The Largest Repository Of Ex-Mormon Material In The World
Containing 3,337 Articles Spanning 205 Topics
Online Since January 1, 2005
|
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".
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.
|
|
|
FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS
Total Articles:
37
FAIR is an apologetic organization not supported by the LDS Church. While FARMS is on the payroll of LDS, Inc., FAIR is not.
Allen Wyatt heads FAIR and will not hesitate in backstabbing or low-balling to defend the LDS Faith.
On December 1st, 2006 the "FAIR" boards were shut down and turned into "Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board" (or MAAD).
|
|
FAIR is an apologetic organization not supported by the LDS Church. While FARMS is on the payroll of LDS, Inc., FAIR is not.
Allen Wyatt heads FAIR and will not hesitate in backstabbing or low-balling to defend the LDS Faith.
During the time that Grant Palmer was being prosecuted by the LDS Church, the Recovery groups were talking about registering such domain names as savegrantpalmer.com. When they went to register the name, Allen Wyatt of FAIR already took it. He scans the Ex-Mormon forums for URLS and registers them to prevent Ex-Mormons from creating sites.
Ultimately FAIR Apologetics works on the following principals:
- Deny, deny, deny, testify, testify, and testify.
- Ignore the message attack the messenger.
- Question the validity of any source that might present negative ideas. Distract the posters from the message in the quote to some side issue.
- Ask for a scriptural basis for a claim that something is an embarrassing church doctrine when it was plainly taught by prophets.
- Criticize any negative quote as biased or from a disaffected member.
- When painted into a logical corner resort to the trump card: testify on faith and a witness from the Holy Ghost.
- Assume anyone who is not a Mormon is not living his or her life righteously enough to hear the Holy Ghost.
FAIR, like FARMS exists to contradict, counteract, suppress, withhold and dismiss any claims made by persons outside the LDS Church (read: Anti-Mormon). FAIR does this by discrediting authors, creating answers to Mormon questions and dismissing any Anti-Mormon claims in any way they can.
BYU Professors such as Daniel C. Peterson spend countless hours on the FAIR message boards.
Allen Wyatt registered dozens of miss-leading domains around the Utah Light House Ministery site - and re-directing them to FAIR in attempts to thwart visitors from finding out information about the church.
Recently Allen Wyatt of FAIR has registered over 300 website URLS hoping to confuse those searching for information on Mormonism to be funneled into FAIR owned sites. This tactic is reminiscent of porn site operators.
In my opinion, both Allen Wyatt and Daniel C. Peterson will lie, cheat, steal, miss-direct, miss-quote, obfuscate, white-wash or invent anything it takes to keep Mormons in the church.
| This is not a new tactic for Allen Wyatt. During the time that Grant Palmer was being prosecuted by the LDS Church, the Recovery groups were talking about registering such domain names as "http://www.savegrantpalmer.com/". When they went to register the name, it was already taken by Allen Wyatt of FAIR. The man is despicable. He scans the Ex-Mormon forums for URLS and registers them to prevent Ex-Mormons from creating sites. That is the exact reason why I registered mormoncurtain.com, .net and .org to prevent such an action.
Domain name: savegrantpalmer.com
Administrative Contact:
Discovery Computing Inc.
Allen Wyatt (awyatt@dcomp.com)
+1.4806294160
Fax: +1.4806294161
PO Box 2145
Mesa, AZ 85214
US
Maybe it's time to register www.allenwyattsucks.com, what do you think Allen? OOPS, Allen has already registered allenwyattsucks.com. Ok, how about www.allenwyattisadick.com?
From the Salt Lake Tribune:
A Salt Lake City organization that is critical of the LDS Church filed suit Monday accusing a pro-Mormon foundation of trademark infringement and unfair competition.
The suit by Utah Lighthouse Ministry Inc. accuses The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) of registering 13 Internet domain names associated with UTLM, including those of founders Jerald and Sandra Tanner, to create confusion.
The Tanners are former members and longtime critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, while FAIR says it is "dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS [Mormon] doctrine, belief and practice."
The alleged cybersquatting - the practice of registering or using Internet domain names with the intent of profiting from the good will associated with someone else's trademark - takes visitors looking for UTLM publications to a selection of hyperlinks to articles posted on FAIR's Web site instead, the suit contends. In addition, it says, these Internet sites "bear a remarkable resemblance of 'look and feel' to the UTLM Web site."
The ministry's site is utlm.org; FAIR has been using the names fairlds.org and blacklds.org. The names in dispute include utahlighthouseministry.com, utahlighthouseministry.org, sandratanner.com and gerald tanner.com.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court, names as defendants FAIR, which has addresses in New York City and Mesa, Ariz.; FAIR president Scott Gordon of Davis, Calif.; Discovery Computing Inc. of Mesa, which provides Web services to FAIR; and Discovery officers Allen L. Wyatt and Debra M. Wyatt.
The legal action seeks transfer to UTLM of the 13 domain names, which were registered in 2003 and 2004 by Allen Wyatt, and triple the unspecified monetary damages suffered by the ministry.
Wyatt said he has not seen the suit, but contended that viewers could tell the difference between the FAIR and UTLM sites.
"There's no confusion as to whether it's her [Sandra Tanner's] organization or not," he said. "I just grabbed the names because they were available."
However, he acknowledged that he disagrees with the Tanners' position and said taking the domain names is a valid free speech exercise.
