Containing 5,709 Articles Spanning 365 Topics  
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery  
Archives From 2005 thru 2014  
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 "FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1". 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.
Total Articles: 25
FAIR (recently renamed to FAIRMORMON) is a Mormon Apologetic website run by Allen Wyatt, Scott Gordon, Daniel Peterson and other Mormon Apologists.
FAIR - Apologetic Arm Of The LDS Corporation Not Sponsorded By LDS Inc.
Saturday, Apr 8, 2006, at 08:13 AM
Original Author(s): Infymus
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
FAIR is an apologetic organization not supported by the LDS Church. While FARMS is on the payroll of LDS, Inc., FAIR is not.

Allen Wyatt heads FAIR and will not hesitate in backstabbing or low-balling to defend the LDS Faith.

During the time that Grant Palmer was being prosecuted by the LDS Church, the Recovery groups were talking about registering such domain names as When they went to register the name, Allen Wyatt of FAIR already took it. He scans the Ex-Mormon forums for URLS and registers them to prevent Ex-Mormons from creating sites.

Ultimately FAIR Apologetics works on the following principals:
  • Deny, deny, deny, testify, testify, and testify.
  • Ignore the message attack the messenger.
  • Question the validity of any source that might present negative ideas. Distract the posters from the message in the quote to some side issue.
  • Ask for a scriptural basis for a claim that something is an embarrassing church doctrine when it was plainly taught by prophets.
  • Criticize any negative quote as biased or from a disaffected member.
  • When painted into a logical corner resort to the trump card: testify on faith and a witness from the Holy Ghost.
  • Assume anyone who is not a Mormon is not living his or her life righteously enough to hear the Holy Ghost.
FAIR, like FARMS exists to contradict, counteract, suppress, withhold and dismiss any claims made by persons outside the LDS Church (read: Anti-Mormon). FAIR does this by discrediting authors, creating answers to Mormon questions and dismissing any Anti-Mormon claims in any way they can.

BYU Professors such as Daniel C. Peterson spend countless hours on the FAIR message boards.

Allen Wyatt registered dozens of miss-leading domains around the Utah Light House Ministery site - and re-directing them to FAIR in attempts to thwart visitors from finding out information about the church.

Recently Allen Wyatt of FAIR has registered over 300 website URLS hoping to confuse those searching for information on Mormonism to be funneled into FAIR owned sites. This tactic is reminiscent of porn site operators.

In my opinion, both Allen Wyatt and Daniel C. Peterson will lie, cheat, steal, miss-direct, miss-quote, obfuscate, white-wash or invent anything it takes to keep Mormons in the church.
Lighthouse: The Group Says A Pro-lds Foundation Is Infringing On Its Trademarks
Tuesday, Apr 26, 2005, at 07:34 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
This is not a new tactic for Allen Wyatt. During the time that Grant Palmer was being prosecuted by the LDS Church, the Recovery groups were talking about registering such domain names as "". When they went to register the name, it was already taken by Allen Wyatt of FAIR. The man is despicable. He scans the Ex-Mormon forums for URLS and registers them to prevent Ex-Mormons from creating sites. That is the exact reason why I registered, .net and .org to prevent such an action.

Domain name:
Administrative Contact:
Discovery Computing Inc.
Allen Wyatt (
Fax: +1.4806294161
PO Box 2145
Mesa, AZ 85214

Maybe it's time to register, what do you think Allen? OOPS, Allen has already registered Ok, how about

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

A Salt Lake City organization that is critical of the LDS Church filed suit Monday accusing a pro-Mormon foundation of trademark infringement and unfair competition.

The suit by Utah Lighthouse Ministry Inc. accuses The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) of registering 13 Internet domain names associated with UTLM, including those of founders Jerald and Sandra Tanner, to create confusion.

The Tanners are former members and longtime critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, while FAIR says it is "dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS [Mormon] doctrine, belief and practice."

The alleged cybersquatting - the practice of registering or using Internet domain names with the intent of profiting from the good will associated with someone else's trademark - takes visitors looking for UTLM publications to a selection of hyperlinks to articles posted on FAIR's Web site instead, the suit contends. In addition, it says, these Internet sites "bear a remarkable resemblance of 'look and feel' to the UTLM Web site."

The ministry's site is; FAIR has been using the names and The names in dispute include,, and gerald

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court, names as defendants FAIR, which has addresses in New York City and Mesa, Ariz.; FAIR president Scott Gordon of Davis, Calif.; Discovery Computing Inc. of Mesa, which provides Web services to FAIR; and Discovery officers Allen L. Wyatt and Debra M. Wyatt.

The legal action seeks transfer to UTLM of the 13 domain names, which were registered in 2003 and 2004 by Allen Wyatt, and triple the unspecified monetary damages suffered by the ministry.

Wyatt said he has not seen the suit, but contended that viewers could tell the difference between the FAIR and UTLM sites.

"There's no confusion as to whether it's her [Sandra Tanner's] organization or not," he said. "I just grabbed the names because they were available."

However, he acknowledged that he disagrees with the Tanners' position and said taking the domain names is a valid free speech exercise.

Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
Tanners' Lawsuit Against FAIR - Link To Copy Of The Complaint
Wednesday, Apr 27, 2005, at 08:34 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
Utah Lighthouse Ministries (Jerald and Sandra Tanner's organization) has filed suit against FAIR and several people associated with it. The accusations include cybersquatting, trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition.

A link to a PDF copy of the complaint can be found here:

Don't bother clicking if you don't want to read legalese. I'm sure one of our resident lawyers can post a nice summary for lay-people.

To save our bandwidth, please download the file to your own computer before reading it. From most browsers you can do this by right-clicking on the link and selecting "Save Target As..." or "Save Link As...". Mac users with one mouse button are on their own.
From A 1st Year Law Student's Perspective On Re: Tanners Vs FAIR
Wednesday, Apr 27, 2005, at 02:25 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
One of our professors just warned us yesterday in our last class not to give legal advice, so this is just an observation.

After skimming, it looks like the Tanners have a good case because they incorporated in 1982, and Wyatt registered the sites in question in 1997.

Wyatt included the names of the Tanners in the meta tags of Wyatt also copied the "look and feel" of the Tanners web site. The Wyatts sold FAIR books through bogus web sites. Now the Tanners want the Wyatts to hand over the web sites, and pay damages for deceptive business practices.

The attorneys for UTLM have great evidence in that they have copies of Whois registration, and they have all kinds of evidence showing that Wyatt was trying to drive traffic to FAIR by deception. See the VW case I referred to in another thread.

If it were just about religious ideology, there wouldn't be a big problem. However, since Wyatt and the Tanners both sell books, it is now a business problem.

The last nail in the coffin of the Wyatts is that they didn't even use anything resembling the domain names they registered. So it's a logical conclusion that they were trying to use the trademarks that the Tanners built up.

FAIR used the same "look and feel" as UTLM. That's an extremely deceptive business practice and will really be frowned upon by the court, IMNSHO.

The web sites by the Wyatts had links to the FAIR LDS book store. The problem is that people might think they are buying books from the Tanners, but they are actually getting FAIR books or CDs. Sandra Tanner even bought a book from FAIR to illustrate this. She got it through one of the 13 bogus web sites, run by FAIR. Interstate commerce - federal crime!

So, here's what the tanners are asking for.

1. Transfer ownership of the contested web sites to the Tanners. This is standard, and many large companies have done it. See: Click For Link

The VW case sets precedent - there could have even been one before that, too.

2. Damages for trademark infringement ($1k to $100k per domain).

3. Attorney fees.

I might have missed something, but that's the thrust of it.

I think the Tanners have a good case. And FAIR really lost some points in my book over this one. I have read a lot of people who criticize Fair, but now I see why with my own two eyes.
Historical Or Hysterical Anti-mormons And Documentary Sources
Thursday, May 19, 2005, at 07:25 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
FAIR has released a new document. An excerpt:
"In this presentation I would like to focus on how anti-Mormons present a fragmentary, one-sided, and often distorted view of the Prophet Joseph Smith through the selective use of documents. This is a very broad topic and so because of space limitations I will only be sharing a small part of the research that I have conducted in this area. I believe that by the end of this paper you will see that while anti-Mormons like to claim that their version of Joseph Smith's story is 'historical' it can actually be quite 'hysterical' for those who have taken the time to closely examine the relevant documents."
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.

First, Matthew Brown boasts:
"In this presentation I would like to focus on how anti-Mormons present a fragmentary, one-sided, and often distorted view of the Prophet Joseph Smith through the selective use of documents."
Just underneath that, he displays a timeline of "documents pertaining to Smith's character." But predictably, he makes no mention whatsoever of Smith's "glass-looking" trial at Bainbridge, New York, on March 20, 1826---even though the event was verified by multiple sources, and even some LDS scholars are finally admitting that the event occurred. See

and Abram Benton's 1831 article in the "Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate" at

Gee, could it be possible that Brown didn't mention those sources because his agenda was to "present a fragmentary, one-sided, and often distorted view of the Prophet Joseph Smith through the selective use of documents"?

Brown states "One recent anti-Mormon book cites a statement made in 1831 by Abner Cole who said that it was 'quite certain that the prophet himself never made any serious pretensions to religion until his late pretended revelation'–meaning the Book of Mormon.' "

Hmmm, Fawn Brodie quoted Cole's statement in her 1945 "No Man Knows My History" (on page 23 of the 1971 edition), and it has been quoted by numerous other authors since then. Meaning, this is not exactly a "recent" or a new accusation. Brown is apparently unable to perceive that Cole's statement was based on his own experiences with Smith and family. All the quotes Brown uses are from late apologetic efforts from Smith's relatives. The dozens of witnesses who made statements about Smith's 1820's character who were NOT related to him (and were NOT making a living or fame off the Mormon church in some way or another) testified that the Smith family was generally lazy and shiftless, and spent years engaging in occult folk-magic scams. Also, there are other published reports from 1831-32 besides Cole's which document how Smith evolved from an occult folk-magician into a Biblical-style "prophet" between 1827 and 1829. And none of the accounts of his March 1826 "glass-looking" trial say anything about Joseph claiming to have seen God and Jesus, the angel Moroni, golden plates, etc. They describe him as a young two-bit con artist who was caught trying to scam old Josiah Stowell, and being embarrassed and apologetic for his offense.

