| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 221.1 | Clarification of comments | ISLNDS::COX | | Fri Mar 31 1989 12:32 | 4 |
| Just a clarification, my comments are aimed at the bulk of the replies
to note 192 and not the original note itself.
- Ed
|
| 221.2 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Blessed are the pure in heart: | Fri Mar 31 1989 13:26 | 25 |
| Hi Ed,
In 192.4, I explained that it was most important to discuss Martin's
statements about the Mormon church, but that I also felt that we should
discuss Martin himself. I am not concerned whether Martin is a 'sinner' or
not; that is between him and God. I do want to know, however, if he has been
honest in describing his own background, because I expect there is a
correlation between his honesty in describing his own background and his
objectivity in describing the Mormon church. You indicated in your comments,
Ed, that you felt the character of a founder of a religious movement did have
a bearing on the validity of the movement itself; similarly, I believe that
the character of an author has a bearing on the objectivity of the book(s)
written by that author.
I believe that Walter Martin has been dishonest about his own background, and
I believe that the photocopies of the various documents referenced in note
192 clearly show his dishonesty. I feel that we need to be aware of his
dishonesty as we study his book.
You indicated, Ed, that you feel that my comments in note 192 come close to
being slander. I feel my comments would be slander only if they are inaccurate
or false. If you feel that I have presented inaccurate or false information in
note 192, then I hope that you will go to that note and explain your reasons.
Allen
|
| 221.3 | With tongue firmly planted in cheek... | ONFIRE::PERM | Kevin R. Ossler | Fri Mar 31 1989 14:22 | 13 |
| RE: .0
> ....especially by anyone who does not consider themselves to
> have been brainwashed.
Hey fellow Mormons, what exactly *do* y'all use for washing your brains?
I've tried a lot of products, but I find a good mixture of Tide and bleach
does the trick. Washes away all those nasty flecks of doubt and dissention.
Leaves me with a nice sense of abject complacency every time. Recommended
by bishops everywhere.
Conformingly yours,
/kevin
|
| 221.4 | No smoke - PLEASE! | ISLNDS::COX | | Fri Mar 31 1989 14:54 | 22 |
| I believe that Mr. Martin's motives are very clear and do not need
to be guessed at. Whether or not he is honest has bearing only
in areas of opinion or where he makes claims that stand or
fall based on who he is. Facts on the other hand will stand on
their own regardless of the author or his particular bias. Likewise,
untruth can be discovered by examination. The tactic of character
assasination is a propoganda technique used to side-track an issue
off of its factual basis. If indeed the MAZE OF MORMONISM has
incorrect information in it, then please address that issue with
some supportable counter information. If you have evidence that
certain copies of documents are invalid, please submit that evidence.
If you have evidence that some of the stated information concerning
changes in LDS documents is invalid, please submit that. Please,
please, please do not try to convince people that facts are not
facts because Mr. Martin was a bad boy. I don't think Joseph Smith's
background is totally free of indictment either, yet that does not
seem to stop you from believing him. I say, LET THE FACTS SPEAK
FOR THEMSELVES and let's stop depending on subterfuge to deal with
issues.
- Ed
|
| 221.5 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Blessed are the pure in heart: | Fri Mar 31 1989 15:34 | 64 |
| > Whether or not he is honest has bearing only
> in areas of opinion or where he makes claims that stand or
> fall based on who he is.
Whether Martin is honest or not has a lot to do with his interpretation of
his evidence and the way he presents the information in his book.
> Facts on the other hand will stand on
> their own regardless of the author or his particular bias. Likewise,
> untruth can be discovered by examination. The tactic of character
> assasination is a propoganda technique used to side-track an issue
> off of its factual basis. If indeed the MAZE OF MORMONISM has
> incorrect information in it, then please address that issue with
> some supportable counter information. If you have evidence that
> certain copies of documents are invalid, please submit that evidence.
> If you have evidence that some of the stated information concerning
> changes in LDS documents is invalid, please submit that.
I agree with you, Ed. I indicated in note 192.4 that the most important
thing we could do concerning his book was to discuss his statements to see
if they are factual, accurate, and objective.
> Please,
> please, please do not try to convince people that facts are not
> facts because Mr. Martin was a bad boy.
