My question is–what motivates you? I really want to know. If you really think that Mormonism is false, is it really the worst thing out there? Is it worse than porn, drugs, or Lady Gaga? Isn’t there something else you could campaign against? Ok, maybe you do think it’s worse than those things. But what proof do you have that it’s worse? You say the Bible tells you so, but how do you know your interpretation of the Bible is correct? Or are you exercising faith that the LDS Church is false?

From my perspective, spending time proving the Mormon faith to be false doesn’t make sense unless you know it’s false, and the only way you could make that claim with any certainty would be to say that God told you directly that it’s false. In that case we would just have to agree to disagree. But if you haven’t received direct communication from God on the matter, then you don’t have any proof the Mormon faith is false. This doesn’t automatically mean the Mormon faith is true, but we’re not talking about whether or not it can be proven true, only whether it can be proven false. If it can’t be proven false, but you’re spending your time working against it, then doesn’t that mean it’s a matter of faith for you? Are you not acting with the hope of things not seen? Or in other words, aren’t you merely showing that you wish the Mormon faith to be false? But why? Why would someone want the Mormon faith to be false? Even though I’m not Hindu, I don’t want it to be false. I don’t go around trying to convince anyone that it is false. I share what I believe, but that doesn’t include pointing out where I think others are mistaken. So why are you motivated to point out the perceived flaws of Mormonism?

When I was a missionary back in 1995, I taught a man in a remote city in Brazil. He had been looking for “the right religion” to join for years. He had gone to every church he could find, even the one that drank something hallucinogenic and had “visions”. Then he started talking to us Mormons. What convinced him to join the LDS Church? Well, primarily it was a lot of study and prayer, but he mentioned something else that has stuck in my mind. He said that when he was doing his church tour, he was always supported by his family, friends, and even by the clergy of the various churches. They would praise him for studying, researching, and searching, even when it wasn’t their own church he was going to, or even after he had rejected their religion. But as soon as he started talking to the Mormons, everyone turned against him. He received visits from the ministers, clergy, and leaders of every church in town. His family and friends discouraged him. His wife turned against him. He said “I had never encountered any resistance from anyone while going to other churches, even the one that had their members doing drugs. Then all hell breaks loose when I start talking to you guys. I figured I must be on to something.”

And when it comes to anti-Mormon material, be it printed or online, I’ve seen a ton of it. I’m constantly impressed at how much effort is put into “proving” the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, LDS Church, etc. to be false. But of course my perspective is limited. Could it be that there is more anti-Mormon activity per Mormon than there is of any other religion? Are there as many websites dedicated to proving the Catholic Church to be false? Do people go to such lengths to point out the perceived faults of Islam or Judaism? There has got to be some research on this somewhere.

I’ve been having an extensive discussion with two chaps on another post on this blog, and they have posited that if the Book of Mormon were true, then there would surely be physical evidence to prove it. That is, there would be archeological evidence, supporting historical documents, etc., just as there are for the Bible. And while perhaps I’m putting words in their mouths, they seem to be making the argument that their entire belief in the Bible is founded on the physical evidence that supports the Bible.

However, in making this argument, they seem to be missing the point that if they applied the same logic to the Bible, they would have to conclude that the Bible is little more trustworthy than the Book of Mormon.

Why? Because while the physical evidence supporting the Bible is certainly there, it only supports parts of the Bible, while not supporting others. For example, what physical evidence is there for the resurrection of Christ? What physical evidence proves that we can be forgiven of our sins through Christ’s sacrifice? What physical proof is there for the divinity of Christ? In short, what physical evidence is there to prove that the Bible is not a work of historical fiction?

Historical fiction takes advantage of real places, people, and historical events, but weaves fictional elements into it. Thus, if the Bible were a work of historical fiction, it could still be supported in many ways by archeology and other historical documents. For example, you could point to many references outside the Bible that refer to Christ, portray him in artwork, etc., and say “See? There’s all sorts of evidence showing that Christ was real.” Yes, but a real person, or really who the Bible claims he is?

And so my question to you is if you believe the Bible to be true, especially its foundational tenets such as the divinity of Christ, the reality of his resurrection, and the forgiveness extended to us by his sacrifice, then how do you know those things are real?

I would put forth that there is no way to know if they are real short of revelation, that is, direct communication with God, and that if you accept revelation from God as a reality, then you must also accept that God can tell you if the Book of Mormon is true, and therefore whether or not there is physical evidence supporting the Book of Mormon is a moot point.

