Mail Generated by Worst of the Anti-Mormon Web
I have left all of the spelling and grammar mistakes (even my
own!) as they are found in the originals. For those who are
wondering, "[sic]" is not a comment on the text, just
the standard way of indicating that there is a mistake and
the mistake is not mine.
You are a Homo! Tu chupas muy grande Pito tu Joto, Tu no tienes huevos
[The Worst comments]: Yes, this sort of maturity never fails
to impress.
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 1997 9:07 PM
Who are you?
Are you an LDS member? What are your credentials? You must be a
nonChristian? What about Dr. Walter Martin. Who do you say that Jesus
was/is? I know that you work for Gordon B. Hinckley, don't you? Where is
there any archaeological evidence to support Mormonism? Joseph Smith, Jr.
was a proven fraud. The Smithsonian Institute has refuted any real
anthropological evidence to support the LDS claims. These people are
fooled into believing that they can become gods, all so that an elite inner
circle known as the Council of Fifty can press on to there goal of world
government. They go out to recruit members who are then required to pay a
20 % net-worth tithe to LDS Headquarters in Salt Lake City.
Please write me back, we good become friends and have some great talks.
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX:
I took the liberty of sharing your letter with a few friends. To the person and
without exception everyone enjoyed it. In replying, I will separate your questions
and number them just so we can keep the many issues you raise separate.
1. Who are you?
You could have discovered this rather easily from the "Worst." Indeed, you
probably had to click on my name in order to send your message. But I suspect
that the rest of your questions are probably designed to help me answer that
for you.
2. Are you an LDS member?
If by that you mean a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then yes.
3. What are your credentials?
My credentials? For running a website? I know HTML and I pay my ISP bills
every month. I am also webmaster at a local community college. So I am
probably qualified by some low standard to be on the web. If you really
mean my credentials to mock anti-Mormon websites, one hardly needs
credentials. I would guess that everyone on the net is at least as credentialed
as those famous charlatans "Dr." Walter Martin or "Dr." D.J. Nelson. However,
I graduated from Brigham Young University with a B.A. and M.A. in political
science. And unlike "Dr." Walter Martin and "Dr." D.J. Nelson, I actually
attended class and wrote a thesis. No diploma mill stuff here.
4. You must be a nonChristian?
If by "Christian" you mean someone who affirms the divinity of Jesus of
Nazareth, who believes that he suffered, died and rose again on the third
day, then I am Christian. If you have a narrow, fundamentalist view of
"Christian" that excludes virtually everyone except those who think like you
and agree with your ideology, then I probably fail the test, at least in your eyes.
5. What about Dr. Walter Martin. [sic]
I think that "Dr." Walter Martin probably thought of himself as a Christian,
at least when it came time to writing books and making speeches. But, if I
may be allowed to speculate, you probably want to know what I think of
"Dr." Walter Martin, founder of CRI, and not whether I think he was Christian.
Unlike Joseph Smith, whom you accuse of being a "proven fraud" (and I
will get to that bald assertion in a moment), "Dr." Walter Martin was as
genuine a fraud as you are likely to find anywhere. I highly recommend
that you look at the books by Robert and Rosemary Brown, _They Lie in
Wait to Deceive._ They do a rather nice job of showing that "Dr." Walter
Martin never obtained an honest doctorate (at least not one that required
attending actual classes, taking actual tests, writing actual papers, and
writing a dissertation) and was not an ordained Baptist minister
(Southern or American Baptist, depending on Martin's explanation du
jour). What does it matter? Probably not at all except that Martin was
incapable of telling the truth about himself. And this hardly begins to get
at his bizarre notions about Mormonism.
6. Who do you say that Jesus was/is?
He is the Christ (Messiah), the Son of the living God.
7. I know that you work for Gordon B. Hinckley, don't you?
I really love this one. You begin with an assertion about what you "know"
and then tail off in confidence and are forced to ask a question. And the
very thought of the question is delightful. There in Salt Lake City sits the
Quorum of the Twelve. They have got exponential growth to manage, new
temples being built, an increasingly large missionary effort, new missions
to organize in former communist countries--and in the midst of this
President Hinckley sits down and thinks, "we gotta counter the anti-Mormon
threat on the web; better call Novak." In all seriousness, I do not work for
President Hinckley and I have never met President Hinckley. As I indicated
earlier, I work for a local community college. "Worst of the Anti-Mormon
Web" is a hobby--it is just for fun because those bigoted, biased
anti-Mormons are just plain funny.