I've been trying to explain to you, Ed, that I am not trying to convince
people "that facts are not facts because Mr. Martin was a bad boy". What I
am trying to do is bring out that Martin has been dishonest about describing
his own background, and that I think it is likely that he will be dishonest
about interpreting his information about the LDS church. I expect that the
key points of our discussion of his book will not be that such-un-such an
event occurred or that such-un-such document exists or that so-un-so said
such-un-such; I expect that the key points will concern what importance those
"facts" have. I expect that the interpretation of the "facts" by Martin and
by us will be the important things, and I feel that his honesty in writing
the book is important. Since I have hard evidence that he was dishonest about
his background, I think it likely he will be dishonest in interpreting his
"facts". For example, he may take events from Mormon history or Mormon
scriptures out of context, and I will be checking the context of his statements.
As a contrast to Martin, one non-Mormon historian that I highly respect is
Jan Shipps. I don't agree with all of her observations about us, but I
respect her honesty and fairness. I'm suspicious of Walter Martin because
of his dishonesty. I respect and have confidence in Jan Shipps because of
her professionalism.
As of this date, note 192 hasn't discussed any of the statements from Martin's
book. I will admit that I've been very slow in getting back to note 192. I've
been involved in a project for the past four months that has taken all of my
available time. I hope that this lack of attention to note 192 does not imply
to you that I'm finished with that note and have no intentions of reading
Martin's book or commenting on it. I think I indicated in note 192 that I
do plan to discuss the details of the book.
I also indicated in 192.13 that I hoped that persons who have read the book
would share their feelings about it. You have implied, Ed, that you have read
it. Perhaps, you would like to contribute to note 192 and discuss things in
the book that you feel are important?
Allen
|
| 221.6 | | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Fri Mar 31 1989 16:29 | 23 |
|
Is the book readily available in a bookstore? If not, is it in
Christian bookstores only? I read the notes concerning Allen's
research/findings on Mr Martin feel that he was thorough, and
brought to light details of Mr Martin's past that are useful in
terms of evaluation of Martin's motives, and of his character.
I might add that many have scrutinized Joseph Smith over the years
and, to my knowledge, come up empty handed when it came to finding
great character flaws. With many who write concerning the church
it's of paramount importance to find their motivations concerning
it. Objectivity is often hard to come by, and we find the sword
can be two-sided. Given the response in this file by LDS members
who have read the book I suspect Martin has been a bit less than
objective in his treatment of the church. If I get to read it I
probably will feel the same as most do in this conference.
As to Allen, I think that he has been as objective as an LDS can be
on this topic, and I for one respect his statements he makes regardless
on whether I agree with him or not. He doesn't make rash statements
and researches material before he passes judgement.
Kevin
|
| 221.7 | On Moderation... | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Fri Mar 31 1989 19:20 | 27 |
| Re: Note 221.0 by ISLNDS::COX
Hi Ed,
> I have many doctrinal areas of disagreement with Mormonism, I have
> also respected many outward manifestations of your faith.
Fair enough, and we welcome you to the conference!
> Indeed, slander is a sin and it
> would seem to me that note 192.* comes very close to that definition
> and should have been screened by the conference moderator.
Allen Leigh is the moderator of this conference, and I am co-moderator.
I see no reason for Allen's comments on this subject to be screened. No
character assassination has been attempted, only a presentation of the
facts about Walter Martin. Also, Allen has openly invited others to
participate in the topic, and has stated that he intends to address the
issus raised in the book itself, as well. Since I do not have the book,
I am unable to do so, and would be pressed for time even if I did.
I also see no reason for your comments to be screened, so far. You are
encouraged to participate by sharing with us your thoughts about this,
as well as other topics.
In Christ's Love,
Rich
|
| 221.8 | I hate having to think of titles! | ISLNDS::COX | | Mon Apr 03 1989 10:58 | 24 |
| Well, well... Seems interesting to me that everyone is so quick
to criticize a book which none of you has read yet. Doesn't it
seem a bit odd to criticize the author when you have not even read
the book and are not yet prepared to deal with the issues within?
I say again that somehow that does not seem to be the Christian
way of dealing with things!
That being said, what has been suggested sounds good to me.
Yes, I have read the book and would like to select a few topics
for discussion. It has been a couple of years since I have spent
any great time in the area, so give me a few days to review the
book once again and I will enter a few suggested topics for discussion.
Please remember that my original purpose was not to debate doctrine,
but to simply place the emphasis of discussion on the facts and
not the personalities. My appeal therefore is that the responses
be kept in the realm of evidence, not criticism. I in turn will
attempt to select issues that will fit that criteria so as to not
promote a quarrel of opinions.
Do you have a preference as to the organization of such a list
of topics? In other words, would it be best to enter them as replies
to the original note (192), or to enter them in this note, or to
begin a new topic for each of the issues that I select?
