So, the big 15 and their Swedish Rescue cannot answer the questions of Hans Mattsson and others but John Welch, an apologist, can.

Praise to the Man.

Now, by what authority does he speak? Is he a prophet, seer and revelator? No, he is a church employee who does the bidding of his paymaster.

Shame on you big 15, getting your lackies to do your dirty work. I thought Brother Jeff received a 'Manhood' Award. As I told you in an email Jeff, "man up", be honest.

Here is the link to John Welch's "answers" so stop all your angry misinformation exmo apostates and get back into line. Even if you refuse to attend church, please please please pay your tithing. God can do anything but earn money. https://byustudies.byu.edu/dailyfeature.aspx?feature=403



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2013 03:14PM by anointedone.

It's a completely bogus excuse that you can find some info on various church related sites and resources. The issue is mute UNTIL these issues are actually mentioned and discussed openly during the 3 hour block.

Does Welch realistically expect the average member has the time to peruse these additional studies on top of all the busy work that TSCC requires during a typical week.

Only when these issues enter the correlated materials, lessons and talks that every single member can access on a Sunday, can you actually say that they are not being hidden.

"The issue is mute UNTIL these issues are actually mentioned and discussed openly during the 3 hour block"....until they decide some doctrine should no longer be followed and they remove all traces of that doctrine from the lesson manuals and voila, it no longer exists! And remember, TBMs should only access the current manuals and information.

Whew, thanks! Now I can sleep better at night knowing there are finally some answers. Oh, and where do I send my check to because Jesus needs some more money?

Hahaha!

LDS Inc is finding itself in a deeper and deeper hole.

One would think they would stop digging.

Enjoy it folks, you are witnessing the beginning of the implosion.

"While no one has all the answers to every question..."

Why not? Joe Smith did. Brig Young did.

Doesn't the Mormmon Jesus have all the answers to every question?

Doesn't the Mormon profit commune regularly with the Mormon Jesus? Joe Smith did, daily.

What's the matter with the last dozen or so Mormon profits? Didn't they have the spirit?

This so-called 'journal' is probably good for toilet paper, nothing else.

My copy of Doctrines of Salvation has Joseph Fielding Smith saying that JSjr would not have used so vulgar a device as a seerstone to translate the Gold Plates. That's what I grew up believing, because the profit said so.

"grand poobah" hehehe. Is Jebus the mini-me grand poobah?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2013 08:36PM by evergreen.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2013 08:40PM by evergreen.

Even to the most determined TBM that wants to accept the most bizarre, absurd Mormon behaviors as doctrines will never be able to reconcile the lying about themselves to attract and maintain membership.

It's a cult trying to be accepted by others and found the only way to do so was to develop multiple faces depending on the audience.

That might be okay with some, but I didn't sign up for that mom and dad and I don't want to be any part of it, sorry you do. Now eat you meat or you don't get any pudding.

Perfect timing for this Sunday since I think this will be the Lesson: Lesson 15: The Prophet Receives Revelation for the Church

I went to LDS.org and typed "polyandry" in but not directed to anything informative. I was not shocked.

<<On the use of a seer stone as well as the Nephite interpreters in translating the Book of Mormon, see the entries under "Book of Mormon Translation," "Seer Stones," and "Urim and Thummim." Although Joseph's use of the hat was not mentioned in those articles, the hat has been mentioned on a number of occasions.>>

So, on the subject of the rock-in-hat translation he refers the reader to articles that don't talk about the rock-in-hat translation. Yep, pretty typical mormon apologetics!!

Oh yah....

John Welch, the weasily MORmON prick MORmON apologist that makes the MASH Character Major Frank Burns look like a stand up credible guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGoQFbKk5Cg

google: the free dictionary thesaurus, look up what the word Welch means
-read the answer given online

google: type the search term: what is the meaning of the word: John?
-read the answer given online

Is this man real? is this a joke? Did the church put someone up to this? How could they not be ironic or covering some fact using a spokes person with this name with these connotations? Were they joking? This can not be real.

