Top Ten Anti-Mormon Arguments

[thesometimesaint]

maupayman:

"Yes, the labelling of non-believers as "enemies" and talk of them as "sons of perdition" does little to help bridge the gaps between mormons and others.".

Who here does that?

[Jeff K.]

One would hope that the perfect son of God could pull it off.

I would suggest your interpretation is inconsistent with the facts that are both known and unknown.

[cinepro]

Hey Consig, not sure if you are still even checking this thread, but I just noticed that one major issue, in my mind, has yet to be mentioned. I think some of the clearest evidence, that Joseph made things up, is the change from one priesthood to two. Many early members said that they had never even heard of a second priesthood, til nearly a year and a half after the church was formed. Whitmer, as I recall, claimed that Rigdon was responsible for the changes. I started a thread on this subject before, but can't seem to find it. I will continue to try and locate it.

It's an interesting problem, but I think the odds of an investigator having a problem with that (or even finding out about it and understanding it) are pretty slim.

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

Regarding polygamy in the LDS Church, I wrote:

[ELF1024]

I would really be interested in a thoughtful response to that article.

I'd really lbe interested in a million dollars too.. and it's just as likely to happen.

The Church excommunicates Polygamists today, so to say that the Church hasn't made a statement saying that Polygamy is bad is a misrepresentation of the truth.

What I find most comical about this, is that Islam allows up to three wives. This is in practice today in many parts of the world, in the EU, in the UK, and in Canada. (However, perhaps not legally). However you seem more interested in what happened over a 100 years ago, instead of focusing on the current practice.

[thesometimesaint]

Duplicate post

[thesometimesaint]

ELF1024:

And will continue to excommunicate polygamists for the foreseeable future. I don't foresee any change in this lifetime.

[maupayman]

maupayman:

"Yes, the labelling of non-believers as "enemies" and talk of them as "sons of perdition" does little to help bridge the gaps between mormons and others.".

Who here does that?

Lightbearer did

[Jeff K.]

I think he was labeling those who attacked the church, not necessarily those who did not believe.

[Kevin Christensen]

Rob's polygamy blog essay on why they keep talking about polygamy has this claim.

Joseph also took several teenage girls, including several who were as young as 13 or 14 years of age.

From the FAIR Wiki essay on the Ages of Joseph Smith's wives:

The most prominent is, of course, Helen Mar Kimball, who was the prophet's youngest wife, married three months prior to her 15th birthday

I suppose one could argue that "as young as 13 or 14 years of age" is accurate, if you take in the full implications of the "or" if we grant that the author is not altogether sure of his facts and that this uncertainty is relatively minor, and that "several" can mean "two." Though, of course, rhetorically speaking, the emphasis to me seems to rest on "several who were as young as 13", with scandalous implications.

However, the FAIR Wiki on Age of Wives also notes:

Of Joseph's seven under-eighteen wives, then, only one (Lawrence) has even second-hand evidence of intimacy. Fanny Alger has third-hand hostile accounts of intimacy, and we know nothing about most of the others. Lucy Walker and Helen Mar Kimball seem unlikely candidates for consummation.

See

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Age_of_wives

Greg Smith's FAIR presentation is relevant, a good lesson at the importance of knowing the sources for the most notable scandal stories about Joseph Smith the libertine.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2009_Everything_You_Always_Wanted_to_Know_About_Plural_Marriage.html

Also relevant is Nibley's comment that "polygamy was a welcome stick to beat the Mormons with."

While I'm not an ardent defender of polygamy, it seems to me that since several prominent Biblical prophets unquestionably participated in the practice (Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses), and Nathan condemned David only for the Bathsheba case, that LDS period of participation on plural marriage is not one of the better Biblical tests for discerning true and false prophets. Not to worry. For those who take the Bible seriously, there are at least 28 good tests.

