DiscussMormonism.com

So, I'm reading one of my longstanding debates (FAQs About Mormonsim) with a rather large group of apologists (some of whom you would recognize from FAIR/MAD), when I stumble across this tidbit.

Now, for context: A prior-Mormon, now-Catholic woman has been asking questions of the resident apologists as to why Mormonism decided to go a certain way as opposed to another. Mostly in a speculative manner. . . you know, the "what if" syndrome.

Anyways, the apologists in the thread have been jumping all over her about "taking things out of context" and "straining to find a criticism". In fact, one went so far as to say that

True anti-Mormon style is to remove all context and create arguments that aren't designed to be true, but arguments that are designed to appear true enough to convince any average unsuspecting Mormon.

Finally, enough is enough for our intrepid Catholic woman.

Answer me this, if the church is so danged innocent of this [removing context and creating false arguments], then why don't they reveal their full and actual beliefs to prospective members? Why, instead do they do everything they can to make it seem like just another average christain faith? If it were true, they would not be afraid to be honest and open, they would not lie by ommision, they would certainly not lie by commision. Yet they do it all the time.

Rather observant, coming from one who's parents left the church while she was a young child.

Regardless, our intrepid Apologist has a snarky reply.

There are numerous theories and speculations of doctrine that are not necessarily canonized. What responsibility do missionaries have to teach all the theories of doctrine as well as the anti-Mormon version of our doctrine?

I don't see missionaries trying to make us seem like any average Christian faith. I see them claiming us to be the one true church of Christ, one that stands out from other Christian churches.

Now, I might be reading into this. . . but it really seems as though this apologist just admitted that the truth was "anti-mormon".

Edited for emphasis

I'm not seeing it. Which particular statement are you reading this way?

Bryan Inks wrote:

There are numerous theories and speculations of doctrine that are not necessarily canonized. What responsibility do missionaries have to teach all the theories of doctrine as well as the anti-Mormon version of our doctrine?

I don't see missionaries trying to make us seem like any average Christian faith. I see them claiming us to be the one true church of Christ, one that stands out from other Christian churches.

Now, I might be reading into this. . . but it really seems as though this apologist just admitted that the truth was "anti-mormon".

Edited for emphasis

I think the apologist was saying what they always say; does the Church have to present not only the Church position but also the anti position?

I agree BoMonks and like Sethbag, I can't see any "the truth is anti-mormon" implication.

Blixa wrote:I agree BoMonks and like Sethbag, I can't see any "the truth is anti-mormon" implication.

Really? It seems pretty clear given the Catholic's question:

Catholic: "Why don't they reveal their full and actual beliefs to prospective members?"

Apologist: "What responsibility do missionaries have to teach all the theories of doctrine as well as the anti-Mormon version of our doctrine?"

So, does this mean that their "full and actual beliefs" are "the anti-Mormon version of our doctrine?"

I see what you're saying, Bryan. This is one of those sketchy parts of LDS apologetics upon which people are always bound to disagree. For my money, I think you're right, and that this apologist at least implicitly announced that the truth is, in some respects, "anti-Mormon" (or, as BKP would say, "not very useful.") I think the bottomline is that investigators, and indeed many full-fledged members, are given a whitewashed version of the truth. For example, critics often raise the issue of Joseph Smith's various problems and controversies---why aren't investigators told about his polyandry and moneydigging? "Oh, it's just not important," the missionary/apologist will say. "What's important is that God chose him to be a prophet." The obvious reason why the controversies aren't discussed, though, is that they reflect poorly on Joseph Smith's character, and make it seem more likely that he was lying.

I agree that true Mormon history is in fact anti-mormon, because the true nature of the church is the nature of a manmade institution created by a charismatic, opportunistic, conman, and the history demonstrates this.

I don't agree, however, that the apologists would admit to that, and I don't agree that the apologist quoted in the OP admits to that. He basically said that 1) the church hasn't got the duty to report on all of the "speculative theories" of Mormon doctrine (think: Adam/God, blood atonement, etc.), nor has 2) the church got the duty to report anti-mormon theories such as that Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham, or seduced married women into "marrying" and getting into the sack with him.

Of course, the apologists don't recognize, though it's true, that merely discussing the truth about Joseph Smith's activities pretty much demonstrates the untruth of the church and the absurdity of his prophetic claim.

Sethbag wrote:I don't agree, however, that the apologists would admit to that, and I don't agree that the apologist quoted in the OP admits to that.

Well, I certainly don't think he meant to admit it, but he did inadvertanly, in so many words.

I purposely looked for questionable history and issues of Asatru before i considered myself such. That questionable history is not discussed (and "dusted under the rug" for much of early church history) with people who are investigating joining something which can and will effect every aspect of their life, is very under-handed and un-ethical to me.