By the way, there is not exactly a total lack of evidence supporting the Book of Mormon as some claim.

I’ll start us off:

1. Perfect. Because if he weren’t perfect, then how could I trust anything about him at all?

2. Omnipotent. If he’s not able to do everything, then how do I know if he can do anything he says he can do?

3. Omniscient. If he didn’t know everything, then who knows what he might not know? Again, I couldn’t trust him, because while he could promise me something, how could I know for sure whether he can keep his promises? Maybe there’s something he doesn’t know that would get in the way?

4. Loving. If he didn’t love me 100%, how could I be confident that he would act in my best interests? He might be nice to me one day, and ignore me the next, and why would I want to dedicate myself to a being like that?

This is a common question asked by Mormons, but I have yet to hear a good response. Let me know if you’ve got something you think is a pretty good explanation.

Mark 13:22 – For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

Matthew 24:24 – For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Matthew 24:11 – And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

1 John 4:1 – Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2 Corinthians 11:13 – For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

Revelation 16:13 – And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

The logic for many seems to be “Joseph Smith called himself a prophet, the Bible mentions false prophets, therefore Joseph Smith is a false prophet because he is called a ‘prophet’.”

Of course this is a rather weak argument and undermines itself. The very fact that the Bible warns against false prophets leads us to believe there will be true prophets and false prophets, and it tells us how to identify the false vs. the true. If there were to be no true prophets, it would simply have been easier for the writers of the books of the Bible to have declared in simple terms “If anyone claims to be a prophet, don’t believe them, because after the Bible there will be no more prophets.”

The next step in this argument is to bring in the “by their fruits ye shall know them” verses, as follows:

Matthew 7:15-23

15. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17. Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23. And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Many times this scripture is quoted as though it provided all the proof necessary to convict Joseph Smith of being a false prophet, as though it is obvious and no explanation is necessary. But it’s only natural to follow this to the question “What exactly are the evil fruits of Joseph Smith that prove he was a false prophet rather than a true one?”

And that’s where I leave the question to you. What do you think?

To quote from Jeff’s website:

Related questions:

• Was it just blind luck that the rare place name Nahom in the Book of Mormon, identified as the place where Ishmael was buried, turns out to correspond to an ancient burial site right where the Book of Mormon says it is?
• How could Joseph Smith so accurately and plausibly describe the nature and location of the place Bountiful in the Arabian Peninsula – when critics for years have been denying the possibility of such a place being anywhere in the region?
• How does one account for the recent discovery of a plausible candidate for the River Laman, continuously flowing into the Red Sea as the Book of Mormon indicates, in spite of the repeated claims of critics that no such river exists?

Background:
The book of First Nephi in the Book of Mormon describes a journey through the Arabian Peninsula in much detail, sometimes giving specific directions like “south south-east,” and describing specific places such as the Valley of Lemuel with its continually flowing River of Laman, a burial place called Nahom, and a fertile and inhabitable spot called Bountiful due east of Nahom, where Lehi’s group lived for a period of time and were able to construct boats and sail to the New World. Incredibly, these details are not only plausible based on modern knowledge, but specific candidates for these locations exist, as I show on my page on Book of Mormon Evidences (including photos). In fact, the candidate for Nahom is confirmed as an ancient burial place in just the right location (Nehhem) and is associated with an ancient tribal name with the same consonants (NHM), based on a recent find of an ancient altar from that tribe dating to around the time of Lehi, with an ideal candidate for Bountiful nearly due east of Nahom on the coast of Oman. And in spite of much mocking by anti-Mormons about the non-existence of rivers, a continually flowing stream has been found in an impressive valley in just the right place to be the valley and river spoken of by Nephi. These places and the NHM name could not possibly have been known to Joseph Smith. They remain unknown to most college graduate in our day, and unknown to almost all anti-Mormons, based on their remarkable silence on these impressive “bulls eyes” in the Book of Mormon. But I’ll ask the question again: is there any way that such precise confirmation of First Nephi could have occurred if the unschooled farm boy Joseph Smith were just making up a wild story about a mythical adventure in a remote land? How can you explain away plausible and accurate directions that bypass the empty quarter and would allow an actual ancient journey, a description of a valley and river that anti-Mormons have alleged cannot possibly exist, the existence of an excellent candidate for Bountiful (also was said to not exist anywhere in the Arabian Peninsula), and a direct hit in identifying an ancient burial site and its rare name? Say what you will about other issues, but is there any way that First Nephi could have been written by anyone in North America in 1830, or is it more plausible that the accurate description of an ancient journey in the Middle East was written by someone who actually made the journey?

