Blog Purpose

Created: 31 January 2009
Last Updated: 31 January 2009

The purpose of this blog is to explore the REASONING of Mormon Apologist in specific and the logically consistency of LDS claims in general.

Mormanity’s profile is impressive. To say he is academically accomplished might be an understatement. His LDS FAQ is rather well done. However, I could not find a comment section at his LDS FAQ to ask questions or point out errors in reasoning. After reading the comment sections of Mormanity’s blog, I realized that many people have already asked the pertinent questions and pointed out the errors in reasoning. Unfortunately, most of these have all gone completely ignored. To his credit though, for the most part he does not delete comments.

As far as I can tell, compared to me Mormanity is an incredibly decent human being and an extremely productive member of society. However, I am beginning to question his academic honestly and intellectual integrity. This is sad, because one can defend their faith without losing their integrity. To error is human. I make errors in reasoning all the time. The difference is, when I do I strive to correct them. With Mormanity I am not seeing an attempt at correction. This will remain a testament to Mormanity’s compartmentalization.

As for Mormonism in general, the contradiction is in simultaneously claiming to have faith and a sure knowledge of the truthfulness in the religion. In would seem to me that once one obtains a sure knowledge of something, they cease to live by faith in that thing. Mormon’s have faith, but go around saying they have a sure knowledge. This is analogous to the Bush Administration believing that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and presenting that belief as if it was a sure thing. In my opinion presenting a belief as a fact is at best a half-truth if not out right dishonest.

It has been pointed out to me that the whole Mormon Apologist thing is of about as much worth to the individual and society as pornography. Therefore, in the spirit of moderation I will attempt to limit myself to four hours a week.

Demonstrating (Not Proving) A Lack Of Specialness

Created: 31 January 2009
Laste Updated: 31 January 2009

I am planning some blog entries on the Mark-Hofmann-Episode. One of Hofmann’s objectives was to demonstrate a lack of divine inspiration among the Mormon leadership. This is a common theme that the Apologists fail to understand. When critics point out statistics of depression, fraud, pornography consumption, bankruptcy, etc in Utah or “Happy Valley” (the Watasch front from Salt Lake to Provo) the critic is not necessarily trying to prove that Mormon’s are in worse shape than the rest of humanity. What the critic is correctly demonstrating is that the LDS claim of having a special access to the divine is hubris. The critic is demonstrating that neither Mormons nor the LDS leadership have anymore access to divinity than the rest of humanity.

Lack Of Divine Inspiration

Created: 31 January 2009
Last Updated: 31 January 2009

These entries here, here, and here, are Mormanity's attempts to refute critic's claims that the Mormon leadership lacks divine inspiration. In so doing, he admits that during the Mark-Hofmann-Episode of history the leadership did indeed lack divine inspiration, but that this is O.K. His logic is that many prophets of the bible also had bad days. Of course this argument is only valid for the minor percentage of humanity that believes the Christian bible to be more than a piece of archeology.

However, his point would be valid if the critics were ‘proving’ and not ‘demonstrating’. How does one prove a negative (the negative being that the Mormon leadership lacks divine inspiration)? However, if the critics were merely demonstrating a lack of divine inspiration, then his argument is more of a straw man. I imagine the critics picked the Mark-Hofmann-Episode, because if at any time the leadership should have displayed divine inspiration that was it. To properly refute the critics one would have to show that at some time in the leadership’s recent history they have displayed a form of divine inspiration the rest of humanity lacks. In the articles referenced above Mormanity FAILS TO DO THIS.

After reading this entry I could not help but realized that Mormanity failed to provide a single example of recent divine revelation. Once again, I did not need to point this out, because a another commentator already had. Once again, the comment went completely ignored by Mormanity.

In summary, all Mormanity has done is pointed out that it is difficult to prove a negative and falsely suggests that in pointing this out he as refuted the critics. Given Mormanity’s academic achievements, it is hard to believe that he doesn’t understand that this is poor reasoning.

Charges Of Suppression Part I

Created: 31 January 2009
Last Updated: 31 January 2009

In this entry Mormanity states “he [Hinckley] acted in good faith to make it available for analysis and evaluation”. This simply is not true.