One of Brown's major sources is William Smith's late recollection---but for some reason, Brown doesn't mention William's statement that Joseph was first inspired to seek religion after hearing the preaching of evangelist George Lane (which would have been in 1823 or 24), rather than being inspired by reading in his Bible in 1820, as Joseph claimed in his "official history." And Joseph claimed that he was "persecuted" by local ministers for telling them he had seen a heavenly vision, while William says that Joseph was actually inspired by the preacher Lane. Gee, I wonder why Brown didn't mention that?

Under the section titled "Dishonest?", Brown quotes three witnesses to Smith's good character: William Smith, Lorenzo Snow, and Oliver Cowdery. But Brown quotes none of the more than sixty witnesses who were Joseph's acquaintances in the 1820s, and who swore legal affidavits which painted a more complete and balanced picture of Joseph's character, including details of his long folk-magic career.

Also, it's rather amusing that Brown uses "character witnesses" to testify to Smith's honesty, when we can find numerous instances and statements which illustrates Smith's DIShonesty from his own mouth and pen, and from the pages of his own church's history. Joseph's own bald-faced lies regarding his secret, illicit polygamy practice, for instance, tell us everything we need to know about his character, even without considering any antagonistic sources.

Brown cites RLDS researcher William Kelley's 1881 interview (note 3) with John Stafford regarding the Smith family's Bible reading, but Brown doesn't balance that out with some contrasting reports of the Smith family's 1820's character which were also recorded by Kelley, such as Ezra Pierce's recollection:
"They were poor, and got along by working by the day; the old man had a farm up there, and a log house upon it. The old man Smith and Hyrum were coopers; I never went to the same school that the boys did--they dug for money sometimes; young Joe, he had a stone that he could look through and see where the money was; there were a good many others who dug with them, and Joe used to play all kinds of tricks upon them." Who said they dug for money? "Oh, I have heard it lots of times. If my brother was living, he could tell you all about it." Others dug besides the Smiths, did they? "Yes; there were others who dug; but I always heard that the Smiths dug the most; one of the Chase's, a young lady, had a stone which she claimed she could look through and see money buried." Did anybody dig for her? "Yes; I guess they did. They said so." Then young Joe had some opposition in the seeing-money business? "That is what everybody said." Who was this Miss Chase? Where does she live? "She is dead now; she was a sister to Abel Chase, who lives upon the Palmyra Road."
Kelley also interviewed John Gilbert, who in 1829 had set the type for the printing of the Book of Mormon:

"Did the Smiths ever dig for money?" "Yes; I can tell you where you can find persons who know all about that; can take you to the very place."

Why didn't Brown cite such quotes in his article? Gee, could it be because they spoke of the Smith family's practice of peep-stoning and money-digging, which LDS apologists have been trying to deny or explain away for 175 years?

This is enough for one post, but I trust that readers can see that this FAIR author is anything but "fair" in his rendition of Joseph Smith's history. By omitting accounts which differ with his glowing, practically perfect image of Smith, the author commits the same offense of which he accuses "anti-Mormon" writers. Where I come from, we call that a "hypocrite."
FAIR Is Hopelessly Desperate For Sources Showing A First Vision Account With Both The Father And The Son Prior To 1838
Wednesday, Jun 22, 2005, at 08:26 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
FAIR has an ironically fantastic "critique" of anti-Mormon documentary sources, here:

The real kicker I had to share with you all: about a third of the way down is a green slide (you can click to expand it) with a timeline showing all the many times prior to 1838 that Joseph Smith is on record as mentioning a Heavenly Father at the first vision as well as Jesus. So this clearly blows any contrary allegations by anti-Mormons out of the water, eh?

Now take a closer look at the references. You need to poke around the article's footnotes to find them all. As it turns out, all of the cited references, though they describe events in the 1830's, date from 1893 at the earliest to 1937! So since someone in 1893 (that one happens to be my own dear great-great-great-grandfather, Edward Stevenson) recalls Joseph Smith once describing seeing both the Father and the Son, in... "oh, it must have been 1834 for sure!"... that proves it folks: there's no possible way a man in his 80s would have misattributed something he heard someone say 55 years earlier as something he heard that someone say 59 years earlier. You just don't get historical evidence any more solid than that! At least, not when it happens to confirm what you would desperately like to find confirming evidence for.

Any sign or whisper of a critical evaluation of source material - which I thought was pretty much the definition of history, right back to Herodotus - from the budding historian who wrote this piece? Actually, based on the Stevenson reference, written in 1893 when Stevenson was in his eighties, the author says, without qualification or reservation, " 1834 we know that he related it...", referring to Joseph relating a first vision account that included a separate Heavenly Father. We know. And at 1893, my great-great-great-grandpa's memoir (available at BYU Special Collections, and an interesting read) is by far the closest source they can come up with to indicate any record of Joseph describing a first vision with a separate Heavenly Father prior to 1838. The next source, chronologically, is a cite to the Young Women's Journal dating from 1907, only 75+ years after the fact... when memories have become even sharper...

This is the best they can do to argue that Joseph Smith didn't change his mind 18 years after the supposed first vision, and only then up the ante by describing having seen a Heavenly Father in addition to Jesus? There is no single earlier record, from the 18 years prior, of the single most crucial claim to Joseph's divine calling, and from a man and a church with an almost superhuman will to publish materials about their faith to send to all corners of Western civilization? No written record until 1893, of Joseph having described prior to 1838 having seen a separate Heavenly Father?

Ironically, this eminently FAIR article is entitled "Historical or Hysterical – Anti-Mormons and Documentary Sources". I'll leave it to the reader to decide where the article's interpretation of documentary sources lies on the historical-hysterical spectrum.
FAIR Document And New BoD
Wednesday, Jul 6, 2005, at 09:06 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
This post regards the document found at:

In it, it states:

"In response to the LDS doctrine of eternal marriage, you may hear Matthew 22:23-30... brought up as proof that there won't be marriage in heaven."

"There are two things you need to appreciate in order to answer this claim:

1. The Restored Gospel is not "biblicist" in nature, meaning we believe that the word of God is not subject to individual interpretation, but is that which proceeds from the mouth of a living prophet"

"Biblicism vs. Continuing Revelation. Believing in continuing relation means the LDS believe we have prophets who can receive revelation on an ongoing basis on behalf of Jesus Christ. So to answer an objection like this it suffices only to show that the Bible does not contradict the doctrine of eternal marriage; we do not have to show from where in the Bible we get the doctrine. We teach from the scriptures but we teach the Restored Gospel, not the traditional collection of philosophy, creeds and theologies put together by men over the past nearly two millennia."

What does that say to me? Well it may have been already obvious to you but there are a couple things that are a new "revelation" to me.

First, the Bible doesn't matter to any of the LDS because it "is not subject to individual interpretation." So why do Mormons have any Scripture since they cannot receive truth through it apart from the prophet?

Second, why do LDS missionaries use the Bible to prove certain difficult theologies (such as baptism for the dead) instead of merely quoting the living prophet? I realize there is an easy answer of "they are trying to deceive those familiar with the Bible as a basis to sell their own interpretation" but this is just one more dishonest approach for Mormons.

Third, notice the phrase "living prophet". Does that mean all of the Restored Gospel can only come through the current living prophet and not from the past dead ones? That would definitely narrow down the "Gospel" to several pages and not the Books we have now. Or is it, "The past doctrine is good unless proven otherwise."

What I propose they do to be more open and above board concerning just being able for LDS and non-LDS to keep up with current doctrine/revelation would be to print a current "Bible" of all their doctrine each year to keep an updated and concise point of reference for all LDS beliefs. If there was a Mormon questioning a past doctrine that they overheard someone talk about, they could just refer to the "2005 Book of Doctrine" (BoD). If a prospective wants more insight into the church, read the BoD. Do away once and for all with the Journal of Discourses, Book of Mormon, KJV Bible, JST Bible, Pearl of Great Price, History of Church, History of JS etc. etc. and all of its inconsistencies and having to have FAIR and FARMS make sense of it all. Start fresh with something current and direct from the Lord (the Living Prophet) with a BoD 2005. It will be the most current and perfect Book ever recorded and handed down to the Saints of the Lord.
Thanks To FAIR I Left The Church
Tuesday, Jul 12, 2005, at 12:50 PM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
As some of you know, FAIR was very instrumental in my decision to leave the church. The apologists on the discussion board left me feeling alone in my concerns and I was personally attacked many times by several of them, mostly by the administration. Right now they have some threads about giving more TLC to people coming there with concerns but I still don't see any changes in their behavior. They also have a thread about "fence sitters" coming to FAIR for help and if they have helped people stay or go.

When I left FAIR my head was spinning from the insanity of the apologist world. I felt like slamming my head in to a brick wall. Thankfully, many posters on the board helped me see that integrity is on the side of the critics. I was very surprised at the lengths apologists will go to lie for their Faith. I wonder how many people have left the church after going to FAIR for help. I just read that they banned Truth Dancer the same time Beastie was banned. I went to FAIR so that I could see if there was more to the history that could change my repulsed feelings about it. I went there to see how my fellow members that knew the true unsanitized versions were able to salvage their testimony. I went there for good discussion about troubling issues with polygamy, modern revelation, secret combinations, polyandry, and Prophets speaking as men vs. for God.

What is FAIR's purpose? They are on constant alert for a troll and end up driving away the people coming for help. Even when they know the person is sincere, they can't handle any critical questions of the church. How can they help people with that attitude? They try and pretend that this stuff shouldn't disturb you. I would say, most people coming there for help like me, are going to have many problems with the church history or they wouldn't have found themselves there in the first place.

"do you have a problem with polygamy?"
"what would bother you about your husband having sex with another woman? Are you jealous?"
"Don't you believe in continuing revelation? You should only worry about what the Prophet of our day has said."
"D and C 132 is about eternal marriage not plural marriage."

The list is endless but makes me crazy. Jullian is one of the cruelest apologists from administ. who gets away with breaking the rules on a daily basis. I wasn't on the board when Daniel c Petersen was but I have heard he caused some to fall away from the church. I would like to thank all the apologists at FAIR for helping me see that I will never be able to overcome the knowledge of church history. To do so requires lying, and slandering of good people. I will never be one of them. It's disturbing that there are people like that in the Mormon church.
What Brigham Really Meant, According To FAIR Members
Thursday, Sep 8, 2005, at 08:11 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."

I think I just might frame this quote on my wall with a caption:

Brigham Young, speaking in defense of African slave women repeatedly raped by their slave owners.

Mormonism began as a racist organization, and Brigham Young's beliefs and statements were against race-mixing, rather than against rape of female Negro slaves. Here's another of his statements which leaves no doubt as to his beliefs:

President Wilford Woodruff Journal 4:97-99 (Feb 1852)]
"Govornor B Youngs address Before the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah upon slavery: He remarked that the whole world were slaves. Eve partook of the forbidden fruit and also Adam and it brought slavery upon all their posterity in some way or other and this will continue untill we become righteous enough to drive the devil and evil from the Earth.

