1. The Professional anti-Mormon. These are folks like Jerald and Sandra Tanner who have dedicated their lives to anti-Mormonism as though it were its own religion.

2. The Amateur anti-Mormon. These are the people who attack the Mormon church, but on a part-time basis, when it’s convenient or when they get particularly riled up, but they have day-jobs and lives that aren’t defined by their animosity towards the LDS Church. But make no mistake, these people harbor a lot of negative feelings against the Church and would like to see it taken down.

3. The anti-Everythings. There are some people who aren’t particular about being against the Mormon church, they’re just against a lot of things and the Mormon happen to make the cut. These might be people of another faith who attack all faiths other than their own, or it might be an atheist who attacks all religions.

4. The Peaceful anti-Mormon. It’s almost incorrect to call these people “anti-Mormons”, because they’re not out to take down the Church and they’re not looking for battles. You wouldn’t know they have anything against the LDS Church except that they occasionally get dragged into a conversation that exposes how they feel.

5. The Closet anti-Mormon. This is the person who may not even know how negatively they themselves feel about the LDS Church or some of its doctrines. They might confuse their tactics with an intellectual search for truth, when in fact they have no real intention of an open-minded search for truth but are merely attempting to assert their “intellectual superiority”.

6. The Accidental anti-Mormon. This is the person who is not, in fact, any sort of anti-Mormon, but due to the way in which they have phrased a question or statement appears to be one, and therefore gets labeled as one on this blog. If that’s the case, I apologize.

All of these people may, at one time or another, be labeled as “anti-Mormons” on this website. While it may not be 100% accurate to do so, for the sake of time we must deal with labels that are sometimes incorrect, or risk spending so much time worrying about proper labeling that we ignore the actual points we are trying to debate.

How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They weighed about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. per cubic foot. The plates were 7″ x 8″ by about 6″. See Articles of Faith, by Talmage, page 262, 34th ed.)

I’d love to give my own answer to this, but it’s already been answered by others. Here is a link to the standard LDS response about the weight of the plates, but then I stumbled onto MormonThink.com’s explanation, read the interview with the author, and now I find it more interesting to respond to that page because it brings up an entirely new question the anti-Mormons generally don’t get to because they’re intent on repeating the “they weighed 230 lbs!” bit. The question MormonThink.com brings up is “Ok, so they were 50 lbs instead of 230 lbs, could Joseph Smith have run 3 miles with 50 lbs of golden plates?” and concludes that it’s impossible.

Based on the account, I find MormonThink.com’s answer to be assuming a lot. Here is the account:

“The plates were secreted about three miles from home…Joseph, on coming to them, took them from their secret place, and wrapping them in his linen frock, placed them under his arm and started for home.”

After proceeding a short distance, he thought it would be more safe to leave the road and go through the woods. Traveling some distance after he left the road, he came to a large windfall, and as he was jumping over a log, a man sprang up from behind it, and gave him a heavy blow with a gun. Joseph turned around and knocked him down, then ran at the top of his speed. About half a mile further he was attacked again in the same manner as before; he knocked this man down in like manner as the former, and ran on again; and before he reached home he was assaulted the third time. In striking the last one he dislocated his thumb, which, however, he did not notice until he came within sight of the house, when he threw himself down in the corner of the fence in order to recover his breath. As soon as he was able, he arose and came to the house.” (Lucy Mack Smith, mother of Joseph Smith, in Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, 1853, pp. 104-105; Comp. reprinted edition by Bookcraft Publishers in 1956 under the title History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, pp. 107- 108)

MormonThink.com then asks “How could any man, especially a man that had a slight limp run with a 50 pound weight and avoid capture by three assailants?”

That question doesn’t give me too much pause. Perhaps they weren’t very good runners. Perhaps they also had limps. Perhaps Joseph didn’t have to run full-out for three miles, but was able to stop and rest periodically. Perhaps they couldn’t see well in the dark. Perhaps they were drunk. Perhaps the Lord aided Joseph. The point is, it’s not hard to come up with several reasonable explanations of how Joseph could have avoided capture by these three assailants, despite his own physical limitations and the weight of the plates. Unlikely? Perhaps, but impossible? Hardly.

