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 2". This website, The Mormon Curtain - is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can read The Mormon Curtain FAQ to understand the purpose of this website.
⇒  CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
Total Articles: 24
FAIR (recently renamed to FAIRMORMON) is a Mormon Apologetic website run by Allen Wyatt, Scott Gordon, Daniel Peterson and other Mormon Apologists.
The Life And Times Of An Apostate Posting At FAIRLDS
Tuesday, Mar 7, 2006, at 07:56 AM
Original Author(s): Noggin
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
1. I learned that Steve Benson lied about the details of his meeting with Maxwell and Oaks... and the claim that Steve Benson lied is made certain because this FAIR poster asked Daniel Peterson who said Steve Benson lied about it.

2. I learned that there are quite a few Mormons who believe that Mormons do not claim to have sole possession of the truth. When I pointed out the quotes from JSH, I was told that I was misinterpreting. I was told that I "just don't get it"

3. I learned that as an apostate, I was "obsessed". Offline my obsession was qualified by the asserter to mean I was relentless in my point making. I noted that this same poster had over 3300 posts at FAIRLDS in the last year.

4. I was picked apart for the smallest of inaccuracies. Even down to picking apart the semantics of my sentance structure.

5. I learned that Mormons can be just as rude as we are accused of being rude here. I was mocked, many times.

6. I learned that if I concede that I could be wrong about my opinion about the church, that is an admission that I am doubting. I was promptly invited to "come back" to Mormonism.

7. I learned that there are relatively few Mormons who will concede that they might be, in theory, could be, wrong about their faith... er sorry.. I also learned that there are many Mormons who no longer have faith... they have sure knowledge. I wondered out loud if there was a massive scale of "callings and elections made sure" going on. They did not think that was funny. BUT how else are they basing their "sure and factual knowledge" of their religious claims?

8. I learned that many mormons view their testimony is factual. I learned that their testimony is "way more" than feelings. But when asked as to how it is way more than feelings, I only got nebulous conjecture... something to do with "because it just is and you obviously do not understand that even though I have explained this to you several times".

9. When pushed to the wall and confronted with the other world religion testimonies that claim exclusivity to God's One and Only True Church on Earth, I learned that there is a new trend in Mormonism to explain this. I learned that these other One and Only True Churches are not asking God in the "proper manner" if their church is true. When I pushed for an explanation, I was told that these other church NEVER ask god if their church is true. When I provided documented sources to counter, I got zero response. Well, one gent tried to respond, but he was not helpful. I believe he said that he doubted that they really asked.

10. I learned that if you try to be cordial in dialogue, the FAIRLDS poster is relentless and will hound your mistakes to the last second you are on the board. I found that they delight in this. For instance, I thought that by designating the opponent as "those FARMS minds" or "the minds at FARMS" I would be building kind repoire. Wrong. I found it humorous that they nailed me to the cross with that. I learned that if you call their leading defenders a "FARMS mind" it is a type of pinnacle insult and they will never let you forget it. If you know what is good for you, for the love of god, never EVER call them a "FARMS mind" ;)

11. I learned that if you do not post an exact reference, you are damned, scorned, mocked, and cast into the light of a fool. I also learned if you do post an exact reference you are worse off than if you hadn't. For that is when you get placed in FAIR purgatory.

12. I learned that if you actually point out something that makes sense, and which is documented, your thread gets locked down by the moderators and you are put in some ephemeral "que" into some probationary warning status. I was warned.

That was enough for me. After being warned, I decided that I was not welcome there. I might go back and post some day.

They seem to be good enough folk.
Some Musings On The FAIR Board Posts Re: Racism
Monday, Mar 13, 2006, at 06:05 AM
Original Author(s): Randy Jordan
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
This post is not intended as a "board war," but rather just a few observations for the benefit of RfM readers. A few days ago, the juvenile TBM troll "ICU" recommended that we read this FAIR board thread (to which he provided a link) to get educated on the Mormon racism issue. I just now got around to reading the thread, and I have just three comments.

First, I chuckled at a warning from a board moderator to a poster whose remarks were apparently edited:

>Moderator: If you ever come close to another statement about the behavior of a group of people based on their race, you will be banned.

Gee, according to this moderator's standards of etiquette, a LOT of things should be banned from being quoted on the FAIR board, including:

The Book of Mormon

The Book of Moses

The Book of Abraham

"Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith"

Teachings of various LDS church leaders as quoted at


One wonders, are the FAIR board moderators willing to require the same standards of etiquette and racial tolerance from their "scriptures" and "prophets" as they expect from board posters?

Second: The TBM poster on that thread going by "Pahoran" is IRL one Russell McGregor, who is an insufferable blowhard geek from New Zealand who was run off from several years ago after showing his complete ignorance by boldly asserting that as time passes, scientific research is proving the BOM to be true more and more. DuWayne Anderson, myself, and a few other posters raked him over the coals for that silliness, and he soon thereafter slinked away.

On the FAIR thread, Pahoran/Russell demanded that a critic provide quotes where church leaders taught/approved the "Negroes were fence-sitters in the pre-existence" concept. In the link from ARM I provide above, many such quotes are cited where church leaders term blacks "less valiant spirits" and similar verbiage which amount to teaching the "fence-sitters" concept.

For an example of how I refuted Pahoran/Russell on ARM re: the race issue years ago, see

Last comment---An apparently TBM poster named Selek wrote:

>I would also like to point out, that whatever disadvantages, whatever prohibitions, whatever limitations have been imposed on people in this country, be they black, white, green, grey or purple, have been the work of MEN. >There is nothing in the Book of Mormon, or in the Bible, nor in any inspired work that I have seen that indicates to me that God loves any one of his children more or less than any other.

Hmmm, I guess that Selek hasn't read those parts of the Book of Mormon where God turned the skins of the Lamanites "dark and loathsome" so they wouldn't be sexually enticing to the "white and delightsome" Nephites. Exactly how does having innocent babies born "dark and loathsome" because of the alleged wickedness of their parents demonstrate God's love?

And I suppose that Selek hasn't read the passages in the "Book of Moses", chapter 7, where God caused a "blackness [to come] upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people...and had not place among them." Boy, you can just see God's love shining through, can't ya?

And then there are the passages in the "Book of Abraham," chapter 1, wherein that loving god of Mormonism allowed a descendant of Cain---the daughter of "Egyptus"---to survive the global flood, so that her posterity would preserve the curse of black skin in the land.

Thus we see that the god of Mormonism practices discrimination by punishing innocent babies with being born into the accursed lineage of Cain, and receiving a black skin which causes them to be despised among lighter-skinned people.

Can't you just feel the love?

As I wrote to ICU---If you are a believing Mormon, then you are a racist by extension. The only way you can change your status is to disavow Mormonism. Mormonism is a racist religion by virtue of what it teaches in its canonized "scriptures."

I again quote from currently-serving LDS General Authority Alexander Morrison:

"Unfortunately, racism–the abhorrent and morally destructive theory that claims superiority of one person over another by reason of race, color, ethnicity, or cultural background–remains one of the abiding sins of societies the world over. The cause of much of the strife and conflict in the world, racism is an offense against God and a tool in the devil’s hands. In common with other Christians, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regret the actions and statements of individuals who have been insensitive to the pain suffered by the victims of racism and ask God’s forgiveness for those guilty of this grievous sin. The sin of racism will be eliminated only when every human being treats all others with the dignity and respect each deserves as a beloved child of our Heavenly Father.

"How grateful I am that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has from its beginnings stood strongly against racism in any of its malignant manifestations."

Physician, heal thyself.
Absolutely Pathetic - FAIR Starts Up New WIKI, States Information On Joseph Smith's Plural Marriages Is "Sketchy"
Monday, Apr 3, 2006, at 07:45 AM
Original Author(s): Randy Jordan
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
These FAIR responses are written like sophomoric "talking points" that political groups hand out to their spokespersons to repeat in the media. It's obvious that the exmormon website and this BB are doing them serious damage, because the issues FAIR responded to are some of the most frequently discussed ones here on the BB.

I found this part particularly amusing:

>Plural marriage was certainly not in keeping with the values of "mainstream America" in Joseph Smith's day. However, modern readers also judge the age of the marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century.

While the FAIRbots try to defend the age differences between Smith and his side women, their argument is demolished by the simple fact that Smith's polygamous relationships were not legal marriages in any shape, form, or fashion. Imagine, if you will, an apologist for Bill Clinton defending his relationship with Monica Lewinsky by saying that their age difference wasn't a big deal, while ignoring the fact that Clinton was already married and had a child. This is exactly what the FAIRbots are doing here.

Polygamy was illegal in Joseph Smith's day, and was specifically prohibited by Joseph Smith's own published scriptures (DandC, 1835 edition.) Smith also publicly denied that he taught or practiced polygamy, and denounced those who accused him of doing so. It's pathetic that FAIR is begging us not to judge Smith by 21st century "standards," when it is obvious that we can condemn his behavior by 19th century standards as well as his own publicly-stated standards.

The FAIRbots then provide some examples where older men married much younger women by writing:

>Within Todd Compton's book on Joseph Smith's marriages, he also mentions the following monogamous marriages

[The marriages FAIR lists are]

Lucinda Pendleton-William Morgan
Marinda Johnson-Orson Hyde
Almira McBride-Sylvester Stoddard
Fanny Young-Roswell Murray

Note that the FAIR author terms these marriages "monogamous," while anyone who has read Compton's book knows that all of these women were "plural wives" of Joseph Smith while also being legally married to their named husbands---thus, FAIR's depiction of those marriages as "monogamous" is a lie. Also, the fact that some 19th-century marriages between older men and much younger women occurred (just as they do today), they were and are the exception, not the rule. And again, Smith's relationships with those women were illegal extra-marital affairs---not legal marriages---thus making FAIR's citing of them in their defense of Smith even more stupid.

Furthermore, let's not forget, as I've pointed out in the past, that most of the girls and young women whom Smith "plural married" went on to marry other men after Smith's death, and raised families with them. So it's not like Smith "plural married" them because they were otherwise unfit candidates for marriage in the eyes of other men.

As for whether or not Smith had sex with Helen Kimball, I'll repeat my comments from a few days ago that even if he did not, his teachings and practices indicate that he fully intended to at some point. His "revelation on celestial marriage" clearly states that the purpose of "plural marriage" is to take "virgins" and "multply and replenish the earth." Many statements of Smith whom his closest friends and followers recorded further reinforce that idea. I'll also remind readers that Smith was killed shortly after being "sealed" to Helen, so he simply may not have had time to consummate their relationship. Also, Smith was having sex with numerous other women at the time, so his libido was being satisfied.

As for FAIR's argument that the reports of Smith's sexual relationship with Fanny Alger were "third-hand," I suppose the FAIR author didn't read the incident Compton detailed where Smith had loyalists spirit Fanny out of Kirtland so she wouldn't be able to testify to their affair in a church court. Obviously, if there was nothing improper about their relationship, Smith needn't have done that. But his action indicates consciousness of guilt, and tells us that their relationship was most likely sexual. I also find it amusing that while FAIR relies heavily on Oliver Cowdery's "testimony" about the angel and the golden plates, when it comes to the Smith/Fanny Alger affair, he suddenly becomes an unreliable "third-hand witness." This demonstrates Mopologists' disingenuous double standards in usage of sources.