And for Chris's question to me, some very recent cool stuff relevant to the Book of Abraham. I'm thinking of recent things like Bradshaw and Larsen's FAIR presentation on the Apocalypse of Abraham and the Book of Moses, Nibley's One Eternal Round, Will Schryver on the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, Gee's interesting approach to What Facsimile Number 3 is Not, Kevin Barney's article of a few years back, Kerry Shirt's Sunstone presentation. And more.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[maupayman]

I have never considered you or Mudcat (and a few other non-Mormon critics) enemies of me or Christ. However those that attack over and over again the reputation of the Prophet Joseph, who waste their lives trying to undermind and destroy the faith of the Latter-day Saints and to dispute the scriptures of the restoration, yes they are enemies, some to a greater extent than others. Please do not take offence where none is intended, you do not write Anti-Mormon blogs, you do not sully and backbite every statement made by almost every general authority do you? No I have not seen you do these things, but I have seen some on this thread and in other places who do and I am sick of it!

Who, on this thread, are you referring to Lightbearer?

[Vance]

Rob's polygamy blog essay on why they keep talking about polygamy has this claim.

Joseph also took several teenage girls, including several who were as young as 13 or 14 years of age.

I suppose one could argue that "as young as 13 or 14 years of age" is accurate, if you take in the full implications of the "or" if we grant that the author is not altogether sure of his facts and that this uncertainty is relatively minor, and that "several" can mean "two." Though, of course, rhetorically speaking, the emphasis to me seems to rest on "several who were as young as 13", with scandalous implications.

If a Mormon had said something that way, Bowman would flat out call them a liar.

We shall see what double standard Bowman will apply here.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You wrote:

Rob's polygamy blog essay on why they keep talking about polygamy has this claim.

I'm right here. Would you like to address your disagreement to me directly?

I am willing to re-examine the question of the ages of Joseph's "wives" and make corrections accordingly. Do you have any response to the rest of my essay, or is that the only disagreement you have with it?

[Vance]

I wonder where Bowman got his data. Did he just make it up or did he get it from one of the "reliable" and "trustworthy" anti-Mormon sources. Thus making Bowman just as "reliable" and "trustworthy" .

[ELF1024]

If the whole truth about polygamy may never be known, how do you know the truth about polygamy has been either greatly exaggerated or greatly downplayed?

This question should be self answering. It seems fairly rhetorical. I would assume that this would be self-evident, even to someone who claims to be a scholar.

Anti-LDS Claim: Over the top claim, Joseph Smith Jr. "cad", "womanizer", "rapist", "pedophile" ect...

LDS Claim: Equally over the top claim, Joseph Smith Jr. "Saint"

Reality: "Somewhere between the two"

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin,

You wrote:

I'm right here. Would you like to address your disagreement to me directly?

I am willing to re-examine the question of the ages of Joseph's "wives" and make corrections accordingly. Do you have any response to the rest of my essay, or is that the only disagreement you have with it?

Rob,

Since I'm believing LDS, I have other disagreements with your essay.

Point 1. The precise wording in D&C 1 that defines the actual binding claims of the LDS church is "only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth with which I the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the Church collectively and not individually." D&C 1 as a whole describes the LDS church as non-exclusive relative to truth, virtue, and revelation, as well as expressly imperfect with regard to member behavior, and incomplete in their knowledge. It is true that the LDS themselves often misread D&C 1, that does not change what it actually says. I've long argued that the occurrences of "true and living" in the Bible, "true vine," "living bread", living waters", "truth and life," "tree of life," "True God, Living God," "living way" etc. in the Bible cast light what the real distinction for LDS membership is. In the Bible, the imagery suggests a prophetic voice of warning, ongoing revelation, priesthood authority, ordinances and covenants, as well as temple practices, all of which in actual practice distinguish the LDS from other Christians. I believe that this distinction is indeed well pleasing to God. But it in no way means that I should not see, or that God does not see and accept truth, faith, and virtue elsewhere.

Point 2. Joseph lied about polygamy. Jesus told his prosecutors that he taught nothing in secret. What about what happened on the Mount of transfiguration? Was that openly taught or not? This sort of thing is not just a Mormon problem. A little mote examination provides clearer vision, I think.