MormonThink.com’s conclusion seems to be based on the idea that Joseph was running from three men at once, all three of whom were in full possession of their faculties, in broad daylight, through open terrain. Even in those most unfavorable of circumstances you can just say “Well, the Lord must have helped him” and the argument ends right there. Although Joseph makes no such claim, he could have been assisted without even knowing it.

Still, MormonThink at least takes the question a step further than most. I’ll have to peruse his site a bit more when I have a moment.

1. Followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices.

2. Followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

3. A religion or sect that is generally considered to be unorthodox, extremist, or false; “it was a satanic cult”.

4. A system of religious beliefs and rituals.

Do Mormons fit any of these definitions? Certainly Mormons are followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices, but so is everyone else who belongs to a religion, so by this definition of the word “cult” all other Christians would also belong to a cult.

Are Mormons followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader? Mormons certainly do not live outside of conventional society by any stretch, but it could be argued that Mormon beliefs are unorthodox, extremist, and false, and that we have charismatic leaders. But then again, the Jews accused Christ of all those same things. From their viewpoint he was teaching a false religion, and he was certainly unorthodox and extremist, at least from their perspective. Of course he was teaching the same truth the Jews had been taught for millennia by the prophets, but they misunderstood the gospel and therefore didn’t recognize Christ as the Messiah when he came.

Finally, here’s Webster’s definition: A system of religious belief and worship.

So you can smile, yes, Mormons are a cult, and when confronted with this evidence, even Mormons won’t be able to deny it. Of course by this definition Baptists, evangelicals, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and anyone else who belongs to any religion of any sort also belongs to a cult.

It’s one thing to have a factual disagreement. For example, Mormons believe that God has a physical, tangible body. Not a body like ours since his is immortal and ours obviously isn’t, but a body nonetheless. Other Christian religions believe God does not have a tangible, physical body. That’s a factual disagreement that doesn’t require any statements to be taken out of context. It is what it is.

However, anti-Mormons often take words spoken by church leaders (or even simple church members) that appear to contradict official church doctrine and make this their “proof” of the falsity of Mormonism. For example, some anti-Mormons claim that the idea that all Native Americans are descended from the people in the Book of Mormon is LDS Church doctrine. In this they either err purposely or do not understand what constitutes LDS doctrine. Official LDS doctrine does not mean “anything that comes out of the mouth of a Mormon leader” even if that leader is the President of the church, nor does it mean anything published in the official introduction to the Book of Mormon.

On the afore-linked page commenter Tal Bachman takes the words of the late President Gordon B. Hinckley out of context and misinterprets them to mean something completely other than what is quite obvious Pres. Hinckley meant, and then exploits that misunderstanding to show the “weakness” of Mormon apologists. So as to avoid as much as possible the risk of taking Bachman out of context, here is a large excerpt from his comments:

Our first example is from Pres. Hinckley himself, made in the course of defending the BOM by “arguing” or at least stating that the BOM can be known to be true ultimately through the Holy Ghost. This is from “The Four Cornerstones of Faith”, Ensign, Feb. 2004, page three. I’ll break up the excerpt into three statements:

S1.) “The evidence for its truth, for its validity in a world that is prone to demand evidence, lies not in archaeology or anthropology, though these may be helpful to some.”

S2.) “It lies not in word research or historical analysis, though these may be confirmatory…”

S3.) “Those who have read it prayerfully have come to know by a power beyond their natural senses that it is true”.

As I said, this at first glance all appears rather unobjectionable. But if we examine it closely, certain puzzling questions arise.

Re: S1.): For example, if, as GBH says, evidence for the BOM’s validity “lies not” in archaelogy or anthropology (a categorical statement), on what conceivable grounds could archaeology and anthropology ever be “helpful” as a tool for supporting the BOM’s validity? How really could “no evidence” be “helpful”?

Re: S2.) If, as GBH says secondly, evidence “lies not” in “word research or historical analysis” (another categorical statement), on what conceivable grounds could “w.r. and h.a.” EVER be thought to be “confirmatory” in any way? That doesn’t seem to make any logical sense at all, at least on its face. If there is “no evidence” there, how can those disciplines “confirm” ANYTHING about the BOM? (“Confirmatory” is a strong word after all. And GBH is a lifetime printer, so he must know what it means. He even knew what the word “callow” meant, remember?).

(I’ll leave S3 for later).