8. Where is there any archaeological evidence to support Mormonism?
I am glad you asked. The archaeological evidence in support of Mormonism
is enormous and, I might add, rather well known. I suggest that you visit
Kirtland, Ohio and Nauvoo, Illinois during your next vacation. While there
you will be amazed to discover John Gilbert's store, an actual standing
temple built by the early Saints and in which Joseph Smith actually preached,
the ruins of another temple and various and sundry materials they have dug
out of old wells, tossed there when the Saints were forced at gunpoint from
their homes. If you have time, you may want to stop in Salt Lake City.
You may actually meet a living Mormon in that town.
What I think you really intended, if I may be so bold, is to query me
about archaeological evidence and the Book of Mormon. You question is
meant to devastate me, implying that there is no archaeological evidence where
there clearly ought to be. In reply, let me ask you a question: what
archaeological evidence is there to support the Old Testament? I will be
genuinely interested in your reply.
Let me ask you about some circumstantial evidence for the Book of Mormon.
I want to see just how informed you are about the issues and also see if you
spend any time keeping up on this topic. So please, if you can, tell me your
opinions about the significance of the Bat Creek Inscription, the work of
Warren and Michaela Aston and, just for fun, the Book of Mormon name,
"Mulek."
9. Joseph Smith, Jr. was a proven fraud.
Here is a bald assertion if ever there was one. And I am just a little curious
about the basis for this statement since you didn't include the notorious "Dr."
Walter Martin in the same category. Can you recognize a genuine fraud?
Just as a side note--and not that I expect that you will find this particularly
interesting--I find it deliciously ironic that when Fawn Brodie accuses Joseph
Smith of being an "imposter," she cannot recognize the genuine article in the
person of "Dr." D.J. Nelson. It was Nelson, you may know, whom Brodie cites
as an authority on things Egyptian. And please feel free to carefully define
"fraud" so that I do not have to go through the whole issue of begging the
question with you.
10. The Smithsonian Institute has refuted any real anthropological evidence to
support the LDS claims.
Have you actually read the Smithsonian statement? They don't "refute" any
"LDS" claims at all. They merely answer some questions about the LDS rumor
mill and whether they use the Book of Mormon in their research. The Smithsonian
is, after all, a museum. Honestly, the anti-Mormons really try to milk this for more
than it's worth.
11. These people are fooled into believing that they can become gods, all so
that an elite inner circle known as the Council of Fifty can press on to
there [sic] goal of world government.
Wow! I did not know that the Smithsonian had a Council of Fifty and had a goal
of world government. And I especially didn't know that they thought they can become
gods. Normally, "these people" would refer the Smithsonian and not to Latter-day Saints.
But that is clearly not what you intended. You probably need to know that you are at
least a hundred years out of date on your information about the Council of Fifty. And I do
not believe that it can be shown that anyone in that council had a "goal of world government."
Now the Council was instrumental in getting the Saints out West and out of Nauvoo and
hence performed some government-type functions. But "world government" is a bit
strong to describe that. FYI, no Council of Fifty currently exists.
12. They go out to recruit members who are then required to pay a 20 % net-worth
tithe to LDS Headquarters in Salt Lake City.
Since there is no Council of Fifty, it should be pretty obvious that they are not recruiting
members. We have some 75,000 missionaries [The Worst comments: Whoops, I inverted
the "5" and "7"; the correct number is closer to 57,000] who do invite all to partake of the fruits of
the gospel of Jesus Christ. But as you may sense, that number is a bit large to be
contained in a "Council of Fifty."
You are sadly misinformed about the nature of LDS tithing. Tithing has *never* been 20%,
indeed the word itself means 10%. And no one has ever asked us to tithe on our net worth.
I would guess that very few of the Saints could afford to do that. We do, however, pay a
tithe on our "increase" which we interpret to mean our income. That is obviously not the
same as "net worth." Finally, no member of the Church that I am acquainted with has ever
paid tithing to "Headquarters in Salt Lake City." All tithing is received by a local bishop,
carefully counted and accounted for, and then deposited immediately into a local bank.
13. Please write me back, we good [sic] become friends and have some great talks.
I find it interesting that your note begins with a decidedly hostile flavor but then tapers
off into an offer of friendship. Please continue to write, if you can give up your biases
and misinformation about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I hope
that I have been able to provide some genuinely useful information.
