Someone decided to "Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed." But that's the typical ex-mormon, they always want the critic's reponse as the last word.

"Why was Emma so angry that she threw her out of the house? (We already know how furious and betrayed she felt when she learned of Smith's hanky-panky with Fanny)."
Its almost certain that his wife, Fanny (probably not sealed to her), didn't get pregnat.

The first relies on a much later account attributed to Chauncey G. Webb, whose account was first given in the notoriously anti-Mormon Wilhelm Wyl’s 1886 work. Wyl had Webb claim that Joseph “was sealed there [in Kirtland] secretly to Fanny Alger. Emma was furious, and drove the girl, who was unable to conceal the consequences of her celestial relation with the prophet, out of her house.” Webb’s daughter, Ann Eliza, added a few details, claiming that “it was with a shocked surprise that the people heard that sister Emma had turned Fanny out of the house in the night.”

As a source, Wyl cannot be used without the greatest care. On the same page as Webb’s account, Wyl has another witness imply that Joseph concocted the idea of plural marriage while consorting with Latter-day Saint females at a brothel. Such a claim is absurd. Compton insists that although Webb might be mistaken about the pregnancy, “this seems unlikely, if Fanny lived in his home after leaving the Smith home.” Compton does not acknowledge that Webb need not have been mistaken—he might have simply lied, and he had reason to do so. By contrast, G. D. Smith, after quoting Webb, says only that “there is no evidence to corroborate the claim that Fanny was pregnant,” but this soft-pedals the evidence (p. 42). There is reason to doubt this claim, not merely to regard it as unconfirmed.

Webb was in a position to know about Fanny’s pregnancy, so why does he tell us nothing else? Why do we hear no tragic tale about the despoiled maiden’s child being stillborn or the heartrending scene of the mother required to give up the Prophet’s bastard offspring for someone else to raise in secret? Either scenario would have suited the tone and tastes of the late-nineteenth-century exposé in which Webb’s words appeared. The opportunities for him to use his “knowledge” are legion, and yet Webb simply teases his audience with a sly hint and drops the matter.

Even Ann Eliza, who should have known if Webb knew, leaves the explosive matter of a child by Joseph unmentioned—a curious omission since the purpose of both accounts is to attack Joseph’s character. Her account is also questionable because it portrays Oliver Cowdery as a staunch ally in Joseph’s deception, while Oliver’s hostility on the subject of Fanny is based on contemporary documents.

Ann Eliza’s version does not agree with McLellin’s “Miss Hill” account in his 1872 letter either—McLellin claimed that Cowdery, Frederick G. Williams, and Sidney Rigdon were all called in to help calm Emma. But in McLellin’s version, both Emma and Oliver eventually “forgave him,” implying that both had to be placated, while Ann Eliza has Oliver worried about his own polygamy being exposed. Even if we assume that “Miss Hill” existed—an existence attested to by no other source and contradicted by McLellin’s other accounts—why would Oliver be upset about “Miss Hill” and worried about exposure in the case of Fanny?

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_author&vol=20&num=2&id=721


"You are reflexively defending a sinking ship, Non-Skeptic."
I am sorry, but I came here to debate someone that knows a lot, and is a challenge, I didn't come here to refute easy evangelical anti-mormon propaganda. I am sorry, but I am a little dissapointed, I though you knew more.

A true parrot of the faith, if I have ever seen one.

"Well, he was excommunicated, was he not? Why the floating, bereft-of-data smiley face--other than it being a sign that you have no meaningful response? (n/t) "


That he was excommunicated, what does this have to do with the question??? Why not believe that Oliver saw the Golden Plates??

It automatically puts "Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed." after so many replies. It's like 30 or something. So no, they didn't cut you off like a "typical ex-mormon".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 02:37PM by freeasabird.

everyone is out to get you.

Anyone is allowed to post here on almost any topic...Most threads are closed after 30. You can always start a new one, just like you have. But remember, no one has to agree with anyone else...we all came from a background of having to agree and never questioning.. we are not that way anymore and you will gain creditability by being open minded, fair, and informed....welcome

"we are not that way anymore and you will gain creditability by being open minded, fair, and informed....welcome"

Thanks, yea I have changed beliefs and perspectives that I used to have, I used to belief that earth was 6,000 years old as a kid, but after I was expose to supposed "critical" stuff, I am still a believing Mormon.

Do you still make-believe that the earth is 6,000 years old?

And Neal A. Maxwell needed to get some decent information.

Indeed, Maxwell told me directly in a private meeting that one of the purposes of FARMS was to keep the Church from being "outflanked" by its critics.

He shared that little gem with me in September 1993, in his personal office, located in the Church Administration Building, downtown Salt Lake City, Utah, with Dallin H. Oaks present, where we talked about matters of Mormon Church history, doctrine, policy and practice. (He also sent out for fax help directly from FARMS to assist him in not being "outflanked" when we discussed how the Book of Abraham was supposedly "translated").

For the benefit of this "SkepticChristian" dude (who can't counter Maxwell's encounter with the plausibly unanswerable with anything meaningful), here's the actual lay of the land.