So, if we focus on these puzzling remarks, and try to see beyond their logical inconsistencies to what GBH really might mean, I suggest that we will end up with the following formulations:

P1.) Sometimes disciplines and methodologies produce evidence which appears to support the BOM’s claims;
P2.) What that is the case, these disciplines are “helpful” and even “confirmatory”;
C.) Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the BOM is true.

And

P1a.) Sometimes disciplines and methodologies produce evidence which appears NOT to support the BOM’s claims;
P2b.) When that is the case, the evidence “lies not” in these disciplines or methodologies;
Cb.) Therefore, there is no reason to doubt that the BOM is true.

If we focus on these syllogisms and try to reduce them further, we get this:

For all intents and purposes,

E1.) Whatever evidence confirms my BOM belief exists (or counts);
E2.) Whatever “evidence” disconfirms my BOM belief does not exist (or does not count).

And if we reduce this down as far as we can, we get:

R.) Everything confirms what I believe.

Pres. Hinckley’s remarks to me appear to be an attempt at a particular argument for belief in the BOM (see the P series above). Fundamentally, however, those statements boil down to R. They might even be boiled down to one simple word: “believe”. Examined closely, his remarks appear very much like those I described initially: they appear to be a statement about objective reality; but upon examination, do not actually acknowledge, abide by, exist within, the parameters of objective reality. As such, his remarks (or “arguments”) do not constitute anything like a valid argument at all – they undermine themselves. Every sentence turns out to be a tautology, each imbued with a tacit claim of authority, each appearing to countenance objective reality, while in the end merely conscripting whatever facet of reality into the effort to maintain a particular psychological state. Objective reality, supposedly the thing sought for, turns out to be a wholly malleable construct at the whim of the holder of the particular psychological state, not to be acknowledged on its own terms or “deferred” to at all. At best, indications of it are gobbled up as fuel for the state; at worst, it is degraded and disdained altogether.

Pres. Hinckley’s comments so far seem to me, when boiled down, to comprise nothing more than an authoritarian tautology only justifying or endorsing a certain psychological state. That is it. In that sense, since it turns out not to be what it is supposed to be, it undermines itself.

Right off the bat Bachman misinterprets Hinckley’s words when he says that Hinckley is contradicting himself. Obviously Hinckley is saying that there are different sorts of evidence. There is supporting evidence which, by itself, is not enough to prove anything although it may support a given hypothesis, and there is evidence that proves a hypothesis rendering it no longer a hypothesis, but a fact. Archeology, anthropology, word research, and historical analysis may confirm, they may support, they may be of temporary help while someone is developing a more sure testimony, but even if we were discover a thousand pieces of such evidence to support the Book of Mormon, it would not be enough to prove the Book of Mormon is true. The only sure way to know if the Book of Mormon is true is through the “power” Hinckley alludes to. There is no logical inconsistency in Hinckley’s words. They’re perfectly understandable and simple unless they are twisted to mean something different than what Hinckley meant by them. Everything that Bachman assumes after making his initial mistake is based on his first assumption and therefore is rendered equally incorrect.

One of the more visible anti-Mormon resources online is the CARM.org website, which has a fairly extensive section dedicated to proving that Mormonism is false. However, I recently found a factual inaccuracy on the site and have had an interesting email dialog with one of the people responsible for the content on the site. Through this conversation it has become clear that all the content on CARM.org is suspect as to its factual accuracy, let alone the contextual accuracy. I expect those who are anti-Mormons to not portray facts accurately due to contextual issues–it is difficult to not do this and it is, in a sense, excusable. However, in this case CARM made a statement regarding a belief of members of the LDS Church which simply isn’t true. I contacted CARM thinking that once they understood the facts, they would be all too glad to modify the content on the website since being accurate helps them to be more credible. Creating or perpetuating inaccuracies, even unintentionally, creates the perception that CARM is not interested in the facts, but is more interested in discrediting other religions with whatever information can be used to that end, whether or not the information is correct.

But in contacting CARM I found that they were not interested in modifying the content on their site, but argued with me about what my church really believes. The sole reference they gave me for what they put on their site was a single quote, made almost 30 years ago, and taken completely out of context. Although there was no official LDS Church statement on the matter, it would be clear to anyone willing to look at church policies that the church’s position is directly opposite to what CARM was implying. I made this case to CARM clearly, but their position was “If the LDS Church doesn’t have an official statement, then it’s not incorrect for us to say what the church believes.” On the contrary, I pointed out, it is incorrect to say the LDS Church or its members believe something if they’ve made no such statement saying that they believe it, and especially when all related evidence points to the contrary.

