Part 1 begins with a post from a Mormon disguising himself as a Mormon investigator (a term used by Mormons for one who is thinking of joining Mormonism and is taking the Mormon missionary discussions) and the responses.  The original topic was baptism for the dead,  a Mormon practice in temples.  It is an excellent example of how Mormon apologists will employ deceit.  He is a self appointed Mormon apologist.  His spelling and grammar are left intact

Part 2  begins with a thread about the Mormon tactic of lying to get converts.  Mormon missionaries and Mormons attempting to convert others to Mormonism will leave out essential information.  These are lies by omission. 

Part 3  is about Allen Wyatt of FAIR, a Mormon apologetics group.  Part 3 demonstrates Mormon apologists' dirty tactics as exemplified by a recent antic by Wyatt to disrupt support of Grant Palmer, a Mormon historian.  Dec. 2004

Part 1

Subject: Missionaries visiting me. Have a Question.
Date: Dec 18 04:16 2004
Author: boisejustin

My friend referred me to this site. She said I might be able to get an answer to my question. The missionaries have been giving me there little lessons (I think they call them discussions or something) the past three weeks. The other day they were talking about baptizing for the dead. The way they explained it sorta made sents, although I thought it was kinda wierd. Yeah, I'm not so sure about the idea yet, but I'm mulling over it. Anyway, they referred to a scripture in the Bible that they said is Jesus talking about Baptizing for the Dead. How come I have never heard of this before?!

Here is the Scripture:

1 Cor. 15: 29
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

What the heck does this scripture mean?! Nobody has realy been able to give me an answer. Will somebody please help me out about this. He isn't realy talking about baptizing for the dead like the missionaries are talking about is he?

Subject: This is one Mormons do OK on...
Date: Dec 18 04:44
Author: micaiah
About a decade ago, when I was working on my Ph.D. in economics, I used to read academic research on the Bible when I really should have been working on my dissertation. It turns out that that Bible verse, 1Cor 15:29, is one that Protestants and Catholics don't know what to do with. Their best guess is that some early Christians really did some kind of baptism on behalf of dead relatives, who died before they heard about the Gospel (sounds like the Mormon story, right?).

But then the Protestants and Catholics correctly point out that Paul doesn't approve of their practice, and he doesn't disapprove of it....he just mentions it. It's just sorta floating out there, and no one knows what it means. I don't believe there are any other references to it in early Christian literature. My guess is baptism for the dead was just a local practice that died out within a few decades. (But hey, isn't that good evidence for the Mormon idea of apostasy? Hmmmm....)

Google will, as always, show you the true way: Here's Google search that looks for all "baptism for the dead" references, but then cuts out all the ones with the words "Mormon" or "LDS" in it. So while some links are pro-Mormon, many are just from regular non-Mormon religious scholars, people who are trying to make sense of that weird verse.

If you want to know more about the early New Testament church, the best (scholarly) book around is supposedly by Wayne Meeks, and it's called *The First Urban Christians.* I enjoyed reading it a while ago. It's old, but still widely read.

Subject: Crawl back under your fairboard rock, you troll
Date: Dec 18 04:45
Author: Troll Patrol

You must be new at this RfM trolling thing. [referring to boisejustin]

First never post under the same name as a morgomite from fair:  http://tinyurl.com/45rsu

Second, phrases like "I think they call them discussions or something" are a dead give away.

If you are having doubts then say so, otherwise I think Daniel [paid Mormon apologist at FARMS]  needs you to go pick another 36 donuts for him.

Note: Fair is a Mormon apologetic group where boisejustin writes in support of Mormonism

Subject: Yup, our troll is clueless.
Date: Dec 18 09:15
Author: Tyson Dunn

Not only does he not refer to the right lesson, but he forgets that the Church just revised its missionary lessons. I guess that's part of what happens when you're a TBM RM [Mormon returned missionary] in Boise, where there's no one to teach.

Under the new "Preach My Gospel" system, lessons are called lessons, not discussions, and talk of temple work doesn't come until the fifth lesson, which is explicitly not supposed to be taught until AFTER baptism. Talk about hiding the meat!**

Anyway, BoiseJustin needs to find dumber fish to fry. Many of us have an apologetics background, so we know all their dumbass tricks.

Tyson

**I'm planning to address this point in a separate thread, titled "Hiding the meat from investigators - the new missionary lessons"

Subject: Out of context
Date: Dec 18 09:45
Author: Chet
Mail Address: 
In the scripture you cite, Paul is referring to a practice taking place in the church at Corinth but seems to discourage it. No authorities that I can find see it as a recommended practice and it's not clear whether "baptism for the dead" meant baptism for people who died before they could be baptised, baptism in anticipation of the resurrection of the dead, or new converts being baptised to fill the ranks of Christians who had died.

Subject: Re: Out of context
Date: Dec 18 13:37
Author: boisejustin

Yeah....in other words, you haven't a clue as to what it means.

Subject: The neatly-wrapped world of pseudepigrapha
Date: Dec 18 18:40
Author: micaiah

Of course, Joseph Smith just followed the pattern of all pseudepigraphical writings--find a passage that raises some questions, and then neatly answer them, tying up all the loose ends neatly and cleanly.

The early Christian pseudepigrapha (which means "False Hand", as I recall) did much the same thing. "Gee, I wonder what Jesus did as a kid," some early Christians wondered. And lo and behold, up popped some stories about Jesus turning clay into pigeons (as I recall) and doing mean stuff to mean kids, as I recall.

So Joseph Smith, like others in the early 19th century, had a bundle of questions that had been lingering for 1800 years. What about babies who die without baptism? Do most people really go to a hell with fire and brimstone? Did Jesus speak to just a small group of people, or did he really care about the whole world? What about salvation--what's the deal with grace and faith? And thousands of other questions.

So, Smith just answered them with his pseudepigraphical writings. B of M, D&C, PGP, you name it. It fits the classic pseudepigraphical pattern of tying up loose ends, answering the questions that people in YOUR DAY were wondering about.

