Replies

Seekers of truth,

If you peruse the Free Republic religion forums you will notice a pattern. There's an anti-Mormon group of people here that spends a great deal of their time attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They post regurgitated propaganda on an almost daily basis.

They have a misguided obsession. You can witness many different tactics employed that you might find quite interesting. The straw man argument is a big favorite and is frequently preceded by cherry-picking quotes or other material. After the "quotation" the attacker will misrepresent what has been said or what was meant and then attack their own interpretation.Later they will have the audacity to claim they were "only" quoting our own material.

They will of course insist ad nauseum that they are merely using our sources and are therefore innocent of any deceptive practice. LDS persons have no issue whatsoever having our scriptures or leaders quoted as long as it is presented fairly and accurately. This is rarely (if ever) done.

Another favorite is posting scripture or statements which on their own really present no dilemma. They make something out of nothing while never bringing up a single objection that hasn't been addressed a hundred times before.

You might note a couple of other tactics used to try to antagonize is the use of disrespectful or insulting terms or language and/or pictures. That's a Christlike thing to do right? Yeah I don't think so either. It does speak volumes about them though.

Sometimes they cruise the headlines of the day seeking any story that might be twisted into making the Church look bad. Anything will do, just watch the progression of posts following it and see what I mean.

After reading their posts, I invite you to seek the truth about whatever "issue" they seem to be "revealing" or "exposing". I promise that if you do so with honest intent, the "ahah" moments you will have will be many and frequent. You will start to recognize the tactics employed to cleverly twist and attack and will likely chuckle the more you see. In actuality, there's nothing new here. It's all been addressed many times before.

The latest twist in the anti-Mormon propaganda machine is to actually go to the links provided, but then they cherry pick what they want, then quote and straw man attack that. Clever. It almost appears that they are helping you, the seeker of truth out by doing some footwork for you. Not so much. Don't be insulted, look for yourself. It's not the haystack they want you to think.

Here's a few links to get your started from a different viewpoint. I have found that the vast majority of the "issues" brought up can be found and addressed at http://www.fairlds.org/ but here's more:

http://scriptures.lds.org/
http://www.lds.org
http://www.fairlds.org/
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/index.html
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDS_Intro.shtml
http://www.answeringantimormons.com/index.htm
http://promormon.blogspot.com/

Now you will likely notice the "you never address our points" posts pop up as usual. All after providing the answers just as you have here.

Sometimes it is claimed that these sites present a needle in a haystack. Far from it. But if you give up before you try you won't know will you?

Will you wear blinders too? Seek truth. Find out for yourself. Want to chat with someone on any topic? A few of these sites provide just that. So do your homework sincere seeker of truth. Listen and read from both "sides". Make up your own mind.

I witness to you of these truths and wish you the best, in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.

Discerning, decided readers,

Some Non Defenders Non Defend by claiming what we say has been covered over & over @ links they provide...
These Non Defenders claim these are Non issues...
...and that all you need to do is click, pop in a word in the search, click again and voila!
...”needles of wisdom” just pour forth from your computer screen...

Some Non Defenders claim one such haystack link worth investigatin' is fairlds.org...
...So when you take up this defective deflective challenge...
...and put in a phrase like “Adam-God” [re: Brigham Young's teaching that the first man, Adam, was God] in the search box of that Web site, the second entry that pops up from that search is Church doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God [This is FAIR's WIKI format attempt to address some things]

Some Non Defenders claim such entries at their links both "address" and "answer" these claims...
...yet when you check under the hood of this lemon, you get varied Lds apologists' opinion about Brigham's "Adam is God" teaching...
...like: Brigham was wrong [Joseph Smith said the very “first principle” of the Mormon gospel was to know the character of God, (King Follet funeral sermon), yet Brigham couldn't get a kindergarten identity issue down in not being able to distinguish Adam from God?]

Some Non Defenders claim such entries at their links reinforce for us such attractive snapshots of Brigham Young, such as Lds apologist Van Hale's concession that Brigham was ”mistaken” about who Adam was and that Adam, after all, was a ”complex doctrinal subject.”

Some Non Defenders claim such entries at their links love to cite Lds “apostle” letters from almost 30 years ago, letters which concede THAT BRIGHAM YOUNG, CONTRADICTED BRIGHAM YOUNG, AND THE ISSUE BECOMES ONE OF WHICH BRIGHAM YOUNG WE WILL BELIEVE. [Lds "apostle" Bruce R. McConkie, 1981 letter cited on link above]

Therefore, instead of Non Defenders just telling you outright that Lds “apostles” concede that...
Brigham Young taught falsely who God was...
But didn't always identify Adam as God...
Therefore, Brigham Young was theologically schizophrenic...
And that Brigham Young was 100% untrustworthy, because we don't know (still) which Brigham Young to believe?
...he makes you click twice, type in a word, and read an entire Mormon FAIR Wiki entry!!!

