Former Stake President managing MormonThink

[Guest]

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.

The word you're looking for is "imply," not "infer." And you're still conceptually wrong even with the right word. Mormon Think is not saying, "Some people say they have seen UFO's or the Loch Ness Monster, therefore Martin Harris et al. are not reliable." Mormon Think is saying that proponents of the alleged witnesses to the Book of Mormon are engaging in special pleading. That is because the LDS Church and its advocates do not offer any rationale as to why, if people believe the claims of the Three Witnesses, they should not believe any other claim about any other thing someone says he or she has experienced.

Please tear apart the logic of this article. Show no mercy.

http://www.mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm

The critic argument in the article is much longer than than what the LDS are taught to believe section. In fact, much was left out in that section. To have 3 quarters of the page dedicated to critic arguments and have only one quarter to the faithful rendition of the story is lopsided. What was left out is truly amazing of the faithful story is truly amazing.

MT is all about casting doubt, lopsided on the side of critic arguments against the LDS church.

Oh, wait...checking it again...I see nothing faithful on that link, just the testimonies written in the Book of Mormon. The rest are critic arguments to cast doubt. Yep, it is a wonderful nonbiased site...yep...it sure is.

The critical recitation of facts is much longer than the "what LDS members are taught to believe section" because in reality, what the LDS Church says in its official curricula is severely truncated and cherry-picked. What is left out of the faithful story BY THE CHURCH is indeed truly amazing. That is the point of the article. You still are not demonstrating a single factual or logical error. The issue raised on the site is that the LDS Church only discloses a highly selective, misleading part of the story to create its faith-promoting narrative. All you are doing is restating the issue and expressing your displeasure that the issue exists.

I never said Mormon Think is an unbiased site. It is biased toward fact and rational interpretation of fact. Unfortunately, the LDS faith-promoting narrative does not do very well for itself when compared to, and contrasted with, fact and rational interpretation of fact. You are only doing what I suggested you not do: "It's wrong because it says the Church isn't true." It is not unfairly biased to present an issue as overwhelmingly one-sided when the facts and the logic are in reality overwhelmingly one-sided.

You're wrong comparing Mormon Think to a hypothetical "Catholic Think" website. A more apt analogy would be "Santa Claus Think." Then we could have you come onto an "anti-Santa" discussion board to incessantly bitch and moan about how Santa Claus Think just casts doubt on the existence of Santa Claus, without giving a balanced discussion of all the evidence and rational reasons that put belief in Santa and non-belief in Santa on equal footing.

Edit: I made an edit.

[_Darth J]

Incidentally, why me, do you feel that some people who lost their faith in Santa Claus did so because they were "Taliban Santa believers," who were too obsessed about being naughty or nice? Do you think that this is a reasonable explanation for why many children lose their faith in Santa as they grow up?

[_gramps]

Yahoo Bot wrote (incorrectly):

One cannot received the Sacraments (marriage, communion, etc.)

Hey, Jerk Off, it is receive, not received.

Watch your spelling. I certainly am. ;)

[_why me]

Incidentally, why me, do you feel that some people who lost their faith in Santa Claus did so because they were "Taliban Santa believers," who were too obsessed about being naughty or nice? Do you think that this is a reasonable explanation for why many children lose their faith in Santa as they grow up?

Well, this is a different question. I do think that many who lost their faith were at one time were 120 percenters and they were also very intolerant of guys like me when they were active. Likewise they are now very intolerant of true believers now and those who may be inactive. They were taliban Mormons. And so, the disappointment in who they used to be and their anger at the LDS church because they now feel they were duped and wasted their time and money.

[_why me]

I never said Mormon Think is an unbiased site. It is biased toward fact and rational interpretation of fact. Unfortunately, the LDS faith-promoting narrative does not do very well for itself when compared to, and contrasted with, fact and rational interpretation of fact. You are only doing what I suggested you not do: "It's wrong because it says the Church isn't true." It is not unfairly biased to present an issue as overwhelmingly one-sided when the facts and the logic are in reality overwhelmingly one-sided.

You're wrong comparing Mormon Think to a hypothetical "Catholic Think" website. A more apt analogy would be "Santa Claus Think." Then we could have you come onto an "anti-Santa" discussion board to incessantly bitch and moan about how Santa Claus Think just casts doubt on the existence of Santa Claus, without giving a balanced discussion of all the evidence and rational reasons that put belief in Santa and non-belief in Santa on equal footing.

Edit: I made an edit.

Lets face it, the link you provided was extremely lopsided on the side of the critics, attempting to cast doubt in members and investigators. And this is why people involved in the site face court if they are exposed. They are basically antimormon as your link demostrated. And I have no problem with that at all. But lets not call it a site only interested in the truth and does not attempt to harm the church.

[_SteelHead]

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

[_Res Ipsa]

Incidentally, why me, do you feel that some people who lost their faith in Santa Claus did so because they were "Taliban Santa believers," who were too obsessed about being naughty or nice? Do you think that this is a reasonable explanation for why many children lose their faith in Santa as they grow up?

Well, this is a different question. I do think that many who lost their faith were at one time were 120 percenters and they were also very intolerant of guys like me when they were active. Likewise they are now very intolerant of true believers now and those who may be inactive. They were taliban Mormons. And so, the disappointment in who they used to be and their anger at the LDS church because they now feel they were duped and wasted their time and money.

I don't think that should surprise anyone. Changing churches does not come with a coupon for a free personality transplant.

[Guest]

Incidentally, why me, do you feel that some people who lost their faith in Santa Claus did so because they were "Taliban Santa believers," who were too obsessed about being naughty or nice? Do you think that this is a reasonable explanation for why many children lose their faith in Santa as they grow up?

Well, this is a different question.

No, it really isn't.

I do think that many who lost their faith were at one time were 120 percenters and they were also very intolerant of guys like me when they were active.

Guys who have no demonstrable familiarity with the teachings and culture of the religion they are purporting to defend, and who consistently contradict the teachings of that religion? Is that what you mean by guys like you?

Likewise they are now very intolerant of true believers now and those who may be inactive. They were taliban Mormons. And so, the disappointment in who they used to be and their anger at the LDS church because they now feel they were duped and wasted their time and money.

Likewise, grown-ups who no longer believe in Santa Claus are just disappointed and angry because Santa didn't give them everything they wanted for Christmas. I do think that many who lost their faith in Santa were at one time 120 percenters at being good for goodness' sake, and they were also very intolerant of kids whom they thought should be on the naughty list.

I think the above pretty much covers it for why any adult would cease to believe in Santa Claus.

[_Darth J]

I never said Mormon Think is an unbiased site. It is biased toward fact and rational interpretation of fact. Unfortunately, the LDS faith-promoting narrative does not do very well for itself when compared to, and contrasted with, fact and rational interpretation of fact. You are only doing what I suggested you not do: "It's wrong because it says the Church isn't true." It is not unfairly biased to present an issue as overwhelmingly one-sided when the facts and the logic are in reality overwhelmingly one-sided.

You're wrong comparing Mormon Think to a hypothetical "Catholic Think" website. A more apt analogy would be "Santa Claus Think." Then we could have you come onto an "anti-Santa" discussion board to incessantly bitch and moan about how Santa Claus Think just casts doubt on the existence of Santa Claus, without giving a balanced discussion of all the evidence and rational reasons that put belief in Santa and non-belief in Santa on equal footing.

Edit: I made an edit.

Lets face it, the link you provided was extremely lopsided on the side of the critics, attempting to cast doubt in members and investigators. And this is why people involved in the site face court if they are exposed. They are basically antimormon as your link demostrated. And I have no problem with that at all. But lets not call it a site only interested in the truth and does not attempt to harm the church.

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.

[_why me]

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

In that link we had the testimonies of the witnesses that are in the Book of Mormon. Then, scores of arguments why these witnesses cannot be trust. Where is the truth in that page? I see no attempt to shore up the experience of the witnesses at all. No death bed testimonies etc. Just the arguments against the witnesses by the critics.