One of Hofmann’s goals was to demonstrate a lack divine inspiration, but that was not his major objective. Hofmann was annoyed about how his family and church leaders would not talk openly about church history and was convince that the leadership was actively trying to suppress the Church’s history (polygamy specifically). His ultimate trap was to see how the leadership would response to flattering forgeries and unflattering forgeries. Just as he suspected, the flattering forgeries readily announced with fanfare and the unflattering ones were not. He screwed up his experiment up with the Joseph Smith III forgery, but he performed the experiment flawlessly with the Stowell Forgery.

When the $15,000 purchase was to occur ONLY on the condition of confidentiality, Hofmann became giddy because his experiment had proved his hypothesis that the leadership had been behaving disingenuously with regards to its history. For over two years Hinckley sat on the Stowell Forgery to such an extent that none of the other leadership is known to have been aware of it, resulting in Jerry Cahill officially denying its existence. The ONLY reason the purchase was acknowledge and the forgeries existence revealed was because Hofmann broke his promise of confidentiality in order to punish Hinckley for not buying the Salamander letter. Hinckley didn’t buy it because he could not determine if the flamboyant Lyn Jacobs could offer the same confidentiality as Hofmann.

The argument that Hinckley doubted the authenticity of the document and for this reason did not reveal the purchase is also bogus. Authenticate documents verifying the Bainbridge, NY examination occurred more than a decade before the Stowell Forgery and Hofmann deliberately design the Stowell Forgery to be somewhat consistent.

I have pointed out to Mormanity that his statement was made from how he understood that episode in history. In light of how the event actual event occurred that statement should be modified (moderated) in some way. Leaving it the way it is would be a lack of academic honesty and intellectual integrity.

Suggested Moderations Of The Statement

Created: 31 January 2009
Last Updated: 31 January 2009

In this entry Mormanity states “he [Hinckley] acted in good faith to make it available for analysis and evaluation”. I have pointed out to Mormanity that the statement should be moderated in some way to avoid impugning his integrity.

One option might be to remove “in good faith” resulting in “he acted to make it available”. This would be academically honest, but it would lack intellectual integrity because it gives the false impression that Hinckley acted forthrightly. A better option would be to say “he eventually made it available for analysis”. This would be both academically honest and contains intellectually integrity. The observant reader would realize there might be a deeper issue to look into.

This solution does not require the apologist to expound on unflattering evidence. This is a great example of how it is possible to be an apologist without sacrificing academic honesty and intellectual integrity.

The Fallacy Of A Viable Option

Created: 11 February 2009
Last Updated: 07 August 2009

In this entry, we see this statement: “As a gesture of goodwill, that troublesome document [Joseph Smith III Blessing], rather than being suppressed or destroyed, was publicly given to the Reorganized Church.”

I call this the fallacy of a viable option. The false implication is that suppressing or destroying the document was a viable option. The genie was out of the bottle and could not be placed back in. All the Church could do was damage control, a gesture of goodwill. Consequently, Hinckley bought and suppressed the next document Hofmann offered, the Stowell Forgery, avoiding a repeat for the moment.

This statement: “The truth about the Hofmann documents was revealed, but not in the way critics demand.”, appears to be Mormanity’s way of saying that documents are eventually made available. This like saying Obama appointees pay their taxes (eventually and only after they have been caught).

Charges Of Suppresion Part II

Created: 11 February 2009
Last Updated: 03 August 2009

It should be noted that the entire entry forgets to mention the smoking gun of suppression, the Stowell Forgery (see my previous entry). So the entire entry is a really a red herring.


In the entry Mormanity quotes a fellow apologist.

“But placing an historical document in a safe place hardly implies suppression.”

From dictionary.com this is the definition of to suppress: "to withhold from disclosure or publication (truth, evidence, a book, names, etc.)." So placing the document in a safe place without revealing the document’s existence or contents is the very definition of suppression. Merely placing the documents in a safe place may not indicate suppression but forgetting to tell people about it, its contents, and denying its existence does.

“Burning the document would be a safer way of getting rid of negative evidence. Placing it in a vault only preserves it for future use.”

Once again this is what I call the fallacy of a viable option. Mark Hofmann had a copy of the document and the banking records to indicate that $15,000 was paid for it and his eventual plee bargain required him to answer questions in a deposition. Had the Church destroyed the document the Church would have been caught red hand destroying documents. The safest way to suppress the document was to lock it away without telling anyone. Is this fallacy of necessity (suppression necessitates burning the document) or is there a better description?

