Supreme LDS apologist Jeff Lindsay has an interesting take on the plight of the Swedish Saints. Even Mr Lindsay admits that '...The concerns of the Swedish Saints turn out to be deeper and more serious than the New York Times article indicated...'

Check it out:

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2013/07/weighing-mormonism-thoughts-for-mormon.html

The weapons-grade comments that have been posted below the text are worth a glance...

Ahh.. those mormons who toss away facts or try to minimize the accusations, and say it's all about faith.

Lying for the Lord.
Milk before meat.
Some things that are true are not very useful.
Don't cast pearls before swine.
The September 6.
The three enemies of the church.

I've looked at mormonism from both sides now.... and I'm absolutly freakin' sure that when it comes to having things cherry picked or taken out of context, the mormons are significantly more guilty. And their claims of "It's always been available" are only applicable because the critics bring it to the forefront. Otherwise, they'd be either overtly or covertly hidden away. Mormons are finding new ways to react every time some new layer is uncovered or exposed. At times it's fun to watch... but listening to the mormon pretzel logic can be mind boggling.

Here's the thing about the Mormon response to the Swedes...it was a massive failure! Think about it:

Disaffected Mormons were given the opportunity to directly ask questions to top Mormon leaders and historians. While their questions were sincere, the responses were evasive and condescending. In the transcript you can tell that tension builds up throughout the conversation as the Swedes hammered back for direct answers. In the end, it was clear that the "answers" did not satisfy the disaffected Mormons. And that was the best the Mormon Church could offer them!!!!

The whole episode was a colossal failure even before the New York Times article. The only people who bought it are professional Mormon apologists and die-hard Mormons playing mental gymnastics. Those who doubt Mormons doubt it even more after reading the exchange.

They failed. I doubt will see more of these interactions.

JL says: "There are challenges to our faith and misconceptions that many of us had for years that need correction, and sometimes this updating can be painful. Some simple assumptions that seemed OK in the past are not accurate and not even doctrinal, such as the common old assumption that the Book of Mormon describes all the ancient origins of all Native Americans, or the idea that the limitation on the priesthood for many (but not all) blacks must have been a doctrinal matter based on some official revelation (there is no evidence of such a revelation being given)."

Thanks Jeff. I guess what we really need then are prophets of God who can lead us and guide us to the truth....... oh hold on a sec, it's these very prophets who have said the exact things that have led to these misunderstandings. Doh!

The side-stepping and shufflin' feet of this apologist and commenters are pathetic. He/they avoid direct responses to the issues. Example: With the issue of Joseph Smith's polygamy, they respond to the issue of polygamy in general, and wonder why Mattson had never heard of it, thus denigrating him and his intelligence. For once, I'd like to hear them DIRECTLY respond to the valid issues that are being presented.

Love the comments from "bookslinger":


"Or the open ended snarky questions like "How do you explain such-and-such in the Book of Mormon? There's no evidence for it." When in fact, there doesn't HAVE to be physical archealogical evidence for everything in the Book of Mormon. In fact, there doesn't have to archealogical evidence for _anything_ in the Book of Mormon. And if there is archealogical evicence, much of it could be undersea from the upheavals that accompanied the crucifixion, or has deteriorated to dust in the 1600 to 2600 years since then, or is located in the 99.95% of the land area that has NOT been dug up and analyzed."

How could the "upheavals" the accompanied the crucifixion have only hidden BOM evidences but not those of the bible? And if all those lands were undersea how could Jebus have visited those "other sheep" in the new world and wouldn't the BOM story end there? And I didn't know that steel could turn to dust in only 1600 years?

It's the "prove we are lying" argument.

Of course there doesn't have to be direct physical evidence of everything in the BoM... but you have to be mental if you really think that everything in the BoM literally happened without leaving even the smallest trace when on the other side of the pond there's boatloads of archeological evidence for Biblical passages that occured long before the BoM.

"Boatloads"? Like what?
The creation?
The great flood?
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses?
Jesus?

The Bible has more holes than any Mormon scripture. Just because a small handful of cities actually existed (like Jerusalem) doesn't mean there are "boatloads" of biblical evidence.

Lord Almighty, I get tired of this line of thinking.

The Old Testament doesn't end at the Pentateuch, and many of the events as recorded in, say, Kings and Samuel are corroborated by extra-biblical records from Palestine, Syria, Egypt and so on, as well as archaeological discoveries. There are certainly confabulations within these works, but some of the stories are based on actual political happenings in the ancient world.

The New Testament covers more than just the life and teachings of Jesus, and several of the characters and events are well-accepted as being extant in the first century CE. Again, it's often difficult to puzzle out actual history from legend, but the fact remains that, even if the scriptures are ancient fan-fiction, they still contain elements of fact.

I agree, however, that the Bible is uneven, self-contradictory, and sloppily edited in many places, and definitely should not be held up as a standard of morality or wisdom.

The Book of Mormon has nothing to corroborate its claims. There is no archaeological, historical, genetic, or literary evidence that supports its claim of ancient authorship. It's clearly a 19th-century creation.