What amuses me the most about these types of responses from FAIR is their naivete in failing to appreciate the negative impact that their articles will have on the average TBM who stumbles across them on the internet. We all know that the vast majority of TBMs don't even know that Smith was a polygamist, and incorrectly believe that polygamy wasn't begun until after Smith's death, to allegedly provide husbands for women whose first husbands had died in "persecutions" or while making the trek to Utah. And most of the those few TBMs who have heard somewhere that Smith *was* a polygamist believe that his "plural marriages" were merely "spiritual" or "for eternity only"---that he reluctantly entered into polygamy only after being forced to by the angel with drawn sword---and that he didn't actually have sex with any of the women, and only "plural married" them in order to half-heartedly fulfill the commandment.

My point being that while FAIR tries, in their ever-juvenile manner, to defend Smith's behavior, just the fact that they even ADMIT that Smith was a polygamist, and acknowledge some details of those relationships, will make lots of TBMs begin questioning things. To prove my point, just think about how many posters to this BB have written that reading productions from FARMS and FAIR helped to drive them out of the church. So keep up the good work, FARMS and FAIR!
Carbon 14, Cosmic Rays, And The Spritual Method Trumps The Scientific Method
Thursday, Apr 6, 2006, at 09:06 AM
Original Author(s): Exedmo
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
From FAIR, this was just too good not to share.

(2nd post on the linked page)

In a nutshell, it has been spritually revealed to him that carbon-14 decay is directly related to the amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth's surface. Prior to Noah's flood, there was so much water in the atmosphere that no cosmic rays penetrated. More cosmic rays means less carbon-14 decay, and less carbon-14 decay means the aging of all living things slows accordingly. Soooooo that's why people lived for 900 years back then.

After the flood the water was gone from the atmosphere, and cosmic rays reached the earth's surface, slowing carbon-14 decay.

And as evidence for this cosmic ray / carbon-14 link, he offers:
...I will cite at least one instance since its formulation where scientists were given notice of the flaw in their assumptions regarding radiocarbon dating. It has been observed that materials dating to the period of above-ground nuclear testing in the United States and Russia, when dated using the radiocarbon method, will return a date in the future!

Why, because the considerable augmentation of cosmic rays slowed the rate at which the Carbon-14 decayed, and therefore the method gives the illusion that the tested items originated in the future.

So to all you silly dogmatic followers of the religion known as science, a TBM has now offered proof-positive that the spiritual method is always better than that superstition known as the "scientific method".
A Trip To FAIR - I Have A Headache And Give Fair A Grade "F"
Wednesday, Apr 26, 2006, at 07:26 AM
Original Author(s): Thinkingoutloud
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
Dear Exmos,

I do not venture over to the FAIR boards because it just seems like a rehash of my marriage. My Ex-husband was verbally abusive, dismissive, and did not play fair. He manipulated, misconstrued, misstated, and misinterpreted conversations in order to always win.

He got the final victory – a life without me – I divorced him. When I told him I wanted a divorce – he said – “I can’t believe it. We are so happy. We have such a good relationship.”

Now it was my turn to be completed aghast and perplexed. What on earth did he think a good relationship was? WINNING! Beating me up verbally. Invalidating, insulting, and minimizing everything I said.

Well – that is FAIR in a nutshell. For those who venture over and fight the good fight – good luck. It is not for me.

Yesterday, BTC mentioned a thread over there that he thought I would find interesting – more as a study in apologetics than anything else. So – over I go and after I got over my initial feelings of nausea, I said, “if one of these people turned in a paper in a Master’s level class (actually any class) they would get an F.” They do not state a clear premise, thesis, hypothesis, or question. They do not support their statements. They are riddled with innuendo, hyperbole, unsubstantiated assumptions, and poorly constructed arguments. They do not seem to know the definitions of the words they are using and throw logical fallacy arguments at people as if calling something a “straw man” or “red herring” makes it so.

Their rebuttals are as contrived and disingenuous as anything I have ever read. They are either stupid, have no writing skills, or are like my husband – bullies – that think “It is so, because I say it is so. You are wrong – because I am right.”

If you think about it – that is the approach of Mormonism. The 12 bullies (I mean apostles) take that stance all the time. Your only recourse as a Mormon – is not to debate, criticize, or have any opinion –

IT IS ONLY to pray until you agree.

My husband wishes I had done that – instead I said – no thanks – I am out of here. That is how I feel about the FAIR boards – no thanks – I am out of here. You all bully yourselves.

But – I did think it would be fun (though a complete waste of time – who cares – I love playing on the RFM site) to grade some of the comments. Enjoy.


“As usual, to avoid an academic discussion....clearly defined words with extensive explanations are slyly redefined so that more meaningless generalities can be piled on top of that. Now Name Removed to Protect Privacy (NRPP) is safe in resorting to the tried and true NOT! N'uh!

Not impressive. But very nice looking strawman”.

For those interested in what "apostate" really meant in the discussion it was poached from before being stripped of its specific meaning that would give anything Beastie is rambling on about any meaning...go here:

QUOTE: The word "apostate" is not mine and it is a designation that is not limited to religion. It is used by sociologists and describes one set of behaviors that we would designate as "anti-Mormon" ... meaning there is active opposition to the church that distinguishes the "apostate" from the average person who simply does not believe a certain set of teachings but does not devote any time or energy to fighting those teachings or believers. I do not want to get into personal discussions as to which poster is an "apostate" as opposed to a "defector" or "whistleblower". We have plenty of public figures to discuss.

QUOTE: The apostate role is typically not only the most acrimonious of the three types, but in its fullest sense it requires an external, oppositional organization or coalition to embrace the apostate and to lend credence and legitimacy to the typical “captivity narrative” explaining both the erstwhile affiliation and the eventual departure of the apostate.
Armand L. Mauss “ Apostasy and the Management of Spoiled Identity,” The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements, ed. David G. Bromley (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers), 52.

Yet, a good part of the reason this "liberal LDS accept ambiguity, apostates are fundamentalists who can't tolerate ambiguity lose faith and leave" has arisen is due to the fact that prophets, despite their sincerity, despite their years of practice, despite their conforming to the spirit, don't seem to be any better than any other believer at discerning what God is REALLY saying versus what their own culture, (see priesthood ban) or imagination (see Zelph) may be telling them God is saying.

Who has ever claimed this? You are setting up a strawman instead of addressing what has been said. It is a very small and very angry group who leaves the church because of their inability to accept that prophets may not be infallible, scripture can't give objective TRUTH and the church may not always be perfect. Most people simply leave and move on to what seems to them to be a more fulfilling existence than the church offers. They do not spend their days chasing down Mormons to fight with. It is disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that anyone has ever claimed the phony proposition that you are substituting for what has been observed by many people for many years.

Fundamentalists are classified by certain characteristics. The angry exmos who swarm websites, man the anti-Mormon ministries and generally devote a portion of their lives to arguing with people who are different than they are share most of those characteristics. These people define themselves by who they are not. Now notice I did not say "people who leave the church". Isn't it time you dropped that ploy?

Fundamentism is:
1. Reactionary.
2. Militant.
3. Demands inerrancy and infallibility in religion.
4. Literal-minded or intolerant philosophy with pretense of being the sole source of objective truth. (notice that LDS who do not toe the line with the fundamentalist exmo's expectations are accused of not being a real Mormon.)
5. Discomfort with "ambiguity, process, tentative conclusions, and ideological conflict" thus they seek out hard science where " truth is a matter of true and precise propositions that, when properly classified and organized, will work."
(Beastie's lament is a prime example of this discomfort and search for the proper classification and organization.)
(citations are provided in link given above)


First – you don’t seem to know what the Straw Man logical fallacy is. Here is a definition for you:
"A straw man (or straw dog) argument is a rhetorical technique based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, since the argument actually presented by the opponent has not been refuted."

In fact, what you are doing – is a great example of the straw man fallacy.

Next, you attack the poster for redefining words and then state the definition you are using. The first word was “apostate.” The problem is that your definition is derived from a text (which you reference) but is in fact not the common definition of the word. Without everyone having read the text and agreeing to this new and expanded definition – it is inappropriate to think that you can base your comments on this definition. You really need to stick to definitions that are common and easily looked up. I included three to show you that it is pretty clear what the accepted definition is.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
one who commits apostasy
Main Entry: apos•ta•sy
1 : renunciation of a religious faith
2 : abandonment of a previous loyalty : DEFECTION

Cambridge Dictionary
the act of giving up your religious or political beliefs and leaving a religion or a political party:
In those days apostasy was punishable by death.

a person who has given up their religion or left a political party

American Heritage

One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause.

In using your extended definition and in ridiculing the poster – you are engaging in unfair debate. It is in fact you who is changing the meaning of words in order to obscure you argument. You really don’t offer an argument – just sarcasm and taunting. Also – you changed the word "Apostate" – from merely abandonment of one’s faith – to one who:

is in active opposition,
requires an external, oppositional organization,

Though sociologists also include that an apostate tends to be critical of the previous faith – you are suggesting an aggressive attack mode. I don’t think you show that the poster is aggressively attacking or is acrimonious. If fact – you are the only one who really seems to be attacking and acrimonious.

I don’t think criticism is a bad thing – I am not sure why you think it is so damning.

The next word: fundamentalism

1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

Cambridge Definition
the belief in old and traditional forms of religion, or the belief that what is written in a holy book, such as the Christian Bible, is completely true:

American Heritage
the belief that the traditional principles of a religion should be maintained, and that what is taught in a holy book should be obeyed

You have really done some crazy things with this word – rendering any discussion pointless. You use it to shut your opponent up – and to make any point of discussion perplexing and confusing.

As far as the definition you have:

Reactionary, Militant, Demands inerrancy and infallibility in religion, Literal-minded or intolerant philosophy with pretense of being the sole source of objective truth, Discomfort with "ambiguity, process, tentative conclusions, and ideological conflict" thus they seek out hard science where " truth is a matter of true and precise propositions that, when properly classified and organized, will work."

Where I think you really go wrong on this definition is: thus they seek out hard science where " truth is a matter of true and precise propositions that, when properly classified and organized, will work."

That actually is a direct contridiction to the definition of fundamentalism.

Also – your point is confusing. Are you saying that hard science is always true and precise? I am a research manager working with basic scientists and there are many propositions that we work with – what the scientist attempts to do is find consistent evidence that is measurable and repeatable (precise?) to confirm that proposition. Are you saying that is a bad thing? Are you saying that to desire concrete answers and evidence precludes one from also understanding and dealing with ambiguity?

Are you stating that people must either be comfortable with ambiguity or comfortable with “true and precise propositions that, when properly classified and organized, will work?"

I don’t think you are making you case at all – you are once again being dismissive, misinterpreting, and confounding the discussion. Why are you doing that? Why don’t you think through you argument more?

You state: (NRPP is a prime example of this discomfort and search for the proper classification and organization.)

First – I do not see in NRPP’s statements what you are suggesting. You need to support your accusations. Saying it does not make it so.

Also, once again – you have not convinced me that this is a bad thing or mutually exclusive to understanding and being comfortable with ambiguity.

I am giving you a score of 0. an F! You do not state your case, think that you can say anything, use any definition, any logical fallacy – and that is enough. Just say someone used a straw man argument – and WOW – you seem to think that discredits the poster and that you have no responsibility to go beyond that.

