Top Ten Anti-Mormon Arguments

[mfbukowski]

Wait a second, your stake presidency wants to teach a bunch of 16-19 year old boys about common anti-mormon claims? Is there not any worry that these boys are impressionable and may actually be hearing some of this stuff for the first time, perhaps even becoming curious about something that they were not curious about before?

Sounds like a rather dangerous fireside to me.

H.

Here's the good news:

They won't do it a second time.

[Tarski]

innoculation effort.

[sunstoned]

It's important to encourage the missionaries to stay away from historical arguments and focus on doctrine. Fanny Alger, DNA, mesoamerican archeology, etc will just get you into trouble and ruin the spirit of the meeting. If they insist on such guff, they are not sincere and don't waste your time.

If I was an investigator I would much rather here these things up front, instead of after I was baptized.

[Mortal Man]

I have been asked to do an hour long presentation for prospective missionaries this coming Sunday evening, and have been asked to provide what I consider to be the "top ten" arguments against the Book of Mormon (and probably Mormonism in general) that missionaries are likely to encounter, together with answers for them.

Hey Consig,

The fact that you would be asked to teach such a class proves what an awesome gospel doctrine teacher you were. Clearly you made a excellent impression with the stake presidency.

I wanted to ask for your opinions on this subject. Not that you have to give a list of ten, but just what you consider to be the arguments heard most often.

The "arguments heard most often" are, IMO, completely different than the "top ten [most effective] arguments" against the Book of Mormon. FAIR has no response to the most difficult issues. Fortunately, the top ten problems with the BoM would not be recognized as such by anyone the missionaries are likely to encounter. To cover any one of the top ten issues, you'd have to spend the entire hour explaining what the problem is.

I like the idea of bringing up answers to the critics arguments, instead of just bringing up the arguments the critics bring up.

This is a good idea. Here is a complete set of answers to cover any possible question that may be asked:

1. Joseph Smith was an ignorant farm boy.

2. Joseph Smith did not own a bible.

3. God can do anything.

4. We haven't dug up all of Central America.

5. We can't know anything without Lehi's DNA.

6. "Translate" has an infinite variety of meanings, as does "horse", "steel" etc.

7. The BoM is not a geography book.

8. The Lord instructed Lehi to keep a detailed account of his history so that Nephi could abridge it onto his Large Plates so that Lucy Harris could be thwarted.

9. Mayans were more concerned with infant baptism than child sacrifice.

10. Moroni was fond of long hikes.

[Senator]

What would be of interest to me, is if you were to present your list of questions to the Stake Presidency, or the person who commissioned you, and asked for their own rebuttals to the arguments.

[Ceeboo]

I have been asked to do an hour long presentation for prospective missionaries this coming Sunday evening, and have been asked to provide what I consider to be the "top ten" arguments against the Book of Mormon (and probably Mormonism in general) that missionaries are likely to encounter, together with answers for them. (Sorry about the run-on sentence.)

I wanted to ask for your opinions on this subject. Not that you have to give a list of ten, but just what you consider to be the arguments heard most often.

The first one that comes to mind is the argument that no new scripture can be added after the Book of the Revelation.

Any other suggestions?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hey ya Consig (Merry Christmas to you and yours )

FWIW (coming from me), I think this is a very bad idea on several levels.

What these fine young folks offer this broken world is passion, smiles, energy, respect, kindness, and a simple offer to share what they believe to be true with anyone willing to listen. This would indeed be altered (possibly destroyed) by the kinds of "information" that is being suggested.

I would guess (partly from personal experience with LDS missionaries in my home) that the majority of the LDS missionaries know very litle of what is being discussed in this thread.

I think it worth noting: The experience I had with the LDS missionaries in my home was a VERY VERY good experience. I can not speak for them but I surely made a few new friends and was able to laugh with, share food with, and spend a few quality moments with two fine young men.

You see, it was the messengers that were so enjoyable (Be careful not to change/alter them)

Just my take.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[PaulBoyerFan]

Here is my list (in no particular order)

1. BOM anachronisms (anything written by David Wright, New Approaches to the BOM, American Apocrypha).

2. BoA problems (including the KEP, interpretation of the facsimiles, the Egyptian fertility God Min in facsimile two, etc., etc.).