Problem is, Smith's writings really don't answer any questions that came up AFTER he lived. Funny that way, eh? His "prophetic" writings tied up loose ends about atheism and (now defunct) universalism, he answered questions about women posing as Jesus (Ann Lee), and the possibility of the South having a Civil War. But what didn't his pseudepigraphical writings talk about?

Evolution, the biggest destroyer of biblical faith in the 20th century. And it only came a few years after Smith's (awful, unjustified) murder!

The genetic nature of homosexuality, the biggest religious issue of the early 21st century.

Both "lower" and "higher" biblical criticism, which makes it clear that the real problem with the Bible is not that "plain and precious parts" were lost. The real problem is that the early Church had many points of view, even among the Apostles, and they duked it out in their writings. Compare John, Peter, Paul, and James--just try imagining them coming to an agreement on religion! James in particular sounds like a refutation of Paul's writings, in the view of some scholars.

And they just weren't doing the Temple Ceremony, of course. But nowadays, I'm guessing most mainstream Mormons agree with that, since the Morg has made it clear that the Temple Ceremony, like most of Mormon doctrine, is "subject to change without notice."

In short, despite 150 years of work after Smith's death, no one has found evidence that the early Apostles would agree with Joseph Smith regarding much of his "restoration." (There's a little room for the "man becoming God" stuff, but that "plain and precious truth" was never lost--the Eastern Orthodox and some forms of Catholicism had that all along).

And those forms of criticism have done even more damage to Old Testament belief. I strongly recommend Richard Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible," which is often used in undergraduate Old Testament courses. He just walks you through how the Torah is a jumble of writings assembled by various religious/political groups. A great jumble, but a jumble nonetheless.

And I won't even touch on the laughable "Joseph Smith Translation" of the Bible. I took the JST course at BYU taught by Professor Robert J. Matthews, the guy who negotiated with the RLDS to get the rights for the Morg to use the JST. Even *he* said that a lot of the time, the JST might better be thought of as "inspired commentary," rather than a literal restoration of the ancient text. That's a laugh. The Mormons always have a loophole. No wonder they make such great lawyers!

So, Smith did a great job responding to the religious questions of the 1830's. But his track record since then leaves something to be desired. The BofM--with its discussions of skin curses, Jews in America, and infant baptism as a major issue--is looking dated already. That perception will only grow with time.

In short, Smith looks like a pretty good pseudepigrapher. He tied up loose ends. His real innovations--when he went far off the beaten path of 19th century religion--happened when he got to the Book of Abraham. And I think it's safe to say that few Mormons are going to defend the historical accuracy of that these days.....

Subject: Jesus spoke to me about this last week
Date: Dec 18 13:50
Author: Ken Taylor
Troll or no troll, this is an interesting question.

As a mishie in France, I used to quote that scripture. Some local Jehovah's Witnesses countered, "The scripture is not translated correctly. It should read, 'Baptism for the purpose of being dead'."

Whatever.

But seriously, here in Los Angeles there is a radio station (KFI) that has a 2-hour Sunday morning program hosted by Jesus, who describes himself as our "Holy Host."

Someone called Jesus recently and asked about this scripture. Jesus said (if I recall correctly) that the scripture was the only one that might be about baptism for the dead, but that it was definitely an error to say it means baptism for dead people. In addition, it contradicts the many OTHER scriptures that communicate the true meaning of baptism.

Finally, Jesus told us that there might be people knocking on our doors (hmmmmm, wonder who he could have meant???), using this scripture as evidence that their message is true.

Jesus ended his explanation with this: Do you honestly think that I would refuse admission to heaven to a dead person on the basis of whether someone had performed a baptism for him/her or not?

He made a lot of sense to me, that radio Jesus.

Subject: Hey Ken, I heard that program.
Date: Dec 18 13:59
Author: síóg

You left out the best part. Jesus also said that all religions are distortions of what he said and that it makes no sense to embrace any one of them.

And remember the part where he said that everyone one should just get off their high horses and let people be who they are, gay or straight, conservative or liberal.

I thought that was the coolest part.

Lorraine

Subject: Ever wonder how TROLLS...
Date: Dec 18 14:35
Author: chywon
Mail Address: 
...answer that temple recommend question about being honest in your dealings with your fellow men?

"Why yes Bishop, I am, well, except for when I'm trolling the RFM board to try and show those sinners the error of their ways."

"That's ok Brother Troll. You're doing the right thing. In fact, because of your RFM exploits, I get to put a little gold star on your TR. You get to be at the head of the temple ceremony. Now, would you like to pay a 4 times your normal fast offering and see if you qualify for witness couple at the temple next time?"

Honesty in the LDS Church my ass!

Subject: Re: Ever wonder how TROLLS...
Date: Dec 18 19:17
Author: boisejustin

Yes, you have me on that. I was less than honest. I admit that openly. But I never recall claiming that I was a completely honest person. Nether does the LDS church claim that all of its members are honest. In fact, I have known tons of dishonest Mormons. But becuase I was dishonest, and other Mormons have been dishontest, it does not follow that there is a complete lack of honesty in the church. That is a reduculous notion. There is honesty and dishonesty in every church and organizaton that exists and that has every existed.

Furthermore, let us not forget. Peter himself, whom Jesus said was the rock of his church, denied Jesus. Talk about being dishonest!!! And of course we all know what Judas did. And they were both Apostles, chosen by Jesus himself!!!

Subject: Re: Ever wonder how TROLLS...
Date: Dec 18 19:19
Author: chywon

First of all... use spell check!

Secondly... you can't possibly defending your dishonesty could you? You have some serious, serious, serious problems my friend. Screw the church and your TR interview. Find a therapist!

Subject: Re: Ever wonder how TROLLS...
Date: Dec 18 19:31
Author: boisejustin
Mail Address: 
No, I cannot defend my dishonesty. I amdit that I was dishonest. Need I say it over and over again?

Why do you talk about dishonesty as if I am the only one in the world who has been dishonest in the past hundred years? Have you not ever been dishonest before? I would think so, since you are a human being, as am I.