It was a long and often frustrating exchange, in which I felt I wasn’t dealing so much with logic but emotion. It appears that CARM truly is not interested in portraying the facts, but rather in discrediting other religions. And if they can find something that appears to discredit another religion or put them in a negative light, they will use it, whether or not it is accurate, and in some cases it would appear they will go so far as to state what another religion believes if that religion has no official statement to the contrary.

In light of this, I’m not sure how any of the content on CARM’s website can be trusted to be accurate, even when referenced, since references are generally quotes and quotes can often be taken out of context and misconstrued to create a story that isn’t true. If you prefer to read the entire email exchange verbatim to see what I’m talking about, I’ve already linked to it above but here’s another link to it and you can judge for yourself.

But hey, give it your best shot. If you don’t believe Joseph Smith was a prophet who translated the Book of Mormon from ancient plates with God’s help, where do you think the book came from?

Unfortunately, it seems that while I enjoy logical debate, most anti-Mormons are in favor of the heated, emotional argument, and that their intent is to prove a point rather than to arrive at a better understanding of the truth. Here is an email exchange between myself and an anti-Mormon regarding some content he had posted on his website about Mormon beliefs which I informed him was incorrect. I’ll post my emails in bold and his in italics.

Regarding the sentence “The preexistence spirits come down and inhabit babies at the time of birth and their memories of the preexistence are lost at the time.” at http://www.carm.org/lds/mormon_beliefs.htm, there are a few inaccuracies.

1. The commonly held belief among Mormons is that life begins (or spirits enter the body) at conception. Although I can find no LDS Church statement regarding this, I can most definitely say that is in error to state that Mormons believe that “spirits come down and inhabit babies at the time of birth”. If anything, Mormons claim not to know and therefore err on the side of believing that life begins at conception. But after 30 years in the Mormon church I’ve never heard it taught that spirits inhabit babies at the time of birth. The only mention I can remember of the subject is that one prophet once said something to the effect of when a mother feels life within her then the spirit is there.

2. Mormons refer to life before this was as the “pre-mortal existence” since “pre-existence” doesn’t really make sense. However, a LOT of Mormons accidentally say “pre-existence”.

3. Mormons don’t believe that the memories are lost, per se, but rather hidden, although I suppose you could argue that this is a minor point and why quibble about it?

I think a more correct way to rewrite this sentence while still preserving the original intent would be to say “The spirits come down, receive bodies, and memories of the pre-mortal existence are hidden.”

Joshua,

Thank you for writing to the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (www.carm.org)

Marion G. Romney, “We Are Children of God,” (Ensign, Sep 1984)

From this scripture we learn that we were to come to earth for a purpose, and the purpose was to be proved, to be tested, to see if we would do what the Lord instructs us to do. In being born into this world as human souls, our spirits—which are the offspring of God—enter into our bodies, which are the offspring of our mortal parents; at death the spirit and the body are separated. That’s all death is, a separation of the spirit and the body. The body returns in time to the dust or earth matter, and the spirit goes to the spirit world. When we are resurrected, the spirit reenters the body, and each of us will become a soul again, our spirit and body never again to be separated. “And the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul.” (D&C 88:16.)”

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=90a105481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Please read this verse: “The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him,” Zech 12:1.

According to the Bible the spirit of man first comes into exsistence within the fetus. It is created by God.

I hope that this helps you to understand about when a spirit begins life in the womb.

In Jesus,

Matt Paulson

CARM

I guess it could be debated, but I don’t think it was Marion G. Romney’s intent to make a statement about exactly when the spirit enters the body. The topic of abortion wasn’t as controversial then as it is now, so I don’t think he would have been watching his words to see how they would be interpreted in light of today’s perspective on the matter. Since he wasn’t making a statement on specifically when the spirit enters the body, I think it would only be safe to interpret “in being born” as meaning any part of the process of being born, from conception to birth, and to say anything further would be to put words in his mouth that we can’t be sure he meant.

Furthermore, since LDS doctrine clearly states that a “soul” is made of the spirit and body combined, you could argue that Romney is stating that the spirit and body are already combined prior to birth when he says “born into this world as human souls,” as though the formation of the soul (body + spirit) had already occurred. I don’t believe this was his intent either, I’m just pointing out that this quote probably isn’t a very good one for determining what Mormons believe about when life begins.