Even moderating the statement with 'surest' instead of 'safest' is undesirable. The earliest and best manuscripts of the certain New Testament books do not contain certain words or verses that later copies do. So if one can prove the original was destroyed and produce a copy of what the original supposedly contained, that copy could contain fabricated content even more salacious than the original. In the end the 'safest' solution is to keep the document and not tell anyone about it. This is exactly what occurred with the Stowell Forgery. Had Hofmann not exposed Hinckley we would have never known that the document had been suppressed. What else has been suppressed that we do not know about?


“We have the example of the Joseph Smith papyri, which lay for decades in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, only to be brought to the Church's attention by a professor doing research there. Yet no one has accused the Metropolitan of "suppressing" these documents!”

This is what is called a false analogy. If the Joseph Smith papyri validated Mormon claims, the Metropolitan Museum knew this, and withheld them then one would have a valid analogy. It was an insignificant find to Egyptology. When the Museum realized it was not just any papyri, but papyri of interest to the LDS Church, they let the LDS Church have it for a donation presumed to be its financial worth. The Museum did not forget to tell people about it or deny its existence.

“By purchasing those documents, GBH kept control of them within the Church. If they became the property of enemies of the Church, then they would NEVER have been tested well enough to show them as fakes.”

This simple is not true. Hofmann documents could have been subpoena wherever they may have gone.

Charges Of Suppression Conclusion

Created: 03 August 2009

Last Updated: 03 August 2009

In a previous post I address Mormanity’s poor assessment that the Joseph Smith III blessing was evidence of forthright behavior on the part of Church leadership. Mormanity did not stop with that poor assessment, but built on it, with this even more bizarre assessment. “This has been an important pattern in the Church: we make important documents available, documents like those from Hoffman or the Book of Abraham fragments. We publish them and encourage discussion. We don't run from the truth.”

It is hard to know where to start with such a blatantly bogus statement. LDS faithful have long been discouraged from reading material critical of the Church in the slightest. An interesting tidbit of the Hofmann forgeries is the way in which the Church acquired the Salamander letter. Via back channels, a faithful member of the Church (Christensen) purchased the document with his own money and was then instructed to donate it to the Church. This caused a financial hardship for Christensen and he wrote Hinckley requesting permission to sell the document in order to recover his expenses. His request was denied. His only other option at easing his financial burden was to write a book about the document. He did not because of a statement at the October general conference that appeared to be aim directly at him. The faithful were instructed to neither write or sponsor a book would lead some into disbelief. So much for “encouraging discussion”.

A very interesting fallout of the Hofmann episode is the discovery that the McLellin papers were already in the Church archives and the Church did not even know it. In complying with subpoenas archivist where searching for documents in the church archives that were purchased from Hofmann. During the search the archivists stumble upon the McLellin papers.

Apparently, Joseph F. Smith did the same thing Hinckley did with the Stowell Forgery. He bought the McLellin papers in 1908, put them in the archives and did not tell anyone else about them. When he passed away, knowledge of the McLellin papers whereabouts passed away with him. Even more interesting is the fact that McLellin papers rediscovery was withheld from the Hofmann investigation team (more suppression). It is only because of Hofmann that we know about these attempted suppressions. What else has been suppressed that we do not know about?

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no83.htm#TURLEY%27S%20BOMBSHELL!!

The Smoking Gun Of Supression

Created: 03 August 2009

Last Updated: 03 August 2009

It appears this blog’s treatment of the Hofmann episode has gained the attention of Mormanity in the form of an update to this page. In it Mormanity suggests that some demonstration of “strenuous efforts to suppress” the Salamander Letter is what is required to successfully ground any assessment of suppression. He argues that the fact that Hinckley did not purchase the Salamander Letter proves just the opposite of supression.

The non-purchase of the Salamander Letter is what I call the fallacy of a viable option. For whatever reason (negotiations perhaps), Hofmann sent the flamboyant Lyn Jacobs to sell the Salamander Letter to Hinckley. The story goes that while Jacobs kept negotiating price, Hinckley kept inquiring how it is that Jacobs knew Hofmann. Hofmann the cynic took this to mean that Hinckley now felt that plausible deniability was impossible with Jacobs in the mix. That is, with Jacobs in the mix, a secret purchase ala Stowell Forgery was no longer possible. On the flip side, I imagine the faithful assume that Hinckley must have suddenly grown suspicious of documents and their authenticity.