I have serious, serious, serious problems because I was dishonest??? I also fart in church when I need to. Do I have serious serious serious problems about that too?

You are treating the matter as if I have killed somebody.

Why?

Subject: Re: Missionaries visiting me. Have a Question.
Date: Dec 18 15:40
Author: drcarrie
Mail Address: 
It appears your question is disingenuous but here are some tips anyway:

1. Read the entire chapter of Corinthians; don't cherry pick the verse. That's called proof-texting and it's bad form in biblical exegesis.

2. It's Paul speaking, not Jesus.

3. He says "they" not "we", separating the activity from genuine baptism. It's fairly evident that Paul isn't advocating vicarious baptism.

4. The chapter is about the reality of the resurrection of the dead. The early church at Corinth denied resurrection, but baptized on behalf of the dead anyway, a contradiction of beliefs. Paul was trying to set them straight about the doctrine. Read chapter 10, too, where being baptized into Moses in the cloud and the sea is discussed.

5. The early Corinthian church struggled toward Christianity within the Hellenistic culture of a large metropolis. Paul's letter, the entire book of
I Corinthians, was an attempt to settle key issues and conflicts within the Corinthian community.

If you're trying to prove the LDS church is 'true', you'll have to do better than this. Your attempt at baiting everyone here was pretty lame.

Subject: Re: Missionaries visiting me. Have a Question.
Date: Dec 18 18:54
Author: boisejustin
Mail Address: 
First of all, I appreciate your kind response to the question. This is the sort of response I did not think I would have gotten had I asked the question as myself. But it looks like I was wrong. This is the sort of dialogue that is good and healthy, not the hatred, degradation, profanity and volgarity that is flying around most of the time.

Most of the time Mormon critics are really annoying. But sometimes, I have to admit, they inderectly strengthen my testimony more than they sabotage it. In this case I took your advice and I read the entire chapter of 1 Chor Ch. 15. You seem to be annoyed with people that cherry pick verses. I agree with you, and I admit that is exactly what I did in this instance.

However, notwithstanding that I have read the entire chapter, including a few verses of the chapter before and the chapter following, I still stand solidly behind my belief that Paul is talking about "Baptism for the Dead" as the Mormons believe it and practice it. I studied the languageof the chapter and here are my conclusions:

You said:
He says "they" not "we", separating the activity from genuine baptism. It's fairly evident that Paul isn't advocating vicarious baptism.

My rebuttal:
First of all, I emphatically disagree that it is "fairly evident". The language Paul uses in his writings are not what we are accustomed to, and it is difficult to understand the precise meaning without disecting every verse and every word.

You are right. Paul says "They" not "We". You suggest that when Paul uses the word "They" he is specifically making reference to the Chorinthians. However, throughout that entire chapter he does not use the word "They" to refer to the Chorinthians. He uses one of two words, You, or Ye. Of course, this is not suprising. After all, 1 Chorinthians is an epistle meant for the Chorinthians, so that is who he is talking to.

Here are some examples of Paul using "you" or "ye" when referring to the Chorinthians :

1 MOREOVER, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins• according to the scriptures;

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is avain; ye are yet in your sins.

---Ok, Paul is clearly talking directly to the Chorinthians and he refers to them as "you" and "ye", but never does he refer specifically to the Chorinthians as "They".

Here are some examples of Paul's usage of "They":

10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

I think it is clear here, after analyzing these verses, in conjunction with the others, that Paul is not referring to the Chorinthians when he uses the word "They".
In verse 9 he mentions the other Apostles, and then in 10, above, he says, "but I laboured more abundantly than they all." So it is not unreasonable to conclude that in this instance he is specifically referring to the other Apostles with the word "They".

And then also in 11, he refers to the Apostles again saying, "Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed." He is talking about the missionary labors put forth by himself and the Apostles, specifically, the missionary labors to the Chorinthians, whom the epistle is addressed to.

Finally, in verse 23 he says, "they that are Christ’s at his coming". In this instance he uses the word "they" to refer to people "that are Christs's". It is not unreasonalbe to assume that Paul is referring to people he considers to be devout, faithful Christians when he uses the word "Christ's".

So, let's go back to verse 29:

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

I have shown that Paul is not referring to the Chorinthians with the word "They". He is referring to either, devout faithful Christians, or the other Apostles.
He is using the "Baptisms fo the Dead" doctrine to reinforce his point about the resurrectioin. Verse 29 is a clear implication that the doctrine of Baptising for the Dead was established and practiced in the early Church.
Of course, you are free to rebut this.

Thanks to you, my thoughtful and careful study of this Chapter has brought me more undestanding and conviction concerning this subject.

But please don't misunderstand me. I realize that you do not hold the same beleif, and that is perfectly fine. I do not condemn you for it nor do I think ill of you for it. You have every right to your own beliefs, and I respecty that fact.

One more point I would like to make.
By asking that question in the first place, my intent was not to try and prove the Church is true. I have learned many years ago that that is impossible.
Let me say this loud and clear for all to see and understand:

The Mormon Church can not be proven true!!! It absolutely cannot be proven!!! It is impossible!!!

But I same the same for the Bible and all of Christendom. The Bible cannot be proven true either, just like the Book of Mormon and the Mormon church. None of it can be proven.

This was my intent: I sincerely did not know what the postion was for non-Mormon Christians on the issue of "Baptisms for the Dead", specifically concerning their interperetation of 1 Cor 15:29. That is all.

Subject: One more example...
Date: Dec 18 19:08
Author: geneticerror
Mail Address: 
This is just one more example of mormons pretending to be something they are not. Your intent was NOT to get a question addressed because obviously you already have the answer that you want to believe. Quit lying. Quit the church.

Subject: Re: One more example...
Date: Dec 18 19:25
Author: boisejustin
Mail Address: 
No, you are wrong about that. I have openly admitted that I was dishonest. But my explanation of what my true intent was is the truth. If you choose not to believe that, then fine.

