217 replies to this topic

[rpn]

PP brings up a good point.   A missionary's job is to teach of Christ, not to refute arguments.  Telling an investigator that can be an important message, and asking the bishop in a new area to whom he wants the missionaries to refer investigators with anti-type questions to would be a good plan. And learning to teach both out of the bofm AND out of the bible is a good habit to get into.

I do think it important for the missionaries to know that DNA is not the instant absolute they've seen on CSI, and there are explanations for why the presently DNA evidence that isn't consistent won't be the last word.   The real take away message for an investigator is that we believe in all truth and that at some point what we know about science and what we know about God and the plan will be entirely consistent in mortal knowledge, even though presently there may be unanswered questions or even seeming contradiction.

[malkie]

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

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?

[Bsix]

I will also add that my list is in are mostly upper division level Mormon criticisms. The vast majority of objections to Mormonism will not get that deep. Most objections to the Book of Mormon will be:

-- Mormons aren't Christans.

-- Mormons don't believe in the Trinity.

-- Mormons are a cult.

-- I am happy with my religion.

-- Aren't you polygamists?

-- You don't believe in the Bible.

-- You guys are bigots.

-- Religion (especially yours) is a crutch.

-- Mormons are brainwashed.

-- My minister says [fill in the blank].

Most who join the LDS Church, and are at peace with their choice, do so on the basis of faith and the Spirit.

I find it signicant that the "Preach My Gospel" manual does not contain answers to attacks on the Church. We don't get many converts by winning arguments. As such, I am surprised that your Stake President is asking for extra-curricula argumentation to be taught to the prospective missionaries.

Six

[LDSToronto]

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.)

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.

[mfbukowski]

cinepro, on 27 December 2010 - 07:10 PM, said:

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.

As much as it hurt,     I actually gave you a reputation point for this one.

[mfbukowski]

LDSToronto, on 27 December 2010 - 08:16 PM, said:

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]

Quote

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]

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.

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.

Quote

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.

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.

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]

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

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]

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

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]

Quote

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."

Edited by mbh26, 28 December 2010 - 12:44 AM.

[mfbukowski]

Senator, on 27 December 2010 - 09:02 PM, said:

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]

mbh26, on 27 December 2010 - 09:42 PM, said:

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

Edited by mfbukowski, 27 December 2010 - 10:47 PM.

[Fifth Columnist]

mbh26, on 27 December 2010 - 09:42 PM, said:

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]

Fifth Columnist, on 27 December 2010 - 11:16 PM, said:

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]

ERayR, on 27 December 2010 - 05:09 PM, said:

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]

PaulBoyerFan, on 27 December 2010 - 09:27 PM, said:

You forgot 1a) - Book of Mormon racism

You'd have to add Bible Racism as well.