Its as if given the facts, they need to be wry humored in the spin managing it. What were they thinking using these two words to announce their refutation in their argument as their title or ambassador introducing their statement- how could they do this anyone with a dictionary, anyone that speaks English, would know what either of these terms means, so it sounds like a joke that makes a mockery of something. Who works in propoganda techniques or marketing and can explain this word choice in their announcer labeling (ie welch) (ie john)

Coorporations with this much money do not do anything or use any words without a reason. What could it be?

I dig that clip!

"And, interestingly, the use of the hat, while perhaps unfamiliar or embarrassing to some people, actually may solve a much more serious concern, since it corroborates the important testimony of Emma insisting that Joseph used no notes and had no books, including the Bible, when he translated; after all, he could not have read or used any such materials with his face in the hat."

Well then I'm interested to know how verses from his bible, errors and all, appeared in the BoM.

No wait, come to think of it that all makes sense. If Joseph could read the gold plates using the rock in the hat while the plates were buried elsewhere, he could certainly read a bible elsewhere in his house.

"On the use of a seer stone as well as the Nephite interpreters in translating the Book of Mormon, see the entries under "Book of Mormon Translation," "Seer Stones," and "Urim and Thummim." Although Joseph's use of the hat was not mentioned in those articles, the hat has been mentioned on a number of occasions."

LMAO. "Although Joseph's use of the hat was not mentioned in those articles..." Wasn't that the ENTIRE point of the fucking question? Why does the church misrepresent and hide this fact? #FAIL

Here's the thing that really bothers me. All the people crawling out of the woodwork, claiming that "the church has already answered or addressed all of these questions", ARE UNOFFICIAL SPOKESPERSONS. Official answers about anything - answers from the president of the church, which are tagged and identified as the OFFICIAL position of the church - are practically nonexistent.

So all of the professional and amateur apologists crawling in the comments section on the NYT article, and on their own blogs and websites, and trolling this very forum, can stand up and proudly declare, "I know the answers! I've figured it out!" But their words mean nothing, because it's unsanctioned. It's just speculation that can be thrown under the train the moment more compelling evidence shows up to prove them wrong.

What none of these apologists understand is, nobody who has problems or concerns about confusing church doctrines or altered history gives a single sh!t about their speculative, twisted, mind-warping "answers". The underlying problem is, and has always been, that there is no official answers for anything. This is why every mormon's experience is so vastly different - it's why half the members say they already knew about these issues and half say they've never heard them before.

The church relies solely upon amateurs and unofficial spokespersons, purely so they can maintain plausible deniability, so absolutely no "answers" anyone claims to have about the church can be trusted. It's as simple as that.

You've nailed it.

The suits never want to take ownership of anything so they have their lackeys at FAIR, etc and other amateurs do all the talking. Since it's not official, the 15 have plausible deniability. "Oh we didn't say that, these other guys we don't control said it! Move along, folks! Nothing to see here!" They are all a bunch of businessmen and lawyers. Weren't lawyers condemned in the BOM for their slick talk? (Apologies to all non-slick talking attorneys out there)! At least when the Vatican issues an encyclical, the pope is man enough to put his name on it.

His response on plural marriage is sadly lacking any reference to the issues that troubled the Swedish members the most: polyandry and the coercion of young girls.

I was always taught that there wasn't a single problem that couldn't be answered by reading the Book of Mormon.

Sounds to me like the top 15 better get reading!

I don't recall anything in that book about the 15 apostles not being able to answer questions about the one and only perfect true church on the face of the earth.


This is the kind of chaos that happens when you have a church run by attorney's. Lots of questions, no answers. They just dance around in circles and collect money that they then spend on outrageous junk.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2013 07:05PM by Mia.

REALLY scare them and read the Gospels for yourself. You can read it from KJV which was translated from the Latin Vulgate, the official Catholic Bible at the time, or you can read it translated from older more accurate writings and you can read it in English you can understand. You'll come across the part where Christ calls the devil "the father of lies." And this "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free."

Well, damn, that came too late to save me. I wish I'd just waited for the faith promoting materials to come forth.

P.S. What a douche.

Welch is presenting disingenuous excuses. As long as the Mormon church continues to teach children the following lesson, the problem remains.