Your use of definitions is manipulative and quite frankly – comes across as belittling and with the intent to deride and embarrass your opponent – again with no real effort on your part to offer sound, logical, and well thought out ideas.

Based on your argument style I think I can offer a set of rules for future apologists:

1) Simply respond to any argument – "That is a straw man, that is a red herring, or another good one - ad hominem argument". You do not need to actually address the content of the information or counter the argument – just make fun of it.
2) Use words differently from common usage – then when you are misunderstood – ridicule the poster or post and offer some expanded meaning you got from some book – as though – gosh everyone knows that!
3) Reach ridiculous conclusions – but try to make it sound like – "well, of course!" – for example – if someone says that they questions if a man is a prophet because that man had sex with other men’s wives – or taught blood atonement, say:

"You can not accept that a prophet can be human and make mistakes therefore you can not accept ambiguity. You, therefore, are a fundamentalist that can only deal with facts and figures that are proven scientifically and can not deal with ambiguity. The problem is not that a man that claimed to be a prophet committed egregious sins – it is that you can not deal with ambiguity".

OK – my report on FAIR is over and I am back to talking to the RFMers. FAIR is crazy. For those who like to go over there and play – may the force be with you.
Juliann: "My Vote Is To Shut The Board Down." Stunning Developments At FAIR
Monday, May 22, 2006, at 07:23 AM
Original Author(s): Doctor Scratch
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
Yep, you heard right, "juliann," the Grande Dame whiner of FAIR, and one of the most condescending and nasty of all apologists (possibly even exceeding DCP), has called for the shutdown of FAIR:

She also appears to be whimpering and crying about all the "abuse" she has to put up with. Boo hoo hoo! Poor juliann, who leads Dunamis, Dexios, and Archon around by their snouts! Let's remember that this is the same Juliann who never hesitates to brag about how she is a student at Claremont Graduate School, and thus, one supposes, has some sort of superior knowledge on all religion-related subjects. Never mind that a few moments of searching the CGU website and related sites reveal that Juliann appears to have accomplished *NOTHING WHATSOEVER* of note, at least not outside the cozy confines of FAIR and FARMS. In fact, if you look carefully, you can find a set of notes, written by juliann, which are riddled with beaucoup typos and errors! LOL!!! Way to represent the LDS community at Claremont, juliann!!

Also noteworthy, Brent Metcalfe, the great researcher of Mormonism, aka "exegete," has essentially been shooed off of FAIR. The details are here:

He, along with "Rollo Tomasi," has become the second recent casualty of the recent purge at FAIR. Who's next? Kevin Graham?

Finally, after a lengthy hiatus, Daniel "Doughnut Boy" Peterson has returned. One suspects that Peterson's absence had something to do with his embarrassing slip-up regarding the smear campaign mounted against Michael Quinn by Quinn's Stake President, among other people. What's especially funny is that DCP is still lying about this whole episode, and the conversational topics that led up to it:

Funny, isn't it, that DCP says, regarding the recent conference at Yale:

"We did not, however, exercise prior restraint upon any of the speakers, and had no ultimate control over what they finally chose to say. When they stood up to speak, they were completely free agents."

Oh, really, DCP? Then why did BYU threaten to put the kibbosh on the whole thing if Mike Quinn was allowed to present? Instead, he was relegated to the relatively minor role of introducting somebody, just because you, juliann, and the other apologetic wankers have an axe to grind. Good grief, doughnut boy!!

Lots of fun these days! How did I miss all this drama? ;)
Allen Wyatt's "Practical Joke"
Thursday, Aug 17, 2006, at 06:44 AM
Original Author(s): Doctor Scratch
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
In looking over some old threads on the ironically named FAIRboard, I came across this classic. As many will remember, Grant Palmer suffered a backlash, and ecclesiastical punishment after the publication of his book, and was subsequently embraced by people critical of the church. The story goes that folks on RfM rallied around him, decided to set up a charitible website, called "," but they were beaten to the punch by... Allen Wyatt of FAIR. What ensued is one of the great classics in FAIR history. It will be deleted at the two year mark this December, however, I for one would like to see the best excerpts from it live on. Enjoy!

(Note: the thread was opened by a poster named "Sarah," whose original title, " purchased by FAIR," was altered--without permission, evidently---by Dunamis.)

Here are some of the juciest posts:

Calmoriah wrote:
Thanks for the info.

NH, I'm voting for the "Outrageous sense of humour?" knowing Allen if he is the dastardly culprit.

Or it could be a "Really Outrageous sense of humour" and be someone who purchased it on behalf of Allen to get the poor man in trouble with those dogooders that stand for Truth, Justice and the American Way over on RFM. (I did that by mistake one time, paying for a .com, instead of a .org...sigh, couldn't get anyone to respond to me and then when they finally did, lost the bill that was proof that I had paid for it and couldn't get reimbursed).
Note the sense, in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph, where Cal thinks this could "get the poor man [i.e., Allen Wyatt] in trouble." This will be important later.

A couple of other posters chime in:

Blink wrote:
Perhaps whoever purchased the name wanted to present it to Mr Palmer all wrapped up in tissue paper and tied with a bow, with a tag that reads: "Have a Merry ExChristmas"?

The world may be ready for Mr Palmer's ideas. The church is not.
jetpilot wrote:
Don't mean to swing the conversation to far to the serious side....but.....I had no Idea the Church is going after Brother Palmer. Does anyone have any insider information???? Is it because of his book? If it is because of his book then what about the book is false???
Finally, we get a response from the Big Cheese himself:

Allen Wyatt wrote:
I see that my domain purchases over the past 36 hours have somehow become a topic worthy of discussion. I find that quite amusing.

To set the record straight...

I saw that someone was planning to create a Web site on a topic that I know something about, to do it using a "take" that I disagree with, by means that I think are ill-conceived. So, I purchased the domains. I did nothing illegal, unethical, or immoral. Domain name availability and registration is purely capitalistic, on a first-come, first-served basis. I used the system without any abuse or coercion on my part.

I did not purchase the domains with the intent of somehow stopping or censoring those wishing to somehow support Grant Palmer by attempting to insert themselves into what should be a purely ecclessiastical matter. They can still rally support or publish information in any manner they wish--they just can't do it with domain names that I purchased.

FAIR did not purchase the domain names. I did. I did not use FAIR funds, and I did not consult with FAIR personnel before making the purchase. It was my decision, and my decision alone. My actions do not indicate FAIR complicity or approval in the matter any more than Brother Palmer's writings indicate complicity or approval of the Church by virtue of his previous employment.

I know that this will do nothing to calm those who see villany and dastardly intent from anyone who supports the Church, but for those who think I somehow did something mean, dirty, or underhanded I can say only one thing: Get a life! Purchasing those domains provided the best entertainment value (dollar for dollar) that I've had in a long time. It took me all of four and a half minutes, and provided hours of chuckles.

I now return you to your regular world of contemplating the perceived unfairness of the universe (and the Church's ultimate responsibility for that unfairness), while I slither away to plot my next nefarious deed.
Especially interesting is his rather sadistic remark, at the bottom of the next-to-last paragraph, that Palmer's suffering and disciplining caused him (i.e., Wyatt and his pals) "hours of chuckles." Am I wrong to think that Bro. Wyatt's behavior in this instance was awfully petty?

The thread goes on:

Mighty Curelom wrote:
This is amazing. You people are so stuck in defense mode that you can't even acknowledge when one of your own does something inappropriate. Does ANYONE here have the integrity to admit Allen did something wrong?
mimesis wrote:
Allen is a very savvy marketer who knows how to move quickly on an opportunity. I'm guessing that he will point the website to a "best of Grant Palmer" page on FAIR. People who are gaming to support Grant (or "save" him for that matter) will have to look at the other side of the equation. (As if supporter of Palmer hadn't see "the other side of the equation" to begin with.)
jetpilot wrote:

Isn't that the name of this organization???? I guess dissent doesn't get a fair shake around here.
The next post really got to Mr. Wyatt:

juxtaposed wrote:

That's in poor taste.

It is a mean and under-handed approach, a sucker punch, dirty tactics, and well, a great deal of other things. It may not be illegal, but it sure is unethical and immoral.

Going out of your way to prevent the spread of ideas and information (yes, even if you believe the information wrong or false) is just deplorable in my mind.

Here's Wyatt's response:

Allen Wyatt wrote:
QUOTE: Juxtaposed said: Going out of your way to prevent the spread of ideas and information (yes, even if you believe the information wrong or false) is just deplorable in my mind.

Can't read too well, can you? Let me quote from my first message:

QUOTE: I did not purchase the domains with the intent of somehow stopping or censoring those wishing to somehow support Grant Palmer by attempting to insert themselves into what should be a purely ecclessiastical matter. They can still rally support or publish information in any manner they wish--they just can't do it with domain names that I purchased.

You see, I told you what my intent was, and you either missed it, ignored it, or don't believe it. In response you say that my intent was to "prevent the spread of ideas and information." Balderdash. (Does Juxtaposed know my intent better than I do myself? Hmmm...)

But, I wonder if Juxtaposed would apply his/her same indignance to those who try to prevent the spread of the LDS gospel. Does Juxtaposed find it just as deplorable that there are those who "go out of their way" to create vitriolic Web sites, or picket temple open houses, or use bullhorns outside General Conference, or promote picketing a stake center during disciplinary councils? Somehow I doubt it.

I purchase Web domains, and I'm the meanie who should be strung up. Someone wants to interfere with a private organization (the Church) exercising an inquiry into the membership status of an individual (Grant Palmer), and people try to tattoo "Disseminator of Truth" on the person's bicep.

It truly is an amazing world we live in.
My thoughts:
  1. Where does he say what his intent was? Does he mean the part about what he views as a "purely ecclesiastical matter"? (And if so, why did he get involved, on the Internet?)
  2. In all too typical apologist fashion, he turns the battle into a David v. Goliath, overblown mess, with the church as the poor, oppressed minority, and Grant Palmer and his supporters as the unstoppable "anti" juggernaut.
  3. By his own words, he is using a wrong to justify a wrong.
No thread would be complete without Pahoran coming in, frothing at the mouth and crying like the big baby that he is:

Pahoran wrote:
Then there was the little anti-Mormon "ministry" (a codeword for a business that targets a religious market and would like to be tax-exempt) a few years ago that purchased the domain names "" and "" in deliberate imitation of the legitimate .org variations of those names, and set up their own propaganda sites at those domains.

Strangely enough, I never heard even one anti-Mormon protesting about that.

I wonder why?

Regards, Pahoran
A pretty good assessment here:

rabane wrote:
I'm really a bit surprised here, and disappoipnted in you. You may think it was funny, but what you actually did was to legally prevent various persons from expressing themselves using a doman name that they took the trouble to come up with. yes, yes, I know you had every right, etc etc etc., but what you did goes beyond what is permissable or legal. It was just in relly bad taste, and sorry, was exactly the kind of thing anti-Mormons would expect a cultist to do. You really made a bad move here. And despite your cries of innocence when it comes to not wanting to censor people, the fact is that you did just that. You did allow people, albeit legally, to express thmeselves where they wanted to do so–i.e., at doman names and These, of course, would have been perfect for people seeking to voice their opinions on the matter (good similarity of purpose/intent, search engine ease, etc etc etc). There is no reason at all for you, an obvious non-supporter ofPalmer, to snatch up these domains in a deliberate attempt to simply steal them away from those who wanted them. You threw a wrench into the wheels of internet workings and you know it. Really, it was not very cool AT ALL. Legal, yes, but cool, no.