And furthermore, I did not already have the answer that I beleived. I wanted to understand what a non-Mormon's stance was on the issue. Notice I did not defame his/her religion. Notice I did not use degrading words or demean his/her beliefs.

You said:

"Quit lying. Quit the church."

Notice that I have not been trying to pursuade anybody to leave their religion. I have merely tried to initiate constructive discussions. Why do you assault me the way that you do? You treat me as if I am some sort depraved person that can't help but spew lies and deceits. I consider myself a decent person. I am far from perfect. I swear sometimes, actually, more often than I ought to. I speed sometimes, but I try not to. I think I am just about like everybody else. Yet, you talk as if my full intent is to lie and deceive people. Do you think all these ill things of me merely becuase of my faith, or is there more to it?

Subject: Here we go again, a Mormon masquerading as an investigator, asking a question he has an answer for,
Date: Dec 18 19:37
Author: SusieQ#1

which, eventually he goes into great length to explain, while complaining about how people answered him, then qualifying his reliance on the apologists, and eventually, admitting it all can't be "proven" but he seems to believe it anyhow and has had his "testimony" strengthened.

I don't know about anyone else, but that is the best example of Mormon Mental Gymnastics -- Olympic style that I have seen in a long time.

Maybe you fooled some people, but not many.

Also, it helps if you can learn to own your own power (generally ExMormons "get" this!) and not allow other people's attitudes, opinions, and the way they express themselves to bother you. I am always baffled at how much power Mormons (in particular) give to other people, especially exMormons.

We are often led to believe that they (TBM's in particular) are extremely sensitive, immature and incapable of ignoring something that displeases them. It is indeed, unfortunate that Mormonism tends to limit the member's ability to read without being offended by something.

Generally, it is children who respond in like manner to other children spouting off and showing off; not grown adults, but sometimes the temptation is just too strong, I guess! :-)

To be a good researcher, one must be able to ignore tone, bias, and attitude and get to the "meat" without loosing focus.

When I see this kind of thing played out, I am reminded, once again, at the mental gymnastics that I employed as a member for over 30 years, to make the impossible, the outrageous, the unbelievable, (metaphysical, supernatural, etc.) something that I could say I believed and then claim that I was thinking for myself, and had a testimony by faith.

Ahh. The relief of not using my mental acumen on such thinking is such sweet freedom!

Subject: Trolls visiting us. Have a question.
Date: Dec 18 19:42

Mail Address: 
Do you plan to tell your bishop that you've been trolling an apostate board under false pretenses during your next interview? Oh and how often do you masturbate?

Subject: Re: Trolls visiting us. Have a question.
Date: Dec 18 19:48
Author: boisejustin
 
My Bishop would not care a whit.

Subject: Re: Here we go again, a Mormon masquerading as an investigator, asking a question he has an answer for,
Date: Dec 18 19:47
Author: boisejustin

You said:

When I see this kind of thing played out, I am reminded, once again, at the mental gymnastics that I employed as a member for over 30 years, to make the impossible, the outrageous, the unbelievable, (metaphysical, supernatural, etc.) something that I could say I believed and then claim that I was thinking for myself, and had a testimony by faith.

Ahh. The relief of not using my mental acumen on such thinking is such sweet freedom!


---I am assuming that you have forsaken all religion alltogether right? For all religions claim some sort of metaphysical, supernatuarl, stuff, etc... The Bible contains a ton of it. Walking on water? Raising the Dead? Seeing Visions? Those are all a bunch of wacky supernatural events that cannot be proven. Yet, why do so many people (not you of course) believe them whole heartedly? The Bible requires just as much gymnastics as Mormonism does my good friend.

Why do you have a problem with me saying none of it can be proven? Can one not believe in something that cannot be proven? According to the Bible, with the Holy Spirit, you can.

Subject: Welcome to the board
Date: Dec 18 19:45
Author: bnaur

The very first thing you need to do is get and read "One Nation Under Gods" by Richard Abanes. It will put Mormonism in its true and most accurate light. Since most Mormons do not know there own history (they think they do but they have been taught in their youth a very inaccurate one sided history of their own dictation) then you will not get an accurate picture until you read this book which is said to be the "most accurate account of Mormon History ever written". This book is very well documented and is a good counter to their false beliefs.

It sounds like the church has you in their snares; the tactic they apply best is to provide "answers to all your questions". They will pose and answer all your questions, the church will have an answer for every single one of your questions and that should be a red flag, if it sounds too good to be true, it is too good to be true. Its easy to find and provide answers when you are capable of fabricating the truth as Mormonism has historically become very good at.

It is likely that baptism for the dead did exist in ancient times. The fact the Joseph Smith read and recognized that, and copied the intent, does not make Mormons a true church. Indeed, the question you should ask is, why does the Mormon church require the use of Masonic Temple Rituals and Ancient Death Penalties (practiced in Mormonism until 1990) to apply baptism for the dead. Additionally, ask why did Jesus join John the Baptists two hundred year old religion, which required baptism, something that they (the Essenses) did for two hundred years before Jesus entered the scene. The Essenes long taught, before Jesus, that they should be meek and humble, that a quorum of twelve should lead and that sex was forbidden, even for procreation (thus they died off by 100 AD). Also note the early Ebionites (those who actually saw Jesus first hand, true Jesus followers who rejected Paul and the New Testament for good reason) Paul bastardized the actual religion they new Jesus taught, a Jewish religion as the Essense were a Jewish sect. Paul did a great job starting his religion and having never once met Jesus yet can tell you what happened in Gethsemane while everyone was asleep, today Paul’s Church is known as "Christianity" but it truly is Paul’s Church.

Best wishes in your search for truth. Do more research before swallowing what they teach, the poor missionaries do believe what they have been taught since youth, a false belief. If you want to believe a false belief system, then they will take you there, if truth is your goal, you have much more research to do. Read Abanes book and ask more questions on this site.

Subject: Baptisms for the dead (edited)
Date: Dec 18 19:50
Author: oxbow

hello Justin. You must understand that we get quite a few troublemakers and trolls on this site. This is why some posters can be pretty intolerant of what they see as baiting. I guess you just have to prove your honest intent, if you do continue to stick around. As for me, I am more prone to give you the benefit of a doubt.