The false suggestion that a conspiracy or “strenuous efforts” is what necessitates suppression is what I am calling the fallacy of necessity. However, “to withhold from disclosure” is the very definition of the word. The smoking gun is not Cahill’s denial, but the secret purchase itself. No one in Hinckley’s inner circle is known to have been aware of the purchase, until after Hofmann began leaking its existence. Cahill’s ignorance is merely an indicator at how secret the purchase was. A simple press release regarding the document purchase and the length of time it might take experts to examine it would have been sufficient. However, the option to secretly purchase just seemed so viable…..

Mormanity Does Not Believe What He Preaches

Created: 13 September 2009
Last Updated: 13 September 2009

Being half apologist, half reformist, Mormanity often kills two birds with one stone. For example, he actively disavows the LDS religion ever claimed anything similar to the doctrine of infallibility. This serves the dual purpose of defending the religion and moderating it at the same time. Very effective.

That is why I was little surprised when I first read Mormanity’s treat of the Hofmann episode years ago. I half expected him to say that he did not kown whether the church leadership handle the whole affair on the up and up, but that it did not matter. After all the leadership is made up of fallible human beings just as Peter denied the Christ and Moses committed manslaughter. Mormanity’s resistance to take the episode at face value and insist that everything was done in good faith suggests that he may be uncomfortable with his own logical universe.

Mormanity preaches the reality that prophetic persons are as human as you and I. It is against our human nature to accept this, hence Mormanity emphasizes it. Why the diversion from his normal apologetic technique with regards to the Hofmann episode? My first hypothesis was that Mormanity was lacking in the details of the episode. After further communication and the latest update to his FQA, it is apparent that this is not the case.

Mormanity plays a game where he pretends the facts in this case are interpretable [add link]. This not so and the facts are very simple. Hinckley secretly purchased the Stowell Forgery and told no one (NO ONE) about it until Hofmann broke the secrecy. This is the very definition of suppression, case closed. I could go on with how Hinckley denied even knowing Hofmann and Christensen at a press conference, all of which Turley defends in his book Victims. One of the more interesting ones is when Turley admits that police investigations of phone records indicated that Hofmann had called Hinckley’s private line, but there is no prove that he actually talked to Hinckley.

In the end Mormanity admits that he lacked objectivity [add link], but justifies it by claiming no one is objective and implies that I sifted out Turley’s facts from my analysis. To his frustration I was able to prove this was not the case [add link]. Mormanity frequently preaches that all religious leaders (except for Christ) are falliable, but by insisting that LDS leaders acted in good faith during the Hofmann episode he demonstrates an inconsistency. He shows that he feels that it might be unacceptable for the LDS leadership to have acted in less than a good faith manner with regards to the Hofmann episode. Why if all relgious leaders are falliable? Does he no believe what he preaches?

Created: 26 December 2009
Last Updated: 07 January 2010

Mormanity has once again struggled to provide a satisfactorily rebuttal in this thread:

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2009/12/rejecting-prophets-for-apparently.html#comments

It is a common theme amongst LDS faithful to suggest that Mormonism falls perfectly into Biblical patterns. When a critic suggests that Mormonism is absurd for one reason or another, a common Mormon retort is that then so is the Bible.

The link above demonstrates this exchange. In it Mormanity implies that is not possible to prove a prophet false. When it was pointed out that Biblical patterns suggest that it is possible to prove a prophet false and if Mormonism falls into Biblical patterns perfectly, Mormonism should have a method for proving prophets false. Neither Mormanity nor his cronies could explain effectively how Mormonism proves prophets false. This is particularly problematic because the fantastic Mormon claim is that the LDS church is the only divinely inspired church on the earth, but yet it has no method of proving that a another religion is not divinely inspired.

Furthermore, I recognized that the prophets in the Bible do indeed engage in odd behavior. For example, the biblical Abraham alone decides to tell a half truth. In Mormonism Abraham was commanded by God to tell the half truth. The LDS faithful retort that this modification pales in comparison to the God order genocide in the Book of Joshua. However, Mormonism takes God’s reasoning up a notch. While no justification is given in the Book of Joshua, in the Book of Nephi God clearly states an ends-justify-the-means reasoning to command Nephi to execute someone without a civil trial. While odd on the part of God, it is not a smoking gun of contradiction on God’s part.

However, the anecdote of the lost 116 pages is. In this anecdote God commits an error in reasoning. God commanded that the small plates (the Book of Nephi) be created for a “wise purpose”. The wise purpose was revealed to be to thwart Satan inspired conspirators. Apologists claim that this excessively intricate and complex method of thwarting conspirators was necessary for at least two reasons. 1. To thwart conspirators without violating man’s agency (free will). That is God avoids putting up supernatural roadblocks to prevent evil. 2. In order to teach or instruct the faithful in some sort of unknown mystical lesson.

The Apologist claim that we will never understand Gods thought processes and hence the anecdote proves nothing. However, though Gods thoughts are not ours, this does not change the fact that God’s reasoning is flawed in this anecdote. Retranslating the Book of Lehi does not help conspirators has claimed by the God in the anecdote. It makes the situation a he-said-she-said. By not retranslating the he-said-she-said in the prophecy became permanent. Not retranslating helped the conspirators more than retranslating would have. Furthermore, the Book of Nephi does nothing to prevent the conspirators! If there truly existed a group of expert forgers lying in wait with the lost 116 pages they could have just as easily made the lost pages contradict the Book of Nephi.

To date neither Mormanity nor his cronies could explain this flawed reasoning on God's part. In this anecdote God could have avoided the error by keeping quiet. By mentioning nothing of a wise purpose and conspirators God would have successfully avoided stating flawed reasoning. Perhaps this is why in the Bible God gives no explanation for the commanded genocide in the Book of Joshua.

UPDATE: That-was-never-official-doctrine apology is very much in vogue. When applied to the-lost-116-pages-anecdote it relieves God from claiming there is a cause and effect relationship between the Small Plates and the conspirator’s plan. As such, how Satan’s plan would have worked is unclear and the plan’s defeat is equally mystical. It becomes purely a matter of faith that something terrible would have happened if the Book of Lehi was retranslated and God is free from committing an error in reason.

What God Allows Satan To Do And Not Do

Satan had a plan against Job and knowing it would not work God allowed it. Satan had a plan against Joseph Smith and knowing it would work God disallowed it. It is interesting that in Job's case Satan had to ask permission from God first.

Satan’s plans usually play into God’s hands, not against them. For example, tempting Eve in the Garden of Eden (in Mormonism right?) and organizing the execution of Jesus (so that he could be resurrected I presume – or was the execution even necessary (another topic)). There must be plans of Satan in the Bible that God disallowed .....

Rejecting Mormonism Means Rejecting Christianity?

I have not been one to call Mormons unchristian, however Mormonism is clearly a radical reinterpretation of Christian (ie. Baptism is not an invention of John the Baptist, the Eucharist was not an invention of Jesus). In this Mormanity entry (click here) we see a frequent Mormon response. According to this reasoning, if a person can reject Mormonism for X, then that person must also reject Christianity for X. Given this type of response it is no wonder so many devout Christians consider Mormons not to be Christians. That is, the response is essentially positing that Mormonism is a gauntlet to traditional Christianity.

Of course to hold Mormons to the same standard, to reject the Strangites for X would also require one to reject modern Mormonism for X. LDS faithful of course reject the Strangites. "Oh, snap!"

Are Modern Prophets Necessary?

In this Mormanity Entry (click here) we see a common theme that Mormon Apologist feel the need to defend. If God was the same yesterday, today, and forever then we should have prophets and scriptures like in the Bible. Of course the whole conversation is semantical and depends ones view of what a prophet is or is not. While indeed there were voices such as Noah before Moses, I am not convinced there were prophets pre-Moses. Moses formed a strictly constitutional government that permitted heretical things such as divorce. Part of this government were advisers that help the population engage more heresy such as choosing a king.

At the time of Jesus the concept of separation of Church and State was struggling to take hold. So Jesus formed a state with in a state that also had hierarchical systems of advisers. However, in the modern western world the concept of separation of church and state is well established and hence individuals are free to receive their advise directly from God. Not that God or man has changed, but man's society has. With this understanding Mormons would do well to, "search with an open mind, and not fall into what I consider to be the deceptive trap of thinking that you need nothing more than what you have. Keep seeking!"

Was Jesus Victimized?

