Top Ten Anti-Mormon Arguments

[LDSToronto]

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.

mfb, what is the trailer park? PM me if it's not appropriate for this thread.

H.

[consiglieri]

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.

All in favor, please manifest by the usual sign . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Ceeboo]

All in favor, please manifest by the usual sign . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Ceeboo sustains!

Imagine, Consig leads the LDS church (Awesome!)

Perhaps a Ceeboo TR is on the horizon.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Lachonius]

In all of this, remember the likely depth, or lack thereof, of knowledge these young people probably have. Even after four years of seminary, I could count on one hand the number of students who had actually read the BoM, and there were fewer still who had read any of the other Standard Works. They have received anecdotes and quotes throughout their lives, but in-depth study is indeed rare in the Church. I liked a lot of 5th Columnist's list of points to discuss, though most of them never came up until my own studies well after the mission. Adam-God was the only one that was front and center. Also, if you're supposed to discuss 10 items, that sounds like about 3 minutes per topic, so short and sweet.

[cinepro]

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.

For the most part, that is true. But there are certain situations where missionaries should have at least a base familiarity with arguments against the Church's claims.

I served my mission in the pre-internet Bible-belt, and even there it was pretty rare to encounter "Anti-Mormon BS". Maybe once a month, we'd find someone who had read "Kingdom of the Cults" or something like that. Every once in a while, we'd teach someone who would later hear Anti-Mormon claims from a friend or family member. But it was usually the standard Anti-Mormon stuff like "Revelations says don't add to the Bible" that we could at least try to explain.

But now, in the internet age, I would be surprised if there is a single investigator that doesn't Google "Mormon Church" before the second discussion if they are at all interested in the Church. Not out of a desire to find negative stuff, but just because that is the way we learn more about things in this day and age. And when you Google "Mormon Church", you get a lot of positive links about the Church, but eventually you hit the negative stuff. So it isn't unreasonable to assume that missionaries will now encounter many more investigators who are sincere truth seekers, but have questions about Church history, doctrine and policies based on what they have read on the internet.

But even if that is the case, I'm not sure that a pre-mission fireside is the best place to prepare them for those issues. The traditional way for missionaries to learn is from experience. They'll learn stuff from their senior companions, and from asking their leaders and other missionaries. Sure, much of the stuff they might learn from other missionaries won't be "true" (i.e. they're probably still talking about Quetzalcoatl=Jesus), but it's usually good enough to help someone feel better.

[Ahab]

For the most part, that is true. But there are certain situations where missionaries should have at least a base familiarity with arguments against the Church's claims.

I served my mission in the pre-internet Bible-belt, and even there it was pretty rare to encounter "Anti-Mormon BS". Maybe once a month, we'd find someone who had read "Kingdom of the Cults" or something like that. Every once in a while, we'd teach someone who would later hear Anti-Mormon claims from a friend or family member. But it was usually the standard Anti-Mormon stuff like "Revelations says don't add to the Bible" that we could at least try to explain.

But now, in the internet age, I would be surprised if there is a single investigator that doesn't Google "Mormon Church" before the second discussion if they are at all interested in the Church. Not out of a desire to find negative stuff, but just because that is the way we learn more about things in this day and age. And when you Google "Mormon Church", you get a lot of positive links about the Church, but eventually you hit the negative stuff. So it isn't unreasonable to assume that missionaries will now encounter many more investigators who are sincere truth seekers, but have questions about Church history, doctrine and policies based on what they have read on the internet.

But even if that is the case, I'm not sure that a pre-mission fireside is the best place to prepare them for those issues. The traditional way for missionaries to learn is from experience. They'll learn stuff from their senior companions, and from asking their leaders and other missionaries. Sure, much of the stuff they might learn from other missionaries won't be "true" (i.e. they're probably still talking about Quetzalcoatl=Jesus), but it's usually good enough to help someone feel better.

Some good points there, and since most of the answers to the questions everyone has about the Church have already been answered to the satisfaction of everyone who relies on the Holy Spirit as their guide to confirm the truth to them, rather than allowing themselves to be swayed by peer pressure, it's also worth noting that it wouldn't take much effort at all to equip everyone with what they need to find all of the answers they will ever need to respond to every question.

[oats]

One of the big anti arguments in California was that we shouldn't pray to know the truth.

Surprisingly enough this argument was promoted by the mainstream Christian camp. The Christian radio station we listened to told people not to pray to find if something was true, that their answer would be in the Bible. The pastors told their congregations to not pray, to avoid the invitations of Mormon missionaries. We encountered lots of youth and adults who argued about the need to pray to find truth.

A lot of churches taught this in some way. It's a good topic because there are very clear scripture references in the Holy Bible and Book of Mormon that clarify our beliefs. It can be covered in a talk without the need to explain the problem. It's also a personal experience many 16-18 year olds can relate.

[TAO]

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.