It would be like me reading a thread on this board wherein some LDS were responding to a hot topic about an apostle, and they said, "Hey, let's really help out the church and Apostle Jeffrey Smith, and get a website up top support him. We'll call it '' and also get one called '' and then, I went out and grabbed up those two domains so they could not use them.

Really, Allen. So, totally uncool
Bro. Wyatt, really feeling the heat at this point, responds this way (and note the language he uses):

Allen Wyatt wrote:

Nice to hear from you. Glad to see that your cool-o-meter is in fine form. I'll tell you what; if it stays in working order, join me outside the next General Conference. You can then tell your fellow Christians how they belong to a cult and aren't very cool as they wave around LDS undergarments and call passing women sluts and whores. (Yes, I've heard it. Been there, done that. If you come, I'll even introduce you to them, most by name.) See if it has any effect on their "Christian" behavior. You can discuss with them the finer points of Calvinism (which they abhor) and they can tell you why any translation of the Bible except the KJV is of the devil.

If you don't want to talk with them, you might consider discussing religion with the gentleman from Dayton, Ohio, who says that his God is bigger than the LDS God, and even has a Web site to "prove" it. (He even got on the FAIR Apologetics list once, under false pretenses.)

Or how about the ones who dress up as LDS missionaries to hand out their anti-Mormon tracts? Or the ones who hand out tracts designed to look just like tourist brochures? The list could go on and on, and I'm sure they would all love to hear how cool you think they are.

Of course, if you'd rather not talk to those folks at conference (some of them are, honestly, a little scary), you can always talk to some of the folks at RFM who boasted about following missionaries around and knocking on doors right after they were there, to tell them the "truth" about the LDS Church. Or the RFMers who really did track down Scott's house and go knock on his door and scare the bejeebers out of his wife. They're cool, too, I'm sure. (Of course, even if you tried to tell them they weren't cool, RFM would probably pull down your post within 5 minutes of posting it anyway; better stick to conference. )

I didn't censor anyone, regardless of how you want to characterize it. In fact, Hellmut already has his Website up elsewhere. He's now ready to interfere in something that is none of his business.

Tell me, Richard. If the pastor of your church was counseling with a congregation member concerning their "unchristian behavior" -- behavior which may get them kicked out of the congregation -- would you look kindly on ex-congregation members trying to stick their noses in where they don't belong and disrupt the counseling? Would that be "cool?"
Mighty Curelom, in all his wisdom, sees right through this tactic:

Mighty Curelom wrote:
So, because a few overzealous fundamentalist Christians show up at conference, that justifies your inappropriate behavior?

"But they do mean things too!"

That's quite a defense you got there.
Every thread needs a little DCP, too, who's swooping in here to provide a bit of damage control:

Daniel Peterson wrote:
I'm afraid that I can't see what all the righteous ventilating is about. Allen Wyatt's action seems to me something of a prank, nothing more. Nobody's rights have been violated, nobody has been harmed, nobody's wallet has been emptied (except, apparently, Allen's), nobody has been silenced, nobody has been wronged. Those who hope to create a media circus around l'affaire Palmer will still be able to launch their campaign to that end, without even a slight delay, having been subjected only to the very, very marginal inconvenience of coming up with an alternative domain name.

Big deal.

Since the offense, if it exists at all, is so very microscopic, I suspect that other motivations are at work here. And, knowing something of the attitudes of those doing the ventilating, I don't find it too very taxing to guess what those other and more fundamental motivations are.

It's just the same old same old.

Apparently he doesn't want to acknoweldge the "tit for tat", or, as juliann would say, "neener neener" motivations obvious in his buddy Allen's behavior.

This poster offers up some insight:

VEL wrote:
So let me see if I've go this straight Allen, you heard others come up with a domain name so you buy it first. You didn't think of the name yourself you just disagreed with what you thought was going to be posted there. And then you claim justification because a buch of idiots yell at people at conference?

You really don't see anything unethical about this at all?? You did steal someone else's idea. I would feel the same way if someone stole your idea. If someone heard you discussing a new name for a site about apologetics and then ran out and registered it before you could I would consider that just as unethical.

QUOTE (Daniel Peterson) nobody has been wronged

The person that thoght of the domain name has been wronged. Allen took an idea that wasn't his.
In effect, Allen Wyatt has committed a kind of intellectual theft.

Here's more DCP:

Daniel Peterson wrote:
I'll go further. Personally, I don't even have enough integrity to recognize "unethical behavior" in what Allen Wyatt did. To me, it's just a prank. And, moreover, a harmless prank.

I can understand being irritated by it, if you're the victim and rather solemnly humor impaired, but I can't see much reason for moral outrage. The whole issue is pretty silly, or so it seems to me.

But then, I've been involved in lots and lots of practical jokes in my life, and, now that I think about it, many if not most of them have involved unethical behavior. I must simply be devoid of conscience. I've lied to people in connection with surprise parties. I've disguised my identity by using masks. I've set people up for pranks by means of half-truths. I've written satirical pieces that were not literally and strictly true. I've exaggerated things in jokes. I've done all of those things. And unrepentantly, too.

Sigh. Human depravity is a bottomless pit.

I confess, though, Curelom, that the moral basis on which you, an atheist, condemn Allen Wyatt's action is opaque to me. What does it rest upon? And what if Allen doesn't share it? What if I reject it? On what basis would you disagree? What if I think that lying is just fine? Who are you to tell me it's not? And why should I listen to you?

Speaking of "bottomless pits," attempting to derive ought-statements from is-statements strikes me as a direct path into the abyss.
(bold emphasis mine, since DCP apparently is unable to see his gossiping as "pretty silly.")

Some further twists in the drama, involving our very own beloved Dr. Shades:

Allen Wyatt wrote:
(*sigh* Why do I bother?)

QUOTE Dr. Shades said: The new "official" website is finally online.

Someone should note that this is the second such site. The original site, located here, had too much of a Christian slant. (See the RFM discussion here.) Obviously that doesn't fit within the RFM predominant worldview, so Deconstructor apparently "borrowed" the site design from Hellmut (the original site's sponsor) and created one more to the secular tastes of the RFM crowd.

I have no knowledge whether the plagiarism on the part of Deconstructor and the RFM crowd was done with the knowledge and permission of Hellmut. The truth squad, which insists on the full disclosure of such things, apparently doesn't exist within the ranks of RFM. (Note to self: Legally registering domains is not OK; plagiarizing someone else's design is. Got it.)

The cavalier "borrowing" is admitted in this RFM message, but really--all one has to do is compare the two sites. Perhaps you can enlighten us, Dr. Shades--would Deconstructor be considered a chapel plagiarist or an Internet plagiarist?

QUOTE Dr. Shades said: It includes discussion of Allen Wyatt's tasteless actions.

I note that the site doesn't mention that I called Hellmut on the phone today and offered to give him the domains. (He turned me down, but thanked me for the offer. It was a pleasant conversation, which according to the mischaracterizations here should not have been possible with the tasteless Allen Wyatt.)

QUOTE Dr. Shades said: Also, no one has answered the question why, when and were bought up and turned into anti-Mormon websites, everyone here screamed bloody murder...

Perhaps it's because you haven't provided documentation to back up your assertion. Assuming I am part of "everyone," I can tell you that I never batted an eye about it. It happens; we move on.

QUOTE Dr. Shades said: ...but when Wyatt goes out and takes,,, and, nearly everyone (save a few courageous souls) thinks it's a neat joke.

Thank goodness for the courageous among us. (Note to self: Expand the definition of courageous to include those with a humor-impairment syndrome. Show picture of Dr. Shades beside definition.)

QUOTE Dr. Shades said: Heck, at least the anti-Mormon guy left you the *.org halves, which Wyatt didn't do.

He didn't leave us with them; we got that part first. The other guy came along later.

QUOTE Dr. Shades said: Why the egregious double-standard?

Sorry; next time I'll try to use double standards that are a bit less egregious. From your vast experience, do you have any suggestions of ones that you've found particularly useful?

QUOTE Dr. Shades said: Also, does Mr. Wyatt monitor the discussions at RFM on his own, or does he have spies who do it for him?

Hmmm... Wyatt was "monitoring," but the others were "discussing." In an open forum. I see. Oh, wait! I remember... I tried several times to move from "monitoring" to "discussing," and the moderators deleted my posts within three minutes, thereby letting me know that they were happy with my "monitoring" status. As long as the moderators at RFM are happy, so am I. (If you prefer me to not monitor, I suggest you talk with them. I would be happy to discuss, instead.)

QUOTE Dr. Shades said: (I have a hard time believing he just dropped in, completely randomly, at *precisely* the right time like that.)

You are full of all sorts of assumptions, aren't you? You really should not believe everything you read at Deconstructor's pro-Palmer site. Hellmut wrote to Richard Packham what he was going to do. Richard Packham posted it on a public mailing list; it didn't appear at RFM first. I got the digest for the mailing list, and that's when I learned about Hellmut's tasteless plans. (Sorry; just wanted to use adjectives that you find acceptable.)

It was an announcement of Hellmut's intent, not a discussion, as Deconstructor parsed it. On his plagiarized Web site Deconstructor says it was during an "open online discussion of the possibility of setting up websites savegrantpalmer and supportgrantpalmer" that I did my nefarious deed. He lied. As far as I know, he's not even on Richard Packham's exmormon mailing list; if he is, he has been as silent as I have, because he hasn't posted there in the two years I've been on the list.)

And a terrific question from another poster:

Lara Croft wrote:
Why did you offer to give the domains to Hellmut? Did you feel guilty, and wanted to make a wrong, right?
What do you suppose is Allen's reply? Hmmm....

Allen Wyatt wrote:
Nope. Didn't feel guilty in the least. As I've said all along--and which the conspiracy-minded mean-Mormon-seeing crowd ignores--my intent was not to censor Hellmut. I just didn't (and don't) agree with what he is doing. I "tweaked" him; I put speed bumps in his path, if you prefer that analogy.

I still think what he is doing is wrong, and I told him so during our conversation. As I see it, he is attempting to interfere in a private ecclessiastical matter. But, now that his info is out in different areas, and the secular crowd at RFM has unceremoniously grabbed his site design from him, the "speed bumps" have lost their effectiveness, so I offered them to him.

Plain and simple.

(By the way--I offered them to Hellmut. I would not offer them to anyone else but him. Don't any of you RFMers get any ideas. )

Here's DCP hedging, and playing semantic games:

DCP wrote:
QUOTE (Dr. Shades @ Dec 6 2004, 08:15 PM) Also, no one has answered the question why, when and were bought up and turned into anti-Mormon websites, everyone here screamed bloody murder, but when Wyatt goes out and takes,,, and, nearly everyone (save a few courageous souls) thinks it's a neat joke.

I think it's one thing, merely a prank, to buy a domain name out from under somebody else, and it's quite another to set up a deceptive web site under a name that is designed to trick people into accessing it who would not freely choose to do so and who would be offended or irritated by its content.

I have not found this sort of thing funny, or merely a prank, since the time, many years ago, when I was looking for a ward to attend in a city away from home, and found, in the telephone book, an entry for The Church of Jesus Christ of Ex-Latter-day Saints, which, if dialed, connected the uncareful and unsuspecting caller to a vitriolic recorded denunciation of Mormons as deceivers and non-Christian cultists.

