Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon — Page 18

RicOlie_2 said:

I've got a new question for you. In Matthew 15:18 (or verse 17, can't remember for sure off the top of my head) Jesus says "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

So my question is, how do you reconcile that with the corruption you believe occurred, causing the Church to fall away from the truth?

 Well, there's more than one way you might interpret that.  First, in spite of temporary apostasy, one might argue that ultimately the gates of hell shall not prevail against God's church.

But the way we see it is a little different from you.  The name Peter means rock, which is the Catholic interpretation on which Christ will build his church.  But Christ is also called the Rock of Israel, and many Protestant will say that he is referring to his building the church upon himself, and even if the church might go into apostasy, true believers in Christ will still be built upon the Rock.  But if you go back, starting at v. 15 (of chapter 16, not 15, BTW), you see that Christ refers to revelation between God and Peter.  God the rock, Peter the rock, and the revelation that God gives to his prophets, taken as a whole, are the rock that the gates of hell shall not prevail against.  As long as God speaks to man via his prophets, his church shall stand. 

darth_ender said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I've got a new question for you. In Matthew 15:18 (or verse 17, can't remember for sure off the top of my head) Jesus says "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

So my question is, how do you reconcile that with the corruption you believe occurred, causing the Church to fall away from the truth?

 Well, there's more than one way you might interpret that.  First, in spite of temporary apostasy, one might argue that ultimately the gates of hell shall not prevail against God's church.

But the way we see it is a little different from you.  The name Peter means rock, which is the Catholic interpretation on which Christ will build his church.  But Christ is also called the Rock of Israel, and many Protestant will say that he is referring to his building the church upon himself, and even if the church might go into apostasy, true believers in Christ will still be built upon the Rock.  But if you go back, starting at v. 15 (of chapter 16, not 15, BTW), you see that Christ refers to revelation between God and Peter.  God the rock, Peter the rock, and the revelation that God gives to his prophets, taken as a whole, are the rock that the gates of hell shall not prevail against.  As long as God speaks to man via his prophets, his church shall stand. 

 Alright, that mostly makes sense. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, even though the context seems to imply that Christ continues to speak about Peter and not himself. This could be argued to be a translational error, so I'll let it be.

Just so everyone knows, I'm not ignoring y'all.  I've just been very busy.  I will reply to your comments soon.  When I log on, I only have had very brief moments to glance at things.

Well, it should make you happy that I have a beef with HotRod now as well.  Though I won't make a thread about it. ;-)

Well, I'm done making threads.  I think they've been fun, but they've obviously alienated a few folks.  I'll keep it more localized.  In any case, I'll be writing a few posts for you soon.  Sorry so busy.  Maybe I'll have time to figure out what your beef with him is.

Jaitea said:

darth_ender said:

The man essentially said the church doesn't have priestesses because women are too busy with the important job of mother. His wife was the "home manager".

 That's his view.  The real reason is, well, to put it frinkly, because God said so :P

 Now I don't want you to think this is me on my high horse again,......but this type of answer was what I found on the LDS site & the reason why I annoyed you earlier,.....it's the 'don't ask' or 'just because' reasoning.

I have 2 kids, if my son asks me for £10 and I ask him what he wants it for and he answers,...'just' or 'because',..... those aren't proper reasons,.....I'll press him until I find out what it's for, then I'll make a decision whether I give it to him or not.

I hear parents giving reasons to kids why they aren't allowed to do things or have things with, 'because I said so!'....this isn't an answer, it's a don't bother me response....It's better to give a reason why you think that what they want is too expensive or what they want to do is too dangerous etc.

The explanaton why women can't be priests in the Catholic Church has an explanation, which you can reason with, you can question that reason because of the changes in society today,.....but the explanations in the LDS to coffee drinking, women priests etc as 'The Lord says so'......to me......personally......sound half baked.

I have known you and respectected you for a few years _ender, and I know you are a wise and intelligent guy, but what harm would it do if you question.

In the Protestant Church I remember that the Lord encourages people to question, not just to follow.

Again, I'm trying not to push too much, just for you to take a step backwards to look at it from my perspective, I know you love your faith

J

Trying to respond to those threads I was unable to address before.