That is true... but at the same time, it must be brought on slowly... and in a manner that doesn't cause contention. One of the dangers I have with dealing with anti-arguments is sometimes I get a bit prideful, and when I do, I have to back down a bit to the basics. It is extremely important that the missionaries don't get lost in 'counter-arguing', because that's when the spirit of contention creeps into things.

Another thing that's really important before teaching counter-anti is that the person must have a testimony. Sometimes you run into anti-arguments you've never heard of before. At those points, your testimony is your greatest friend, and testimony is based on the small and simple points of the gospel. If they don't have a testimony, they will get lost if someone gives them something they haven't heard of before.

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.

mbh, those are very nice compliments... but I am afraid I am not as strong as you think I am. I just don't voice it alot. Really... the only reason I take on anti-arguments is so others don't have to... it's so people can be comfortable with the gospel, because they know the answers are there. I try and answers tough questions through the spirit, but sometimes I get awfully lost, and it becomes hugely messy sometimes. Great is the person who has trusted in God from the moment they first knew him, I have not been that pure, unfortunately. It is a struggle for me.

I do agree, missionaries need to be aware of the anti-arguments... but I think, the way we tell them to respond to them needs to be gospel-centering. It needs to get them focused on their mission, that is spreading the love and blessings of Christ. If we do provide them with counters, they need to point missionaries towards humility and trust in God. They must not lose their selves in history, for that would be disastrous for our father.

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!

I think your right, I don't think he intended to put the saints behind a bubble. But at the same time, I also know he didn't intend to have them focus on the things of the world. The debate, especially the stuff that goes on at MD, is the stuff of the world, it is polluted, it is untrusting of God. They must not be lost in that. We need to provide the answers to them for those who are truly willing to open themselves, not to those who just want to argue, for only the humble will turn. So while I agree, they perhaps should be taught, it needs to be for those to whom the questions really matter, to those struggling, who are in desire of help, to those of whom the answers will make a difference. THOSE are the people the answers should be taught for. And taught they should be =).

You can never go wrong with the truth.

Agreed, you can never be to close to the iron rod, that you can't =D.

And I agree, something should be taught to deal with the initial shock. I am glad that the members in my ward aren't too hesitant to talk about touchy subjects (the ones that aren't relating to very spiritual things).

[Bsix]

For all the complaining that the LDS Church is wimping out by NOT teaching Mormon missionaries antiMormon propaganda...it should be noted that Consig was NOT asked to prep the prospective missionaries in his Stake in oppositional arguments in attacking other religions -- top ten arguments against Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism...etc.

No..the missionaries are being given tools and facts to answer our critics...not attack them.

Can you imagine Evangelical missionary preparations that would not include training in antiMormon propaganda?

Remember the denomination wide antiMormon training the Southern Baptists got from their Church prior to their convention in Salt Lake City.

I think it says a lot that we are NOT training our missionaries in how to discredit other religions. We share our beliefs and invite others to consider our beliefs. We do attempt to convert...but generally do it by affirmation not by attacking.

Six

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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 the same God would use different words for different Nations, even thought they are his words in the first person.

[jadams_4242]

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

maybe presenting anyones idea of the top ten arguements is for the puopse of actually requiring these missionaries to take a deep look inward while contemplating and preparing for a mission?

[Vance]

Remember the denomination wide antiMormon training the Southern Baptists got from their Church prior to their convention in Salt Lake City.

How did that work out for them?

[mfbukowski]

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.

I agree.

No argument can convert anyone. Logical arguments are only useful against other arguments, but the spirit cannot be found in arguments, and the spirit is what is required to convert.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Well thank you for the compliments, which frankly I find kind of embarrassing. I am not saying I can answer "any question"- and certainly what I find to be answers may not work for everyone, but they work for me.

I apologize if I have been offensive, but I tend to respond with a shotgun when a single bb might be appropriate.

We can take this to PM or email if you like- I am always available to help if I can.

[wenglund]

...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."...

--Consiglieri

Excellent idea!

I might also add that we often think all questions are pertinent to the intents and purpose of the gospel, whereas to me the vast majority, if not all, of the so-called anti-Mormon questions I am aware of, aren't directly relevant. And, by addressing such questions as if they are relevant, may inadvertantly reinforce that false notion.

As such, I think it may be helpful to, as others have suggested, teach the potential missionaries how to effectively stay on message and not get sucked into the argumentational morass of gospel irrelevancies.

One technique I have found useful in that regard is to respond to so-called anti-Mormon questions by saying: "That is an intersting question. How will my answering it help you in determining if the restored gospel of Christ is of God and best suited to bring you to Christ and enable you to become more like him?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

[delete dup]

[Mortal Man]

I long to see a leader like Joseph Smith that could take on any question.

The church had another leader like that once.