So there you go. Now who has some good answers?

And, what, if anything would lead you to the conclusion that Mormonism’s foundational stories, personalities and writings are not what they claim to be?

Yes, there is. What leads me to believe they are true is God telling me so, and so the way I figure it, the only thing that could convince me otherwise would be for God to tell me that what he has already told me is not true. But that’s a bit like the age-old question “Could God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?”

As far as any other sort of evidence such as writings or lack thereof, scientific “evidence”, etc., no, I don’t really see how anything else could convince me, because it wasn’t by those things that I was convinced of the truthfulness of the LDS Church in the first place. Not that things couldn’t come up that might give me pause–I’m sure there are other things I’ll learn about Mormonism that will make me think “Really?! What the heck…?” but in the past when I’ve come across such things my thought process is “Hmm, I wonder what the explanation is for all of this?” as opposed to “I don’t see how the LDS Church can be true anymore.”

You and I were both born into the church to LDS families. If Mormonism is the one true church, wow…..we really hit the jackpot. Extremely lucky, right? Out of the billions and billions of humans that have come and gone over the last 50,000 years, and the tens of thousands of organized religions, not to mention the other tribal/pagan/animist beliefs, we were so unimaginably fortunate to have been born into the Creator of the Universe’s own special organization on earth.

We could have been born into any other circumstance where we were taught to believe in the existence of various deities. We could have grown up in Northern Europe a thousand years ago believing in Odin or many thousands of years ago in Egypt believing in Min. After being taught those beliefs by our parents and surrounding culture, wouldn’t we have been believers? I think so.

So, what is more likely? That you and I were unimaginably lucky, or that everyone else feels the same way about the faith of their family/culture?

I’ve thought about this quite a bit, and I don’t think I have any definitive answers I can point to, but I do have a few personal opinions. But to answer the question that I made the title of the post, I don’t know. That is, if I had been born a Muslim, would I be as faithful to the Muslim faith as I am to the Mormon faith? What if I had been born a Catholic? I really don’t know how to answer that question for myself, but if we were to look at broader statistical data, I’d be willing to bet that many, if not most, people remain faithful to the religion into which they were born. However, there are obviously a lot of people who change from the religion into which they were born, and most people who are Mormon today weren’t born into Mormon families, so who knows.

Now, to say the chances of someone being born into a Mormon family are small is true, if you believe you’re born wherever you are strictly by chance. But even if we follow that line of thinking, the fact remains that somebody has to be born into Mormon families. The chance of it being you or me, specifically, may be small, but the chance of it being someone is pretty close to 100%.

But I don’t believe we’re born into our families by chance. I think it’s all well-planned out and we’re born exactly when and where God wants us to be born.

Onto that last question, of course I can’t say whether everyone feels the same way about their faith as I do, because I’ve spoken to precious few people of other faiths on such a level as to be able to make any such judgment, but based on that small sampling I’m inclined to extrapolate, perhaps in error, and say that no, they don’t think the same way I do about their religion. However, I’d extend that to many other Mormons, not just members of other faiths. Hopefully that doesn’t come across and terribly arrogant and superior, because I don’t mean it that way, I just think it’s a fact that some people think, question, and reason more than other people do, and if I think more deeply about things than somebody else then there’s someone else that thinks more deeply about things than I do. I believe that most people, of all religions, don’t think very deeply about life, the universe, and everything. I think most people are occupied with day to day tasks like working, eating, and sleeping, and “being a good person” and relatively few of us wax philosophical.

But that doesn’t really answer the question, I suppose. I suppose the question is whether or not I think there could be someone who feels about their religion just as I do about mine. My answer to that is “no”, but with some caveats. Perhaps I can best express my thoughts by responding to one of your follow up questions:

By what criteria do you discount the truth claims of the other 10,000 organized religions in the world?