In my church is probably among the most exploratory of faiths.  Many leaders have spoken of evolution as an outright lie, yet at the LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University, evolution is taught in biology classes and other leaders have endorsed the theory.  We have many who are very involved in science, politics, etc.  We are a well educated people, and we really are involved in research in many different fields.  I believe that we are far more prone to questioning and seeking our own answers than most Protestants.

I will also say that I've questioned many things many times in the past two decades.  I am a person of both skepticism and faith, which probably sounds like an oxymoron.  I have found a point where I can exercise both natures to the degree I feel comfortable with.  But let me phrase it this way: believing in God requires faith.  If I understand the reasoning for every little thing, where is the faith?  If I only believe what I understand, or obey what I can justify, where is the faith? Let's look at other aspects of faith.  I believe that man Jesus of Nazareth was more than any other man, that he was and is the anointed one, the Messiah of the Jews, the Christ of all mankind!  Why?  Because...God said so, and I believe that he has confirmed it in my heart.  I don't fully understand why God's plan required the sacrifice of a perfect being (yes, I understand the theology behind it, but that doesn't mean I understand everything).  Ultimately, I accept what God has said because I have faith.  Such is the nature of everything I believe.  Women and the priesthood is no different.

As for Catholic reasoning, I will probably need a link to Ric's post, as I began skimming his thread when things got lengthy and I got behind.  I may have even skimmed it if it was here.  I don't know why Catholics justify all-male priesthood.

Let me turn the tables a bit as well.  How often have you questioned what society has deemed acceptable?  How often have you dissented from what is commonly believed to be right?  Society is no better a determinant of what's right or wrong than anything else.  Societies are varied and differ across the globe.  Which society do you choose to follow?  The one in which you live?  In German society in 1942, it was acceptable to turn in your Jewish neighbors and those harboring them.  Would you do the same?  I imagine not.  Now imagine the world in 50 years.  What if your ideals remain the same, yet those of ever changing society are different?  What if your grandchildren challenged your ideals?  Would you change simply because what you hold to be true is different from what the rest of the nation believes?

My point here is that I'm not so sure you really question society either.  And when you do, either now or in the future, maybe you're right to be in the minority.  To believe that women are not inferior, yet have a different role to play, perhaps even one that is less prominent but no less important, does not necessarily mean that I am wrong.  Millions of brainwashed Mormon women ;) are quite content with what they believe God has in mind for them, and don't see it as a sexist policy.  Sometimes God has things set up a certain way that we don't understand.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't follow.  Understanding often comes later, and we realize that his reasoning was quite sound.  That is faith.

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV's Frink said:

Are any of the top leadership women?

 Yes.

https://www.lds.org/church/leaders/general-auxiliaries?lang=eng

Though admittedly, they are outnumbered greatly.

https://www.lds.org/church/leaders?lang=eng

 If they are part of the top leadership...why aren't they on the same page?  Why are they "Auxiliaries" and not "Authorities"?

The definitions of these two words sets the women up as inferior in the organizational structure.

 How carefully did you look at that page.  There are men in the Auxiliary leadership as well.  The reason why they are auxiliaries is because the First Presidency, Apostles, Quorums of 70, and Presiding Bishopric are all priesthood authorities.  Women don't hold the priesthood.  The auxiliary organizations are not priesthood, and thus the leadership over those aspects are auxiliary leadership.  Aren't the women of my church better qualified to determine if they are equal to men than you are?  Most feel that they are equal, even if they don't hold the priesthood.

This article might be interesting, about the wife of our previous prophet.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/480033287/Marjorie-Hinckley----Every-bit-his-equal.html?pg=all

On a tangential note, the church formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has ordained women to priesthood offices since the 1980s. 

I still find the use of the two words important, but I'm willing to drop it at this point.

That article was a puff piece, btw :p

You know, sometimes I can't help but feel that you look for opportunities and excuses to get offended.  And sometimes your determination to do so interferes with any further reasoning.  I've pointed out several reasons for not interpreting things in the light you are, and you still strive to find some other little thing to justify remaining annoyed.  I don't say this to be rude, and I'm not feeling defensive or sensitive right now, but sometimes I just am at a loss at how to get you to even address some things.  I know you're willing to drop it, but I pointed out there are men in the auxiliary organizations, that it has nothing to do with inferiority of the person, but of the non-priesthood nature of the organization they are supporting.  I explained the reasons why priesthood is difficult to interpret as a power-grabbing/clinging opportunity, etc.  And that's fine that you called the article a puff piece because I know that's exactly what it is.  It's not empirical, it's anecdotal, a woman sharing her opinion of why she doesn't feel any less than her husband even though her husband was the most prominent figure in our church.  It's this sort of personal story/emotional reasoning that usually resonates with politically correct folks, but not when it counters their perspective I guess.

Forgive me.  I feel like the phrasing sounds harsh and antagonistic, but I really am intending it to sound more observational.  Sorry.

I feel like my reasoning was perfectly rational.  Maybe they should have chosen better titles.  Or perhaps you need to refresh yourself on the dictionary definition of the two words.

Again, I'm willing to move on.

EDIT:too much alcohol taken

J

TV's Frink said:

I feel like my reasoning was perfectly rational.  Maybe they should have chosen better titles.  Or perhaps you need to refresh yourself on the dictionary definition of the two words.

Again, I'm willing to move on.

 Not irrational, just simplistic, ignoring the bulk of my responses to focus on rather trite aspects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_organization_(LDS_Church)

Again, the priesthood remains the priesthood, the governing aspect of the church.  Obviously if women don't have the priesthood, they won't govern in the primary governing body.  But even the male-presided bodies in the auxiliary organizations remain non-priesthood in nature, and therefore are auxiliary (Young Men and Sunday School).  Hopefully this is more understandable, but if not, I'm fine with dropping it.

Jaitea said:

EDIT:too much alcohol taken

J

 I wish I'd responded to this before you removed it.  I did read it.  It was almost like a 'testimony' of why you don't believe in God or religion ;)

Your comment did not offend.  I do, however, feel this thread (as well as the Catholic thread) have become far more like "Reform the foolish believer" threads rather than engaging in understanding why we believe what we believe.  I don't mind that sort of discussion, but it would probably be better in its own thread, where the OP doesn't feel compelled to defend religion on his own.  You don't have to believe in God, but I assure you that 50 years down the road, people still will.  Instead of dwelling on what damage this world may have seen from religion, look at the good it has provided.  Most great discoveries have been performed by religious believers.  The freedoms enjoyed by this world's greatest nations have been founded by believers.  It can be used for ill, but so can the lack of religion.  If you truly subscribe to the belief that religion is the reason for most suffering on earth, then I encourage you to think things through a little more, my friend.

I think I'll start a new thread soon.

Well said, darth_ender.

darth_ender said:

TV's Frink said:

I feel like my reasoning was perfectly rational.  Maybe they should have chosen better titles.  Or perhaps you need to refresh yourself on the dictionary definition of the two words.

Again, I'm willing to move on.

 Not irrational, just simplistic, ignoring the bulk of my responses to focus on rather trite aspects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_organization_(LDS_Church)

Again, the priesthood remains the priesthood, the governing aspect of the church.  Obviously if women don't have the priesthood, they won't govern in the primary governing body.  But even the male-presided bodies in the auxiliary organizations remain non-priesthood in nature, and therefore are auxiliary (Young Men and Sunday School).  Hopefully this is more understandable, but if not, I'm fine with dropping it.

 ...

An auxiliary organization is a secondary body of church government within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) that is "established for moral, educational, and benevolent purposes."^[1] As their name suggests, LDS Church auxiliary organizations are ancillary to the governing power of the priesthood in the church. The five auxiliary organizations of the LDS Church are Primary, Relief Society, Sunday School, Young Men, and Young Women.

The existence of church auxiliary organizations as a means of assisting the priesthood is based the Apostle Paul's statement that God has established "helps" and "governments" in the church to assist the apostles and prophets who lead the church.^[2] Apostle Harold B. Lee taught that "an auxiliary is to be an aid to the priesthood in watching over the Church and also an aid to the home, under the direction and … cooperation [of] the priesthood."^[3] The purpose of the auxiliary organizations is to help “plant and make grow … a testimony of Christ and of the Gospel."^[4]

According to Joseph F. Smith, church auxiliary organizations are temporary organizations which may be created and discontinued as the needs of the church and the priesthood hierarchy change.^[5] As President of the Church, Smith further stated:

We expect to see the day, if we live long enough ... when every council of the Priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will understand its duty; will assume its own responsibility, will magnify its calling, and fill its place in the Church, to the uttermost, according to the intelligence and ability possessed by it. When that day shall come, there will not be so much necessity for work that is now being done by the auxiliary organizations, because it will be done by the regular quorums of the Priesthood.^[6]

I mean, come on!  Secondary, ancillary to governing power, assisting, aid, under direction of, temporary....how can you not see the words that describe an organization that is not at the top of the food chain?

Congratulations, women are part of the leadership that assists the real leadership.

darth_ender said:

 Your comment did not offend.  I do, however, feel this thread (as well as the Catholic thread) have become far more like "Reform the foolish believer" threads rather than engaging in understanding why we believe what we believe.  I don't mind that sort of discussion, but it would probably be better in its own thread, where the OP doesn't feel compelled to defend religion on his own.  You don't have to believe in God, but I assure you that 50 years down the road, people still will.  Instead of dwelling on what damage this world may have seen from religion, look at the good it has provided.  Most great discoveries have been performed by religious believers.  The freedoms enjoyed by this world's greatest nations have been founded by believers.  It can be used for ill, but so can the lack of religion.  If you truly subscribe to the belief that religion is the reason for most suffering on earth, then I encourage you to think things through a little more, my friend.

I think I'll start a new thread soon.

 I'm sure you probably know the recent history of Northern Ireland, where I live, and are aware that things have been pretty good for a decade or so, last Christmas we had a bit of trouble, demonstrations leading to riots etc, I work in a video production unit and have been involved in making a film demonstrating the GOOD work that the Clergy have done in trying to maintain peace in this region. They have taken an active role in keeping all denominations talking through the EU Peace III initiative....(European Funding), so I have heard testimonies of some fantastic work and initiatives that has been done over the past year

I don't think I have ever said that I viewed that most suffering on earth to be the result of religion and I don't think you need to patronise me by advising me to think things through.

I have never been rude to you or Ric2, I've just asked questions that (i think) are loopholes in your faith....to make you question.....I don't think you are foolish, or that I am wise, some times when you are so close to something, you don't see what it looks like as others see it from afar

J

My reply was in response to your deleted comment, which implied that in 50 years, the world would be better off as most people abandoned religion.  Unless I misinterpreted.  No need to take offense.  I'm glad you recognize such good.  I've heard many atheists who attribute all evil in the world to religion.

The devil is responsible for some evil. ;-)

Jaitea said:

darth_ender said:

 Your comment did not offend.  I do, however, feel this thread (as well as the Catholic thread) have become far more like "Reform the foolish believer" threads rather than engaging in understanding why we believe what we believe.  I don't mind that sort of discussion, but it would probably be better in its own thread, where the OP doesn't feel compelled to defend religion on his own.  You don't have to believe in God, but I assure you that 50 years down the road, people still will.  Instead of dwelling on what damage this world may have seen from religion, look at the good it has provided.  Most great discoveries have been performed by religious believers.  The freedoms enjoyed by this world's greatest nations have been founded by believers.  It can be used for ill, but so can the lack of religion.  If you truly subscribe to the belief that religion is the reason for most suffering on earth, then I encourage you to think things through a little more, my friend.

I think I'll start a new thread soon.

I don't think I have ever said that I viewed that most suffering on earth to be the result of religion and I don't think you need to patronise me by advising me to think things through.

As you said, perhaps alcohol made you come across the wrong way, but you heavily implied that religion will go extinct relatively soon and that it has been the cause of most suffering.

I have never been rude to you or Ric2, I've just asked questions that (i think) are loopholes in your faith....to make you question.....I don't think you are foolish, or that I am wise, some times when you are so close to something, you don't see what it looks like as others see it from afar

J

 You sometimes came across as one of those "superior intellect" types, and though I was never really offended, some (most of your comments were polite) comments seemed slightly rude or patronizing.

RicOlie_2 said:

As you said, perhaps alcohol made you come across the wrong way, but you heavily implied that religion will go extinct relatively soon and that it has been the cause of most suffering.

I do feel with the advances in space exploration and the understanding of the cosmos we are on the verge of truly discovering the origins of life.....look where we were 50 years ago

RicOlie_2 said:

Jaitea said:

I have never been rude to you or Ric2, I've just asked questions that (i think) are loopholes in your faith....to make you question.....I don't think you are foolish, or that I am wise, some times when you are so close to something, you don't see what it looks like as others see it from afar

J

 You sometimes came across as one of those "superior intellect" types, and though I was never really offended, some (most of your comments were polite) comments seemed slightly rude or patronizing.

 I'm sorry if I came across that way,.....it must be the way I type:)

J

Jaitea said:

RicOlie_2 said:

As you said, perhaps alcohol made you come across the wrong way, but you heavily implied that religion will go extinct relatively soon and that it has been the cause of most suffering.

I do feel with the advances in space exploration and the understanding of the cosmos we are on the verge of truly discovering the origins of life.....look where we were 50 years ago

That would be interesting, but I don't believe the discovery of the origins of life would preclude the existence of God or a god.

RicOlie_2 said:

Jaitea said:

I have never been rude to you or Ric2, I've just asked questions that (i think) are loopholes in your faith....to make you question.....I don't think you are foolish, or that I am wise, some times when you are so close to something, you don't see what it looks like as others see it from afar

J

 You sometimes came across as one of those "superior intellect" types, and though I was never really offended, some (most of your comments were polite) comments seemed slightly rude or patronizing.

 I'm sorry if I came across that way,.....it must be the way I type:)

J

 No worries. :)

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV's Frink said:

I feel like my reasoning was perfectly rational.  Maybe they should have chosen better titles.  Or perhaps you need to refresh yourself on the dictionary definition of the two words.

Again, I'm willing to move on.

 Not irrational, just simplistic, ignoring the bulk of my responses to focus on rather trite aspects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_organization_(LDS_Church)

Again, the priesthood remains the priesthood, the governing aspect of the church.  Obviously if women don't have the priesthood, they won't govern in the primary governing body.  But even the male-presided bodies in the auxiliary organizations remain non-priesthood in nature, and therefore are auxiliary (Young Men and Sunday School).  Hopefully this is more understandable, but if not, I'm fine with dropping it.

 ...

An auxiliary organization is a secondary body of church government within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) that is "established for moral, educational, and benevolent purposes."^[1] As their name suggests, LDS Church auxiliary organizations are ancillary to the governing power of the priesthood in the church. The five auxiliary organizations of the LDS Church are Primary, Relief Society, Sunday School, Young Men, and Young Women.

The existence of church auxiliary organizations as a means of assisting the priesthood is based the Apostle Paul's statement that God has established "helps" and "governments" in the church to assist the apostles and prophets who lead the church.^[2] Apostle Harold B. Lee taught that "an auxiliary is to be an aid to the priesthood in watching over the Church and also an aid to the home, under the direction and … cooperation [of] the priesthood."^[3] The purpose of the auxiliary organizations is to help “plant and make grow … a testimony of Christ and of the Gospel."^[4]

According to Joseph F. Smith, church auxiliary organizations are temporary organizations which may be created and discontinued as the needs of the church and the priesthood hierarchy change.^[5] As President of the Church, Smith further stated:

We expect to see the day, if we live long enough ... when every council of the Priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will understand its duty; will assume its own responsibility, will magnify its calling, and fill its place in the Church, to the uttermost, according to the intelligence and ability possessed by it. When that day shall come, there will not be so much necessity for work that is now being done by the auxiliary organizations, because it will be done by the regular quorums of the Priesthood.^[6]

I mean, come on!  Secondary, ancillary to governing power, assisting, aid, under direction of, temporary....how can you not see the words that describe an organization that is not at the top of the food chain?

Congratulations, women are part of the leadership that assists the real leadership.

 I think we must be on different pages here.  I fully admitted that they served under the direction of the priesthood.  The priesthood is the governing power.  All the auxiliaries are supportive of the priesthood authorities.  You asked if there were high up women authorities.  I said yes.  I consider both the priesthood leadership and auxiliary leadership part of the highest leadership.  My response remains true.

What you (and Jaitea, and all others) continue to ignore is my question as to how a male-dominated priesthood constitutes any real power.  If the priesthood is bogus (which obviously any non-Mormon would believe), then the only power it wields is worldly gain.  And what worldly gain is there to be had from the priesthood?  I see none.  And while you may consider the secondary, ancillary, assisting, temporary, aiding nature of the auxiliaries to be a sign of inferiority, you might be surprised at how the top leadership does not simply make decisions willy-nilly without consulting with those organizations.  If a policy change might affect women, the First Presidency and Apostles will meet with the auxiliary women leaders and other women and obtain their opinion, seeking to find a consensus as to the proper course of action.

You might find such an organization sexist, and by modern societal standards I can see why that is so.  But my church does not see different roles as a mark of superior and inferior, but rather as a means of organization, of order, of guidelines of aspiration.  You don't have to like it.  I often don't like it.  I'm really a somewhat shy fellow, a major home body, and lack the ambition of my wife.  Sometimes I wish the roles were reversed.  But I believe that I should aspire to be what God has in mind for me.

darth_ender said:

TV's Frink said:

Incidentally, this looks like an interesting website:

http://mormonthink.com/introductionweb.htm

And I particularly enjoyed this:

What if we're wrong?

People wonder what if by some chance the Church is 100% true, and that there is some sort of fantastic explanation for all the historical problems - would God punish us in the next life?

God gave us a brain and expects us to use it.  We're expected to use every means at our disposal to seek the truth and to live our lives in a desirable way.  "The Glory of God is intelligence" is something we hear at church all the time.

If the LDS Church is somehow 100% true, we're not too worried about defending our beliefs on judgment day.  If we end up 'on trial' for not believing what the LDS Church has taught, the information on this website alone would justify our actions.

We would ask God to explain the following:

• Why doesn't Joseph Smith's translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham and the Egyptian papyri match what Egyptologists say they mean?
• Why does the Book of Mormon mention so many things that did not exist in the Americas when the BOM took place such as horses, elephants, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc.?
• Why were we told the Book of Mormon was translated from gold plates that were never used, when Joseph put his face in a hat and looked at a common stone he found while digging a well?
• Why did Joseph marry 11 men's wives while they were still married to their husbands?

The lists of questions would go on for several pages.  If God does indeed exist, and he's the fair judge that we all believe him to be, then how could He condemn anyone for not believing a story fraught with so many problems?

Likewise if the church isn't true, then I don't think a just God would punish anyone for believing in it if they really believed it, although perhaps some people would be chided for IGNORING the red flags and continuing to believe a lie out of fear or willful ignorance.  If the church isn't true then it does not have the power to 'save' you anyway.

LDS people would probably have the same response if, in the next life, they found out that Scientology was really God's one, true church.  They would bring up the absurd problems with that religion and expect absolution for not believing in that religion.

According to LDS lore, Joseph Smith himself will have some role in the final judgment of our souls.  Shortly before he died, Joseph said "no man knows my history; if I hadn't lived it I wouldn't have believed it myself."  Well, if even Joseph wouldn't have believed it, then how can anyone blame us for not believing it either?

That looks like a pretty cool site.  There are also good points in this quote, though I'm surprised that some of the "questionable" things they bring up are not easily explained, even by genuine objective historians.  Let me give an example: David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses to the authenticity is quoted as stating that Joseph Smith put his face in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon.  But other sources, particularly later sources indicate that the translation process was done in different methods, including simply using the plates and no assistive device.  Check out this link for more info.  The same goes for other claims, and if you want, I can point out the flawed mentions.  What's interesting to me is that there are other more serious poitns that could have been made, so I'm not trying to simply make excuses.  They really could have used better examples.  I myself appreciate their mission in spite of the crises of faith it can cause for many.  I feel I've had to reason through many things to arrive at my point, and now I find myself a stronger believer in spite of realizing how much I don't understand.

 Did some reading lately with regards to this site and its counterpoint, FAIR (the site I defer to so often for elaborate answers).  Let me begin by making sure I'm providing a balanced perspective and showing links to the Mormonthink argument first.

Mormonthink Response to FAIR

This is in response to FAIR's criticisms of the site, but I'm not sure which came first, so here is FAIR's latest comments as well.

A FairMormon Analysis of the Critical Website mormonthink.com

I have to say that even if I try to remove as much bias from my opinion as possible, FAIR by far has the stronger argument.  Let me point out some flaws in MormonThink's reasoning.

1) It claims that FAIR is attacking ad hominem by quoting their remarks made in other forums and sites, as those quotes don't actually represent the official position of MormonThink itself.  Well, that's not the definition of an ad hominem attack, which is indeed a fallacy.  However, when you are quoting statements that clarify a person's motives and beliefs, even from other sources, you are actually making a legitimate argument about the people themselves.  It in itself does not counter the arguments made, but it does show true motives.  Those on MormonThink who claim to be members of the LDS Church and remain faithful, but simply have honest questions are, in reality, being dishonest.  Many admitted that they have left the Church or only remain members in order to convince others to leave.  They say they merely ask for a reform in policy and openness, but their other words show that they actually want to destroy the Church and the testimonies of the faithful.  So these are not attacks "against the man"; they are indicators of credibility, motive, and hypocrisy, all relevant when having such an argument.

2) MormonThink does not offer a very balanced perspective as they assert.  This is all fine and good, if that were admitted upfront.  FAIR does not offer a balanced perspective either, as both of the above links point out (one in defense, one in attack).  But FAIR states that the purpose of their site is to argue in favor of the validity of Mormonism and promote faith, and they argue very well and thoroughly.  They offer point, then counterpoint.  MormonThink states that it will use both critical and apologist views and allow folks to decide for themselves.  However, as I've read several of their articles, it appears more like they offer others' criticisms, apologists' defenses, and MormonThink's conclusions, always casting the Church in a negative light with their final words.  I've yet to see them conclude that the critics are really wrong on any point.  MormonThink criticizes FAIR for not taking a balanced view, while they themselves do the same under the pretense of fairness.

And for what it's worth, the tone of a person's writings affects perception, and I see little effort to conceal contempt in several articles from the supposedly unbiased MormonThink site.  But those who are not skilled in debate may fail to realize the influence of such tone and may allow their testimonies to be shaped solely by those who try to bring down their faith.  Subtle sarcasm and statements assuming common knowledge ("Everyone knows that such and such is the case") slip through those unprepared to cope with such tactics.  This is not the kindly site it pretends to be.

3) MormonThink claims that several items of criticism have not been addressed or are hidden from general membership.  While it's true that many items are not discussed much in Church itself, the Church has been rather open, and continues to be more so in recent years.  I pointed out the article on blacks and the priesthood earlier.  Also of note is the Joseph Smith Papers online, an attempted and ongoing collection of every single document Joseph ever wrote or dictated, including what may be less than flattering, and open to every individual with an Internet connection.  But aside from the Church's official openness (is it not best to give milk before  meat?), the Church has not disallowed or hindered research in such areas of study, and every single point MormonThink has criticized has been addressed numerous times in various manners by a number of faithful members of the Church.  Sure, they do not represent the official Church position, but the Church is aware of their activities and does not discourage such.  The fact is that the points of the critics have been addressed, and the frequent assertions that they have not is dishonest.

In short, to TV's Frink and others, feel free to read MormonThink.com.  I'm sure it's very informative.  But don't be fooled into believing that you are getting a balanced perspective.

Is there any Archeological evidence for the Lamanites and Nephites and other pre-Columbian peoples mentioned in the book of Mormon?

Does the church really believe than native Americans were originally middle-Eastern and their skin was changed because they became delightsome?

What does delightsome mean?

How could it spread so quickly?