, you have failed repeatedly to respond or understand what I've repeatedly pointed out to you. Here we have many examples of eye-witnesses that tell VARYING stories about many of the details of Christ's life.

And the rest of your response boils down to nobody has told you how stupid your position is. Guess what? I'm telling you that it is completely absurd. Anyone that takes a moment to think about these issues can address them just as readily. These are not serious problems for Mormonism.

Yet you fail to show where they are incorrect....LMAO

All you've got is name calling, how predictable. LMFAO

They must be a "serious problem" for the morg, or you would be able to provide irrefutable proof to the contrary. I haven't seen it yet. Especially from you. LMAO

Shalom

Actually, I'm just pointing out that your position is idiotic. Just like your new request for irrefutable proof is. Do you know nothing about Mormonism? You can get that any time you want by speaking to God about this. Mormons don't believe Joseph Smith because of what he claimed, but because God backs him up.