I was reviewing the Mark Hofmann Wikipedia entry recently. The editors have made some good improvements to it. I noticed this footnote, where Hinckley declares Jesus a victim. I have never thought of Christianity as portraying Jesus as a victim in the swindled, defauded, or cheated sense of the word that Hinckley used it. After some Googling, I found that most other Christians do not think it was possible to swindle, defraud, or cheat Jesus. Most other Christians seem to think that Jesus was in control of his situation to the extent that Jesus was able set the day of his martyrdom to one of his choosing. If Hinckley used the word victimized in the sense of religious sacrifice, I could understand. But he used it in the sense of taken advantage of.

This would be another assertion of the assessment that Mormonism is one of those cultures that struggles recognize its flaws when it looks in the mirror. Hinckley was in capable of taking personal responsibility, in his mind all things that happen to him were the result of external forces beyond his control.

The End

After repeatedly humbling Mormanity in his arrogant attempts to throw the gauntlet at Mormon critics I have fully resolve my doubts about his personality. My blog’s purpose was to explore Mormon Apologist reasoning. I feel that I have fulfilled that purpose and made it clear that Mormon Apologist are simply not interested in recognize the numerous inconsistencies in their reasoning. As a conclusion to this exploration I posted the following on one of the Mormanity threads (linked here).

His response (linked here) was more of the same. He is an extremely accomplished man academically speaking, but suddenly he has “limited reading abilities”. He has time to be a profilic blogger, but suddenly he has, “limited time to decipher”. Despite repeatedly misstating my positions, he finally admits he wasn’t sure where I was coming from. His unwillingness to request clarification was somehow not his fault, but mine. Despite the constants complicit attacks by his cronies, I am the one that needs to chill and not be so easily offended. I have taken it all in good stride and despite his negativity, such as labeling me “anti”, I remained objective in my analysis.

Caught Fairblog Redhanded

In the exchange below, FAIR administrator Mike Parker deleted all but my first post to the thread. Point is, I caught him red handed spying on the search history instead of just responding to the discussion and then he tried to delete the evidence.

On the fairblog thread (linked), I posted:

mormography Says:
June 10th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Allen Wyatt,
To be clear, you did not deny that the highly unusually charges against a lapse Mormon following his publication of academic analysis upsetting to Mormon leadership constituted an ad hominem attack. You only denied attribution of the charges to FAIR/FARMS.

Mike Parker followed up with this:

mormongraphy: Your comment makes some very curious claims.
• What were the "charges" against Grant Palmer? Who made them? Why were they "highly unusually" [sic]?
• In what way was Grant Palmer's book an "academic analysis," rather than simply irresponsible conjecture?
• In what way was Palmer's book "upsetting to Mormon leadership"? Who were the leaders who were upset? How do you know they were upset?
• If FAIR and FARMS were not responsible for these charges, then who is? And why should FAIR or FARMS receive all the blame for them, as they do?

To which I responded:

That is hilarious.
Allen Wyatt's post above is about Simon Southerton. Nowhere in the thread do I see someone referencing Grant Palmer. I have also check
recent post I do not see reference to Grant Palmer, so why the confusion with Grant Palmer?
Could it be that before posting I did some searches on Grant Palmer among other things? What an amazing coincidence. Mike Parker just happened to confuse my comment and wrongfully thought of Grant Palmer. Could it be that instead of just engaging in legitimate discussion he had an urge to spy on my search history resulting in a bizarre retort?
Given Mike Parker's playing dumb line of question regarding Grant Palmer, my conclusion would be that he will also play dumb regarding Simon Southerton. So in his mind the Mormon leadership indeed does routinely seek out and charge lapse Mormons with sexual indiscretion and for the life of him he just can't see why non-Apologist find this to fail the reasonable person smell test.
But I get it. In addition to being an irresponsible academic hack, Southerton is a vexed soul struggling with sexual naughtiness, which of course has nothing to do how easily his conjectures are debunk, but may be the motivation to why he is blind to the error of his sophomoric reasoning.
Anyways, I would be more interested in knowing if the byline of the post Allen Wyatt concurs with Mike Parker.