Now on to the issue of baptisms for the dead.

We have, according to the LDS church, somewhere around 12 million Mormons.

We passed the 6 billion point for number of human beings alive a few years ago. That makes Mormons about 0.2% of the world population.

I cannot even begin to count the number of dead ancestors for these 6 billion+ people who have ever existed. My question is: why would God make his true servants spend so much time trying to baptise all those billions and billions of people, especially since the LDS church itself teaches that those who don't get this ordinance will have a chance to at the second coming anyway? It seems like an awful waste of time and resources. Those 12 million Mormons could be helping the afflicted and hungry, the destitute and wretched who would really benefit from their spare time, instead of getting dunked for dear deceased aunt Lois.


The words of Paul in one verse do say something, but is it enough for all the trouble Mormons go to in this? If we are here to serve our fellow man and God, aren't there better things to do with the short time we are given?

Subject: Some early Christians practiced vicarious baptism for the dead....
Date: Dec 18 20:18
Author: Anonymous

Probably the Cerinthians (a gnostic group) and definitely the Marcionites, according to early Christian sources who regarded them mainly as heretics. What the missionaries probably are not aware of is that chief Mormon apologists such as Hugh Nibley explain how this was done, and it wasn't how they do it today, so they refer to this early version as an "aberration." Basically, the Marcionites accepted baptism for dead relatives by hiding under their death bed and accepting the rite, which was probably just a sprinkling. Paul was citing this known practice as evidence to certain unbelievers that the dead rise some day. As Paul cites the practice to defend his beliefs in resurrection, Mormons cite Paul to defend their belief in proxy baptism. A circus of apologies.

Subject: Lying to promote Mormonism
Date: Dec 18 21:08
Author: Eric K

Lying is institutionalized in Mormonism. Let's take a look at boisejustin.

He claimed a friend referred him to this site.  A LIE

He claimed to be an investigator. A LIE

He claimed missionaries were teaching him. A LIE

He claimed to be studying baptism for the dead as a reason to join the church. A LIE

His entire post was disingenuous or in words he can understand - A LIE.

"Lying to get converts" is a good thread which has additional examples of Mormons like boisejustin. The thread is pasted just below.

It should be fascinating to Mormon watchers how boisejustin is unable to comprehend his depravity. His deceit and lying in his attempts to defend Mormonism are what ex-mormons and non-Mormons living around Mormonism must face frequently.

This will be archived as a demonstration of Mormon tactics.

Eric

Part 2

Subject: Lying to get converts
Date: Dec 18 11:53
Author: M. Alice, a 4 thought

Have you ever felt inspired to tell a lie in order to convert somebody? This is a continuation from another thread, but I thought this topic deserved its own thread.

There was a couple in my old ward. The husband was a convert and everyone was trying to get his wife to join. They had been trying for a few years to have children, and many people told mysterious stories about a woman in their old ward who got baptized, and 2 months later got pregnant. It seems everybody had the same story, but it happened in another ward far away - on their mission - or some other place that was impossible to verify.

Finally, I confronted a member about this because the stories were all similar. "What old ward?" I asked her. "You've been in this ward for decades."

Her reply? "I know it will happen if she gets baptized, so it's ok. Besides, I'm sure it's happened before - and I felt inspired to tell her that."

Has anybody else ever seen this or done it?

Subject: Every conversion is based on a foundation of lies.
Date: Dec 18 12:18
Author: Cheryl

I'm not referring to the old lies about golden plates or visiting angels because anyone doing mishie works probably believes those.

I refer to withholding information investigators want to know. No one would join if their mishie was open with them and told them exactly what would be expected of them in the way of callings, temple participation, meeting attendance, and intrusions into their personal life.

Every single member and mishie knows they must not be honest with prospective or new members. Playing cat and mouse games and giving misleading answers to investigator questions is a requirement in mormonism. It's "deceitful," which is the definition of lying.

Put another way, milk before meat is lying. No one withholds from babies the concept of "meat" in the human diet as a deceptive tool. Mormons do withhold basic precepts from newcomers purely to deceive them. It's a plot to deceive people into joining by hiding the fact that there is any such thing as mormon doctrinal "meat."

Subject: Paul Dunn did it.  He lied.  Dunn advanced to be a general authority through lying.  Grant Palmer was disfellowshipped for telling the truth.

Subject: It's the only way they can baptize anyone!
Date: Dec 18 12:39
Author: Susan D.

I remember taking the discussions and when I asked the mishies about polygamy they answered in such a way that I got the impression that it had been stopped because the leaders had seen the error of practicing it.

Later when I told my husband how angry I was to find out after the fact that I had been lied to he told me as a mishie they were taught how to squiggle out of hard questions and, you guessed it, the mishie who had the best "dancing" abilities was often made "senior companion."

It is disgusting, but it's truly the only way the cult can con people into baptism in the first place!

Subject: Re: Lying to get converts
Date: Dec 18 14:26
Author: anon

There is also the lying behavior, feigning love and interest, offering to help a potential convert.

The minute people get dunked the behavior changes, the "friends" go on to the next potential victim, and the cult starts making demands.

The height of insanity is when they eventually excommunicate converts who would not have joined in the first place, had they known the true face of Mormonism.

Subject: no, but I had to clean up after others did
Date: Dec 18 16:56
Author: virginia

In my mission, sisters were abruptly transferred to a new area. I happened to be one of the sisters who was sent to "clean up" what an elder had done - he promised three or four people he later baptized that once they "entered the waters of baptism", they would no longer have the desire to smoke. Needless to say, several of the new converts still smoked, but stopped going to church.
Later in my mission, I was again transferred into an area immediately after this elder had been there. He taught and baptized a man and woman who were not married - couldn't afford the country's taxes - but had lived together for 10 + years. This same elder promised them they would not have the desire to sleep with each other until they were married, once they "entered the waters of baptism".
Geesh. I got in big trouble for confronting the stupid elder at a conference.