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
| Utah Lighthouse Ministries (Jerald and Sandra Tanner's organization) has filed suit against FAIR and several people associated with it. The accusations include cybersquatting, trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition.
A link to a PDF copy of the complaint can be found here:
http://www.exmormon.org/utlmcomplaint.pdf
Don't bother clicking if you don't want to read legalese. I'm sure one of our resident lawyers can post a nice summary for lay-people.
To save our bandwidth, please download the file to your own computer before reading it. From most browsers you can do this by right-clicking on the link and selecting "Save Target As..." or "Save Link As...". Mac users with one mouse button are on their own.
| One of our professors just warned us yesterday in our last class not to give legal advice, so this is just an observation.
After skimming, it looks like the Tanners have a good case because they incorporated in 1982, and Wyatt registered the sites in question in 1997.
Wyatt included the names of the Tanners in the meta tags of utahlighthouse.com. Wyatt also copied the "look and feel" of the Tanners web site. The Wyatts sold FAIR books through bogus web sites. Now the Tanners want the Wyatts to hand over the web sites, and pay damages for deceptive business practices.
The attorneys for UTLM have great evidence in that they have copies of Whois registration, and they have all kinds of evidence showing that Wyatt was trying to drive traffic to FAIR by deception. See the VW case I referred to in another thread.
If it were just about religious ideology, there wouldn't be a big problem. However, since Wyatt and the Tanners both sell books, it is now a business problem.
The last nail in the coffin of the Wyatts is that they didn't even use anything resembling the domain names they registered. So it's a logical conclusion that they were trying to use the trademarks that the Tanners built up.
FAIR used the same "look and feel" as UTLM. That's an extremely deceptive business practice and will really be frowned upon by the court, IMNSHO.
The web sites by the Wyatts had links to the FAIR LDS book store. The problem is that people might think they are buying books from the Tanners, but they are actually getting FAIR books or CDs. Sandra Tanner even bought a book from FAIR to illustrate this. She got it through one of the 13 bogus web sites, run by FAIR. Interstate commerce - federal crime!
So, here's what the tanners are asking for.
1. Transfer ownership of the contested web sites to the Tanners. This is standard, and many large companies have done it. See: Click For Link
The VW case sets precedent - there could have even been one before that, too.
2. Damages for trademark infringement ($1k to $100k per domain).
3. Attorney fees.
I might have missed something, but that's the thrust of it.
I think the Tanners have a good case. And FAIR really lost some points in my book over this one. I have read a lot of people who criticize Fair, but now I see why with my own two eyes.
| FAIR has released a new document. An excerpt:
"In this presentation I would like to focus on how anti-Mormons present a fragmentary, one-sided, and often distorted view of the Prophet Joseph Smith through the selective use of documents. This is a very broad topic and so because of space limitations I will only be sharing a small part of the research that I have conducted in this area. I believe that by the end of this paper you will see that while anti-Mormons like to claim that their version of Joseph Smith's story is 'historical' it can actually be quite 'hysterical' for those who have taken the time to closely examine the relevant documents."
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
First, Matthew Brown boasts:
"In this presentation I would like to focus on how anti-Mormons present a fragmentary, one-sided, and often distorted view of the Prophet Joseph Smith through the selective use of documents."
Just underneath that, he displays a timeline of "documents pertaining to Smith's character." But predictably, he makes no mention whatsoever of Smith's "glass-looking" trial at Bainbridge, New York, on March 20, 1826---even though the event was verified by multiple sources, and even some LDS scholars are finally admitting that the event occurred. See
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech4.htm
and Abram Benton's 1831 article in the "Evangelical Magazine & Gospel Advocate" at
http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1877Purp.htm
Gee, could it be possible that Brown didn't mention those sources because his agenda was to "present a fragmentary, one-sided, and often distorted view of the Prophet Joseph Smith through the selective use of documents"?
Brown states "One recent anti-Mormon book cites a statement made in 1831 by Abner Cole who said that it was 'quite certain that the prophet himself never made any serious pretensions to religion until his late pretended revelation'meaning the Book of Mormon.' "
Hmmm, Fawn Brodie quoted Cole's statement in her 1945 "No Man Knows My History" (on page 23 of the 1971 edition), and it has been quoted by numerous other authors since then. Meaning, this is not exactly a "recent" or a new accusation. Brown is apparently unable to perceive that Cole's statement was based on his own experiences with Smith and family. All the quotes Brown uses are from late apologetic efforts from Smith's relatives. The dozens of witnesses who made statements about Smith's 1820's character who were NOT related to him (and were NOT making a living or fame off the Mormon church in some way or another) testified that the Smith family was generally lazy and shiftless, and spent years engaging in occult folk-magic scams. Also, there are other published reports from 1831-32 besides Cole's which document how Smith evolved from an occult folk-magician into a Biblical-style "prophet" between 1827 and 1829. And none of the accounts of his March 1826 "glass-looking" trial say anything about Joseph claiming to have seen God and Jesus, the angel Moroni, golden plates, etc. They describe him as a young two-bit con artist who was caught trying to scam old Josiah Stowell, and being embarrassed and apologetic for his offense.
One of Brown's major sources is William Smith's late recollection---but for some reason, Brown doesn't mention William's statement that Joseph was first inspired to seek religion after hearing the preaching of evangelist George Lane (which would have been in 1823 or 24), rather than being inspired by reading in his Bible in 1820, as Joseph claimed in his "official history." And Joseph claimed that he was "persecuted" by local ministers for telling them he had seen a heavenly vision, while William says that Joseph was actually inspired by the preacher Lane. Gee, I wonder why Brown didn't mention that?