To which Mike Parker emailed:

My mistake. It's been a month since the original blog post; I responded to your comment via email without reading the OP, and mistook the subject matter entirely. I should have read the OP for context first. I withdraw my comment, and apologize for the error. Mike Parker

WESTON’S 17 POINTS

There is a Mormon faith promoting story (myth) know as Weston’s 17 Points. To quickly sum it up, inspired by Einstein (Einstein’s name usually gets invoked in this type of myth creation), a group of really smart students suddenly decide there must be only one correct Christian denomination and make a list of items that would identify that denomination. Years later, the students reunite to discover they independently became Mormons following the list. The conclusion is that unbiased and highly rational minds will agree that Mormon’s are right.

While researching another item I found that FAIR had addressed a skeptic’s doubt (linked) on the validity of the story: “What this has to do with the validity of Weston’s ‘17 Points’ is not entirely clear, but it seems that the critic is attempting to discredit Weston’s list (and, by implication, the Church) by discrediting Weston himself. This would be a form of the ad hominem fallacy.” (linked)

FAIR suggests the skeptic’s questioning of the story and its timeline is an ad hominem attack because it does not address the validity of the list in the story. However, it is Weston who tells the story in order to give the list and it supposed power credibility. The skeptic was obviously discrediting Weston’s method of validating the list and its power not the actual validity of the list (was FAIR just playing dumb?). FAIR then went onto to essentially concede that outside of Mormonism the list does not have much power. That is the story is told from a unique Mormon world view, (not young, unbiased, but nonetheless highly rational minds) essentially discrediting the story as well.

I pointed the above analysis on the FAIR blog. FAIR has yet to authorize publishing the comment on the blog (link)

AD HOMINEM

The previous two posts dealt with a FAIRBLOG thread redefining the word ad hominem. With charges of ad hominem, suppression, etc., apologist tend to torture the definition of words to give the words a severely restricted scope. Of course this methodology implies the apologist concedes the point given the language’s usage in its native form. In the thread the fair authors defend fellow fair contributors and the LDS Church from accusations of ad hominem attacks by disregarding the following definitions:

“Appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. Attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.”(dictionary.com) “Involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument” (wikipedia)

Absence these definitions, the FAIR bloggers insisted the LDS Leadership who excommunicated Simon Southerton for an “inappropriate relationship” instead of apostasy, are not guilty of an ad hominem attack. However, using the example provided by FAIR in my previous post regarding Westion’s 17 points we do the following substitution:

It seems that [the critic] Southerton’s Stake President is attempting to discredit [Weston's list] Southerton’s thesis by discrediting [Weston] Southerton himself. This would be a form of the ad hominem fallacy.

Ergo, from the FAIR blog (here) to the FAIR article (here) we see FAIR behaving inconsistently (is this the definition of unFAIR?).

ANTI-MORMON DEFINED - BOOKSLINGER

Anti-Mormon or simply anti, is an expression thrown around by Mormon apologist frustrated with their inability to effectively respond to critical analysis. It is a deliberately contentious epithet designed to impugn the target as a purposefully deceitful and hatefully malicious entity. The irony is that the term is hurled from a nest of frustration induced hate and anger.

One such Mormon blogger by the handle Bookslinger, defined the term: Those who disagree with the church are "nonbelievers." “Antis" are those who attack the LDS church and its leaders or members with half truths, twisted or incomplete information, and sometimes outright lies.

On another occasion, after I had successfully pointed out half-truths, incomplete information, and inconsistencies of a Mormon apologist, Bookslinger modified his definition of anti to be “someone who works against the church” This updated definition suddenly allow anyone who repeats true, but unfavorable information about the LDS Church to be marked with the scarlet letter A for anti. Whereas previously Bookslinger defined mere disagreement with traditional Mormon thought as being a nonbeliver, apparently voicing such disagreement transition the nonbeliever to the despicable anti. So, when Bookslinger cannot attack the argument, Bookslinger attacks the individual with the epithet.

ANTI-MORMON DEFINED – MIKE PARKER

According to FAIR administrator, Mike Parker, an anti-Mormon is someone “in opposition to Mormon beliefs”. This definition of course makes Mormon’s anti-Everyone-Else, especially considering the hostility the Mormon cannon and temple rites treat the revivalist sects (draw near to me with their lips), Catholicism (infant baptism, great and abdominal church), and protestants (protestant minister in employ of Satan).

More interesting is that this definition could also make FAIR anti-Mormon. FAIR and other apologists are fond of asserting that critical challenges have been asked and answered. However, every time I have gone to FAIR to find an apologist answer what I find is FAIR conceding the point or changing of the subject. For example, regarding the item of DNA FAIR quotes Southerton “Now that FAIR has finally conceded that American Indian DNA is essentially all derived from Asia, I also agree with them that the debate should be about the theology.”