Best wishes,
Gary
novak@teleport.com
[The Worst comments]: Finally, for now at least, you can
enjoy this wonderful response
from someone whose page I actually linked to. Since he suggested
that he wanted to be absolved of all blame for his pages, I
suggested a rather easy way for getting around his JavaScript.
He has now fixed the "problem" that my evil, nefarious
suggestion took advantage of (it was a simple <:target="_new">
in the <a href>). But I am not sure if he has figured out
that anyone can still bypass his JavaScript by simply turning it
off in their browser preferences.
Mr. Novak,
Do not circumvent my javascript again! My document is copyrighted and I
have a right to control who views it.
I have plugged the hole in my javascript which you exploited. Should you
attempt a similar unscrupulous feat again I shall take the matter up
with your ISP or other authorities who I know will assist me to retain
my copyright privileges. I have a right to control who reads my
documents, and mean-spirited persons such as yourself who attempt to
thwart the requisite promises are treading on very thin ice with regard
to continued access.
You may continue to provide a link to my pages, but if and only if you
a.) remove the implications that my site is part of a suicide cult or
part of the Heaven's Gate group, and b.) stop trying to circumvent the
honor & integrity shielding javascript.
Say whatever the hell you want on your pages (so long as what you say is
not libelous), but don't f***
[The Worst comments: the ugly, offensive explicative was part
of the original.] with my pages by circumventing the
scripts!
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX:
This is marvellous stuff; absolutely golden. What do you do when someone
sends your URL to someone via email and there is no history file?
You must know that I did nothing unethical or immoral. Your site is on the
web and it must be there to have folks read it. And of course you noticed
that I encouraged people to go through to your site the normal way. Of
course your document is copyrighted and you have every right that goes
with it. But merely adding a "_new" to the URL does nothing to violate
your copyright. By the same token, your JavaScript is exactly nothing
like password protection, which, of course, I would have honored. If you
really want to control access, why is your document on the web?
Now as to the implications of what I said about your page. If you read
carefully, hard as that is to do on the web, you will notice that the little
cult paragraph refers to the CRI link in the paragraph above.
Why are you attempting to shield yourself from responsibility? You must
realize that however you look at it, you are responsible for your documents.
They didn't happen in a vacuum. Or is it simply a way, and perhaps a
bad one at that, of attempting to warn people that you have something
to say that may be controversial.
I loved your email. Be sure to threaten to censor me in the name of
free speech anytime. And I will be sure that your email receives as wide
a distribution as it deserves.
Best wishes nurturing your hatred towards all things Mormon,
Gary
On Sat, 15 Nov 1997 18:57:33 -0800, you wrote:
>XXXXXXXXX:
That's YYYYYYY.
>This is marvellous stuff; absolutely golden. What do you do when someone
Nothing. The problem appears to be fixed now, but at least they're not trying to
purposefully circumvent the script in a snide fashion.
There is no differentiation between the suicide Heaven's Gate group and my link.
One follows right after the other. There is no verbal differentiation and the
mere presence of another paragraph does not imply an automatic break in what is
being discussed.
>Why are you attempting to shield yourself from responsibility? You must
I have not commented on whether I am responsible. The thing I require is that
people who desire to read my heart-felt journal hold me blameless. I don't want
a bunch of angry fury filled people reading my page and getting all uptight. I
have better things to do with my time than respond to such people. If people
don't want to hold me blameless then they can stay away from my personal
writings. That's just fine by me.
Those people willing to hold someone blameless for expressing heart-felt views
(however unpleasant) are just exactly the type of people who would appreciate my
writings anyway. The person who wants to pounce on all so-called anti-Mormon
literature with a wide and rough stroke are just exactly the type of people who
should stay away from what I have written.
>They didn't happen in a vacuum. Or is it simply a way, and perhaps a
From my first page to the last the inference of something controversial is
strong and should be recognizable by most people. I like my filter the way it
is.
>
The method you have used to link to my pages seems to indicate some sort of
thinly-vieled hatred of your own, hatred perhaps of those who might cause you to
question your beliefs. I can understand why you would have such hatred because I
had such hatred myself of those who detracted from Mormonism - as if I were on
some sort of holy war of my own.
I am not on a great crusade except to express my views about the damaging nature
of Mormonism. I am not a frantic bible beater like Ed Decker, nor am I a lunatic
like Do of Heaven's Gate. The only reason I can see for your not recognizing
this in your page is your hatred for what I have written. I could well say
myself "best wishes nurturing your hatred toward all things Anti-Mormon."
