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.

Now, as a first matter, it is my understanding that the author is an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was an employee of the Church Educational System  (CES) for 34 years, and that in writing this book it was the author’s stated intent “to increase faith, not to diminish it.” (Preface, p. ix) Therefore you may be wondering why I’ve put this book in the “anti-Mormon” category. I have read only a little refuting this book, but I have read enough to know that there are others who consider it to be anti-Mormon in nature. I therefore enter upon this exercise with full disclosure of the bias I possess. I am inclined to believe those who have contended against various points of the book are mostly correct. However, having said that, it is now my intent to read the book with as open a mind as possible, seeking only my own conclusions. Perhaps I will reach the end and think the author to be completely disingenuous. Perhaps I will find that those who have claimed he is are quite disingenuous themselves. Whatever the case, I cannot begin this enterprise without my biases, and so the next best thing I can do is disclose them and confront them.

– Joshua Steimle 10 April 2011

Comments from my readings of 10 April 2011
Well, that was quick. I am only in the first paragraph of the first page of the preface, and I am already taking issue with the author when he says “Unfortunately, our adult lessons and discussions at church rarely rise above the seminary level, even though many of our members are well educated. Our discussions are usually an inch deep and a mile wide as they say. We seem to have a lingering desire for simple religion.”

I’ve heard this critique before from various people and with regards to various settings. I’ve heard it said that missionaries trick people into being baptized by presenting a superficial and sanitized version of the LDS Church and its history. I’ve heard it said that the leaders of the Church hide things.

When I hear these types of comments, it seems to me that those making them are starting with the assumption that the Church is not true. They see everything about the Church, Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon through eyes of disbelief. They already feel they possess proof, they are now merely looking for supporting evidence to further buttress their beliefs.

Rather than answer the question fully, I’ll merely refer you to a post where I already have.

Reading on (but still in the first paragraph) I see the author brings up the DNA question. Perhaps I’m missing something, but from what I’ve read, the science behind the experiments that show that Native Americans aren’t related to Jews is pure junk (I’ve already addressed the matter and linked to others who have done a much more detailed job than I). This is not making it easy for me to keep an open mind about this guy. I can’t see why he would include any mention of DNA in his book unless; 1) he were refuting the research, 2) ignorant of the writings of those who have refuted it, or 3) possessed of nefarious intentions.

Ok, it’s becoming clear to me that if it takes me 20 minutes to get through the first page of the book, that it’s going to take me years to complete this post. So I am going to take a somewhat different approach than what I intended, which was to make comments as I went along. Instead, I will read straight through, leaving markers/notes along the way, and then I will go back once I reach the end and summarize what I think are the key points to understand about the book, along with my general interpretation of it. Fair enough?

Comments from my readings of April 15th, 2011

Change of plans again. The more I read, the more I feel I have perhaps approached the reading of this book with too much seriousness, as one who approaches the battlefield expecting to receive many wounds and perhaps die, but who upon meeting his foe face to face sees an old man, barely able to carry his own sword. Such has been my experience reading this book, in that I have found a substantially less convincing work of scholarship than I expected, and while I do plan to read the entire book, I do not think it worth my time to make much of it.

To sum things up, the book takes claims made against Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the LDS Church generally, and puts them altogether in one book, tries to make them sound authoritative, ignores details and evidence contrary to the author’s conclusions, and presents itself to the world. Thus, my plan now is to merely list the familiar anti-Mormon claims the book addresses, and link to other websites that have done a credible job refuting those claims. As for the author’s claim that his intent in writing the book was “to increase faith, not to diminish it,” I say balderdash.

I am going to publish this post, prior to completing the book. As I continue reading, I will add to this list. In creating this list, I am not linking to a comprehensive source of refutations of each point, merely to one website I feel gives a satisfactory answer.

In addition, I may have missed some claim from the book that you would like me to address. If I have done so please bring it up in the comments and I will address it.

• Joseph Smith translation of the Bible does not agree with ancient documents such as the Dead Sea Scrolls
• Joseph Smith copied parts of the Book of Mormon from the Bible
• The papyri from which came the Book of Abraham are common funerary texts
• The facsimiles from the Book of Abraham have nothing to do with what Joseph said they do
• Science and excerpts from the Book of Abraham don’t mix well
• The Kinderhook plates
• Zelph the “white lamanite”
• DNA and the Book of Mormon (lot of stuff here, be prepared)

Ah, dang it. I just stumbled onto this. Rats, everywhere I go these FAIR guys are a few thousand steps ahead of me. Frankly, I don’t see the point in reinventing the wheel, so if you’ve read the book and you’re wondering how in the world there could possibly be an explanation for the points Grant Palmer brings up, just go to that website linked from “this” and it’s all there. If you go through all that and still have questions, by all means let me know.

About two years ago I came across a video on youtube called “The Lost Book of Abraham.” In a period of 1 hour, my faith and belief in the church was utterly shattered and I could no longer believe. It cost me my marriage, my relationship with my children, my relationship with my brother and my sisters. It cost me the relationships with my parents and my friends.

The video can be found here. However, it bears mentioning that the video is made by an organization whose intent is to prevent people from joining the LDS Church and cause its members to leave. In other words, this is a war, and this is an attack by an enemy. Any claim that this is a kind-hearted attempt to inform open-minded persons, or to aid those who might be confused, is as credible a claim as Obama saying he wants to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans. Therefore, it’s probably a good idea, in addition to watching the video, to read the other side’s response to the Lost Book of Abraham Video.

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.