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.
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.
Do you suggest that FAIR should explain the translation process further than Joseph Smith was willing to do?
ReplyDeleteSo is Russell M. Nelson an anti-Mormon as well? Here's what he said in the July 1993 Ensign:
ReplyDeleteThe details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:
“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)
AnonymousJune 29, 2012 12:35 PM
ReplyDeleteI suggest FAIR should be consistent in its definitions.
What you are suggesting is the that-was-not-official-doctrine defense which I address here http://mormography.blogspot.com/2012/06/that-is-not-official-doctrine.html
Since you bring up the subject, wouldn’t a reasonable person propose that at a minimum FAIR should defend what is presented to potential converts? To my knowledge potential converts are presented with artwork and a description of Joseph Smith translating an ancient writing on metal plates into English, not dictating English statements displayed to his face from a rock in a hat.
AnonymousJune 29, 2012 12:49 PM
Yes, according to FAIR’s definition he would be.
Mike Parker posted: "That you apparently can’t see the difference speaks volumes." in a thread where Fairmormon insists it does not engage in ad hominem attacks. Telling ...
ReplyDeleteLook at how much hate Mike Parker holds in his heart. So much for the fruits of the Spirit.
ReplyDelete