Adam had two sons Kane and Abel. Cain was more given to evil than Abel. Adam was called to offer sacrifice also his sons. The sacrifice of Abel was more acceptable than Canes and Cane took it into his heart to put Abel out of the way so he killed Abel. The Lord said I will not kill Cane But I will put a mark upon him and it is seen in the [face?] of every Negro on the Earth And it is the decree of God that that mark shall remain upon the seed of Cane and the Curse untill all the seed of Abel should be re[deem?]ed and Cane will not receive the priesthood untill or salvation untill all the seed of Abel are Redeemed.

Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him Cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it Before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true and they know it. The Negro cannot hold one particle of Government But the day will Come when all the seed of Cane will be Redeemed and have all the Blessings we have now and a great deal more. But the seed of Abel will be ahead of the seed of Cane to all Eternity.

Let me consent to day to mingle my seed with the seed of Cane. It would Bring the same curse upon me And it would upon any man. And if any man mingles his seed with the seed of Cane the ownly way he Could get rid of it or have salvation would be to Come forward and have his head Cut off and spill his Blood upon the ground. It would also take the life of his Children."
Mormon On FAIR Boards Acknowledges Rudeness Of Regulars (Mormons) On FAIR Boards
Thursday, Sep 8, 2005, at 08:20 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
A few days ago, a FAIRboard newbie posted a question at FAIRboards regarding temple changes:

Is there any official documentation as to why parts of the temple ceremony have been altered...both in 1990 and as recently as January of this year?

I would really like to know why these changes were made.

Thank you for your help!
Rather than reply to the post in the thread, I sent her a respectful private message:
As a preface, quite often before the church implements any changes to anything (like the missionary discussions), they test the waters first. It could be through a "pilot program" (as with the missionary discussions) or [as far as I know] with the temple changes, obtaining anonymous statistics of what members think about the temple; taken from small sample of the church membership. I am not making this up, I have read quite a few remarks by people who were part of said sample.

So without delving into "sacred" things, the church removed parts of the endowment that members thought were either offensive, morbid, or unsettling. Of course any active member of the church will tell you the changes were not the direct result of any such surveys/samples, but that the changes were "inspired."

Now I don't know your membership status, (i.e., non-member, less-active, active, etc.) but I will play it safe and assume you are a believing active member of the church. With that said, it is not my intent to point you down the "wrong" path, but you might get better results regarding the very survey/sample I mentioned if you asked about it at the "Recovery from Mormonism" Bulletin Board. ... As a warning, if you go there, many people can come across as "rude" [implying that TBM trolls are not tolerated] but at the same time, many will answer such a question sincererly if they participated in said survey/sample.
Here is the reply I received from her:
Thank you for your polite and respectful response. I am a long-time member with a tremendous amount of respect for the temple. My question was sincere, and I was treated with incredible hostility from people on this board [i.e., FAIRboards].

I have actually been to the Exmormon Recover Board, and found that most people there are much more respectful of people's views than those [at FAIRboards.]

As you can see, my thread was shut down.

I will take your suggestion.

Thanks again!
It found it interesting to hear a [non-FAIRboard-regular] TBM refer to the many [FAIRboard-regular] TBMs as "hostile" and the exmormons here as "respectful." But of course, any FAIRboard-regular TBM thinks we here are all embittered people "living in sin."
"Is Mormonism a Cult?" - A Rebuttal to FAIR
Monday, Sep 26, 2005, at 08:12 AM
Original Author(s): Luna F.
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
"Is Mormonism a Cult?" – A Rebuttal to FAIR
by Luna F.

Mormonism has been accused of being a cult for many years. Since most people don't have a good understanding of what a cult is, it is easy to both blindly accuse and defend against such imagery as weird ritual, hypnotic mind control, and drooling zombies.

The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) is a Mormon think-tank for combating criticism of Mormonism. Their website has a page devoted to addressing these accusations. ( There are five articles listed on this page. Most take very weak swipes at the topic, using non-secular (doctrine-based) definitions of cults, and explaining why the Mormon Jesus really is Christian. Even the famed author Orson Scott Card takes a stab at it, and falls intellectually short. (The link on the FAIR page is broken. It can be found at

One author, Kim Siever, makes a decent effort, using a checklist written by a secular cult expert, Dr. Michael Langone. However, this paper still glosses over this complex subject. I have to wonder if Siever has ever actually read any secular books about cults. In spite of using Langone's checklist, he still seems more focused on the Christian definition, which emphasizes non-Christian doctrine and unusual ritual. ( - Is Mormonism a Cult by Kim Siever)

Beliefs themselves are not harmful, at least not from an objective, non-religious view. From a scientific angle, it doesn't matter whether a person worships the Trinity or the Godhead or Satan or Beelzebub. These are all arbitrary beliefs that in and of themselves do not harm a person. Some believe in a hellish afterlife for those who mistakenly worship the wrong Savior, but this cannot be proven either way in this life, so we must rely on scientific definitions.

Secular cult experts focus on how an organization controls and deceives its members, and how this is psychologically and materially damaging. Steven Hassan states, "A group should not be considered a 'cult' merely because of its unorthodox beliefs or practices." (Releasing the Bonds, p. 3)

While Siever uses a cult checklist written by a prominent cult expert, he still cannot seem to detach himself from the idea of Christians vs. Mormons. He does not seem to have studied the cult phenomenon beyond visiting a few internet sites. (Perhaps it is not necessary for his eternal salvation?)

When using the Christian definitions of a "cult", it does come down to a comparison between Christian and Mormon doctrine. However, Siever is using a checklist of a secular cult expert, and so we must use the secular definition.

By itself, Langone's list is sufficiently vague enough to allow shallow excuses for why Mormonism does not fit. One cannot fully grasp the cult dynamic in detail by reading a 15-point checklist. (Additionally, there are much more detailed lists available, especially Steven Hassan's BITE model.)

Cult experts have defined cults in much better detail in books and academic papers. Here are a couple of secular definitions:

Steven Hassan: "...destructive cults are distinguished by their use of deception and mind control techniques to undermine a person's free will and make him dependent on the group's leader... A group becomes destructive when its leader actively uses such power to deceive members and to rob them of their individuality and free will." (Releasing the Bonds, pp. 3-4)

It becomes a merely semantic argument to focus on Hassan's use of the word "Leader". Indeed, Mormonism does not make its members dependent on a single group leader. However it is just as destructive to make them dependent upon the group itself, or a collection of group leadership, from the Bishop on up to the Apostles and Prophet.

Dr. Langone himself defines cults in the following way:

"...cults differ from "new religions," "new political movements," "innovative psychotherapies," and other "new" groups in that cults make extensive use of unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control to advance the leader's goals. Of course some groups that cause concern do not meet all the definitional criteria, while others become more or less cultic over time." He goes on to state, "Cults differ from merely authoritarian that the latter are explicit about their goals, are contractual rather than seductive, and usually are accountable to authorities outside the group." (Recovery from Cults, pg 5)

Margaret Singer and Richard J. Ofshe use this definition:

"A cult is a group or movement that, to a significant degree, (a) exhibits great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing, (b) uses a thought-reform program to persuade, control, and socialize members (i.e., to integrate them into the group's unique pattern of relationships, beliefs, values, and practices), (c) systematically induces states of psychological dependency in members, (d) exploits members to advance the leadership's goals, and (e) causes psychological harm to members, their families, and the community." (Recovery from Cults, p. 5)

Siever seems to believe that people accuse Mormonism of culthood only to produce an association to the occult and Satanic. To the Mormon psyche it seems difficult to comprehend why people would waste their time "attacking" the church, unless such people are somehow malicious or evil.

There are other motives. Many of us believe the Church is a harmful cult (based on secular definitions) and that it is psychologically damaging to its members. Many of us are former members who were damaged, and are seeking recovery so we can live healthy, free, and happy lives. We are often concerned for our friends and family members who are still psychologically trapped.

It is difficult for a Mormon to see that they are being manipulated, and so they will avidly deny it. Yet it is the very mark of successful manipulation that the victim be totally unaware, believing they are entirely under their own influence. An in-depth study of cults in general will reveal more on how Mormonism keeps members in line, including social pressure, thought-terminating clichés, reframing, black and white thinking, cognitive dissonance, public commitment, groupspeak (cult jargon), deception, the double-bind (loyalty/betrayal funnel), etc.

Throughout the paper, Siever compares Christianity to Mormonism when looking at cult status. This is a way of finding Mormonism innocent by saying, "Well, it's just as bad as other religions". It's like a used car salesman trying to sell you a car with no engine. When you point this out, he says, "Well, it has wheels and a new battery... and besides, that truck of yours doesn't run so well, either."

To mix analogies, if you look like a duck, walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, you are still a duck, even if it's another water fowl telling you so.

This tactic makes use of a logical fallacy, specifically Tu Quoque. This is fancy Latin for, "You too!" Siever is saying that the Church's similarity to cults isn't a problem, because mainstream Christianity is also similar. Using this approach does not, in fact, prove Mormonism is not a cult. Therefore, his argument is not logical, though it might seem to be. This also distracts the reader from the main point -- a "Red Herring" fallacy.

Siever addresses Langone's list point by point, so I will follow this model, summarizing Siever's views and offering my rebuttal.

The group is focused on a living leader to whom members display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.

Siever focuses on the charismatic aspect of a living leader, and does not even address "excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment".

Langone was seeking to simplify his list, and so did not have room to explain that some cults will focus on commitment to the beliefs, the organization, or multiple leaders. It is irrelevant that Mormons do not worship a single charismatic living leader. It is relevant that most members are extremely committed to the Prophet and other general authorities, and to their beliefs. The pivotal words are "unquestioning" and "excessively zealous".

The Church sets Jesus Christ as its center, but then effectively transfers all of this commitment and power to Church leadership by the doctrine, "...whether by mine [the Lord's] own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." (DandC 1:38)

The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

Siever admits to the proselytizing aspect of the church, and excuses it because Christianity does it, too. A bit of Tu Quoque.

He also does ignores the fact that Mormons strongly emphasize this aspect of the Gospel, more so than most Christian groups. All 19 year old male members are expected to go on a formal mission. They are under enormous religious and social pressure to go. If they do not, they face lowered social status, fewer options for mates, being labeled judgmentally as "less righteous" and other anti-virtues, fewer "blessings", reduced spirituality, and probable scorn from family and friends. These young men and women postpone educational opportunities, leave behind fiancés (who often dump them), and separate from friends and family for a duration of two full years.

