The problem with Mormons

[_Mercury]

While discussing the Mormon worldview and the strong evidence that counters it there is a clear pattern I notice.

1. Evidence countering the "official" church history is shown, spelled out clearly
2. Mormons ask for clarification coming from faithful sources and not from those dirty anti-mormon historians
3. Coroborating evidence is shown involving Mormon sources calling joe a dirty bigamist
4. Mormon sources are claimed to be from dirty good for nothing apostates
5. Conversation devolves into Mormon needing more evidence on top of evidence on top of evidence.
6. Exmo sighs and wonders why the Mormon can't see the obvious

So what we have here is a reproducible pattern. Evidence is not good enough because the Mormon will not accept the facts in front of them NO MATTER HOW INDEFENSIBLE the action by the church or its founders are.

Its a predictable route. You cannot convince them that they are in a religion that victimizes its members and uses them as chattel to produce predictable cash flow.

Until you take the red pill you CANNOT SEE the facade of Mormonism.

[_Coggins7]

While discussing the Mormon worldview and the strong evidence that counters it there is a clear pattern I notice.

1. Evidence countering the "official" church history is shown, spelled out clearly
2. Mormons ask for clarification coming from faithful sources and not from those dirty anti-mormon historians
3. Coroborating evidence is shown involving Mormon sources calling joe a dirty bigamist
4. Mormon sources are claimed to be from dirty good for nothing apostates
5. Conversation devolves into Mormon needing more evidence on top of evidence on top of evidence.
6. Exmo sighs and wonders why the Mormon can't see the obvious

So what we have here is a reproducible pattern. Evidence is not good enough because the Mormon will not accept the facts in front of them NO MATTER HOW INDEFENSIBLE the action by the church or its founders are.

Its a predictable route. You cannot convince them that they are in a religion that victimizes its members and uses them as chattel to produce predictable cash flow.

Until you take the red pill you CANNOT SEE the facade of Mormonism.

Loran:

keep bloviating Vegas, and when you're through, bring your sources to the table, point by point by point; source by source by source, and lets see how they hold up under the cold light of philosophical and scholarly rigor claim for claim.

Loran

[_Mercury]

While discussing the Mormon worldview and the strong evidence that counters it there is a clear pattern I notice.

1. Evidence countering the "official" church history is shown, spelled out clearly
2. Mormons ask for clarification coming from faithful sources and not from those dirty anti-mormon historians
3. Coroborating evidence is shown involving Mormon sources calling joe a dirty bigamist
4. Mormon sources are claimed to be from dirty good for nothing apostates
5. Conversation devolves into Mormon needing more evidence on top of evidence on top of evidence.
6. Exmo sighs and wonders why the Mormon can't see the obvious

So what we have here is a reproducible pattern. Evidence is not good enough because the Mormon will not accept the facts in front of them NO MATTER HOW INDEFENSIBLE the action by the church or its founders are.

Its a predictable route. You cannot convince them that they are in a religion that victimizes its members and uses them as chattel to produce predictable cash flow.

Until you take the red pill you CANNOT SEE the facade of Mormonism.

Loran:

keep bloviating Vegas, and when you're through, bring your sources to the table, point by point by point; source by source by source, and lets see how they hold up under the cold light of philosophical and scholarly rigor claim for claim.

Loran

The point is that you will never be satisfied with true sources. You will never accept hard answers that we provide.

Do you accept that the church might not be what it claims to be? If you can't answer that with a yes then you are an ingenuous prig bloviating on the absurdity that Mormonism is what it claims.

[_Polygamy Porter]

While discussing the Mormon worldview and the strong evidence that counters it there is a clear pattern I notice.

1. Evidence countering the "official" church history is shown, spelled out clearly
2. Mormons ask for clarification coming from faithful sources and not from those dirty anti-mormon historians
3. Coroborating evidence is shown involving Mormon sources calling joe a dirty bigamist
4. Mormon sources are claimed to be from dirty good for nothing apostates
5. Conversation devolves into Mormon needing more evidence on top of evidence on top of evidence.
6. Exmo sighs and wonders why the Mormon can't see the obvious

So what we have here is a reproducible pattern. Evidence is not good enough because the Mormon will not accept the facts in front of them NO MATTER HOW INDEFENSIBLE the action by the church or its founders are.

Its a predictable route. You cannot convince them that they are in a religion that victimizes its members and uses them as chattel to produce predictable cash flow.

Until you take the red pill you CANNOT SEE the facade of Mormonism.

I know what you mean. To me it's more like talking to an adult who still believes in Santa, and they cite ALL of the holiday tales like they were real. You SHOW them the impossibility of a fat man coming down the chimney and thye just dismiss it as anti-santa. "why do you hate Santa?" they will ask.

Here is their mental process: The presents are there in the morning.. All the doors were locked... therefore the only entrance into the house is through the chimney.. he came down that way and I don't care how.

I guess there is some truth about becoming like a CHILD to understand the Goshspell.

Bottom line here is you must believe in complete magic to believe in what old Joe did... then again that was his specialty... attracting fools who believed his tall tales of buried indian gold...

[_Coggins7]

The point is that you will never be satisfied with true sources. You will never accept hard answers that we provide.

Do you accept that the church might not be what it claims to be? If you can't answer that with a yes then you are an ingenuous prig bloviating on the absurdity that Mormonism is what it claims.

Loran:

No, the point is that neither you nor any other anti-Mormon has ever shown anyone any 'true" sources, if by that you mean sources that document or make claims that are either plausible on their face, verifiable with respect to other reliable historical sources, or which are not called into question by other documentary evidence. None of the historical claims ever brought against the Church by anyone has ever met those baisc scholarly requirements. Much of Church history isn't clear, and is only open to conjecture (such as Joseh's alleged adultry and sex with other men's wives etc.) Of course, anti's are going to put the worst spin on such material imaginable, and TBM's are going to call for caution and benefit of the doubt (which is the appropriate attitude regardless of the historical issues in question, when little other evidence or documentation is available). But when enough evidence is availabe, the anti position always topples headlong to the pavement after tripping over its own unlaced shoes. This has been happening for a century and a half and continues unabated.

I notice that at least BogusRefugee gives me credit for being a sincere bloviating prig. Oh, by the way, a prig is "a person who demonstrates an exaggerated conformity or propriety, especially in an irritatingly arrogant or smug manner."

Since, in the exmo Matrix, anyone who defends the church in any manner and for any reason, and calls a spade a spade when observing the antics of certain ex-Mormons in defaming, slandering, and misrepresenting the church, its history, and its leaders, is considered to be bloviating prig, then the terms have apparantly lost all meaning. And since the standard, as set by Vegas and PP in the chat room, is that no one who does not follow the principles of the Church at a 100% rate of perfect conformity can legitimately defend anything regarding it (and since, according to Bogus, one should never defend anything on principle at all) any defense fo the church whatever appears to be blobiating prigishness.

You see, high standards are important after all.

Loran

[_Runtu]

The point is that you will never be satisfied with true sources. You will never accept hard answers that we provide.

Do you accept that the church might not be what it claims to be? If you can't answer that with a yes then you are an ingenuous prig bloviating on the absurdity that Mormonism is what it claims.

Loran:

No, the point is that neither you nor any other anti-Mormon has ever shown anyone any 'true" sources, if by that you mean sources that document or make claims that are either plausible on their face, verifiable with respect to other reliable historical sources, or which are not called into question by other documentary evidence. None of the historical claims ever brought against the Church by anyone has ever met those baisc scholarly requirements. Much of Church history isn't clear, and is only open to conjecture (such as Joseh's alleged adultry and sex with other men's wives etc.) Of course, anti's are going to put the worst spin on such material imaginable, and TBM's are going to call for caution and benefit of the doubt (which is the appropriate attitude regardless of the historical issues in question, when little other evidence or documentation is available). But when enough evidence is availabe, the anti position always topples headlong to the pavement after tripping over its own unlaced shoes. This has been happening for a century and a half and continues unabated.

I notice that at least BogusRefugee gives me credit for being a sincere bloviating prig. Oh, by the way, a prig is "a person who demonstrates an exaggerated conformity or propriety, especially in an irritatingly arrogant or smug manner."

Since, in the exmo Matrix, anyone who defends the church in any manner and for any reason, and calls a spade a spade when observing the antics of certain ex-Mormons in defaming, slandering, and misrepresenting the church, its history, and its leaders, is considered to be bloviating prig, then the terms have apparantly lost all meaning. And since the standard, as set by Vegas and PP in the chat room, is that no one who does not follow the principles of the Church at a 100% rate of perfect conformity can legitimately defend anything regarding it (and since, according to Bogus, one should never defend anything on principle at all) any defense fo the church whatever appears to be blobiating prigishness.

You see, high standards are important after all.

Loran

Loran,

You seem to be stuck in an "Us vs. Them" mentality. I've seen a lot of "true" documentation regarding the rather sordid history of the church. I would say much of my exit I owe to spending my lunch hours in the church historical library when I worked there. It's interesting that just about everything is rejected as biased or defamatory, such as Robert Ritner's rather devastating article on the Book of Abraham in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies. When I asked Dr. Peterson about Ritner's article, he referred me to a list of articles by John Gee, which turned out to be the very ones Ritner had refuted. After that, Peterson could only reply that he found Ritner's "tone" disturbing.

I used to think like you do. I'm not a professional "anti" anything. I don't have a particular ax to grind against the church. My life would be much easier if the church were indeed what it claims to be. Unfortunately, it isn't. I might have put it better than Vegas did, but really, I wonder what kind of source you would consider "true." I've seen the pattern Vegas describes far too often.

[_Coggins7]

Loran,

You seem to be stuck in an "Us vs. Them" mentality. I've seen a lot of "true" documentation regarding the rather sordid history of the church. I would say much of my exit I owe to spending my lunch hours in the church historical library when I worked there. It's interesting that just about everything is rejected as biased or defamatory, such as Robert Ritner's rather devastating article on the Book of Abraham in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies. When I asked Dr. Peterson about Ritner's article, he referred me to a list of articles by John Gee, which turned out to be the very ones Ritner had refuted. After that, Peterson could only reply that he found Ritner's "tone" disturbing.

I used to think like you do. I'm not a professional "anti" anything. I don't have a particular ax to grind against the church. My life would be much easier if the church were indeed what it claims to be. Unfortunately, it isn't. I might have put it better than Vegas did, but really, I wonder what kind of source you would consider "true." I've seen the pattern Vegas describes far too often.[/quote]

Loran:

I spent 20 years studying anti-Mormon literatue and claims from both the conservatie Protestant and liberal secularist dissident scholarly perspective, and I've never found anything they've done to be particularly compelling. Not all of it is junk, but none of the major claims put forward that would have any bearing on my convictions regarding the restored gospel in any venue has ever been anthing nearly as water tight as people like you claim. Whether or not Ritner actaully "refuted" Gee is arguable, as one man's refutation can verily be another man's special pleading, especially in such data poor and theory rich humanities disciplines such as textual criticism and history. Indeed, there is so much substantive scholarly evidence pointing to the plausibility of Book of Abraham historical context and cultural background (as well as Josehp's uncanny knowledge of it) that attempting to refute the direct hits Joseph made in an area in which he had no possible knowledge is an excersise in futility without equal.

The whole point of this is that much of what people like you claim as "history" isn't: its interpretation through a particular prism or template. We do that too, but the point is is that much of this supposed history is an intellectual construct on both sides, including the anti Mormon. This is the case because much of the "history" is so fragmentary, so complex, or so lacking in sufficient documentation as to be open to any number of interpretations. The fact is Runtu, that as much as Mormons don't have answers for every historic problem in their own history, or in Book of Abraham or Book of Mormon history, the anti-Mormon communitie's alternatives are, for the most part easily argued against when one has the proper tools and background. There best work may not be easily argued against, but its also not anything near conclusive or water tight. I've seen the dissedent LDS scholars of the Signature Books type crash flaming into the mountainside (remember the salamander letter?), and so further crashing and burning is not out of the question.

Loran

[_Runtu]

Loran:

I spent 20 years studying anti-Mormon literatue and claims from both the conservatie Protestant and liberal secularist dissident scholarly perspective, and I've never found anything they've done to be particularly compelling. Not all of it is junk, but none of the major claims put forward that would have any bearing on my convictions regarding the restored gospel in any venue has ever been anthing nearly as water tight as people like you claim. Whether or not Ritner actaully "refuted" Gee is arguable, as one man's refutation can verily be another man's special pleading, especially in such data poor and theory rich humanities disciplines such as textual criticism and history. Indeed, there is so much substantive scholarly evidence pointing to the plausibility of Book of Abraham historical context and cultural background (as well as Josehp's uncanny knowledge of it) that attempting to refute the direct hits Joseph made in an area in which he had no possible knowledge is an excersise in futility without equal.

The whole point of this is that much of what people like you claim as "history" isn't: its interpretation through a particular prism or template. We do that too, but the point is is that much of this supposed history is an intellectual construct on both sides, including the anti Mormon. This is the case because much of the "history" is so fragmentary, so complex, or so lacking in sufficient documentation as to be open to any number of interpretations. The fact is Runtu, that as much as Mormons don't have answers for every historic problem in their own history, or in Book of Abraham or Book of Mormon history, the anti-Mormon communitie's alternatives are, for the most part easily argued against when one has the proper tools and background. There best work may not be easily argued against, but its also not anything near conclusive or water tight. I've seen the dissedent LDS scholars of the Signature Books type crash flaming into the mountainside (remember the salamander letter?), and so further crashing and burning is not out of the question.

Loran

It's really odd that you continue to insist that I read anti-Mormon literature. I don't and never have, unless you consider my reading of the Godmakers 15 years ago to be study of anti-Mormon literature. I'm not interested in the polemical arguments to be made against the church. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I know enough of the church's history to know it isn't what it claims to be. I don't need Ed Decker to tell me that.

[_Dr. Shades]

No, the point is that neither you nor any other anti-[_____] has ever shown anyone any 'true" sources, if by that you mean sources that document or make claims that are either plausible on their face, verifiable with respect to other reliable historical sources, or which are not called into question by other documentary evidence. None of the historical claims ever brought against the Church by anyone has ever met those baisc scholarly requirements.

You realize that the Scientologists and Jehovah's Witnesses say the exact same thing about their own churches, right?

[cacheman]

No, the point is that neither you nor any other anti-[_____] has ever shown anyone any 'true" sources, if by that you mean sources that document or make claims that are either plausible on their face, verifiable with respect to other reliable historical sources, or which are not called into question by other documentary evidence. None of the historical claims ever brought against the Church by anyone has ever met those baisc scholarly requirements.

You realize that the Scientologists and Jehovah's Witnesses say the exact same thing about their own churches, right?

The one thing I hear over and over is that critics use "biased" sources, but I have yet to hear someone like Loran define what an acceptable source would be. And the irony here is thick: here's a religion whose fantastic claims are not only unverifiable by documentary evidence but are not even "plausible on their face." Of necessity, every single truth claim that Mormonism make is "called into question by other documentary evidence." That's why they say we need faith.

And yet with a straight face they tell us that the historical record does not meet "baisc (sic) scholarly requirements." I wonder what Loran would say about Jeff Lindsay's stuff.