Point 3. "As practiced by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other LDS leaders, plural marriage was on any reasonable judgment both illegal and grossly immoral."

I agree that it became illegal. But not that it was grossly immoral. My personal take. I don't understand it. But I don't think it is the most important, foundational issue for my faith decisions. It does test what I think is most important. Holding to the word of God, or fretting about what a great and spacious consensus thinks. Me, I'm moving toward the tree.

Point 4. Yes, I know about post manifesto polygamy. I once had Sunday dinner with Sam Taylor and have his book on the topic. But all the LDS loop holes and rationalizations were closed. I also read Acts, and notice that it is not so easy to get some people to change long held beliefs for which they have sacrificed much.

Point 5. "It is clear that the LDS Church ended polygamy for pragmatic reasons, not because of any new revelation."

My edition of the scriptures contains President Woodruff's description of the new revelation he received. The LDS had demonstrated their willingness to loose everything and go to jail. As far as the survival of the LDS is concerned, I see the revelation as a Godsend, i.e., a real revelation.

Point 6. I do not think the splinter groups have a case. Try any of them against the Biblical keys for discerning true and false prophets.

Point 7. I'm not worried about polygamy coming back. Not even a little bit.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

You wrote:

This question should be self answering. It seems fairly rhetorical. I would assume that this would be self-evident, even to someone who claims to be a scholar.

I see you subscribe to Vance's method of polemic. Hey, I actually use my own name, and my credentials are public knowledge. And you are...?

You wrote:

Anti-LDS Claim: Over the top claim, Joseph Smith Jr. "cad", "womanizer", "rapist", "pedophile" ect...

LDS Claim: Equally over the top claim, Joseph Smith Jr. "Saint"

Reality: "Somewhere between the two"

That works for me. I have never used any of that language, although "cad" and "womanizer" seem fair. How's this: Joseph was a liar and a false prophet. That's somewhere between the two extremes.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

Thanks for replying. I will respond later, as soon as I have time to do it justice.

Rob,

Since I'm believing LDS, I have other disagreements with your essay.

Point 1. The precise wording in D&C 1 that defines the actual binding claims of the LDS church is "only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth with which I the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the Church collectively and not individually." D&C 1 as a whole describes the LDS church as non-exclusive relative to truth, virtue, and revelation, as well as expressly imperfect with regard to member behavior, and incomplete in their knowledge. It is true that the LDS themselves often misread D&C 1, that does not change what it actually says. I've long argued that the occurrences of "true and living" in the Bible, "true vine," "living bread", living waters", "truth and life," "tree of life," "True God, Living God," "living way" etc. in the Bible cast light what the real distinction for LDS membership is. In the Bible, the imagery suggests a prophetic voice of warning, ongoing revelation, priesthood authority, ordinances and covenants, as well as temple practices, all of which in actual practice distinguish the LDS from other Christians. I believe that this distinction is indeed well pleasing to God. But it in no way means that I should not see, or that God does not see and accept truth, faith, and virtue elsewhere.

Point 2. Joseph lied about polygamy. Jesus told his prosecutors that he taught nothing in secret. What about what happened on the Mount of transfiguration? Was that openly taught or not? This sort of thing is not just a Mormon problem. A little mote examination provides clearer vision, I think.

Point 3. "As practiced by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other LDS leaders, plural marriage was on any reasonable judgment both illegal and grossly immoral."

I agree that it became illegal. But not that it was grossly immoral. My personal take. I don't understand it. But I don't think it is the most important, foundational issue for my faith decisions. It does test what I think is most important. Holding to the word of God, or fretting about what a great and spacious consensus thinks. Me, I'm moving toward the tree.

Point 4. Yes, I know about post manifesto polygamy. I once had Sunday dinner with Sam Taylor and have his book on the topic. But all the LDS loop holes and rationalizations were closed. I also read Acts, and notice that it is not so easy to get some people to change long held beliefs for which they have sacrificed much.

Point 5. "It is clear that the LDS Church ended polygamy for pragmatic reasons, not because of any new revelation."

