Wow, you guys really shut down threads fast here.

Steve wrote: ". . . out of the Church history department is not the same thing as doing research and/or writing on doctrinal matters for the GAs that have been used to reflect doctrinal positions of the Mormon Church.

To suggest that it is , , ,

is just nonsense."

Steve, you obviously don't know what the position of Director of Publications for the CHD is. It has nothing to do with bookstores.

I've read through a number of your threads here and I see a clear pattern of over-sensationalism and assumptions. I suppose it's no worse that what I have read on MormonThink or from UTLM, but I caution the rest of the readers here to not mistake Steve's comments for trustworthy scholarship. I'm not saying that you can trust what the church has historically put out either, but at least you can cut them a little slack for having an obvious devotional bias.

~~~~
\__/ I've got my popcorn ready. Best of luck Epiginosko.

I'm all out of popcorn. :-)

I am betting this will be.deleted.

Yep. Agreed.

Don't worry. We read everything for ourselves. The one thing most of us do is our homework.

Let me get this straight. You'll cut the church slack for a devotional bias but caution us not to notice bias regarding trustworthy scholarship?

Look. The standards for evidence are much higher coming from exMormons than you appear to realize. People here generally don't just believe what Benson or what anyone else says. They are well aware of fallacies, bias, and fact checking.

Notice your claims have no evidence whatsoever to back them up.

"Look. The standards for evidence are much higher coming from exMormons than you appear to realize. People here generally don't just believe what Benson or what anyone else says. They are well aware of fallacies, bias, and fact checking."

Amen.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't worry. We read everything for ourselves. The
> one thing most of us do is our homework.
>
> Look. The standards for evidence are much higher
> coming from exMormons than you appear to realize.
> People here generally don't just believe what
> Benson or what anyone else says. They are well
> aware of fallacies, bias, and fact checking.
>
> Notice your claims have no evidence whatsoever to
> back them up.

+ 1
Regardless of where the cracks in testimonies began, what was used to reason a way out or where we landed outside of tscc, exmos connect dots.

Deflection.

The issue isn't Benson's scholarship, or even, if you will, his integrity. It's the hypocritical double-speak, smoke and mirrors "essays" generated by tscc to pacify the faithful, attempt to convince the greater world everything is right as proverbial rain inside the LDS, and cover the sins of JS, the great fraud on whose integrity the whole of mormonism rests.

Shoot the messenger? Nice try. Further proves the disengenuousness of Joe Smith's so-called church, through to today.

Interseting how many topics today discuss lying in mormon culture. Your timing is perfect.

Why, Thanks Epi.

Sure glad some responsible adult is looking out for me in this big bad scary world.

:))

Devotional bias, that's funny. Over here we usually call it lying.

By the way, could you ask the author of the unpublished presentation mentioned in footnote 8 of the devotionally biased essay on polygamy to answer her mail? I already tried the Church History Department and the Western History Association but they both say they don't have it. In the case of the WHA, I actually believe it.

And since you brought up scholarship, it's very bad scholarly form to cite an unpublished source and then refuse to cough it up when someone bothers to check it.

This person is out of his (her) league.

His post is what we generally see from people who don't do a lot of research, get eaten alive, then disappear.

You never know. Maybe he will present adequate evidence to clear up the "assumptions" we are making and set us straight. :-)

show me one.

Sounds like you are projecting.

Your direct supervisor (said to be Church Historian Steven E. Snow), now admits in an LDS Church website-disseminated video that unnamed others wrote the most recent essays, which were then subjected to edits made by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve before being publicly rolled out. (You, too, of course, are not receiving due credit for your work with the Church Historical Committee).

You are being used, "epig," in a Mormon Church propaganda campaign that falsely represents its highest leaders as being divinely inspired when, n fact, they are relying on anonymous Church functionaries to do their homework for them.

It reminds me of when, in September 1993, Dallin Oaks and Neal Maxwell told me in Maxwell's Church Administration Building office that FARMS served to keep the Mormon Church from being "outflanked." Indeed, when, in my first visit with them, I asked questions about the alleged "translation" of the Book of Abraham, Maxwell, in our follow-up meeting, relied on a faxed reference article sent to him, at his request, from FARMS' Provo-based HQ at BYU. It was pathetic. I know. I've got that fax in my possession.

Quit apologizing and just jump ship. It's all a fraud--and you know it (or at least you should).



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2014 12:55AM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You, too, of course, are not