"Every member a missionary". Members are strongly encouraged to give religious material to non-member friends and invite them to church social gatherings. Uplifting spiritual stories are told of miraculous conversions. Strong promises are made concerning the afterlife: "And if it so be that you should labor all your days in crying repentance unto this people, and bring, save it be one soul unto me, how great shall be your joy with him in the kingdom of my Father!" (DandC 18:15)

The group is preoccupied with making money.

Again, Siever compares Mormonism to Christianity. He does not point out that the Church stresses tithing at many meetings, and that payment is required for church callings, temple entry, social status, reentry into God's presence, and general overall "worthiness" (linked to self esteem). He dismisses tithing by stating, "I wouldn't label it as a pre-occupation".

Members are made to feel afraid to not pay their tithing. They are interviewed once a year for the express purpose of determining tithe status. They're promised blessings if they pay, and punishment if they don't. Punishment includes social rejection, loss of financial stability, and burning. "...verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming." (DandC 64:23)

Of course members will be pre-occupied with a commandment of such weight.

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

On this point, Siever manages to make mainstream Christianity look worse than Mormonism by comparing medieval churches with modern Mormonism. Apples to oranges. He also emphasizes what the Church says but not what the Church does.

One aspect of mind control involves making a person believe they are free. The Church does indeed verbally encourage members to question. But they also encourage members to obey their leaders and to exercise faith. When a question can't be answered to a member's satisfaction, they're told to accept it on faith. Faith is held as a high virtue, so not accepting something on faith is "bad" and makes the member feel less worthy. This is a very effective means of silencing doubt.

There is also the social factor, which is a very powerful force in a cult. Questions that presuppose the church is true and that the Prophet is called of God are generally acceptable and are never punished. It's ok to ask, "How can I be more faithful?", "What is the Celestial Kingdom like?", and "What did the Liahona look like?" Questions that could undermine faith are socially discouraged. Many ex-Mormons report experiences of social shaming and scorn for asking edgy questions. They are made to feel as if something is wrong with them for not automatically believing.

This is known as a double-bind or loyalty/betrayal funnel. If the member does not ask the "forbidden" questions, they are betraying themselves. If they do, they are "disloyal" (or unfaithful), and are judged "guilty" by the group. The organization can therefore look blameless, because they are openly encouraging questions, while in truth they are discouraging them.

Members are strongly admonished to avoid "anti-Mormon" material. They are told this will weaken their testimony. The label "anti" denotes something very negative, and members believe apostates and anti-Mormons are angry, hateful, pushy, and inspired by the devil. Antis are out to persecute and destroy the church. Their motives are never pure. Seeking this material will cause the Spirit to leave you, and you will no longer be able to discern right from wrong. Members tell personal stories of reading anti-Mormon books and "losing the Spirit", being filled with fear, or becoming "confounded" or confused -- all feelings caused by Satan.

Worthiness interviews attempt to insure members have a testimony by asking if they know the church is true, if they sustain church leadership, etc. If the answer to any of these questions is "No", callings and temple recommends can be denied. Worthiness is also linked to social status and self-esteem.

Siever states that the only time members are excommunicated for their doubts are when they encourage dissent among members. Well, isn't that what Langone is talking about here? Dissent is discouraged and even punished by the Mormon church.

This is where group-speak comes in. Dissent is a "bad word". To a member, this word is like "murmuring", "contention", "rebelliousness", and the spirit of the devil. It conjures up stories of Laman and Lemuel, who were the evil brothers of the Book of Mormon protagonist, Nephi. "...he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another." (3 Nephi 11:29)

Yet to non-members, this word is fairly benign. The American Heritage dictionary defines "dissent" as "v. (1) To differ in opinion or feeling; disagree, (2) To withhold assent or aproval. n. (2) The refusal to conform to the authority or doctrine of an established church; nonconformity."

A non-Mormon would usually see dissent as a good thing. Allowing disagreement is a part of the nature of freedom and individuality. Admitting that your organization has excommunicated people for encouraging "disagreement" or "differing in opinion" is admitting your organization is exerting authoritarian control over your members beliefs, thoughts, and feelings.

Many members have been disfellowshipped and excommunicated for writing and teaching on topics such as Mormon feminism, evolution, genetic science, and unauthorized church history. These have been in forums such as universities and intellectual conferences and publications, forums apart from general church membership. It does not matter how much supporting fact or documentation exists, or that these papers were written by sincere, yet concerned, believers. Questions and doubts were expressed to other members, therefore, the "guilty" member is punished.

What good is a question if it cannot be expressed without punishment? How is the Church really encouraging questions if it disfellowships those who publicly ask?

Mind-numbing techniques (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

Siever picks a few Christian sects who practice speaking in tongues, etc., to make mainstream Christianity appear more cultlike than Mormonism. He claims that of these, Mormonism only practices prayer.

Prayer, in and of itself, has not been demonstrated to be a mind control technique. Excessive prayer has. Mormons are encouraged to "Pray always and not faint", and that you shouldn't do much of anything without praying first. (2 Nephi 32:8-9).

Langone's list of mind-numbing techniques should not be considered exhaustive. Members are also encouraged to fast once a month and as needed for special purposes. Fasting weakens the will, and makes one more suggestible. It is in this state during Fast Sunday that one listens to personal testimonies of others. Fasting is also encouraged during the testimony-gaining process. If one is concerned with a specific church doctrine, are struggling to know if the church is true, or are making a major life decision, they are encouraged to fast while praying and reading the scriptures.

Another well-know mind control technique known as "the thought-terminating cliché". This is a phrase or activity designed to stop undesirable thoughts. Mormonism employs this regularly. The most dramatic examples include:

1) Instructions to hum or sing a hymn when an undesirable thought enters the mind
2) Pray when an undesirable thought enters the mind
3) "Get thee behind me Satan" and other phrases which label the undesirable thought as evil so that it cannot be considered

There are many other thought-stopping clichés that apply to specific situations, such as "Endure to the end", "Be of good cheer", "I will not be tempted beyond that which I'm able," "Do not harden your heart", "Do not crucify the Savior anew", and "Is this [question, reading material, speculation] necessary for my eternal salvation?"

Siever also does not point out that many members feel overwhelmed with the work they need to do. Many are exhausted and depressed. Many members also report they do not get enough sleep. If this is in doubt, try making a list of the number of commandments and "shoulds" given by the Church. It exhausted me just thinking about it. This would count as a "debilitating work routine". Overwork and exhaustion is another form of mind-numbing used by many cult groups.

There are many more subtle thought-control techniques employed by the Church, but these would require more lengthy exploration than this space allows.

The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, get married; leaders may prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth).

Siever points out that members are encouraged to wear modest clothing and he mentions the temple recommend process.

He completely ignores the other points here, both the obvious and the subtle.

He does not mention the required wearing of garments or Mormon dietary restrictions. He does not mention that young members are strongly discouraged from dating non-members, that Mormonism dictates sexuality, that it directs women to stay at home to raise a family, and that it proscribes instructions for almost every other area of a member's life.

While Mormons do not need to ask the Bishop for permission regarding every mundane daily act, members are always encouraged to "Choose the right" in every aspect of their lives. A wrong choice is said to have dire, long-lasting consequences. Even for non-religious life choices, members are instructed to seek council in the scriptures, in fasting, and in prayer. Because of this reliance on "The Spirit", many members are afraid to make even the simplest of choices. Members become susceptible to "revelations" (promptings, visions, and dreams) from fellow members, leaders, and parents, especially in the realm of marriage and careers.

The Church doesn't seem to care about career choices for men, which specific returned missionary you should date and marry, what kind of non-caffeinated non-alcoholic dinner you should eat, what house you should live in, or which wholesome consumer goods you buy with the remaining 90% of your income. But beyond this, the Church has many recommendations for an "upright" Mormon life. Read you scriptures daily, hold family home evening, raise your children well, wear dresses and suits, short hair for men, don't get too many piercings (none of the face), seek after virtuous things of good report, do not watch R rated movies, listen to uplifting music, keep a clean home, do not work on Sunday, do not masturbate, do not have impure thoughts, serve your fellow man, avoid all appearances of evil, develop your talents, be productive, be careful who you associate with, date worthy members, sex is for procreation only, bake cookies, do your home/visiting teaching, and magnify your calling.

If this is not dictating, I don't know what is.

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).

Again Siever ignores the main point of the item. She focuses on the example used, not the statement.

Mormonism is very elitist. Members believe they are elect, the most valiant servants in the pre-existence. Mormons born in these last days are called of God, his chosen people, to be his warriors before the Second Coming. Saturday's Warriors. "...among all these [intelligences/spirits] there were many of the noble and great ones...These I will make my rulers." Abraham 3:22-23.

Mormons identify themselves with most references to Israel in scripture, and "The World" (everyone else) is equated to Babylon. All the responsibilities and good things promised to Israel are promised to Mormons, while the bad things that happen to wicked Babylon will happen to the rest of the world.

While Mormon rhetoric claims everyone is equally loved in the site of God, other doctrines -- and more importantly, attitudes and actions -- contradict this. Mormons believe they have a birthright so long as they continue to keep the lengthy list of commandments. Non-members and less active members are looked down upon as weak and sinful. They are usually treated with less respect. Members who leave the church are labeled "apostates", which has many negative connotations. Exmormons are encouraged to return in condescending, often pitying tones. The "righteous" are exalted, the wicked are smitten.

It is difficult to deny that Mormons believe they are special. It is drilled into their heads in church lessons, conference talks, and hymns. Many hymns use battle imagery to show the righteous slaying sinful enemies. Mormons are to be in the world, but not of the world.

Many of these points also apply to the next item.

The group has a polarized us- versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.

Siever admits to this one, stating that members tend to congregate geographically and when possible, use professional services of fellow members.

He does not stress the "us-vs-them" mentality, which is prevalent in Mormonism. Mormons have a persecution complex, and believe many people are out to destroy the church and make life miserable for innocent members. The attitude seems to be, "You're either with us, or against us."

The outside world is shunned, is considered less desirable to Mormon spirituality. Mormons are proud of being "a peculiar people".

Conflicts arise when Mormons flaunt their self-righteousness, disrespect boundaries, condescend to wicked outsiders, treat non-members and exmormons with disdain, and try to push their beliefs on others by knocking on doors.

The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations).