3. Blacks and the priesthood

4. Prophets wrong about lots and lots of things (Adam-God being a big one).

5. The way Joseph Smith practiced polygamy (lying to the public and his wife, marrying young girls, marrying other people's wives, way he treated Sarah Pratt, way he convinced women to marry him (promise them eternal life, make them think an angel would kill him), etc., etc.).

6. Kinderhook plates

7. Joseph Smith's treasure seeking activities including his trial in 1826.

8. The way the BOM was translated (face in hat containing a seer stone) and how it was the same method Joseph Smith used to look for buried treasure.

9. The way polygamy was discontinued (the lying and deceit that took place after the manifesto was issued).

10. Changes to the revelations that were required to support Joseph Smith's later theological innovations.

11. The restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood (or lack thereof).

12. The changing first vision accounts, including the fact that very few members ever heard of it until the late 1800s.

13. The temple ceremony being derived from freemasonry rites.

14. Unreliability of spiritual feelings as a way to determine truth.

15. Patriarchal blessings promising people in the 1800s that they would witness the Second Coming.

I better stop, I think it is time for dinner.

Whatever you do, make certain that you only present the critic's argument as a single short sentence followed by ten minutes of apologetic explanations (like the FAIR wiki). A complete analysis that explores the critical arguments in depth may backfire.

You forgot 1a) - Book of Mormon racism

[mbh26]

They won't do it a second time.

Impressionable 16-19 year olds that we must hide the truth from. This is despicable and the best example of brain washing on a large scale that we are seeing. The very way the question was handled is so dishonest that it has caused me to lose more respect for the Church than any difficult question could have. How about, telling them the evidence doesn't fit with the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham but this is why I still believe. That would be a useful talk and is why I have more respect for Consigileri than any member on this board. I wish the Church would do more things like this instead of relying on dishonesty and taking advantage of family relationships to Mf"bully" the members into line. You can believe in spite of the top ten list presented and Consigileri has given us more reasons for that than any other. People like Consigileri should be leading the Church, not people with their fingers in their ears preaching less than the truth often in condescending and coercive manner. That may work well in corporate America where they came from, but you will not always have the luxury of a captive audience to preach and implement your line of BS. People want the truth and rightfully will not accept less than the truth.

Mfbulkowski I still believe the Church could be God's chosen Church. But one thing I know for sure is that inasmuch as the Church is people with policies like you, it is not. It's a dishonest group of people who cannot even bear to hear an inconvenient truth and have resorted to some of the most despicable tactics to keep from having to deal with the difficult questions. Are you just that arrogant that you cannot admit that you do not know? Or are you just more comfortable bending the facts so that it doesn't disturb your own currently comfortable world view? I've seen too many people like you chosen by the Church leaders to implement this Satanic style of gospel and it is why I believe the gospel is true but the Church is not, at least not when your kind are leading it. An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit and I promise you that the fruits of these policies will be very bitter, as if we haven't painfully learned that the hard way already.

The fact that the Church has purposely chosen not to trust those who represent Jesus Christ on a daily basis and under the most difficult circumstances with the full truth is absolutely despicable, manipulative, and wrong.

I don't underestimate these missionaries nearly as much as some of you do. I think they have a right to know and from what I've seen are just as good at finding a reason to maintain faith, hope, and belief as anyone. And a good member of the Church should be able to answer any inconvenient truth with a reason why he still believes.

"Let no man despise thy youth."

[mfbukowski]

What would be of interest to me, is if you were to present your list of questions to the Stake Presidency, or the person who commissioned you, and asked for their own rebuttals to the arguments.

EXCELLENT idea!

[mfbukowski]

Impressionable 16-19 year olds that we must hide the truth from. This is despicable and the best example of brain washing on a large scale that we are seeing. The very way the question was handled is so dishonest that it has caused me to lose more respect for the Church than any difficult question could have. How about, telling them the evidence doesn't fit with the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham but this is why I still believe. That would be a useful talk and is why I have more respect for Consigileri than any member on this board. I wish the Church would do more things like this instead relying on dishonesty and taking advantage of family relationships to Mf"bully" the members into line. You can believe in spite of the top ten list presented and Consigileri has given us more reasons for that than any other. People like Consigileri should be leading the Church, not people with their fingers in their ears preaching less than the truth often in condescending and coercive manner. That may work well in corporate America where they came from, but you will not always have the luxury of a captive audience to preach and implement your line of BS. People want the truth and rightfully will not accept less than the truth.