There is no double standard on my part. If a Latter-day Saint were to set up a web site designed to lure Roman Catholics or Buddhists in for a walloping, or put a telephone number in the directory under an entry for the United Churrch of Christ, connected to an anti-Protestant recording, I would without hesitation denounce it as inappropriate and unethical.

I continue to regard the wailing on this thread as silly. Nothing wrong has been done. Nobody has been injured. It's no big deal.
The thread winds down with this unsubstantiated claim made by DCP:
Quote: I think it's one thing, merely a prank, to buy a domain name out from under somebody else, and it's quite another to set up a deceptive web site under a name that is designed to trick people into accessing it who would not freely choose to do so and who would be offended or irritated by its content.

I have not found this sort of thing funny, or merely a prank, since the time, many years ago, when I was looking for a ward to attend in a city away from home, and found, in the telephone book, an entry for The Church of Jesus Christ of Ex-Latter-day Saints, which, if dialed, connected the uncareful and unsuspecting caller to a vitriolic recorded denunciation of Mormons as deceivers and non-Christian cultists.
When challenged, DCP flew into a sanctimonious rage:

DCP wrote:
QUOTE (Belgian Trippel @ Dec 6 2004, 11:17 PM) I doubt that the story that you tell is true, and if it is, please substantiate it.

What were you doing calling a The Church of Jesus Christ of Ex-Latter-day Saints listing, anyways? Duh, like that going to be the LDS Church. Red flags? Anyone?

The story is true. San Marino, California. Summer, 1979 or 1980, I think, during a visit back to the States from studies in Egypt.

How on earth do you want me to "substantiate" it? Do you steal other people's phone directories and hoard them for a quarter-century? Well, even if you do, I don't.

The listing for The Church of Jesus Christ of Ex-Latter-day Saints had, manifestly, been set up by an anti-Mormon organization (if I recall correctly, it was "Ex-Mormons for Jesus") in order to place their number among other listings for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I noticed the extra syllable and called anyway, out of curiosity. But it would scarcely be surprising if hasty phone-book users often failed to notice that little change, and called inadvertently. That was clearly the expectation of the group that had obtained the listing, since they manifestly weren't really a church at all.

I left a comment along those lines on their recording machine, which led to a correspondence with one of their leaders, a certain Janell McGregor. That was my first substantial contact with evangelical anti-Mormons, and it led to several things that I've done subsequently. (Thank you, Janell!)

If you still believe that I'm lying, I invite you to prove your accusation. Or at least to supply some plausible reason for your charge, apart from a general hostility toward Mormonism and Mormons.
And the final remark? To Dr. Shades, naturally!

Dr. Shades wrote:
QUOTE (Blink @ Dec 7 2004, 04:16 PM) Can a person not make a statement about something they've observed in their personal life, without having to provide documentation and witnesses?

That's a good question.
All in all, a terrific thread. Very revealing, imo.
Julian And The Problem With "Apostates"
Monday, Oct 16, 2006, at 06:45 AM
Original Author(s): Beastie
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
Julian from FAIR writes about Ex-Mormons:
An anti-Mormon (or technical term "apostate") has no compelling story without the required elements. There has to be the element of him being deceived so that the apostate can establish that he was not responsible for his active participation. Otherwise, he is not a hero...he is a rather pathetic traitor. Because of this...the revelation (or conversion) has to build to a crescendo of blinding realization...a sudden moment where they "know" to protect them from culpability by making them look enlightened and bold instead of the dupes their story actually sets them up to be. Everything has to be calculated to explain why they participated so willingly for so long in what they now claim is something close to evil (or whatever pejorative is in vogue).

Unlike typical leave takers whose responses range from indifference to quiet disenchantment, the apostate assumes a vituperative or hostile posture and pursues a moral campaign to discredit the group.

Daniel Carson Johnson, “Apostates Who Never Were: The Social Construction of Absque Facto Apostate Narratives,” in The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements, ed. David G. Bromley (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1998), 109.
There are two things to remember when Juliann gets into her favorite topic of "the problem with apostates". (btw, she and I duked it out over her misuse of her experts months ago before I left the board, and she demonstrated the same problems)

One, is that she often chooses to cite experts who are either mormon, or who are members of other groups that the larger society views as subversive (her favorite source is a well known defender of a group in Italy that is generally viewed as a cult over there, can't remember the name at the moment, however). I think it is an open question regarding whether or not these people have their own agenda, which is to somehow discredit the apostate for simply being an apostate.

Second, is that Juliann either has very poor reading comprehension, or she deliberately distorts her sources. She and I had a long argument over a trivial detail embedded within a much more important larger point (ie, I mentioned that human sacrifice was in inherent part of the Mesoamerican ballgame, but my larger point was wondering why we couldn't glean meaningful information about ancient Mesoamerica by reading the BoM when preachers of the "one true" religion often warn their followers of specific acts the larger culture is engaging in at that time, ie, human sacrifice associated with ballgames). Anyway, she picked a quote from a book that she interpreted meant that there is no evidence human sacrifice was associated with ballgames in ancient Mesoamerica. I provided source after source demonstrating she was wrong, but I finally realized that her core problem was that she had completely misread her own source, which said there is no evidence that the WINNERS were sacrificed (iow, the losers were). It literally took me pages to get her to understand how she had so basically misunderstood her own source, and she still pretended I didn't know what I was talking about.

Juliann is one of the most frustrating people I've ever had internet discussions with for these reasons. In the end it is rarely worth it. I have concluded she is very sensitive regarding her intellect, and despises the fact that exmormons often seem to believe that mormons are continuing to believe stupid, or discredited, ideas. So her number one agenda seems to be to find a way to discredit what exmormons say without having to actually deal with the substance of their comments, and she does that with her sociological approach - to her, all her experts are basically saying you can ignore what apostates say because they are lying, whether or not they know they are lying. (they are rewriting history to justify their treason)

I would advise not to put a lot of time into your discussions with her. You'll kick yourself later for wasting your time so extravagantly - I know I did every time I engaged her. If I ever went back to fAIR, which I wouldn't/won't, I would immediately use the new "ignore" function for Juliann.

BTW, edit on, I now remember what she so misunderstood about our disagreement regarding defector/apostate. Her source specifically stated that the defector accepted the MORAL responsibility for the failure of the relationship between believer and church. Obviously, this cannot describe any person who leaves because they no longer believe the church is "true". By her own source, it included people who just could not live up to their covenants, and accepted that as their fault, not the fault of the organization (like a nun who decides she cannot live a celibate life and leaves the nunnery, but accepts the fault as her own failure). She mocked me for fixating on the part explaining the MORAL responsibility as if that were irrelevant. This is due to the fact that she believes the only good exmormon is a SILENT exmormon, but couldn't quite bring herself to state that the simple act of disbelief, in and of itself, was a gross sin. Instead the sin is that we choose to DISCUSS our disbelief, instead of going quietlyinto the night, like she imagines her sister has.

What I find funny about all this, is that I guarantee that every SILENT exmormon I know - ie, they aren't interested in discussing it on the internet or in real life - actually are in agreement with my general opinion about the mormon church. They just don't say the words out loud where mormons might read them. They're not interested enough to do so - it's not that their beliefs, feelings, or attitudes are generally POSITIVE to the church just because they are silent, if that makes sense.
FAIR Contradicts FAIR
Thursday, Apr 12, 2007, at 09:22 AM
Original Author(s): Urineandthumbin
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
I was reading the FAIR explanations (no, I don't have a valid reason for doing so) and I noticed a contradiction that made me chuckle.

In an article defending the church position on Matthew 22:23-30 (about no marriage in heaven) says, "We believe in continuing revelation....we do not have to show where in the Bible we get this doctrine"

In another article about the "Father" having a sexual union with the Virgin Mary they say, "The place members should always look for official church doctrines is in the canonized scriptures of the church."

So, they want it both ways. Ignore the scriptures and listen to the church leader's continuing revelation OR ignore the continuing revelation of the church leaders and listen to the scriptures.

Thing is, genuine "continuing revelation" would never conflict past continuing revelation. FAIR is a den of liars and vipers.
FAIR: A Prophet Doesn't Speak For God
Monday, Dec 31, 2007, at 08:16 AM
Original Author(s): Infymus
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
The apologists over on FAIR have decided that the Prophet of the Mormon Corporation is no longer a spokesman for God.
Since the current LDS prophets sometimes contradict the former ones, how do you decide which one is correct? Most "contradictions" are actually misunderstandings or misrepresentations of LDS doctrine and teachings by critics. The LDS standard for doctrine is the scriptures, and united statements of the First Presidency and the Twelve.
Misunderstandings? Misrepresentations? Can you show us dear apologists how when Brigham Young spouted off racist doctrine, he was misunderstood? Or he was misrepresented by critics of the Cult? When he created the Adam God Doctrine - was he just misunderstood?

On August 17, 1951, the First Presidency issued the following "Official Statement":
"The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes....."
I don't misunderstand that at all. I see no misrepresentation at all.

FAIR goes on:

[quote]The Saints believe they must be led by revelation, adapted to the circumstances in which they now find themselves. No member is expected to follow prophetic advice "just because the prophet said so." Each member is to receive his or her own revelatory witness from the Holy Ghost. We cannot be led astray in matters of importance if we always appeal to God for His direction. [/quote]

So FAIR now contradicts Mormon Doctrine And Covenants Section 1:38:
"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be bfulfilled..."

"... whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."
So according to cannozied Mormon Scriptures, every member is expected to follow the prophetic advice, regardless of what the prophet says.

Interesting that FAIR contradicts itself on the very same page.

Follow the Prophet
Follow the Prophet
Follow the Prophet
Don't Go Astray
Follow the Prophet
Follow the Prophet
Follow the Prophet
He'll Lead the Way

"When the Prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done."

FAIR needs to stop telling the Mormons to not follow the prophet. They are contradicting cannonized scripture and leading the Mormons into apostacy.
FAIR Now Has A Youtube Channel
Friday, Feb 29, 2008, at 08:04 AM
Original Author(s): Shoehorn
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
It's called YouFib...

They aren't talking about those dog-sized horses again are they?

My biggest fear is that they will obtain fossils and plant them and pretend to "discover" them. Then they will carbon date them and pass them off as valid.

I'm concerned also that these peoples' titles are shown but not their places of education or employment. Could they be ashamed to show the general public that they are all from BYU or LDS approved places? Where is the Smithsonian Institute? Where is Harvard or National Geographic?

The comments here are backed up with absolutely no details. This kind of talk is like what you could expect to overhear at a bar about someone's afternoon at the fishing hole. SPECIFICS PLEASE!!!!!!!

And why is this Peterson guy so paranoid about other scientists "trying to hide" scientific evidence. Scientists have no interest in hiding the truth whether or not what they find is what they allegedly wanted to find-it is against all they believe in. If the evidence actually proved the BOM true, not even an atheist scientist would try to hide it-this paranoid conspiracy gibberish is ridiculous and an insult to the integrity of bona fide scientists.

I like that blurb about "accusations about LDS beliefs". Of course when they disparage the Bible and say it is obsolete and mistranslated, they don't refer that as "accusations against mainstream Christian belief".
Allen Wyatt Finally Comes Clean About The "" Debacle
Friday, Jun 6, 2008, at 07:06 AM
Original Author(s): Dr. Shades
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
Some of you may remember the "" affair from a number of years back. If not, here's a rundown:

When it became known that Grant Palmer, author of "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins," had been scheduled for a "court of love," many people here decided to create a website showing their support for him.

Several people made suggestions for potential domain names for this soon-to-be-created website. When a domain name was decided upon ( and one of them went to register it, lo and behold, Allen Wyatt, one of the chief bigwigs at FAIR, had already registered it and several of its variants.

Yes, he had been monitoring the conversation here and had snatched it up.

After a firestorm of criticism, he maintained that it was merely a "prank" and there was nothing wrong with what he had done.

Now, fast-forward to today: Over at http://www.timesandseasons.or... , in comment #38, Allen says the following:
"I registered some domain names that were going to be used by those critical of the Stake President, in support of Grant Palmer.

Two days later, I offered those domain names to the supporter/critic-in-question, free of charge. I offered them to him via e-mail and in a personal phone call. He declined my offer. In any accounts of the 'incident,' I have yet to see a full account–only how mean and vile I am because I tried to place speedbumps in the path of those criticizing the church."
So it's nice to see him finally admit that his little stunt wasn't a mere "prank;" that he was indeed "try[ing] to place speedbumps in the path of those criticizing the church."
Reality - Challenged MAD Mopologists . . . Includes Shirts' DOA / BOA Stuff
Friday, Mar 13, 2009, at 08:31 AM
Original Author(s): Sl Cabbie
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
Well, I see even ex-Elder Benson quoted some of the apologists' posts in this latest uproar over Big Love showing the temple endowments . . .

I don't share the need to purge myself much of any Temple Trauma (while recognizing that it is probably a legitimate disorder; glad I ducked that one), so I looked elsewhere on MAandD for some other nuggets of absurdity (I do have issues with some of the Mormon teachers I had in junior high and the nonsense they force fed me--with grades being the rubber hose they used--which perhaps explains my wanting to maintain a stranglehold on truthful stuff). There's one right now that some exmo's will likely find in their "lovebomb boxes" sooner or later about "Elephants in the BOM"; I think this one should be named "Thus Puked Zakuska."

(Copy-and-paste protocols, etc., etc.)

So we've got some gomphothere (similar to mastodon) fossils found in Mexico . . . The article notes they date to the end of the Pleistocene era (which ended 10,000 years ago). Our Zakkie, though, finds a Wiki quote that insists they survived until roughly 400 A.D.

Why is it amazing? Because these "elephan"t [sic] bones which date to 400 AD where found along side Horse remains! This is Central America Folks! Just North of the proposed LGT.
Gee, you mean there were zoologists operating in America in 400 A.D? Were they Mayan or Aztec? Naw, lemme guess, they were Nephite . . .

Since the term "Mormonites" is archaic and has been shortened to "Mormons," I propose we use it as a label for Mormon "scholars" who infest the pages of Wiki and shamelessly contaminate legitimate stuff with faith-promoting fantasies (Whaddya say, Seagull Choker?).

Anyway, here's a link that indicates these critters--the gomphotheres, not the mormonites--became extinct around 10,000 B.C.E.
Gomphotheres are [Ed: "were"?] related to primitive elephantids, and share many features with them. Their grinding teeth, for example, had many more cusps and more complicated wear patterns than those of mastodons. Cuvieronius, the last genus of New World gomphotheres to become extinct, was widely distributed in North, Central, and South America. In feeding habits it was presumably a browser. In South America, this taxon survived until about 11,000 radiocarbon years before present; they apparently became extinct somewhat earlier in North America.
Those of you with Wiki-editing privileges might want to pull the tusks on this one . . .

Okay, onto Shirts, our "hack/ward perfesser" who's touting his own YouTube stuff (you guys watching those, make sure you have your you-know-whats fastened down extra tight, okay?):

e=mc2: (That's Shirts, BTW)
Here is a paper I wrote a few years back that I never published. I include . . . the many problems the Reverend Spaulding had in 1912, and the critics again had in the 1960's.
I find this part of Facsimile #2 very intriguing! Look at Fig. 7. as per JS: "Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood;"

Now look at the figure siting in #7, (I've reversed it, since it's upside down in the original) Look how both his hands are positioned, and the geometric symbol above his squared arm. Things that make you go hmmmmm...
Here's a link to a copy of Facsimile #2 . . .

In the lower right of the circular montage is the relevant diagram, between Horus, the Falcon God, and Hathor, the Cow Goddess . . . The figure is an inverted stylized individual who appears to be seated on a bench of some sort . . .

And, migosh, here's a voice of reason . . .

Mortal Man
For the millionth time, that thing sticking out his front is not his hand.
Oh my, Holmes! Whatever is it? Shall we call this "The Case of the Missing Whanger"?

It's a little too high for that. I know they removed it in the '78 version, thinking it might be a phallic thing, but it's back and it's too high for anything like that. Even higher is some of the other versions I've seen of that figure.
The church remove something from its sacred scriptures? Really?

And this next guy says he's the only one entitled to make Polish jokes . . .

It's only not his hand if it is Egyptian. But it is not. We know what the Egyptian is- it is a hypocepalus. But this is the Book of Abraham not a hypocephalus! It only LOOKS like an hypocephalus, but has a whole different meaning. It has been "translated" remember? That is the key here. If you see it as a hypocephalus, you are wrong. It's like saying the cross is only a phallic symbol (which anciently it was).
Ah, are we being schooled in what is truly "Reformed Egyptian"? Gotta do some Googling . . .

Oh, a hypocephalus is a small disk-shaped object generally made of stuccoed linen . . . Yup, there's a picture of one from the British Museum; sure looks like the one linked above, but we're talking about that little item in the seated figure's lap . . . Let's blow up the Wiki picture . . .

Sorry, Sevenbak, that one doesn't look at all high to me . . . My considered opinion is it's definitely a whanger... aka "woody," aka "turgid phallus" for the sheltered sorts out there . . .

And Boyhowdy, that picture and Facsimile #2 sure look alike to me . . .

One more, please. There's another BOA thread . . .

One poster, "LDS1973" ran afoul of the MAandD mods, and his post was deleted with the following scolding:
Deleted. If you're here for personal attacks, find another board. = mods
So what was it that was deleted? I dug the following out of a Google "cache" (offered as a disclaimer since I don't troll MAandD but merely cruise by in the ol' police interceptor and peer through the windows occasionally):

OMG! You are all nuts! Sorry, but the BoA is a FRAUD. Its amazing how deeply one will reach into the recesses of the mind to pull out an answer that rationalizes their faith! Just find me ONE peer reviewed article published in a scholarly journal by a real Egyptologist (LDS need not apply) who supports JS' interpretation!

I have no problem with your faith or beliefs, but here we are talking about actual printed material with JS own interpretation written for all the world to see so please, I'm beggin you to show me that you are not just breathing your own fumes on this one!
Sorry the cops caught you, '73, but I gotta hand it to you; that "breathing your own fumes" line is a keeper . . .

Alas, at MAandD, even the truth isn't a defense against charges of slander . . .
FAIR Admits They Are Not Teaching LDS Official Doctrine
Sunday, Apr 5, 2009, at 08:26 AM
Original Author(s): T-Bone
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
Harold B. Lee was equally explicit: If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.
In other words, the explanations that FAIR provides are simply their own opinion. And they are therefore not to be trusted.
The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.
In other words, when they make leaps in logic and come up with lengthy explanations of why they still want to believe their church is "true" they cannot be taken as the official word on what their church teaches. They are only stating their opinion. And, as they admit, when a man speaks his own opinion he is not to be trusted.

That settles it for me.
Obfuscation Is Good For Testimonies When It Comes To FAIR
Thursday, Jul 16, 2009, at 08:53 AM
Original Author(s): T-Bone
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
As long as it muddies the waters enough, mainstream Mormons who only have a few questions will get confused enough and leave it alone.

The typical form for an apologists essay is, not to mention the thousands of words they use to do it, the following:

*Sigh* We've been over this a million times.

Go off on a tangent about something remotely related.

Sum it all up by saying that the question was made up by bitter anti-Mormons to try and destroy testimonies.

State that anybody who comes to a different conclusion obviously misunderstands the question, or tell the reader that God does not want us to know right now, so we'll just have to wait until his ficklenes decides we're worthy of telling. (But since asking questions is bad, you're not worthy right now.)

There, there, now. *pats member on the head* It'll be OK. Go to church this Sunday. Pray for forgiveness (you are being disobedient and wicked for asking), and pay your tithing. We'll beat up the monsters for you. Just forget it even came up.

I could never live with myself writing that kind of tripe.

It's just a way of keeping members from knowing the truth about Mormonism. Every ruling class wants to keep the common people in the dark, keeping them confused about where the root of their problems really lies (duh - they are being exploited!) and keep them coming back.

The funny thing is, the ruling class in Mormonism is not even engaging in obfuscation. They pay others to do it, and they use church money (i.e. tithing) to do it.

In other words, if you are a member you are paying somebody else to withhold valuable information from you. What a racket!
American Bison And The Book Of Mormon
Friday, Aug 7, 2009, at 08:03 AM
Original Author(s): Michaelm
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
An attack on Rod Meldrum is seen at:

The article contends that the American Indian prevented the bison from spreading to the east, and that the spread occurred only after disease destroyed the human populations.

Such an assertion is disgraceful to the American Indian and disregards historical facts.

A very thorough and exhaustive report was published in 1877:

History of the American Bison, by Joel Asaph Allen, Extracted from the ninth annual report of the survey, for the year 1875, Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, F.V. Hayden, U.S. Geologist-in-Charge, Washington, Government Printing Office, June, 1877.

The bottom line is that the American Indian had spread the bison to the east, through their own efforts, prior to any European arrival. Habitat change was made by burning, to extend the prairie. Also the culture associated with the buffalo was spread from the west. Interesting studies of the diffusion of catlinite (pipestone from the Minnesota quarry) demonstrate cultural influences long before European contact.

Rod Meldrum and FAIR both attempt to twist reality into the BoM fantasy, and in their efforts, an entire history of a people is distorted.

The bottom line is that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction. When FAIR attempts to discredit Rod Meldrum, they end up also perpetuating more lies.

See also:
Chairman Of Fair Blasts MormonThink And StayLDS
Monday, Aug 10, 2009, at 07:53 AM
Original Author(s): Spongebob Squaregarments
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
Check out the gems from the bigwig at FAIR's latest talk.

My favorite part of course:

"When you try to find help, use trustworthy resources. There are wolves in sheeps clothing. 2 specifically.

1. Presents itself as open environment to discuss gospel from open perspective where the truth is discovered. I will tell you right now there is an agenda behind that website. They would like to make the line more fuzzy, to raise doubts.

2. This is run by John Dehlin, a sincere individual who wants to help. I think he is off the mark. They say we want you to stay LDS even though you don't believe. Why would you want to do that? Why have someone remain complacent in a state of doubt?"
Apologizing For Mormon Apologists
Wednesday, Aug 19, 2009, at 08:21 AM
Original Author(s): Cr@ig P@xton
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
This past week, the apologetic arm of the Mormon Church, (FAIR) Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, met at its annual conference to present its latest apologetic arguments to defend the Mormon Church. The highlights, (I use that term lightly), of the conference were published by Deseret News in the most recent “Church News”.

I feel bad for FAIR, having to defend an institution that hobbles its defenders with one uncompromisable premise. That no matter what the facts, no matter what the reality, no matter what the circumstances…there can be only one answer to all difficult questions... The Mormon Church is true.

In other words, Mormon apologists must start with the answer fixed and immovable and work backwards from that premise BEFORE the question is even asked. They cannot use standard methods usually utilized in truth discovery, such as rigorous examination, questioning, testing and scrutiny to come to a conclusion. No, they must begin all arguments with their conclusion first (that the church, no matter the argument, no matter how absurd the logic used, no matter how painful the mental gymnastics applied ... IS TRUE). The Church requires one uncompromisable rule, start with the desired conclusion (the church is true) and work backwards.

The problem with starting any search for truth using the straight jacket approach employed by Mormon apologists is that it requires them to come up with all kinds of bizarre, unbelievable explanations to defend beliefs that if subjected to any other standard method of examination would simply come to the conclusion that the belief is false…or simply put, Mormonism is not what it claims to be. Take for example the apologetic augments John Gee used at the recent FAIR conference to apologize for the Book of Abraham.

“While critics of the Church often challenge the authenticity of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, they attach more importance to it than Church members do themselves” – John Gee, 2009 FAIR Conference

REALLY???? Critics attach more importance to it then Church members?????? WTF???

Sorry John, you’re selling, but I’m not buying. The bogus Book of Abraham is one of four “canonized” books of Mormon scripture. Last time I checked…it wasn’t the critic’s that canonized the Book of Abraham…it was the members of the Mormon Church. The mere fact that the church has made the decision to distant itself from the controversy surrounding the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, by attaching less importance to it…IS the direct cause of Mormon critic’s who have shined the bright light of truth on the bogus Book of Abraham…and it is that truth that has caused the Mormon Church to diminish the importance of the Book of Abraham out of necessity in the hope that by doing so the fraud will not be discovered by the general church membership.

But hey John….knowing that you are bailing water from a ship that is taking on water faster than you can bail…you then turn to your standard uncompromisable premise. "The book of Abraham is true," said Brother Gee, author of A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, at the end of his presentation. "I think it can be defended. I think it should be defended. But it's not the be-all-and-end-all of either apologetics or research or the scriptures."

There it is…you didn’t disappoint us…the Book of Abraham is true…a total dismissal of reality and its true despite not being what it claims to be….a translation of the writings of Abraham, by his own hand. BUT WAIT do I detect a sign of doubt??? You "THINK" it can be defended? Are you not sure it can be defended…are you growing tired of the fight in defending the undefendable?

But knowing that the Book of Abraham is beyond salvaging…and knowing that the Book of Abraham IS one of the many pieces of the Jig Saw that confirms that Joseph Smith was a complete fraud and charlatan…you then pivot your augment.

You say, "We cannot afford to lose sight of the big picture,"

And what, do tell is that Big Picture? Oh yeah…the answer to the question that was given before the question was even asked…that the church is true no matter what. So are we done yet? Oh no…we’re only beginning… Never one to fail…you then offer this gem.

"Now where is the Book of Abraham in this?" he asked. "It isn't. The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ."

REALLY??? Can the Book of Abraham be a complete and utter fraud and Mormonism still be all it claims to be??? I DON’T THINK SO…

But rather than explore this gapping question you simply choose to continue:

"First, the arguments about the Book of Abraham have become so complex that even the best and brightest of critics end up arguing unwittingly in favor of the LDS position.”The Document of Breathings made by Isis is not the Book of Abraham, and most Latter-day Saints have never claimed it was," he said. "Can we agree on that issue and move on?

I understand why Mormon apologists want to move on from this embarrassingly impossible to win argument…and of course latter day saints haven’t claimed that the Breathings of Isis were the source of the Book of Abraham for to do so would be to admit defeat…so can we agree on THAT issue and move on? Yeah sure, just as soon as Mormon apologetics admit that the Book of Abraham is a fraud…your getting close to doing so…but come on just come clean and admit it.

"Second, the critics do not deal with the issues arising from the Book of Abraham that Latter-day Saints care about. In that sense, their approach is legerdemain and bait-and-switch".

Are you suggesting that the Mormon faithful don’t really care if the Book of Abraham is what it claims to be? Umm I rather doubt that…

"Third, how the Book of Abraham was translated is unimportant. The Church does not stand or fall on the Book of Abraham".

Of Course, YOU would say that Joseph’s translation process is unimportant…lol…because a real translation confirms that Joseph’s version was completely bogus. This is why Mormon apologist have had to come up with the bizarre notion that Joseph merely used the papyri to “channel” God’s revelation…because the Book of Abraham is nowhere close to a translation of the Egyptian characters found on the papyri. But clearly the record shows that Joseph wanted his associated to think he could translate…(to perpetrate his fraud) why else would he go to such lengths to write long verses from single Egyptian characters that we now know were not even close to what Joseph said they were.

"And fourth, regardless of how the Book of Abraham was translated, it is a remarkable document that tells us more about Abraham's day than Joseph Smith could have known." There you go again dismissing the translation process…lol…But I do agree with you that it is a remarkable document that makes some of the most bizarre claims in all of Mormondom. i.e., Kolob, loaning its light to our own sun which is just…totally false and just plain bizarre. Or the claim that one day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh….LOL it’s just plain silly gibberish Joseph made up because he thought others would think this was Egyptian talk. So YES it is a remarkable document…ah if one is truly interested in seeking truth rather than defending a fraud.

In defense of John Gee and FAIR, I have sympathy for them; they are bailing water from a ship that is taking on water faster than they can remove it. They have allowed their collective brains to be bent in so many loops and knots that they can no longer think critically. And with the availability of the internet…information is now accessible that had long been held from church membership.

FAIR is at a great disadvantage because it is literally crippled by the agenda restrains placed on it by the Mormon church…and if one of the members of FAIR were to dare come to a conclusion contrary to the “authorized pre-conceived answer”…they would quickly be excommunicated, cast off and dismissed (like we are) as wicked, pathetic, misguided tools of the mythical Satan.
Were You Taught That The American Indian Were Book Of Mormon People?
Thursday, Sep 17, 2009, at 07:46 AM
Original Author(s): Michaelm
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
A FAIR link says it is a tradition which has persisted with the LDS but is not necessarily correct. (see the second to the last paragraph of "a covenant people") _Children_of_Lehi_DNA_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

This link is one example of the apologetic nonsense that became the beginnings of my exit.

Some of the questions that screamed out to me at the above link were: what about Spencer W. Kimball's patriarchal blessing of helping the Lamanites? What about his work with the Navajo? What about my own wife's patriarchal blessing lineage? What about Joseph Smith's writings concerning the Indian Removal Act of 1830 being part of the gathering of Israel? I could go on and on.

How do these apologetics live with their own delusions? The BoM is a work of fiction. There is no consideration for the harm to living people who believed what is now called "a tradition" by the apologetics.
Mormon Church Begins Copyright Spree
Monday, Sep 28, 2009, at 07:55 AM
Original Author(s): Infymus
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
From FAIR:
I want to talk briefly about something else that the church did that is not perhaps as widely known but I believe it to be one of the most significant things regarding our past that the church has done in its history. There was a new copyright law that went into effect on January the 1st, 2003. In order to undermine the efforts of people who did not own the church documents, who had unrestricted publication prerogatives to some of the things that we believe are very important and to which we had rights, we decided to publish many of our documents in a way that we could create a copyright for them that would serve our purposes for a generation or so. And so, a very ambitious project was undertaken to produce Selected Collections from the Archives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Mormon Apologetics
Tuesday, Sep 29, 2009, at 08:05 AM
Original Author(s): Drw
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
Time spent on MADB is much like time spent among fully institutionalized mental patients or with day patients on a psyche ward.

The folks one finds on this particular ward (MADB) are all self-committed. The TBM's among them have not yet come to recognize that they are still delusional. They think they are there to help others.

It is interesting for a while just because the conversations and many of the views and opinions expressed are so bizarre.

However, as with institutionalized patients, one needs to fight the urge to jump in and help the delusional among them.

You can see that there are already folks there (called critics) who are trying to help (people like John Larson, for example). What you may not see is that, to large measure, these kind people are wasting their time.

In some cases I think that the "critics" might be there just to see the reaction of the TBM's when they make a factual statement counter to popular TBM belief (sort of like teasing little children to see their reaction).

If you decide to register and try to interact with and help these poor self-committed souls, you will not be appreciated.

If you point out their delusions by citing facts, they will soon grow tired of the cog-dis and find a reason simply kick you off the ward.

Facts that run counter to their delusions are ignored or countered with scripture or irrelevant examples.
FAIR Address Concerns Of The Jewish Nation
Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, at 09:31 AM
Original Author(s): Gadianton
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
FAIR has a new post up on their blog by Steve Danderson taking on Jewish aversion to baptisms for the dead. Ya'll ought to check it out. As one might expect coming from FAIR, they take on one of the most politically sensitive issues for the Church with international visibility and leave it to their least experienced statesmen to handle. If FAIR had to worry about a large non-LDS readership, I'd encourage them to take it down. Since FAIR is however, directed toward budding junior-tier Mopologists, I'm sure the article sastisfies FAIR's objectives just fine.

Painfully, the first mistake of the article happens before the very first sentence. So here you have FAIR out to address concerns of the Jewish nation regarding issues relating to the Holocaust, and the article is principally filed under the category of "Anti-Mormonism".

Strike One!

Then, after promptly filing away the Jewish nation (and Catholic Church) as the latest group anti-Mormon naysayers, Danderson reveals the depth at which FAIR diliberates over these difficult issues,

Danderson wrote:
From the links above, I gather that Jewish groups believe that our baptising for the dead is a backdoor way of erasing the Jewishness of Holocaust victims
So, here's a couple links on the web, I kinda read them and I think this is what they're saying and I think it's really dumb because...

Strike two!

Ardith Parshall gets credit for the observation though,

Ardith wrote:
It might be enlightening for you to speak quietly and off the record with two or three Jews who could explain to you why their peculiar history makes them sensitive to all this."
Yes, I agree. At minimum, before giving the thumbs down to the Jewish nation, speak with two or three Jews about the matter first, make sure before you begin firing rounds of jr. tier Mopologia on this one that you really do know what you're talking about.

Danderson wrote:
Fortunately, baptism for the dead does NOT make them non-Jews, nor does this force them to deny their Jewishness. To the contrary, we believe that personal agency is sacrosanct [See DandC 101:78; Moses 4:3; 7:32]. Indeed, since we Latter-day Saints claim to be Israelites,
Indeed, if the concern here is erasing Jewish identity, there is no better way to address that fear than to announce that this odd little splinter group from the Protestant Christian movement a couple hundred years back constitutes the true blood of Israel. It might help to put those baptisms in some context, explain how Mormon doctrine was given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and the Torah leaves this out due to evil scribes who perverted the scriptures, removing the plain and precious Christian/Mormon truths. Explain how the Children if Israel apostasized over and over again from Gospel teahings leaving them with the lesser Law of Moses. Explain how you Mormons are of the Royal House of Epharaim, the superior tribe of Israel, and that if they are lucky, they, along with the other minor tribes can be restored back to Mormonism and have their scriptures and culture properly integrated with Mormonsism as the true Christianity.

Strike three!

Danderson wrote:
As for the [Insert favourite epithet here.] that led Nazi Germany, as Wilford Woodruff put it about other persons who allowed the attempted genocide of another people, the Church will do their baptisms when "their cause is just." That, I suspect, will come LONG after the Cubs win the World Series-in a four-game sweep. ;) (winky smiley face)
How many times has Hitler's work been done? But wow, you have to appreciate the way this guy knows how to speak to the Jewish nation or an international audience on a sensitive topic. Yeah, the Cubs are gonna win the world series before that happens! Har Har Har! Go CUBS!

Danderson wrote:
Clearly, Jews are not dealing with the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who wants to wipe Israel-and Jews-off the map, and denies that the Holocaust even happened. Rather, the LDS wish to remember the Jews as worthy people of the Most High, and not as vermin to be exterminated!
Christ almighty, what a way to put it..

Danderson wrote:
Leaving all this aside, let us suppose, for a moment, that we're wrong in our authority claims. What effect would our baptising a Jew, a Catholic, or any other dead person in any religion-or no religion at all?
Again, assuming that everyone around the globe like him grew up watching baseball, having FHE, and gobbling down fry sauce-drenched pototatoe stuffs, it will not occur to him that by and large, the rest of the world has no concept or belief in the uniquely Mormon culture that surrounds the "authority claim". Why should the Jews consider the pros and cons of baptism for the dead based on Steve Danderson's imagined pet criteria? shouldn't he address their concerns, not what he thinks their concerns should be?

I do like this one though, given all the fuss Mormons have made over the sacrilege of doing "apostate" ordinances with no authority. Yes Steve, if you're doing baptisms with no authority, God is really not happy about that, he takes apostasy seriously. How many times have Mormons complained about infant baptism -- hey, what does it hurt huh?
FAIR Evidence That Moroni Could Have Walked From Mexico To New York
Monday, Jul 19, 2010, at 08:52 AM
Original Author(s): Michaelm
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-

Page 2:

"That such a trip is not as far-fetched as some might suppose, we know of an account of a shipwrecked sailor who walked for eleven months from Tampico, Mexico to Maine - nearly the same route and distance as Moroni would have had to travel."

Mr. Ash is referring to the journey of David Ingram, which is not accepted as credible by reputable historians.
"The Relation of David Ingram (1582), whose sailor's yarn of a nine-month march in 1568 and 1569 from Mexico to Maine through a paradise dotted with crystal cities could be considered the first tall tale in the American tradition of exaggeration."
See also:

See the homepage of Bad Archaeology:

The first paragraph mentions distorted views of the past that pass for knowledge in popular culture.

Writers who defend the BofM could have stayed with the true account of the journey of Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca, but that was not from Mexico to New York, nor did it describe elephants as Ingram claimed.

The FAIR article in the first link is just one example of ill-reputed writings being used to provide evidence for the Book of Mormon.
"Igram reported seeing elephants, red sheep, peguins and golden pillars on his walk, none of which are known to have existed in sixteenth-century North America. However, the word penguin was seized upon as a Welsh word (pen gwyn, ‘white head’ - unfortunately, penguins have black heads and are not found in North America); Ingram claimed that he had heard other Welsh words during his travels."
The penguin idea is confusing today because it was based on an American bird that is now extinct and relatively unknown.
"The first bird to be given the name “penguin” was the flightless Great Auk that roamed the Northern Oceans."

"The name is of 16th Century origin and there are many suggestions for its derivation. It had a white patch between its beak and eye and one suggestion is from the welsh pen (head) plus gwyn (white). Another is pen wing , from the meaning pen as partial or almost and wing meaning not a full wing. A third possibility is from the latin pinguis (fish) and a fourth is from an island in Newfoundland known as White Head due to a large white rock."
Ingram's claim of the penguin being used as evidence of a Welsh word is really nothing more than the very word given to the Great Auk by English sailors before Ingram's writings.

Its not a question of walking across America, the problem is using the writings of Ingram when more credible historical information is available.

The words at FAIR are: "That such a trip is not as far-fetched as some might suppose, we know of an account of a shipwrecked sailor who walked for eleven months from Tampico, Mexico to Maine – nearly the same route and distance as Moroni would have had to travel."

The account of Ingram was not credible. Reference to it is an example of using distorted views of the past and passing it off as knowledge in popular (Mormon) culture.

Its kind of like saying that such as trip is not far-fetched because a far-fetched writing is known about.

Long distances can and have been walked. FAIR can drop the writings of Ingram already.

Why would FAIR mention a source filled with lies in order to provide evidence to the truth of the BofM?

An overview of Ingram's account can be read here:

Page 221: "The reward of lying being not to be believed in truths"

The Relation of David Ingram:

page 202 iron swords

page 205 horses

page 206 elephants

Iron, horses and elephants? What a great source of lies to support the lies of the BofM.

A much more truthful account of the first Europeans into what is today the United States:

The Journey of Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca
Never Give Apologies When Apologetics Will Do
Thursday, Aug 12, 2010, at 10:55 AM
Original Author(s): Iconoclast
Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
Once again Mormon faithful were summoned to an apologetic conference in Salt Lake City last week to have their testimonies bolstered by the so-called scholars, academics, and intellectuals from the FAIR apologetics organization. The Foundation for Apologetic Research and Information being the amateur, unofficial (and unaffiliated with the LDS church they are quick to add) apologetic arm of the faith. Staffed by volunteers who see it as their job providing possible, sometimes plausible, but rarely probable explanations for the nettlesome historical questions raised by critics of the LDS faith.

The conference agenda reveals that there is considerable intellectual cross-pollination from the quasi-official Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship formerly known as the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies or FARMS. These guys are the professional arm of Mormon apologetics.

Ostensibly hired and paid as supposed professors at the Church's flagship BYU university, the Church is able to funnel tithe-payer money through the school to support this Ministry of Sophistry and Propaganda. Thus allowing a number of them to conduct faith promoting research in support and defense of the Church while posting tens of thousands of responses to doubters and critics on various blogs and discussions on internet bulletin boards

I have some affinity for the FARMS organization. Partly because I was a dues paying member for the more than 6 years that it took me to learn from them that there were indeed serious historical problems with the Church's truth claims. And secondly, as a farmer/rancher, I appreciate the metaphorically and improbably appropriate name of FAIR-FARMS for an outfit whose job it is to tend the sheep.

As a high school educated, and sometimes manure-truck-driving farm boy, some might consider it pretentious on my part to challenge the scholarship of these individuals. However, I would argue that I actually have quite a bit in common with LDS apologists. Like them, I am an expert at taking a load of BS and spreading it where it will do the most good. Me to fertilize diminished soils and them to fertilize diminished minds.

From my considered experience I also find it curious that a bunch of sheep, at least the barnyard variety, would allow themselves to be herded into a pen for two days and sit still to have a load dumped directly on them. Let alone be willing to pay 60 bucks a head for the indignity.

Disaffection with the Church's truth claims might be likened to death by a thousand paper cuts because there are so many historical problems as well as the legal, moral, and ethical problems of early leaders. The apologetic crew gets credit for a valiant, even if vain attempt to address them all. Of all the problems raised by critics the most damning are the ones that most members are unaware of and the Church has at best been unwilling to acknowledge and at worst, willfully obfuscating.

It is telling that the Church sends out an army of more than 25,000 young missionaries each year, none of whom are capable of addressing these issues. This is in spite of indoctrination that goes back to age 3 with 9 years of Primary, 6 years of Sunday School, 6 years of Young Mens/Womens, 4 years of seminary, and 2 to 8 weeks of intense mission preparation at the Mission Training Center.

They are embarrassingly ill prepared to face a public who is no longer uninformed about Mormon history in the information age. Worse yet, they are trained to dodge these issues by: "only answering the question they should have asked" or; "never give them meat when milk will do" or; by offering the missionary trump card "I know the Church is true, the spirit witnessed this to me". The critics, as would any reasonable outside observer, consider this as 'lying by omission' and have coined the phrase 'Lying for the Lord'.

The same reasonable outside observer would find apologetic arguments failing in a number of areas that relate directly to the claims of the Church:
  • DNA, as it applies to Native American populations
  • The Book of Abraham translation, and its relation to the source material
  • The Book of Mormon translation, from a rock in a hat while the plates were absent
  • Polygamy, Joseph Smith's affairs starting with Fanny Alger, the subsequent revelation to cover it up and invention of scriptural sanction.
  • The First Vision, the founding truth claim of seeing God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ did not exist until after the Church was formed.
To get an idea of how they deal with such problems I would direct you to FAIR's own web site and "Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board". Here, under the heading "Joseph's apparent contradiction" you will see for yourself just how they deal with the First Vision problem.

A post by 'Tango' on the first page brings to the discussion a challenge from a internet poster named Baura (an ExMormon) who, for a number of years has offered a $2000 reward to anyone who can provide contemporary, primary source evidence that…
"Joseph Smith CLAIMED to have been visited as a teenager by God the Father and Jesus Christ as separate personages, and told by them all the churches were corrupt"….BEFORE 1835.
Maybe some lucky reader might be able to do better than Mormonism's best and brightest and pocket the $2,000 reward for his or her self. Maybe not, but you'll come to understand the old cowboy saying that "You just can't polish a turd". No matter how much tithe payers' money you spend.

The apologists provide a valuable service to the Church having been given license to dismiss any previous prophetic utterances as the simple minded and uneducated ignorance of 'speaking as a man'. They provide the leaders cover of plausible deniability. They provide all the answers to the big questions now, allowing the leaders to tend to the money-generating corporate interests such as mall building, development, farms, ranches, hunting preserves, in addition to civil rights issues.

They are now free to perform their duties as 'Profit-teers and Prevaricators'

The Church would be better served if it would quit wasting tithe-payer funds for apologetics and instead just apologized for its past behavior.

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:
The Life And Times Of An Apostate Posting At FAIRLDS
Some Musings On The FAIR Board Posts Re: Racism
Absolutely Pathetic - FAIR Starts Up New WIKI, States Information On Joseph Smith's Plural Marriages Is "Sketchy"
Carbon 14, Cosmic Rays, And The Spritual Method Trumps The Scientific Method
A Trip To FAIR - I Have A Headache And Give Fair A Grade "F"
Juliann: "My Vote Is To Shut The Board Down." Stunning Developments At FAIR
Allen Wyatt's "Practical Joke"
Julian And The Problem With "Apostates"
FAIR Contradicts FAIR
FAIR: A Prophet Doesn't Speak For God
FAIR Now Has A Youtube Channel
Allen Wyatt Finally Comes Clean About The "" Debacle
Reality - Challenged MAD Mopologists . . . Includes Shirts' DOA / BOA Stuff
FAIR Admits They Are Not Teaching LDS Official Doctrine
Obfuscation Is Good For Testimonies When It Comes To FAIR
American Bison And The Book Of Mormon
Chairman Of Fair Blasts MormonThink And StayLDS
Apologizing For Mormon Apologists
Were You Taught That The American Indian Were Book Of Mormon People?
Mormon Church Begins Copyright Spree
Mormon Apologetics
FAIR Address Concerns Of The Jewish Nation
FAIR Evidence That Moroni Could Have Walked From Mexico To New York
Never Give Apologies When Apologetics Will Do
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