By way of background, in another thread, RfM poster "angsty," asserted:

"I mean, the [Mormon] church has an official PR department and representatives who perform this role already. The MDL/FAIR guys aren't authorized by the [Mormon] church to speak on its behalf, and nothing they say should be considered authoritative.

"Maybe that's part of the strategy? Address the media through unofficial channels and then when the church makes changes that contradict what those unofficial channels proliferate, they have plausible deniability and can shift blame to the little people who have been operating without 'proper authority'?"

("Why doesn't this effort fall under the 'ark steadying' category?," posted by "angsty," on "Recovery from Mormonism" board, 5 August 2011, 4:41 p.m.)
_____


Ha! In reality, the FAIR, FARMS, MDL crowd does the Mormon Church's bidding with tacit approval from the highest levels of LDS, Inc.

Let me give you a specific and glaring example of that dependency.

In our September 1993 meeting, I directly asked Maxwell about Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham papyri "translation," Maxwell said he would get back to me with an answer.

When I met with him and fellow apostle/apologist Oaks in a follow-up meeting the same month, Maxwell produced his "evidence"--which led directly back to FARMS. (FARMS--the acronym for the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies--was the predecessor to the current Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, located at BYU).

Tellingly, as I mentioned earlier, Maxwell provided his FARMS back-up material to me after first informing me that one of the purposes of FARMS was to prevent the General Authorities from being "outflanked" by the Mormon Church's critics.

Using FARMS-provided "research," Maxwell preceded to acknowledge that even though Joseph Smith's former scribe, Warren Parrish, and Mormon hymn composer, W. W. Phelps (of "The Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning" fame), were at one point about ready to leave the Church, he nonetheless said, "[D]on't pounce on Joseph Smith."

(Now, here's where Maxwell's direct and confirmable reliance on FARMS comes in).

Maxwell told me that the work of Parrish and Phelps on the Book of Abraham manuscript helped bolster the argument that the Egyptian funerary texts were not the actual parchments used by Joseph Smith in his translation of the Book of Abraham--or that Joseph Smith was even the author of the four extant manuscripts of the Book of Abraham.

In support of that position, Maxwell handed me a FARMS review, written by Michael D. Rhodes, of Charles M. Larson's book, ". . . By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri" (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Institute for Religious Research, 1992, p. 240 pp., illustrated).

On closer examination of the paper on which Rhodes review was photocopied, I determined the review originated with FARMS. Why? Because it was printed on fax paper bearing the acronym "F.A.R.M.S," along with the "FAX" date of "09/09/93." It also bore a dispatch time of "1:55" and a B.Y.U.-area phone number of "378 3724." It appears that Maxwell had solicited the assistance of FARMS in preparing for his discussions. (That fax sheet, by the way, is still in my possession).

Maxwell had highlighted in yellow the following excerpt from Rhodes' article:

"First of all, none of these manuscripts of the [B]ook of Abraham is in Joseph Smith's handwriting. They are mostly in the handwriting of William W. Phelps, with a few short sections written by Warren Parrish. Nowhere in the documents is Joseph Smith designated as the author. Moreover, the Egyptian characters in the left-hand margin were clearly written in after the English text had been written. These cannot be the working papers of a translation process. Instead, Phelps and Parrish seemed to have copied down the text of the [B]ook of Abraham and were then attempting to correlate that translation with some of the scrolls in the Church's possession. These documents are most likely that preliminary stage of investigation and exploration the Lord prescribed in D&C 9:8 to 'study it out in your mind.' The Lord expects us to first do all we can to understand something (and in the process discover our own limitations) before we seek for direct revelation from him. This is what Phelps and Parrish were apparently doing, although their efforts were short-lived and unsuccessful. In fact these same men shortly after this began to turn away from the Prophet Joseph and fell into apostasy. If they had been parties to some fraudulent process of producing the [B]ook of Abraham, they would surely have denounced Joseph Smith for this, but they never did."

In the end, Maxwell--responding to criticism of the Book of Abraham's authenticity--declared, "We will not twist or oscillate every time we come across new evidence. The Church is not a jerkwater organization."
_____


And then there's Dallin Oaks--Maxwell's partner in Mormon meanderings--who says one thing in public about FARMS and another in private--and whose personal view of the outfit as been, well, somewhat less glowing than Maxwell's.

FARMS Boy Oaks: The Private vs. the Public "Devoted Dallin" on the Book of Mormon (and on FARMS Itself)

What has been the role of the pseudo-independent propaganda FARMS arm in peddling patently dishonest versions of Mormon doctrine and history to the great unwashed? (We also refer here to not only FARMS, of course, but to its successor FAIR, as well as oto the newly-concocted Mormon Defense League).
_____


RfM poster "dagny" astutely observes in another thread:

"My take:

"These organizations play an important role for the church. They test the waters.

"The [Mormon] church has lots of 'problems' that stem from its history and past teachings.

"Organizations like FAIR put out 'trial balloons' to see what flies. If something they come up with flies and starts to be well received and accepted, the church can slowly embrace the teaching. The church can pretend they thought that way all along since their own statements are so slippery.

"If the 'trial balloon' teaching is not received well, is easily debunked, or unfavorable the church watches. Thanks to the organization not being officially part of the church, the church can distance themselves from anything that turns out to be not in their best interest. The church has no accountability and maintains plausible deniability.