Subject: The way that elder thought was actually taught to us on my mission
Date: Dec 18 17:10
Author: Free Man
Mail Address: 
Our GA was none other than Loren Dunn. We were taught that getting them the holy ghost as fast as possible was important, because once they had it, it would "change" them and rid them of desire for things like smoking and other problems. My guess is that elder you cleaned up after read it in a book from some GA- maybe even a book by Loren Dunn or Grant von Harrison or somebody.

Subject: Disappointed young female converts
Date: Dec 18 19:15
Author: Maori man

As many of us on this board know, pressure is always applied on missionaries from above to produce converts. This occasionally results in some rather bizarre examples of truth stretching.

I encountered three teenaged girls in New Zealand who'd joined the church on the strength of a missionary's promise to send for them when he got back home so that they could be married.

And incidentally, I'm not talking about three separate missionaries. This promise was made by one missionary to three separate girls!

Subject: Re: Lying to get converts
Date: Dec 18 21:22
Author: AnonymousBosch

In the mission field my trainer once asked me what I wanted to teach a family we had been meeting with for quite a while. I said..."Well, have we taught them tithing yet?" He looked stunned and said, "I don't like to bring up tithing until we've gotten a baptismal commitment out of them." As if _I_ was being unreasonable.

Part 3

Allen Wyatt of FAIR.   He has lurked on a ex-mormon mail list then used the information he gleaned there to disrupt support of a historian, Grant Palmer, who has recently written an honest history of Mormonism,

Subject: Wyatt of FAIR registered "savegrantpalmer" 
Date: Dec 06 06:36
Author: Eric K

The following is from our mail list:

Thanks to several computer-savvy people on this list, we have learned that the person who registered the website and intends just to "sit on it" is Mr. Allen L. Wyatt, of Arizona:
Discovery Computing Inc.
PO Box 2145
Mesa AZ 85214


Mr. Wyatt also happens to be the owner of the FAIR-LDS.org domain, the very prolific (but unofficial) Mormon apologetic website.

It is not a major revelation that individuals such as Allen Wyatt subscribe to an exmormon list, but WHY do they subscribe? Is it ostensibly to help people or to be, as Stalin once dubbed sympathizers, as "useful fools"? To be on the church payroll or to make money from Mormon publications and to subscribe to the exmormon list has sinister connotations. Big brother desires to watch us all the time. Even though the majority of us are out of the church, they attempt to continue to exert control over our lives. Wyatt's registering savegrantpalmer is but one example. He only learned of that from reading the exmormon mail list. It was discovered that he has been subscribed to the exmormon list since December 2002, under the e-mail address awyatt@dcomp.com.

My loathing for Mormon apologists has reached an all time low.

Eric

Subject: Re: Wyatt of FAIR registered "savegrantpalmer"
Date: Dec 06 07:14
Author: Troll

I suppose you never visit an official or 'unoffical' LDS website?

Subject: Re: Wyatt of FAIR registered "savegrantpalmer"
Date: Dec 06 07:38
Author: Eric K

Years ago when I registered exmormon.org, I could of obtained the domain mormon.com. It was available then. I believed it to be unethical to obtain that name since I was no longer a Mormon. If I had purchased that domain, I could of sold it for 10's of thousands of dollars as some porno operator did a few years back. Wyatt discovered the interest in savegrantpalmer by lurking on the mail list. He has no interest in Palmer. He only wanted to disrupt things. I believe it to be a question of ethics. That is a subject about which FAIR and FARMS know little. I do not visit LDS sites with intent to disrupt their operations.

Eric

Subject: Re: Wyatt of FAIR registered "savegrantpalmer"
Date: Dec 06 07:23
Author: Glo

Interesting, isn't it, the depths God's one true church has to sink to in order to keep perpetuating itself. Stupid CULT.

Subject: Re: Wyatt of FAIR registered "savegrantpalmer"
Date: Dec 06 08:08
Author: Troll

Woah! Cowboy last I new the church was still run by Hinkley not Wyatt. Let's hold back on the generalizations.

Subject: Is that you, Wyatt? Probably not. The "Court of Love" is an official church action...
Date: Dec 06 08:34
Author: Britz Conkie

Wyatt's unethical behavior is an unofficial action, just as all the words and actions of the FAIR and FARMS apologists are "unofficial" by design. The Danites were unofficial too. Plausible deniability is important for Mormon leaders. Wyatt's actions are his own, even if he thinks he's doin' it for the Lard.

So you're right about the over-generalization. There are a lot of faithful Mormons who are more ethical and high-minded than the Church's leaders and unscrupulous apologists.

Subject: Re: Is that you, Wyatt? Probably not. The "Court of Love" is an official church action...
Date: Dec 06 08:40
Author: Troll

It's not, but it is refreshing to here some logic/truth here. I agree with most of what you wrote. Let's put the blame where the blame belongs

Subject: The Mormon church has yet to condemn the actions of its apologists such as FAIR and FARMS.
Date: Dec 06 08:47
Author: Eric K

The Mormon church has yet to condemn the actions of its apologists such as FAIR and FARMS. The Mormon Church's passivity in this regard demonstrates their implied consent. It can use plausible deniability as previously stated. The Mormon church made all local units take down their internet sites. They could easily slap FAIR and other apologists for their activities, but they abstain. Useful fools is an appropriate phrase for Wyatt and others of his ilk.

Eric

Subject: Re: Wyatt of FAIR registered "savegrantpalmer"
Date: Dec 06 09:23
Author: Randy J.
Mail Address: TheJordan6@aol.com
>Cowboy last I new the church was still run by Hinkley not Wyatt.

>Let's hold back on the generalizations.

Lessee, that's the same Hinckley who has been a PR apparatchik for the LDS church for some 60 years, right?

The same Hinckley who lied about knowing Mark Hofmann, and lied about the church's deep involvement in acquiring his forgeries?

The same Hinckley who denied institutional responsibility for the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

The same Hinckley who denied in 1997 that his church "teaches or emphasizes" the "God is an exalted man" doctrine---when Hinckley himself preached the doctrine in General Conference less than a decade ago?