– Joshua

You said, “I guess it could be debated, but I don’t think it was Marion G. Romney’s intent to make a statement about exactly when the spirit enters the body.”

MATTS RESPONSE: If a fetus was not life or a human being, then there is no harm in destroying that biological tissue. However, if the fetus is a “person” then it must have value, ere go, a spirit. That is why taking innocent life is an evil act. If you don’t believe me, believe your church:

Russell M. Nelson, “Reverence for Life,” Ensign, May 1985, 11:

It is not a question of when “meaningful life” begins or when the spirit “quickens” the body. In the biological sciences, it is known that life begins when two germ cells unite to become one cell, bringing together twenty-three chromosomes from both the father and from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. The onset of life is not a debatable issue, but a fact of science. Approximately twenty-two days after the two cells have united, a little heart begins to beat. At twenty-six days the circulation of blood begins. 9

Scripture declares that the “life of the flesh is in the blood.” (Lev. 17:11.) Abortion sheds that innocent blood. Another excuse some use to justify abortion relates to population control. Many in developing nations unknowingly ascribe their lack of prosperity to overpopulation. While they grovel in ignorance of God and his commandments, they may worship objects of their own creation (or nothing at all), while unsuccessfully attempting to limit their population by the rampant practice of abortion. They live in squalor, oblivious to the divine teaching—stated in the scriptures not once, but thirty-four times—that people will prosper in the land only if they obey the commandments of God. 10 How can God fulfill his promise to prosper his children in obedience if they worship idols or destroy life created by him—destined to be in his very image? They will prosper only when their education includes faith in and obedience to the God of this world, who said,

“I, the Lord, … built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine. And it is my purpose to provide. … But it must needs be done in mine own way. … For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare.” (D&C 104:14–17; italics added.) Now, as a servant of the Lord, I dutifully warn those who advocate and practice abortion that they incur the wrath of Almighty God, who declared, “If men … hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, … he shall be surely punished.” (Ex. 21:22.) Of those who shed innocent blood, a prophet declared: “The judgments which [God] shall exercise … in his wrath [shall] be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.” (Alma 14:11). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has consistently opposed the practice of abortion. One hundred years ago the First Presidency wrote: “And we again take this opportunity of warning the Latter-day Saints against those … practices of foeticide and infanticide.” 11 Early in his presidency, our beloved President Spencer W. Kimball said, “We decry abortions and ask our people to refrain from this serious transgression.” 12 Why destroy a life that could bring such joy to others? Now, is there hope for those who have so sinned without full understanding, who now suffer heartbreak? Yes. So far as is known, the Lord does not regard this transgression as murder. And “as far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.” 13 Gratefully, we know the Lord will help all who are truly repentant. Yes, life is precious! No one can cuddle a cherished newborn baby, look into those beautiful eyes, feel the little fingers, and caress that miraculous creation without deepening reverence for life and for our Creator. Life comes from life. It is a gift from our Heavenly Father. It is eternal, as he is eternal. Innocent life is not sent by him to be destroyed! This doctrine is not of me, but is that of the living God and of his divine Son, which I testify in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=c79b8949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

You seem to be trying to convince me that life begins at conception. Do you understand that this is what I already believe, and my intent has been to convince you that most Mormons already believe this?

- Joshua

You said, “The commonly held belief among Mormons is that life begins (or spirits enter the body) at conception. Although I can find no LDS Church statement regarding this, I can most definitely say that is in error to state that Mormons believe that “spirits come down and inhabit babies at the time of birth”. If anything, Mormons claim not to know and therefore err on the side of believing that life begins at conception. But after 30 years in the Mormon church I’ve never heard it taught that spirits inhabit babies at the time of birth. The only mention I can remember of the subject is that one prophet once said something to the effect of when a mother feels life within her then the spirit is there.”

MATTS RESPONSE: Then, do you withdraw this accertion that CARM is inaccurate?

