217 replies to this topic

[consiglieri]

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

[Ahab]

consiglieri, on 27 December 2010 - 04:18 PM, said:

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

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

Who came up with that bright idea?

Whoever it was is on to something, I think, and I hope the act of bringing up the answers, as well as how to find the answers, will be the focus of the lesson.

[Jason]

I don't think missionaries should be worrying about possible anti-mormon arguments at all.  What they should be doing is building on commonalities, challenging, and testifying.

[bluebell]

consiglieri, on 27 December 2010 - 04:18 PM, said:

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

That sounds really beneficial.  People are smart. Religious people know that you can't prove that something is from God or not-that God, in some way, has to be the one who does the proving.  

They also want to know though that their concerns are taken seriously and they want their questions answered as much as possible, not ignored or glossed over.  

Besides, missionaries are notorious for coming up with their own answers if someone asks a question they don't have an adequate answer for.  It's better to give them correct information if possible-less mess to clean up later.

[ERMD]

Just curious--who is coordinating this?

[Bsix]

Hmmmmm...do you mean the top ten most effective antiMormon criticisms? (In terms of causing people to leave the Church or not join?) Or, do you mean the top ten most popular/cited arguments made by the critics of the Church?

I think that the most damaging arguments against the Church are bigger, emotional concepts rather than specific

Here are a few of what I sense are some of the most damaging to the Church are (not in any order):

1. Joseph Smith was sexually immoral and engaged in polyandry, polygamy, and pedeophilia. (Mormonism built upon a foundation of self-satisfying sexual philandering.)

2. There is not a single archeological proof for the Book of Mormon. (Plays to logical proof instincts.)

3. Joseph Smith's supposed failed prophesies. (Plays to moralistic sensibilities.)

4. Joseph translating with his face in a hat, peep stones, hunting gold, and other forms of magik. (Makes Mormonism feel strange and cultic)

5. The LDS Church is a controlling cult that dictates the life choices and finances of its members. (Fear of losing freedom and choice.)

6. The LDS Church is racist and homophobic...and intolerant. (How could people who hate be Christians?)

7. The Church has no proof...but rather asks you to trust your emotions to prove it is true. (Are the Mormons deceiving me by manipulating my feelings?)

8. Mormonism, as any religion is not supported by science and reason -- the creation, Adam and Eve, tower of Babel, evolution, parting the red sea, the existence of God, morality, etc. (Just another far-fetched human-created mythology.)

9. Mormonism is a cult that changes its beliefs to bend to social and political pressure. (Polygamy, birth control, blacks in the priesthood, etc.)

10. Consiglieri is a Mormon. (Something to be avoided at all costs.)

Often, these are soft, emotive arguments that are harder to rebut because of the visceral nature of the claim. I find these to be far more powerful than arguing over a doctrinal point.

Edited by Bsix, 27 December 2010 - 04:50 PM.

[ERayR]

Bsix, on 27 December 2010 - 04:45 PM, said:

Hmmmmm...do you mean the top ten most effective antiMormon criticisms? (In terms of causing people to leave the Church or not join?) Or, do you mean the top ten most popular/cited arguments made by the critics of the Church?

I think that the most damaging arguments against the Church are bigger, emotional concepts rather than specific

Here are a few of what I sense are some of the most damaging to the Church are (not in any order):

1. Joseph Smith was sexually immoral and engaged in polyandry, polygamy, and pedeophilia. (Mormonism built upon a foundation of self-satisfying sexual philandering.)

2. There is not a single archeological proof for the Book of Mormon. (Plays to logical proof instincts.)

3. Joseph Smith's supposed failed prophesies. (Plays to moralistic sensibilities.)

4. Joseph translating with his face in a hat, peep stones, hunting gold, and other forms of magik. (Makes Mormonism feel strange and cultic)

5. The LDS Church is a controlling cult that dictates the life choices and finances of its members. (Fear of losing freedom and choice.)

6. The LDS Church is racist and homophobic...and intolerant. (How could people who hate be Christians?)

7. The Church has no proof...but rather asks you to trust your emotions to prove it is true. (Are the Mormons deceiving me by manipulating my feelings?)

8. Mormonism, as any religion is not supported by science and reason -- the creation, Adam and Eve, tower of Babel, evolution, parting the red sea, the existence of God, morality, etc. (Just another far-fetched human-created mythology.)

9. Mormonism is a cult that changes its beliefs to bend to social and political pressure. (Polygamy, birth control, blacks in the priesthood, etc.)

10. Consiglieri is a Mormon. (Something to be avoided at all costs.)

Often, these are soft, emotive arguments that are harder to rebut because of the visceral nature of the claim. I find these to be far more powerful than arguing over a doctrinal point.

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

[Chris Smith]

Ahab, on 27 December 2010 - 04:24 PM, said:

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

Who came up with that bright idea?

Whoever it was is on to something, I think, and I hope the act of bringing up the answers, as well as how to find the answers, will be the focus of the lesson.

As we learn from that great book of scripture Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, answers aren't much good unless you know the questions. Presumably both should be discussed.

[Chris Smith]

Consig, in addition to the ones already mentioned, there is also the Book of Mormon's extensive and anachronistic quotation from the Bible. Good luck with your talk! If you come up with any new insights during the course of your preparation, please come and share them here.