I don’t discount other religions, per se. I think every religion has some measure of truth, some more, and some less, and I don’t believe that membership in any particular religion during this life guarantees or disqualifies one for all the blessings of exaltation. I’m inclined to believe that Islam is a true religion that was founded by God. According to Islam, their religion was given to Mohammad by the angel Gabriel, and I don’t see any reason why that couldn’t be true. Whether what is practiced today in Islam is exactly what Gabriel taught Mohammad is another question, but I have no reason to question the roots of the religion as coming from God. Likewise I believe most other religions sprang up as the result of communication with God or his messengers or through what you could call “inspiration”. These religions have blessed the lives of billions of people. I think it’s quite interesting to think about how things would be different for the people of the Middle East and surrounding areas if Islam had never been founded. There are many, due to Islamic terrorism, who think we’d all be better off if Islam had never existed, but I think that’s rather short-sighted because we don’t know what would have existed in its place. I think there’s a good chance the world would be much, much worse off today if Islam had never existed, and I think it would certainly be worse for the people of the Middle East. I think Islam was established by God to serve his own purposes, which in the short-term are quite different than the purposes for which he established the Mormon faith, although in the long-term they are the same, which is to bring his children closer to him in terms of their thoughts and deeds.

But if another religion says “We’re the only true religion and all others are false and impostors” well, yes, I disagree with that. I think there are many “true” religions in that they teach primarily true principles and serve the function of bringing people closer to God, but what sets the LDS Church apart is that it’s the only church with the Priesthood, or God’s authority to act in his name. No other baptism is valid, no other sacrament is valid, and there is no other church I know of that even claims to be able to perform marriages that last beyond this life.

I think the natural follow-up question to this is “If the LDS Church is the only true church, why didn’t God make it to be the church with a billion members instead of Islam?” At least part of the answer is that it doesn’t matter, in the long-term scheme of things. God’s purpose is to help his children become like him. His children don’t all have to be members of his church in this life for that to happen. But it is important that his church exist during the history of this world in order for that to happen. It does exist and will continue to exist, and so everything will work out for everyone, regardless of what religion they belong to, as long as they are developing those characteristics that make them more like God.

One more opinion of mine–I am of the opinion that somebody else can receive revelation from God that they are supposed to join another religion. That is, I think someone could pray and feel that they are supposed to join the Baptist church, or the Lutherans, or Islam, or Buddhism, etc. I don’t believe this would happen if they were comparing those religions to Mormonism and trying to decide between the two, but I think someone, in isolation from Mormonism, could receive revelation telling them to join another religion. I think this could happen because I think God will “take whatever he can get”, and if someone is going to come closer to him by joining a religion as opposed to not joining it, then he would want them to join it. “Damned” is just another word for “stopped”, and we’re only stopped in our progress, or damned, when we reject truth. As long as joining another religion is an improvement upon the prior condition of the individual, why would it be a bad thing?

The more I converse with people who have left the LDS Church, the more I hear stories that go this way “I was completely active in the Church and thought it was true, but then I learned such and such, and that was too much for me. I can’t believe a prophet of God would do such and such.”

What constitutes “too much to take” most often seems to be related to the policy of polygamy in the LDS Church (100 years ago) and Joseph Smith’s multiple marriages (some to women who were already married). Other less common items include racist comments by Brigham Young and other controversial statements by Church leaders.

For my part, I’m pretty sure I know every available and credible fact about Joseph Smith’s marriage (and plenty of less credible facts as well) and while Smith’s actions give me fuel for plenty of questions, and I can see why his actions would bother people, I still don’t have a problem believing he was a prophet. I think the primary difference  of perspective between those who believe Smith was a prophet (and continued to be until his death) and those who don’t believe, is whether or not they believe Smith’s actions were in accordance with instructions he received from God or not. If they were, then of course there’s nothing wrong with any of it (logically). If he was totally off and acting on his own, then he was deranged and/or a sexual addict on such a level as to make David Letterman blush.

But is there any precedent for such behavior? Certainly there is for polygamy, as there were multiple prophets of the Old Testament who had multiple wives, apparently with God’s sanction. As for taking the wives of other men, there is no recorded precedent I know of, other than David and Bathsheba, which of course was not sanctioned by God. But what about other, perhaps more controversial behavior?

For example, let’s imagine Joseph Smith had gone to the Mormons in Nauvoo and said “God has commanded me to put together an army, go up to Chicago, and destroy the city, including killing all women, children, and animals.” and then they went and did it. Would that be too much for you to take? And yet that appears to be precisely what happened in the Old Testament on more than one occasion, except that the cities that were destroyed weren’t Chicago.

In regards to this topic I enjoy the story of Dan Jones, one of the early converts to the LDS Church, as recorded in “Regional Studies”, Illinois, Boone—My Friends, p.84ff:

Dan Jones was a small, sea-loving Welshman who first became acquainted with the Prophet when the Saints were in Nauvoo. He and the Prophet Joseph became co-owners of the Mississippi steamboat, Maid of Iowa. Dan Jones’ total commitment and complete loyalty endeared him to the Church leaders generally, and to the Prophet specifically. On one occasion the Prophet determined to test the Welshman’s loyalty in an unusual, if not harsh, manner. He went to the wharf where Dan was working on their boat and convincingly portrayed himself in the part of a drunkard. The Prophet never referred to the incident in his own writings, but Dan Jones related the encounter in great detail. Only brief glimpses of the incident are recorded here.

Upon his arrival at the docks the Prophet found Captain Dan Jones busy at work on the deck of their boat. With appropriate staggering, slurs, repetition of phrases, hiccuping and other signs of obvious inebriation, the Prophet attempted to board the Maid of Iowa.

“Boat ahoy, Hallo Come and help me aboard Captain, for I’m afraid to fall off that plank into the river. Now hold fast, steady there all safe. Now Captain [Jones] you see I’m a leedl boozy tonight, been drinking a leedl wine with a friend; but what of that I’m a Prophet if I am drunk; that I am. Well look here Captain, you hold my note, don’t you? Well I have just called to tell you that I don’t mean to pay you a cent of it, that I wont. Now ain’t I an honest man to tell you so? I tell you I never mean to pay you a cent, there now help yourself.”

“You may think I am not a Prophet but I am a Prophet if I am drunk. There I told you what I came for, I wont pay a cent that’s all. Now help me ashore again, I know I’m a Prophet, don’t push me off the plank, or I’ll be a fallen Prophet, if not a drowned Prophet, Ha, Ha, there ashore safe let me go sue, sue away, I tell you I don’t care, good night.”

The Prophet staggered up the bank and away from the wharf toward his home until he met Dr. Willard Richards. After a warm greeting between the Prophet and his personal secretary and friend, the Prophet, very much sober, said,

“Excuse me, Dr. Richards I have played such a joke just now, I am afraid I’ll split my sides laughing; I must tell it you. I have acted the drunken man so natural aboard that Boat that I have made the Captain believe I was really drunk, ha, ha, for he looked as sober as a Judge. Suppose you call on him by and bye, and quiz out of him what he thinks of it; he is an honest man I believe, and if I cant shake him off me, I will make a man of him, let me hear again.”

“Shall I leave him ignorant of the joke?” asked Brother Richards.

The Prophet responded, “If he stumbles at it [the test] you may, but if not you may let him have the benefit of it too.”

Following the instructions of the Prophet, Elder Richards played the part of a sympathetic friend concerned for the welfare of his inebriated associate:

“Good night Captain,” “Good night Doctor, step aboard.” [Richards] [e]nters, puts on a grave face, and draws a long sigh, “Have you seen the Prophet about this evening?”

“He was here about an hour ago.”

“I hear that he has been drinking again! What a pity that such a good man gives way to drink so—great pity. Wonder they let him go about the streets to expose himself; was he very drunk Captain?”

“He had his three sheets in the wind or thereabouts.”

“Well what do you think of it?”

“All I think of it is that if he drinks until doom’s day, he can’t drown that truth which is in him, nor the little that is in me neither. Tis true that I would rather have a sober Prophet, but then if we can’t get a sober one, a drunken Prophet is better than no Prophet at all, so I will hold on to the one we have got, drunken or sober. That’s what I think to do Doctor.”

“Ha, Ha you will not be driven to that Cap[tain]; tis all a joke; the Prophet is as sober as a judge only weighing you.”

“So much the better if any difference, although, every body mind his own business is my motto.”

—————-

Back to my commentary…

Dan Jones didn’t care if Joseph Smith was a drunk. That is, he cared, but it didn’t influence whether he thought Joseph was a prophet or not. Dan Jones had a spiritual confirmation that Joseph was a prophet, and that’s all he needed to know.

That’s kind of how it is for me–I know Joseph Smith was a prophet, so when I learn about his wives and such, the question for me is “Why would God command such a thing?” But I don’t ask it as though God couldn’t have commanded such a thing, I ask it as a matter of idle curiosity. I don’t have a problem accepting that it’s possible, at least in part because I’ve already read much stranger things in the Old Testament. The only difference is that when it’s 3,000 years old then it doesn’t seem as “real” as something that happened much closer to our own time.

So again, how much can Mormons take? If you’d like to share what it was that was too much for you to take and why, or a story about someone you know and what was too much for them, then please do.