In Jesus,

Matt Paulson

CARM

But the CARM site says “The preexistence spirits come down and inhabit babies at the time of birth and their memories of the preexistence are lost at the time.” which makes it sounds like you’re saying that Mormons believe that the spirit doesn’t enter the body until the moment of birth, i.e. nine months after conception. This is not an accurate statement of what Mormons believe and to say so would be to either create or perpetuate a misconception about Mormon beliefs. The most accurate portrayal of Mormon belief would be to say that the LDS Church has no official stance, but most Mormons believe that life begins as conception and the LDS Church’s other policies related to abortion are in harmony with that belief.

– Joshua

Joshua,

You said, “The most accurate portrayal of Mormon belief would be to say that the LDS Church has no official stance but most Mormons believe that life begins as conception….”

MATTS RESPONSE: You said that LDS have no dogmatic statement on when the spirit comes into a fetus, right? We just know that the pre-existing spirit comes into a fetus sometime during the first 9 months of the pregancy, right? CARM has made the assumption that the LDS spirit enters in at birth and that idea which falls within the range of truth. Why should you even care about a doctrine the LDS has not made it clear in modern revelation? CARM is accurate.

I hope you come to see the truth.

In Jesus,

Matt Paulson

CARM

To say that Mormons believe the spirit enters the body at the moment of birth is not accurate. This has never been taught as LDS doctrine and therefore your statement saying that it is a church doctrine or a belief of the church members is inaccurate. Everything the LDS Church teaches is in line with the idea that life begins at conception, but your statement would lead people to think that Mormons believe otherwise. I care because I don’t want people having the misconception that Mormons are ok with abortion when we’re vehemently opposed to it.

– Joshua

You said, “The most accurate portrayal of Mormon belief would be to say that the LDS Church has no official stance.”

How can we be wrong about a doctrine that has not been make official or that has been clarified?

MP

By saying that there is a doctrine.

– Joshua

A doctrine undefined by a religious group cannot be false or in error.

Think about it.

-Matt

What I hear you saying is that if person A says that person B believes fact A when person B has never said they believe fact A, that person A is correct. That’s like me saying that all evangelicals believe in bombing the planet Mars with rockets filled with penguins. Is there any statement by evangelicals to the contrary? If you can’t show me an official statement by evangelicals saying anything to the contrary then I’m not in error to publish such a thing, right?

— Joshua

Joshua,

You are not making logical conclusions. Think about this.

Do Mormons believe that pre-existent spirit enter into the fetus? Yes. That is official, right?

Is it true that the LDS Church has no official position on WHEN the spirit enters the fetus? If not, tell me how we are wrong for saying it happens at birth??? You cannot.

Thus, you cannot fault us for saying the spirit enters at birth. You cannot say that is in error because there is no official LDS position.

We have had that information posted on the Internet for 10 years and you are the first to ask about it.

BTW…if this issue makes you think we are dishonest, then you need to read my book “Breaking the Mormon Code” (www.breakingthemormoncode.com) see how BYU professors are dishonest. BYU twists history, and abuses the Early Church Fathers in attempt to make them teach Mormonism. I have 900 footnotes that prove without a shadow of a doubt that Mormon scholarship is dishonest in discussions on Christian doctrine.

I hope and pray you see the truth.

In Jesus,

Matt Paulson

CARM

You are incorrect in saying that Mormons believe the spirit enters the body at birth because the LDS Church has never said any such thing, nor do you have any statistical evidence to show that any percentage of members of the church believe such a thing. To say somebody believes something when they haven’t said they do believe such a thing is to make an assumption. But you do not present your assumption as an assumption, you present it as a fact, thus the obligation is on you to prove that this is the church’s official stance, since you are saying it is. If it is not the church’s official stance, then you are incorrect to imply that it is.

You are putting words in the church’s mouth, so to speak. You are saying Mormons believe something when you have no evidence to support your statement, other than that there is no official statement to the contrary. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence to support the idea that the LDS Church and its members believe the spirit enters the body at conception, which is the opposite of what you are claiming the church and its members believe.

– Joshua

You said, “You are putting words in the church’s mouth, so to speak. You are saying Mormons believe something when you have no evidence to support your statement…”

MATTS RESPONSE: I will recommend a change to CARM if you can prove that any of the LDS leadership has stated anything about when the spirit enters the fetus.

MP

I would think you wouldn’t want to make statements on your website about what a religion believes unless you could find an official source since it damages the credibility of the site. If you’ve made this up, how am I supposed to know that anything on the CARM website is accurate? It calls all the content on the entire site into question.

– Joshua