Mfbulkowski I still believe the Church could be God's chosen Church. But one thing I know for sure is that inasmuch as the Church is people with policies like you, it is not. It's a dishonest group of people who cannot even bear to hear an inconvenient truth and have resorted to some of the most despicable tactics to keep from having to deal with the difficult questions. Are you just that arrogant that you cannot admit that you do not know? Or are you just more comfortable bending the facts so that it doesn't disturb your own currently comfortable world view? I've seen too many people like you chosen by the Church leaders to implement this Satanic style of gospel and it is why I believe the gospel is true but the Church is not, at least not when your kind are leading it. An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit and I promise you that the fruits of these policies will be very bitter, as if we haven't painfully learned that the hard way already.

The fact that the Church has purposely chosen not to trust those who represent Jesus Christ on a daily basis and under the most difficult circumstances with the full truth is absolutely despicable, manipulative, and wrong.

I don't underestimate these missionaries nearly as much as some of you do. I think they have a right to know and from what I've seen are just as good at finding a reason to maintain faith, hope, and belief as anyone. And a good member of the Church should be able to answer any inconvenient truth with a reason why he still believes.

"Let no man despise thy youth."

My goodness!

You don't know me or anything about me. I joined the church after being an atheist student radical with a degree in philosophy from a very large very secular university.

I joined the church at age 30 AFTER all this, because I knew it was true, and found it totally coherent with my philosophy.

Many including most here, are easily led astray by what they hear of totally ridiculous arguments because they do not know how to think clearly about these matters, simply because they have not been trained in how to think.

In fact, I discuss these arguments with all my kids all the time and show them how stupid the arguments are, but WITHOUT HELP and told to impressionable kids- I think it could have disastrous results.

I find it amusing that you think I could bully anybody. The only tools I have to bully with are words, so my arguments must be successful if that is what you think

[Fifth Columnist]

Impressionable 16-19 year olds that we must hide the truth from. This is despicable and the best example of brain washing on a large scale that we are seeing. . .

The problem with the whole idea of inoculation (i.e., telling church members the truth) is that the mortality rate is unacceptably high. The Church knows this and that is why it doesn't say nary a word about these issues to the general membership. If a few people find out the real history and leave the Church then so be it. The Church's responsibility is to the majority of the members.

[mbh26]

The problem with the whole idea of inoculation (i.e., telling church members the truth) is that the mortality rate is unacceptably high. The Church knows this and that is why it doesn't say nary a word about these issues to the general membership. If a few people find out the real history and leave the Church then so be it. The Church's responsibility is to the majority of the members.

How about let's be honest about the history and if a bunch of people leave the Church than so be it. The kingdom will roll forth with one. I see no good coming from the dishonesty. 1/3 the host of heaven was an unacceptably high mortality rate in my view as well. Was Heavenly Father reeling us in with dishonest faith promoting arguments than as well? I sure hope not.

Mfbulkowski I am happy that you are honest with your children. Online your arguments seem to lack the substance and thought that I would expect from an atheist convert. Consigilieri takes on the tough questions. You just seem to belittle people for even asking them. I'll give you a shot. Why don't you answer the top ten questions if you had to give Consigileri's talk. You could answer them for your children could you not? Why not share your knowledge and reasons to believe with the rest of us? I think if you're sending missionaries out to the front lines the least the guys behind the strong office doors at their desks could do is give the best answer they could, and tell the missionaries when to admit that they do not know. Hopefully humbly admitting what they themselves do not know in the process, rather than giving cold stares to those that have the audacity to ask.

[TAO]

mbh, mfb just wants to ensure that the answers have been provided, the critics arguments utterly dissimulate before he provides them to others. Also, missionaries must not gain a spirit of contention... it would be a bad bad thing to educate them in debate.

[Zakuska]

Very good list, especially #10 I would add the amerindians and DNA. (appeals to natural trust of the scientific).