Siever states that both Mormon and Christian leaders are accountable to God. This of course assumes there is a God to be accountable to.

Langone did not intend this item to mean "accountable to the deity which the cult worships". It means living, earthly authorities. Cult leaders do a lot of unethical things in the name of their deity, holding themselves above the law. When they are only accountable to their God, then they can justify doing anything they claim their God is in favor of, even if such actions are harmful, unethical, and illegal.

Modern Mormonism attempts to follow government laws, however historically Mormon leaders have often been in defiance of worldly authority. Since this is not the forum for discussion of historical Mormonism, I will leave it at that.

The modern Mormon organization keeps many things hidden from their members and the world at large. Because of this, it is difficult to say to what extent the Church is abusing its powers. Because of its non-profit religious status, there is much the church does not have to report, including financial records.

By way of example, there are valid accusations that the Church is practicing for-profit activities with its money such as high salaries and personal perks to upper-leadership and purchases of investment real estate and malls. There are hundreds of reports of sexual abuse by Bishops and other leaders that have been suppressed or brushed aside by internal Church authority. The Church has involved itself in political campaigns without informing members and in defiance of their religious non-profit status.

Through its deception, Mormonism also escapes accountability to its members, which is perhaps even more important. By hiding the church budget, lying about aspects of its history and past doctrines, discouraging or discounting reports of negative experiences of members (especially missionaries), and obfuscating many of its political activities, members are lead to falsely believe an image of their organization which is simply not true. Mormons are not giving their fully informed consent to remain active, believing members.

The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities).

Siever completely dismisses this. For the most part, he is right. The actions members make for the church are generally considered ethical, or at worst, in the margins.

Many affairs, rapes, and sexual molestations are dismissed by local church leaders for the higher good of keeping up appearances.

Boyd K. Packer (an Apostle) said, "there is a temptation 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. [Emphasis added]" Hiding truth, even if it be in the name of "faith promotion", is very unethical.

Many members do not respect the wishes of ex-Mormons who have asked to be left alone. Others do not respect the individual member's autonomy to make good choices, and will intrude.

Many Mormon scholars, especially BYU professors, are "asked" to restrict their teaching and writing of certain subjects, in defiance of personal and academic integrity. Those who have disobeyed have been fired and/or excommunicated.

Young members are taught that it is better to die than to lose one's chastity, and that sexual sin is second in severity only to murder. This has caused many a struggling youth to commit suicide over what they perceive to be unforgivable thoughts and actions.

The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.

Siever does not attempt to deny this one, either. He claims guilt is induced by the Holy Ghost to help with the repentance process.

This is a great example of "reframing". Reframing is a cult technique of explaining something in such a way that it "proves" the organization to be true, even though there may be another plausible explanation.

Guilt can be caused by repetitive guilt-inducing statements and doctrines. If you repeatedly tell someone that eating chocolate is a serious sin, then when that person eats chocolate, they will feel guilty. It is not proof that eating chocolate is immoral, nor is it proof that a spirit is causing the feeling.

Guilt and shame are very effective means of control used by most cults.

According to Mormon belief, if one sins, one loses the Holy Spirit because they're not worthy. So how can it be the Holy Spirit causing the guilt? You've just sinned, so the Spirit has fled. It must be something else causing the guilt. It's not Satan, because he wants you to sin. So that leaves your beliefs as the source of the guilt. Your beliefs come from the Church.

Members' subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest before joining the group.

Siever states that members give up goals that are not in harmony with the Gospel. He states that converts are often disowned by their families.

Many Mormon women give up career goals because of the Church's teachings, essentially sacrificing their entire lives. Young men put careers and relationships on pause for missions (during which they are allowed minimal contact with family). There are a great number of activities that are "off limits" because they are not virtuous, lovely, or of good report, or because they "appear evil". Members are encouraged to be careful of their associations.

Because of the "us-vs-them" and elitist mentality described above, many friends and family members treat apostates with disdain or condescension. Often ex-Mormons are disowned, especially gay ex-Mormons or members claiming sexual abuse. Ex-Mormons in areas highly populated by Mormons will lose their jobs or businesses and will be treated terribly by members, even former friends.

Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group.

Siever mentions church callings, but does not list the many "service opportunities", church meetings, potlucks, and the lengthy list of time-consuming commandments.

If a good member is to spend the minimum amount of time per week attending their duties, they will devote about 22 hours. This includes a three hour block on Sunday, an average of eight hours for their calling, two hours for miscellaneous meetings (including home/visiting teaching), one hour per day reading scriptures and praying, and two hours for Family Home Evening.

If there is conference, you may spend up to ten hours in a single weekend. If you are a youth, you can count one hour per weekday for Seminary, plus firesides and Mutual activities.

If you are really faithful, you will be involved in service activities or a more time-consuming calling. You may also be reading Church magazines, novels, and non-fiction books. You will also be pursuing Church-approved talents, such as music. You will spend most of Sunday at home, keeping the Sabbath holy by reading the scriptures and listening to uplifting music (that's 16 waking hours right there!) Not to mention Scouts and Girl's Camp.

10% of your time at work is actually going to the Church, in the form of money.

Usually members do not consider this to be an inordinate amount of time, because they never stop to add it up. Ex-Mormons are often surprised at how much free time they suddenly have.

Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members

Siever recognizes that Mormons are encouraged to associate with upstanding people, and to date within the faith.

In reality, most Mormons associate only with other Mormons.
This separation is sometimes "commanded", but this division is more likely a natural side-effect of the "us-vs-them" and elitist mindsets. Additionally, the Mormon-specific jargon and culture makes non-members feel confused, uncomfortable, and excluded. This is one purpose that "groupspeak" serves for a cult.


Siever concludes with a dismissal of the cult label for Mormonism, that those who make this un-Christlist accusation are merely trying to associate occult imagery onto the church.

Langone's cult checklist never once mentions Satanism, witchcraft, or soothsaying, but Siever does. Those who seriously study cults are not interested in the doctrines. Figures like Dr. Langone, Steven Hassan, and Margaret Singer are not interested in what deity the religion worships or what rituals they perform. They are interested in the controlling aspects and unethical actions of the organization.

Siever is attempting to discredit serious consideration of the question, "Does Mormonism control and deceive its members?" This question is important and worthy of consideration, because if it is true, millions of lives are being adversely affected. Millions of people are trapped, spiritually abused, shamed, deceived, repressed, and depressed for no greater cause than one organization's increased power and wealth.
FAIR: If You Have Questions Then There Must Be Something Wrong With YOU
Wednesday, Oct 26, 2005, at 10:00 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
There is a thread at FAIR where someone is asking where to go for official answers. As you might imagine, the poster is not receiving any answers.

This reply makes me sick:
"If you want an "official" answer about anything you must go through the chain of authority. . .but don't be surprised if he believes that your questions stem from a lack of faith, a failure to pray, a dearth of scripture study, an unresolved sin. . .you should be able to receive answers yourself from the Spirit, and if you cannot then there is something fundamentally wrong with the communication system. And the assumption is that the communication system will never break down from God's side, so if there is a lack of communication then there must be a problem on your side.

If the Bishop feels inadaquate to field your questions, he can refer you up to the Stake President, who is likely to do the same thing as the Bishop. See all that stuff about assumptions. The Stake President could refer you to the Area authority Seventy, but probably won't. Past the Area Authority Seventy would be a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, and then the office of the First Presidency. This is the official channel for responses. Unfortunately for you, all these men will be more concerned about your Eternal welfare than they will be about finding historic and logical answers to your questions. They will see your questions as symptoms of apostasy and will go looking for root causes. And any answer that you will be given will probably be personal opinion and not "doctrine" at least at the Bishop and Stake President levels. If you are lucky and get an informed (read apologetic) Bishop or Stake President, they may refer you to FAIR or FARMS or have an answer that came from one of those places. But againit isn't doctrinal, it is an informed and faithful opinion."
Edited: My emphasis added
FAIR Board Cracking Down On Polygamy Will Hurt New Doubters
Tuesday, Nov 1, 2005, at 07:23 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
When I first went to the "Fair Board" looking for information (desperately trying to find anything to prove that the polygamy history was false), I was sickened by the TBM responses. Most, if not all of the polygamy defenders would practice if commanded by the Mormon Prophet. Had it not been for the John Corrills, Brackites and Rollos on the board, I would have left the church immediately. I found great comfort in knowing that there were LDS active members who hated polygamy, found it to be abusive to women, and came to the same conclusions I did about the horrific history. This helped me to keep searching for understanding and to also keep my testimony of the restoration/Book of Mormon. Once I realized that I was unable to overcome what I learned, I found it difficult to stop believing because I wanted to rely on others testimonies. If the F-board only allows Pro polygamy discussion then I will no longer lurk on that site. As some of you know, I am still active in church but on the brink of leaving. Isn't FAIR supposed to help people like me? How can they help me understand something that is so emotionally abusive to a woman if they won't even discuss the reality of it?

IMO, most new people go to FAIR because they are struggling with doctrine or history. They are looking for anything to save their testimony. I believe the apologists (and I consider almost every one of the TBM's on there to be an apologist) are so out of touch with the average LDS member. Their feelings don't represent most LDS I discuss this with. (since most LDS don't even know the truth about polygamy)

Now, Dunamis isn't allowing any kind of real thoughts or feelings on the subject. It asks the question: "What is the purpose of FAIR?" If they can't even understand why members are struggling with polygamy history, then they aren't going to help anybody stay in the church.

The FAIR website is self serving. They only want to defend themselves and are not interested in saving the lost sheep. To them it's all about a war between the antis and the apologists. It makes me an anti if I question Joseph promising exaltation to women that will marry him. I guess I am an anti since I am bothered that the Prophets taught plural marriage was the only religion in Heaven.

When will they get it? WHen will the TBM's get that this stuff bothers members to the point of leaving the church? Why do they continue to blame doubters or ex mormons of having some horrible sinful desires or lack of obedience on their struggle? POLYGAMY MAKES MOST PEOPLE SICK TO THEIR STOMACH!

Anybody who believes polygamy can bring blessings and happiness is either a man, or they have some mental disorder. (no offense to the men, I know there are so many men out there who hate this doctrine as much as me)
FAIR Attempts To Blast Hoffman's, "The Golden Pot" Plagarisms To Early Church History
Thursday, Nov 10, 2005, at 08:36 AM
Original Author(s): Noggin
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
I recently became inspired by Tal B. to take a look at just what the brilliant minds over at FAIR or FARMS were saying about the attacks on their faith. I have never done this. I am no scholar, but I thought I might try to see how their explanations would hold up to my non-scholarly brain waves.

