Dumbest of the Dumb Anti-Mormon Arguments

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't know that I would find the following Ether-consistent paraphrase of Ankerberg and Weldon any less absurd:

'One passage, for example, has it that people fled from poisonous snakes pursuing them. When the fleeing people reached a land to the south called Zarahemla, the Lord caused the snakes to stop pursing the people but to bite those people that might later try to leave Zarahemla.'

I find that considerably less absurd.

It strikes me as the kind of sentiment that a religious person, seeking a religious understanding of the event or phenomenon, might express when people were forced to leave an ecosphere characterized by poisonous snakes and were forced to avoid that area thereafter on account of . . . the poisonous snakes.

I know that you're inclined to negativity on such matters, but I think you're really reaching on this one. Try again. You might have better luck next time.

[jwhitlock]

Also, bringing up Ed Decker as an example of how ridiculous the anti-Mormon arguments are is really reaching as he is demonstrably untruthful and clueless, at best.

So, why did so many "Christian" churches show The Godmakers when it came out?

The fact is, a good chunk of fundamentalist and EV Christianity has taken what fast Eddie says at face value - despite the fact that he's a poor source of information. There's no "reaching" there at all; it simply doesn't speak well of the objectivity of a large number of Christians.

[Bsix]

1. The Bible is error free.

This is an antiMormon argument. Latter Day Saint theology that holds that the Bible is correct to the extent to which it has been translated (and transmitted) correctly is regularly attacked by traditional Christians who hold to Bible inerrancy. They claim that Mormonism is wrong because we do not believe the Bible to be 100% inerrent.

2. All scripture has already been given.

This is a classic antiMormon argument. It seeks to dismiss Latter Day scripture by claiming that all scripture has been given -- and therefore Mormonism cannot be true.

3. Jesus is the only high priest.

This is the same logic that is applied to the no-more-scripture argument. I have been told quite often that the restoration is false becase there are no more priets after Jesus.

4. Joesph Smith had a gun and defended himself, his brother, and his friends at his martyr[dom].

This is one of the many attempts to delegitimize Joseph as a true prophet. We recently had a thread where a former believing Mormon declared that this anti Mormon carnard tripped him up.

We need to remember that many antiMormon arguments are simply arguments that seek to exploit preceived differences between Mormons and traditional Christians. When someone uses those differences in attempting to convince others that Mormonism is false...opinions become antiMormon arguments.

If I look at a stout Catholic believer and tell them that they should not vote for Barrack Obama because you oppose abortion rights and he supports abortion rights...I am making an antiBarrack argument.

[Daniel Peterson]

Also, bringing up Ed Decker as an example of how ridiculous the anti-Mormon arguments are is really reaching as he is demonstrably untruthful and clueless, at best. Maybe you acknowledge that there is a big difference between this and "legitimate" points of disagreement.

The title of this thread is "Dumbest of the Dumb Anti-Mormon Arguments," not "Most Representative of the Typical Anti-Mormon Arguments."

It seeks superlatives -- which, in this particular instance, means exceptional stinkers.

[ERMD]

So, why did so many "Christian" churches show The Godmakers when it came out?

The fact is, a good chunk of fundamentalist and EV Christianity has taken what fast Eddie says at face value - despite the fact that he's a poor source of information. There's no "reaching" there at all; it simply doesn't speak well of the objectivity of a large number of Christians.

Very true. The Godmakers still makes the rounds at local churches in my area. My Seminary students come to me from time to time with questions asked by their friends that are obviously taken directly from the septic source itself.

It is truly the Dumbest of the Dumb.

[Thorkyll]

On the thread about CARM's resurgence of the controversy about "adieu" in the Book of Mormon, some have commented on that being the dumbest of the dumb anti-Mormon arguments. Some have opined that criticism about the Book of Mormon mention of Christ being born "at Jerusalem" (the land, not the city) comes close to matching "adieu" in dumbness.

Greg Smith has suggested that the notion of Joseph Smith letting the cat out of the bag because he was listed (for legal reasons) as the author of the Book of Mormon in the first edition takes the supreme prize for anti-Mormon dumbness.

I would be interested in other suggestions. Perhaps between us we could compile a Top 10 Dumbness List for criticisms by anti-Mormons.

The best proof against Mormonism appears in the first few pages of the Book of Mormon.

It's the picture of Jesus teaching at at a Mayan Temple.

Where exactly did Jesus visit in America, anyway?

[3DOP]

Very true. The Godmakers still makes the rounds at local churches in my area. My Seminary students come to me from time to time with questions asked by their friends that are obviously taken directly from the septic source itself.