I'd add C14 Worship and a young earth.

[Zakuska]

You forgot 1a) - Book of Mormon racism

You'd have to add Bible Racism as well.

[Zakuska]

9. Mayans were more concerned with infant baptism than child sacrifice.

Reading the OT... one could conclude that Jews were more intrested in Child Sacrifice and burning their kids and leaving them in the Garbage dumps for dogs and vulture to tare.

[mbh26]

mbh, mfb just wants to ensure that the answers have been provided, the critics arguments utterly dissimulate before he provides them to others. Also, missionaries must not gain a spirit of contention... it would be a bad bad thing to educate them in debate.

I can see a lot of benefits to educating them in the truth! If you speak the truth, it really shouldn't matter what the antis are saying. It's the element of truth in their arguments and the element of dishonesty by so many Church members that gives their arguments any weight in the first place.

TAO missionaries need to be educated similar to the way you are. I like the way you take on anti arguments. You answer the toughest questions through the spirit. You take on people that missionaries are told to avoid. You found a way to believe and I have a hunch that nobody has hidden anything from you. I don't see Joseph Smith as wanting to put the Saints in a protective bubble and I can't really see him avoiding questions or refusing to admit he doesn't know in an authoritarian way. Indeed, his answers to the tough questions were what built the Church with the strongest real converts the Church has ever seen. He was young when he gave many of these answers. That's what it means to be a prophet. And I personally believe that many of our young men are just as up to the challenge. That's what they are and that's what many of them are prepared to be right now, PROPHETS!

You can never go wrong with the truth.

[mfbukowski]

How about let's be honest about the history and if a bunch of people leave the Church than so be it. The kingdom will roll forth with one. I see no good coming from the dishonesty. 1/3 the host of heaven was an unacceptably high mortality rate in my view as well. Was Heavenly Father reeling us in with dishonest faith promoting arguments than as well? I sure hope not.

Mfbulkowski I am happy that you are honest with your children. Online your arguments seem to lack the substance and thought that I would expect from an atheist convert. Consigilieri takes on the tough questions. You just seem to belittle people for even asking them. I'll give you a shot. Why don't you answer the top ten questions if you had to give Consigileri's talk. You could answer them for your children could you not? Why not share your knowledge and reasons to believe with the rest of us? I think if you're sending missionaries out to the front lines the least the guys behind the strong office doors at their desks could do is give the best answer they could, and tell the missionaries when to admit that they do not know. Hopefully humbly admitting what they themselves do not know in the process, rather than giving cold stares to those that have the audacity to ask.

Just read the forum. The entire forum is dedicated to answering these questions. I don't want to spend my life re-hashing what has been said a thousand times before.

And I never said I had all the answers. All I have is answers which work for me, and many who agree with me. If you don't agree or think my answers are superficial, find your own answers. You apparently know already that my answers don't work for you, so why bother?

And ultimately for an "atheist convert" the only thing which could possibly work is what works for me, and that is an overwhelming spiritual experience which you would find unimpressive anyway. I am sorry I have threatened you enough to provoke this kind of a reaction, it was not my goal. I am just here to defend my faith and do the best I can at it.

Besides I don't have a list like that anyway, since I personally find anti mormon arguments unpersuasive

[Calm]

I would suggest contacting FAIR as they deal with many emails asking for help with particular issues, they can tell you the ones most asked for as well as provide info that has been collected over the years by their researchers and writers.

Certain FAIR members have also done similar firesides IIRC so they can connect you with those people if that would be helpful.

[mbh26]

All I have is answers which work for me

For our young people going into the mission, that would be better than trying to hide it all from them.

Besides I don't have a list like that anyway, since I personally find anti mormon arguments unpersuasive

No but the concerns that you had in your life experience would be very helpful to share with BIC pre missionaries who had a very different perspective. I still can't believe you're a philosophy graduate. You strike me as the old monk who would hide all the philosophy books in a secret library vault. Maybe I see you that way because you're "defending" your beliefs instead of helping us enlighten each other and find reason to believe they can be true.

[mfbukowski]

For our young people going into the mission, that would be better than trying to hide it all from them.