"So, when someone tries out the idea that tapirs were BoM horses or that there were two Hill Cumorahs, the church can safely keep its distance and see what flies. The church knows they don't have to provide concrete answers because the members are willing to manufacture them and pass them around.

"It is the ultimate tool for deciding what to emphasize, what to adapt, and what to drop down the memory hole."

("My take: These organizations play an important role for the church. They test the waters," posted by "dagny," on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 5 August 2011, 9:48 p.m.)
_____


And how do Mormonism's apologetic apostles themselves regard not only the Book of Mormon, but also the water-carrying puppet organizations for the LDS Church whose mission it is to the Mormon minions to promote the Book of Mormon so stenuously?

Specifically, let's look at Dallin H. Oaks--and his telling flip-flops. It is telling to see what high Mormon Church leaders such as Oaks believe and speak about their faith in private--as compared to what they proclaim in public.

For instance, former RfM poster "Randy J." noted the following about Oaks' public speechifying regarding the Book of Mormon, as found in an address entitled "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," which Oaks delivered at a banquet of the faithful hosted by FARMS:

". . . [A]lthough Oaks' address is titled 'The Historicity of the Book of Mormon,' he offers not one iota of evidence to support that title in his entire speech. . . .

"Church leaders are willing to let FARMS and FAIR apologists go out on fragile limbs and propose their silly theories and publish their silly papers; but the leaders are much more reserved in their pronouncements, because they don't want to make any statements about 'Book of Mormon evidences' which can be refuted later."

("Two LDS Apostles Discuss Scientific Evidence for the BOM," posted by "Randy J.," on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 6 July [year not noted], at: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon534.htm)


As an informative historical sidenote to the FARMS banquet speech which "Randy J." mentions, I learned from a private meeting with Oaks just a few weeks prior to him delivering that speech that what he said in private about the Book of Mormon was not in complete synchronization with his later public observations. To be sure, what Oaks expressed behind closed doors compared to what he later said in public at that FARMS banquet makes for interesting reading.

On 9 September 1993, in a closed-door meeting with Oaks and fellow Apostle Neal A. Maxwell in Maxwell’s Salt Lake City Church office, Oaks offered his personal observations and assessments about the Book of Mormon.

Approximately six weeks after having met with Oaks and Maxwell--on 29 October 1993--Oaks then spoke publicly on the Book of Mormon, in the aforementioned sermon entitled, “The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," which was delivered at the annual dinner for the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) in Provo, Utah.

(The text of Oaks' banquet remarks is available here: Elder Dallin H. Oaks, "THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK OF MORMON," Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Annual Dinner, Provo, Utah, October 29, 1993, at: http://www.boap.org/LDS/Oaks-on-BoM-critics; and Elder Dallin H. Oaks, "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," at: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/bom/Oaks_Historicity.htm)
_____


What follows is a compare-and-contrast examination of what Oaks said in that earlier private meeting about the Book of Mormon in the Church Administration Building in Salt Lake City, as compared to what he publicly told the FARMS audience a few weeks later at their banquet in Provo.

This examination will also provide some inside information about what Oaks actually thinks of both the Book of Mormon and FARMS. Note the similarities and, more importantly, the differences between Oaks’ privately- and publicly-expressed views on these matters.
_____


HISTORICTY OF THE BOOK OF MORMON AND EVIDENCE OF PLAGIARISM

--Oaks Behind Closed Doors:

In the privacy of Maxwell's office, Oaks was shown striking parallels between a cross-referenced, color-coded copy of the Book of Mormon and the text for the "Spalding Manuscript:" B.H. Roberts' study of parallels between Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews;" the King James text of the Book of Isaiah; and the King James text of the New Testament--with particular emphasis being placed on the Book of Mormon timeline from 600 BC to 1 BC, when the words of the New Testament had not yet been written.

Further, Oaks was shown 17 parallels between the lives of the Book of Mormon prophet Alma and the New Testament apostle Paul. Note was made of the wording in Alma's letters that is found in exactly the same language in Paul's New Testament story.

Oaks' reply:

"Well, you know, as you've thumbed through your book, it only appears to me that 5% of your book has been marked, so I would say don't throw out the 95% because of the 5%. Don't take the 5% that you have serious questions about and cast out the 95% that is unexplained or divinely inspired."

Oaks continued:

"It's like being married to our wives. I'm sure there's more than 5% of me that my wife finds disagreement with, but she puts up with it anyway. It's kind of like being married to the Book of Mormon. Don't let your doubts keep you out of the mainstream."

Oaks' attention was also drawn to Moroni 10, which speaks of gifts of the spirit (to one is given one gift; to someone else is given another, etc). Verse by verse--comparing Moroni 10 to First Corinthians 12--the texts were shown to be almost exactly the same.

Oaks' reply:

"Well, it's not word-for-word and it's not the whole chapter."

Oaks was reminded that except for some minor variations--such as the oft-repeated phrase, "and again"--it was, for all intents and purposes, word-for-word.

When asked to explain how Moroni used the same language found in the King James version of the Bible, written hundreds of years after the Book of Mormon was recorded, Oaks replied that he himself had had the same question while preparing a talk on gifts of the spirit, as outlined in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Mormon and the New Testament.

