1. All sources which are favorable to the LDS church are true. All sources which are unfavorable to the LDS church are false.
   
   Author and historian D. Michael Quinn said it best: "Apologists extend the broadest possible latitude to sources they agree with, yet impose the most stringent demands on sources of information the apologists dislike" (Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Revised and Expanded Edition. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998. p. 47). Like clockwork, any statement or document which makes the LDS church look good is automatically assumed to be 100% reliable, whereas any statement or document which makes the LDS church look bad is automatically assumed to be "biased" and "anti-Mormon," which in an apologist's mind immediately translates to "false." Amazingly, they never see their own double-standard, namely that pro-LDS sources are usually just as (if not more) "biased," only in the opposite direction.
   
   This may seem like an over-generalization, and Mormon apologists are sometimes quick to point that out, but it is, amazingly, true: If one asks an LDS apologist which statement hostile to Mormonism is true and reliable, they are unable to come up with a response.


2. Anyone who disagrees--however slightly--with any aspect of Mormonism is automatically an anti-Mormon whose views can be dismissed out-of-hand.
   
   Once again, the apologists themselves routinely deny operating this way, but "the proof is in the pudding:" In actual practice, if someone voices his or her disagreement with any part of Mormonism, then his or her views are immediately discounted as being "anti-Mormon," no matter how many facts, sources, and documentation he or she uses to back up his or her statements.
   
   For example, LDS apologists usually dismiss the horrific accounts of polygamy found in the book Wife Number 19, since the author was a critic of Mormonism. This is in spite of the following three facts:
   
   
   1. The author was a former polygamous wife of Brigham Young,
   2. As such, she was often privvy to the goings-on at the highest levels of Mormonism, and
   3. All her formative years took place in early Utah when polygamy was at its height.
   
   Apologists routinely discount her as "a disgruntled former member with an axe to grind." Unfortunately for them, she wasn't born disgruntled. Pro-LDS people never admit that she had a number of extremely good reasons for becoming disgruntled in the first place.
   
   Interestingly, this assumption often spills over onto sincere Mormons who are having struggles with some part of their religion and who innocently ask questions in order to resolve their concerns. Apologists often assume that the questioner is a "troll," in this case an ex-Mormon trying to bait the apologists or otherwise set a trap for them. As a result of having been treated this way, more than one member has become convinced that LDS apologetics is intellectually bankrupt--along with the church itself--and left Mormonism entirely.


3. Apologists are unable to distinguish between possibilities and probabilities.
   
   When they come up with defenses for their faith, LDS apologists and their sympathizers automatically assume that the scenario they've concocted, however unlikely, is "good enough" to provide Mormonism with an "out," at which point all criticism is dismissed. For example, when it comes to the Book of Abraham controversy, the characters written down the left margins of three of the four manuscripts prove that the recovered papyrii were indeed the source of the Book of Abraham and not any "missing black and red scroll." Yet some apologists say that the scribes went "maverick" and wrote the characters in the margins on their own without any input from Joseph. The fact is that Joseph was broken of his habit of loaning out scriptural manuscripts way back in 1828. The idea that he would let scribes "have their way" with such important documents may be an extremely remote possibility, but is not a probability by any means.


4. If a scientist or anti-Mormon is wrong about one thing, it is safe to assume that he or she is wrong about everything.
   
   FARMS Review of Books was the pioneer of this apologetic tactic. Often, after sniping away at one minor quibble in a critical book, they discount everything in the entire volume and advise their readers to do likewise.
   
   This tactic has since gained great popularity and is used by LDS defenders of all stripes. For example, nowadays, if an article appears showing how some prior scientific assumption has turned out to be incorrect, apologists then "take the ball and run with it," making arguments which boil down to, "You see? Scientists are often wrong anyway. Therefore we can discount anything they say regarding the Lamanite/DNA issue." Yet they fail to recognize that although scientists may be wrong about some aspect of the DNA controversy, it hardly follows that they're entirely wrong on all aspects of it and that the Lamanites are, therefore, the principal ancestors of the American Indians.


5. Apologists routinely accuse critics of "telling us what we believe." They follow up by saying, "We are the authorities on what we believe, not the critics."
   
   This line of thinking is more common among the less-educated apologists. This is because their ignorance of their own history has rendered them unable to recognize that their religion has changed and evolved over the years. Such apologists assume that the church they have come to know--three hours of church on Sunday, Boy Scount campouts, home teaching, Relief Society activity night, etc.--is the way Mormonism always was. Unfortunately, Mormonism in its early years had far more in common with the Branch Davidian compound than it does to Mormonism today.
   