- Ed
|
| 221.9 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Blessed are the pure in heart: | Mon Apr 03 1989 12:02 | 26 |
| Hi Ed,
My suggestion would be to keep this note dedicated to our discussion of my
treatment of Walter Martin and to post your topics to the original note (I'm
speaking as an individual and not as moderator). One lesson that Ed Preston
and I learned in our discussion of "The God Makers" is to go slow enough that
each each topic is explored quite well before the next one is introduced; I
made a mistake in posting several topics from "The God Makers" at once, and we
ended up with separate discussions weaving in and out of each other.
I'm finished with the project that I mentioned, so I will begin reading "The
Maze of Mormonism" later this week. As you introduce topics, I will take time
to read the context of that topic from Martin's book before I respond. Others
who have read the book are welcome to join Ed and me in this discussion.
My purpose in discussing this topic (as well as all others) is to explain my
understandings and beliefs so that you can understand my view, and to understand
your view. I'm not interested in trying to convience you to become a Mormon.
Thus, after we have discussed a topic enough that I feel you should understand
what I'm saying and I think I understand what you are saying, I will withdraw
from the discussion to let it "die out". In doing this, I'm not trying to
avoid communications with you, Ed, it will just be that I feel we've completed
our purposes in discussing that topic and that if we went further we would be
engaging in contention.
Allen
|
| 221.10 | OK, now we're cookin'... :-) | ISLNDS::COX | | Mon Apr 03 1989 12:40 | 25 |
| Allen,
That sounds fine to me. As I alluded to before, I am not
interested in creating and arguing over controversy (indeed, the
Bible warns against that!). Also, I have spoken with enough Mormons
to know that heated debates are not likely to alter your beliefs.
Lets face it, you believe what you beieve for a reason, just as
I do.
What I would like to do is to try to keep the intent of the
original note (192) and to stick to the issues raised in the book
under discussion. In the absence of Mr. Martin, I will stand in
his place and submit various topics from his book for scrutiny and
you may submit whatever evidence you may have that bears on that
topic. In general, I will refrain from editorializing since I am
not the author and do not claim to agree with him on every point
of doctrine. If someone wishes to know my position or view point
on something, I will be glad to comment, but I want to be sure to
not to put myself in the author's place, since I am not the topic
of discussion, but rather Mr. Martin's book. I believe that will
maintain the spirit of what note 192 was meant to accomplish. :-)
See you in a few days...
- Ed
topics for the purpose of
|
| 221.11 | Consider the source. | BSS::RONEY | | Mon Apr 03 1989 14:27 | 38 |
|
Ed,
I am a Mormon and I have not read Maze. Nor do I plan to.
However, I have seen and heard Dr Walter Martin. He gave a series
of talks here, and, of course, one of them was on Mormonism. I went
to that one at the invitation of an investigator we were teaching on
my Stake Mission, and I would like to give you my impressions about
my experience.
First, I will do something that Martin does not allow - I
will tell you about my FEELINGS. I do not want to banter terminology
and semantics like he does, and I am sure that there are other people
in this conference that will oblige you. But I do know when I feel
the Spirit of God leave me - like when I entered the building his talk
was in. Until I saw the Stake Patriarch and Stake Presidency, I had a
black empty hole inside me. My companion felt the same way and we
were considering leaving until we knew we would not have to be alone.
We were somewhat comforted, but not entirely until we were out of the
building and out of the presence of Martin.
As a Mormon, I feel privileged to have witnessed a modern-day
Korihor. You can read about the first one in Alma 30 in the Book of
Mormon. Martin lambasted the Church and Joseph Smith the entire
evening with poppycock rhetoric. All the arguments he used were either
out of context or just plain stupid. I found out later that some of
his arguments have been proven wrong, but he goes on and refuses to
accept that fact.
I'm sorry, but Martin can only effect those people who are new
or weak in the Church, or non-members investigating the Church. If a
person has truly and honestly studied the Scriptures, with pure intent,
and received God's witness of the truthfulness of the Gospel, Joseph
Smith and the Book of Mormon, then Dr Walter Martin is just a small
annoyance. But don't let anyone bear their testimony, because that is
something between that person and their God. And it is something that
Martin can not and will not argue against.
Charles
|
| 221.12 | Fact >>>> Feelings | ISLNDS::COX | Ed Cox: II Cor 10:3-5 | Mon Apr 03 1989 16:37 | 44 |
|
Charles,
Thank you for your interest in this topic. Let me assure you
that I am not here to criticize or throw stones. Neither is it my
intention to be drawn into arguement. It was may concern, that if
a discussion was going to be made of the MoM book, that it should
at least be done according to prevailing rules of intellectual
etiquette. I do hope that you base your faith on more than
feelings however, because I think that if you look at Samson or
Saul (for example), you will find that feelings can get you in lots
of trouble.
