I previously linked, from this page, to an external site that had that page, but it went down as did the subsequent site I linked to. To be fair, to not have the page look like a straw man was being created by Curt, and to not have to keep finding new TBM sites that have the Challenge on it I just put it on my site.

Not many goals with respect to the Mormon stuff at this point. I created the pages on Mormonism long ago and haven't done much with them recently. See also this page that I wrote back in 1996.

I suppose a quote from Emerson, that I read just last night, might be useful to explain why I think information is a good thing for the Mormon searcher.

"From day to day the capital facts of human life are hidden from our eyes. Suddenly the mist rolls up and reveals them, and we think how much good time is gone that might have been saved had any hint of these things been shown." Ralph Waldo Emerson, Realist: Essays of Resignation and Renewal (page 76)

Is it run by an organization or do you do it all? If it is just you, I commend you for the amount of work you have put into it. If it is an organization, which organization is it. I was told by one person that Mormons in Transition gives you the articles. Is this true?

I do it all, or more correctly, I did most of it. I don't do much on it anymore, however, as I moved past Mormonism years ago as mentioned above. Some articles have come from others as noted on such pages. I'm not affiliated with MIT; nor have I ever been.

Are you LDS? Are you Ex LDS? Are you Evangelical Christian? I am asking because I am wondering what point of view you are starting with as you put together this site.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/myexcommunication.shtml

Today I have been reading the article "To Think or to Follow" at and all the links within that article. Also today, my wife told me she is divorcing me. This is mainly because I have stated that I no longer believe in the LDS church. (It did not start today but has been festering for the last year--and she has known all along.) Is it worth the cost? Or should I just go with the flow? This is extremely devastating, but I don't think I can continue to go through the motions of belief to make our marriage work. Any advice you or anyone else has would be greatly appreciated.

A tough question (and position to be in) with no sure answer. You certainly aren't alone.

From Emerson's essay entitled "Illusions", page 77 of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Realist: Essays of Resignation and Renewal:

"In this kingdom of illusions we grope eagerly for stays and foundations. There is none but a strict and faithful dealing at home, and a severe barring out of all duplicity or illusion there. Whatever games are played with us, we must play no games with ourselves, but deal in our privacy with the last honesty and truth. I look upon the simple and childish virtues of veracity and honesty as the root of all that is sublime in character. Speak as you think, be what you are... At the top or at the bottom of all illusions, I set the cheat which still leads us to work and live for appearances, in spite of our conviction, in all sane hours, that it is what we really are that avails with friends, with strangers, and with fate or fortune."

If there is still room for further essays to be included on your site, I'd like to suggest this one: http://www.mind-field.com. It takes a position on the philosophy of mind and on the psychology of belief which is an alternative one to the memetics approach, but which deals with much of the same data. In this regard, it takes a more holistic, "systems" approach to the phenomenon of beliefs, as opposed to memetics, which is more "atomistic" in its approach.

It is pretty broad in scope, dealing with scientific, historical and philosophical issues, and is written especially for the educated reader without specialized knowledge in the relevant fields.

Can't say that I have. Is it good?

Favorite book - An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. That put me over the top.

Also, I remain in the church so I have a better chance to effect change from within. If I leave and badmouth the church then I just get labeled as one who left because of some unrepented sin or something. I strongly agree with the comment from http://www.lds-mormon.com/mit.shtml beginning with "On a related issue..."

Perhaps we need to enlighten a very public person and to have him come forward with this to the media. Keep up the good, enlightening work,

I'd consider the label quite appropriate as a statement of readability. I encountered the book in high school, and while by no means am I claiming to have sounded all its depth at that age, I enjoyed it and was quite impressed with its vision. Where we run into trouble is in using such a label as a limitation, i.e., assuming that the book is only for young adults and none other (see Harlan Ellison on being called a "science fiction writer"). For this I would refer one and all to C. S. Lewis, who frankly didn't give a rip for age-limiting categories and indeed would tell you that sometimes an important statement might be made most effectively through the medium of a fairy tale. And then, of course, he went on to provide an excellent example in the Narnia tales.

I have followed your example of linking to pro-Mormon sites and made my own webpage at www.geocities.com/exmormon2000 present two columns for both the pro and con websites on Mormonism. The reader then can read both sides and make their own decision. I think I read somewhere on the message boards that you no longer read material related to Mormonism. However, I thought I would send the following information to you anyway. After reading your essay here, I noticed at the end you talk about the origin of D&C 130. I decide to do my own research. You may or may not have already known the following information but I thought you might find it interesting:

The following is from a paper I wrote titled: THE EVOLUTION OF THE MORMON GODHEAD, 1830-1915: How the first Mormons saw God to how Latter-day Saints see God today:

Orson Pratt…in my 1891 D&C provides a footnote to Lecture five in the 1891 D&C 130:22 right where it says the Holy Ghost is a "personage of spirit…" the footnote is Lecture 5:2, 3 thus interconnecting the two scriptures interpreting section 130 with the doctrine of Lecture 5. Keeping in mind that Lecture 5 was the "doctrine" in scripture to clarify the meaning of Willard Richard's journal entry turned "revelation." In section 130:22 there is no doubt that the general membership had a testimony of Binitarianism and section 130 did not clarify that God the Father had a body. Even after it was canonized in 1876 the Lectures on Faith took precedence, as the doctrine that stated the Father is only a spirit… In fact, Orson Pratt continued to remain ambivalent when Brigham Young and others were trying to change the doctrine to make the Holy Ghost a personage. This may have been the very reason why section 130 was made into scripture, as the journal entry of Willard Richard may have been turned into a revelation to probably create an authoritative statement for the developing tritheism and person of the Holy Ghost (See Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, pg 93).

Pratt's footnote in the 1891 D&C 130:22 to Lecture 5:2, 3 seen in this context would have been his way of sticking to the official church doctrine that the Holy Ghost is not a personage and a non-corporeal presence, even though his leaders have made section 130:22 scripture out of a second hand journal entry. He was obviously staying with official church doctrine at the time, by drawing the readers attention from D&C 130:22 to the Fifth Lecture with his footnotes… If you think about it, at the same time Joseph was studying the concept of the plurality of gods, the vision versions began to go from one personage to two but he never touched the Lectures on Faith… Keeping in mind that Lecture 5 was the "doctrine" in scripture – to clarify the meaning of the journal entry turned "revelation" in section 130:22 – there is no doubt that the general membership had a testimony of Binitarianism for quite some time. This to me is very interesting for the personal testimony of the first Mormons that there are only two persons in the Monotheistic Deity is just as valid as the personal testimony of LDS members today. From: http://www.geocities.com/exmormon2000/godhead1.doc

Or, as is the case with many real lives, they will waste their lives walking towards an impossible dream, based on an inherited dogma rather than a decent and examined methodology, only to find themselves dead in the end. In their case, drowned in the ocean.

I read about the church every spare minute I have and this site has been the most enjoyable for me.

I thank you for having a site that is well organized with a large amount of links. But most of all I thank you for kick starting my mind and helping me to think a little on my own. My progress is slow and my wife is really worried that I have "went off the deep end" but I feel great. Thank you again and please continue to update your site often.

Thanks. I hadn't heard of him before.

Mother Nature. Spinoza's God. Einstein's God. The God of pantheism. A God that makes sense in the real world, as we see it without superstition and inherited myths.

She has to want to know first. Try some of the quotes on this page.

If she won't buy into them then forget it. You'll have to wait for her to come around on her own.

If she's willing to investigate you'll probably want to start her off with this book. The author has an M.A. in American History from Brigham Young University, is a three-time director of LDS Institutes of Religion in California and Utah, was an instructor at the Church College of New Zealand, and is an LDS seminary teacher at two Utah locations. He has been active in the Mormon History Association and on the board of directors of the Salt Lake Legal Defenders Association. In his local LDS ward, he is the high priest group instructor.

Good luck!

Blind faith is, in my opinion, not faith at all. It's comfort, tradition, upbringing, ignorance, apathy, and a million other things. But it isn't faith. I'd like to leave you with one caution, something I didn't see on your website. I'm not saying it's not there at all, just that I didn't happen to see it. Please don't think of this as a slam on you, your character, what you have come to believe, or the wonderful things you've put into your website. In reading the mission statement, I got the distinct impression (which may be wrong) that the BEST way to arrive at any form of truth is through a scientific method/hypothesis-experiment-conclusion-sort of approach. If this is untrue, please correct me. If this is true, I have a problem with that philosophy. I started out life as a physicist, and in that field, there were scientists whose world view was every bit as dogmatic as the most zealous Jesus-freaks and Benny Hinn gathering ever brought out. To them, reality was what could be measured with one of the five senses, and no more. If one holds to that view, then there is no room left for things like: Love, Creativity, Expression, Emotion, Faith, Spirit, etc. You get the idea. To me, these things are as real - MORE real, in fact - than anything I can measure with my five senses. Is your view similar to that of my physics friends? I don't think it is, so please show me the error in my thinking.

I think the best way to arrive at a solid foundation of truth is through a scientific method approach. I don't think this leaves no room for love, creativity, expression, and emotion. Quite the contrary. I don't see any value in blind faith or a belief in spirits though. A dogmatic scientist who believes that scientific conclusions are not tentative is not a very good scientist. I can certainly agree with you there. Nor is one who doesn't believe in creativity. Finally, the same could be said for a theistic scientist who doesn't see the natural, physical basis for things like love and emotion.

P.S. I'm in the middle of the "Bible Belt" so selection for review is a primary factor. Somehow I don't think a review of The Culture of Make Believe would cut it. I've already been requested to avoid books on Math. Oh well, my primary purpose is to promote use of the library; perhaps when they get there they will select something good.

Thanks for the suggestions. Unfortunately, I don't know of any courses on the subject of writing book reviews. There are tons of sites out there on the subject though as well as books.

Earlier editions of the Book of Mormon
Journal of Discourses
Book of Commandments

What other really good primary sources or collection of primary sources (like Early Mormon Documents which I am glad to know exists) would you reccomend reading?

Thank you for your site.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/aapr.shtml
http://www.lds-mormon.com/nmscdrom.shtml
http://www.lds-mormon.com/history.shtml
http://www.lds-mormon.com/joseph_smith_revelations.shtml

Enjoy!

Here are a few. Best of luck in your research.
http://www.lds-mormon.com/sotbom.shtml, http://www.lds-mormon.com/quest.shtml, http://www.lds-mormon.com/isl.shtml, http://www.lds-mormon.com/emd.shtml, http://www.lds-mormon.com/emd2.shtml, and http://www.lds-mormon.com/emd3.shtml

Accordingly, I no longer accept the account of the First Vision as historical fact, nor Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants as a divine revelation. The arguments of church apologists on behalf of these two beliefs simply don't withstand the scrutiny of history or logic or analysis of the contexts out of which they arose. Nevertheless, I think too many Mormons, discovering they've been taught many untruths or half-truths since their childhood, make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bath water: i.e., assuming that everything they've been taught is false if it has any connection with Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon is an example of something that has been disparaged by too many who haven't kept up on the latest scholarship. The book seems, at first blush, to be the most likely candidate for dismissal, but recent scholarly work has increasingly silenced critics, and turned the tables on all those who dismissed it.

Which critics have been silenced by the 'latest scholarship'?

B.H. Roberts' concerns abut the book's authencity was the result of a determined scholar and man of faith daring to subject his beliefs to rigorous scholarly criticism. But B.H. Roberts would have loved to see the latest scholarly research addressing his questions. As a true, fastidiously objective intellectual, you owe it to yourself to read a book just published this year that addresses virtually every issue relating to Book of Mormon authenticity. By the Hand of Mormon--The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion was written by Terryl Givens, a professor of English at the University of Richmond. Givens is Mormon, but his book, which is published by Oxford University Press, is both objective and exhaustively researched. He's not afraid to tackle any thorny issues, and the BoM seems to survive even the most recent and sophisticated attempts to discredit it. I hope you'll review it.

Sorry, but I'm no longer interested in reading Mormon apologetics (or Mormon criticisms or anything related to Mormonism) anymore. Maybe someone else will take up your recommendation, though, and review it in the forum.

I feel that you should know that your web site was quoted in one of the sermons. The address given was http://www.2think.org/eye, which should be http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml. They quote, "Although the human eye would be a scandal if it were the result of divine deliberation, a plausible evolutionary explanation of its absurd construction can be obtained quite easily..."

Then Richard Dawkins was quoted as having said something about the eye. This was interpreted as meaning that our eye was upside-down and this explained the "imperfection" of it from the evolutionists' viewpoint. The whole argument thereafter revolved around the squids eye being an example of an non-inverted eye, and the sheer complexity of the eye as being proof of intelligent design.

Frankly it pissed me off. There were simply a bunch of stupid people (with a few exceptions) in the audience who were willing to believe anything that this man threw out.

During the Q/A session afterwards I tried to deliver a few burning questions. In the end I think all his double-talk, a religious rhetoric pleased the crowd enough for them to have forgotten the original question. However, he did admit, in front of the audience that continental drift occurs at one mile a year. The sad thing is, I was probably the only person in the audience that knew what a crock of shit that was.

Why do I care that people know the truth?

Thanks for the info.

You probably care because you don't want to live in a world full of ignorance.

http://www.sltrib.com/10052002/saturday/saturday.htm

http://www.sltrib.com/10052002/FullSurvey.pdf (Warning! The file is about 3Meg in size and will take several minutes to download even with a fast connection.)