> receiving due credit for your work with the Church
> Historical Committee.

Is it wise to out him in this way?

. . . spoken to him about the recently rolled-out LDS Church essays. Snow is the Church Historian. "epig" has also spoken on that board, with some apparent inside knowledge, about the purpose and scope of those essays.

Based on the responses over at NOM, he is clearly being seen in some quarters as an Mormon Church insider who is posting information about the essays otherwise not publicly or generally known.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2014 12:36AM by steve benson.

From a post by Epiginosko on the NOM board:
"I'm not trying to change the church or criticize it. I'm just trying to help it put out a responsible history."

Are you characterizing the essays as "responsible history?"

You brought it up, so what exactly are the responsibilities of the "Director of Publications for the CHD?"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2014 06:59PM by Surrender Dorothy.

Once.

On a math test.

Second grade.

I think.

But seriously. Not too many exxies here need anyone to tell them to fact-check. Whatever they happen to be ex- from. And no matter who writes the post.

Sorry for attacking you ----- but you are an Idiot!!!
Steve of course is just after our money ---- don't know how yet because he has not asked for it. And of course cut some slack for the Slime Sucking Corrupt church leaders ----- who are running the biggest FRAUD in Utah ------ they not only want our Money but our time too! One of these days the corrupt leaders will get what they deserve!

. . . here goes:

I have been informed through another source of the following (please, if you are so inclined, confirm or deny; however, if you choose not to confirm, I understand):

1) Your name (first and last), which I have been told is reportedly yours--but which I will not reveal here.

2) You have reportedly posted on Facebook, specifically on “The Mormon Hub" (although are said, at least according to a relatively recent check, to be no longer showing up there. You have also reportedly posted on other FB groups but are said to be careful with regard to what you say if you use your name in those postings).

3) You reportedly work in the Mormon Church History Department.

4) You reportedly have a particular interest in historical research.

5) You reportedly are aware of the issues concerning the recent LDS Church essays.

6) Your direct supervisor reportedly is Mormon Church Historian/GA Steven E. Snow.

7) You reportedly sometimes share what you know off the record but will at other times post on some matters, leave those posts up for a short time, then delete them if you regard their content to be somewhat sensitive.

8) You reportedly are regarded as being a decent and honest person.

9) You reportedly are a cultural Mormon.

Like I said, you can return and report on the above reports, if you wish.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2014 06:28PM by steve benson.

Steve, 6 and 7 are incorrect.

Other statements brought up on this thread:

I am not involved with these essays. I only know the parties that are.

And I don't think doing a quick Google or Yahoo search brings bring up "the truth" on historical issues. There is a lot of gray area and nuance (something that both the orthodox and ex-Mormon communities seem to often have trouble with). In my opinion, it takes years of reading and research before you can even begin to start feeling conversant on many of the topics. Bullet point answer are typically oversimplified.

Steve, I'm sorry I came in with guns blazing. I just don't like being called a "leak." I don't think of myself that way. My personal thought on these essays is that they are a positive step forward, but I fully recognize that they are far from satisfactory for most disaffected or disaffiliated.

Epiginosko Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> it takes years of reading and research
> before you can even begin to start feeling
> conversant on many of the topics.

It takes years of reading and research before you can convince yourself that the JS fable is a valid foundation on which to build a belief system.

Let me guess the thinking has been done right? We should stop researching and discussing these topics and let you decide for us. We should hold off on any discussion until we, like you, have successfully deluded ourselves into believing that truth does not matter, since it could not possibly be useful. Right?

Don't make assumptions about my beliefs. It doesn't do anyone any good.

One thing I like about Mormon scholars in general is that nobody talks about their beliefs. I can have an hour long conversation with Dan Vogel or Richard Bushman and the question of belief never comes up.

And, Steve, if you wouldn't mind putting our mutual associate in touch with me, I would greatly appreciate it.

. . . and I agreed to that request.

Fair enough. Then I give our mutual friend permission to give you my direct contact information if he/she has it. I would prefer to talk with you as a human being outside of a message board.

. . . cautioning me that your COB cadre would try to smoke the contact out. The contact was right, as you have proved here.

