"Uh oh!" to "Ah ha!" in Apologetics: 20/20 Foresight for a Faithful Future in Defending the Church

FAIR ^ | Aug. 7, 2009 | John Lynch

[Colofornian]

There are wolves in sheep's clothing and I want to bring up two specifically. One is an organization called MormonThink.com. Okay. I don't know if you're familiar with it. I bring it up only as a warning voice. MormonThink.com presents itself as an open environment where we can discuss principles of the gospel and the teachings of the gospel from an open perspective where the truth is really found out, let the chips fall where they may. I will tell you right now that there is an agenda of those that operate that website. Their objective is not to give you the delineating line but to allow all information to come in to fuzz the line for you and allow you to raise your own doubts. Another one, perhaps just as dangerous is StayLDS.com. This is run by a gentleman I know personally, John Dehlin, and John for the most part I think is a sincere individual who likes to help people but I've got to tell you, in my opinion, he is way off the mark with this. Basically, what the organization is doing is saying "we want you to stay LDS even though you don't believe. " Why would you want to do that? Why would you want to have someone remain complacent in a state of doubt? It's beyond me.

[SNIP]

We are not obligated to defend the personal writings or musings...of our general authorities...some principles of doctrine...can be changed as our understanding expands and we receive additional revelation. The manuals published by the Church—I know, I know, they are almost perfect but they are not...So it is not everything that we're required to defend, and certainly not things like... folk doctrine that we have in the Church like the curse of Cain doctrine...

[Colofornian]

From the presentation: ...when you're dealing with somebody, capture their concerns...What you want to do is, you want to get them all on the table so you can consolidate the issues and the larger concerns, okay? For example, Joseph Smith married a young woman, a 14-year old, calls into question his prophetic calling. Brigham Young, making remarks that may seem racist, calls into question his prophetic calling. Book of Mormon anachronisms, calls into question it's authenticity as a divine religious text...Book of Abraham as scripture is another one that comes up often. What do we know about that? Did Joseph Smith get it right? What teachings do we have that inform our earthly endeavors? Are they precious to us or worthy of abandonment? Do we cast out the baby with the bath water simply because we don't know where the text was from which Joseph translated? I don't think so.

So, Smith marries a 14 yo. Brigham Young makes comments that "seem racist" or were racist?

And, Mr. Lynch calls StayLds.com "wolves in sheep's clothing" even though BYU's Web site has featured an article on this site.

And his concern with MormonThink.com? It presents itself as an open environment where we can discuss principles of the gospel and the teachings of the gospel from an open perspective where the truth is really found out, let the chips fall where they may.

(It's almost like he's saying, "We can't have open forum Internet discussions -- why that would be less 'controlling' on our part")

He adds: Their objective is not to give you the delineating line but to allow all information to come in to fuzz the line for you and allow you to raise your own doubts.

(Boy, we can't have "all information to come in" in this free liberty world -- doubts might rise to the surface & that would be just "terrible")

[Duffboy]

A really frank discussion would begin with those “gold tablets’, the “ translation” and the missing 113 ( ? ) pages of the morman “bible’.
I often wondered if the wife of Martin Harris when she learned her husband was loaning Joe $ 5.000 on the printing
costs, threw the whole mess into the fireplace.
What was salvaged is what is now under discussion.

[greyfoxx39]

Ping

[Colofornian]

And, of course, Joe “the Seer” didn’t start over to do a “re-do” of the 113 pages — and yet many Mormons try to make much ado over “missing books of the Bible” ... as if it rendered the Bible “suspect”...when they have their own “missing section” of the BoM.

[Tennessee Nana]

That 113 missing pages out of the book of mormon would be like lacking all of the Gospels...

My Bible has 108 pages for Matthew, Mark, Luke, John

All the RED words of Jesus...The words of God in the flesh...

Jopey Smith claimed that the book of mormon was a complete book in the main...

But apparantly it wasnt...

Moses “lost” the words of God that he had been given in the “flesh” from God...

he threw them down anbd destroyed the tablets when he sawe and heard the hebrews worshipping the golden calf...

When Moses approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, his anger burned and he threw the tablets out of his hands, breaking them to pieces at the foot of the mountain. Exodus 32:19

God allowed him a do over...

Moses went back to the source back up the mountain and God gave him the 10 Commandments again...

The LORD said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. Exodus 34:1

Now the mormons claim that Joey Smith was a prophet like Moses...

If he was how come God didnt treat him like Moses...

How come Joey did not warrant a do over ???

Joey Smith boasted he was greater than Jesus and yet Jesus said My father hears me and answers me...and will give you what ever you ask in my name

In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. John 16:23

How come Joey didnt bother to tell God he needed a new set of words to replace those 113 pages ???

Didnt Joey think that God would keep a ready copy of his written communiques to his prophets any more ???

[Elsie]

We are not obligated to defend the personal writings or musings...of our general authorities...some principles of doctrine...can be changed as our understanding expands and we receive additional revelation.

Said Humpty Dumpty to Alice; explaining how he can make a word mean anything we wants...

[SoConPubbie]

We are not obligated to defend the personal writings or musings...of our general authorities...some principles of doctrine...can be changed as our understanding expands and we receive additional revelation.

In other words, the mormon god is not a perfect god, or an unchanging god; he is a god that will change with the times.

I am so glad I submitted my heart to the All-Powerful, All-Knowing, Ever-Present, and Perfect God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus.

There was not need to change a Gospel given by the Perfect Son-of-God. The Bible was not mis-translated and there are no missing books.

The Bible contains the testimonies of the Prophets, the Son of God, and the Apostles. It is complete in itself.

Those stating otherwise are missing out on the blessings and joys given to those who repent and Believe the Gospel as laid out in the New Testament.

[Elsie]

You seem to be a bit narrow minded.

Can’t we all just get along and worship the way we please?

—MormonDuqe(I don’t see how ALL of their Professors could POSSIBLY be corrupt!)