No but the concerns that you had in your life experience would be very helpful to share with BIC pre missionaries who had a very different perspective. I still can't believe you're a philosophy graduate. You strike me as the old monk who would hide all the philosophy books in a secret library vault. Maybe I see you that way because you're "defending" your beliefs instead of helping us enlighten each other and find reason to believe they can be true.

Look me up on the trailer park if you want to see some philosophical arguments. Nobody talks philosophy over here so I don't get into it much.

There was a thread about postmodernism with Runtu, another called "obscurante terroriste" and a few others

Part of the problem is that one must understand the underlying philosophy before one really understands where I am coming from. It is not likely that I would teach about William James Whitehead and Wittgenstein to pre-missionary kids. That is all is necessary to understand spiritual experience.

[mbh26]

Part of the problem is that one must understand the underlying philosophy before one really understands where I am coming from.

I think I would enjoy learning the underlying philosophy from you much more than the painfully boring Sunday School manuals we are currently subjected to. To me that is what Church should be, a place to learn about philosophy and ultimately about God. You seem to have an amazing history and it's a shame we couldn't dedicate those hours spent in Sunday School/home teaching, etc. learning it. I've heard a lot of believers who are not atheist. An atheist who became a believer seems like something special to me. How do you go from no belief to Mormonism without something bothering you? You must have some struggles you faced along the way that you could share how you overcame.

I think I have misjudged you somewhat and I apologize. But you do seem really "Brigham Young" when you answer some of these questions. I understand when you're at the trailer park, and some people there deserve no more courtesy than you give them. But perhaps you can understand the type of chapel Mormon LDS leaders I have met that I have mistaken you for and why I dislike their style so much. I long to see a leader like Joseph Smith that could take on any question. I long to see an LDS Church that cares about the truth and could care less about the numbers.

I've never really had a single overwhelming spiritual experience. Life for me has always been as a spiritual being having a human experience, whether in or out of the Church. Actually I appreciate the spiritual very much. But for me that never meant lying for the Lord, absolute obedience to the prophet right or wrong, or any of the other political garbage that goes on in every corporate organization.

Not to derail the thread. I still have very strong feelings that the Church should be completely honest with the missionaries. Nothing is more sad for me than to see a missionary saying he knows Joseph Smith had no plural wives only to find out later he was wrong. I wouldn't have cared if he did. I do care that I was lied to.

[Lightbearer]

I have been asked to do an hour long presentation for prospective missionaries this coming Sunday evening, and have been asked to provide what I consider to be the "top ten" arguments against the Book of Mormon (and probably Mormonism in general) that missionaries are likely to encounter, together with answers for them. (Sorry about the run-on sentence.)

I wanted to ask for your opinions on this subject. Not that you have to give a list of ten, but just what you consider to be the arguments heard most often.

The first one that comes to mind is the argument that no new scripture can be added after the Book of the Revelation.

Any other suggestions?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Seems like you had this opportunity a few years ago... but I think it was to the youth in general and not only perspective missionaries. I understand the desire to do a pre-emptive strike... but what is interesting to me is that the Church has always choose to ignore the Anti-Mormon BS for a very important reason. Missionaries are not sent out to teach using logical arguments or conduct apologetic seminars for perspective converts. We are not converting people to apologetics, rather to the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If I were to encourage missionaries it would not to hone their apologetic argument skills, we are not sent forth to argue or contend with people over religion but to help them find the quickest route to the sacred grove... the spiritual conversion that withstands any arguments that Anti-Mormons can muster. D&C 50 would be my starting point in such a Fireside. The means of overcoming objections is to refer them to James 1:5, or Moroni 10:3-5... that is the most effective means of conversion.

[ELF1024]

I think the strongest arguements against Mormonism are also the strongest arguements against God.

If you are religious, there are only two choices... Catholic or LDS. Either the true Church never left, or it's been restored. The Evangelicals have no leg to stand on, as you can't get good fruit from a bad tree.

However, if you discount belief in God... it really doesn't matter.

[consiglieri]

Are you starting from the assumption that "arguments against the Book of Mormon" are Anti-Mormon in the sense that that label is habitually applied - seemingly with an implication of malicious intent?

Not at all.

And I considered that before I made the thread title.

I just put it that way for brevity's sake.

No offense intended.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri