Containing 5,403 Articles Spanning 369 Topics  
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery  
Online Since January 1, 2005  
PLEASE NOTE: If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page (the one you just landed on) is an archive containing articles on "APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2". This website, The Mormon Curtain - is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can read The Mormon Curtain FAQ to understand the purpose of this website.
⇒  CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
  APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2
Total Articles: 25
FARMS and FAIR are the two main Mopologetic organisations devoted to defending Mormonism. Other Mopologists such as Jeff Lindsay are on the fringes of Mopology.
topic image
Squish The Mopologist: Why Mopologetics Is Bad For Mormonism
Tuesday, Mar 15, 2011, at 07:25 AM
Original Author(s): Beavis Christ
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
In my observing of mopologists over the years, it has become apparent to me that they do not believe their own arguments, at least they do not believe them consistently. This lack of consistency is why Mormon apologetics will be fundamentally bad for the church down the road.

This is most apparent when it comes to mopologists treatment of what they believe to be their "trump card," a testimony of the Holy Spirit.

LDS apostle Dallin Oaks provided a good example of this belief in his 1993 speech to FARMS:
"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 '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."
Thus, according to Oaks, people looking to authenticate the truth claims of the Book of Mormon would do well to combine both scholarship and prayer. Prayer, in the beliefs of the neo-orthodox Mormons, is still the best way to know whether or not something is true.

Oaks's statement of belief is fully consistent with Mormon doctrine. Doctrine and Covenants 8:2 states: "I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart."

But do mopologists actually believe this? It is apparent that they do not, at least not in the case of Rodney Meldrum, a paleo-orthodox mopologist who has rejected the Mesoamerican theories expounded by the likes of John Sorenson and his intellectual heirs. He's also different than the Mesoamerican LGT believers in that he does exactly what Oaks urged people to do: combine faith and scholarship.

This is utterly unacceptable to the FARMS and FAIR Mesoamerican supporters who have starkly ridiculed and condemned Meldrum for "attempt[ing] to assert revelation for those outside of his stewardship."

And yet, Meldrum has actually done nothing of the sort. In fact, he has merely indicated that he has felt spiritual manifestations in support of his "work." In an email sent to his supporters reprinted by FAIR, Meldrum repeatedly speaks of his own "fasting and praying," and how God gave him several "miracles" to encourage him to expand his efforts to prove a North American setting for the Book of Mormon. At no point in the email, however, did Meldrum state that God told him to tell Mormon leaders that they needed to adopt his theories.

Meldrum appears only to believe "the Lord is watching out for this project." That is a far cry from him saying that God is endorsing his theories. Perhaps God wants to encourage a multiplicity of theories about Book of Mormon geography in the hopes of encouraging more people to talk about it--and by extension its precepts and the churches who believe in it.

Assuming limited humans cannot know the mind of God, how can Mesoamerican supporters deny that this might be the case?

They do it by denying the veracity of personal spiritual experiences.

In their arrogant dismissal of Meldrum's spiritual witnesses, mopologists are actually acting very much in character for their own intellectual tradition, but also in the tradition of religionists trying to justify belief in their own minds. This pattern of behavior has repeated itself thousands of times throughout world history and is the reason that we have so many religions and sects today.

Such religions and sects are entirely the product of single individuals who took a look at existing faith traditions and decided that none of them quite made sense in their minds. Religions in a sociological sense are nothing more than groups of people who agree with a particular set of supernatural beliefs.

The one advantage that Mormonism had going for it was its claim that its founder and all of its subsequent leaders have a direct pipeline to God and thus should be listened to. It's a position not operationally different from Catholicism but vastly different from those of other religions such as Islam or Protestantism. It's no coincidence that neither Mormonism nor Catholicism have had repeated episodes of schismaticism aside from the isolated events (Great Schism and the death of Joseph Smith, FLDS is too small to count).

Mopologetics is endangering to this systemic advantage that Mormonism has, though. And that is because it is an intellectualizing of a faith. Unlike the efforts of, say, Thomas Acquinas, however, today's Mormon apologists are tearing down their faith tradition as much as they are building it up.

By continually discounting official statements and books like the History of the Church or the Journal of Discourses as "just his opinion" or "not doctrinal," mopologists are engaging in a demystifying of their own past leaders.

A delightful irony here is that demystification of societal constructs is an obsession among postmodernist writers who are bent on tearing down and destroying belief in traditional religions and their descendant social structures in favor of atheistic socialism. Hugh Nibley and his clueless followers use many of the same tactics to try to build up Mormonism as Runtu and others have written well about.

It won’t work in the long run, however. Demystification is useful in the short run because it helps mopologists preserve a version (however tortured) of Mormon beliefs in the modern world of DNA and anthropology but in the long-term, the removal of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, et al. from their pedestals has bad implications for the successors of Thomas Monson.

That's because there is no good reason that if lay members can discount or dismiss the General Conference pronouncements of Brigham Young as "just his opinion," they can't also do the same with those of Monson. If I can disregard Spence Kimball's statements about Indians turning white why can’t I decide to ignore Gordon Hinckley’s discussion of earrings or Russ Ballard’s bleatings about reading the Book of Mormon?

In the long run, the more this attitude of disregarding the past prophets spreads within the LDS church, the more it will undermine the authority of the current General Authorities.

Dr. Shades has called this split a dichotomy between Internet Mormonism and Chapel Mormonism, a distinction which has a lot of merit and is generally appreciated by ex-Mormons. Mopologists vehemently disputed this characterization, saying that it is overly broad. As proof, several offered the idea that when they took Shades’s survey of orthodoxy, they came out as Chapel Mormons.

Shades has responded to this contention already but I think an additional response is worth adding that, assuming mopologists are accurately stating that their personal beliefs do correspondent to Chapel Mormonism, this may be more of an indicator in a flaw in the comprehensiveness of the survey questions than in their actual beliefs. The reason for this is that Mormon apologetics, like modern religious apologetics in general, is more about constructing ad hoc rationalizations for beliefs that were created prior to the stunning advancements of scientific knowledge of the past 150 years than it is about building a coherent intellectual edifice which integrates well with the theological tradition which spawned it. It is perfectly possible that a Mormon apologist could answer in the Chapel affirmative for even a majority of Shades’s questions, simply because he/she has not had the emotional need to reach for the ad hoc rationalized answer.

The ad hoc nature of neo-orthodox Mormonism makes it inherently unstable. Subconsciously, I believe that the existing hierarchy is aware of this and that many are uneasy with Mormon apologetics. The members certainly are. I've sat in at least 40 different wards' Gospel Doctrine classes and whenever someone started on about how there wasn't a world-wide flood, maybe evolution is true, or how the Book of Mormon did not take place throughout the hemisphere, the general membership reacted strongly in a negative fashion.

Some of the Big 15 are more vocal in their suspicion of mopologists. Boyd Packer is their champion. His infamous “The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect” is a clarion call against attempting to justify Mormon beliefs through secular means:

It is an easy thing for a man with extensive academic training to measure the Church using the principles he has been taught in his professional training as his standard. In my mind it ought to be the other way around. […] If we are not careful, very careful, and if we are not wise, very wise, we first leave out of our professional study the things of the Spirit. [Rodney Meldrum, anyone?]

I have walked that road of scholarly research and study and know something of the dangers. If anything, we are more vulnerable than those in some of the other disciplines. […]

One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for "advanced history," is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be accountable. After all of the tomorrows of mortality have been finished, he will not stand where be might have stood.

I recall a conversation with President Henry D. Moyle. We were driving back from Arizona and were talking about a man who destroyed the faith of young people from the vantage point of a teaching position. Someone asked President Moyle why this man was still a member of the Church when he did things like that. "He is not a member of the Church." President Moyle answered firmly. Another replied that he bad not heard of his excommunication. "He has excommunicated himself," President Moyle responded. "He cut himself off from the Spirit of God. Whether or not we get around to holding a court doesn't matter that much; he has cut himself off from he Spirit of the Lord."

The natural progression of things is that Mormonism is headed for schism. Certainly that's what happened with the RLDS church which was in the rationalization business long before the Brighamites were. It will take time, however.

My theory is that mopologists will gradually take over the elite circles of the church. I don’t mean to say that Dan Peterson or Mike Ash is going to be receiving an apostleship any time soon but rather that people who believe in a neo-orthodox form of Mormonism will become ascendant within the church hierarchy.

There are signs of this already, most famously the insertion of “among” in the introduction of the Book of Mormon’s description of Lamanites being the ancestors of the American Indian. The abrupt and little-publicized renaming of the “Lamanite Generation” dance troupe is another. The continual attenuation of revelatory claims from the heady days of Brigham, Joseph, and Orson talking of angelic beings coming over for lunch are never coming back.

Over time, you will see more such subduction of traditional Mormon beliefs (but never apologies for them) and new emphases on metaphorical interpretation of the scriptures, when they are even talked about at all other than to quote Chicken Soup stories from.

In following this route, Mormonism is going right along with its Protestant siblings, seeking to find a way to justify non-rational faith in a world ruled by reason. It will work to some degree but to see where it will ultimately end up, just take a look at the mainline Protestant denominations like Methodists, Unitarians, or Lutherans.

They still have bigger numbers than the Mormons but they are in their death throes, thrusting about wildly, grasping at such silliness as liberation theology or “social justice” which have nothing at all to do with books written by ancient desert people. And their congregations know it, too, which is why they are leaving in droves for secularism. No one wants to worship a metaphor or hear stories about a people that vanished into thin air.

Eventually, far down the road as the church moves further and further into mainstreaming itself, I think you will see a splinter group just like what happened with the FLDS in the 20th century and the Restoration Branches in the 1980s. Tough to say how long all of this will take, especially when it’s difficult to see who will succeed Boyd Packer as the preeminent paleo-orthodox Mormon leader. Regardless of when it happens, I believe it will since people can only take the discarding of important beliefs at the hands of sneering people deriding you as a “fundamentalist.” It’s happening within the Anglican church now over homosexuality, one wonders what the dividing issue will be within Mormonism when that does happen. Luckily for whoever these future rebels are, today's mopologists will have done the work for them in demystifying the prophets.

I’m going to need some popcorn in any case.
topic image
The Apologists Are Contradicting Official Church Doctrine
Monday, Sep 1, 2008, at 10:13 AM
Original Author(s): Randy Jordan
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
The apologists are contradicting official church doctrine when they accept the scientific evidence which shows that the Americas have been populated for at least 12,000 years. Here's how:

*The D&C; states that the earth's existence, and therefore human life, is only 7,000 or so years.

*The D&C;, as well as other statements of Joseph Smith, state that Adam and Eve began human life in the western Missouri area.

*The current official lesson manual "Gospel Principles" states that before the fall of Adam, there was no death of any kind upon the earth.

*LDS doctrine holds that Adam's descendants continued to inhabit the Americas until the Noachian flood, which destroyed all humans except for the ark's passengers circa 4500 years ago. After the flood, the Noachians landed somewhere in the Middle East (Turkey, if you believe the story) and began re-populating the earth from there.

*Shortly thereafter came the Tower of Babel incident, during which God instructed the Jaredites to sail to the "promised land", which is the Americas.

Thus, using church doctrine and logical deduction, the Jaredites had to be the first group of humans to inhabit the Americas after the flood (and Joseph Smith specifically taught that the Jaredites were the "first settlement" in the Americas.) Church doctrine simply doesn't allow for any Asian-descended Bering Strait-crossers to have continuously occupied the Americas for 12,000 years.

THAT IS WHY THE BOOK OF MORMON DOES NOT MENTION ANY OTHER PEOPLE LIVING IN THE "PROMISED LAND." In fact, the BOM states that the promised land was "preserved for a righteous people" that the Lord would send there, and that the land "was kept from the knowledge of other nations."

Therefore, Mormon apologists who accept the evidence of humans occupying the Americas for 12,000 years or more are rejecting church doctrine. And since they don't even believe their own church's teachings, there is no point in them trying to defend it against us critics.
topic image
Another Apologist Crackpot
Monday, Sep 1, 2008, at 10:14 AM
Original Author(s): Simon Southerton
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
The man behind the Yemen discovery is Australian apologist Warren Aston and his wife Michaela. Why is it that when you dig a little deeper into the background of LDS apologists you find crackpots at almost every turn?

Warren Aston runs a travel agency that conducts tours to Arabia. He is also an internationally recognized expert on UFOs!!

The Astons ran a travel agency in Brisbane in the 1990s and published the Yemen discovery in 1994 “In the Footsteps of Lehi: New Evidence for Lehi's Journey across Arabia to Bountiful” Deseret Book Company. Aston has a vested interest in promoting his Yemen myths because he manages a tour company called Bountiful Tours that runs tours to, you guessed it, the Arabian Peninsula.

His next tour in October 2008 has been promoted in Meridium Magazine 2008 Tour - "In Lehi & Sariah's Footsteps" 13 days exploring Israel, Jordan and Oman

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/gospe...

Here are some weblinks to his tour company

http://www.bountifultours.com/tour.ht...

You can read a short bio of Aston here.

http://www.bountifultours.com/about.h...

But this is what FARMS would prefer you did not know about Warren Aston. Aston is an internationally recognized expert on UFOs.

Aston speaking at UFO Symposium

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NikV6Y...

Aston describing a UFO encounter in a DVD sold at International UFO Congress

http://www.ufocongressstore.com/servl...

Aston claiming UFO cover-up at Pine Gap (US military base in Australia)

http://www.ufoinfo.com/ufoicq/auforn4...

Quote: “Aston examines the duality within the UFO phenomenon, exobiology, “contactees”, and question what is really happening in abductions while suggesting new reasons for government cover up.”

Aston lecture to Queensland UFO society

http://www.uforq.asn.au/articles/hard...

Lecture entitled “Finding the hard answers to Earth's greatest mystery within a scientific paradigm” - Warren Aston's interests include travel (he runs his own travel business in Brisbane), photography, music, theology, feminism and quantum-physics.

Quote: “The evidence that something is happening which defies conventional science is abundant, unambiguous, and is readily available in every category imaginable. UFO’s are a long-term, world-wide, multi-cultural reality with much more physical evidence available than most of us realise. The mounting evidence that UFO’s and aliens are real and are part of the future for all of us deserves our most serious attention and best efforts to understand it.”

Aston: UFO researcher hunting for truth

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2007...

Aston: Are Extraterrestrials Already Among Us? A Review of Historical Accounts. Go to page 8 at this link

http://www.theblackvault.com/encyclop...
topic image
Wanting It Both Ways: A Book Of Mormon Apologist's Dilemma
Thursday, Jan 8, 2009, at 08:30 AM
Original Author(s): Odell Campbell
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
If the Book of Mormon is an actual record of an actual people, then it will be supported by evidence. Both Book of Mormon apologists and its doubters (the vast, overwhelming majority of mankind) can agree on this concept.

Originally, the early Book of Mormon apologists were church leaders such as Joseph Smith who claimed that the Book of Mormon contained the answer to the question of where the Native American peoples originated.

Smith’s views were not, at that time, inconsistent with scientific explanations available.

As so for Mormons, and Book of Mormon apologists, the standard thought was that the Book of Mormon contained the history of the principal ancestors of the New World’s native populations, both in South America and North America.

Believers of Smith’s claims and in the Book of Mormon firmly assumed that when scientific exploration and understanding furthered, their faith would be confirmed.

The opposite has happened. New theories emerged that plainly contradicted the Book of Mormon’s Native American origination being Hebrew. The Bering Straits theory that North East Asians migrated to the Americas is now commonly accepted because evidence supports it.

Whereas, emerging evidence has forced even its most ardent believers to redefine their understanding of the Book of Mormon, and even ridicule its “translator” by “explaining away” Smith’s hemisphere opinions as uniformed, misguided and mistaken.

What strikes me is how easily believers can change their past “interpretations” as science, not revelation, riddles away the possibilities. The only thing that appears to matter is that at the end of the day that somehow the Book of Mormon must be interpreted in away that lets Joseph Smith be a revelator and seer and not a liar and con-man. DNA, linguistics, population growth analysis, historical records, ruins, text word analysis constant require apologists to reshape the Book of Mormon in order to allow it be a scientific possibility (I think they have long ago even sacrificed probability).

In my world view, the plausibility of the Book of Mormon being a record of a real people is reaching the point of near impossibility. And it seems to me, that as I read the strained arguments of Book of Mormon apologists that any more stretching will render the book in two.

What will be the last apologist explanation for the Book of Mormon?? That is it the history of five people in Ancient America that lied about everything that happened to them, but god chose a con man to tell the false yet “inspiring” story of ancient con artists? Hey, apologists, could it be that two Mayans living in the Classic Period, found some Etruscan plates washed ashore, concocted an inspired story, called themselves Mormon and Moroni, obvious alias, then drinking well-fermented cactus juice, recorded their story in drunken Classic Mayan, also called reformed Egyptian? Gee, the Lord can work in mysterious ways.

You have to admit, that explanation does have some beautiful symmetry to it?

But seriously, when does it end? When do the defeated raise the white flag and surrender? Are there examples found in other religions which demonstrate when apologia can no longer keep up with scientific explanations and contradictions?

Who will be the last Book of Mormon apologist?
topic image
My Favorites From The Ministry Of Excuses
Monday, Feb 2, 2009, at 08:23 AM
Original Author(s): Substrate
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
What are your favorite Mormon apologetics arguments?

Here are mine, in no particular order (and no, I'm not making any of these up):

10. Steel doesn't mean steel. Never mind that the BofM mentions melting down ore to create steel, which was then used to make swords. The book is really talking about wooden clubs with obsidian edges.

9. Horses and chariots aren't mentioned in the context of conveyance, so even though Lamoni says to ready the horses and chariots for his trip to visit his father, the book is really talking about wheel-less platforms (chariots) used to convey miniature ceremonial animals (horses).

8. Joseph Smith didn't actually have sex with those women. Despite the firsthand testimony of his plural wives, who used such words as "carnal intercourse" to describe their relationships, these were just "loose dynastic ties" formalized by sealing. (Not even Emma bought that one.)

7. The Book of Mormon "explicitly" mentions the presence of others in the Americas before the Jaredites and Nephites arrived, even though the book promises the land as the promised land for the Nephites and Jaredites and says the land would be kept from the knowledge of others. The best evidence for others is that the book distinguishes between "goats" and "wild goats," meaning that the former had to have been domesticated. Since people are required to domesticate animals, clearly there were people living there when the Jaredites arrived.

6. Joseph Smith was only joking when he discovered the skeleton of Zelph the 9-foot-tall white Lamanite and Adam's altar while on Zion's Camp.

5. Joseph was a victim of the Kirtland Bank fiasco, not one of the primary instigators of the bank.

4. It's perfectly normal and respectable to find treasure by looking at a rock. Indian mystics see amazing things in their crystals.

3. Given Occam's Razor, the best explanation for the testimony of the three witnesses is the presence of supernatural beings. Naturalistic explanations require a lot of stretching.

2. There is no correspondence between the text of the Book of Abraham and the Joseph Smith Papyrus. Therefore, the real source of the translation must be missing. The Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, which shows which hieroglyphs correspond to the BofA, was a clumsy attempt by scribes to translate and had nothing whatsoever to do with Joseph Smith.

1. There are only superficial similarities between the temple ceremony and Masonic ritual. Because the exact same signs, tokens, penalties, and phrases are used in both ceremonies but in different contexts, the similarities are coincidental.
topic image
This Is How I Understand The Role Of The Mormon Apologists.
Monday, Feb 16, 2009, at 08:11 AM
Original Author(s): Susieq#1
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
This is something new in the LDS Church. I never hard of them in my 30 plus years as a believer.

The role of the apologist is to defend the faith by convincing the believers that their testimony by faith (feelings) is valid. This particularly appeals to the average Mormon who can look to someone who has all the answers (often more educated then they are) and knows more than they do. Letters after their name, and/or a PhD is helpful.

They use several methods.

One is to Discount the Credibility of the author so Mormons won't believe anything they say or write.
  1. find fault with the author, personally if possible
  2. use of insults , etc to illicit a response that can be called nasty, or rude, etc.
  3. use of ad hominem - attack the author not the material
This is done by finding fault with their education, their approach, their life style (he is gay), they are not "worthy" Mormons, their expertise is lacking,and on and on.

Another role is Distraction.
  1. keep the focus off of the real problem of no verifiable, reliable, physical evidence of the golden plates, for instance.
  2. use historical accounts as evidence
  3. write very long essays and articles that could be classified as : 1000 words on how to comb a gnats eyebrow.
  4. make claims that are false but difficult to prove (can't prove a negative)
  5. use of spiritual witness as verifiable evidence
The Possibility role:
  1. If, maybe, possible, could have been, small number, not found yet, multiple reasons, looks like,and on and on.
  2. creative use of possibilities to explain or make connections
topic image
Return And Report - Went To A Presentation By "Firm" About "Archealogical Evidences Of The Book Of Mormon"
Friday, Mar 6, 2009, at 07:56 AM
Original Author(s): Nor Cal Law Student
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
I doubt many of you have heard of this group, but here is their website:

http://www.thefirmfoundationonline.org/

I arrived right on time, ready to sit and listen to them say their piece, but no one was there, except the presenter. On the table at the entrance were some pamphlets for travel tours and a table full of inane books and films with titles like "Searching for the Great Hopewell Road" (Description: "This one-hour documentary about one of the most fascinating cultures in ancient North America, details the Hopewell mound building people who flourished in this area from 200 BC to 400 AD. It is filled with important information about a people who match very closely to the Nephites of the Book of Mormon.") and "The Eternal Perspective of Zion's Camp."

I don't know why I was surprised that they didn't start until 6:50 pm, 20 minutes late, a.k.a. Mormon standard time. Jesus christ. I started reading the Chronicle on my Kindle but being forced to eavesdrop of their sad Mormon greetings about temple schedules as a few people slowly arrived was getting annoying so I excused myself to go get a Diet Coke.

Anyway, I came back and they finally started and the gentleman started his powerpoint presentation.

I won't bore you at length with the particulars of the man's presentation. It literally was so devoid of any reason or evidence, it bears no merit of repeating.

Oddly, these people know exactly where they stand: backed up to the edge of a cliff, right to the precipice of personal annihilation, backed there by a tsunami of scientific proof that disproves Mormonism. He cited the film "DNA vs the Book of Mormon" (available on youtube) and a forthcoming film on the same topic from the Baptist Church, saying that this tide is "going to put a close on the Book of Mormon."

The presenter claimed he once was on the faculty of BYU and was hired to be a religion teacher and a "researcher" about archeology and language. He expressed feelings of betrayal by his former BYU associates because he claimed that their arguments rest on "discounting or disdaining" explicit statements made by Joseph Smith about the geography about the peoples described in the Book of Mormon. Through tears, he actually named "Tvedtnes," saying that he (Tvedtnes) published just today, that Doctrine and Covenants 28:8 was not actually inspired scripture, but just Joseph Smith talking as a man.

(It reads: 8 And now, behold, I say unto you that you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them; and inasmuch as they receive thy teachings thou shalt cause my church to be established among them.)

He said that the best scholars the Mormon Church has are all betting the farm on the MesoAmerica theory, and that to do so requires them to admit that Joseph Smith was uninspired. He said that "the whole anthropology department at BYU was built on Guatamala." Of this he (the presenter) said: "They've defended something so long that they can't go back on it."

How ironic. The criticisms we level at others often are the most appropriate for what WE are doing.

He continued: "The best scholars at BYU say that Joseph Smith does not know what he was talking about." No shit, Sherlock.

This presenter actually cited the story of Zelph as some kind of proof that Joseph Smith was inspired. OMG. Really?

He claimed the Hopewell moundbuilders are fascinating, interesting possible proof of Lehite peoples. Really? *(see below for the real story if you don't know it)*

He said there are now about 150 geographical theories for the BoM, ranging from Thailand to the Falkland Islands. He started to make this really stilted analysis of statements of Joseph Smith as to the geography of the BoM. After these mind-numbing contortions for about 20 minutes, one of the guests asked: "So, do you HAVE your own map?"

Answer: "{tuh} {pause} Yes and no."

Not long after this one of the 10 guests asked for a break and I left. Something so banal is unworthy of my time, but I just had to go see the sausage being made. I don't think I'll be going to anything like that again.

Teleological. Vapid. Pathetic. Just sad.

People!!!-- false, mindless religious traditions carry forward and there's nothing we can do about it. That's all.

* From Simon in Oz's excellent book:
"DNA analysis of ancient remains from the Ohio Valley has driven a belated nail into the coffin of the Mound Builder myth and its supposed white inhabitants. The people of the so-called 'enlightened' race that was responsible for the mounds in the Ohio and Mississippi Valleys are now known to be Native Americans belonging to the Adena and Hopewell cultures. Maternal DNA lineages have been determined for 97 skeletal samples obtained from two Adena mounds in Kentucky and Hopewell mounds in Ohio and Illinois (Bolnick 2003, Mills 2003). All of the maternal lineages belong to one of the five founding lines common to contemporary Native Americans. The DNA analysis confirms that the idea of a superior race of Mound Builders was pure fantasy."
(Losing a Lost Tribe, p. 99)
topic image
The Miracle Of Apologetics
Wednesday, Mar 25, 2009, at 03:02 PM
Original Author(s): Cinepro
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
I was recently giving my children one of my standard lectures about how they live in the greatest time in the history of the world. They have easy access to more books, movies, music and "information" than any other people in the history of the world. They can know more about any subject they wish than anyone who has ever lived in a time before. Truly, it is a wonderful time to be alive for children who have an interest in such things.

As I thought more about it, I began to consider the Miracle of Apologetics.

In the Church, "revelation" gets a lot of lip service. We talk all about God giving knowledge, restoring this or that, and giving us scriptures so we can understand His plans and feelings on certain subjects. And I'm not arguing the importance (and necessity) of having a spiritual witness of the truthfulness of the gospel and the Church's core claims.

But for those who have an interest in the Church, the scriptures, and the "details" behind the stories and doctrines, I think it is easy to overlook the miracle of Apologetics and scholars, and Apologetic theories, and their ability to grant us knowledge that eluded even previous prophets and apostles.

Because of apologetic writings, any Church member can do a reading and research and understand more about Book of Mormon geography and peoples than any past prophets had. Twenty minutes on the FARMS website and you could pass up Joseph Fielding Smith without breaking a sweat.

Thanks to apologists, future generations will understand the story of Noah's flood (and the subsequent covenant) with far more accuracy than any LDS Prophet or Apostle of the last 180 years.

Apologists allow us to better understand the story of Adam and Eve, how they were born from mortal, non-human mortal parents who themselves were the result of evolutionary development. Such knowledge eludes even modern LDS church leaders and curriculum writers.

Modern scholars and apologists allow us to understand the true nature and provenance of the Joseph Smith papyri, Kinderhook plates, Zelph skeleton and other "artifacts" to a much greater degree than even Joseph Smith himself.

Modern apologists have made known to us the many cultures and peoples not specifically mentioned in the Book of Mormon, who subtley mixed with and effected the Jaredites and Lehites (people who are still unknown and unmentioned by modern and past LDS prophets and apostles).

And apologists help us to understand Mormon Polygamy and the priesthood ban far better than any statements from the Church leaders (ironically, apologists even help us to ignore statements from Church leaders if necessary, while apologists never encourage us to ignore other apologists and listen to Church leaders if there is a contradiction.)

Critics often complain that the heavens are "silent", and that God has been negligent in His proclivity to reveal knew and interesting things. But if the apologists are correct in their theories and suggestions, then God hasn't been silent, he has just shifted his conduit from the pulpit to the Fair Wiki.
topic image
Three Little Things
Monday, Apr 20, 2009, at 11:16 AM
Original Author(s): Doctor Scratch
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
THREE THINGS IN MOPOLOGETICS THAT, ONCE GONE, NEVER COME BACK

1. THE 2ND WATSON LETTER
2. THE MURPHY TRANSCRIPT
3. WILL SCHRYVER'S CREDIBILITY

THREE THINGS IN MOPOLOGETICS THAT CAN DESTROY A PERSON

1. CRITICIZING HUGH NIBLEY
2. CRITICIZING DANIEL C. PETERSON
3. APOLOGIZING (FOR ANYTHING)

THREE THINGS IN MOPOLOGETICS THAT YOU SHOULD NEVER LOSE

1. YOUR SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS
2. YOUR SENSE OF OUTRAGE OVER HAVING GOTTEN CREAMED ON YOUR MISSION
3. YOUR MARTYR COMPLEX

THREE THINGS IN MOPOLOGETICS THAT ARE MOST VALUABLE

1. CHARACTER ASSASSINATION
2. AD HOMINEM ATTACKS
3. SMEAR CAMPAIGNS

THREE THINGS IN MOPOLOGETICS THAT ARE NEVER CERTAIN

1. THE BRETHREN'S APPROVAL
2. WHETHER ONE WILL HAVE TO WORK FOR THE SCMC
3. WHETHER THE PAYCHECK WILL BE $10 OR $20,000

THREE THINGS THAT MAKE A MOPOLOGIST

1. SPITE
2. BITTERNESS
3. GRIM HUMORLESSNESS
topic image
Top Reasons Why Being A Church Apologist Is A Great Gig
Monday, May 25, 2009, at 08:33 AM
Original Author(s): Primus
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
Here are the top reasons why it is a great gig to be an Apologist for the LDS Church

10. All those BYU COEDs and Former Sister Missionaries hanging on your every word to keep their weakening testimonies strong.