   Defenders of Mormonism put this catch-phrase to good use when they need to deny or discount embarrassing statements from past prophets, especially Brigham Young. They fall into the trap of interpreting all previous prophetic pronouncements through the lenses of modern-day Mormonism as opposed to going by the plain-English meaning. For example, when responding to Brigham Young's teaching that Adam "is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do," apologists assume that it is utterly impossible that he meant exactly what he said.
   
   (Unknown to them, this sends the apologists on the slippery-slope of believing that their interpretation of the prophets' words--not the prophets' interpretations themselves--are correct. See my webpage on Internet Mormonism vs. Chapel Mormonism for a more in-depth exploration of this subject.)


6. Apologists often respond to a challenge with the phrase, "that's been debunked countless times already."
   
   Although it is true that Mormon apologists have been active nearly as long as Mormonism has existed, it does not follow that all their attempts to refute their critics have succeeded. I am unaware of any objection to Mormonism that hasn't been addressed to some degree, but at the same time I am aware of very, very few such objections that have ever been addressed competently or believably. Pro-Mormons almost universally fail to recognize that there is a huge difference between an "adequate refutation" and a "lame excuse"--and pro-Mormons produce far, far more of the latter than they do the former. For example, when an anti-Mormon brings up Joseph Smith's marital infidelities, LDS defenders often claim that Joseph Smith was sealed to his already-married plural wives for eternity only--to provide salvation for them--and not for "time." This excuse hardly counts as a "debunking" and is, of course, much closer to a "lame excuse," since these women could just as easily have been sealed for eternity to their legal husbands as to Smith.


7. All arguments are made in a vacuum.
   
   In other words, defenders of the LDS faith are inconsistent and do not apply their logic in one scenario to all scenarios. A good case is the horse/deer debate surrounding The Book of Mormon. Specifically, they sometimes claim that Book of Mormon peoples used the tapir as a pack and riding animal, but since Joseph Smith was unfamiliar with tapirs he used the name of the animal that filled the same role in his own society--the horse. However, apologists conveniently forget their own argument when it comes to the curelom/cummom debate. They say that Joseph used the original Nephite words because he didn't know the equivalent English names of these animals.
   
   (This methodology also extends outside of Mormonism. Specifically, apologists rarely, if ever, apply their defenses of Mormonism to other religions. For example, they nearly always extoll the "milk before meat" approach to potential LDS converts, but castigate the Scientologists for their pattern of withholding vital information from their own recruits.)

1. You get unsolvable conundrum of "speaking as a prophet" v. "speaking as a man"
2. You get extraordinary contradictions amongst the Q15 over time. Who needs the LGT when you got JofD (which really aren't contradictions at all if deeply understood and understood in the proper context)
3. You get a loose cannon like McConkie who makes an utter ass of himself by making ridiculous claims and predictions while writing as half man-half prophet and it's your job to divine which one is speaking. So a talk entitled "The Seven Deadly Heresies" is really nothing but a take it-or-leave it tirade.
4. You get "the couplet" doctrine and the doctrine of "we don't teach that anymore". Once again you must understand at a more mature and sophisticated level of meaning and nuance, and understand it in the correct context and once done, "JS loves Fanny" is No Problemo!
5. You get one confusing, impossible to follow doctrinal cluster that makes your head spin. (Kind of like the expression on Austin Power's face when he is introduced to the Italian Bird named Alotta Vagina)

• You've mischaracterized my position, but that doesn't matter because I was right and you were wrong before you ever mischaracterized my position
• You simply don't get it and you never will get it because you lack the ability to penetrate the deeper meaning of Godly things and you fail to appreciate the proper context in which seemingly disturbing things were said or done.
• Don't waste your time because here at FARMS we win them all, and that's before the game is ever played. We Guarantee It!

"Over time, Joseph became aware that people trusted him and that he could be an influence for good or ill, that even through nefarious means, God worked through him when his heart was right. He realized this when he led groups in search of Spanish treasure in New York and Pennsylvania. Although no treasure was found, the men sincerely believed that Smith had a spiritual gift and could see where casks of gold were hidden in the earth. This training ground in spiritual leadership was invaluable because the prophet learned how to create an environment for belief - one in which people could exercise faith and be converted to Christ through the sensible influence of the Spirit, all prior to the overarching work of restoring primitive Christianity."

• The LDS Church tracks about 6,500 anti-LDS Web sites
• Potential converts are abandoning the missionaries once they consult the Internet for more information.
• We cannot drive the enemies of the Church off the Internet, but we can displace their prominent positions.
• millions of people are not Christians, but need Christ introduced to them.
• The project is to use the Internet to 1) drive down the enemies of the Church off prominent search pages, and 2) use the Internet as a missionary tool.
• The business plan will be placed in front of major potential donors.

Create a Business Plan to Help LDS Church

“Our foundation needs help to create a business plan or fundraising. The project is to use the Internet to 1) drive down the enemies of the Church off prominent search pages, and 2) use the Internet as a missionary tool. The business plan will be placed in front of major potential donors. Here is an overview of the project and request. Thanks for your help.”

"...needs help...fundraising...Thanks for your help." This sounds like a scam to blike naive TBMs???

Larry Barkdull, president
Latter-day Foundation for the Arts, Education and Humanity
(801)427-2193
lwb224 AT msn.com Who and what is Larry B. other than Pres of this foundation??

The Latter-day Foundation for the Arts, Education and Humanity was formed in 1990 to help promote LDS arts and artists. Later, its purpose was expanded to assist with educational and humanitarian efforts. Recently, the foundation has become actively involved with Internet missionary initiatives to (1) drive down Church enemies from prominent search engine positions and (2) teach the gospel of Jesus Christ via the Internet. Our initiative is called “Flooding the Internet with Truth.”

How successful was/is this group in their initial endeavor re "arts and artists"?
Introduction

A recent “conservative” advice columnist on MSN.com recommended premarital sex to a young virgin: “If you are sure you are in a long-term relationship, why not?” Must have been a no-news-day?
A missionary in England reported his “golden” contact excitedly consulting the Internet about Mormons after the first discussion. The investigator found a mountain of anti-Mormon material and immediately cancelled all future appointments with the missionaries. Fool's gold?

Need

At present, the Internet has few conservative, moral voices that are willing to combat immorality and anti-Mormon sentiments. The LDS Church tracks about 6,500 anti-LDS Web sites in the English language, whose content dominates search results. Thousands more dominate search engine positions in other languages. Potential converts are abandoning the missionaries once they consult the Internet for more information. (Emphasis added.) Only vast quantities of positive material, correctly optimized, can resolve this problem. We cannot drive the enemies of the Church off the Internet, but we can displace their prominent positions. Moreover, millions of people are not Christians, but need Christ introduced to them. Much of the present information about Christ on the Internet is either embarrassing or inaccurate. Finally, as the world grows increasingly more dangerous, middle- and upper-class people are retreating to gated communities, places that are difficult for missionaries to enter. How can we reach these people? Through their computers.

And make LDSism look more absurd than ever! Might the world be getting smarter? A natural barrier to misinformation, superstition and quackery!

We need a network of conservative information that:
• Points readers to moral, Christian principles There are thousands doing that at the moment!
• Offers clear-cut information on LDS members and their doctrines Is Christianism or Mormonism the focus?
• Scientifically presents material in a way that displaces immoral and anti-LDS material on search engines.

"Scientifically...in a way..." Really? Truth distortion, brain washing, spinning, subliminal flashes??

Solution

During the last three years, we have worked with Church departments and potential content providers to identify the problem and construct a solution strategy. We work closely with the More Good Foundation to gather information about in-danger keyword searches, which tells us where content needs to be placed, and how it should be optimized and published. We have created two initial Web sites, and we are in the process of creating a network of gospel-oriented sites.

What "Church depts & ...content providers"? "...gospel-oriented sites? More sites to frequent for us, eh?
Projected results

We took random samples of mainstay Christian and LDS terms and researched their monthly searches. The resulting audience was enormous—over 4 million. We can apply the same tools and science that professional e-commerce sites incorporate to make money and use them to defend the Church and teach the gospel. We believe we can reach millions of people. Our call to action is (1) ask for a free copy of the Book of Mormon, (2) order free Church materials (DVDs, pamphlets, etc.), and (3) request the missionaries. Busy work? How productive? How profitable for the "Foundation"?

We interviewed former mission presidents about convert-to-missionary contact ratios. The results were these: basically 30,000 companionships will each contact about 100 people per month or 3 million people. Of that number, 25,000 people are baptized each month—less than 1% of the number contacted. Interesting stats. If true they certainly beg many questions and much analysis! Our goal is to publish vast amounts of positive content and place it strategically where millions of monthly searches—“contacts”—can occur. An interesting mathematical exercise (using industry standards for Internet readership “captures” as compared to convert-to-missionary contact ratios) suggests that the Internet can greatly increase positive awareness of the Church and become an incredible missionary tool. And too, it can and will be more negative than positive. Net folks are generally better educated--ask questions, want 'answers' not "testimonies"
Sounds like an "Edsel" to me. To be taken seriously? Hardly!