There are probably those who would like to know a little about
me at this point, seeing how this discussion has started to grow.
I am simply a Christian, nothing more, nothing less. I am a member
of the Boston church of Christ - a non-denominational church
dedicated to the restoration of New Testament Christianity
according to the Bible alone. Actively planting churches around
the world, our stated goal is to evangelize the world in one
generation. We currently meet as a group of about 4500 in the
Boston Garden.
If anyone wants scripture references for some of my basic
beliefs as they touch upon the LDS church (and in particular why we
must go by fact and not feeling), here are several - kept short for
times sake, after all I do need to get SOME work done today. ;-)
Deut 13:1-5 Can not go by experience or even signs that supercede
the Word of God.
Deut 18:15-22 God predicts his Real prophet and gives a scriptural
test of a prophet (The MoM book references a number of
LDS prophesies that do not pass this test).
Gal 1:6-9 A stern warning against any other gospel than the one
know at the time.
I'm sure that these may not be new for you. I have not stated
them for the sake of starting a debate, but only because it is fair
for you to know where I stand. It is not my intention to be a
mystery writer! ;-)
Till next time...
- Ed
|
| 221.13 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | but I'm feeling *much* better now ... | Mon Apr 03 1989 17:24 | 7 |
|
Note 118 discusses in detail about study, 'feelings' and 'promptings'.
Ed, you might choose to respond to this note if you care to share
your feelings with us and to understand that to which Charles is
referring.
Steve
|
| 221.14 | Batter Up... | ISLNDS::COX | Ed Cox: II Cor 10:3-5 | Fri Apr 07 1989 02:34 | 4 |
|
Please note that the first topic from the MoM book has been added
as a reply to note 192.
- Ed
|
| 221.15 | Off to a good start... | CACHE::LEIGH | Blessed are the pure in heart: | Fri Apr 07 1989 11:06 | 29 |
| Hi Ed,
I just read your reply to note 192, and I wanted to complement you on your
choice of topics for the first go-around. You've chosen a very interesting
and important topic, one which we can objectively discuss without a lot of
disagreement and emotionalism, and one of my favorites.
I'm quite busy getting my scout troop ready for summer camp, so I will be
kinda slow responding (I basically have an hour each morning for this). It
is likely that other LDS will want to respond, so I would like to give a
word of caution to us LDS. We need to make a distinction between direct
evidence about the Book of Mormon (the type I think Ed is looking for) and
parallel evidence. Parallel evidence can be used to indicate likelihood but
will never show things with a definite certainty. Also, there have been
many books published for the LDS trade about the Book of Mormon and
archaeology, and some of them aren't worth much; we need to be sure that our
sources have a solid foundation of direct evidence to present. Persons who
haven't already read it may want to read note 64 (Evidence and Parallels) that
discusses the differences & relative importance of direct evidence and
parallel evidence.
There are already notes dedicated to discussing this topic, so I will probably
elect to post my information to those notes instead of to 192. I realize that
this tends to fragment our discussion of "The Maze of Mormonism", but from my
viewpoint, it is nice because it keeps the scientific discussions of the
Book of Mormon localized in dedicated notes. As I post the information, I will
post pointers to it in 192.
Allen
|
| 221.16 | Those are good ideas... | ISLNDS::COX | Ed Cox: II Cor 10:3-5 | Fri Apr 07 1989 14:05 | 21 |
|
Allen,
Yes, your idea of cross referencing this discussion to other
note topics is quite acceptable. I am sure much has already been
written on some of these topics, but being new to your conference I
have not had time to browse through all of them.
I want to thank you for your emphasis on presenting direct
evidence. I believe that will make for a very interesting
discussion. Also I want to apologize, I think I may have sounded a
bit "testy" at the end of intorducing the Archeology topic. As you
can obviously relate to, time is not abundant when trying to NOTE
and get work done too, so I found myself entering that about 1:30
last night and I was getting a little blitzed (I had already led a
Bible study, put kids to bed, given a late night counseling
session, and cuddled the wife.... wheww!).
I'm looking forward to the discussion.
- Ed
|
| 221.17 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Blessed are the pure in heart: | Fri Apr 07 1989 14:40 | 4 |
| I hadn't even noticed, Ed, that you were a bit "testy". Sounds like
your schedule is similar to mine....
Allen
|