Under the section titled "Dishonest?", Brown quotes three witnesses to Smith's good character: William Smith, Lorenzo Snow, and Oliver Cowdery. But Brown quotes none of the more than sixty witnesses who were Joseph's acquaintances in the 1820s, and who swore legal affidavits which painted a more complete and balanced picture of Joseph's character, including details of his long folk-magic career.
Also, it's rather amusing that Brown uses "character witnesses" to testify to Smith's honesty, when we can find numerous instances and statements which illustrates Smith's DIShonesty from his own mouth and pen, and from the pages of his own church's history. Joseph's own bald-faced lies regarding his secret, illicit polygamy practice, for instance, tell us everything we need to know about his character, even without considering any antagonistic sources.
Brown cites RLDS researcher William Kelley's 1881 interview (note 3) with John Stafford regarding the Smith family's Bible reading, but Brown doesn't balance that out with some contrasting reports of the Smith family's 1820's character which were also recorded by Kelley, such as Ezra Pierce's recollection:
"They were poor, and got along by working by the day; the old man had a farm up
there, and a log house upon it. The old man Smith and Hyrum were coopers; I
never went to the same school that the boys did--they dug for money sometimes;
young Joe, he had a stone that he could look through and see where the money
was; there were a good many others who dug with them, and Joe used to play all
kinds of tricks upon them." Who said they dug for money? "Oh, I have heard it
lots of times. If my brother was living, he could tell you all about it."
Others dug besides the Smiths, did they? "Yes; there were others who dug; but I
always heard that the Smiths dug the most; one of the Chase's, a young lady,
had a stone which she claimed she could look through and see money buried." Did
anybody dig for her? "Yes; I guess they did. They said so." Then young Joe had
some opposition in the seeing-money business? "That is what everybody said."
Who was this Miss Chase? Where does she live? "She is dead now; she was a
sister to Abel Chase, who lives upon the Palmyra Road."
Kelley also interviewed John Gilbert, who in 1829 had set the type for the printing of the Book of Mormon:
"Did the Smiths ever dig for money?" "Yes; I can tell you where you can find persons who know all about that; can take you to the very place."
Why didn't Brown cite such quotes in his article? Gee, could it be because they spoke of the Smith family's practice of peep-stoning and money-digging, which LDS apologists have been trying to deny or explain away for 175 years?
This is enough for one post, but I trust that readers can see that this FAIR author is anything but "fair" in his rendition of Joseph Smith's history. By omitting accounts which differ with his glowing, practically perfect image of Smith, the author commits the same offense of which he accuses "anti-Mormon" writers. Where I come from, we call that a "hypocrite."
| | | FAIR Is Hopelessly Desperate For Sources Showing A First Vision Account With Both The Father And The Son Prior To 1838
Article Archived: Wednesday, Jun 22, 2005, at 08:26 AM
Stored Under Topic: FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Anonymous |  | |
FAIR has an ironically fantastic "critique" of anti-Mormon documentary sources, here:
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2004BroM.html
The real kicker I had to share with you all: about a third of the way down is a green slide (you can click to expand it) with a timeline showing all the many times prior to 1838 that Joseph Smith is on record as mentioning a Heavenly Father at the first vision as well as Jesus. So this clearly blows any contrary allegations by anti-Mormons out of the water, eh?
Now take a closer look at the references. You need to poke around the article's footnotes to find them all. As it turns out, all of the cited references, though they describe events in the 1830's, date from 1893 at the earliest to 1937! So since someone in 1893 (that one happens to be my own dear great-great-great-grandfather, Edward Stevenson) recalls Joseph Smith once describing seeing both the Father and the Son, in... "oh, it must have been 1834 for sure!"... that proves it folks: there's no possible way a man in his 80s would have misattributed something he heard someone say 55 years earlier as something he heard that someone say 59 years earlier. You just don't get historical evidence any more solid than that! At least, not when it happens to confirm what you would desperately like to find confirming evidence for.
Any sign or whisper of a critical evaluation of source material - which I thought was pretty much the definition of history, right back to Herodotus - from the budding historian who wrote this piece? Actually, based on the Stevenson reference, written in 1893 when Stevenson was in his eighties, the author says, without qualification or reservation, "...in 1834 we know that he related it...", referring to Joseph relating a first vision account that included a separate Heavenly Father. We know. And at 1893, my great-great-great-grandpa's memoir (available at BYU Special Collections, and an interesting read) is by far the closest source they can come up with to indicate any record of Joseph describing a first vision with a separate Heavenly Father prior to 1838. The next source, chronologically, is a cite to the Young Women's Journal dating from 1907, only 75+ years after the fact... when memories have become even sharper...
This is the best they can do to argue that Joseph Smith didn't change his mind 18 years after the supposed first vision, and only then up the ante by describing having seen a Heavenly Father in addition to Jesus? There is no single earlier record, from the 18 years prior, of the single most crucial claim to Joseph's divine calling, and from a man and a church with an almost superhuman will to publish materials about their faith to send to all corners of Western civilization? No written record until 1893, of Joseph having described prior to 1838 having seen a separate Heavenly Father?
Ironically, this eminently FAIR article is entitled "Historical or Hysterical Anti-Mormons and Documentary Sources". I'll leave it to the reader to decide where the article's interpretation of documentary sources lies on the historical-hysterical spectrum.
| This post regards the document found at:
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/EternalMarriage.pdf
In it, it states:
"In response to the LDS doctrine of eternal marriage, you may hear Matthew 22:23-30... brought up as proof that there won't be marriage in heaven."