My edition of the scriptures contains President Woodruff's description of the new revelation he received. The LDS had demonstrated their willingness to loose everything and go to jail. As far as the survival of the LDS is concerned, I see the revelation as a Godsend, i.e., a real revelation.

Point 6. I do not think the splinter groups have a case. Try any of them against the Biblical keys for discerning true and false prophets.

Point 7. I'm not worried about polygamy coming back. Not even a little bit.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Vance]

How's this: Joseph was a liar and a false prophet.

And thus we see fulfillment of one of his prophesies.

[maupayman]

Rob,

Since I'm believing LDS, I have other disagreements with your essay.

Point 1. The precise wording in D&C 1 that defines the actual binding claims of the LDS church is "only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth with which I the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the Church collectively and not individually." D&C 1 as a whole describes the LDS church as non-exclusive relative to truth, virtue, and revelation, as well as expressly imperfect with regard to member behavior, and incomplete in their knowledge. It is true that the LDS themselves often misread D&C 1, that does not change what it actually says. I've long argued that the occurrences of "true and living" in the Bible, "true vine," "living bread", living waters", "truth and life," "tree of life," "True God, Living God," "living way" etc. in the Bible cast light what the real distinction for LDS membership is. In the Bible, the imagery suggests a prophetic voice of warning, ongoing revelation, priesthood authority, ordinances and covenants, as well as temple practices, all of which in actual practice distinguish the LDS from other Christians. I believe that this distinction is indeed well pleasing to God. But it in no way means that I should not see, or that God does not see and accept truth, faith, and virtue elsewhere.

No, he just said that they were abominations in his sight:

19I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that:

[Vance]

No, he just said that they were abominations in his sight:

You need to pay better attention.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that:

[Mortal Man]

Hey Consig, not sure if you are still even checking this thread, but I just noticed that one major issue, in my mind, has yet to be mentioned. I think some of the clearest evidence, that Joseph made things up, is the change from one priesthood to two. Many early members said that they had never even heard of a second priesthood, til nearly a year and a half after the church was formed. Whitmer, as I recall, claimed that Rigdon was responsible for the changes. I started a thread on this subject before, but can't seem to find it. I will continue to try and locate it.

For another fun lesson activity, they could take this priesthood quiz.

[ELF1024]

That works for me. I have never used any of that language, although "cad" and "womanizer" seem fair. How's this: Joseph was a liar and a false prophet. That's somewhere between the two extremes.

Speaking of "Vance's method of polemic"...

Nice to see you can give as good as you get. However I will not subscribe to your "compromise".

Because I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, I must believe that Joseph Smith, Jr. was a Prophet of God. Because Joseph Smith Jr. was a Prophet of God, I must believe that he received revelation from God about the practice of Polygamy. However, he seems to have botched up the implementation of the doctrine in a huge way. That is as far as I am willing to compromise at this time.

I think I would be a less than reasonable person to try and say anything other than the implementation of Polygamy appears to have been a huge disaster, both for Joseph Smith Jr., and for the Church. I, for one, am very thankful that I didn't have to live thru that time in history, and I am exceedingly thankful that the practice has been abandoned. I would not accept the doctrine of Polygamy even if it was reinstated as you seem to believe it might/will be.

After I get an opportunity to meet with God and/or Brother Joseph Smith Jr. after my death, I may revise my opinion at that time. However, until that time, I am quite content to continue to believe as I do.

[The King's Servant]

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

One question Christians might ask is why the Book of Mormon, which potential converts are asked to pray about, contains very little of the more unique doctrines of Mormonism, such as the "God was once a man" teaching and exaltation to godhood for some believers? In fact, the Book of Mormon is not polytheistic, or henotheistic, but strictly monotheistic. It also is Trinitarian in its teaching on the Godhead, and sometimes even Modalistic or Sabellian - but certainly contains nothing in it which aligns with current Mormon teaching on the subject.

[Kevin Christensen]

No, he just said that they were abominations in his sight:

19I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that: