Things Critics Say... or do not say

[_truth dancer]

I find it odd that some believers assert non-believers or critics of the LDS church make certain claims.

I have been on LDS message boards for several years and have yet to hear any non-believer or critic assert:

That all the evidence regarding the Book of Mormon, is in...

That everything out of the mouth of a prophet is from God...

That non-believers want to be guided in every little thing...

It seems that over and over and over, non-believers and former members state otherwise, clarify what it is they do believe, and/or ask for some sort of reference for these sorts of statements to no avail.

So, to clear up the misunderstanding, or to give me information which I may have missed, I am asking for non-believers, former members, critics, to please share your beliefs.

Do you:

Believe all the evidence for the Book of Mormon is in?
Believe every single thing out of the mouth of a prophet is from God?
Want to be told every little thing to do?

Thanks... :-)

~dancer~

[_Sethbag]

I don't think all the evidence having to do with the Book of Mormon is in, however I think enough is in that I highly doubt that we'll discover the Book of Mormon really happened in future discoveries.

I don't expect that every word out of the mouth of a prophet should be from God, however I do believe there's a certain credibility that we should expect from a prophet who really does receive his marching orders, and revelations, from God. I simply cannot accept that a God who really exists would lead the world in matters of his will by talking only to one man and telling that man to pass it on to everyone else. And if a God existed who did do that, I cannot accept that that God would allow that man to come across, over time, as no more or less inspired by that God than anyone else. Bottom line for me is that our prophets, seers, and revelators can't even admit that human beings existed on Earth prior to the ~4000 BC Biblical timeline for the "first man" Adam. Our prophets, seers, and revelators taught since the beginning of this church, on down to the present time through Church teaching materials, the Bible dictionary, etc. that all human beings were exterminated from the Earth by God in the great Flood spoken of in Genesis, except for Noah and his family, who were saved from drowning because they were on the Ark. This story is transparently false, and yet our prophets, seers, and revelators apparently can't get God to tell them that yeah, it didn't quite happen that way. On the contrary, it's still taught as part of our "revealed" religion. Just like it was taught for generations in our church that black people were less valiant in the pre-existence, were saved from the Flood through Ham so that Satan could have representation on earth, that the African race preserved the curse of Cain, etc.

I mean seriously, give me an effing break. These men pass on our "revealed" religion from God? And yet it's just a pile of stinking crap? This stuff is pure mythology, through and through, and as common as it was for the time and place where they "revealed" it to us, that's just further proof that they were no more inspired than anyone else.

So no, I don't insist that literally every single word from the mouth of a prophet be directly from God, but I do expect a hell of a lot more credibility in terms of our track record of "revealed religion" than what we have to show.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Sethbag...

I believe that there is no evidence to support the Book of Mormon. There may someday be some, (I highly doubt it) but it is certainly a possibility and of course we will learn more about history as more is uncovered.

I believe that when a prophet speaks as a prophet, (say in general conerence, in the temple, being interviewed as the prophet of God, etc. etc. etc.) he is representing the church and should be held to the standard of a prophet... (whether out of my voice or the voice of my servants it is the same). But when prophets are eating dinner with their family, watching a movie, or visiting with friends they are not speaking as the Lord's mouthpiece.

I think the church has done a good job in presenting truth as black and white but I personally do not view the world in this way. I hear believers assert that former believers insist on being told what to do but my experience is that it is not the critics who wish this but it is the church that teaches this.

~dancer~

[_Mercury]

1. Believe all the evidence for the Book of Mormon is in?
2. Believe every single thing out of the mouth of a prophet is from God?
3. Want to be told every little thing to do?

These are red herrings.

1. Huh? The overwhelming mountain of evidence leaves the Book of Mormon to be false without a shadow of a doubt. There would have to be a larger mountain of evidence both countering teh evidence against and providing clarification for the spurious pro-BOM claims.

2. When the consistent belief in the church is that the prophet speaks for god, the only reason the believers get edgy is because...drumroll please...THEY ARE FALLIBLE. This contradicts everything Mormon culture and doctrine say about their imaginary friends mouthpiece.

3. Umm, Mormons are told everything to do. I find this behavior funny, as the church strives for ultimate lockstep conformity and Mormons publically state it is a desire of them to do so yet when we call them on it they squirm and tell us that they are independent beings. This is contradictory. Mormon life is embodied in the Covey Planner, a masturbatory effort at self empowerment through puritanical time management. Its assinine to believe that life can be happy and succesful if you minutely organize. Do Mormons LIKE to be told every little thing to do? No. Do they say they like to be told everything to do? No.

All in all these questions come down to the differences between public Mormon and the private Mormon. Specifically these issues revolve around the hypocritical nature of a Mormons thought process.

[_marg]

That all the evidence regarding the Book of Mormon, is in...

Holding the position that all the evidence is in and the Book of Mormon is complete fiction does not mean one is closed minded to evidence and will not look at new evidence. It is a valid position to hold based on a critical evaluation of the evidence and lack of by those who have the burden of proof and who make claims it is nonfictional.

So yes, the evidence is in that the Book of Mormon is fiction and it's based upon the fact that those making claims it is true history along with an assortment of other extraordinary claims haven't met their burden of proof which is theirs to meet.

[_Tommy]

Believe all the evidence for the Book of Mormon is in?

The evidence that matters is, that is, the evidence of faith and the witness of a fourteen year old boy prophet who prayed in a grove of trees.

Believe every single thing out of the mouth of a prophet is from God?

yes.

Want to be told every little thing to do?

In all things the Lord sees fit to tell me.

[_cksalmon]

I think what you're highlighting here is the tendency by some LDS, when their feet are held too close to the fire on some particular issue, to fall back on a caricatured "straw man" that they can easily torch. That's certainly a tendency I've noticed in interacting with LDS on MADB, for example.

As an example other than one you've mentioned, I recently suggested that it seemed quite incongruous that GBH announced in conference that the "First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve" had spoken quite specifically about the acceptable number of earrings a girl can simultaneously sport and yet, at the same time, GBH is not even sure if God was once a man or if the Church he leads teaches such.

One response I received was that I obviously wanted to remove from the Bible any scriptures that spoke against vanity.

Huh?!

As for your #1: it's certainly a well-worn canard: "Critics believe that all the evidence that could conceivably impinge upon Book of Mormon research is already in." Really!? I missed the memo. As others have pointed out, though, the preponderance of the evidence would lead the disinterested observer to conclude that Book of Mormon is not an historially-grounded text. That's certainly a different claim.

#2. I tend to see this caricatured position pop up most when a particuilar prophet or leader's pronouncement(s) are deemed untenable in light of the current relevant evidence. Prophetic statements seem to function as prooftexts for doctrine and/or praxis (not as infallible wisdom)--unless and until it is deemed necessary to jettison a particular doctrine/belief/practice/statement. Then, the journey from prophecy to mere opinion can be a dizzingly fast one.

Best.

CKS

[_mocnarf]

If no evidence has been found yet, it never will be. But that's alright
if it works for some people, great. It just doesn't work for me. I have
a very difficult time saying I beilieve in something that makes no logical
sense to me. Guess that must be a character flaw huh ?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

After a couple hundred years digging in the dirt, studying the artifacts, actually listening to what the Native American people say about their history and culture, impartial experts who have no stake in the truthfulness of Mormonism have painted a picture of Ancient America that looks very different from the world of the Book of Mormon. It's still a rough sketch, but it would take a lot for the final draft to end up looking like the Book of Mormon based on what we have so far. This doesn't mean all the discovering has been done. New discoveries come in all the time, but they typically validate what has come so far, or fill in the gaps where data was missing. Rarely does anything outright contradict existing knowledge, and even when it does, it never seems to help the Book of Mormon.

[_Jersey Girl]

I think I replied to something like this on another board. Okay...

Do you:

1. Believe all the evidence for the Book of Mormon is in?

No. The above statement is illogical and defies reason. The only reasonable statement that I, as a critic can make is:

The lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon's authenticity, leaves me to conclude that it is fiction.
The evidence presented for the Spaulding/Rigdon theory leaves me to conclude that the Book of Mormon is likely fiction.
"All" the evidence can never be in. What a silly thing to say.

2. Believe every single thing out of the mouth of a prophet is from God?

No. Who would say such a thing? The Bible contains a "test" for true prophet. I'd have to go with that.

3. Want to be told every little thing to do?

That's one of the more insane things I've ever read. If one were a critic or ex-Mo, who would be telling them (us) what to do since by virtue of those labels, there is no organization with a hierarchy in place to tell us what to do. It doesn't make sense.

I'll concede that many of the criticism's leveled at the LDS Church can be turned right around on Evangelical Christianity (and other religions as well) but the above appears to be someone really struggling to find a corresponding application.


Sheesh!