It is truly the Dumbest of the Dumb.

I am beginning to be persuaded that the problem is that dumber arguments are easier to absorb, bring comfort to the uneasy, and repeat to like-minded individuals than arguments that might have some connection to reality. There is currently an anti-Muslim thread going on over at Catholic Answers which asks the question, "Did Mohammed really exist?" I can't take it over there anymore. It is faith destroying to see why my fellow Catholics are confident in their faith! I need to come over here and see why Mormons think Catholicism wrong. Please, I am losing faith. Attack my Church, please, so I can believe! I am being facetious about losing my faith, but I am serious about how people will uncriticially accept any evidence, however dumb it might be, for why some religion not their own is false. The reason dumb arguments are so widespread is because...well...I'll let someone else draw the conclusion.

[ToGo]

I don't know that I would find the following Ether-consistent paraphrase of Ankerberg and Weldon any less absurd:

'One passage, for example, has it that people fled from poisonous snakes pursuing them. When the fleeing people reached a land to the south called Zarahemla, the Lord caused the snakes to stop pursing the people but to bite those people that might later try to leave Zarahemla.'

I find that considerably less absurd.

It strikes me as the kind of sentiment that a religious person, seeking a religious understanding of the event or phenomenon, might express when people were forced to leave an ecosphere characterized by poisonous snakes and were forced to avoid that area thereafter on account of . . . the poisonous snakes.

I know that you're inclined to negativity on such matters, but I think you're really reaching on this one. Try again. You might have better luck next time.

Emphasis added.

Daniel,

I am wondering, do you consider the snakes to have actually been stopped by the Lord, who also caused them to fell with their poison anyone later trying to leave Zarahemla? or do you consider the passage from Ether 9:31-33 merely to be Moroni, a religious person, assuming the Lord caused the snake phenomenon as a religious person might do with other events?

[jwhitlock]

...septic source itself.

Now there's an accurate way of describing the Deckster.

[Daniel Peterson]

I am wondering, do you consider the snakes to have actually been stopped by the Lord, who also caused them to fell with their poison anyone later trying to leave Zarahemla? or do you consider the passage from Ether 9:31-33 merely to be Moroni, a religious person, assuming the Lord caused the snake phenomenon as a religious person might do with other events?

I see them as two ways of describing the same thing -- neither one of them ridiculous. Compare Moroni's summary of the lesson to be learned from a just-concluded battle with the Lamanites (given in Alma 44:3-4) with the reading of that same battle offered by the Lamanite commander, Zerahemnah (Alma 44:9). Moroni was, in fact, the Nephite strategist whose "cunning" Zerahemnah credited with the victory, and who had caused the armor of which Zerahemnah spoke to be created. But Moroni, a religious man, gave the credit to God. Who was right? Both, in a sense.

The Ankerberg/Weldon summary of Ether 9:31-33, however, was merely ridiculous, and was intended to make the Book of Mormon look ridiculous. It was either deceptive or incompetent. Or some combination of the two.

.

[ToGo]

I see them as two ways of describing the same thing -- neither one of them ridiculous. Compare Moroni's summary of the lesson to be learned from a just-concluded battle with the Lamanites (given in Alma 44:3-4) with the reading of that same battle offered by the Lamanite commander, Zerahemnah (Alma 44:9). Moroni was, in fact, the Nephite strategist whose "cunning" Zerahemnah credited with the victory, and who had caused the armor of which Zerahemnah spoke to be created. But Moroni, a religious man, gave the credit to God. Who was right? Both, in a sense.

The Ankerberg/Weldon summary of Ether 9:31-33, however, was merely ridiculous, and was intended to make the Book of Mormon look ridiculous. It was either deceptive or incompetent. Or some combination of the two.

.

Daniel,

Apart from the context of this thread's title and origins, and the 'absurdity' (or whatever) of the Ankerberg/Weldon summary of Ether 9:31-33, I found your comment ("It strikes me as the kind of sentiment that a religious person, seeking a religious understanding of the event or phenomenon, might express... .") intriguing of itself. I wonder if you think that the Lord really caused the snake phenomenon or only that Moroni projected onto the Lord causation of the snake phenomenon as a way to explain it, given that Moroni was a religious man. The question, I suppose, asks if you think the attribution to the Lord that Moroni ascribed to the snake phenomenon was itself a revelation from the Lord or something having originated in Moroni's mind and soul?

Or much more simply, do you (Daniel) think the Lord told Moroni that He caused the snake phenomenon or Moroni just assumed the Lord had?

[Bsix]

Or much more simply, do you (Daniel) think the Lord told Moroni that He caused the snake phenomenon or Moroni just assumed the Lord had?

I can't speak for Daniel...but if an event in the Book of Mormon is described as having resulted from the action of God...it must be true. Afterall, the Book of Mormon came to us directly through the action of God and his Spirit directed the translation. Hence, I doubt God would inspire and have published a book from him with false accounts of events.

Believeing the story of snakes in the Book of Mormon is no different than believing any of the supernatural events and incidences described in the Bible.

Regards,

Six

[Pappy Fiddle]

I find that considerably less absurd.

It strikes me as the kind of sentiment that a religious person, seeking a religious understanding of the event or phenomenon, might express when people were forced to leave an ecosphere characterized by poisonous snakes and were forced to avoid that area thereafter on account of . . . the poisonous snakes.

I know that you're inclined to negativity on such matters, but I think you're really reaching on this one. Try again. You might have better luck next time.

I assume you mean "try harder to find an antimormon who says something better." I accept this shallange.

A Biologist Looks at the Book of Mormon

by Dr. Thomas Key

http://ex-lds.com/mo...ogist_looks.htm

Anything here, anything, chose something at random and it would beat most of your adieu / at Jerusalem stuff and certainly the poor excuse of an antimormon argument stupidity taking the snakey cake referred to.

Example:

"Ether 9:30-34: ... Fourth, it would not be realistic for sheep to be driven to the south by poisonous snakes, as there are many fewer snakes in the north."

BTW, Key's doctorate is in teaching, not biology. His knowledge of biology comes mostly from catching snakes, rats, etc. as an exterminator after retiring from the classroom. Do not laugh; what are YOU going to do when you get so old nobody wants to hear your lectures?

Pappy

[Pappy Fiddle]

I guess as long as we're speaking of Southern Gentlemen, there's this (happened to a friend of mine on his mission):

Missionary: See, it's right there in your own Bible.

Southern Baptist: (R-r-r-r-r-r-rip) Not any more it's not!

[Pappy Fiddle]

And I dono why it is but you all seem to be overlooking Lance Ferm, the "Sword of Laban".

http://www.truthandgrace.com/Mormon.htm

Take your pick, every single one of these "critiques" are stupider than anything else ever said on the subject.

Try some samples:

http://www.truthandgrace.com/1nephi.htm

Dive into chapter 1

http://www.truthandgrace.com/bom1nephi1.htm

WARNING, cross yourself and mutter before reading this shinola

Pappy

[selek]

The best proof against Mormonism appears in the first few pages of the Book of Mormon.

It's the picture of Jesus teaching at at a Mayan Temple.

Where exactly did Jesus visit in America, anyway?

Thorkyll,

I simply have to ask: Are you positing this argument or simply offering it as an example of the dumbest of the dumb?

In either case, it most certainly qualifies.

[3DOP]

The best proof against Mormonism appears in the first few pages of the Book of Mormon.

It's the picture of Jesus teaching at at a Mayan Temple.

Where exactly did Jesus visit in America, anyway?

Throkyll. Shhhhhh. We non-Mormons have to keep this quiet, otherwise, everyone will find out about this proof that Jesus visited the Americas and taught at the Mayan Temple.

[Thorkyll]

Thorkyll,

I simply have to ask: Are you positing this argument or simply offering it as an example of the dumbest of the dumb?

In either case, it most certainly qualifies.

I'm not positing the picture itself as the argument; I'm referring to the idea that Jesus went to America and taught henotheism to the natives.

[ERMD]

You mean that picture is REAL???

[3DOP]

You mean that picture is REAL???

Do you mean it isn't real? Dodged a bullet that time. Shewwwwww, what a relief!

[Pappy Fiddle]

What about the people on the moon in the Quaker hats? What d'ye spose they would name as the stupidest antimormon argument ever?

[Thorkyll]

You mean that picture is REAL???

Yes, it's a real picture in a real book.

[Radix]

What about the dumb arguement that Joseph did not translate any of the names of the gods correctly in those facsimilies. What do they think Joseph was? A certifed glass looker?

[Zakuska]

What about the people on the moon in the Quaker hats? What d'ye spose they would name as the stupidest antimormon argument ever?

Id forgot about that one.

How about the lady on the moon?

1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

[Zakuska]

Bsix,

Heres one I haven't seen in a while but is making the rounds over on CARM at the moment...

Matt 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

John the Baptist was the last Prophet.