Some Non Defenders claim such entries at their links don't all agree what Mormon apologists should do about Brigham's out-of-tune “glitches” … as if you – the spiritual inquirer – just warm up and tingle all inside whenever you hear admissions from “the faithful” that their flock front man “glitches” on basic Genesis quizzes like, “Who was Adam?” But, not wanting to psychoanalyze Brigham Young as spiritually schizophrenic, what's a Mormon apologist to do?

Well, that narrows down the conclusions left for the average Mormon apologist, if you follow the links provided by some Non Defenders.

Why, if Brigham wasn't schizophrenic, what then?
Final “options?”...
The summations below precede the bracketed {actual quotations found @ one of Non Defender's links -- FAIR's WIKI entry on Adam-God being "repudiated"}

#1 Brigham was PR-challenged {“A final explanation is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God...but he...didn't live long enough to 'develop' the teaching [read: spin] into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture...”}
#2 Brigham inspired a LOT of Mormon agnostic followers about who God was: {”We don't know...In this view, we simply don't know what Brigham Young meant...”}
#3 Brigham's plain English was non-interpretable minus either a decoder ring, or dark hat, or the Joe Smith special urim and thummim {"We simply don't know what Brigham Young meant."...why that could only mean they don't know plain English!!!}
#4 Brigham's “revelation receptor” was “glitch” prone – comparable to the Ford Pinto of a later era {”An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." -- BYU professor Stephen Robinson}
#5 Brigham inspired in the average Mormon apologist this “confessional credo”: “How do we Mormons deal with these questions? We don't. We abandon them...like we abandon you the inquirer...like we abandon the questions on FR.” {”So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? WE DON'T; WE SIMPLY SET IT ASIDE.” – BYU professor Stephen Robinson}

Such “gems of wisdom” await you all...all at the multiple click of a mouse!

Paragon [Non-]Defender wrote... [clarifications and full mormon disclosure added in brackets. They should reveal the full truth, don’t you think?]...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Seekers of truth [that should be a red flag anytime it is written by someone wearing magic underwear],

If you peruse the Free Republic religion forums you will notice a pattern.

There’s an anti-Mormon [former mormons who left the cult and now are Christians] group of people here that spends [devotes] a great deal of their time attacking [revealing the truth they learned about] the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints [the cult known commonly as “mormons”].

They post regurgitated propaganda [From our own mormon church official sources!!! When they do it, it’s propaganda. When I do it, it is official doctrine.] on an almost daily basis [actually, they do it throughout the day - that’s how much they care!].

They have a misguided obsession [understand that as I write this, I am wearing magic mormon underwear, which can be tight and tend to ride up into the crotch, so pardon my frustrations with this and my emotional language - it’s the magic underwear talking].

You can witness many different tactics employed that you might find quite interesting. The straw man argument [used primarily by myself and other mormons] is a big favorite and is frequently preceded by cherry-picking quotes or other material [we mormons like to cherry pick from the Bible in order to appear Christian, but it’s OK when we do it!]. After the “quotation” the [mormon] attacker will misrepresent what has been said or what was meant and then attack [our own fake strawman].

Another [of our] favorites is posting scripture or statements which on their own really present no dilemma.

They [we] make something out of nothing [of course, I acknowledge mormonism is made up out of whole cloth and pretty crazy! Really, where can you find millions of gods in the Bible?!!] while never bringing up a single objection that hasn’t been addressed a hundred times before [of course we claim to “address it” - we can’t claim we actually answered it, since we have no facts, evidence or logic to back us up. We “address it”].

Sometimes they cruise the headlines of the day [I know this because I have X-Ray vision and can see into their homes. I watch them all, closely, vigilantly and stalk their computers] seeking any story that might be twisted into making the Church [by “Church” I mean the cult, but Church sounds more mainstream] look bad. Anything will do, just watch the progression of posts following it and see what I mean [dang, my magic underwear is getting a bit tight-sorry].

You might note a couple of other tactics used to try to antagonize is the use of disrespectful [like referring to our founding prophet Joe Smith by terms that describe his actions] or insulting terms or language and/or pictures [this could be anything at any time]. That’s a Christlike [here, I should be fair and tell you that when we use the name Christ, we don’t mean the eternal second person of hte Godhead. We mean a created spirit being who later became a god, like all mormon gods - sorry for the confusion] thing to do right? Yeah I don’t think so either. It does speak volumes about them though [their stupid obsession with truth and pointing out the flaws of our prophet gnaws at me].

After reading their posts, I invite you to seek the truth about whatever “issue” they seem to be “revealing” or “exposing”. I promise that if you do so with honest intent, the “ahah” moments you will have will be many and frequent [many, for instance, say, “AHAH! Now I understand why those former mormons want to spread the truth of mormonism! What a wacked out religion!”].

You will start to recognize the tactics employed [by mormons] to cleverly twist and attack and will likely chuckle the more you see [I chuckle quite a bit as I fail to ever answer any and every question! Heh, heh!]. In actuality, there’s nothing new here. It’s all been addressed [but of course, not “answered”] many times before.

Here’s a few links to get your started from a different viewpoint [no doubt our young cultic missionaries have visited your home to tell you why your own church is a false church]. I have found that the vast majority of the “issues” brought up can be found and “addressed” [but of course not answered, since we don’t do that at mormon links... but really, you will get more objective answers at the non-mormon links] below [for some reason, they like to actually provide facts and evidence and logical argument to demonstrate the falsehood of mormonism - drats!!!]:

http://www.irr.org/mit/default.html
http://www.exmormonsforjesus.org/
http://4mormon.org/ex-mormon.php
http://www.exmormon.org/
http://www.mormoncurtain.com/

Now you will likely notice the “you never address our points” posts pop up as usual [we try our best to never actually ANSWER, but we do address them by posting links!].

All after providing the answers just as you have here [of course, these “answers” aren’t filled with any facts or evidence or logic - they are just our way of avoiding difficult issues until we have you hooked in our cult]. Will you wear blinders too [why not switch to wearing magic underwear! Don’t leave home without it.]? Seek truth. Find out for yourself [and don’t listen to me].

[One more thing...

PLEASE NEVER ASK ME A QUESTION!!! In all likelihood, you are too ignorant to get a real answer. We save the “meat” for when you have already joined the cult!

In particular, please do not ask questions about:

1. Millions or billions of mormon gods
2. How you can also become a mormon god!
3. Celestial sex between the gods
4. Mormon Jesus being created just like people or Satan
5. What the Holy Spirit (also created) did that was naughty
6. Magic underwear!
7. Heavenly Mother and our goddess harem breeding program - it’s not something we want to talk about anyway.
8. Our working our way to one of the three mormom heavens.

Really, any question. They have already been “addressed”

I post links that “address things”, but I never personally
answer a question. That would involve thought. It is much easier and cleaner to just post the official links to the cult headquarters.]

I witness to you [that sounds so much more powerful than saying I posted this at FreeRepublic] of these truths [here, truth, is of course, relative] and wish you the best, in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ [and of course, I don’t mean the Christian Christ of the Bible, but you probably knew that]. Amen.

Seekers of truth,

the BIBLE was the ACCEPTED Word of GOD by most Americans before JS claimed it was somehow inaccurate.

I wonder why he said that?

KJV

Galatians 1:6-9

6. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

ANYBODY???

Like this fine looking fellow???

2 Corinthians 11:12-15

12. But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
13. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Like THESE guys??

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

Ephesians 2:1-2

1. And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

1 Corinthians 4:17
For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2 Timothy 1:13
Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 3:14-15
14. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

They post regurgitated propaganda on an almost daily basis.

Whacha mean 'almost'?

These "Caractors" are the only tangible evidence in existence related to Smith's story.

No gold plates, no brass plates, no peep stones, no Urim and Thummim... only these "Caractors," not a single one of which is in the purported languages.

Smith's translation of the Caractors. According to Martin Harris (Joseph Smith - History, 1:64), "I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated,* and he said they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters."

Speak right up now in all truthfulness. Isn't it revealing how Smith started out making a stab at creating believable "caractors" but quckly gave up and produced nothing but squiggles, ending up wih a series of nothing more than crude little scribbles? Yet Professor Anthon supposedly translated them!

*Harris must have had two or three pieces of paper with him—one with characters and a translation of them (on the same paper or a separate one) and one with untranslated characters—quite likely the "Caractors." Some Mormon "scholars" have gone out on a limb, sawed it off, and knocked themselves out trying to translate from these true Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic characters a segment that would correspond with a verse from 1 Nephi.

Modern-day experts in Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic. In 1829, any knowledge of these languages possessed by U.S. scholars would have been rudimentary at best. Expertise in them has vastly improved since then. So go ahead, do it. Get any modern expert in these languages to identify which of these "Caractors" are Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac and Arabic. Better still, accept the claim of Mormon apologists that Anthon did indeed so testify and that his appraisal of the Caractors was correct. (Op. cit, pp. 73-75)

Save your money! Samples of Assyriac/Aramaic and Arabic writing:

What say you? Which of Smith's "Caractors" resemble the Assyriac and Arabic ones? No need to pay experts for their analysis. A child could accurately check this out. These writing systems have remained constant for well over 3000 years.