(July 4, 2013 at 1:49 pm)Regens Küchl Wrote: No, that was what I meant. In the Catholic church too the Inquisition never shut down, only changed its name.

LOL. Let me rephrase: It's not an inquisition in the Mormon Church.

(July 4, 2013 at 1:49 pm)Regens Küchl Wrote: Can you suggest a good written neutral Biography to read about Brigham Young?
In the way of the Joseph Smith Biography by Fawn Brodie, the Sidney Rigdon Biography by F. Mark McKiernan or the James Strang Biography by Vickie Cleverley Speek .

I've never read one on Brigham Young, but I have read different accounts about him here and there. I don't have anything I can suggest to you. I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll come across a good one that suits you. (FYI, the Fawn Brodie biography on Joseph Smith is anything but neutral, and she's even inaccurate sometimes.)

Inquisition is the latin word for "investigation" . When Brodies Biography saw print, she was called before a mormon commission that wanted to investigate if she was to be excommunicated or not. She never appeared and was excommunicated.

Hugh Nibley in his critic "No Ma`m thats not History" accepts Brodies neutrality, but accuses her of Innaccuracy.
But his critic is a laughing stock in itself. Even the mormon Nibley Biography "A consecrated live" sees that.
But please read this brillant critic of Hugh Nibleys critic of Fawn Brodie. Excellent.
http://lds-mormon.com/nibley2.shtml

Now I want to learn . In which favor do you call Brodie not neutral?

In favor of mormons because you find she paints her mormons maybe too nice, or in favor of mormon critics because she has an atheistic standpoint and rules out that Joseph Smith could have been genuine.

I really want to know, because I read "No man knows my History"last Winter and thought it was the perfect example of a as perfect as can be Biography.( Neutral, good written, alive, catching, well researched and from a person that was born into the world she was describing who had therefore access to special mormon document material.)

And can you suggest a JS Bio that is better in your eyes. What about "Rough Stone Rolling"?

(June 26, 2013 at 1:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote: It would be amusing to have an actual mormon here. It takes a special brand of stupid to fall for a doctrine created in 1825 by a known con man.

My brother was up to the task (of converting to Mormonism) whatever the requirements. In his case I would have said he was self-medicating for depression more than stupid. Smarts is a tricky thing. He was always fairly clever at his work as a contractor and construction supervisor. He could make a competitive but achievable bid on a job, read a blue print carefully and always brought jobs in on time and within budget. That all requires some kind of smarts, just not whatever it is that enables another person to recognize Mormonism as the fusion of the bible with D.C. comics.

(June 26, 2013 at 1:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote: It would be amusing to have an actual mormon here. It takes a special brand of stupid to fall for a doctrine created in 1825 by a known con man.

Now listen good please.
Other branches of christianity are no less stupid than mormonism. For example: If you study the true history of the catholic church (for example in Karlheinz Deschners series "Criminal History of Christianity" you will find it is e x a c t l y (if not more) an absolute fraud and laughing stock as mormonism. It is just that you have to study and read longer to see that than in the mormon case, because the catholic church has had 2000 years to lie and murder in its favor, to forge documents and destroy all written critic and living critics.
He who laughs at mormons especially is in danger of doing sects like the catholic church a favor by directly or indirectly suggesting that they are less an absolute fraud.

To rephrase Minimalists sentence:

It is amusing to have actual non mormon christians here. It takes a special brand of stupid to fall for a doctrine created allegedly by a Jewish Halfgod Joshua who never existed at all. Not even as a historical human con man or otherwise. And he who gave him first the name "Jesus", made it stick, was the great enemy of the christian Sect - Celsus.

(July 5, 2013 at 1:02 pm)whateverist Wrote: That all requires some kind of smarts, just not whatever it is that enables another person to recognize Mormonism as the fusion of the bible with D.C. comics.

. . . just not whatever it is that enables another person to recognize the bible as the fusion of some Jewish fairy tales with later fanatic, partly hateful ramblings of a sect cut off from the Jews doctored to fall in line with eusebius and constantines catholic propaganda.