The same Hinckley, when asked about controversial issues in Mormon history like polygamy and racial discrimination, brushes them off with "Let's just forget about the past and move on"-type responses?

Gordon B. Hinckley was running the LDS church in 1993 when the 'September Six' LDS intellectuals were excommunicated/censured. If you want to believe that he had nothing to do with that action, well, I guess you're entitled to that.

Gordon B. Hinckley and the Allen Wyatts of Mormondumb are cut from the same cloth. They possess all the honesty and sincerity of a Mafia lawyer. They do not hesitate to defend their cult with the time-honored tactic of "lying for the Lord."

This sleazeball act by Wyatt exposes the depths Mopologists will sink to in order to try to prevent negative information about Mormonism's origins, history, or tactics from being publicized. Rather than intellectually addressing the issues Palmer raises, Wyatt cowardly tries to "kill the messenger."

Fortunately, the Allen Wyatts of Mormondumb are too naive to realize that such tactics will backfire on them. Palmer's supporters will simply obtain another domain name. The hundreds of Ex-Mormons and honest LDS members will still be able to communicate with each other to lend support to Palmer. When dissidents go to the media with the details of what the church is doing to Palmer, those dissidents are free to publicize what Allen Wyatt has done, as an example of how pro-church forces try to silence opposition. I think it would be hilarious to see Allen Wyatt's name and his tactics carried in Associated Press stories carried to every major newspaper in the country.

This incident is reminiscent of the case back in the '70s, when church leaders had SLC policemen 'stake out' a known dissident who was in town to make a protest the church's priesthood ban from blacks at General Conference. One of the keystone kops somehow shot himself with his own pistol while sitting in a cruiser outside the dissident's residence at night. The Tanners learned the facts, and published them in their materials. Shortly after that incident, social pressures forced church leaders to rescind their 100+-year priesthood ban.

Maybe Allen Wyatt will be this year's Mormon keystone kop. Maybe his goofy actions will help to publicize the LDS church's fraudulent origins, and perhaps even force church leaders to soon jettison the "Joseph Smith story," the golden plates, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the wacky temple rites, etc.

I only hope I live long enough to see that day, if for no other reason than to see the reaction from the Allen Wyatts, Jeff Lindsays, etc., of Mormondumb. It would be fascinating to see whether such rabid, blind apologists

a) abandon the new, more honest LDS church and start yet another fundamenalist cult which still believes in the fraudulent origins, or

b) commit mass suicide.

Subject: Re: Wyatt of FAIR registered "savegrantpalmer"
Date: Dec 06 10:13
Author: Tragic Mind

Y'all are ascribing far too much importance to both Allen Wyatt and the whole Grant Palmer domain issue.

All Wyatt wanted to do is get everyone here's panties in a wad. He's done that. Mission accomplished. He and the Strengthening Church Members Committee are laughing up their garment sleeves at this whole brou-haha.

Subject: Ah, but when this domain grabbing is described in the articles about Palmer, will make the Church look creepier, no?
Date: Dec 06 10:23
Author: hello kitty

They call a guy in to court, they pull his book off of their website and their bookshelves, and an apologist from one of the two groups that does most of the dirty work for the church in the war against its critics buys up a bunch of "save Grant Palmer"-type website names. Pretty creepy. It makes the media story more sinister than it otherwise would have been.

Subject: ...and where is the media coverage?
Date: Dec 06 10:27
Author: Tragic Mind

I'd really like to see where this will even show up on the media radar outside of SLC.

Does it not make sense that the Church will do whatever it can to keep this under the radar? Including putting pressure on Mormon-owned media outlets?

Call me cynical, but I don't think this is going to make the news at all. FAIR will of course rejoice that another Son of Perdition is hell-bound, we will wail and gnash our teeth here, and the rest of the world will sadly go on oblivious to what happened.

Subject: I don't agree. This incident with the domain names is now part of the history.
Date: Dec 06 10:36
Author: Lester Latte

It's part of the history of this event and any honest LDS person or investigator who wants to dig deeper into this issue is going to learn about this aspect of the Church's campaign to suppress Palmer's book and punish Palmer for telling the truth. It's just as much a part of Church history now as that photo of top General Authorities meeting with Mark Hoffman as he sucked them into his scam. It's just as much a part of Church history as Brigham Young teaching that Adam is the god of this world.

It will count for something. A lot of TBMs will be willfully oblivious, but others are questioning and doubting and this incident will count for something.

Subject: Part of "the history..."
Date: Dec 06 10:50
Author: Tragic Mind

...and that's exactly how the Church will sweep this all under the rug. We all know what stock they place in history and their attitude towards it.

I will continue to believe that this whole issue will go nowhere until a way is found to bring this into the spotlight that both circumvents the Church's ability to suppress it and makes the story attractive to major news outlets.

Subject: I agree. If Wyatt did this to see people get their panties in a wad, he
Date: Dec 06 10:29
Author: Lester Latte

shot himself in the foot in the process. Methinks that the panties in a wad idea is just a way of spinning a dirty trick that blew up in the apologists' faces.

Subject: Re: Wyatt of FAIR registered "savegrantpalmer"
Date: Dec 06 11:37
Author: Randy J.
Mail Address: TheJordan6@aol.com
>Y'all are ascribing far too much importance to both Allen Wyatt and the whole Grant Palmer domain issue.

True, it's not that big of a deal. It merely illustrates the depths to which some Mopologists will sink. It also demonstrates his naivete in thinking his act will have any effect. But if the story of Palmer's court is published, Wyatt's juvenile act could certainly be included as an example of the church's Orwellian tactics.

>All Wyatt wanted to do is get everyone here's panties in a wad. He's done that.

>Mission accomplished.


I disagree. Wyatt has accomplished exactly *nothing* by this move to help himself or the church. Ex-Mormons who wish to support Palmer will set up other websites to do so. Of course, there are already hundreds of people reading this BB and other lists who want to help to at least some degree. No new websites, or lack of any, will help or harm that.