"The fact should be recognized by the Latter-day Saints that the Book of Mormon of necessity must submit to every test, to literary criticism, as well as to every other class of criticism; for our age is above all things critical, and especially critical of sacred literature, and we may not hope that the Book of Mormon will escape closest scrutiny; neither, indeed, is it desirable that it should escape. It is given to the world as a revelation from God. It is a volume of American scripture. Men have a right to test it by the keenest criticism, and to pass severest judgment upon it, and we who accept it as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater shall be its ultimate triumph. Here it is in the world; let the world make the most of it, or the least of it. It is and will remain true. But it will not do for those who believe it to suppose that they can dismiss objections to this American volume of scripture by the assumption of a lofty air of superiority, and a declaration as to what is enough for us or anybody else to know. The Book of Mormon is presented to the world for its acceptance; and the Latter-day Saints are anxious that their fellow men should believe it. If objections are made to it, to the manner of its translation, with the rest, these objections should be patiently investigated, and the most reasonable explanations possible, given." B.H. Roberts, "Translation of the Book of Mormon," Improvement Era, 1906, Vol. Ix. March, 1906. No. 5.

[mfbukowski]

All in favor, please manifest by the usual sign . . .

You forgot the rest....

THOSE OPPOSED, by the same sign....

[Ahab]

You forgot the rest....

THOSE OPPOSED, by the same sign....

I'll vote first:

Next, please.

[Ahab]

I agree.

No argument can convert anyone. Logical arguments are only useful against other arguments, but the spirit cannot be found in arguments, and the spirit is what is required to convert.

In the legal sense, an "argument" is simply an answer someone puts forth to convey their position on an issue, and contrary to some people's personal opinion, God actually does have answers which he puts forth to convey his position on issues.

[TAO]

In the legal sense, an "argument" is simply an answer someone puts forth to convey their position on an issue, and contrary to some people's personal opinion, God actually does have answers which he puts forth to convey his position on issues.

mfb is correct though, any sort of contentious situation wouldn't be right.

If these people are going to be taught, it needs to be for those desiring of the answers. For those who are humble. Not for the critics.

[mbh26]

I think a lot can be learned in the way B.H. Roberts has pointed out. The spanish cognate discusion for our English discussion carries a contentious connotation that our English word discussion lacks. Argument can mean learning and does not have to mean contention, at least when you're not arguing with people who answer with, "I don't knows that really mean I don't care."

I've certainly felt the spirit when I've learned new truths and Church was at one time enjoyable and even enlightening and not so boring. I remember times even in my lifetime when I used to learn in Church rather than practice lesson manuals that have become painfully boring rituals. If I learn something in Church now it's because I was off in my own private contemplation with God and not paying attention to what is being said while I'm sitting there. And that's probably true of any of you arguing against me on this if you were willing to admit it.

People have been converted by arguing. Philosopher and intellectual were not pejorative terms in the early Church. Many were truly converted to the philosophy of Mormonism and not just socially pressured into it. In fact they acted against the pressure of family and friends in the name of the truth, and not just a little truth that they already had in Protestantism, but what they believed to be the most truth and later mistakenly preached to be the complete truth. At one time Mormonism offered increased understanding about God. Now all you really offer is your claim to being the only one with the authority to officiate the ordinances. As more times goes on we seem to be learning more about what the Church does not know than what it does know.

[Ceeboo]

I have more respect for Consigileri than any member on this board.

Hey mbh26,

Just asking (Not trying to change your contribution about Consig)

Have you heard about the fellow here that goes by the name "Ceeboo"?

Peace,

Ceeboo

[sunstoned]

I think a lot can be learned in the way B.H. Roberts has pointed out. The spanish cognate discusion for our English discussion carries a contentious connotation that our English word discussion lacks. Argument can mean learning and does not have to mean contention, at least when you're not arguing with people who answer with, "I don't knows that really mean I don't care."

I've certainly felt the spirit when I've learned new truths and Church was at one time enjoyable and even enlightening and not so boring. I remember times even in my lifetime when I used to learn in Church rather than practice lesson manuals that have become painfully boring rituals. If I learn something in Church now it's because I was off in my own private contemplation with God and not paying attention to what is being said while I'm sitting there. And that's probably true of any of you arguing against me on this if you were willing to admit it.

People have been converted by arguing. Philosopher and intellectual were not pejorative terms in the early Church. Many were truly converted to the philosophy of Mormonism and not just socially pressured into it. In fact they acted against the pressure of family and friends in the name of the truth, and not just a little truth that they already had in Protestantism, but what they believed to be the most truth and later mistakenly preached to be the complete truth. At one time Mormonism offered increased understanding about God. Now all you really offer is your claim to being the only one with the authority to officiate the ordinances. As more times goes on we seem to be learning more about what the Church does not know than what it does know.

A very excellent post. I agree.

[mbh26]

Hey mbh26,

Just asking (Not trying to change your contribution about Consig)

Have you heard about the fellow here that goes by the name "Ceeboo"?

Peace,

Ceeboo

No but I think I need to read some extensive work by Ceeboo. Shoot me a link.