"There are two things you need to appreciate in order to answer this claim:
1. The Restored Gospel is not "biblicist" in nature, meaning we believe that the word of God is not subject to individual interpretation, but is that which proceeds from the mouth of a living prophet"
"Biblicism vs. Continuing Revelation. Believing in continuing relation means the LDS believe we have prophets who can receive revelation on an ongoing basis on behalf of Jesus Christ. So to answer an objection like this it suffices only to show that the Bible does not contradict the doctrine of eternal marriage; we do not have to show from where in the Bible we get the doctrine. We teach from the scriptures but we teach the Restored Gospel, not the traditional collection of philosophy, creeds and theologies put together by men over the past nearly two millennia."
What does that say to me? Well it may have been already obvious to you but there are a couple things that are a new "revelation" to me.
First, the Bible doesn't matter to any of the LDS because it "is not subject to individual interpretation." So why do Mormons have any Scripture since they cannot receive truth through it apart from the prophet?
Second, why do LDS missionaries use the Bible to prove certain difficult theologies (such as baptism for the dead) instead of merely quoting the living prophet? I realize there is an easy answer of "they are trying to deceive those familiar with the Bible as a basis to sell their own interpretation" but this is just one more dishonest approach for Mormons.
Third, notice the phrase "living prophet". Does that mean all of the Restored Gospel can only come through the current living prophet and not from the past dead ones? That would definitely narrow down the "Gospel" to several pages and not the Books we have now. Or is it, "The past doctrine is good unless proven otherwise."
What I propose they do to be more open and above board concerning just being able for LDS and non-LDS to keep up with current doctrine/revelation would be to print a current "Bible" of all their doctrine each year to keep an updated and concise point of reference for all LDS beliefs. If there was a Mormon questioning a past doctrine that they overheard someone talk about, they could just refer to the "2005 Book of Doctrine" (BoD). If a prospective wants more insight into the church, read the BoD. Do away once and for all with the Journal of Discourses, Book of Mormon, KJV Bible, JST Bible, Pearl of Great Price, History of Church, History of JS etc. etc. and all of its inconsistencies and having to have FAIR and FARMS make sense of it all. Start fresh with something current and direct from the Lord (the Living Prophet) with a BoD 2005. It will be the most current and perfect Book ever recorded and handed down to the Saints of the Lord.
| As some of you know, FAIR was very instrumental in my decision to leave the church. The apologists on the discussion board left me feeling alone in my concerns and I was personally attacked many times by several of them, mostly by the administration. Right now they have some threads about giving more TLC to people coming there with concerns but I still don't see any changes in their behavior. They also have a thread about "fence sitters" coming to FAIR for help and if they have helped people stay or go.
When I left FAIR my head was spinning from the insanity of the apologist world. I felt like slamming my head in to a brick wall. Thankfully, many posters on the board helped me see that integrity is on the side of the critics. I was very surprised at the lengths apologists will go to lie for their Faith. I wonder how many people have left the church after going to FAIR for help. I just read that they banned Truth Dancer the same time Beastie was banned.
I went to FAIR so that I could see if there was more to the history that could change my repulsed feelings about it. I went there to see how my fellow members that knew the true unsanitized versions were able to salvage their testimony. I went there for good discussion about troubling issues with polygamy, modern revelation, secret combinations, polyandry, and Prophets speaking as men vs. for God.
What is FAIR's purpose? They are on constant alert for a troll and end up driving away the people coming for help. Even when they know the person is sincere, they can't handle any critical questions of the church. How can they help people with that attitude? They try and pretend that this stuff shouldn't disturb you. I would say, most people coming there for help like me, are going to have many problems with the church history or they wouldn't have found themselves there in the first place.
"do you have a problem with polygamy?"
"what would bother you about your husband having sex with another woman? Are you jealous?"
"Don't you believe in continuing revelation? You should only worry about what the Prophet of our day has said."
"D & C 132 is about eternal marriage not plural marriage."
The list is endless but makes me crazy. Jullian is one of the cruelest apologists from administ. who gets away with breaking the rules on a daily basis. I wasn't on the board when Daniel c Petersen was but I have heard he caused some to fall away from the church. I would like to thank all the apologists at FAIR for helping me see that I will never be able to overcome the knowledge of church history. To do so requires lying, and slandering of good people. I will never be one of them. It's disturbing that there are people like that in the Mormon church.
| "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."
I think I just might frame this quote on my wall with a caption:
Brigham Young, speaking in defense of African slave women repeatedly raped by their slave owners.
http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?s...
Mormonism began as a racist organization, and Brigham Young's beliefs and statements were against race-mixing, rather than against rape of female Negro slaves. Here's another of his statements which leaves no doubt as to his beliefs:
President Wilford Woodruff Journal 4:97-99 (Feb 1852)]
"Govornor B Youngs address Before the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah upon slavery:
He remarked that the whole world were slaves. Eve partook of the forbidden fruit & also Adam & it brought slavery upon all their posterity in some way or other & this will continue untill we become righteous enough to drive the devil & evil from the Earth.