Here's the problem I have with the whole thing. Angie Crowther summed it up pretty neatly in her comment, a part of which I will give here:

"...The key to finding true answers is the seeker's intent. If the seeker is asking questions to find a reason to leave the church or to disbelieve in God, then the questioning will not lead to peace or truth.

"But if the seeker assumes certain spiritual truths (e.g., God exists; He is good; He gave us the freedom to choose our actions, thoughts, and feelings; He will reveal truth to us; etc.), then the questioning will bring us closer to Him."

What got me to leave was when I realized that in the real world, and in legitimate science, the "seeker's intent" has nothing to do with what answer you get. If something is true, it will be repeatable and verifiable, whether the seeker wants it to be or not.

Angie's is circular: If you want to believe something, you'll believe it. And if you believe it more after that, then you know it's true! And she didn't make it up. That's the whole, official process of gaining a "testimony."

That's the whole problem.

She has cult thinking bad! Is an intent to believe in Scientology a good thing? How is that any different?

So what if Joseph Smith coerced young impressionable girls into "spiritual marriages" by telling them it was their path to salvation... nobody's perfect, including the prophet. Oh, and he's the prophet because the preisthood had been taken away centuries before because church leaders back then had been wicked. What horse...t!

These apologists' responses just make me want to bang my head against the wall:

"I could also tell that a few of the people asking questions had unrealistic expectations about Joseph Smith, prophets in general, and the church in general. I suspect that for those people no answer will ever be sufficient."

Well, where did these doubting members get their "unrealistic expectations" of prophets and Joseph Smith in the first place?!! The church!!! If the church wouldn't drill the unrealistic image into the brains of the members then maybe they wouldn't be so shocked to find out the REAL Joseph Smith and succeeding prophets. This is an example of the abuser blaming the victim.

"Resources such as FAIRLDS.org, the Maxwell Institute, the Mormon Interpreter, and BlackLDS.org can supplement the vast resources at LDS.org and help clarify some of the issues."

I love how he makes it sound like the unofficial apologist sites are simply "supplement(s)" to the "vast resources" found on the church's official website. There ARE NO ANSWERS to be found at LDS.org for the troubling issues which members are grappling with. The apologist sites are the ONLY resource they have. The church's website is worthless. They do NOT mention any of these issues we are talking about. They are too damned scared to address them in any official capacity.

"While what really happened in history is rarely clear and easily misjudged, we can more easily judge what happens in our lives as we live the Gospel and experiment with the Word. There is a power, joy, and indeed, even intellectual fulfillment that comes with steady service and study, even after facing some of the disappointments that come when some unfounded assumptions we long held require correction. "

Mormon history is "rarely clear" and "easily misjudged" if you are still trying to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet and LDS Inc is the true church. The history becomes EXTREMELY CLEAR to those who finally accept the fact that Joseph Smith was a conman and Mormonism is a man-made religion. And "intellectual fulfillment" coming with the "steady service and study" in LDS Inc? Even members will have disagree on that one. Listening the same watered down 3rd grade level lessons and sacrament meetings where half the congregations is falling asleep doesn't strike me as a very intellectually fulfilling environment.

The thing that gets me while reading all their responses is how quick they are to warn everybody about all the half-truths and twisting of facts that the anti-mormons are doing on the internet, but don't seem to worry at all about the half-truths and twisting of facts that the church is blatantly doing.

I have also been entertained by the ones warning against 'science' leading people away with some hidden agenda. When more information is learned, scientists adjust and what exactly would be their agenda anyway? Do you have to give them 10% of your money or they'll take Pluto away?

+1

That whole "intellectual fulfillment" in "steady service and study" in TSCC? OMG. You are learning CRAP in the LDS church. It's all so faith driven and faith focused and so much about preserving "the good name of the church," that the only use of your mind is on administrative chores in the church. Anyone who actually wants to grow spiritually and intellectually is SOL.

Look at how Don Bradley talks about voluntarily lobotomizing himself:

<<
“It would be wrong to think that I am unaware of the weaknesses of the Mormon subculture,” he said. “But I pay no mind to them because they are not the basis of my faith. I came back focused on everything that is ‘virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy,’ and determined to nourish the wheat until it choked the tares.”

Today he is continuing his research into Mormonism’s past, but he finds that “digging into Mormon history is ultimately favorable to faith.”

“The central claim of Mormonism is not that God spoke to a fallible human being in 1820,” Bradley said. “The central claim is that God can and will talk to fallible human beings today. When we reach out to him, we will find his hand reaching out toward us, waiting.”
<<

Google: Simple-faith-in-a-digital-age.html ; d e s e r e t n e w s. com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/2013 05:35PM by derrida.

The simple answer for all of these people is to: (1) sit down; (2) take a deep cleansing breath, hold it, hold it, now, let it go...

(3) Say out load: "It's all bull-crap, but I'm still OK!".

(4) Now, get up and get on with life!

The 4-step plan.

Peace!

Question: Are you a prophet?
Answer: I am sustained as such.
(Evades the answer)
Question: Do you get your power from God?
Answer: I get my power from the men and women that sustain me.
(Admits his power does NOT come fronm God)
Gordon Hinckly,s answers