Oaks said he concluded that all three authors were "impressed by the Holy Ghost" to record their thoughts "in this particular manner and in these particular words."


--Oaks in his FARMS Banquet Speech:

"In these remarks I will seek to use rational argument, but I will not rely on any proofs. I will approach the question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon from the standpoint of faith and revelation. I maintain that the issue of the historicity of the Book of Mormon is basically a difference between those who rely exclusively on scholarship and those who rely on a combination of scholarship, faith, and revelation.

"Those who rely exclusively on scholarship reject revelation and fulfill Nephi's prophecy that in the last days men 'shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance' (2 Ne. 28:4). The practitioners of that approach typically focus on a limited number of issues, like geography or 'horses' or angelic delivery or nineteenth century language patterns. They ignore or gloss over the incredible complexity of the Book of Mormon record. Those who rely on scholarship, faith, and revelation are willing to look at the entire spectrum of issues, content as well as vocabulary, revelation as well as excavation."
_____


BOOK OF MORMON DOCTRINES THAT ARE NOT SUPPOSEDLY THE PRODUCT OF PLAGIARISM, BUT OF DIVINE REVELATION

--Oaks Behind Closed Doors:

In private, Oaks offered the following counsel:

"You ought to go through the Book of Mormon and color in all the differences and emphasize the unique and special teachings of the Book of Mormon that don't have any similarities to other sources." (The point, however, was not highlight differences between the Book of Mormon and other texts but, rather, to get answers regarding their similarities and/or identicalness in areas of story lines, wording, etc).


--Oaks in his FARMS Banquet Speech:

"Scholarship and physical proofs are worldly values. I understand their value, and I have had some experience in using them. Such techniques speak to many after the manner of their understanding. But there are other methods and values, too, and we must not be so committed to scholarship that we close our eyes and ears and hearts to what cannot be demonstrated by scholarship or defended according to physical proofs and intellectual reasoning. . . .

"I admire those scholars for whom scholarship does not exclude faith and revelation. It is part of my faith and experience that the Creator expects us to use the powers of reasoning he has placed within us, and that he also expects us to exercise our divine gift of faith and to cultivate our capacity to be taught by divine revelation. But these things do not come without seeking. Those who utilize scholarship and disparage faith and revelation should ponder the Savior's question: 'How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?' (John 5:44)."
_____


GOD HAS NOT YET PROVIDED FINAL PROOFS AS TO THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE BOOK OF MORMON

--Oaks Behind Closed Doors:

When asked how to deal with the above noted anomalies found in the Book of Mormon, Oaks replied that the jury was still out.


--Oaks in his FARMS Banquet Speech:

"Another way of explaining the strength of the positive position on the historicity of the Book of Mormon is to point out that we who are its proponents are content with a standoff on this question.

"Honest investigators will conclude that there are so many evidences that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that they cannot confidently resolve the question against its authenticity, despite some unanswered questions that seem to support the negative determination.

"In that circumstance, the proponents of the Book of Mormon can settle for a draw or a hung jury on the question of historicity and take a continuance until the controversy can be retried in another forum."
_____


THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST THE BOOK OF MORMON

--Oaks Behind Closed Doors:

In his ultimate assessment of evidentiary proof concerning the Book of Mormon, Oaks admitted that the arguments for and against the book were "equal," with neither side being able to prove whether the Book of Mormon was true or untrue. In the ultimate analysis, he said, the Book of Mormon had to be accepted on faith.

Oaks reiterated that there was no evidence proving or disproving the Book of Mormon.

He placed his hand over his heart and said, "I get this knot, this warm feeling right here, and that is what I go on." Oaks said that he had a conviction that the Book of Mormon was "true."

He said that feeling of truthfulness came from a "personal witness."


--Oaks in his FARMS Banquet Speech:

". . . [I]t is our position that secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Its authenticity depends, as it says, on a witness of the Holy Spirit. Our side will settle for a draw, but those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon cannot settle for a draw. They must try to disprove its historicity--or they seem to feel a necessity to do this--and in this they are unsuccessful because even the secular evidence, viewed in its entirety, is too complex for that. . . .

"Speaking for a moment as one whose profession is advocacy, I suggest that if one is willing to acknowledge the importance of faith and the reality of a realm beyond human understanding, the case for the Book of Mormon is the stronger case to argue. The case against the historicity of the Book of Mormon has to prove a negative. You don't prove a negative by prevailing on one debater's point or by establishing some subsidiary arguments."
_____


FARMS' EFFORTS TO EMPIRICALLY PROVE THE BOOK OF MORMON

--Oaks Behind Closed Doors:

Oaks acknowledged that FARMS sometimes gets "hyperactive" in trying to prove that the Book of Mormon is true.

He said he becomes concerned when FARMS "stops making shields and starts turning out swords," because, he said, "you cannot prove the Book of Mormon out of the realm of faith." Accepting the Book of Mormon, Oaks said, was ultimately a matter of faith.


--Oaks in his FARMS Banquet Speech:

"Brothers and Sisters, how grateful we are--all of us who rely on scholarship, faith, and revelation--for what you are doing. God bless the founders and the supporters and the workers of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. The work that you do is important, it is well-known, and it is appreciated."

*****


--Oaks in Private and Oaks in Public on the Book of Mormon and FARMS:

Would the real Dallin Oaks please stand up?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 03:21PM by steve benson.

"You have more faith in FAIR than your Apostle leaders do"
I don't know how much the Apostle's trust FAIR, but since its most likely that God hasn't revealed to them, to use FAIR, they don't. But probably they like FAIR, but again they can't use it because God hasn't told them to use FAIR. FAIR is not a purpose of the church, that leads to salvation.

Its not neccesary to trust FAIR, when you know the truth, FAIR is like a hobby, and FAIR also helps the people that were exposed to false or Biased information. FAIR as an organization, is concern for the people.

But FAIR is just like any other organization, that is cocern for Historical accuracy.

1) You say you don't have time to read the historical data which contradicts your brainwashed point of view;

2) You depend for all your responses on links to Mormon propaganda units based in Provo; and

3) You claim that historical data which runs counter to your cue-and-spew Mormon view is automatically "anti-Mormon."

"Skeptic," you are no skeptic. Rather, you are a mindless wind-up LDS robot for the Kolob God who doesn't have enough background to see (much less comprehend) that much of the historical data which you describe as "anti-Mormon" is actually sourced in official LDS histories of the early Mormon Church, as well as found in journals and other writings of early LDS Church leaders.

"anti-Mormon, anti-Mormon, anti-Mormon." Zzzzzzzzzz.

You're desperate, Hectic Non-Skeptic, plus you're here to bolster your secretly sagging faith.

Earth to TBM boy: You're being eaten alive. Get out now while you still have a head to bow to your Master Mason Prophet Joseph.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 03:48PM by steve benson.

Did Maxwell personally tell you that he wasn't plugged into the God Channel on that, or did an angel appear to you and tell you that Maxwell was wandering afield, or are you just guessing?

Ask FAIR.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 03:26PM by steve benson.

TheSkepticChristian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Someone decided to "Sorry, you can't reply to this
> topic. It has been closed." But that's the typical
> ex-mormon, they always want the critic's reponse
> as the last word.

Classic case of premature and incorrect judgement based on negative preconceptions and zero evidence.

>[sb] "You are reflexively defending a sinking ship,
> Non-Skeptic."

> I am sorry, but I came here to debate someone that
> knows a lot, and is a challenge, I didn't come
> here to refute easy evangelical anti-mormon
> propaganda.

You should stop and read the board guidelines, SC. There is zero tolerance here for defending the faith or "debating" posters here in an apologist style. This is not the right board for those activities. There is nothing "anti-Mormon" about that. It is just a reflection of the purpose of this board. Out of courtesy to Admin and RfM posters, even your professional apologists stay away as requested. As for your stated goal of debating Steve Benson about Mormon history, JS, etc, even a quick skim of your posts shows that in a battle of knowledge and wits with him you're lacking the necessary tools. Do yourself a favour and find another duelling ground or get a different goal - you're welcome here if you're not going to preach the word, defend the faith, or otherwise break board rules.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 02:58PM by Nightingale.

"Classic case of premature and incorrect judgement based on negative preconceptions and zero evidence"
I am sorry, I apologize, I shouldn't have used the same judgment, like many ex-mormons judge Joseph Smith, with zero reliable evidence, or evidence out of context.

"There is zero tolerance here for defending the faith or "debating" posters here in an apologist style"

OKAY, sorry, I am not comming back.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 03:10PM by Susan I/S.

I said: "...you're welcome here if you're not going to preach the word, defend the faith, or otherwise break board rules."

That doesn't mean you have to say "I am not comming [sic] back". It just means you need to familiarize yourself with the board guidelines and environment in order to post well here and hopefully enjoy the experience and learn something new.

I was pointing out board rules so you could survive here, if you want to, or at least post with courtesy. You are displaying thinking errors, like having such strong misconceptions - about RfM posters and ex-members and your own church history - that you are unable to engage in meaningful debate. You accuse RfM posters of being "anti" and uninformed yet you display such biases yourself.

Also, if you're new to debate and/or apologetics, which it seems that you are, it's not the best idea to start off by trying to show a knowledgeable, experienced person like Steve Benson how wrong he is and how right you are. You're just not going to win too many debates like that.

If you could shed your starting premise that JS was without fault, the (Mormon) church is "true", you know the truth of the universe and all ex-members are "anti", maybe you could have a more profitable discussion about these issues, or at least, maybe you could learn something, even if it's only that there are different ways to look at information. I find that making every effort to be objective works the best.

Again, I didn't say you couldn't post here or that you're not welcome. In fact, I stated that you are welcome. But there are board rules. That's a reality I mentioned for your own good.

And I'm not saying that Steve Benson is undebatable, but if you're going to start with a tough guy like him in terms of knowing a few things about Mormonism and having a lot of experience in debating the issues, you need to become more informed, even if it's only from your own church sources. You may be surprised to find that a lot of information you consider "anti" is actually true, and shown to be so in your own church sources.

It pays to gather as much info as possible and then try and understand the viewpoint of those who disagree with your interpretation of things. You may find that your impressions and opinions are not always right. That is a good life lesson to learn.