(June 26, 2013 at 1:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote: It would be amusing to have an actual mormon here. It takes a special brand of stupid to fall for a doctrine created in 1825 by a known con man.

Cults prey on people who are depressed, or destitute or at the end of their rope in some bad situation or other. I can't count the number of JW testimonials that went along the lines of how a person had hit a low point in his life and prayed to god and the next thing he knew, JWs were knocking at the door... a prayer answered by god!!!

20 years later with his life on track, he probably wished it had been Avon calling.

(July 5, 2013 at 12:17 pm)Regens Küchl Wrote: Now I want to learn . In which favor do you call Brodie not neutral?

Someone who was once Mormon, was traumatized as a Mormon, and has a bone to pick by shedding light on Joseph Smith's true character is, by all accounts, not neutral. She takes a very aggressive stance, even if the tone of the book itself seems even-keeled.

Hugh Nibley is a tool. Nothing he says has any worth. Glenn Beck uses Nibley's studies to show how ancient Egyptians were also Mormon. He's the same kind of conman that JS Jr. was.

I would put "Rough Stone Rolling" in the same category as Fawn Brodie's book of being not neutral since it's a Mormon Apologetic writing it and not a non-member. (I'm reading this book right now, actually, and it's at least good to see a Mormon member in good standing at least address the issues that Joseph Smith's life is full of.)

I presume we can at last agree that the two above Bios are readworthy. I also bought, not yet read, "The Founder of Mormonism" (1902). A scientific approach from a non-mormon.

This three so far seem to stand out. But can you now suggest some JS Bio ?

Lets look for readworthy mormonic biographys. This list of 60 such is sure important :
http://mormonlit.byu.edu/html/biographie...erson.html

Also the Reorganized Church in its online shop sells rare biographys . Though they have to be rather apologetic.
But for the researcher the mormon AUTOBIOGRAPHYS have to be of interest. For example that of Joseph Smith III :
http://restorationbookstore.org/mm5/merchant.mvc?

Just have to share this :

So I wanted to read a little in the official LDS forum, saw a relatively interesting thread

"Invited the missionaries now what?"

A christian asks at the mormon forum what he may ask the mormon missionaries when they come to his house. The mormons state rightly that he should rather not ask too deep going questions about church history or so.

Then a catholic makes a really decent post to advise and is banned for that - Because this is his only one post in this forum :

" I would ask you my friend to please research a bit about the church's history by other sources then the church itself. That is not something extravagant at all to ask, for a simple job interview for example they require different sources of people who might know important facts about you, they won't only listen to family members for example.
Please use the many different tools we now have, the internet, libraries, read and ask the uncomfortable questions to the missionaries. It's not real investigation if all you are listening to is one side. "

Read for yourself :
http://www.lds.net/forums/learn-about-mo...-what.html

Classic LDS. All they're doing is deterring people from their faith with exclusive practices like this.

(July 3, 2013 at 12:25 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote:

(July 3, 2013 at 11:55 am)Clueless Morgan Wrote: I am (or was*) in a theological email debate with a mormon

[snip]

*It's been two months since I last heard from her, including a couple emails to her asking how she was doing or what she was up to these days. Still haven't gotten a response, not even an "I'm not interested in this discussion anymore" or "Leave me alone" reply.

They're told to move on from someone who's not a "golden" investigator. What that means for some is that they will cut off all communication with you, despite lengthy friendships. It's the same thing they do to members whom they disfellowship or excommunicate but to non-members instead.

If she's really your friend, then keep trying to stay in touch. She may thank you later.

Update: SHE'S ALIVE!! She finally wrote me back confirming this fact, basically saying that she's been too busy to write because she's been so busy with her church which seems like a very convenient excuse (am I being cynical?? It's probably true since, you know, she is a Mormon.) She hasn't said anything regarding our theological discussion so the jury is still out on whether I'll get a reply to that or not. In the meantime, I'm proceeding as though it's still going on and continuing to research and read like a lunatic in preparation for a reply.

I'm about to nudge her again to see if it takes two months to get another response. If it does I might have to take the hint.