Nice try but no deal.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2014 01:33AM by steve benson.

To the OP on this thread, I don't think that your attack on Steve Benson is justified here. Like the rest of us here, he may have some recovery yet to go too. We do look for the truth here but scholarship isn't so important other than to recognize right now that the Mormon cult - who owns a lot of media outlets - isn't telling their story in any credible way. Either Google or yahoo can usually locate the truth in short order for those who want references on every post that Steve makes. And he has a right to have opinions. I can't recall Steve B telling anyone here to pray to find out if what he claims is true. The church doesn't mind raping a person's faith so thoroughly that they choose not to believe in god any more. Why not see the church for what it is, and quit cutting them any more slack? As a member of the media, I see Mr. Benson as very qualified to expose the Mormon church's charade disguised as valid literature. If you want his professional opinions, you can usually find that in the daily newspaper.

A "devotional bias"? That is a hoot.

Somehow 'epiginosko' does not seem consonant with 'slick euphemism'.

At least when Steve writes something he signs his name to it.

The Mormon church, not so much. Their latest essays that they're hiding on their own site would be a good example.

For those who don't know, I am a different person than Steve B. I chimed in here because these Essays are more than just 'far from satisfactory for most disaffected or disaffiliated'. If a real Prophet of God who has direct access to both god and to a large media mechine has to hide behind the words of an anonymous person, then the human race is in real trouble. Your words leave the church with an honorable way-out of a situation that by their own design is without honor. When the prophet can stand up in general conference and apologize for institutionalized racism as taught by previous prophets, some people might start taking him serious. Your words leave open the possibility that the church is true. Most of us here would like to forgive the church but don't believe in it either way.

My informed contact says that you knew about issues that were behind the creation of those Church essays. You yourself have said that you personally talked with Church Historian Steven E. Snow about the essays and have publicly indicated what Snow told you. In what capacity did that communication between you and Snow take place?

Call it what you will, but as you know from responses on that other board to what you have been saying over there, you are considered by some to be a source who is providing information not generally known about details at play in the creation of the essays. In common parlance, that is known as leaking.

My contact says they are aware of at least some of the internet places where you post or have posted. Are you denying that you have posted certain information and then pulled it down later? My contact, for instance, quoted me what the contact said was a statement of yours that you had put up on NOM, but when I went looking for it, I could not find it. Would you like me to post it for you here, to perhaps refresh your memory? Perhaps you can tell me where it located, in the event that I initially missed it.



Edited 11 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2014 12:51AM by steve benson.

There was only one time that I can recall putting a time-limit on a post and then removing it. Otherwise, if I have deleted any posts it's because, in afterthought, I felt I was putting myself into too much risk. I do not make it a practice to leak insider information and then take it down, as you are insinuating.

. . . since that is essentially what my contact told me you were doing.

If you want to discuss any communication I may have had with Elder Snow, I would prefer to do it privately.

Hey epig,

The beauty about the Internet is I DONT have to spend years researching the lies of the lds inc. Other people have done it already and have made it easy to find, easy to read, and easy to understand. What's sad is I spent years researching all the BS before the Internet. Now I have it all at my fingertips. As does the rest of the world. And it's now clear to anyone with a functioning brain that the morg is a complete fraud.

It only becomes nuanced if you are willing to throw out all logic and reason.

Oh, and feeling "conversant" on a number of topics doesn't mean you know what the hell you're talking about. It just means you're good at spewing bunk/ and or like to hear yourself babbling nonsense.

"cut them a little slack for having an obvious devotional bias." are you new here or just out of your f***ing mind? Since when has TSCC had a devotional bone in its slimy body?
TSCC doesn't even have the balls to let anyone know who their authors are for the essays. They are scared to death that someone might hold them to something that was written by someone in the slimy TSCC, so it is easier to just not have an author....how stupid can it get?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2014 12:52AM by verilyverily.

Steve seldoms misses facts. You can run but you can not hide from Steve Benson. If your guilty you will face the Utah firing squad. Good luck. Your going to need it.