In terms of the things in which I deeply believe I try to ensure they are based on some kind of rationality. Do you want to die for a lie? That is what I ask myself, especially in terms of religion, where things are definitely not always as they seem to a strong believer. If you're going to put your trust in something, you'd want to ensure it's worth it, no?

Why are you all still replying here?? Nightingale just told me:

"You should stop and read the board guidelines, SC. There is zero tolerance here for defending the faith or "debating" posters here in an apologist style. This is not the right board for those activities."

By the way,

"even a quick skim of your posts shows that in a battle of knowledge and wits with him you're lacking the necessary tools"

and that's what I am hoping, that you all were not impressed. I am just a simple college student. If you think that I know a lot, well I don't. My believing Mormons friends, are the ones that know a lot, they know a lot a lot more than me. They will easily win a debate with you.

So hopefully you all did not get impressed with my defense. But don't worry, I can think for myself



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 05:07PM by Susan I/S.

Why do people, mormons in particular, come to a site called Recovery From Mormonism" and expect it to be all mormon cult friendly and s**t?

Simply boggles the mind!

But then to tell folks who've been there, done that AND bought the t-shirt that they don't know what the cult actually teaches?

That's a tad off-base,SkepticChristian, don't you think? ... Or don't you?

Timothy

Do you have records of what happened to Fanny after she was either thrown out of the Smith household or not?

Without knowing where Fanny ended up, it's hard to take ANYONE'S POV seriously.

Church records document Joseph Smith's MANY sealings, so the evidence points to Fanny being yet another Celestial Wife.

Whether or not Fanny actually had sex with Joseph, I'd have to know the answer to a bunch of questions before I'd say that the reports of her pregnancy are falsified.

1) Where did Fanny go? If she was married off to a man headed for the frontier, odds are good we don't know ANYTHING about her. She could have had a baby six months after marrying "Mister Nobody" and that child would have been recorded as the offspring of Nobody.

2) Did Fanny have a miscarriage? Women, especially young ones who have just entered womanhood, have difficulty carrying a pregnancy. If she miscarried, there wouldn't be a record anywhere. Keep in mind, too, that there are a lot of folk remedies which can CAUSE a woman to miscarry. She could have taken one deliberately, or been given one unknowingly, to try to avoid a scandal.

3) When did Fanny die? Where did she die? Pregnancy was often fatal to women in the mid 1800s. That was a horrible fact of life then.

Without knowing ALL the information, I don't think any conclusion can be drawn from this situation.

~VOW



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 03:08PM by voweaver.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,5317,5366

>One challenge I've encountered in my research is what I've come to term "Mormon smear." Quite frankly, LDS historians, many of whom I've concluded are only writing badly biased historical fiction, only have to characterize an author as a "rabid anti-Mormon," and they consider their task of dismissing them as accomplished.

>Here's a sample involving two prominent 19th century victims of the Mormon libel machine, J.H. Beadle, and Wm. Wyl (Wilhelm Wymetal). The latter interviewed William Law in the following, which appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune in 1887. The Law interview was one I read early on (he was someone I was familiar with), and it's been a favorite link of mine to post because his voice is so credible and authentic.

The William Law Interview:

http://mrm.org/topics/documents-speeches/interview-william-law

>Now consider the following in what passes for academic scholarship at BYU . . .

http://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=6272

>Without an introduction or overview, however, the reader knows little of the context or background of the interview. Given the strong antipolygamy sentiment in America, the anti-Mormon bent of interviewer Wilhelm Wyl, Law's bitter opposition to the Prophet Joseph Smith, and publication of the interview in an openly anti-Mormon Salt Lake newspaper, it comes as no surprise that Law's recollections were predominately negative.

>>Biographer Richard L. Bushman provided this assessment of Wyl: “[He] introduced a lot of hearsay into his account of Joseph. Personally I found all the assertions about the Prophet's promiscuity pretty feeble. Nothing there [was] worth contending with.” L.D.S. General Authority, B. H. Roberts, assessed: “[Mormon Portraits] follows very much in the style and tone of Bennett's exposé, and severer criticism than this could not be passed upon it."

>Wyl, whose real name was Wilhelm Wymetal, published "Joseph Smith, The Prophet, His Family and Friends," and excerpts are available here.

http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1886WWyl.htm

>A brief biography of Wymetal is available on Wiki in German, but more significant are the following character references from, among others, the Territorial governor of Utah, and Chauncey G. Webb, who oversaw the construction of handcarts during that infamous episode in LDS history.

>Dr. W. Wyl, a representative of the Berliner Tageblatt, and who is commended to me from a high personal and official source as a "highly cultivated and thoroughly reliable gentleman," has for four months assiduously labored in the investigation of the questions involved in Mormonism. I am satisfied that he has given the subject careful study, and is therefore qualified to write advisedly of the situation, past and present.
>Respectfully,
>ELI H. MURRAY,
>Governor.