This manual is used for children 8-11
http://www.lds.org/manual/primary-5-doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history/lesson-7-joseph-smith-translates-the-gold-plates?lang=eng

This is the official picture of Joseph Smith translating the gold plates used in the lesson.
http://www.lds.org/media-library/images/gospel-art/church-history?lang=eng#joseph-translating-gold-plates-329346

Look at this "enrichment activity" that children learn from:

"Explain that when Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, he said the words out loud, and his scribe wrote the words down. Sometimes Joseph and the scribe were separated by a divider and could not see each other."

"Put a divider in the middle of a classroom table or the floor (for example, two children could hold a small blanket or sheet or a large piece of heavy paper). Have a child sit on one side of the divider and slowly read a short verse from the Book of Mormon while a child sitting on the other side of the divider writes down what is being read. Then have the scribe read what he or she wrote so the child reading the scripture can be sure it was written correctly. (You may want to have more than one scribe so all children who want to participate can do so.)"


The Mormon church does not teach 8-11 year old children about the stone in the hat. What do you think would happen if a teacher did an "enrichment activity" of having children stick their faces into a hat and pretend to read from a stone while other child wrote the words?

michaelm (not logged in) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The Mormon church does not teach 8-11 year old
> children about the stone in the hat. What do you
> think would happen if a teacher did an "enrichment
> activity" of having children stick their faces
> into a hat and pretend to read from a stone while
> other child wrote the words?

That would be so much better! On his comments to the Hans interview, JD writes that he goes first to approved sources. Here's a quote from him: "For me, personally, I have found a rather simple approach to resolving my own doubts. Whenever I see something challenging my faith, I first question the source. Is this person credible? Does this person have an agenda? Can I trust this person? If I can answer yes to those questions, then I try to do whatever research I can on the topic, starting with official Church statements. When that doesn’t suffice, I look deeper into the works of notable LDS scholars from BYU or elsewhere."

This is exactly the problem:
Is this person credible? No.
Does this person have an agenda? Yup, get more tithing into the coffers.
Can I trust this person? Sure, trust them to be deliberately misleading at best, outright lying if they believe they can get away with it.

One should not use the words "research" and "official Church statements" in the same sentence. Outside of standup comedy, of course.

There are no legitimate LDS scholars in the fields of anthropology or history. It takes honesty, which is in short supply.

They haven't been hiding this info or squelching it with a whitewashed set of faith promoting stories my butt.

I would love to see what would happen to anyone that showed up to a meeting or class and brought these items up. It would cause an absolute meltdown from members claiming they were lying.

This guy and his article belong in the pantheon of the deceptive MLM sales tactics.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2013 08:12PM by templeendumbed.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but if all this information is so well-known and has been readily available to Mormons all along, why were the Swedes at the Jensen/Turley "answer"-fest threatened with excommunication (and/or given the option to resign) for discussing this well-known history?

Threats of ousting members kind of belies TSCC's ain't-no-big-thang spin.

So why don't the new modern prophets act like the prophets of old, and strike down all these evil unbelievers with dumbness. The apologist are always the only ones who looked like they were struck dumb in these exchanges.

AnnointedOne, I bet they have a dart board with your face on it in the Mo-ville corporate boardroom. I imagine you are really hated, Mr. MormonThink.

Well, the MORmONS can settle the entire thing very easily for me.
MORmON Jesus can have the angel MORON-I bring the plates back down from heaven, then President Monson can translate a few dozen pages, from off of the golden tablets ..... that better perfectly match up with existing POS BOM text. Until then... Piss on them!

hopefully with his face and the rock in the hat.

Wait, and this answers exactly what? Even FAIR has better answers than this, and we all know how much those answers suck.

I was going to write something to the effect "like a ship without a rudder" but upon reflection it looks like the rudder has seized to one side and the ship keeps going around in circles.

Presently we are witnessing an organization that is resisting change but is being forced into correction mode just to survive.

This is no way the church that I was baptized into 20 years ago.

One of the things that drew me to the LDS church was the notion that there were no paid clergy but what they failed to mention was that there were a bunch of paid hacks running the show.

Its very distastful if you follow it on sites like this to any degree watching the paid hacks slice and dice, editing LDS history as they go hoping at some point that the lost sheep will forget the past and come back to the fold.

I often wonder what happened years ago and who advised this ill fated course that now seems to be the way? What is that favorite quote used by whats his name "that the truth is not always helpful" That's a great quote from leadership who believe they are above any other Christian movement.