09. Apologizing as an Apologist means never having to say 'I'm sorry' or 'I apologize'

08. You can use all your creative juices to be just as creative and fictional as the Prophet Joseph Smith, and then label it as non-fiction.

07. You get quoted in all the top scientific peer reviewed journals such as 'BYU Studies' and 'FARMS Review of Books'

06. BYU pay can't be beat.

05. You can speak in Yiddish and TBMs think your are giving them great 'Pearls of Wisdom'

04. All those cool Church paid for trips to South America

03. Did I mention you get the benefits of Celebrity among the faithful?

02. You get praised for calling people who were molested by Church leaders who then leave the Church because of it..weak and easily offended.

01. When YOU speak, The Prophet's THINKING is DONE.
topic image
Apologist Sleight Of Hand
Tuesday, Aug 11, 2009, at 07:50 AM
Original Author(s): Simon Southerton
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
The sleight of hand of all the FAIR DNA apologetics is that it depends on testimony-shattering reinterpretations of the Book of Mormon history and the arrogant dismissal of 180 years of prophetic declarations.

New Book of Mormon history
  • The Lehites met and fully integrated with New World civilizations soon after their arrival
  • American Indian’s handed control of their civilizations with minimal resistance to a band of displaced Hebrews
  • The term Lamanite is largely a cultural term (the baddies)
  • The genetic Lamanites have essentially been wiped out or lost
  • Book of Mormon civilizations were located in Mesoamerica, not North America
  • There are two Hill Cumorah’s where the gold plates were stored. One in Mesoamerica mentioned in Book of Mormon and one in New York, mistakenly thought to be the Book of Mormon Cumorah by every Mormon prophet who has ever lived and virtually all Mormons
  • The narrow (1 1/2 day walk) neck of land is the not so narrow Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mexico
  • Moroni carried the 60-80lb gold plates from Mexico to New York so that the plates were conveniently located for Joseph Smith.
Dismissing prophetic statements
  • Anything Joseph Smith said that connects North America with the Book of Mormon civilizations (Zelph etc.) is just his opinion
  • When God refers to Indians in the Western United States as Lamanites in the D&C;, it is Joseph Smith’s personal opinion influencing scripture
  • Anything any prophet said that implies there are millions of Lamanites across North and South America is just personal opinion and not doctrine
This is all done with the assurance that the Brethren are right behind them and that their employment by the church is secure. You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.

And faithful Mormons are expected to swallow all this without the slightest thought that they are being sold another lie to cover the original lie.
topic image
Confusing Tradition With Doctrine
Wednesday, Sep 2, 2009, at 12:39 PM
Original Author(s): Joaquin
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
Chapter 4 of Michael Ash's "Shaken Faith Syndrome" is based on the original talk by Ronald Poelman of the 1st quorum of the 70 that was censured by "the brethren".

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/...

This is true irony. Chapter 4 is based on a talk that the other church leaders didn't like and made Poelman change it when it was published in the Ensign. Not only that, but they had him re-record his new "talk" for the VHS version of the conference that people could check out from the church library. They even went so far as to add the "coughs" and the "hims and haws" in the background to make it appear as if his censured talk was the original.

However, some members recorded it on their home VHS tape recorders, which is still currently available online and can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcM7ko...

This is coming from a book that is trying to help "cure" people of "their problem" with shaken faith?
topic image
Mormon Times Reporter Michael Degroote
Monday, Oct 19, 2009, at 07:54 AM
Original Author(s): Eric Davis
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
I read the post earlier today re:"Hebrew design in Mesoamerica: Temples match" as reported in the Mormon Times.

see the following link: http://mormontimes.com/studies_doctri...

I sent the following message to the author of the article, Mr. deGroote:

Now this is what I call “straining at gnats.” Mr. Hauck’s claim that structures in ancient Mesoamerica were “built on the same model” as those of Solomon and Moses, is absolutely appalling, and an insult to modern science.

It makes sense that humans in different areas of the world would use similar measuring systems and similar proportions for construction. Almost all construction methods and units of measurement in world history are based on human physical proportions. Humans are all roughly the same size, so it goes without saying that they would build structures that are similarly proportioned, even in far-reaching areas of the world. The fact is simply that most buildings, in ancient times were either perfect squares, or rectangles of 2:1 proportion. This evidence can be seen from the pyramids of Egypt to temples in China, and even structures in Mesoamerica. Does that mean that all of these people are culturally connected? Absolutely NOT. What it does mean is that people all over the world have learned to build structures the most effectively and efficiently, based on technology available to them.

What would be good evidence to link Mesoamerica construction to that of the Middle-East, would be use and function of their respective structures. Is there any plausible link between the temple of Solomon and the structures of Mesoamerica? Certainly not. Ancient American religious customs show no similarities to the Abrahamic religions of Palestine. It could be said that the Olmecs and Mayans of Mesoamerica held beliefs that more closely resembled the Egyptians, and their pantheon of deities, than that of Judaism. Temples of Izapa were used primarily for burial tombs and rituals that involved cutting hearts out of living virgins. Where in the Book of Mormon can you read about those practices? Izapa was home to at least two ball courts, a traditional practice associated with the Mayan people, that is not mentioned anywhere in the Book of Mormon. Additionally the stelae of Izapa include pictograms of jaguars, feathered serpents, and violence between multiple deities. There is no such reference to anything resembling these in the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, the people of Izapa used the 260 day Mayan calendar, for which there is also no mention in the Book of Mormon; and there is no evidence of seven day weeks, which was the practice of Judaism and the alleged family of Lehi.

Finally, what about the founding of the city of Izapa? Is there any plausible archeological link between the construction of these Mesoamerican cities and the peoples of the Book of Mormon? Again, no. From Wikipedia: “several archaeologists have theorized that Izapa may have been settled as early as 1500 BCE, making it as old as the Olmec sites of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán and La Venta.” Izapa could not possibly be a Nephite city, since there were no Nephite cities in the Promised Land until after 590 BCE. Even then, Nephite cities could not have grown to the size of Izapa for at least a couple hundred years. If the settlers of Izapa founded the city around 1500 BCE, they would have pre-dated both Moses and Solomon. The people of this area would have no knowledge whatsoever of the Middle-Eastern tabernacles and temples, if they existed as the Bible claims. Where did all these Mesoamerican people come from? Certainly not Jerusalem, since they had established their civilizations long before Jerusalem was built.

In closing, making connections between ancient Mesoamerica and Palestine is irresponsible and just plain bad science. To claim that there are “Book of Mormon Lands” is pure nonsense. The Book of Mormon is complete fiction and reads more like 19th century Protestant literature than Ancient American history. Just because you or somebody else believes in it, doesn’t make it true; and attempting to make archeological connections that simply don’t exist only weakens the position of Mormonism. The best bet for Mormons would be to simply acknowledge that the entire Book of Mormon was made up by Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery, Solomon Spaulding, and Ethan Smith, and leave it alone.

You may as well call the “Book of Mormon Lands Conference” the “Grasping at Straws Conference,” or the “Straining at Gnats Conference.” Don’t ignore the elephant, or in this case, the camel in the room.

Eric Davis

I was surprised tonight when he actually sent a response to me. Any guesses as to how he may have responded? Well here is what he said:

Dear Eric,

You know, we all struggle with spirituality. That is part of the reason we are here on earth. Sometimes God answers our prayers, sometimes he allows us to run into a brick wall. It is messy down here. But somehow, through that mess we can find beauty.

If you look at the fruits of the spirit in the new testament you will recognize the feelings a person has when they are trying to follow God – both in and out of the church. God is ever so much more merciful and loving than we are. He reaches out to us constantly with patience. So often things in life are not either/or. There are multitudes of choices available.

I have found great joy and peace in reading the scriptures. I hope you will again soon. It isn’t that your analysis of Hauck’s claims is necessarily off base, I am just worried that you went to so much effort on this response. I’m just a reporter at a newspaper. Don’t waste so much effort on me.

President Eyring has said something that has helped me lately. I share it with you, because I think it is a good principle regardless of belief. I also share it because it could, if you desire it, help you drink into that pure intelligence from God that matters much more than where or if the Book of Mormon took place.

“I’ve tried to do another thing, both as I read and in prayer: I’ve tried to know what he would do if he had my opportunities. You might try that. If you have had trouble getting answers to your prayers, try asking today, “What is there that you would have me do?” That prayer will be answered if you are sincere and if you listen like a little child, with real intent to act.” (Henry B. Eyring, “Choose to Be Good,” Brigham Young University Speeches, Nov. 12, 1991)

“For instance, you can pray and ask Heavenly Father if there's anything he would have you do. You might ask, "What would the Savior do if he were here? Is there anybody he might wish he could visit?" If you ask questions like that, the Holy Ghost will come and you'll feel nudges about things you can do for other people. When you go and do those things, you're on the Lord's errand, and when you're on the Lord's errand, you qualify for the gift of the Holy Ghost. And when the Holy Ghost is with you, he has a purifying effect that changes your nature.” (Henry B. Eyring, “Surrender to Christ,” Ricks College Devotional, Sept. 21, 1993)

Kindest personal regards, Michael

Interesting, and absolutely nothing regarding my message. Michael seems to be exactly the kind of mindless, duty-bound drone that the morg loves to employ as its spokesmen.
topic image
Self Righteous Peter Priesthood Blogs, "To The Wives And Children Of Men Who Apostatize", Advocating Divorce
Tuesday, Nov 3, 2009, at 07:41 AM
Original Author(s): Infymus
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
Warning: Vomit inducing Mormonism.

http://spamlds.ning.com/profiles/blogs/to-the-wives-and-children-of



Another self righteous Mormon counseling divorce for spouses of apostates.

From his blog:
The last step was that he "resigned" his membership in the Church, much to the dismay of a still-believing wife. As his marriage lurched towards divorce, he began to lay the guilt trip on his spouse. "How can you say you're committed to families if you won't stand by me?" This is a common argument that Satan uses to bring down the wife. A woman fears that divorce will leave her without support and leave her children fatherless. She reluctantly leaves the Church she has loved and the Lord she has seved.

If you are a woman who has a husband that is placing you in this situation, for the sake of your own salvation and that of your children, it is better to cut the apostate husband loose. As tragic as it may be, it would be more tragic for him to pull you and your children down to hell with him. If he insisted that you and your children remain inside a house that is burning down, would you stay or would you flee for your life and take your children with you?
His blog? "S.P.A.M. - Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism". He goes on to quote in his comments:
This article has received a fair amount of traffic today, mostly coming from exMo sites. Good! I can't think of a better, more suitable article for apostate former members to read. The discussions on the boards and blogs that have linked to this seem to focus on the opinion that it is better for a believing wife to dump the apostate husband, when he begins to attack her faith and that of her children at home is the point that seems to elicit their most hostile remarks.
Church Handbook of Instruction, page 26, paragraph 12:
No priesthood officer is to counsel a person whom to marry. Nor should he counsel a person to divorce his or her spouse. Those decisions must originate and remain with the individual.
Looks like this guy is going against Church policy.

Discuss this thread at your favorite watering hole:

Ex-Mormon Forums: http://www.exmormonforums.com/viewtop...
Mormon Discussions: http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/v...
FLAK: http://www.thefoyer.org/viewtopic.php...
topic image
Same Old Themes From LDS Apologetics
Friday, Jul 30, 2010, at 12:14 PM
Original Author(s): Korihor's Attorney
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
1) Paint apostates as 'just too stupid' (with a subtle intimidation aimed at the TBM layman: Go back to paying, praying, and obeying and leave 'deep doctrine' to the 'scholars'):
"It should go without saying that people in ancient times thought differently about their world than modern people do. Some customs of ancient Egyptians should make this obvious."
2) Lame Excuses dumbed down for us 'stupid folk':
"Gee quotes several experts on the placement of drawings within Egyptian religious texts. At some times in Egyptian history, it was common for the drawings to be misaligned with the text. Frequently a drawing was attached to the wrong text - and the correct text was nowhere within the document.

This would be like the drawings from "Goodnight Moon" being used to illustrate "Where the Wild Things Are." It may seem weird, but is not, apparently, very weird to some ancient Egyptians."
3) Failure to acknowledge the bleeding obvious conclusion that Facimile #1 represents a common embalming scene - except for the parts erroneously drawn in by JS (noteably the bald human head where there ought to be a jackel head)
"To the modern mind, this all seems odd. But it also helps explain why the papyrus that contains the drawing of Facsimile 1 could be attached to something that was not the text of the Book of Abraham. It also may shed some light on why Facsimile 1, which at first glance may appear like many other lion couch vignettes, "is, in fact, unique."
4) A testimony (in case anybody had any illusions of objectivity)
" It took a prophet to make the connection and put the drawing back into its intended context"
topic image
The Plague Of Moplogetics
Friday, Oct 22, 2010, at 09:28 AM
Original Author(s): Gadianton
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
Simon Belmont (an amatuer Mormon Apologist) has been trying to figure out why the critics here, who the apologists consider "trailer trash", have such a problem with the apologists, and how it is they define apologetics anyway. Is apologetics inherently bad? Is it mostly just bad in practice, or what? I hope to answer some of these questions.

Simon may find this surprising, but at one time I sided with the apologists quite extensively, not because I was a TBM, but because I had my own ax to grind -- against EVs. That's right, Simon, I had some anger issues with EVs, not Mormons per se. Unlike Simon, who didn't serve a mission, I served in a dense Evangelical area that was on fire with the Pentecostal movement. Thus, I had innumerable run-ins with ministers, lay ministers (in some of these churches, it seems like everyone and their dog is a lay minister), lone warrior born agains, and the whole thing was just so nuts to me. Indeed, anti-Mormon literature was very common and I was "attacked" with it constantly. Not only was I given pamphlets, lectured, yelled at, threatened, and all that, but on occasion I'd even be set up for an ambush scenario where it would be 20+ born agains against me for a "first discussion". Unlike Louis Midgley who admits that he got his ass handed to him on his mission by ministers, I never lost; primarily because I had read anti-lit substantially before my mission and most of the key attacks from EV antis were idiotic and easy to dismiss.

So while I've always argued against Mormonism online, I tended to side with apologists against EVs because they had irritated me so badly on my mission and their arguments seemed so ridiculous and hypocritical to me, in general. Not to mention the fact that, while the temple is very cultish, some of those meetings I attended with faith healing, singing and laughing in tongues were far worse -- the charismatic movement is just so insane. My default position in the beginning was most certainly, first to promote atheism, but I would defend Mormonism above most other religions, and certainly against other religions attacking Mormonism.

So what happened?

to summarize:
  • over time I was astounded by the poor treatment of those who allied themselves with the apologists, by the apologists. The apologists loved critics to call their fellow critics out when they'd get out of hand, but the key players will never return in kind when their attack dog buddies are out of line. An extreme example of this happened just recently, interestingly.
  • the hubris of Internet Mormonism became too much. The arrogance of the apologists who blew off issue after issue, questioning the education and faithfulness of critics who went to seminary, served missions (Simon), attended BYU, the whole nine yards; apparently none of us ever figured out the most basic tenets of the Church.
  • the poor treatment of thoughtful and respectful members of break-off movements from Mormonism. The apologists never could understand that these folks stand in relation to them as they stand to the rest of Christianity. They scoff the same way at NRM Mormon groups that EV critics scoff at them.
  • general anger and massive efforts to get rid of critics from the board (ZLMB) the way UTLM had rid themselves of the Mopologists.
But does all this imply that apologetics, per say, is bad? Couldn't it be another way?

It is a logical possibility, but little more, and here's why. The church has no formal way of educating its members on issues that could ever really help the to defend the Church. There are no "students of Aquinas" types because there are no Aquinas figures in Mormonism. There is no education about Mormonism worth speaking of in Mormonism. So those who seek to educate themselves may go the Chapel Mormon route: Skousen, Meldrum etc.. They might become super intellectual and technically Internet Mormons, but in a context of their interest in history, philosophy, religious studies; Times and Seasons and related blogs are excellent examples. Finally, there is Mopologetic, the armpit of Mormon educational pursuits. Pay attention here: because there is no formal Mormon study of critical issues in a structured and academic setting, those who begin to thirst for knowledge but can't buy into the mythos of Chapel Mormonism, who aren't interested in the mere intellectualizing of strictly book-worm Mormonism; they get pulled into the fray from encountering criticism, usually on the internet, and a chord is struck not with merely with their intellect, or they'd be on Times and Seasons which is about 100x more intellectual than MAD, but with their anger and thirst for revenge. Alternatively, the chord might be struck with their anti-social desires to inflict pain on other people. These folks are in it for the fight, for the brawl with critics, Chapel Mormons, or anyone they can feel "gets in their face" to give them a reason to lash out bitterly.

Interestingly enough, if you poke around blogs like Times and Seasons, you will find the occasional frustration expressed with apologetics and the antics of the apologists -- the bad name that the luminaries of SHIELDS and FARMS have given to intellectual Mormonism. It says a lot when even someone like Joseph Antley, who is brimming with rage at Doctor Scratch, denies being an apologist because subconsciously, he knows just how horrible the practice of apologetics is. Look at the Narrator, he has no love for Cassius University, but he finds the rage-fueled antics of Mopologetics to be counterproductive and isn't afraid to speak up about it.

My guess is that Doctor Scratch a) just picked up on the problems of Mopologetics faster than many of us b) came late to the game after the fallout and it was easier to see the truth in retrospect.

Take a Mopologist, no matter how accomplished, drain his anger away, and he will gravitate toward Mormon intellectual venues of other kinds. Mopologetics exists because of the human condition known as anger.
topic image
Postmodernism In The Service Of Mormon Apologetics
Tuesday, Nov 2, 2010, at 07:32 AM
Original Author(s): Jon Adams
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
I’ve written a lot about Mormonism, and often from a more academic and detached perspective. You won’t often find those writings here at this blog, but I figure I’d include this one. This paper concerns the role of postmodernism in Mormon apologetics. It should be of interest to some SHAFTers, as postmodernism and Mormonism are cultural competitors against secular humanism.

Over the past twenty-five years, there has been a dramatic rise in the volume and sophistication of Mormon apologetics. This rise has been especially pronounced in just the last decade or so. The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), the foremost Mormon apologetic outfit, became an official entity of Brigham Young University and now enjoys church funding. Websites like FAIRLDS, SHIELDS, Mormon Fortress, and others have also helped to popularize and make accessible LDS apologetics.

John-Charles Duffy, a young religious studies scholar at Chapel Hill in North Carolina, argues in a recent Dialogue article that postmodernism has been incredibly influential in Mormon apologetics and helps account for its ascendancy. To see why, one must know the history of Mormon scholarship.

Duffy identifies two dominant schools of thought in Mormon scholarship today: the “new Mormon history” and “faithful history.” The new Mormon history began in the late 1960s, and purports to be a more objective, less sectarian reporting of the LDS Church’s history. This new approach to church history broke with the traditional approaches in that it neither shied away from sensitive topics nor suppressed controversial conclusions.

The second school of thought in Mormon scholarship is “faithful history.” This “faithful history” was a response to and rejection of “the new Mormon history.” Scholars in this camp are orthodox Mormons, who believe all histories of Mormonism should be sympathetic and faith-promoting. In other words, Mormons should be engaged in apologetics, not academically rigorous histories.

The tensions between postmodern and modern thought exist in many religions. In Christianity, there is a debate between Protestant fundamentalists and liberals over Biblical inerrancy. Protestant fundamentalists are often considered anti-science, but where it concerns the Bible, they are wedded to the modern concepts of “objective knowledge” and “truth.” Liberal Protestants, however, have a more postmodern, metaphorical reading of the Bible. Mormonism is having a similar dialogue about the Book of Mormon historicity and other issues, but the roles are reversed. As Duffy notes, it’s the conservative, orthodox scholars that advance postmodernism against the more liberal scholars of the new Mormon history, who want a dispassionate approach to the LDS Church.

The success of the faithful history came with the demise of the new Mormon history during the 1980s and ‘90s. Louis Midgley and David E. Bohn, retired BYU political science professors and contributors to FARMS, were among the earliest and most dogged detractors of the New Mormon history. Midgley and Bohn employed a postmodern critique against the approach. In particular, they argued that any attempt at an objective Mormon history is futile, because all claims originate in an ideology and are “inescapably mediated by language and culture.” And since there is no objective or a priori means by which determine the truth or falsity of an ideology, all perspectives are valid. This philosophy resembles Nietzsche’s perspectivism, which says that we can only know things from our individual perspectives. Midgley and Bohn therefore urged all Mormon scholars to study from their religious perspectives and give up their pretenses of neutrality.

Bohn accused reputable Mormon scholars like Leonard Arrington and Lawrence Foster of excluding “non-scientific testimony of the role of God” in Mormon history. Midgley was less diplomatic and boldly indicted such historians of treason against the faith for not actively affirming Joseph Smith’s prophetic claims. These attacks proved devastating to the new Mormon history.

So-called “faithful historians” like Midgley and Bohn gained an audience with LDS church leaders. Church leaders were concerned that the new Mormon history scholars were flirting with apostasy by publishing what was at times unflattering research about Mormonism. Apostle Boyd K. Packer conveyed these concerns to BYU educators in an address he gave in 1981 titled “The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect.” “There is a temptation,” Packer said, “for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.” He also warned that some scholars’ “posture of detachment” was “giving equal time to the adversary.”

Later, in 1991, the First Presidency released an official statement cautioning members from reading histories or attending research symposia that were not approved by the LDS Church. And throughout the ‘90s, the church was quick to discipline scholars who challenged the traditional LDS narrative. These actions had a chilling effect on all research into Mormonism that wasn’t expressly apologetic. Mormon scholarship is only now beginning to rebound.

So postmodernism was the bludgeon with which Mormon apologists beat down the new Mormon history. And apologists continue to use postmodern perspectivism to deflect criticisms of the LDS Church.

There is another way that Mormon apologists employ postmodernism. Duffy writes that apologists use perspectivist language “as the primary rhetorical resource for those who hope to win credibility for faithful scholarship within the academic mainstream.” They play on academia’s postmodern sympathies in order that their faithful perspective will get offered at or respected by universities other than, say, Brigham Young University. Again, their argument is that all perspectives are valid given postmodernism, so on what grounds can a faithful LDS perspective be excluded? LDS literary critic Michael Austin wants to see Mormonism counted among other minority histories. Austin believes that Mormons are hyphenated Americans, like African-Americans or Italian-Americans. He even coined the term “Mormo-American.”

Such appeals to academia’s tolerance of differing perspectives haven’t been successful. And noted Mormon historian Richard Bushman is somewhat relieved that they haven’t. “Wouldn’t we prefer,” Bushman asked, “to be taken seriously enough to be directly opposed rather than condescended to?”

Postmodernism is a double-edged sword for Mormon apologetics. Many professors at the very conservative BYU do not want to see their school become a bastion of postmodern thought. English professor Richard Cracroft fears that postmodernism will invariably bring with it “the creeds of secularism,” which include “immoralism, atheism, nihilism, negativism, perversity, rebelliousness, doubt, disbelief, and disorder.”

What’s more, it seems that orthodox Mormon apologists have yet to internalize the very postmodern philosophies that they use against their critics. On the one hand, the Mormon apologist dismisses truth as a fiction as per postmodernism. But on the other, they affirm that the LDS Church is “the one and only true Church.” These two sentiments cannot easily be reconciled. If the apologists were to fully adopt the philosophies they exploit, then postmodern Mormon apologetics would be a self-cannibalizing project. The orthodox scholars would have to surrender their claims to knowledge and objective, religious truth.

It will be interesting to see, then, whether postmodernism will keep its privileged role among Mormon intellectuals for much longer. I suspect it won’t. Postmodernism was not a philosophical commitment for apologists, but a novel convenience.

Already, Mormon scholarship seems to be trending back toward a new “new Mormon history.” In Duffy’s words: “…faithful scholars must capitulate to secular ground rules more than they might prefer as the price for participating in the academic mainstream, postmodern challenges to the Enlightenment notwithstanding.”
topic image
Something To Read And Then Questions For Christians And Especially Apologists
Monday, Nov 29, 2010, at 09:40 AM
Original Author(s): Gwylym
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
Christianity and Mormonism requires apologists to shore up the believers when difficult questions are posed in regards to their scriptures. These apologists make it their responsibility to provide answers or explanations on difficult or troubling questions. One of these questions for Mormonism is where are the Book of Mormon lands located? For Christianity, a question might be where is the evidence for the Exodus?

All researchers, archaeologists and historians give their interpretation of the facts.

"However impossible absolute "objectivity" may be (and all acknowledge that today), it is still a worthwhile and essential goal for philologists and exegete, specialist in material culture, or historian. Either there are empirical data or there are not; and the historian who opts for the second alternative puts himself out of business, at least as a serious scholar and not a demagogue." (William Dever What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know It? pp 87-88)

"Simplistic as it may sound, the chief requirements for dialogue may be courage and honesty. By "courage," I mean the individual scholar's willingness to put his or her ego up for stakes; to abandon long-cherished positions when necessary; and to acknowledge how and why one's mind has changed. By "honesty," I mean simply citing other scholars accurately, in context, and crediting one's sources fully; not pretending to an expertise one does not possess; resisting the temptation to indulge in personal polemics that stem from a sense of inadequacy, either in oneself or in the evidence at hand; and refusing on priciple to distort the evidence or another scholar's view." (IBID p 88)

It is my experience that apologists typically select only the evidence that supports their beliefs; and they resort to circular reasoning, taking quotes out of context and when these tactics fail they resort to ad-hominem attacks.

The following list shows some of the tactics that apologists use. The list was found on the internet (unfortunately I do not have a citation). I have amended the list to include some of my thoughts.
  • Apologetics ignores contradictory facts.
  • Apologists have a tendency to ignore facts that do not fit their model or belief. Once a stance is taken, apologists will not revise their theory based on new facts or counter-arguments. They will try and denigrate or ignore those facts and if that cannot be done then they will make ad-hominem attacks on the one presenting the new data. Primarily information on Mormonism will be given but the list also applies to Christian apologetics.
  • Apologetic "research" is incomplete or shoddy.
  • Apologists quote other apologists and do not check facts. Hearsay is used, quotations from other apologists and adherence to myth. Apologists and pseudoscientists generally do not check sources. They will quote each other in a circular fashion.
  • Apologetics begins with a belief-then a hypothesis is written-and then only items which appear to support it are collected.
  • Apologetics is there to help "prove" or make an apology (in the Greek sense) for a belief. "Evidence" is searched for and all conflicting evidence is dismissed or ignored. Apologists do not investigate, they rationalize. They work in possibilities and not probabilities.
  • Apologetics is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
  • Apologists do not deal in controlled and repeatable experiments. The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments but on finding tidbits of information that give some sort of credence to their hypothesis.
  • Apologetics relies heavily on subjective validation.
  • The Book of Mormon mentions a river in the Middle East that Lehi and his family crossed in their journeys. Modern apologists find a wadi that does not flow like the river mentioned in the Book of Mormon yet they report they have proof now. Or, a rock is found with the letters NHM inscribed on it and they use it as a proof of the Book of Mormon Nahom. This could also be Naham, Noham, or any other combination of vowels. They may quote DNA studies that mention that American Indians have the X haplotype without mentioning the X1 or X2 subclades and what those mean.They subjectively validate their hypothesis with this type of information. The equivalent is done with "proof" of the Exodus.
  • Apologetics always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough.
  • The Mormon Prophets have stated time and again that American Indians are descendants of the Hebrews. Apologists now go to the absurd position that the Book of Mormon setting was a very small area, regardless of the fact that this hypothesis is counter to "prophetic" teachings and the Book of Mormon itself. Another example is the horse from the Book of Mormon. Apologists indicate that it may have been a deer or a tapir and not an actual horse. Absurd. A human cannot ride a deer or tapir. The same for swords. No steel or swords have been found in pre-Columbian America. So apologists say that the swords are actually macuahuitls.
  • Apologetics always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.
  • History, archaeology, geology, etc are rarely used except where pseudoscientific claims give credence to their hypothesis.
  • Apologetics often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.
  • I have heard some Mormon apologists claim that the Book of Mormon took place solely in upstate New York while others claim that it took place in one small area in central America.
  • Apologetics does not progress.
  • Once the hypothesis is set that is it. It is final. This despite new facts that may come out that counter the hypothesis.
  • Apologetics attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).
  • Apologetic books and writings give possible examples but the examples are not probable or confirmable. There is no way to easily prove against a possibility. Anything is possible. But is it probable? Apologists (and especially Mormon apologists) use non sequiturs, ad hominem attacks and resort to emotion when the argument goes against their hypothesis.
  • Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion, sentiment, or distrust of established fact.
  • i.e. Non-experts in the field writing as experts. Also they resort to statements such as "scientists are denying the truth. They know we are right but Satan has control of them."
  • Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic theories that contradict what is known about nature.
  • Apologists only advance their claims and ignore any evidence that may counter their claims.
  • Apologists appeal to the truth-criteria of scientific methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.
  • Apologists will quote from archaeologists or pseudo-archaeologists when it advances their cause but will denigrate a finding that is counter to their hypothesis.
  • Apologists are there to help the "weak" firm up their testimony. And these apologists rely upon pseudoscience and pseudoscience practices to prove their hypothesis while ignoring good science at the same time.
Many Christians, especially fundamentalists consider the Bible to be literally true. If the Bible is literally true, why then does the historical, geological and archaeological record differ?

As Dever stated, either there is empirical data or there is not. What does it mean if the empirical data does not match the Biblical record?

For everyone... Can the Bible still be useful if it is not empirically true?

What is the difference between spirituality and religion?

Is a church or religious sect necessary for spirituality?

What is spirituality and can the Bible help one be spiritual without the Bible being empirically true?
topic image
Book of Mormon Archaeological News?
Tuesday, Dec 14, 2010, at 07:31 AM
Original Author(s): Sl Cabbie
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
From http://taleof2nations.blogspot.com/:
Book of Mormon Archaeological News. Supplying Book of Mormon photographic archaeological, textual evidences, that testify the truth of the Book of Mormon. Evidences are supplied by Universities of Oklahoma, New Mexico, Tulsa, Calgary CA. Mexico City as well as National Geographic, U.S. Park Service, Smithsonian Inst.,Museum Natural History and many other reputable institutions of science. Joseph Smith told the truth about the Book of Mormon being an ancient record. Benjamin Franklin provides evidence.
That site deserves a huge neon bullchip warning. Seriously...
Palenque Mexico, 690 A.D. Tablet of the Cross
Two hundred years after Moroni? Right...

And more Wayne May/Rodney Meldrum nonsense with the Newark Holy Stones and The Bat Creek Stone...

Both have been irrefutably shown to be forgeries on many separate occasions, and the only time archaeologists discuss them seriously is when they examine the motives of the forgers.

I see the promoter isn't one of the Limited Geography Crowd (and probably thinks "DNA" means "Does Not Apply).

Ha! I won a bet with myself that mention would be made of the Los Lunas stone... Even Hugh Nibley wasn't buying that one...

Oooh! And Frank Hibben to boot! More fun... Wiki is a little too kind to him in saying he was only suspected of fraud... Not that it has any relevance to the Book of Mormon, but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_C....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandia_P...
Frank C. Hibben, a UNM student who had not been involved in the excavation, later worked in the cave. He reported finding a spearpoint beneath a layer of material dating more than 25,000 years old, along with the bones of camels, mastodons, and prehistoric horses. The 25,000-year age suggested by Hibben was erroneous, as the bones were carbon dated from 14,000–20,000 years ago (16,000–14,000 BCE). The published notes of Bliss and others in reference to the poor layer integrity and cross-layer contamination associated with rodent burrowing proved that Hibben's dating of historical sedimentary layers was consistently inaccurate.

Frank Hibben's claim of a Clovis point dating to more than 25,000 years ago is cited as strong evidence for the existence of a much older pre-Folsom culture in North America (as contended by the authors of the controversial Forbidden Archaeology). However, Hibben's publications misrepresented the initial excavation work of Wesley Bliss, who noted the proper layers, and the poor layer integrity in areas, among other findings that were erroneously misconstrued and reported by Frank Hibben to prop up his theory. Bliss did not find any of the spearpoints in the layers reported later by Hibben. It is now believed that the spearpoints were not as old as was originally reported by Hibben, and Hibben's sloppy work and false testament to man's history in North America has greatly hindered the accuracy of our understanding of prehistoric North America. Frank Hibben was generously rewarded for this falsified work, which assisted him greatly in starting his impressive career, supported by the University of New Mexico. The errors in Hibben's work were covered up for 60 years until being openly acknowledged and reported.
http://lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-p...

Goodness, as I read on further, I see the proprietor is aware of at least some of the controversies...

The question, then, is why bother promoting this tripe?

Connections between the Incas and Ancient Egypt when the South American civilization didn't emerge until the 14th century, 1300 years after Cleopatra, the last Egyptian Pharoah...

Seriously?

Even the "Etruscan Gold Wafers" prove nothing since their "provenance" is not given, and they are erroneously identified as plates when they're hardly larger than postage stamps and contain engraved pictures and not writing...
topic image
The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics, 2011
Monday, Dec 5, 2011, at 10:57 AM
Original Author(s): Doctor Scratch
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
At a certain point in mid-autumn, the skies begin to dim a little earlier, and a nippiness threads through the air. One can smell a hint of cinnamon and cloves, and perhaps, if one listens hard enough, the tintinnabulation of sleighbells are audible in the distance. Of course, this can mean only one thing: it's time for the annual summary of Everything that Was of Especial Note in the World of Mopologetics. Certainly, 2011 saw its share of epic upheavals and dramas. So, on we go with this year's countdown:

10. The Nehor is Booed Off of MDB. After racking up well over 10 thousand posts, the space-cadet TBM poster dubbed "The Nehor" finally called it quits. His career, as several noted, was marked by a very slow decline: from earnestly naïve perpetual missionary, to increasingly cynical uber-nerd, to fist-shaking lunatic. By the end, The Nehor was probably irredeemable as a poster. In a "farewell" thread launched by Liz, Mr. Stakhanovite perhaps summed up The Nehor's MDB posting career succinctly:

Mr. Stak wrote:
I was holding back, given how much Nehor sucked both as a person and as a poster, I could say a lot more. I'd rather have Nehor waste his brain cells huffing glue than rolling that pallid face across the keyboard to share his version of "the gospel" here.

But hey, don't let me stop you from talking about Nehor like he was some estranged co-worker who hung himself last night in the garage, because God knows, deleting a message board account calls for a wake and a round of anecdotes about the deceased.
9. Kerry Shirts is "Absent" from the FAIR Conference. The 9th most significant "happening" in the world of Mopologetics in 2011 was actually a non-event: Kerry Shirts failed to cinematically document that all-important Mopologetic gathering, and thus we were deprived of all the goofiness, back-slapping, consumption of high-sugar beverages, and general bloviation that we've all come to love so much. Indeed, the absence of a new entry in the Shirts oeuvre led some to wonder if the image-conscious FAIR board had actually barred him from attending, which would make this at least the second time that FAIR has gone out of its way to make an enthusiastic TBM defender feel unwelcome. (The other being jskains.)

8. Droopy Shows Even More Signs of Insanity. Well, there you have it. That and the fact that, per him, he seems to have been "welcomed" into one corner of Mopologetics' "Inner Circle." In a staggering post, he suggested that he has been receiving emails and/or PMs from Will Schryver, which speaks volumes about the state of amateur Mopologetics in 2011.

7. Leonard Arrington is Given the "Frankenstein" Treatment on MST. The Daniel Peterson vanity project known as "Mormon Scholars Testify" reached its nadir position when the Administrator in Chief cobbled together a plagiarized/manipulated version of LDS scholar Leonard Arrington's published works in order to make it seem as if the late, revered and venerable Arrington had given his endorsement to the Website. This signified an important change in policy at MST: whereas earlier deceased "testimonies" featured clear indication that permission to reprint materials had been gotten from the deceased scholars' significant others, there was no such indication for Arrington. Furthermore, given the propagandistic nature of the site, along with the deeply problematic nature of the reputations of the people involved, there is extremely good reason to suspect that Arrington would have had major problems with seeing his name associated with this endeavor. Nonetheless, Daniel Peterson continued to stubbornly insist that he'd done nothing wrong (this despite the fact that he and his editorial team swiftly went in to make edits to the entry). Indeed, his locked-out profile here at MormonDiscussions still contains a pithy dismissal from him that's a direct reference to this incident.

6. SeattleGhostWriter Issues a DMCA Takedown Notice. MormonDiscussions.com--the beacon at the center of online Mormon discussion boards--was briefly shut down in June of 2011 after a TBM called "SeattleGhostWriter" went ballistic. The normally very low-key and congenial Chris Smith posted a thread inquiring about SGW's odd Mopologetic Website, and he (i.e., Chris Smith) wondered how and to what extent the Website/blog constituted a legitimate "academic" endeavor. What ensued in the wake of this OP were a series of astonishing events, the most notable of which, perhaps, was the discovery of SGW's purple-prose-laden erotica. Seething with rage over the notion that anyone would dare mock his epistolary efforts, SGW flew off the handle and began plotting a kind of legal revenge. Rather than contacting Dr. Shades, or calling for level heads, SGW immediately hit the Lawyer Button, and before anyone knew it, MDB had gone dark. Key posters were forced to regroup at The Foyer and The Ex-Mormon Forums while Dr. Shades ascertained what had happened. Before long, the board was restored, but the SGW Incident remains notable as a case where an angry TBM used legal threats to stifle discussion.

5. The Birth and Death of "The Cafeteria". Some time in July, the well-liked MDB moderator Liz3564 launched her own, "private" messageboard dubbed "The Cafeteria." The purpose of the board, as Liz later explained, was to provide New-Order Mormons with a place to discuss Church-related issues "in peace." Her board ran quietly up until The Nehor packed up his things and left, at which time Liz launched her "Nehor Has Left the Building" thread, and the existence of The Cafeteria was revealed on a wider scale. This immediately led to Liz utterly locking down her messageboard so as to prevent the public from seeing what was discussed there. Suspicions swirled about Liz's motives: Did she really support Shades' vision of a free-speech environment? Was her board merely an invite-only means of gossiping about MDB? Was The Cafeteria really for NOMs, and if so, why had DCP and ttribe been invited? In spite of some strong words that were exchanged, every thing was smoothed over, and Liz continued to run her board underthe cover of darkness.

Then, in late October, the board imploded after Dr. Peterson began a series of threads complaining yet again about his various obsessions. This irritated a number of the members of The Cafeteria community, who began "leaking" word of DCP's "Meltdown of Epic Proportions." Unsure of what to do, Liz first re-opened her board for public viewing (after deleting several key threads), and then deleted the board entirely, apparently in order to put out the fires of a "board war" (which are wholeheartedly encouraged per Dr. Shades's Doctrine).

Several posters noted in the wake of all this that Liz's intentions were noble: it's admirable and understandable that one would want a messageboard "safe haven" to discuss Mormon-related issues. On the other hand, near-unanimous opinion indicated that the biggest mistake Liz made was in inviting DCP to the party.

4. DCP is Caught Mis-Using Quotes In a stunning thread entitled, "Questions for Dan Peterson," Mr. Stakhanovite very carefully and clearly demonstrated that Daniel Peterson had totally and completely mis-used a quote from Camus. Mr. Stak posted scans of the Camus text in question, and DCP was shown to have completely warped the quote in order to score a rhetorical point. After he was repeatedly confronted with this gross and unprofessional misrepresentation, DCP shut down his MDB account and skulked off into the shadows. To this day, Dr. Peterson remains effectively "hidden" from the public eye, so shamed was he by Mr. Stak's devastating critique. Further, it remains unclear just why, exactly, DCP made this "error": Was it simple carelessness? Deliberate misappropriation of the quote? Or, perhaps even more disturbingly, did he simply assume that his TBM audience would be too dumb to notice?

3. Gee and Roper Verbally Assault Mike Reed. Over the summer, Mike Reed gave a powerful presentation at the Gold Plates Seminar, which was headed up by Richard Bushman. During his talk, several Maxwell Institute "scholars" showed up with the apparent intention of heckling him. They could be heard whispering and sniggering as he spoke. During the Q & A session, the lobbed a series of increasingly aggressive and mean-spirited questions at him. John Gee, in particular, raised his voice in apparent frustration and anger, while Matt Roper insisted that he had a text that would seriously undermine/challenge/disprove Reed's central argument. When pressed on this, however, Roper went completely silent. Speculation swirled over the motivation behind these MI Senior Mopologists' behavior, with many wondering whether this "attack" had been staged in advanced, behind the drawn curtains of FARMS's inner sanctum.

2. The Rise of Mr. Stakhanovite. No person defined the world of online discussion of Mopologetics better than the irrepressible, brilliant, pipe-smoking, Rat-Pack-loving, Socratic gadfly known as Mr. Stakhanovite. 2011 saw him fully emerge and blossom into a formidable messageboard participant, with his deft philosophical evisceration of everyone from Bill Hamblin to poor, hapless mfbukowski. Mr. Stak, in 2011, demonstrated more than any other poster how vibrant, exciting, illuminating, and entertaining the world of online Mopologetics can be. In some respects, 2011 was The Year of the Stak.

1. Schryvergate. Really, what more can be said about this? The key Mopologetic event of 2011 was the "defeat" of erstwhile Mopologetic here, William Schryver. After the unfortunate failure of his KEP FAIR Presentation, Schryver was continuing to lick his wounds until MsJack delivered a series of hydrogen bombs which blew his credibility to smithereens. In post after withering post, MsJack demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that Schryver is a terrible liability for any publishing venue that wants to maintain a shred of respectability. The thread left no doubt as to Schryver's deep-seated misogyny, vulgarity, and duplicity. So profound and thorough was MsJack's critique that it led two concerned, Melchezidek priesthood-holder MI apologists to voice their issues to the Maxwell Institute "powers-that-be," and as a consequence, Schryver's supposedly upcoming MI publication was "canceled," due to fears of negative publicity.

While Will Schryver continues to try and rescue his tainted reputation, and while he continues to insist that his KEP work (now allegedly in the 500-page range) will one day see publication, the fact remains that MsJack dealt what may very well turn out to be the most devastating blow of the decade. If Schryver does indeed wind up convincing a venue to accept its work, it will spell certain shame and doom for whoever takes the bait.

And with that, another exciting year of Mopologetics comes to a close! Who knows what 2012 will bring...
topic image
Mormon Voices : Mormon Leadership, Putting Their Hand In The Political Pot!
Monday, Jun 11, 2012, at 08:43 AM
Original Author(s): Heyimginger
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
This was posted on the comment board of an article on the Washington Post:

"If you are wondering why there seems to be so many positive comments regarding the Mormons on The Washington Post, the reason is the mormons have been instructed to make these comments by their leaders. Here is the email being distributed to the members "encouraging" them to counter the negative arguments against their church by drowning out the critics with their numbers. Just more proof you can't trust what they are saying because they are told what to say (or not say).
Dear MormonVoices volunteer,

The Washington Post has recently published a slew of articles on Mormons and Mormonism. Some of them are positive and will become more prominent in web searches with more comments, and some need positive comments to counteract the negative comments already made. Please leave a positive comment on each article. As always, avoid debates, show Christlike kindness in your tone and topic, and leave politics out of it as much as possible.

The links to the articles are:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/mitt-romneys-mormon-milestone/2012/05/31/gJQAbavy4U_blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/mitt-romney-i-believe-in-heavenly-father-jesus-christ-and-the-holy-ghost/2012/06/01/gJQApeQD7U_blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/the-book-of-mormon-a-biography-by-paul-c-gutjahr/2012/06/01/gJQA8vvs7U_allComments.html?ctab=all_&comments;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/are-mormons-christian/2012/06/04/gJQAxEzkDV_story.html

If you need any help or advice, please contact us at email@mormonvoices.org.

Thank you for your help! Please recruit your friends, family and ward members to join MormonVoices!

The MormonVoices Management Team

FAIR, PO Box 491677, Redding, CA 96049, USA"
I can't even begin to explain how much this enrages me.
topic image
R. Scott Lloyd Goes To Chik-Fil-A
Wednesday, Jul 25, 2012, at 08:21 AM
Original Author(s): Doctor Scratch
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
Perhaps others have heard the news, but the head of the fast-food Chik-Fil-A has been the object of criticism after he declared that he opposes same-sex marriage. In response, some people have begun to withdraw their support and/or to distance themselves from the restaurants.

Not Scott Lloyd, though. Now that he knows that Chik-Fil-A's head honcho embraces discriminatory attitudes, Lloyd has pledged to patronize the restaurant even more frequently:

Scott Lloyd wrote:
The head of Chik-fil-A is taking some heatfor his outspoken support of traditional marriage defined as being between a man and a woman.

Some are calling for a boycott of the restaurant chain, persumably as a way to punish the man for speaking his mind on this controversial topic.

Accordingly, I decided today to do my own personal anti-boycott. For the first time in years, I patronized Chik-fil-A today. I noted that the one I visited, in the City Creek shopping center in downtown Salt Lake, was doing a brisk business despite reputed calls for a boycott.

I spent more than is typical with me for lunch.

I was pleased that the experience exceeded my memory. The service was prompt, courteous and friendly. The chicken salad sandwich I ordered was of the highest quality, and the signature waffle fries were hot and tasty. Though I was disappointed they did not offer fry sauce, the Chik-fi-A sauce, a sweet, tangy, barbecue-mustard concotion, was a nice dipping condiment.

I will definitely return.

So why a post here? I think it important in today's marketplace that we support with our business those who share our values. Since its restructuring nearly two years ago, the Deseret News, as it has reached out to a national audience with both its print and on-line products, has made a concerted effort to appeal not just to Latter-day Saints but to "like-minded believers." Just as I hope such folks would reward that effort with their patronage, I would like to do the same for others who are outside my own faith group but who share my values and ideals.
Quite interesting! I suppose Lloyd will make sure to take his next vacation in a foreign country that refuses to allow women to attain leadership positions.
topic image
The Top Ten Happenings In Mopologetics, 2012
Monday, Dec 3, 2012, at 10:06 AM
Original Author(s): Doctor Scratch
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
It's Decemeber. We've all begun to notice certain changes all around us: the tree limbs are skeletal and leaveless. Commercials on TV and on the radio have Christmas-music soundtracks. And, of course, the bearded visage of Santa Claus--all rosy-cheeked and bright-eyed--is everywhere. But not every place in the Judeo-Christian / Western world celebrates the holidays in quite the same way. For example, did you know that in certain northern European countries, St. Nicholas has a rather sinister (and arguably racist) companion? The Germans call him "Schwarz Peter," and the Beligians and Dutch call him, "Zwarte Piet"--aka, "Black Peter." Who is Black Peter, you may wonder? From Wikipedia:
[T]he lyrics of older traditional Sinterklaas [i.e., "Santa Claus"] songs warn that while Sinterklaas and his Zwarte Pieten will leave well-behaved children presents, they will punish those who have been very naughty. For example they will take bad children and carry these children off in a burlap sack to their homeland of Spain, where, according to legend, Sinterklaas and his Zwarte Pieten dwell out of season.
(Incidentally: is any of the major Mopologists planning a future all-expenses-paid cruise to Spain?) While being hauled off in a burlap sack might seem bad enough, there are some punishments that are apparently even worse:
These songs and stories also warned that a child who has been only slightly naughty will not get a present, but a "roe", which is a bundle of birch twigs, (as a warning they could have gotten a birching instead)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwarte_Piet

It's worth noting that the good editors of this Wiki entry provided a link to the entry for "birching" (and no, this isn't "John Birching"):
Birching is a corporal punishment with a birch rod, typically applied to the recipient's bare buttocks, although occasionally to the back and/or shoulders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birching

Yeeouch! What a disturbing Christmas myth! And yet, it's hard to think of a better metaphor for what happened in the world of Mopologetics this year. In my long tenure as the B. H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetics Studies at the highly pretigious Cassius University, I don't know that I've ever witnessed such an eventful and tumultuous year. I can't help but feel concern that 2013--and every subsequent year--will fail to measure up to what was, for the Mopologists, anyhow, a cataclysmic 366 days of Mayan-Calendar proportions.

So, with great humility, I present to you this year's annual offering of the Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics, Two-Thousand and Twelve.

10. DCP Shares a "Hot Booty Shaking" SocialCam Video on Facebook. The month of June in 2012 was arguably the single most important month in the history of Mopologetics, and it got started in a rather lurid fashion. Thanks to a glitch in the Facebook "SocialCam" app software, Mopologetic "Kingpin" Dan Peterson accidentally shared that he'd watched a video entitled, "Pitbull get a boner dancing with Jennifer Lopez (Hot Booty Shaking)." Dr. Peterson claimed that he watched the film because he'd noticed that one of his Facebook friends (a Melchezidek Priesthood-holder), had also watched it, which seemed peculiar to Dr. Peterson:

DCP wrote:
I've just learned something new. "Socialcam,"of which I'd never before heard, announces on facebook if you've watched something on it. I got a facebook notice earlier today that a friend had watched something that seemed . . . er, questionable. Surprised that he would watch it, but REALLY surprised that he would (as I thought) choose to ANNOUNCE that he had watched it, I watched it, too, to see if there was something funny or significant in it that would lead him to want to announce it to all of his facebook friends. (There wasn't.) And now I find that I'VE seemingly chosen to announce that I watched the same thing -- which, at least, helps me to understand what happened to my friend (but is, otherwise, slightly embarrassing and quite irritating). My apologies. I've got lots of shortcomings, but this kind of stuff isn't among them.For better or worse, his viewing of this material was announced to his hundreds of Facebook friends.


9. Liz3564 Becomes a Mopologist. The once-loved moderator and poster Liz3564 formally resigned as a Mormon Discussions moderator after a slow decline that culminated in her attempting to use private information in an attempt to intimidate and "punish" another poster. Liz began her posting and moderating career in 2006-2007, after a fallout involving the moderating team at the board which was, at the time, called FAIR (later MAD, now MDD). She was celebrated by critics for daring to oppose Juliann, Dan_G, and the rest of the anonymous FAIR/MAD moderators, though of course, her old friends felt that she had betrayed their trust. Sadly, as the time wore on, Liz eventually began to turn on those who had supported her here.

Indeed, Liz's curious and multi-faceted personality unfolded in interesting ways: it emerged that [in real life information deleted on request]. She drinks alcohol (notably White Zinfandel) and coffee. She watches pornography. She writes spanking-themed pornography. She [Telestial-caliber allusion deleted]. She criticizes LDS Church leaders, in spite of insisting that she is a loyal "New Order Mormon."

Perhaps the real slide began last year, following Liz's launch of an invitation-only messageboard called, "The Cafeteria." Whether intentional or not, the board became something of a forum for complaining about this messageboard, and Liz ultimately shut down shop after a "Meltdown of Epic Proportions" involving Mopologetic "Kingpin" Daniel Peterson. Liz's private messageboard concept was revived this year, though, in the form of a Star Wars-themed forum called, "Geeky NOMs," which was a place that was designed to allow for explorations of the members' "Pass Times."

There seem to have been two key events that led to Liz's crossing over into the "Dark Side" of Mopologetics: (1) the banning of her good friend Jersey Girl, and (2) her ongoing friendship with DCP and her newfound alliance with Pahoran. It was this latter development that caused the alienation of some of the last vestiges of her friends: Just Me was banned from "Geeky NOMs," and MsJack and Blixa both left in protest. Meanwhile, Infymus announced that he had relieved Liz of her moderating responsibilities at the ExMormon Forums, due to the fact that he could "no longer trust" her--mainly on account of her support for Dr. Peterson--support which, in the eyes of some critics, including playing "Messenger" for the noted Mopologist.

With this announcement, with Liz's support of Pahoran (and her extension of an invitation to Droopy to join "Geeky NOMs"), she formally crossed over into full-blown Mopologist status. Liz has also become perhaps the only moderator in all of Cyber-Mormonism to have been "fired" as a mod from three separate messageboards. It's impossible to imagine the Mopologetic landscape without her, though one cannot help but wish that things had turned out differently.

8. Trevor Holyoak Raises the Bar on Mopologetic Cyberstalking. The large-pored Mopologist names Trevor Holyoak continued his ascent as the creepiest LDS apologist in cyberspace. Seldom appearing to make actual arguments or to challenge critics in the field of debate, Holyoak has chosen to opperate almost entirely behind the scenes: picking fights with people on their Facebook comments threads; digging up dirt; and accumulating ammunition for FAIR Wiki entries. Indeed, Brother Holyoak seemed to be ubiquitous when it came to various scandals involving various LDS critics and "NOMs." His forays into creepiness and cyberstalking were so extensive that he managed to snag shared honors with Dr. Gerald Bradford for the pretigious Sampson Avard Golden Scepter award. It remains to be seen whether or not Holyoak will begin publishing and/or engaging in more substantive Mopologetics. In the meantime, he continues to function as a kind of Shadow Operative.


7. Pahoran Tries to "Out" Darth J. In early November, Darth J submitted the opening post of what eventually became an epic thread:

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... =2&t=26769

In it, he revealed a number of surprising and painful details: He had accepted a voluntary suspension from the Utah Bar; he was involved in litigation against the LDS Church for matters pertaining to alleged sexual abuse; Dr. Peterson had sent him an arguably defamatory PM about another poster; perhaps most significantly, Pahoran had been using this information as a means of trying to intimidate Darth J. Most observers agreed that Pahoran failed rather miserably. Instead, the majority of posters were reminded yet again of the largely rotten tactics that are employed by resentful and angry Mopologists.

6. The David Twede Fiasco. The critical Web site "Mormon Think" occupied much of the spotlight in the second half of 2012, most notably because of Mopologetic attempts to subject MT editor David Twede to Church discipline. Twede began to complain about Mopologetic harrassment on various messageboards, and the story eventually received national media attention, where, rather incredibly, it was revealed that FAIR President Scott Gordon had played a major role in contacting Salt Lake City "allies" who then somehow put things in motion ot punish Twede.

But there were multiple, hazy stories: Wiki Wonka surfaced to explain that Twede--or a Twede sockpuppet, or an alleged Twede sockpuppet--had engaged in trolling behavior on PostMo. Scott Gordon announced on MDD that he hadn't contacted Twede's ecclesiastical leaders--that he'd only notified some people in "Salt Lake City" (though he wouldn't elaborate on who this was).

In any case, after Twede complained to the mainstream media, the Church quickly changed course and decided not to discipline him after all. Whether this was done out of a desire to avoid negative media attention, or because of the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, is anybody's guess.

And here, as with the Number 2 Happening, Trevor Holyoak played an important role in gather "dirt" to use against Twede. Several here have speculated that some of this material--including the alleged "trolling" bits mentioned by Wiki Wonka--has landed in a Strengthening Church Members Committee dossier in the COB.

5. The Mopologists Lauch Mormon Interpreter. If there is any reason to continue watching Mopologetics in 2013, it's the new MI--named, as some have speculated, as a kind of angry rebuke to the original "MI"--the now much-maligned Maxwell Institute.

In late July / early August, at the conclusion of the FAIR Conference, Dr. Peterson ceremoniously announced the launch of a new, online "scholarly" venture called, Mormon Interpreter--a "journal" which was billed as a "peer reviewed" forum for studying Mormon scripture. Despite some setbacks (notably of the financial variety), there was enthusiasm amongst Mopologists of every stripe that the MI would pick up where the old FARMS Review left off.

But it was not to be. Instead, readers were treated to an almost hilariously inept production that still somehow managed to publish "new" material once a week. The articles were poorly edited; they were besotted with typos; they often seemed cobbled together out of snippets from old, rejected FARMS articles. Rather than fulfilling the promises of a legitimately "scholarly," "peer reviewed journal," the MI has instead become the best place on the Web to observe the buffoonery, toxic rage, and grudge-carrying of classic-FARMS Mopologetics.

Of special note were articles by Cassandra Hedelius (who hurriedly took down her own personal blog in the wake of criticism of her MI article), Louis Midgley, and John Sorenson, who angrily harrangued his old friend/colleague, Michael Coe. Midgley, on the other hand, was met with accusations of "pervy-ness" after he used 7-year-old blog postings about a BYU co-ed having sex in the library bathroom as a means of smearing her.

Of course, in the beginning, there was a great deal of hype surrounding the MI, with editor and tech guru Bryce Hammond waxing orgasmic about his love for Midgley, Peterson, Hamblin, and Nibley, and with Hamblin offering up support and announcements both on his own blog, and on the Mormon Dialogue Board. The Mopologists also attempted a foray into video "Roundtables," which were almost universally a failure--barely managing to garner any audience at all.

Perhaps the best word to describe the editorial mindset at the MI is "delusional." Without fail, Editor-in-Chief Daniel C. Peterson has continued to trumpet the claim that the MI publishes something "new" once a week. What he has failed to tell his readers, though, is that a good portion--perhaps more than 50%--of the "published" articles have been retreads from other sources: articles by Tvedtnes, Midgley, and Skousen were recycled from previously published material; a large chunk of the original articles were "harvested" from the final issue of the Mormon Review, which MI chief M. Gerald Bradford refused to publish.

Meanwhile, in a most remarkable blunder, the Website manager posted the budgetary expenses for the months of August and September, which revealed that the Editor may very well be compensating himself thousands of dollars for his work on the MI, which has once again caused some to wonder whether or not Mopologetics is, on some level, a commercial venture (at least for the guys at the top).

In any case, Mormon Interpreter will be worth watching in 2013.

4. The Apologists Self-Destruct on the TIME Lightbox Comments Section. This technically occurred in 2011, but these lists tend not to account for events in December of the preceding year; thus, it makes this year's list. The photographer Brian Shumway published a photo essay for TIME magazine detailing his experience in Utah's Happy Valley. The photos brimmed with the oftentimes quiet life and somber vitality of Mormon life in this area. Perhaps because "no one was smiling," top Mopologists immediately swarmed to the site, attacking Shumway on the basis of everything ranging from his reading habits, to his photography skills (which the Mopologists dismissed as "pedestrian" and "amateurish," respectively).

Their commentary drummed up a ton of interest, though, with Dan Peterson amassing well over a hundred posts in response to critics who appeared to denounce his condescension and arrogance. Mike "Tuffy" Parker turned up, only to hit the "eject" button after it appeared that he might be formally labeled an "apologist" alongside Peterson and Hamblin. Later, Will Schryver appeared, only to leave after several commenters linked to MsJack's thread on his misogyny (which, incidentally, was the Top Happening in Mopologetics of 2011).

Only DCP persisted, apparently unable to stop his torrent of self-defeating, whiny, condescending, persecution-complex and grudge-carrying replies. Strangely, when critics attempted to revisit the site this past autumn, it was discovered that all the comments have disappeared into the ether. Did the Mopologists contact the people who maintain the site in order to get the embarrassment cleaned up? Did they threaten litigation? As Dr. Midgley has recently observed, "The story of efforts to invoke censorship has yet to be told."

3. The Rise of Mopologist Blogging. Messageboard participation had long been the bread and butter of online Mopologetic interaction dating clear back to the pre-ZLMB/UTLM days, but in 2012, the Mopologists began to shift their activities over to private blogs, where they (presumably) could do a better job of controlling their own rhetoric and of deleting unflattering comments.

Four blogs quickly emerged as the most important:

1. Dan Peterson's Blogger/Patheos "Sic Et Non"
2. Will Schryver's "Imetatron"
3. Bill Hamblin's "Mormon Scripture Explorations"
4. The most recent entry--John Gee's "Forn Spo;ll Fira"

To a certain extent, the blogs represented the same-old same-old: the usual resentments, anger, and juvenile antics, but they also extended and enlarged these tendencies. Perhaps most shocking was "Sic et Non," which revealed an alarmingly extremist political streak, replete with ruminations on the value of having an entire citizenry "packing heat" as a means of curtailing random shootings, and an off-the-wall post about how U.S. Blacks should be "thankful" for slavery because it resulted in them getting the privilege to live in modern-day America (a sentiment that was echoed on "Imetatron.")

Hamblin's blog, meanwhile, has tended to be more narrow in focus, though it was an object of interest after he began to broadcast his dissatisfaction with M. Gerald Bradford, the Maxwell Institute, and the entire budding field of "Mormon Studies," which Hamblin sees as an almost wholly negative and threatening development.

These blogs have become a treasure trove of bizarre commentary and seriously misguided antics, the most recent and noteworthy of which was DCP's attempted "outing" of the posted called, "Chino Blanco." After attempting to tie Chino to the "deranged" and "mentally and emotionally disturbed" straw man that he's spent over half a decade creating, Peterson reversed course and deleted both of his blog postings and all of the commentary. In fact, the deletion was so thorough that even the Google cache entries were blasted from cyberspace. Speculators observed that Peterson will likely never be able to engage in an attempted "unmasking" like this without facing the possibility of a retaliatory "false light" defamation lawsuit.

2. The John Dehlin "Hit Piece." One or two years ago, Mopologetic "Kingpin" Daniel C. Peterson appeared on John Dehlin's popular podcast, "Mormon Stories." DCP wasn't interviewed by Dehlin himself, though; instead, the questions were posed by "Mormon Scholars Testify" contributer Dan Wotherspoon. The interview went extremely well, with posters on both sides of the critic/believer divide praising DCP for his openness and thoroughness. Later, though, he and John Dehlin squared off on the "Comments" section of the "Mormon Stories" Website, and this seemed to be a harbinger of things to come.

Indeed, something was brewing behind the scenes on the secret L-Skinny channels, and in the dark corridors of the Maxwell Institute. It eventually emerged that the Mopologists had long been at work on a kind of "Death Star" designed to attack John Dehlin as a secret, apostate "wolf in sheep's clothing." In April of this year, it was announced that, in fact, a 100+-page "hit piece" was in the works and was set to appear in the already tardy issue of the Mormon Review (nee FARMS Review).

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23562

But the Mopologists failed to anticipate the extent of Dehlin's power. The "hit piece," which was penned by the goat-like apologist Greg Smith, was circulated quickly throughout the LDS power structure, with the end result being MI Director M. Gerald Bradford ordering the issue of the Review canceled. Dehline indicated that, after his entreaties to Prof. Peterson were ignored, he eventually turned to a General Authority for help, and further, a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles stepped in to intervene. (The apologists have steadfastly denied that there was any GA involvement at all--a fact that is belied by the inclusion of a GA on one of the early emails that Dehlin sent out.)

The apologists' main counter to the events was to insist that Dehlin was "invoking" censorship--that he was throwing his weight around in an effort to stifle criticism of his "apostate" activities. Of course, the Mopologists themselves--most notably and recently John Gee--have shifted over to blogging precisely so that they could censor critical commentary at will.

What no one could have realized at the time is that the suppression of the Dehlin Hit Piece was actually a harbinger of things to come. It showed that, in fact, the power structure in Salt Lake City had ceased to feel sympathy for the attack-minded antics of the "classic-FARMS" apologists. It was arguably this event that set in motion the inevitable events that culminated in June of 2012, in the form of this year's Most Significant Happening:


1. The End of FARMS. I doubt that there will ever be a bigger "no brainer" Number 1 event on these lists. I'm referring, of course, to the resignation of Daniel C. Peterson as editor of the FARMS Review, and the dissolution of FARMS as a significant force on the BYU campus. As a consequence of his response to an email sent by MI Director M. Gerald Bradford, the Mopologetic edifice that had resided at Brigham Young University for almost a quarter century, was formally dissolved, and cast out into the Wild West of cyberspace:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24378

It had certainly been a long time coming: critics and TBMs alike had been complaining for years about the problematic "tone" of the Review. The MI apologists had been entangled in lawsuits; they faced accusations about ad hominem attacks and smear campaigns; they made dubious claims; the distorted sources; and they cited incredibly controversial authors as legitimate sources. THe apologists responded by claiming that the whole episode amounted to a kind of coup d'etat staged by Bradford and perhaps one or two other Maxwell Institute associates, and had been planned out and executed over the course of a few years. Though it seems obvious that the move was approved of by a General Authority, the Mopologists--as with the Dehlin incident--have sworn up and down that this isn't the case. Later in the summer, the events achieved a special kind of finality when DCP announced on his blog that he was orderd to clean out his office at the MI, reducing his total office count to 1.

This was the Top Happening in Mopologetics for the year because it represents a seismic shift in what the Mopologists are able to do. Prior to June of this year, they could always claim that their works were formally endorsed by BYU and the LDS Church (this in spite of the silly disclaimer they always include about not speaking for the Church). Even their most absurd, bigoted, and sophomoric publications always carried the BYU imprimatur. Now, though, as Dr. Peterson observed in his now-infamous email to Gerald Bradford, virtually the entire output of the Mopologists' run will now be interpreted as wrongheaded, since the dissolution of FARMS must be seen, in Peterson's own words, as:
as an institutional rebuke of me and all my works
Not just his works--but the works of Midgley, Hamblin, Gee, Smith, and all the others that worked to build FARMS into an attack Machine. Now, though, just as DCP realized, the apologists have been cast out, and they enjoy the status of non-scholarly Internet cranks, just like millions of other people. The events of June 2012 were, to paraphrase Greg Smith, a "game-changer."

* * * * *

Thus concludes this year's list. I fear that 2013 cannot possibly as monumental as 2012 was, but who knows what the future will bring? Certainly, 2012 was so jam-packed with events that I feel obliged to break with tradition and list some of the "Honorable Mention" items that didn't quite make the list:

--The McLays Appear on "Mormon Stories"
--Mitt Romney's Presidential Run
--Droopy Launches a Blog Devoted to Attacking Joanna Brooks
--David Bokovoy is Shafted by BYU
--Randy Bott is Canned for Making Comments About the "Curse of Cain" Doctrine
--Jersey Girl is Permanently Banned from MDB
--Mike Parker Attacks Richard Packham and Others on the FAIR Blog
--Jeremy Orbe Smith Gets Entangled in an Online Dispute with Mr. Stakhanovite
--Scott Lloyd Dines at Chik-Fil-A Because He Hates Gay People

Happy Holidays to all!
topic image
Martin Tanner On The Book Of Abraham
Tuesday, Jan 29, 2013, at 12:47 PM
Original Author(s): Tamboruco
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
Did anyone catch Martin Tanner last night on his weekly Religion Today broadcast on KSL radio? Oh Heavens this misguided fellow really doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to the Book of Abraham (BofA). I wonder if someone from church correlation is reviewing his scripts because his mumbo jumbo is so far off its almost silly.

He said that someone sent him an email recently questioning the authenticity of JS' translation of the BofA.

Here are some things he said that really caught me by surprise and I have been a student of the problems with the BofA for a decade or so now.

1- We only have 2-3% of the papayri that Joseph Smith purchased. Joseph Smith purchased 5 rolls of papayri that averaged (yes folks this is what he said) approx. 15-18 feet in lenghth for a total (yes again folks this is what he said) 125 feet of papayri. This is according to eye witness accounts. The 97% we don't have was lost or burned in the Chicago fire. The 2-3% we have are the funerary texts and not the BofA.

Tamboruco - 125 feet! Wow! My TBM Father told me once that the papayri were so long that the rolls rolled through the door into an adjacent room. I have never heard the 125 feet figure - please fact checkers on the board please tell me where this is coming from.

There are so many problems with this assertion I don't even want to start.

2- Joseph Smith did not translate the papayri that the church now has in its possession.

Tamboruco - What? Seriously? Then what about the vignettes? The vignettes in the papayri the church has matches what was published in the Times and Seasons except for the cephalus piece which is lost.

Martin didn't mention JS' Grammar and Alphabet.

3- Egyptian history is replete with papayri that mention Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Elohim. So for the writings of Abraham to appear in the sarcophagus of a priest would not be uncommon.

Tamboruco - Calling fact checkers on the board again - really? Elohim shows up in Egyptian history and on papayri?

4- Some Egyptians such as Priests could afford more lavish funerary services and therefore some would have more elaborate papayri in their sarcophagus.

Tamboruco - Ok this may be true but 125 feet of it? Really?

5- The church made every effort to pubish and make known the papayri (Martin made it sound like the church did this right away) that were returned to the church in 1967.

Tamboruco - Oh man! This Martin Tanner is really crazy to assert this. I'd love to hear what Sandra Tanner would say to this. Well, actually I do and this is complete rubish. From what I understand it was intially 'leaked' for four prominent Egytologists who found nothing noteworthy expect that this was a funerary text for a dying Priest. And of course we all know that Hugh Nibley took a crack at it.
topic image
Public Relations - What The Mopologists Can't Understand
Monday, Feb 25, 2013, at 09:59 AM
Original Author(s): Robuchan
Topic: APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
Church has some problems:
  • historical information available on the internet is causing a lot of members to stumble
  • church got overly aggressive on politics and is now looking conservative and old and mean
  • church has a lack of diversity, making non white, republican, nuclear family types feel uncomfortable
What the apologists don't get is that these are real problems that the church actually acknowledges are problems and are trying to correct. The church is backing off the anti-gay propaganda. Per Marlin K Jensen, the church realizes they are bleeding members, especially young adults, and they're looking at how to fix it.

As for apologetics: Terryl Givens is the new role model for church scholars. Acknowledge the "warts", be nice to the enemies, show empathy to apostates, point to the good things the church does, shrug your shoulders, and say "you just go to have faith". Dan Peterson's asshole/bully approach has been flushed down the toilet.

Who's more likely to get an "I'm a Mormon" video? Harley Davidson rider with long hair that wears a blue shirt to church or clean cut, suit wearing guy? A single mom, lawyer and child rights advocate or the Molly Mormon stay at home mom? Brandon Flowers or Dan Peterson?

The church is increasingly intentionally vague in matters of doctrine and politics. They want to encourage a big tent atmosphere. Focus on believing in Jesus and being good to each other, and let's set up a really big tent around everything else.

Dehlin is dangerously close to the edge on the liberal side of things. But frankly, Mopologists are dangerously close the edge on the conservative side of things. And the church suffers from both these. The church wants and needs the Dehlin side of things. That's where they get the I'm a Mormon people. That's where they can point to when the media comes and can say "see we don't hate gays, we're normal, we're young and hip and cool". Yes, they'd like them to tone things down and they'd like a little more control over this group, but they certainly don't want to cut them out or even force them all to shave and vote Republican. On the TBM side, yes they want their obedience and consecration. Those people that live and die for the church is what generates all the service hours the church needs to progress. But they don't want to control them too, they don't want this group starting a war with the NOM's, causing a divide, saying stupid stuff on blogs, and otherwise making the church look old, stale, and out of touch.

Between John Dehlin and Dan Peterson, if the church had to choose to keep one and toss one, DCP would be kicked to the curb. He's not adding any value. In fact, he's hurting things.

I haven't followed all this as closely as many of you, but it's very easy to believe that the church has tried to make DCP and his gang aware of this changing dynamic for quite some time, and they have just been too dense or too rebellious to comply. In the end, the church doesn't care much about the individual when the reputation and image of the entire church is at stake, and DCP has been chewed up and spit out.

What's so fascinating to me is that I think the Mopologists must understand what's going on. You've got two rational decisions. Step in line or fight back. They are choosing a third option. They are fighting, but not fighting back at the Mormon hierarchy that is beating them down, but they are fighting back at the apostates. ?? I just don't get it. And with every shot they fire at the apostates, they are getting themselves in deeper and deeper trouble with the Mormon hierarchy.
 
mcimg
HOME
FAQ
CONTACT ME
369 TOPICS
THE EX-MORMON FORUMS
Google
Search The
Mormon Curtain




WWW
Mormon Curtain

How to navigate:
  • Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
  • Click the red arrow on the article to return to the top.
  • Right-Click and copythe "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
Archived Blogs:
Squish The Mopologist: Why Mopologetics Is Bad For Mormonism
The Apologists Are Contradicting Official Church Doctrine
Another Apologist Crackpot
Wanting It Both Ways: A Book Of Mormon Apologist's Dilemma
My Favorites From The Ministry Of Excuses
This Is How I Understand The Role Of The Mormon Apologists.
Return And Report - Went To A Presentation By "Firm" About "Archealogical Evidences Of The Book Of Mormon"
The Miracle Of Apologetics
Three Little Things
Top Reasons Why Being A Church Apologist Is A Great Gig
Apologist Sleight Of Hand
Confusing Tradition With Doctrine
Mormon Times Reporter Michael Degroote
Self Righteous Peter Priesthood Blogs, "To The Wives And Children Of Men Who Apostatize", Advocating Divorce
Same Old Themes From LDS Apologetics
The Plague Of Moplogetics
Postmodernism In The Service Of Mormon Apologetics
Something To Read And Then Questions For Christians And Especially Apologists
Book of Mormon Archaeological News?
The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics, 2011
Mormon Voices : Mormon Leadership, Putting Their Hand In The Political Pot!
R. Scott Lloyd Goes To Chik-Fil-A
The Top Ten Happenings In Mopologetics, 2012
Martin Tanner On The Book Of Abraham
Public Relations - What The Mopologists Can't Understand
5,403 Articles In 369 Topics
TopicImage TOPIC INDEX (369 Topics)
TopicImage AUTHOR INDEX

  · ADAM GOD DOCTRINE (4)
  · APOLOGISTS - SECTION 1 (25)
  · APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2 (25)
  · ARTICLES OF FAITH (1)
  · BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD - PEOPLE (14)
  · BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD - SECTION 1 (18)
  · BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD - SECTION 2 (14)
  · BLACKS AND MORMONISM (12)
  · BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD (9)
  · BLOOD ATONEMENT (3)
  · BOB BENNETT (1)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 1 (25)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 2 (25)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 3 (25)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 4 (25)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 5 (25)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 6 (19)
  · BONNEVILLE COMMUNICATIONS (2)
  · BOOK OF ABRAHAM - SECTION 1 (24)
  · BOOK OF ABRAHAM - SECTION 2 (23)
  · BOOK OF MORMON - SECTION 1 (25)
  · BOOK OF MORMON - SECTION 2 (25)
  · BOOK OF MORMON - SECTION 3 (15)
  · BOOK OF MORMON EVIDENCES (18)
  · BOOK OF MORMON GEOGRAPHY (24)
  · BOOK OF MORMON WITNESSES (5)
  · BOOK REVIEW - ROUGH STONE ROLLING (28)
  · BOOKS - AUTHORS AND DESCRIPTIONS (12)
  · BOOKS - COMMENTS AND REVIEWS - SECTION 1 (26)
  · BOOKS - COMMENTS AND REVIEWS - SECTION 2 (15)
  · BOY SCOUTS (19)
  · BOYD K. PACKER - SECTION 1 (21)
  · BOYD K. PACKER - SECTION 2 (9)
  · BRIGHAM YOUNG (24)
  · BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY - SECTION 1 (25)
  · BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY - SECTION 2 (28)
  · BRUCE C. HAFEN (4)
  · BRUCE D. PORTER (1)
  · BRUCE R. MCCONKIE (7)
  · CALLINGS (11)
  · CATHOLIC CHURCH (5)
  · CHANGING DOCTRINE (11)
  · CHILDREN AND MORMONISM - SECTION 1 (24)
  · CHILDREN AND MORMONISM - SECTION 2 (23)
  · CHRIS BUTTARS (1)
  · CHURCH LEADERSHIP (3)
  · CHURCH PROPAGANDA - SECTION 1 (5)
  · CHURCH PUBLISHED MAGAZINES - SECTION 1 (25)
  · CHURCH PUBLISHED MAGAZINES - SECTION 2 (24)
  · CHURCH TEACHING MANUALS (10)
  · CHURCH VAULTS (4)
  · CITY CREEK CENTER (23)
  · CIVIL UNIONS (12)
  · CLEON SKOUSEN (2)
  · COGNITIVE DISSONANCE (2)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 1 (24)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 2 (21)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 3 (24)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 4 (22)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 5 (35)
  · CONCISE DICTIONARY OF MORMONISM (14)
  · D. MICHAEL QUINN (1)
  · D. TODD CHRISTOFFERSON (3)
  · DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 1 (19)
  · DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2 (18)
  · DANIEL C. PETERSON - SECTION 1 (22)
  · DANIEL C. PETERSON - SECTION 2 (24)
  · DANIEL C. PETERSON - SECTION 3 (30)
  · DANITES (4)
  · DAVID A. BEDNAR (15)
  · DAVID O. MCKAY (6)
  · DAVID R. STONE (1)
  · DAVID WHITMER (1)
  · DELBERT L. STAPLEY (1)
  · DESERET NEWS (2)
  · DIETER F. UCHTDORF (8)
  · DNA (23)
  · DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS (8)
  · DON JESSE (2)
  · ELAINE S. DALTON (5)
  · EMMA SMITH (4)
  · ENSIGN PEAK (1)
  · EX-MORMON FOUNDATION (33)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 1 (35)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 10 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 11 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 12 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 13 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 14 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 15 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 16 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 17 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 18 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 19 (26)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 2 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 20 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 21 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 22 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 23 (28)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 3 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 4 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 5 (23)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 6 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 7 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 8 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 9 (26)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 1 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 10 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 11 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 12 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 13 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 14 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 15 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 16 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 17 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 18 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 19 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 2 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 20 (24)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 21 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 22 (24)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 23 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 24 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 25 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 26 (52)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 3 (21)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 4 (22)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 5 (24)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 6 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 7 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 8 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 9 (26)
  · EXCOMMUNICATION AND COURTS OF LOVE (19)
  · EZRA TAFT BENSON - SECTION 1 (7)
  · EZRA TAFT BENSON - SECTION 2 (2)
  · FACIAL HAIR (6)
  · FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1 (25)
  · FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2 (24)
  · FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 3 (19)
  · FAITH PROMOTING RUMORS (11)
  · FARMS (28)
  · FIRST VISION - SECTION 1 (18)
  · FIRST VISION - SECTION 2 (3)
  · FOOD STORAGE (3)
  · FUNDAMENTALIST LDS (7)
  · GENERAL AUTHORITIES (27)
  · GENERAL CONFERENCE (12)
  · GENERAL NEWS (5)
  · GEORGE P. LEE (1)
  · GORDON B. HINCKLEY - SECTION 1 (23)
  · GORDON B. HINCKLEY - SECTION 2 (20)
  · GORDON B. HINCKLEY - SECTION 3 (22)
  · GRANT PALMER (8)
  · GREGORY L. SMITH (9)
  · GUNNISON MASSACRE (1)
  · H. DAVID BURTON (2)
  · HAROLD B. LEE (1)
  · HATE MAIL I RECEIVE (23)
  · HAUNS MILL (2)
  · HBO BIG LOVE (12)
  · HEBER C. KIMBALL (4)
  · HELEN RADKEY (17)
  · HELLEN MAR KIMBALL (4)
  · HENRY B. EYRING (5)
  · HOLIDAYS (12)
  · HOME AND VISITING TEACHING (9)
  · HOWARD W. HUNTER (1)
  · HUGH NIBLEY (11)
  · HYMNS (7)
  · INTERVIEWS IN MORMONISM (15)
  · JAMES E. FAUST (7)
  · JEFF LINDSAY (6)
  · JEFFREY MELDRUM (1)
  · JEFFREY R. HOLLAND (30)
  · JEFFREY S. NIELSEN (11)
  · JOHN GEE (1)
  · JOHN L. LUND (3)
  · JOHN L. SORENSON (3)
  · JOHN TAYLOR (1)
  · JOSEPH B. WIRTHLIN (1)
  · JOSEPH F. SMITH (1)
  · JOSEPH FIELDING SMITH (6)
  · JOSEPH SITATI (1)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - POLYGAMY - SECTION 1 (21)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - POLYGAMY - SECTION 2 (21)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - PROPHECY (8)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - SECTION 1 (25)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - SECTION 2 (23)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - SECTION 3 (22)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - SECTION 4 (30)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - SEER STONES (7)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - WORSHIP (13)
  · JUDAISM (3)
  · JULIE B. BECK (6)
  · KEITH B. MCMULLIN (1)
  · KERRY MUHLESTEIN (8)
  · KERRY SHIRTS (6)
  · KINDERHOOK PLATES (6)
  · KIRTLAND BANK (6)
  · KIRTLAND EGYPTIAN PAPERS (17)
  · L. TOM PERRY (4)
  · LAMANITE PLACEMENT PROGRAM (3)
  · LAMANITES - SECTION 1 (34)
  · LANCE B. WICKMAN (1)
  · LARRY ECHO HAWK (1)
  · LDS CHURCH - SECTION 1 (18)
  · LDS CHURCH OFFICE BUILDING (9)
  · LDS SOCIAL SERVICES (3)
  · LGBT - AND MORMONISM - SECTION 1 (39)
  · LORENZO SNOW (1)
  · LOUIS C. MIDGLEY (5)
  · LYNN A. MICKELSEN (2)
  · LYNN G. ROBBINS (1)
  · M. RUSSELL BALLARD (11)
  · MARK E. PETERSON (6)
  · MARK HOFFMAN (12)
  · MARLIN JENSEN (3)
  · MARRIOTT (2)
  · MARTIN HARRIS (4)
  · MASONS (16)
  · MELCHIZEDEK/AARONIC PRIESTHOOD (8)
  · MERRILL J. BATEMAN (2)
  · MICHAEL R. ASH - SECTION 1 (23)
  · MISSIONARIES - SECTION 1 (25)
  · MISSIONARIES - SECTION 2 (25)
  · MISSIONARIES - SECTION 3 (25)
  · MISSIONARIES - SECTION 4 (25)
  · MISSIONARIES - SECTION 5 (17)
  · MISSIONARIES - SECTION 6 (16)
  · MITT ROMNEY - SECTION 1 (24)
  · MITT ROMNEY - SECTION 2 (21)
  · MITT ROMNEY - SECTION 3 (18)
  · MORE GOOD FOUNDATION (1)
  · MORMON CELEBRITIES (14)
  · MORMON CHURCH HISTORY (8)
  · MORMON CHURCH PR (13)
  · MORMON CLASSES (1)
  · MORMON DOCTRINE (33)
  · MORMON FUNERALS (12)
  · MORMON GARMENTS - SECTION 1 (20)
  · MORMON HANDCARTS (10)
  · MORMON INTERPRETER (2)
  · MORMON MARRIAGE EXCLUSIONS (1)
  · MORMON MEMBERSHIP (38)
  · MORMON MONEY - SECTION 1 (25)
  · MORMON MONEY - SECTION 2 (25)
  · MORMON MONEY - SECTION 3 (18)
  · MORMON NEWSROOM (5)
  · MORMON POLITICAL ISSUES (5)
  · MORMON RACISM (18)
  · MORMON TEMPLE CEREMONIES (38)
  · MORMON TEMPLE CHANGES (15)
  · MORMON TEMPLES - SECTION 1 (25)
  · MORMON TEMPLES - SECTION 2 (25)
  · MORMON TEMPLES - SECTION 3 (25)
  · MORMON TEMPLES - SECTION 4 (38)
  · MORMON VISITOR CENTERS (9)
  · MORMON WARDS AND STAKE CENTERS (1)
  · MORMONS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM (0)
  · MORMONTHINK (14)
  · MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE (20)
  · MURPHY TRANSCRIPT (1)
  · NATALIE R. COLLINS (11)
  · NAUVOO (3)
  · NAUVOO EXPOSITOR (1)
  · NEAL A. MAXWELL - SECTION 1 (1)
  · NEAL A. MAXWELL INSTITUTE (1)
  · NEIL L. ANDERSEN - SECTION 1 (3)
  · OBEDIENCE - PAY, PRAY, OBEY (15)
  · OBJECT LESSONS (14)
  · OLIVER COWDREY (6)
  · ORRIN HATCH (5)
  · PARLEY P. PRATT (11)
  · PATRIARCHAL BLESSING (5)
  · PAUL H. DUNN (5)
  · PBS DOCUMENTARY THE MORMONS (17)
  · PERSECUTION (9)
  · PIONEER DAY (3)
  · PLAN OF SALVATION (4)
  · POLYGAMY - SECTION 1 (26)
  · POLYGAMY - SECTION 2 (24)
  · POLYGAMY - SECTION 3 (15)
  · PRIESTHOOD BLESSINGS (1)
  · PRIMARY (1)
  · PROCLAMATIONS (1)
  · PROPOSITION 8 (20)
  · PROPOSITION 8 COMMENTS (11)
  · QUENTIN L. COOK (10)
  · RELIEF SOCIETY (14)
  · RESIGNATION PROCESS (24)
  · RICHARD G. HINCKLEY (2)
  · RICHARD G. SCOTT (7)
  · RICHARD LYMAN BUSHMAN (11)
  · RICHARD TURLEY (1)
  · ROBERT D. HALES (5)
  · ROBERT L. MILLET (6)
  · RODNEY L. MELDRUM (12)
  · ROYAL SKOUSEN (2)
  · RUNTU'S RINCON (73)
  · RUSSELL M. NELSON (13)
  · SACRAMENT MEETING (11)
  · SALT LAKE TRIBUNE (1)
  · SCOTT D. WHITING (1)
  · SCOTT GORDON (4)
  · SEMINARY (5)
  · SERVICE AND CHARITY (25)
  · SHERI L. DEW (1)
  · SHIELDS RESEARCH - MORMON APOLOGETICS (4)
  · SIDNEY RIGDON (7)
  · SIMON SOUTHERTON (32)
  · SPALDING MANUSCRIPT (6)
  · SPENCER W. KIMBALL (10)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 1 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 11 (27)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 12 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 13 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 14 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 15 (11)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 3 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 4 (26)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 5 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 6 (26)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 7 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 8 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 9 (25)
  · STORIES - SECTION 1 (1)
  · SUNSTONE FOUNDATION (2)
  · SURVEILLANCE (SCMC) (11)
  · TAD R. CALLISTER (1)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 1 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 2 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 3 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 4 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 5 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 6 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 7 (7)
  · TALKS - SECTION 1 (1)
  · TEMPLE WEDDINGS (6)
  · TEMPLES - NAMES (1)
  · THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE (1)
  · THE SINGLE WARDS (3)
  · THOMAS S. MONSON - SECTION 1 (29)
  · TIME (4)
  · TITHING - SECTION 1 (25)
  · TITHING - SECTION 2 (25)
  · TITHING - SECTION 3 (7)
  · UGO PEREGO (3)
  · UNNANOUNCED, UNINVITED AND UNWELCOME (35)
  · UTAH LIGHTHOUSE MINISTRY (3)
  · VALERIE HUDSON (3)
  · VAN HALE (16)
  · VAUGHN J. FEATHERSTONE (1)
  · VIDEOS (30)
  · WARD CLEANING (3)
  · WARREN SNOW (1)
  · WELFARE - SECTION 1 (0)
  · WENDY L. WATSON (4)
  · WHITE AND DELIGHTSOME (11)
  · WILFORD WOODRUFF (6)
  · WILLIAM HAMBLIN (8)
  · WILLIAM LAW (1)
  · WILLIAM SCHRYVER (5)
  · WILLIAM WINES PHELPS (3)
  · WOMEN AND MORMONISM - SECTION 1 (24)
  · WOMEN AND MORMONISM - SECTION 2 (25)
  · WOMEN AND MORMONISM - SECTION 3 (35)
  · WORD OF WISDOM (7)
Copyright And Info
Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated.

Website © 2005-2013

Compiled With: Caligra 1.121

HOSTED BY



AVOBASE

AvoBase is a light-weight robust point of sale software tool.

If you sell Avon, Stampin-Up, Scentsy, Mary-Kay? AvoBase is for you.

AvoBase can sell from any of them - and even sell from ALL of them at the same time.

And not just Avon, AvoBase can sell nearly ANYTHING.

Sell your product, track your customers and your taxes - all in one easy to use application.

Download FREE today at AvoBase.com.