>He and the Strengthening Church Members Committee are laughing up their garment sleeves at this whole brou-haha.


Hmmmm, I wonder, if they ex Palmer, and that spurs a couple of thousand more Mormons to leave the church, taking several million dollars of potential tithing revenues with them---will they be laughing then? 'Cuz I guarantee you, based on past instances such as the Tom Murphy case, things like this will push some fence-sitting Mormons over the fence and out of the church. There are posters on this BB who are already upset to the point of resigning their church membership.

These 19th-century silencing tactics simply won't work in the 21st-century information age. 20 years ago, a dissident could be tried and excommunicated before anyone knew anything. But today, we know the date, time, and location of Palmer's church court, the name, address, e-mail address, and phone number of his stake president, etc. Mormonism's ability to punish dissidents in secret, with no repercussions, is over.

Subject: Troll says Hinckley runs the LDS church?!?
Date: Dec 06 10:50
Author: Non Sequitur

Troll said:

"Woah! Cowboy last I new the church was still run by Hinkley not Wyatt. Let's hold back on the generalizations."

In all my years as a TBM I would never have said that the current prophet ran the church. I would have given the "correct" Sunday School answer that it was Jesus Christ who ran the church - through the modern day, 3-name (middle initial included) prophet of course...

Sounds like Troll has one foot in the ex-mormon door already with that little Freudian slip acknowledging that it really is an organization with no divine guidance.

Welcome out of the DARKNESS to the LIGHT Troll!


Non Sequitur

Subject: Pathetic little men and women -- "apologists" for LDS INC! The "evil they do"
Date: Dec 06 11:19
Author: SusieQ#1

will sink the ship they are trying to save! That is the "GOOD NEWS" of their "gospel" of control! They are bullies and nobody likes a bully.

If there was anything "lovely or of good report" in LDS Inc, AKA Mormonism, this behavior alone, is enough to show the world that their words and behavior of the "apologists" and their ilk, belie the savior they claim to love, and mean nothing.

They are wolves in sheep clothing exhibiting everything their "Satan" would do!


Nice job -- apologists -- you show the world your moral corruption in the name of Mormonism!

Thank you -- apologists -- we could not hope for better examples of Mormon bullying -- no wonder the "Christians" won't claim them as their own!

Subject: Wyatt is the best advertisement for leaving the cult
Date: Dec 06 18:21
Author: Kate

I feel really creeped out about this. Yesterday I had a squiz around FAIRS & was sickened by a lot of what I saw.

There seems to be so much anger & Allen Wyatt comes across as a weird little weasel. I can't put into words how whacked those apologists come across.

There is such an undercurrent of bitterness. The very thing that exmormons are generally accused of. If they are so damn happy being members of the church, where is the joy & spiritual peace that they profess to find in their membership? It certainly doesn't come across in their posts.

Wyatt seems to get turned on by the idea of disrupting others lives. Why doesn't he get out & try & do some good in the world instead of getting his jollies being a pathetic little git. I don't know what I expected to see there, I was interested in their take on the Palmer fiasco, but it did reinforce that I've made the right choice to get my family & I out of that cult.

UGH! God, can you imagine a creep like that teaching your kids at church??

Subject: Fair is at it again, hate and plagerism!
Date: Dec 13 00:48
Author: Allen Wyatt's EGO

Look at one of Allen Wyatt's pet websites: http://sandratanner.com/

Talk about HATE and PLAGIARISM!

Allen Wyatt was probably the little fat kid on the playground who was always PICKED on by the other kids.

Hey Allen! You are a HYPOCRITE.

Subject: Orrin Porter Rockwell would be proud...
Date: Dec 13 00:52
Author: Susan D.
Mail Address: funspirit80@yahoo.com
and thank you for exposing this creep.

I hope the Tanners sue them (Allen AND FAIR) for defamation of character and fraud.

Summary

Subject: The effects of humoring trolls - Good Summary
Date: Dec 18 23:14
Author: Tyson Dunn

Right now, we have a few threads started, originally under a cloak of deceit, by a poster from FAIR. What he is doing offers a perfect study of apologist tactics when they choose to set their sights on ex-Mormon targets.

Previous attempts like his, taken from this board, have wound up written up by his comrades as examples of what anti-Mormons are like. Note that they do not characterize the people here simply as ex-Mormons, but take the opportunity to impugn the character of everyone posting here. Of course, given their performance vis-à-vis such notables as Grant Palmer, D. Michael Quinn, et al. this modus operandi of character assassination is a well-known tactic of theirs.

When here, they attempt to rile up conversations to trap their ex-Mormon interlocutors in a misstatement. Usually they cherry-pick one or two particularly naive ones to make their point and ignore those with valid replies.

If they get rude responses, they state that they are characteristic of the whole board. If they get ignored, they triumph in having fooled their anti-Mormon opponents. And if they get cogent answers, they take those statements and make the respondents "offenders for a word" - a tactic Daniel Peterson [a paid Mormon apologist at FARMS] is intimately familiar with, considering his writing a whole book devoted to that activity among his opposition, and yet one he more than happily engages in himself.

All posters on this board need to remember that it is not up to FAIR to determine the "challenges" that get set here, nor is it their option to dictate the course of discussion. I am surprised that people have even answered him after it was established that he was a fraud. Had he posted, say, Nibley's Book of Mormon challenge, I doubt any of you would feel the same compulsion to answer. Instead he has established canards and booby-traps intended to capture the less experienced among us.

Rather than giving him the satisfaction of response, might I suggest starving him in all his incarnations - as I am sure that this will not be the last of them. For apologists, this masturbatory activity of ex-Mormon baiting strokes their pitifully brittle egos, as they have more than once demonstrated in their online discussions in camera.

Tyson

Related topics:
333 Is FARMS Credible?   357 Changing History to Boost Faith    360 Mission President Caught Lying about Mark Hacking

365 FARMS, Folklore, Racism and Daniel Peterson    329 Can Mormon Leaders Tell the Truth?