>"I have been thoroughly acquainted with the Mormon Church for over fifty years. I attended grammar school with Joseph Smith in Kirtland, Ohio, in the winter of 1834 and 1835, and assisted in teaching Joseph Smith, the prophet, English grammar. I witnessed the history of the Church in Kirtland, Ohio, in Caldwell and Davies counties, Mo., in Nauvoo, Ill., and in Salt Lake City. I was intimately acquainted with Joseph Smith and his family for eleven years, also with all the leading men of the Church down to the present time. I have been thoroughly acquainted with the system and all the important facts of the history of the Mormon Church. In many interviews during March, April and May, 1885, I have given all the facts within my knowledge to Dr. W. Wyl, who wrote them down in shorthand. I think Dr. Wyl has enjoyed the best facilities for obtaining a thorough knowledge of Mormon History, and I look forward to his intended publication with great interest."
>C. G. WEBB.
>SALT LAKE CITY, May 14, 1885,

>One "anti" did offer his testimony as well, none other than William Godbe, founder of the "Godbeites" Movement.

>We, the undersigned, hereby certify that we know that Dr. W. Wyl, a German author and correspondent, has worked very earnestly for months to collect facts from a number of witnesses living in Salt Lake City, relating to the history of Mormonism. We believe that Dr. Wyl has done his work in a thoroughly honest and truth-loving spirit, and that his Book will be a valuable addition to the material collected by other reliable writers.

>W. S. GODBE, H. W. LAWRENCE, E. L. T. HARRISON. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TER., April 28, 1886.

>Dr. Wyl's own introduction can be read by scrolling down to page 10, where he takes his critics to task for characterizing him as being in league with Satan, and I think he makes a persuasive case for his claims.

>J.H. Beadle suffers similarly at the hands of Mormon detractors. It was Beadle who arranged for William Hickman to make his confessions that became the basis for "Brigham's Destroying Angel."

>A number of individuals, including one LDS attorney who also doubles as an apologist as well as a descendant of Hickman's who maintains a website, have insisted Beadle "fabricated" the murder charges that Hickman laid at Brigham Young's feet. However, one of the books Bagley and I discussed in the conversation that began this treatise was Robert N. Baskin's "Reminiscences of Early Utah." Baskin would later rise to become Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court after statehood was achieved.

>>"Hickman confessed to me that he personally knew of thirteen persons having been murdered, some by him, and others by various Danites; that at one time he murdered a man by the name of Buck at Brigham Young's behest. Hickman's statement of this affair is substantially the same as given to me, in fuller detail..."
(p. 150)

You've drunk the Kool-aid, guy. Right now I'm in the middle of David Bigler and Will Bagley's new book on the Utah War (Will will be giving a presentation next month that he's asked to post an announcement here for). In 19th Century Utah, the principal dissembler responsible for coloring a lot of misinformation is none other than Brigham Young. This new book notes that Young--who recruited the volunteers for the Mormon Batallion--later spun that account as another "wrong" perpetrated on Mormons by the United States government. In point of fact, it was essentially a "pro-Mormon" act on President Polk's part to aid the Saints in their move west, providing money and the opportunity for the government to underwrite part of the migration.

I don't understand when LDS folks defend Joseph Smith's polygamous practices in this manner. Why not just assert that Joseph had a mandate from god to practice polygamy? It's almost as if you don't believe he actualy believe he recieved such a revelation.

Since Cowdery was excommunicated by the highest leadership of the Mormon Church, that would, by definition, make him an anti-Mormon.

Why are you defending a Mormon church that has as one of its principal founders someone who was excommunicated?

You might say, "Well, he repented and came back into the fold."

Hmmmm. Please cite where Cowdery ever retracted what he said about that "dirty, nasty, filthy affair" Smith had with Alger--an affair that Cowdery also described as being "strictly true."



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 03:42PM by steve benson.

Why are you all still replying here?? Nightingale just told me:

"You should stop and read the board guidelines, SC. There is zero tolerance here for defending the faith or "debating" posters here in an apologist style. This is not the right board for those activities."

By the way,

"even a quick skim of your posts shows that in a battle of knowledge and wits with him you're lacking the necessary tools"

and that's what I am hoping, that you all were not impressed. I am just a simple college student. If you think that I know a lot, well I don't. My believing Mormons friends, are the ones that know a lot, they know a lot a lot more than me. They will easily win a debate with you.

So hopefully you all did not get impressed with my defense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 05:13PM by Susan I/S.

You've broken free of FAIR already?

Good boy!

Welcome to the land of the mind.

Stick around and maybe you'll learn that Mormonism is just as non-defensible as a 6,000-year-old earth.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 03:46PM by steve benson.

An individual who simultaneously calls himself a "skeptic" AND a "christian" is not someone I would expect to challenge Steve Benson to a debate on kolobianism.

(grabs a bowl of popcorn and gets settled in for a good show)

"You've broken free of FAIR already?

Good boy!

Welcome to the land of the mind."

I have found that FAIR presents pretty accurate stuff, I just don't simply believe them, just because they are Mormons. I do my reasearch outside FAIR and FARMS also. But I have concluded that FAIR is pretty good.

I just don't believe just because,
Otherwise, I would have believe so much stuff from other organizations, like FIRM. (its not FAIR)

I can think for myself, I want to become an astrophysicist oneday. I am going for a major in physics

Okay I think this should be my last reply here,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 05:10PM by Susan I/S.

Please don't tell me you depend on the "Ensign" and "Friend."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 04:01PM by steve benson.