Perhaps there is hope in your case at least because by even mentioning the
existence of anti-Mormon sites you leave the door just a bit open to the
possibility that a Mormon should question their beliefs - that is probably a
good thing. Certainly devout Mormon doctrine dictates against calling attention
to anti-Mormon literature or stirring up the "sprit of contention." Your
departure from such requisite orthodoxy is a small good thing at least, but it's
too bad that you haven't tempered your hatred a bit so that you don't lump all
so called anti-Mormon sites into the same snide barrel of "laughs."
XXXXXXXXXXXX
YYYYYYYY:
Many apologies for misspelling your name. I assure you it was unintentional.
It is good that you have given up the nonsense about me "treading on thin
ice" and doing something morally reprehensible. And I really enjoy a person
who simply has to have the last word.
Let me explain this in very simple terms. First link on my page = CRI the
cult watching group. Then comment on a genuine cult--the Heaven's gate
stuff--which, if you had actually read the CRI links I provided, you would
have found mentioned. Then, your stuff with no mention of cults. Wow!
And if you bothered to check the archives before you blasted your little
tirade my way you would have found that this is exactly the way that the
"Worst" works. The cult stuff does *not* appear after the link to your page.
If attempting to make yourself "blameless" isn't absolving yourself of
responsibility, I don't know what is.
If anyone wrote to you as a result of the "Worst" who constituted a
"bunch of angry fury filled people" [sic.] please let me know and I will
lecture the folks that such activities are inappropriate. And I heartily
encourage you not to respond to such people. Just delete their messages.
Once again, if you had read my pages at all carefully, you would know
that I find anti-Mormons like you especially funny. One of the nice
things about your page is that there is exactly nothing like an argument
going on--just a sort of negative testimony-bearing. Great stuff.
I suspect that if you read the scriptures carefully you will find that
I am not engaged in "stirring up the 'sprit of contention.'" This language
is always directed against those who are interested in contending over
this or that doctrine. I am not interested in doing so. To the degree that
what I am doing can be justified by scripture, I suggest you take a look
at D&C 123:13-14:
I encourage you to get over your desire to accuse others of hatred. I
had assumed some heat on your part because of the colorful language
you used in your last missive. And there is more than a little contentiousness
in your pages (I love that "Mormon Hell" thing) and contempt for things
Mormon. I also hope that you can find healing from the things you think
have injured you. I doubt that web page is a route to that healing.
Since I expect that you simply have to have the last word, I image that
I can keep this kind of thing going indefinitely. Here's looking forward to
your reply.
Still wishing good luck in your anti-Mormon enterprises,
Gary
That's all for now, although this hardly begins to get at the amount
of nutty mail I have received. When I get around to it, I will
post some more.
I am not sure why I am protecting the guilty, but, what the
heck, why not? So I will be lopping off the email addresses
here. After all, most of these folks look rather bad and,
if there is anything to be learned from this it is "don't
flame in haste!"
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 1997 8:48 PM
To: novak@teleport.com
Subject: Hehehehe
To: novak@teleport.com
Subject: YOUR PAGE SLAMMING CRI
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 1997 8:47 PM
To: 'Pastoral Staff'
Subject: RE: YOUR PAGE SLAMMING CRI
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 1997 2:21 PM
To: novak@teleport.com
Subject: Circumventing honesty & integrety
From: Gary Novak [SMTP:novak@teleport.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 1997 6:58 PM
Subject: RE: Circumventing honesty & integrety
novak@teleport.com
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 1997 11:10 PM
To: Gary Novak
Subject: Re: Circumventing honesty & integrety
>
>sends your URL to someone via email and there is no history file?
>
>Now as to the implications of what I said about your page. If you read
>carefully, hard as that is to do on the web, you will notice that the little
>cult paragraph refers to the CRI link in the paragraph above.
>
>realize that however you look at it, you are responsible for your documents.
>bad one at that, of attempting to warn people that you have something
>to say that may be controversial.
>Best wishes nurturing your hatred towards all things Mormon,
>
From: Gary Novak [SMTP:novak@teleport.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 1997 7:48 AM
Subject: RE: Circumventing honesty & integrety
Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in
bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein
we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven--
These should be attended to with great earnestness.
novak@teleport.com
[The Worst comments]: This was, sadly, the end of the
correspondence.