[rpn]

The science doesn't support it ---- horses, steel and Nephi's bow, glass and the brother of Jared, gold plates too heavy to lift, no ruins.

I pray but I don't get an answer (this isn't a anti-argument, but it is a common concern.   The missionaries need to know that investigators who take a while to get a testimony are not bad or lazy or not trying or wicked people, but rather in good company since Brigham took a couple of years).

I would also urge them to learn about the history of Blacks in the Church before they go.  Reading Standing on the Promises by Margaret Young and Darius Gray would be valuable, but the genesis group online has much of it, and since these missionaries were not born in 1978, they also need to read the accounts of the revelation, and specifically Elder McKonkie's disavowal of all his earlier statements (which means you'll have to explain why we no longer quote Mormon Doctrine so much).

Edited by rpn, 27 December 2010 - 05:23 PM.

[Fifth Columnist]

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.

Edited by Fifth Columnist, 27 December 2010 - 05:24 PM.

[consiglieri]

ERMD, on 27 December 2010 - 04:42 PM, said:

Just curious--who is coordinating this?

The stake presidency, to my understanding.

I have been asked to co-teach the class by the former first counselor in the stake presidency.  He is the one who gave me this particular assignment.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Bsix, on 27 December 2010 - 04:45 PM, said:

Often, these are soft, emotive arguments that are harder to rebut because of the visceral nature of the claim. I find these to be far more powerful than arguing over a doctrinal point.

I think I had best stay away from these arguments, as I find myself at least partially in agreement with most of them.



Especially number ten.



All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Chris Smith, on 27 December 2010 - 05:17 PM, said:

Consig, in addition to the ones already mentioned, there is also the Book of Mormon's extensive and anachronistic quotation from the Bible. Good luck with your talk! If you come up with any new insights during the course of your preparation, please come and share them here.

I don't think the stake presidency wants me to talk about the Book of Mormon's soft underbelly, Chris.

I have no answer to this, at least not one that is faith promoting.

But it does give me a good idea, that the first thing I should talk about is just saying you don't know if you don't know.

We think we are supposed to have an answer to every question.

I find that the people asking the questions are usually okay with an upfront and honest, "I don't know."

It's when you give them shaky answers that they start going south.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Fifth Columnist, on 27 December 2010 - 05:22 PM, said:

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.

That's my concern, as well.  But I do think that any argument worth bringing up is worth framing in the most persuasive manner possible, and then exploring it at length.

Stupid idea.

Better go with the single short sentence.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[blackstrap]

Having just recently viewed 2 documentaries,one on the Medici and one on the birth of the English Bible, I wonder why there are so many Catholics  and Anglicans because the history of those religions makes 5ths list look like a drop in the ocean.

By the way,don't forget the MMM.

[Fifth Columnist]

Consig, you are in a tough spot.  You better just stick with faux critical arguments like Adieu at the end of the Book of Jacob and the fact that there have been lots of changes to the text of the BOM.  Maybe you could even throw in the Spaulding theory (ducking if Uncle Dale is around) to give them a little red meat.  There are some decent apologetic arguments to counter those criticisms.

[mfbukowski]

Sounds like someone put the fox in charge of the hen house

[cdowis]

Chris Smith, on 27 December 2010 - 05:15 PM, said:

As we learn from that great book of scripture Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, answers aren't much good unless you know the questions. Presumably both should be discussed.

As usual, you have the cart chasing the donkey.

It's similar to Jeopardy -- first you give a really excellent answer and then let the drooling antis try to think of a question that is worthy of the answer.

Give an good description of the relationship between the Father and Son, for example, expound on John 17:19-21, and then let the anti fumble around for a cogent question.

If I were presenting a fireside to missionaries, I would focus on the answers you give to the antis.  And the antis will oblige later on by giving their stupid questions.

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.

I think the best approach on doctrine issues is to use the BOM to answer the questions in conjunction with the Bible.  Quote from the Book of Mormon, and then quote the corresponding doctrine from the Bible.  Demonstrate how the BOM is a second witness to the bible, clarifying the doctrines.

Above all avoid "black hole" discussions on archeology, Annie Falger, and DNA, etc.  Focus on the BOM as a witness of Christ and his teachings.  If they insist on such guff, refer them to mormon.org and move on to someone else.

Edited by cdowis, 27 December 2010 - 06:11 PM.

[cinepro]

Consig, the best thing to do would be to call as many local missionaries as possible, and email as many others as you know, and ask them what the 3 most common objections they hear are.  Ask them which "anti" subjects they wish they had known more about before going on their missions.

Issues such as polygamy, Masonry/Temple, the Book of Abraham, the translation method of the Book of Mormon, and the Priesthood ban should not be introduced to a bunch of pre-mission 18-year-olds in a fireside format.  If you present any of those issues honestly, it could end badly.  Very, very badly.

At most, I would introduce superficial, easily refuted arguments that will help build up their confidence in the strength of the Church's position and their preparation.  A mission is not the place for nuance, ambiguity, or doubt.

Edited by cinepro, 27 December 2010 - 07:11 PM.