I read Grant Palmer's book, "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins" and gleaned much from the pages. I particularly took note to a book called, "The Golden Pot" where I found Mr. Palmer pointing out many significant parallels to early church history. The parallels were obvious plagiarisms by Smith from E.T.A. Hoffman's work, so I wondered if FAIR or FARMS had dared to refute it. Turns out they did. The following article I wrote reviews what FAIR had to say. If I am wrong, I would really appreciate the corrections you might have to show it.

The Golden Pot was published in English in 1827. Hoffman was a sensation in Europe.

From the depths of FAIR apologetics:

"Der golden Topf was first published in Europe in the German language in 1814 and 1819. It was published in French in 1822.24 It was not available in English until 1827 in London and Edinburgh,25 and became available in America that same year. According to Palmer, a man by the name of Luman Walters lived in Paris after the story had been first published and when the story would have been available to him. Palmer suggests, although he offers no real evidence, that Mr. Walters had an unusual interest in the occult and things magical and therefore would surely (despite a lack of evidence) have brought Der golden Topf with him from Europe. "

Noggin: As I will demonstrate below, there is ample evidence as to why any European traveler would indeed bring Hoffman's Golden Pot back with him or her. Hoffman was a brilliant sensation.

FAIR apologetics:
"Mr. Walters moved to Sodus, New York,26 about 25 miles from Palmyra, and lived there at least during the period of 1820 to 1823 when it is suggested that he likely knew Joseph Smith.27 Walters and Joseph Smith were part of a group involved in digging for treasure at Miner's Hill, owned by Abner Cole.

According to Palmer, Luman Walters became acquainted with Joseph Smith during this period, and was thought to be the "most likely conduit" for The Golden Pot to be made available to Joseph Smith. Abner Cole and others claimed that it was during this period the "idea of a 'book' [The Book of Mormon?] was doubtless suggested to the Smiths by one Walters, although they make no direct connection with 'The Golden Pot.'"

Noggin: Did they have to? The material in The Golden Pot IS the connection. The parallels are overwhelmingly similar as a quick review will plainly delineate.

FAIR continues:
"Even as Palmer points to the relationship between Walters and Joseph Smith as a reason to accept The Golden Pot as the basis for early Mormon history, he fails to mention that Brigham Young noted that Walters "rode over sixty miles three times the same season they [the gold plates] were obtained by Joseph" in an effort to obtain the plates for himself. This hardly sounds like a man who had convinced Joseph to concoct the story of the plates based on some fictional story. Either Walters believed the plates were real or knew they were not because of his part in formulating the plan of deception. His desire to obtain them certainly suggests the former and negates the latter. Even this does not establish that Joseph and Walters were acquainted; only that Walters knew about Joseph Smith."

Noggin: FAIR apologetics require one believes every last written account from Smith's right hand man (Brigham Young), yet FAIR will allow no give or take from similar scenarios. Besides, I don't see how this is devastating to the likely contribution to the story of the origins of the mormon church. The parallels between the church's origins and The Golden Pot are that obvious, regardless of when or how Walters and Smith met. The parallels speak for themselves. It is obvious that someone placed Joseph Smith in contact with The Golden Pot.

FAIR is leading the mormon readers into the forest with a Red Herring.

Fair continues:
"In 1820 Joseph Smith received a visit from God the Father and Jesus Christ."

FAIR says this as if it is fact. When was the first written account published? Much later. 1820 is a fictitious, unproven date for a fictitious unproven event that has stacks of factual evidence against ever happening... and only human emotion conveyed through ones feelings to support that it did happen.

" Yet Palmer claims that Joseph received the idea of this divine visit from conversations with Luman Walters sometime during the period 1820-1823. This means that Joseph Smith was chosen by Mr. Walters from a town 25 miles from his own (a significant distance in the 1820s), and was convinced, apparently rather quickly, by virtue of a story Walters related (from the German or the French version as the English version was not available until 1827) to formulate a lifelong plan of deception."

Is it such a stretch that a man traveled 25 miles to talk to a counterpart (Smith)? FAIR should consider what is more of a stretch... An unproven God entity talking to a boy... or a man traveling 25 miles to talk to another man, especially if there was a scheme to make money involved?

Joseph Smith Sr and Joseph Smith Jr. both had established a working relationship with Walters in digging for buried treasure together. All of them employed dubious fraud to deceive and bilk their shared clients (Abner Cole). They all knew they could not see any treasure. This glass looking activity was nothing more than snake oil debauchery.

Treasure digging or "glass looking" was an illegal activity that one could get fined for by the courts for engaging in it. Smith did come before a Judge Neeley to receive such a fine. Therefore, it does make absolute sense that Walters would travel the needed distance to seek out someone like Smith. Smith openly demonstrated his character already as one willing to defraud others. Character like Smith's was of uncommon ilk. So much so that Walters had to go to a neighboring town to find it.

"Palmer never does claim that Joseph ever read the book, only that Walters shared the story with him. Joseph was 15-18 years old at the time, and yet we are to believe that Walters convinced him to adapt and concoct a story that would follow in some crude manner the outline of this fictional book. Somehow Walters convinced this young man, whom he had known for a relatively short time, to commit to living this lie for the rest of his life."

Walters is as likely a character to share Hoffman's Golden Pot story with Smith as anyone. Somebody did it, and it might as well have been Walters. As I mentioned, the parallels to early church history to The Golden Pot reveal this is so. There need not be any further supposition or strong arming to bend Walters as any sort of influence or major player in Joseph's life. Joseph took the story and ran with it, just like he took Oliver Cowdery's contribution and ran with it. Oliver was a member of Ethan Smith's congregation. Ethan Smith wrote "The View of the Hebrews". This book outlines many significant parallels that also show up in the pages of the Book of Mormon. Oliver chose to remain enmeshed in the development. Luman Walters chose to depart. Or perhaps Walters just shared Hoffman's tale and that is the end of it. When Joseph Smith saw the English version of The Golden Pot for sale in 1827, he picked it up and digested it further. That still leaves 3 years before 1830, when the church was organized. Plenty of time to write the church's unfoldings.

"Furthermore Walters had Joseph backdate the beginning event to an earlier year and then begin immediately the deception that would become the central focus of his entire life. This plan had to be followed in spite of the persecution that immediately came into the Prophet's life because of the very nature of the story."

Walter's is here again, posed by FAIR as the strong arming influence when this is so irrelevant to the case. And... what persecution? There was no mention of a revival in 1820, no newspaper clipping or affidavit or local hubbub rumor mill telling or showing that Smith had seen God. No journal accounts from local pastors troubled by Smith's vision.

It is important to clarify that FAIR's "Persecutions" to Joseph Smith came only when Smith began bedding and marrying multiple women and teens and then denying it, defrauding his saints out of their money with the Kirtland Bank Fraud, declaring civil unrest against the Missourians, and crowning himself King of the entire earth.

"Not only did the young Joseph need to commit to this path, it also had to be enthusiastically accepted and followed by his trusting family. According to this scenario his family must have seen some virtue in doing so, although no evidence is given as to what they hoped to gain from this action."

This Smith family is the same who sold ginseng and root beer at county fair type events... claiming it worked wonders. This family practiced and believed in white magic, the faculties of Abrac, tetragramatica, enchanting of spirits, seer stones, magic daggers, magic parchments, magic circles. This family was an odd one. The Smith family hoped to gain the same with Joseph's idea as they did from the fraudulent claims of their ginseng root beer sales, their peep stones, and willingness to bilk money dishonestly from the local townsfolk any way they could. They hope for a better life than the meager existence that was theirs.

"Surely at that time they would have had a challenge seeing any economic advantage to the tale."

Just like they "struggled" to see any economic advantage as to whether or not Smith Sr. and Jr. should bilk a man out of his money by claiming they could see buried treasure on his lands.

"Either that, or Joseph was able to immediately take the story verbally related to him (as he was unable to read it in the German or French), make the personal commitment needed, and then quickly convince his family that it was true and that God had, indeed, visited him a few years ago and that he had just forgot to mention it.

Kind of hard to imagine isn't it?"

Noggin: No, actually, it is not kind of hard to imagine. What is hard to imagine is how mormons cannot see the blatant plagerizing going on from Hoffman's book. Significant parts of Mormon history are in part a blatant rip off from Hoffman's mind. It is also hard to imagine FAIR scholars neglecting to recall how more than 5 different accounts of the First Vision were written by Smith. Each one vastly different than the last as far as who visited him and the message he was told in that visit. The First vision was a tall tale that grew taller each time he described it. And as for his family, they were already on display as I mentioned earlier as willing to dupe and defraud. That their son came up with a whopper of a tale to further this design fits right in line. FAIR paints this family as stellar puritanical saints who could never fall for godless lies or trickery. One needs only to turn a few pages of Lucy Mack Smith's autobiography to see the willingness of that Matriarch to tell a few aggrandized and tall tales herself. The Patriarch, Smith Sr., was part and parcel to the dubious character sketch with his treasure digging, water witching... let's not forget the various wacky prophecies and odd statements he made. Young Joseph had to reign in his odd duck father a time or two.

FAIR continues:
"We are also required to accept the critic's common accusation that Joseph Smith was lazy and shiftless, and still acknowledge that he was yet able, at a young age, to commit to a life that would tax his very being. Certainly if we are to believe The Golden Pot scenario we could at least remove the lazy and shiftless label from the young Joseph. However, we all know his critics will not likely allow this to happen anytime soon."

Red Herring. Joseph Smith's work ethic has little to do with the accusation that he was able to take significant portions of the Famed author Hoffan's Golden Pot and incorporate them into his tall tale. So what? Then, let's say Smith was the most strapping, busy, overworked poor young sap in the state of New York. Does that pry the death grip off the evidence in early church history? Hardly.

FAIR continues:
"Palmer would have us believe that a young, gullible boy would be turned into an aggressive, effective charlatan, in a very short time, after being told a fictional tale by a relative stranger--and that this boy's family would give him complete support in his fabrication."

This young gullible boy was already an effective charlatan. Smith was convicted of money digging. It does not get any clearer than that. I guess FAIR goes with the attack that if they repeat an inaccuracy enough times the faithful will believe them. I have now had to debunk the same items over and over thus far in this post. It is getting tediously annoying.

"The very nature of this assertion would make someone with any sort of reasoning ability cringe at the thought that someone might actually believe Palmer's fantastic tale. Surely we need to go back to some of the time honored alleged sources, although thoroughly discredited, for the Book of Mormon and resurrect the Spaulding Manuscript or the View of the Hebrews, for even as poorly supported as those arguments are, they are much more believable than the story of The Golden Pot."