TheSkepticChristian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are you all still replying here?? Nightingale
> just told me:
>
> "You should stop and read the board guidelines,
> SC. There is zero tolerance here for defending the
> faith or "debating" posters here in an apologist
> style. This is not the right board for those
> activities."

SC, I am not the boss of this. I'm just an RfM poster who has been here a while and knows the board guidelines, which it appeared you had not seen, so I was telling you the one that applied to you - that preaching religion and defending the faith are not allowed here. If you didn't know that or especially if you persisted in doing it all your posts would be removed. I don't like to see that happen to new posters.

I went on to say, which you did not quote, that you are welcome here, just like any other person in the entire world, even Mormons. :)


> So if you have something to tell me, (so I can
> later respond) send me a message here ...

It doesn't really work that way. It's also a board guideline that you shouldn't ask people to email or otherwise contact you off board, especially being a new poster. Besides, we like to see the ongoing discussions, if they fall within board rules (i.e., no apologetics for Mormonism).

> By the way, "even a quick skim of your posts shows that in a
> battle of knowledge and wits with him you're lacking the necessary tools"

> and that's what I am hoping, that you all were not
> impressed. I am just a simple college student. If
> you think that I know a lot, well I don't. My
> believing Mormons friends, are the ones that know
> a lot, they know a lot a lot more than me. They
> will easily win a debate with you.
>
> So hopefully you all did not get impressed with my
> defense.

I don't understand why you want us to be "not impressed".

I don't see anyone here stating that they think you know a lot. :)

In fact, the opposite. And the reason we can see where you're coming from, especially the BICs in the crowd, is that they have been through the process of doing the research, thinking things through, making choices about their future from a different perspective than ever before, and choosing to go forward in life outside of Mormonism. They know how that goes.

I admit my remark was a bit snarky. It seems funny, though, that you would confront Steve Benson, a knowledgeable guy and a seasoned debater, as your debut on this board. It could go better for you if you discuss the issues and maybe do a bit of reading around the board. Maybe that could clarify some things for you that you may not be aware are simmering in your mind.

Re your friends who could win debates here - again, that is not the purpose of this board. But it could be fruitful for you to test out that hypothesis of yours somehow. You say you don't believe people's views just because they're Mormon. That's a start! Maybe you could check out a few topics related to Mormonism in the same way that you do research in college. One of the best places to get information from a source you trust, the church, is to look it up on church sites and other church resources.

Maybe you could start with polygamy, a topic in the news currently. Don't just accept the same old explanations or brush-offs. Really look into it. Even using only church sources you may learn something you hadn't known about before.

Ask questions. Lots of questions.

In the Bible, the Apostle Paul advised that people should know about their beliefs so they could answer questions and explain the reason for their faith. Go to the source and check out the reasons for Mormon beliefs and practices. As for the "defence" that many Mormons recite to various questions from non-Mormons and ex-members, don't just parrot the party line - check things out for yourself, from source.

If you have questions, those we would be happy to answer.

I am following this thread.....I have to be honest...Skeptic C...When I see you write it reminds me of myself many years before I learned the truth concerning the cult...For one to have to defend the indefensable as strongly as you do, makes you look like an ass....Why don't you read and study objectively both sides of any issure you want to present, and then present it with a little education, documentation, interest and objectivity. When you post on this borad your posting in front of thousands of well informed, educated and experience, well read people. To stand up and spew shit we have heard a thousand times for your own gratification and your own validation that the earth is flat, only embarrasses you and your family and reminds me why I left the mormon cult..People like you drive people like me out...keep converting exmo,s. Great job.

Just what I was going to say. I was a member for 57 years...a lot of years of brainwashing. But when I started to do research,from LDS sources,I was shocked at what I learned. For 57 years I bought the garbage the mormons spouted. I did go to FARMS...what a joke!! It really is more like a comedy show there. There excuses and rationalizing is unbelievable. They doth protest way to much.

I hope you will take some time to study Skeptic. Steve Benson has been doing this for a long time,and I have yet to be disappointed in what he says. I check some of the things out he writes about,and it has been accurate 100% of the time.

I would bet that about 99.9% of posters here have done their homework and don't just rely on posters like Steve. He just helps us,as do most of the other posters,learn more so we are better able to respond to posters like you.

And you sure know a lot for such an immature person.:)

My take is you are testing your feelings and your knowledge about Mormonism. Right now you seem to be relying on the knowledge and feelings of your friends and Mormon apologists, but you would like to develop your own point of view. My sense is you hope that you would come to similar conclusions as they.

I am curious as to why you identify yourself as "TheSkepticChristian" rather than as LDS or Mormon, and what you are skeptical of (besides us, of course :-)). Skepticism is a respected trait among most of us here, as long as it is well thought out rather than reflexive.

For many of us, testing ourselves against "the anti-Mormons" as a way of strengthening our testimonies was a first step in reconsidering what we really knew and believed, so I encourage you to stay with what you are doing (within board guidelines, of course). It is premature to welcome you, I suppose, but I hope you find what you need here.

P.S. I've debated Steve Benson myself on some issues. You've really got your hands full. By the way, Steve and I pretty much see eye-to-eye on Mormonism, in case you wondered. He's a tough one to cut your teeth on :-)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 04:39PM by robertb.