Adam had two sons Kane & Abel. Cain was more given to evil than Abel. Adam was called to offer sacrifice also his sons. The sacrifice of Abel was more acceptable than Canes & Cane took it into his heart to put Abel out of the way so he killed Abel. The Lord said I will not kill Cane But I
will put a mark upon him and it is seen in the [face?] of every Negro on the Earth And it is the decree of God that that mark shall remain upon the seed of Cane & the Curse untill all the seed of Abel should be re[deem?]ed and Cane will not receive the priesthood untill or salvation untill all the seed of Abel are Redeemed.
Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him Cannot hold the priesthood & if no other Prophet ever spake it Before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I
know it is true & they know it. The Negro cannot hold one particle of Government But the day will Come when all the seed of Cane will be Redeemed & have all the Blessings we have now & a great deal more. But the seed of Abel will be ahead of the seed of Cane to all Eternity.
Let me consent to day to mingle my seed with the seed of Cane. It would Bring the same curse upon me And it would upon any man. And if any man mingles his seed with the seed of Cane the ownly way he Could get rid of it or have salvation would be to Come forward & have his head Cut off & spill his Blood upon the ground. It would also take the life of his Children."
| A few days ago, a FAIRboard newbie posted a question at FAIRboards regarding temple changes:
Quote:
Is there any official documentation as to why parts of the temple ceremony have been altered...both in 1990 and as recently as January of this year?
I would really like to know why these changes were made.
Thank you for your help!
Rather than reply to the post in the thread, I sent her a respectful private message:
As a preface, quite often before the church implements any changes to anything (like the missionary discussions), they test the waters first. It could be through a "pilot program" (as with the missionary discussions) or [as far as I know] with the temple changes, obtaining anonymous statistics of what members think about the temple; taken from small sample of the church membership. I am not making this up, I have read quite a few remarks by people who were part of said sample.
So without delving into "sacred" things, the church removed parts of the endowment that members thought were either offensive, morbid, or unsettling. Of course any active member of the church will tell you the changes were not the direct result of any such surveys/samples, but that the changes were "inspired."
Now I don't know your membership status, (i.e., non-member, less-active, active, etc.) but I will play it safe and assume you are a believing active member of the church. With that said, it is not my intent to point you down the "wrong" path, but you might get better results regarding the very survey/sample I mentioned if you asked about it at the "Recovery from Mormonism" Bulletin Board. ... As a warning, if you go there, many people can come across as "rude" [implying that TBM trolls are not tolerated] but at the same time, many will answer such a question sincererly if they participated in said survey/sample.
Here is the reply I received from her:
Thank you for your polite and respectful response. I am a long-time member with a tremendous amount of respect for the temple. My question was sincere, and I was treated with incredible hostility from people on this board [i.e., FAIRboards].
I have actually been to the Exmormon Recover Board, and found that most people there are much more respectful of people's views than those [at FAIRboards.]
As you can see, my thread was shut down.
I will take your suggestion.
Thanks again!
It found it interesting to hear a [non-FAIRboard-regular] TBM refer to the many [FAIRboard-regular] TBMs as "hostile" and the exmormons here as "respectful." But of course, any FAIRboard-regular TBM thinks we here are all embittered people "living in sin."
| "Is Mormonism a Cult?" A Rebuttal to FAIR
by Luna F.
Mormonism has been accused of being a cult for many years. Since most people don't have a good understanding of what a cult is, it is easy to both blindly accuse and defend against such imagery as weird ritual, hypnotic mind control, and drooling zombies.
The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) is a Mormon think-tank for combating criticism of Mormonism. Their website has a page devoted to addressing these accusations. (http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai042.html) There are five articles listed on this page. Most take very weak swipes at the topic, using non-secular (doctrine-based) definitions of cults, and explaining why the Mormon Jesus really is Christian. Even the famed author Orson Scott Card takes a stab at it, and falls intellectually short. (The link on the FAIR page is broken. It can be found at http://www.beliefnet.com/story/49/story_4906_1.html.)
One author, Kim Siever, makes a decent effort, using a checklist written by a secular cult expert, Dr. Michael Langone. However, this paper still glosses over this complex subject. I have to wonder if Siever has ever actually read any secular books about cults. In spite of using Langone's checklist, he still seems more focused on the Christian definition, which emphasizes non-Christian doctrine and unusual ritual. (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/LDSCult.pdf - Is Mormonism a Cult by Kim Siever)
Beliefs themselves are not harmful, at least not from an objective, non-religious view. From a scientific angle, it doesn't matter whether a person worships the Trinity or the Godhead or Satan or Beelzebub. These are all arbitrary beliefs that in and of themselves do not harm a person. Some believe in a hellish afterlife for those who mistakenly worship the wrong Savior, but this cannot be proven either way in this life, so we must rely on scientific definitions.
Secular cult experts focus on how an organization controls and deceives its members, and how this is psychologically and materially damaging. Steven Hassan states, "A group should not be considered a 'cult' merely because of its unorthodox beliefs or practices." (Releasing the Bonds, p. 3)
While Siever uses a cult checklist written by a prominent cult expert, he still cannot seem to detach himself from the idea of Christians vs. Mormons. He does not seem to have studied the cult phenomenon beyond visiting a few internet sites. (Perhaps it is not necessary for his eternal salvation?)
When using the Christian definitions of a "cult", it does come down to a comparison between Christian and Mormon doctrine. However, Siever is using a checklist of a secular cult expert, and so we must use the secular definition.
By itself, Langone's list is sufficiently vague enough to allow shallow excuses for why Mormonism does not fit. One cannot fully grasp the cult dynamic in detail by reading a 15-point checklist. (Additionally, there are much more detailed lists available, especially Steven Hassan's BITE model.)
Cult experts have defined cults in much better detail in books and academic papers. Here are a couple of secular definitions:
Steven Hassan: "...destructive cults are distinguished by their use of deception and mind control techniques to undermine a person's free will and make him dependent on the group's leader... A group becomes destructive when its leader actively uses such power to deceive members and to rob them of their individuality and free will." (Releasing the Bonds, pp. 3-4)
It becomes a merely semantic argument to focus on Hassan's use of the word "Leader". Indeed, Mormonism does not make its members dependent on a single group leader. However it is just as destructive to make them dependent upon the group itself, or a collection of group leadership, from the Bishop on up to the Apostles and Prophet.
Dr. Langone himself defines cults in the following way:
"...cults differ from "new religions," "new political movements," "innovative psychotherapies," and other "new" groups in that cults make extensive use of unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control to advance the leader's goals. Of course some groups that cause concern do not meet all the definitional criteria, while others become more or less cultic over time." He goes on to state, "Cults differ from merely authoritarian groups...in that the latter are explicit about their goals, are contractual rather than seductive, and usually are accountable to authorities outside the group." (Recovery from Cults, pg 5)
Margaret Singer and Richard J. Ofshe use this definition:
"A cult is a group or movement that, to a significant degree, (a) exhibits great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing, (b) uses a thought-reform program to persuade, control, and socialize members (i.e., to integrate them into the group's unique pattern of relationships, beliefs, values, and practices), (c) systematically induces states of psychological dependency in members, (d) exploits members to advance the leadership's goals, and (e) causes psychological harm to members, their families, and the community." (Recovery from Cults, p. 5)
Siever seems to believe that people accuse Mormonism of culthood only to produce an association to the occult and Satanic. To the Mormon psyche it seems difficult to comprehend why people would waste their time "attacking" the church, unless such people are somehow malicious or evil.
There are other motives. Many of us believe the Church is a harmful cult (based on secular definitions) and that it is psychologically damaging to its members. Many of us are former members who were damaged, and are seeking recovery so we can live healthy, free, and happy lives. We are often concerned for our friends and family members who are still psychologically trapped.
It is difficult for a Mormon to see that they are being manipulated, and so they will avidly deny it. Yet it is the very mark of successful manipulation that the victim be totally unaware, believing they are entirely under their own influence. An in-depth study of cults in general will reveal more on how Mormonism keeps members in line, including social pressure, thought-terminating clichιs, reframing, black & white thinking, cognitive dissonance, public commitment, groupspeak (cult jargon), deception, the double-bind (loyalty/betrayal funnel), etc.
Throughout the paper, Siever compares Christianity to Mormonism when looking at cult status. This is a way of finding Mormonism innocent by saying, "Well, it's just as bad as other religions". It's like a used car salesman trying to sell you a car with no engine. When you point this out, he says, "Well, it has wheels and a new battery... and besides, that truck of yours doesn't run so well, either."
To mix analogies, if you look like a duck, walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, you are still a duck, even if it's another water fowl telling you so.
This tactic makes use of a logical fallacy, specifically Tu Quoque. This is fancy Latin for, "You too!" Siever is saying that the Church's similarity to cults isn't a problem, because mainstream Christianity is also similar. Using this approach does not, in fact, prove Mormonism is not a cult. Therefore, his argument is not logical, though it might seem to be. This also distracts the reader from the main point -- a "Red Herring" fallacy.
Siever addresses Langone's list point by point, so I will follow this model, summarizing Siever's views and offering my rebuttal.
The group is focused on a living leader to whom members display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.
Siever focuses on the charismatic aspect of a living leader, and does not even address "excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment".
Langone was seeking to simplify his list, and so did not have room to explain that some cults will focus on commitment to the beliefs, the organization, or multiple leaders. It is irrelevant that Mormons do not worship a single charismatic living leader. It is relevant that most members are extremely committed to the Prophet and other general authorities, and to their beliefs. The pivotal words are "unquestioning" and "excessively zealous".
The Church sets Jesus Christ as its center, but then effectively transfers all of this commitment and power to Church leadership by the doctrine, "...whether by mine [the Lord's] own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." (D&C 1:38)
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
Siever admits to the proselytizing aspect of the church, and excuses it because Christianity does it, too. A bit of Tu Quoque.
He also does ignores the fact that Mormons strongly emphasize this aspect of the Gospel, more so than most Christian groups. All 19 year old male members are expected to go on a formal mission. They are under enormous religious and social pressure to go. If they do not, they face lowered social status, fewer options for mates, being labeled judgmentally as "less righteous" and other anti-virtues, fewer "blessings", reduced spirituality, and probable scorn from family and friends. These young men and women postpone educational opportunities, leave behind fiancιs (who often dump them), and separate from friends and family for a duration of two full years.
"Every member a missionary". Members are strongly encouraged to give religious material to non-member friends and invite them to church social gatherings. Uplifting spiritual stories are told of miraculous conversions. Strong promises are made concerning the afterlife: "And if it so be that you should labor all your days in crying repentance unto this people, and bring, save it be one soul unto me, how great shall be your joy with him in the kingdom of my Father!" (D&C 18:15)
The group is preoccupied with making money.
Again, Siever compares Mormonism to Christianity. He does not point out that the Church stresses tithing at many meetings, and that payment is required for church callings, temple entry, social status, reentry into God's presence, and general overall "worthiness" (linked to self esteem). He dismisses tithing by stating, "I wouldn't label it as a pre-occupation".
Members are made to feel afraid to not pay their tithing. They are interviewed once a year for the express purpose of determining tithe status. They're promised blessings if they pay, and punishment if they don't. Punishment includes social rejection, loss of financial stability, and burning. "...verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming." (D&C 64:23)
Of course members will be pre-occupied with a commandment of such weight.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
On this point, Siever manages to make mainstream Christianity look worse than Mormonism by comparing medieval churches with modern Mormonism. Apples to oranges. He also emphasizes what the Church says but not what the Church does.
One aspect of mind control involves making a person believe they are free. The Church does indeed verbally encourage members to question. But they also encourage members to obey their leaders and to exercise faith. When a question can't be answered to a member's satisfaction, they're told to accept it on faith. Faith is held as a high virtue, so not accepting something on faith is "bad" and makes the member feel less worthy. This is a very effective means of silencing doubt.
There is also the social factor, which is a very powerful force in a cult. Questions that presuppose the church is true and that the Prophet is called of God are generally acceptable and are never punished. It's ok to ask, "How can I be more faithful?", "What is the Celestial Kingdom like?", and "What did the Liahona look like?" Questions that could undermine faith are socially discouraged. Many ex-Mormons report experiences of social shaming and scorn for asking edgy questions. They are made to feel as if something is wrong with them for not automatically believing.
This is known as a double-bind or loyalty/betrayal funnel. If the member does not ask the "forbidden" questions, they are betraying themselves. If they do, they are "disloyal" (or unfaithful), and are judged "guilty" by the group. The organization can therefore look blameless, because they are openly encouraging questions, while in truth they are discouraging them.
Members are strongly admonished to avoid "anti-Mormon" material. They are told this will weaken their testimony. The label "anti" denotes something very negative, and members believe apostates and anti-Mormons are angry, hateful, pushy, and inspired by the devil. Antis are out to persecute and destroy the church. Their motives are never pure. Seeking this material will cause the Spirit to leave you, and you will no longer be able to discern right from wrong. Members tell personal stories of reading anti-Mormon books and "losing the Spirit", being filled with fear, or becoming "confounded" or confused -- all feelings caused by Satan.
Worthiness interviews attempt to insure members have a testimony by asking if they know the church is true, if they sustain church leadership, etc. If the answer to any of these questions is "No", callings and temple recommends can be denied. Worthiness is also linked to social status and self-esteem.
Siever states that the only time members are excommunicated for their doubts are when they encourage dissent among members. Well, isn't that what Langone is talking about here? Dissent is discouraged and even punished by the Mormon church.
This is where group-speak comes in. Dissent is a "bad word". To a member, this word is like "murmuring", "contention", "rebelliousness", and the spirit of the devil. It conjures up stories of Laman and Lemuel, who were the evil brothers of the Book of Mormon protagonist, Nephi. "...he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another." (3 Nephi 11:29)
Yet to non-members, this word is fairly benign. The American Heritage dictionary defines "dissent" as "v. (1) To differ in opinion or feeling; disagree, (2) To withhold assent or aproval. n. (2) The refusal to conform to the authority or doctrine of an established church; nonconformity."
A non-Mormon would usually see dissent as a good thing. Allowing disagreement is a part of the nature of freedom and individuality. Admitting that your organization has excommunicated people for encouraging "disagreement" or "differing in opinion" is admitting your organization is exerting authoritarian control over your members beliefs, thoughts, and feelings.
Many members have been disfellowshipped and excommunicated for writing and teaching on topics such as Mormon feminism, evolution, genetic science, and unauthorized church history. These have been in forums such as universities and intellectual conferences and publications, forums apart from general church membership. It does not matter how much supporting fact or documentation exists, or that these papers were written by sincere, yet concerned, believers. Questions and doubts were expressed to other members, therefore, the "guilty" member is punished.
What good is a question if it cannot be expressed without punishment? How is the Church really encouraging questions if it disfellowships those who publicly ask?
Mind-numbing techniques (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
Siever picks a few Christian sects who practice speaking in tongues, etc., to make mainstream Christianity appear more cultlike than Mormonism. He claims that of these, Mormonism only practices prayer.
Prayer, in and of itself, has not been demonstrated to be a mind control technique. Excessive prayer has. Mormons are encouraged to "Pray always and not faint", and that you shouldn't do much of anything without praying first. (2 Nephi 32:8-9).
Langone's list of mind-numbing techniques should not be considered exhaustive. Members are also encouraged to fast once a month and as needed for special purposes. Fasting weakens the will, and makes one more suggestible. It is in this state during Fast Sunday that one listens to personal testimonies of others. Fasting is also encouraged during the testimony-gaining process. If one is concerned with a specific church doctrine, are struggling to know if the church is true, or are making a major life decision, they are encouraged to fast while praying and reading the scriptures.
Another well-know mind control technique known as "the thought-terminating clichι". This is a phrase or activity designed to stop undesirable thoughts. Mormonism employs this regularly. The most dramatic examples include:
1) Instructions to hum or sing a hymn when an undesirable thought enters the mind
2) Pray when an undesirable thought enters the mind
3) "Get thee behind me Satan" and other phrases which label the undesirable thought as evil so that it cannot be considered
There are many other thought-stopping clichιs that apply to specific situations, such as "Endure to the end", "Be of good cheer", "I will not be tempted beyond that which I'm able," "Do not harden your heart", "Do not crucify the Savior anew", and "Is this [question, reading material, speculation] necessary for my eternal salvation?"