When I pointed out to the FAIR Administrator Mike Parker that consistency of his definition of anti-Mormon would then make FAIR anti-Mormon as well he had this response.

Mike Parker Says:
June 15th, 2012 at 10:39 am
There is a VAST difference between, on the one hand, suggesting a different interpretation of a culturally-driven assumption about the Book of Mormon and, on the other, publishing a lengthy treatise on why Joseph Smith really didn’t talk to angels and translate from gold plates but instead made the whole thing up.
That you apparently can’t see the difference speaks volumes.
Grant Palmer publicly and repeatedly denies the entire orgin claims of Mormonism. If that’s not “anti-Mormon,” then I don’t know what is.

I bolded “translate from gold plates”, because FAIR does not even defend the translated from gold plates origin claim. FAIR does not deny the rock in the hat (link) and FAIR has this to say about translating from the gold plates:“We do not know the exact method of translation” So like Grant Palmer, not even FAIR defends the “translate from gold plates” origin claim. The fact that FAIR Administrator Mike Parker cannot see his inconsistencies is indeed telling, but I am not sure I could write “volumes” of it.

THAT IS NOT OFFICIAL DOCTRINE

The surest sign that a Mormon apologist is losing a position is when they start saying, “that was never official doctrine”. It is being used so frequently, that intellectual honesty requires the apologist to recognize that greater understanding is being brought to Mormons by those labeled anti-Mormon. Also, the argument itself demonstrates that the leadership has been entirely unable to keep incorrect doctrine, speculation, legends, etc. from running rampant in the Mormon Church and Internet apologists are more effective at setting the doctrine straight than the divinely inspired leadership.

Since opposition to Mormon beliefs is the apologist’s definition of anti-Mormon, this naturally begs the question, what are Mormon beliefs? But here we immediately run into difficulties. This FAIR response (link) gives no definition of Mormon truth claims or doctrine except for:

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

Given that neither Grant Palmer or the Tanners are in opposition to the above, then they could not be consider anti-Mormon according to the previously given definition.

Here is FAIR’s response to critic’s complaints regarding changing doctrine (link). In the response (or should we say concession) We see the apologist not deny that the doctrine is constantly changing, but instead ignore the negative aspects the critics point out and instead try to explain why this is a good thing. I pointed out previously, FAIR rarely answers the critics.

MOTIVATION INVESTIGATION

In a recent FAIR blog thread, FAIR administrators insisted that motivation investigation is exempt from ad hominem designation. So lets make an assessment of FAIR’s motivation. At FAIR we find this gem regarding the translation of the book of Mormon (linked):

“One should read the Book of Mormon itself and evaluate its message rather than get wrapped up in the detail of its exact method of translation.”

One can almost hear the Wizard of Oz saying “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”.

Grounded in the assertions that FAIR administrators have demonstrated a significant consistency problem in their definition of anti-Mormon, FAIR frequently concedes key items, and this Wizard-of-Oz-esque item above, we can assess that FAIR’s motivation is to engage in deliberate smoke and mirror antics to dissuade individuals from dwelling on foundational challenges regarding Mormonism.

UNOFFICIAL DOCTRINE

In attempting to respond to inquiries of what Mormon official doctrine is, FAIR essentially claimed that Jesus as divine savior is Mormonism only official doctrine. This is not true. Mormon doctrine comes down to one fundamental premise: the one true church doctrine. This is the doctrine in Monotheism that there is only one organized religion that is right. The foundational story of the religion is that Joseph Smith was looking for the one true denomination.

However, this premise is entirely cultural. Mormon’s take the premise as a given and rarely think to defend it. Take this premise away and Mormonism progresses to higher level of understanding.

Why should there be only one true faith. When Moses founded the Isrealite faith Jethro and his clan continued to live without the law of Moses at a simultaneously moment in time. As surely as the law of Moses was but a school master, the one true faith paradigm had a usefulness in a stage of societal development that has passed. It is time to move on to a higher way of thinking. Mormon’s reject the modern, pluralist, all-inclusive way thinking and cling to the archaic, immature way of thinking that ones own religion is the only religion with the most “truth” (whatever that means).

Try it sometime. Take the premise away from a Mormon and watch.