"Sorry Grant, this just isn't creditable history. Not even close!"

And we are supposed to gulp down what you (FAIR) just came up with as an alternate explanation? No cringing with that?

More interesting notes and information on E.T.A. Hoffman:


Ever seen the christmas ballet, The Nutcracker? That came directly out of Hoffman's head.
ETA Hoffman wrote famed "The Nutcracker" in 1816

In Berlin, Hoffmann became the author to read, if you read at all, he was a sensation that swept Europe.

From this website on Hoffman's influence, , We read of the noted effect Mr. Hoffman had on the 19th century American readership:

"[Hoffman's] tales, which weave the fantastic closely into real world, had enormous influence particularly in the United States, and affected the writings of Washington Irving, Nathaniel Hawthorne and Edgar Allan Poe. Hoffmann's opera The Water Sprite is still occasionally performed. - The Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung read the The Devil's Elixirs in 1909. He found its problems "palpably real" and it also influenced his theory of the archetypes. John Kerr has later pointed out that all the major archetypes discovered by Jung in his self-analysis appear in Hoffmann's novel. (Jung in Contexts, ed. by Paul Bishop, 1999) Sigmund Freud referred to the novel in his study 'The Uncanny' (1919), but he had written already in 1885 in a letter to Martha Bernays: "I have been reading off and on a few things by the 'mad' Hoffmann, mad, fantastic stuff, here and there a brilliant thought".

Hoffman's works translated to English:

Sir Walter Scott translated long excerpts and synopses of the plots of "The Entail" (Das Majorat) and "The Sandmann" (Der Sandmann) in Scott's article
"On the Supernatural in Fictitious Composition, and in Particularly in the works of E.T.W.Hoffmann". in: [London] Foreign Quarterly Review, I, 1 (July) 1827, pp. 60-98

British readership warmly recieved Hoffman's style and concept. Simultaneously, Americans reached out to embrace the Hoffman sensation.

"...the American readership [was] drawn to [E.T.A. Hoffman's] historical and musical tales, the earliest translations being The Lost Reflection (Die Geschichte vom verlornen Spiegelbilde), a comical tale, translated anonymously and published in 1826 in the [Boston] Athenaeum, Holcraft's translation of Das Fräulein von Scuderi, published in Tales of Humour and Romance in New York and Baltimore in 1829, and Gluck (Ritter Gluck) in the [Boston] American Monthly Magazine in 1830."

The Devil's Elixir was translated to English by Scotsman R.P. Gillies in 1824

The Golden Pot was translated to English in 1827. R.P. Gillies's contemporary, THOMAS CARLYLE, translated Hoffmann's tale The Golden Pot to English and included a biographical introduction of its author. It was published in 1827 as part of his collection of German contemporary writers [in] German Romance.
More Mind-Boggling Apologetic Antics From The Self Proclaimed Masters Of Erudition At Fair
Thursday, Nov 17, 2005, at 09:17 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
They're working overtime at FAIR/FARMs to save the Gospel™ from the truth.
"Even when horses are confirmed to have been present, that will not mean that they were used. That makes it even more interesting that the Book of Mormon never shows the horses doing anything more than walking. Personally, I suspect that the "horses" that are prepared with the "chariots" may have been riding on platforms rather than pulling them. Look at the so-called wheeled toys. They are very often wheeled platforms with an animal on them - and no indication that any beast of burden might pull them. I suspect that they were miniatures of procession vehicles that were pulled on the ceremonial roads that sometimes linked Maya cities (called sacbeob). - Brant Gardner FAIR 2005"

What a spin job! The reason there were so few (can you say zero?) horses in Pre-Columbian America is because the horses were busy riding on the chariots. Holy Cow Pies! What extremes they will go to in order to maintain their fragile belief in the Latter Day Fraud.

I wish I could draw cartoons; I can just see a DCP and friends drawn chariot with the horse riding on the chariot wielding a whip in its mouth.
Top Ten Reasons To Love Anti-Mormons
Saturday, Nov 19, 2005, at 08:07 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
From Fair:

1. "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"(Mt 22:39), and "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (Mt 5:44)

2. Their efforts tend to generate interest in the Church, and keep our faith frequently in the public eye, which helps our missionary work prosper when they are around.

3. They provide us with a unique insight into the life of the Savior by demonstrating what it must have been like for him to deal with the Scribes and Pharisees.

4. Who else is going to motivate us to study the peripheral, obscure, and markedly unimportant aspects of our religion.

5. They make us laugh with their obtuse, inane, dubious, nefarious, absurd, rancorous, and spiteful antics.

6. We get to dust off our Logic 101 books, and find application for the many fallacies we learned about in school.

7. They give religious bigotry a bad name.

8. Their "cottage" industry is a boost to local economies--particularly paper and print businesses; and their tracts provide a cheap source of fuel for wood stoves and fireplaces.

9. We are no longer left to wonder: "how many times can the same weak and well-refuted claims be made against our faith?" (Infinity!); and, "to what extent will anti-Mormons go in forwarding their un-Christ-like agendas?" (Anything goes--including "lying for the Lord".)

10. They provide a loving "home" for the chronic discontents, and they help make even the most misinformed and unscholarly writers of religion feel important and erudite
FAIR Board Members Comments On $4.2 Million Dollar LDS Sexual Lawsuit - Blame The Victim
Thursday, Nov 24, 2005, at 12:25 PM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
Some of my favorites:
"The victim in this case is in a far worse situation now than she was. When you get revenge, you don't "feel better." You feel worse because you are disobeying God. Vengeance is the Lord's."

"If it were Christ's money, I couldn't imagine a better place for it than with victims of child abuse. If it is the Corporation of the First Presidency's money, than it would be better used to grow the assets of the corporation, and is being wasted as the result of an overly litigious society and an ignorant jury"

"But in sueing the Church, she knew she was not going after those most responsible, her father, and her mother for telling her not to tell. She went after money. Money would not restore her stolen childhood. It was vengenace pure and simple. In our mortal experience, vengeance comes from the adversary. Whenever you give in to the enticings of Satan you are worse off."
Oh, this is good!
"There is a sad aspect to this, not from the Church's viewpoint. We are in a culture that is increasingly causing a victim mentality. With this shift away from personal responsibility and accountability, people are being treated as increasingly incompetent. Then they become so. They give up their agency. It isn't taken from them."

"My conclusion is that this is little more a bread-and-butter case of transferring blame and finding some degree of solice by going after the deep pockets."

"The Church should absolutely appeal this decision because it is so clearly wrong."
And the best of them all:
"The Church has never had a policy of hiding crimes and misdeeds of it's members and if fact there are clear doctrines to the opposite."
Message from CLee In Response To President of FAIR
Thursday, Dec 1, 2005, at 12:11 PM
Original Author(s): Clee
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-

Inspired by the Message from the President of FAIR at

During this time between Thanksgiving and Smithmas, it is always a good time to remember how lucky we are to be doing anything other than attending another long drawn out Sacrament Meeting. Thanks to Al Gore, we now live in the age where we are blessed by the Internet. Information is at our fingertips. But as we look at the information, we need to be aware of accuracy.

First, things that are written can be false. They can be purposefully written to deceive, or they could simply be the product of the passage of time and a faulty memory. But in either case, they are still false.

Second, the information written may be correct, but incomplete.

Sometimes what is really important is what isn't said. An example of this is in Scott Gordon’s (President of FAIR) description of so-called Anti-Mormon deceptions:
“Much has been made of this in newly published anti-Mormon books and on Web sites. The claim is that Harris and the other witnesses never saw the plates. What this claim does is leave out the other statements that Harris and others made on the subject, thereby leading readers to certain false conclusions.” (Message from the President - The FAIR Journal Nov. 2005)
Gordon and most other apologists make similar statements claiming that Anti-Mormons deceive by omitting relevant information.
“Leaving these statements out shows either a lack of research, or an attempt of deception. This then brings up the questions, if the anti-Mormon argument is so strong, why do they need to deceive? Why is evidence to the contrary simply left out as if it doesn't exist?” (ibid)
What Gordon, Peterson, et al fail to mention are the thousands even tens of thousands of statements where Anti-Mormons are not omitting relevant information. Clearly leaving these statements out shows either a lack of research or an attempt at deception. This brings up the questions; if the Mormon Apologist’s arguments are so strong, why do they need to deceive? Why are evidences contrary to their position simply left out as if they did not exist?

Much of what I do in researching Mormonism is simply going back to the source material and see if it is in context, if it was written at the time it occurred, if it was written by someone who was actually there, and finally seeing if there are more occasions where the story is discussed. Where do I get the source material? The Journal of Discourses, The Times and Seasons, Lectures on Faith, 1830 Book of Mormon. So much for "hiding the truth." So, while you are looking at things on the Internet, be cautious of accuracy. Don't just look for things that are wrong, but look also for information that may be left out.
What Are The Right Reasons For Becoming A Non-Member? FAIR Answers The Question
Thursday, Dec 1, 2005, at 03:25 AM
Original Author(s): Infymus
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
Over on FAIR, the following question was asked:
"What are the right reasons for becoming a non-member?"
And the answer, provided by my favorite fanatical Mormon, "Charity" was a good one:
"The only "right" reason I can think of is if the person will be bringing more condemnation down on his/her head by being a member and breaking commandments."
So basically, if I can understand the logic (if you would call it that) of Charity, the only reason a person leaves Mormonism is soley to break commandments without more condemnation. Charity fully believes that Ex-Mormons leave the cult of Mormonism so they can sin without condemnation. It isn't about the doctrines being false, it isn't about multiple first visions, it isn't about Joseph Smith totally miss-translating the Book of Abraham ... No, it's all about wanting to sin. And all of us Ex-Mormons are out sinning every minute of the day - every chance we can get! Indeed!

Charity right now is defiantly my most favorite fanatical Mormon over on the FAIR boards.
Update On Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc. Vs Allen Wyatt Of FAIR
Monday, Dec 5, 2005, at 08:10 AM
Original Author(s): Infymus
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
PDF Version of Filed Document:

Looks like FAIR tried to have the lawsuit dismissed however the judge did not allow it - the trial continues.

"Between November 19 and 20, 2003, Mr. Wyatt registered the following domain names:,,,,,,,,,,,, and Also on those dates, Mr. Wyatt established a website ("the Wyatt website") for those domain names and/or redirected users to the Wyatt website. The HTML source code for the Wyatt website includes the terms "Tanner," "Tanners," "Sandra Tanner," and "Jerald Tanner" in the meta tags section."

Allen Wyatt is a snake. During the time that Grant Palmer was being hauled into Mormon Courts, the Ex-Mormon community was discussing setting up a site called "". Allen, a true Troll (as well as a snake), ran off and registered the website before anyone else could.

Allen Wyatt is despicable. He will do anything to lie and deceive to protect Mormonism.
The Smell Of Coffee Can Lead You Down The Path Of Destruction
Tuesday, Dec 20, 2005, at 08:06 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
From the FAIR boards:
"Here is an example of someone driving very close to the cliff. First, Satan tempts you with the smell of the coffee, next you will be tempted to eat coffee-flavored ice cream and other such things, then you will order a Jamocha shake from Arby's, and pretty soon the adversary will have you in his trap and you will be addicted like millions of other poor lost souls who can't start their day without a $4 Grande Gingerbread latte with a double shot of espresso from Starbucks. And then your eternal marriage will crumble around you and Satan and his demonic angels will laugh with glee at having snatched away another of God's chosen people from the path of righteousness and virtue. Heed this warning: avoid even the smell or sight of coffee or any other evil substance with which the devil is tempting you."
Looks like Satan already has Washington.
Definition Of Anti-Mormon According To FAIR
Thursday, Dec 22, 2005, at 08:52 AM
Original Author(s): Clee
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
According to FAIR anyone who
  1. Disagrees with any word of prophetic counsel uttered or published by the current President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the "Church"); or
  2. Disagrees with any word of doctrine uttered or published by the Quorum of the 12 Apostles acting in unison; or
  3. Denies the literal truth of the Holy Scriptures currently canonized by the Church; or
  4. Does not believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God until the very end of his life (and continues to serve the Lord beyond the grave) and Brigham Young his rightful successor to all the keys of the priesthood; or
  5. Does not believe that Gordon B. Hinckley is the rightful successor to the priesthood keys and offices held by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young through an unbroken chain of succession; or
  6. Speaks or writes anywhere anything critical or negative about the Church, its leaders, its scriptures, its members, its properties, its history, or any of its activities whenever or wherever conducted; or
  7. Engages in any conduct that has the intention or effect of leading any member of the Church to {a} doubt any of the foundational truth claims of the Church, {b} lessen activity levels in the Church, or {c} feel a diminution or loss of the Spirit.
Is an "Anti-Mormon" which would include 99.9999% of the world's population. So to join the ranks of sane people everywhere I CLee do hereby invoke my un-priesthood to exercise the following un-ordinance.

Imaginary Un-Temple worker:
Brother CLee, having authority, I give you a New Name, which you should always remember, and which you must use mockingly at every opportunity, and always reveal with much lightmindedness, loud laughter, evil speaking of the Lord's anointed, including the taking of the name of God in vain, and committing several unholy and impure practices; .. The name is "CLee the Anti-Mormon."

Bow your head and say "bullshit"
Charity, An Amateur Apologist Coughs Up A FAIR Ball - If You Are "Anti" You Have Already Lost
Monday, Jan 9, 2006, at 07:36 AM
Original Author(s): Clee
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
In a stunning display of anti-logic and anti-reason a part-time apologist applies her skill to “Why the anti’s can’t win.”
“Being against something automatically puts a person in the losing camp. The person who gets to be FOR a position wins the argument. …

Notice how the abortion debate has been framed by the two sides. Those opposed to abortion call themselves pro-life. Those in favor of abortion call themselves pro-choice. Nobody wants the tag anti.

So what can the anti-Mormon's do? If they want to adopt a pro position, they can't attack, because they have to advance a positive position. Then they can't have the fun of pot shots. Flaming arrows. Poisoned darts.

So the anti's are set up to lose. Oh, yes. And we have the truth on our side.” – Charity FAIR 1/9/2006
Her brain must hurt from twisting itself so much.

Proudly wearing the label "ANTI".
Ex-Mormonism Is Referred To As "Spiritual Pornography", How About Referrering To The Fair Boards As "Spiritual Masturbation"
Thursday, Jan 12, 2006, at 08:11 AM
Original Author(s): Nisfor
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
This gem from the Fair Boards:
It appears that several neologisms have been spawned relating "spirituality" to the baser sexual desires -

First came the term "spiritual infidelity" to describe apostacy, or loss of faith in the LDS church after making "sacred promises" in the temple.

Now the phrase"spiritual pornography" has been coined to refer to such "wretched hives of scum and villainy" such as the RfM board.

Let me throw the newest twist into the mix. How about referring to the FAIR boards as - "spiritual masturbation".
Allen Wyatt And Daniel C. Peterson Of Fair Registering New Websites In Order To Help Confuse Members And Non-Members - In Essence They Are Stooping To "Porn Site" Tactics
Wednesday, Feb 8, 2006, at 07:03 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1   -Link To MC Article-
The MORG is mounting an Internet offensive.

It was noted recently on this board that when one googles "mormon", a paid advertisement for the "More Good Foundation" (MGF) appears. This foundation is located in Orem, and its purpose is to flood the Internet with inter-linked pro-mormon websites so that anything critical to the Church is buried below the pro-mormon sites. The president of the foundation is apologist Allen L Wyatt and the MGF website has a video of Daniel C. Peterson commenting on the MGF charter.

I suspect that the MGF is a front that is funded indirectly by tithing money, but it might be privately funded. More than 200 domain names were recently purchased by the MGF, and the foundation offers to buy and help with the development of any pro-lds site that a TBM wants to build. A recent meeting at the foundation featured a lecture by the LDS Church's coordinator of websites.

The members-only section of the site contains links to information on how to "cheat" search-engines so that your site comes up higher when someone does a search. The foundation is also working with an Orem-based search-engine optimization marketing firm . There is also an effort to publish pro-mormon sites in different languages.

What follows is a listing of the websites that were recently purchased by the MGF. Notice how they nearly all have the same links on them. All of them link to the main pro-LDS sites. When Google indexes these sites, it increases the ratings of the pro-LDS websites.

Note also that domains such as "" and "" have been purchased. This reminds one of the ploy used by the Church of Scientology when it infiltrated, bankrupted, and purchased the Cult Awareness Network, one of its biggest critics. Scientology now owns the Cult Awareness Network!

The following domains have recently been registered by Allen Wyatt and Daniel C. Peterson:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

How to navigate:
  • Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
  • Click the blue arrow on the article to return to the top.
  • Right-Click and copy the "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
Archived Blogs:
FAIR - Apologetic Arm Of The LDS Corporation Not Sponsorded By LDS Inc.
Lighthouse: The Group Says A Pro-lds Foundation Is Infringing On Its Trademarks
Tanners' Lawsuit Against FAIR - Link To Copy Of The Complaint
From A 1st Year Law Student's Perspective On Re: Tanners Vs FAIR
Historical Or Hysterical Anti-mormons And Documentary Sources
FAIR Is Hopelessly Desperate For Sources Showing A First Vision Account With Both The Father And The Son Prior To 1838
FAIR Document And New BoD
Thanks To FAIR I Left The Church
What Brigham Really Meant, According To FAIR Members
Mormon On FAIR Boards Acknowledges Rudeness Of Regulars (Mormons) On FAIR Boards
"Is Mormonism a Cult?" - A Rebuttal to FAIR
FAIR: If You Have Questions Then There Must Be Something Wrong With YOU
FAIR Board Cracking Down On Polygamy Will Hurt New Doubters
FAIR Attempts To Blast Hoffman's, "The Golden Pot" Plagarisms To Early Church History
More Mind-Boggling Apologetic Antics From The Self Proclaimed Masters Of Erudition At Fair
Top Ten Reasons To Love Anti-Mormons
FAIR Board Members Comments On $4.2 Million Dollar LDS Sexual Lawsuit - Blame The Victim
Message from CLee In Response To President of FAIR
What Are The Right Reasons For Becoming A Non-Member? FAIR Answers The Question
Update On Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc. Vs Allen Wyatt Of FAIR
The Smell Of Coffee Can Lead You Down The Path Of Destruction
Definition Of Anti-Mormon According To FAIR
Charity, An Amateur Apologist Coughs Up A FAIR Ball - If You Are "Anti" You Have Already Lost
Ex-Mormonism Is Referred To As "Spiritual Pornography", How About Referrering To The Fair Boards As "Spiritual Masturbation"
Allen Wyatt And Daniel C. Peterson Of Fair Registering New Websites In Order To Help Confuse Members And Non-Members - In Essence They Are Stooping To "Porn Site" Tactics
5,709 Articles In 365 Topics
TopicImage TOPIC INDEX (365 Topics)

  · 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)
  · BOY SCOUTS (22)
  · BOYD K. PACKER (33)
  · BRIAN C. HALES (1)
  · BRUCE C. HAFEN (4)
  · CALLINGS (11)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 1 (24)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 2 (21)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 3 (24)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 4 (22)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 5 (37)
  · DALLIN H. OAKS (100)
  · DANITES (4)
  · DAVID A. BEDNAR (23)
  · DAVID O. MCKAY (8)
  · DAVID R. STONE (1)
  · DNA (23)
  · DON JESSE (2)
  · EMMA SMITH (5)
  · FARMS (30)
  · GEORGE P. LEE (1)
  · HAROLD B. LEE (1)
  · HAUNS MILL (2)
  · HBO BIG LOVE (12)
  · HOLIDAYS (13)
  · HUGH NIBLEY (13)
  · HYMNS (7)
  · JAMES E. FAUST (7)
  · JOHN GEE (3)
  · JOHN L. LUND (3)
  · JUDAISM (3)
  · JULIE B. BECK (6)
  · L. TOM PERRY (5)
  · LAMANITES (36)
  · MARRIOTT (2)
  · MASONS (16)
  · MICHAEL R. ASH (26)
  · MITT ROMNEY (71)
  · NAUVOO (3)
  · ORRIN HATCH (10)
  · PARLEY P. PRATT (11)
  · PAUL H. DUNN (5)
  · PRIMARY (1)
  · PROPOSITION 8 (21)
  · QUENTIN L. COOK (11)
  · SEMINARY (5)
  · SHERI L. DEW (3)
  · TALKS - SECTION 1 (1)
  · TIME (4)
  · TITHING - SECTION 1 (25)
  · TITHING - SECTION 2 (25)
  · TITHING - SECTION 3 (13)
  · UGO PEREGO (5)
  · UK COURTS (7)
  · VAN HALE (16)
  · VIDEOS (30)
Copyright And Info
Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated.

Website © 2005-2021

Compiled With: Caligra 1.119