Siever also does not point out that many members feel overwhelmed with the work they need to do. Many are exhausted and depressed. Many members also report they do not get enough sleep. If this is in doubt, try making a list of the number of commandments and "shoulds" given by the Church. It exhausted me just thinking about it. This would count as a "debilitating work routine". Overwork and exhaustion is another form of mind-numbing used by many cult groups.
There are many more subtle thought-control techniques employed by the Church, but these would require more lengthy exploration than this space allows.
The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, get married; leaders may prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth).
Siever points out that members are encouraged to wear modest clothing and he mentions the temple recommend process.
He completely ignores the other points here, both the obvious and the subtle.
He does not mention the required wearing of garments or Mormon dietary restrictions. He does not mention that young members are strongly discouraged from dating non-members, that Mormonism dictates sexuality, that it directs women to stay at home to raise a family, and that it proscribes instructions for almost every other area of a member's life.
While Mormons do not need to ask the Bishop for permission regarding every mundane daily act, members are always encouraged to "Choose the right" in every aspect of their lives. A wrong choice is said to have dire, long-lasting consequences. Even for non-religious life choices, members are instructed to seek council in the scriptures, in fasting, and in prayer. Because of this reliance on "The Spirit", many members are afraid to make even the simplest of choices. Members become susceptible to "revelations" (promptings, visions, and dreams) from fellow members, leaders, and parents, especially in the realm of marriage and careers.
The Church doesn't seem to care about career choices for men, which specific returned missionary you should date and marry, what kind of non-caffeinated non-alcoholic dinner you should eat, what house you should live in, or which wholesome consumer goods you buy with the remaining 90% of your income. But beyond this, the Church has many recommendations for an "upright" Mormon life. Read you scriptures daily, hold family home evening, raise your children well, wear dresses and suits, short hair for men, don't get too many piercings (none of the face), seek after virtuous things of good report, do not watch R rated movies, listen to uplifting music, keep a clean home, do not work on Sunday, do not masturbate, do not have impure thoughts, serve your fellow man, avoid all appearances of evil, develop your talents, be productive, be careful who you associate with, date worthy members, sex is for procreation only, bake cookies, do your home/visiting teaching, and magnify your calling.
If this is not dictating, I don't know what is.
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).
Again Siever ignores the main point of the item. She focuses on the example used, not the statement.
Mormonism is very elitist. Members believe they are elect, the most valiant servants in the pre-existence. Mormons born in these last days are called of God, his chosen people, to be his warriors before the Second Coming. Saturday's Warriors. "...among all these [intelligences/spirits] there were many of the noble and great ones...These I will make my rulers." Abraham 3:22-23.
Mormons identify themselves with most references to Israel in scripture, and "The World" (everyone else) is equated to Babylon. All the responsibilities and good things promised to Israel are promised to Mormons, while the bad things that happen to wicked Babylon will happen to the rest of the world.
While Mormon rhetoric claims everyone is equally loved in the site of God, other doctrines -- and more importantly, attitudes and actions -- contradict this. Mormons believe they have a birthright so long as they continue to keep the lengthy list of commandments. Non-members and less active members are looked down upon as weak and sinful. They are usually treated with less respect. Members who leave the church are labeled "apostates", which has many negative connotations. Exmormons are encouraged to return in condescending, often pitying tones. The "righteous" are exalted, the wicked are smitten.
It is difficult to deny that Mormons believe they are special. It is drilled into their heads in church lessons, conference talks, and hymns. Many hymns use battle imagery to show the righteous slaying sinful enemies. Mormons are to be in the world, but not of the world.
Many of these points also apply to the next item.
The group has a polarized us- versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.
Siever admits to this one, stating that members tend to congregate geographically and when possible, use professional services of fellow members.
He does not stress the "us-vs-them" mentality, which is prevalent in Mormonism. Mormons have a persecution complex, and believe many people are out to destroy the church and make life miserable for innocent members. The attitude seems to be, "You're either with us, or against us."
The outside world is shunned, is considered less desirable to Mormon spirituality. Mormons are proud of being "a peculiar people".
Conflicts arise when Mormons flaunt their self-righteousness, disrespect boundaries, condescend to wicked outsiders, treat non-members and exmormons with disdain, and try to push their beliefs on others by knocking on doors.
The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations).
Siever states that both Mormon and Christian leaders are accountable to God. This of course assumes there is a God to be accountable to.
Langone did not intend this item to mean "accountable to the deity which the cult worships". It means living, earthly authorities. Cult leaders do a lot of unethical things in the name of their deity, holding themselves above the law. When they are only accountable to their God, then they can justify doing anything they claim their God is in favor of, even if such actions are harmful, unethical, and illegal.
Modern Mormonism attempts to follow government laws, however historically Mormon leaders have often been in defiance of worldly authority. Since this is not the forum for discussion of historical Mormonism, I will leave it at that.
The modern Mormon organization keeps many things hidden from their members and the world at large. Because of this, it is difficult to say to what extent the Church is abusing its powers. Because of its non-profit religious status, there is much the church does not have to report, including financial records.
By way of example, there are valid accusations that the Church is practicing for-profit activities with its money such as high salaries and personal perks to upper-leadership and purchases of investment real estate and malls. There are hundreds of reports of sexual abuse by Bishops and other leaders that have been suppressed or brushed aside by internal Church authority. The Church has involved itself in political campai | |
