Top Ten Anti-Mormon Arguments

[The King's Servant]

I think the strongest arguements against Mormonism are also the strongest arguements against God.

If you are religious, there are only two choices... Catholic or LDS. Either the true Church never left, or it's been restored. The Evangelicals have no leg to stand on, as you can't get good fruit from a bad tree.

However, if you discount belief in God... it really doesn't matter.

It seems to me that Mormons always think Christianity began with the Romans, but the Bible tells us that believers were first called Christians in Antioch of Syria. In fact, Paul and Peter both preached the Gospel there. That would make the Antiochian Orthodox believers - in other words, the Eastern Christians, the oldest Church. Mormons also seem to forget the Ethiopian Coptic Church, probably established by the Ethiopian eunuch in the Book of Acts who brought the Gospel to that ancient civilization. There are also various churches in Asia minor and India, such as the Mar Thoma Church, founded by St. Thomas, and isolated thru the cenuries from other Christian churches - yet teaching doctrines identical to those found in other Christian Churches.

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

You wrote:

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

You obviously don't know or don't care what I meant by that.

You replied:

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

I didn't expect you to agree, but here's something you must agree is true: Joseph was either a true prophet of God or a false prophet of God. There is no middle ground. If I deny that he was a true prophet of God, I'm bound to conclude he was a false prophet. Likewise, he either told the truth about the First Vision, Moroni, the plates, etc., or he lied. There can be no middle ground.

You wrote:

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.

Fair enough. I sincerely hold to a different view. Since it is clear to me that Joseph not only practiced polygamy in a "botched" manner but lied about polygamy (including lying about it in what was supposed to be scripture!), I conclude that we should consider him an unreliable source. I also have strong reasons to consider the Book of Mormon to be a nineteenth-century fiction. I don't question your sincerity or your motives, and I hope you can bring yourself not to question mine. Then we might be able to get to the point where we can discuss these matters rationally and respectfully, should that be of interest to you.

[Vance]

Irrelevant to the example I cited. John 18:20.

"Jesus answered him [the high priest], I spake openly to the world. I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple whither the Jews always resort, and in secret have I said nothing."

Matthew 17:9

"And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them [Peter, James, and John) saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead."

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I wonder what double standard Bowman will use with this one.

[Mortal Man]

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.

Joseph's transition from monotheism to polytheism can be seen in the Book of Abraham. Abr. 1-2:18 was translated in Nov. 1835 and is strictly monotheistic. The remainder was translated in March 1842 and contains much polytheistic material; e.g., the order of intelligences and council of the gods. A few months after the first translation session, Joseph learned form Joshua Seixas that Elohim is plural. His Hebrew studies with Seixas fertilized his mind for Kabbalistic studies with Alexander Neibaur. Neibaur's teachings may have been what motivated him to finally start publishing his BoA translation.

[Mortal Man]

Creeds limit knowledge on the basis of limited knowledge.

"Creed" is an ugly word to Mormons. We much prefer "Articles of Faith".

[Chris Smith]

It is not the content of creeds, nor the sincerity and faith of their adherents, that is the main problem, but the function. Creeds limit knowledge on the basis of limited knowledge.

The authors of the creeds considered themselves to be articulating knowledge rather than limiting it. They were laying out a few foundational, non-negotiable principles. They never forbade anyone from believing things in addition to these principles. Things that contradicted these principles were the problem.

I suspect that even Mormons would point to a few core doctrines that they consider foundational and non-negotiable-- i.e., the de facto "creed" of the faith. Like John Henry Cardinal Newman, Mormons tend to think of continuing revelation as an additive and interpretive process rather than one that can contradict foundational doctrinal tenets.

I would say almost exactly the opposite of what you said above. The problem with creeds for Joseph Smith was not their function, but rather their content. To repost your own quote,

"I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different deonominations, because they all have things in them that I cannot subscribe to."

Joseph does go on to say that "Creeds set up stakes, and say, 'Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to." But the problem here is not so much the proscription of beliefs as the proscription of true beliefs. The creeds prevent people from progressing "further" along the path to true knowledge as Joseph understood it. Whenever his followers departed from the foundational principles to which he adhered, Joseph raged like any creedal Christian.

They place adherents beyond repentence. It seems to me that God might have strong opinions about that.

If you mean to imply that orthodox Christians substitute creeds for repentance, you are mistaken. Repentance and the creeds are affirmed side-by-side. Some of the creeds even make explicit reference to the need for repentance. The Westminster Confession, for example, has a section titled "Of Repentance Unto Life" that says repentance is "of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it."

Peace,

-Chris

[maupayman]

You need to pay better attention.

Right, so saying their beliefs are an abomination shows that God was happy with other religions? Thanks for the clarification Vance

[maupayman]

Rather than roll one's eyes, it might help to actually look up what Joseph Smith said was the problem with creeds.

"I cannot believe in the any of the creeds of the different deonominations, because they all have things in them that I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come into the presence of God and learn all things, but creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 327).

He also noted that "It dont [sic] prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine"; Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center Monograph, 1980), 183-84.

It is not the content of creeds, nor the sincerity and faith of their adherents, that is the main problem, but the function. Creeds limit knowledge on the basis of limited knowledge. They place adherents beyond repentence. It seems to me that God might have strong opinions about that.

BS, the further clarification, by God, that their professors were all corrupt does little to clarify the statement, the way you are attempting to here.

Irrelevant to the example I cited. John 18:20.

"Jesus answered him [the high priest], I spake openly to the world. I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple whither the Jews always resort, and in secret have I said nothing."

Matthew 17:9

"And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them [Peter, James, and John) saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead."

Again, keeping something secret is different than publicly lying about it. Am I wrong here?

[Kevin Christensen]

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 which case, I'd note the title page of the Book of Mormon, mention the sealed portion, and then point to the significance and content of the temple discourses in the Book of Mormon.

For instance:

The most obvious aspect of the temple in Jerusalem involved the levels of sacredness, increasing from the inner court to the holy place and to the holy of holies. According to Mircea Eliade, the three parts of the temple at Jerusalem correspond to the three cosmic regions. The lower court represents the lower regions ("Sheol," the abode of the dead), the holy place represents the earth, and the holy of holies represents heaven. The temple is always the meeting point of heaven, earth, and the world of the dead.36 Lehi's cosmology saw the world in these three realms (heaven, 1 Nephi 1:8; the earth, 1 Nephi 1:14; and the realm of the dead, 2 Nephi 1:14). King Benjamin, speaking from his temple, also sees the cosmos in terms of heaven, the earth, and the realm of the dead (Mosiah 2:25, 26, 41), with entrance into God's presence as the ultimate joyous state (Mosiah 2:41). Considering 3 Nephi as a whole, we can also find these three distinct levels of sacredness: (1) darkness/separation (3 Nephi 8

[Kevin Christensen]

The authors of the creeds considered themselves to be articulating knowledge rather than limiting it. They were laying out a few foundational, non-negotiable principles. They never forbade anyone from believing things in addition to these principles. Things that contradicted these principles were the problem.

Such an argument seems to me strangely remote from history.

It can be shown by a most convenient syllogism that since God is on our side we cannot show any degree of toleration for any opposition without incurring infinite guilt.77 In the fourth century everybody was officiously rushing to the defense of God;78 but John Chrysostom's pious declaration that we must avenge insults to God while patiently bearing insults to ourselves is put in its proper rhetorical light by the assumption of Hilary that an insult to himself is an insult to God.79 Therein lies the great usefulness of the doctrine of guilt and innocence by association that became so popular in the fourth century: one does not need to quibble; there is no such thing as being partly wrong or merely mistaken; the painful virtue of forbearance and the labor of investigation no longer embarrass the champions of one-package loyalty. No matter how nobly and austerely heretics may live, for Augustine they are still Antichrist

[Kevin Christensen]

BS, the further clarification, by God, that their professors were all corrupt does little to clarify the statement, the way you are attempting to here.

The 1832 account, in New Testament language, says of all mankind, none does good, not one. If we are not perfect, (and we are not), we are therefore, corrupt. The religious professors of Joseph's Smith's acquaintance fall into the human category. You might also look up Nancy Towle's contemporary description of the same religious professors.

Miss Towle has a good deal to say about the bitter rivalries among the ministers ("rotten-hearted professors. . . . Oh! these men-appointed leaders, how despicable they often, to me, appear!"), and so makes it clear that Joseph Smith was not exaggerating (as is often claimed) when he told of how meanly they treated him.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=73&chapid=887

Again, keeping something secret is different than publicly lying about it. Am I wrong here?

While publicly on trial, Jesus told the High Priest that he had said nothing in secret. If what happened on the Mount of Transfiguration was nothing, you are correct. If not, you are wrong.

Happily, the scriptures do recognize four valid motives for managing access to information: (1) pedagogy

[maupayman]

The 1832 account, in New Testament language, says of all mankind, none does good, not one. If we are not perfect, (and we are not), we are therefore, corrupt. The religious professors of Joseph's Smith's acquaintance fall into the human category. You might also look up Nancy Towle's contemporary description of the same religious professors.

Well, i'd say you are really stretching this one Kevin. The combination of saying their beliefs are abominations, there professors are corrupt, why single out the professors if everyone is corrupt? Add to that, their hearts are far from God and I don't believe that you can argue that God was happy with other religious groups. Agree to disagree, I guess.

While publicly on trial, Jesus told the High Priest that he had said nothing in secret. If what happened on the Mount of Transfiguration was nothing, you are correct. If not, you are wrong.

Happily, the scriptures do recognize four valid motives for managing access to information: (1) pedagogy

[LeSellers]

BS, the further clarification, by God, that their professors were all corrupt does little to clarify the statement, the way you are attempting to here.

Since that's not what the scripture says, your point is not useful.

The passage you allude to here says "those professors" and refers, implicitly, to the ones Joseph had noted earlier in the account, and whom he identified later.

[quote name='Joseph Smith

[LeSellers]

I see what your point was here. Even Jesus lied, when he had good reason. Sorry, I misunderstood your earlier post. My bad

Indeed, your bad.

20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Lehi

[Kevin Christensen]

The Great? Isaiah Scroll as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls(DSS) really serve as a condemnation of the Book of Mormon as the Isaiah quotes do in general. Not only does the BOM anachronistically quote Second Isaiah(whoops!) it repeats the KJV translation errors and the text almost word for word. KJV Isiah and Joseph's editorialising are the only sources for the BOM Isaiah.

Of the 478 Isaiah verses in the BOM 201 are the exact KJV Isaiah(errors and all) and 207 verses have variants. 40% of the variants are the simple exclusion of italicized words in the KJV. The BOM text shows a editorial decision to exclude the italicized words and is 95%+ dependant on KJV Isaiah.

Good luck with your presentation-

The second Isaiah issue is a bit more interesting than implied here.

For example:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6&chapterID=53

And this, which I wish I'd read before I wrote the previous linked chapter.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/FourthServantSong.pdf

And John Tvedtnes provides a more recent, and more accurate study than the not cited, but obvious David Wright essay from American Apocrypha.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=2&id=553

Among other interesting things from Tvedtnes:

An examination of the italicized words in the KJV of Isaiah passages quoted in the Book of Mormon is instructive. Looking only at the more extensive Isaiah quotations (totaling 388 verses), 288 separate italicized words appear.9 Of these, the Book of Mormon omits 49 of the italicized words (17 percent) and changes 74 (26 percent), while retaining 165 (57 percent).10 The number of KJV italicized words retained by the Book of Mormon is greater than those both omitted or changed.

Wright goes one step further by suggesting that other changes to the Isaiah text in the Book of Mormon are also due to the presence of KJV italicized words. Even when Joseph Smith retained those italicized words, he often changed other words in a verse (p. 161). Table 1 is based on an analysis of the Isaiah verses that are quoted in lengthy excerpts in the Book of Mormon, both those verses that have italicized words and those that do not.

Table 1. Lengthy Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon compared to Isaiah KJV verses

Book of Mormon verses with variants Book of Mormon verses without variants Total

Verses with italics in KJV 137 56 193

Verses without italics in KJV 62 133 195

Total 199 189 388

Of the 388 verses contained in the lengthy Isaiah passages quoted in the Nephite record, 199 vary from those of the KJV Bible, while 189 verses correspond word for word with it. The fact that more than half the verses include variants challenges Wright's contention that "except for a few variants, the BoM text follows the KJV word for word" (p. 158, emphasis added). Some 193 of those KJV verses include italicized words. The Book of Mormon modified 137 (71 percent) of these but also modified 62 (32 percent) of the 195 KJV verses that include no italicized words.11

Tvedtnes also notes that some of the "errors" that Wright observes, aren't errors at all.

Some of Wright's arguments fail when one looks at the meaning of the KJV words as used in Joseph Smith's day. In this example, Webster's 1828 dictionary defines provoke as "challenge," which is clearly in agreement with the "modern renditions" that Wright cites. Similarly, where 2 Nephi 15:2 follows KJV "he fenced it" (Isaiah 5:2), the modern renditions read "'he dug it,' 'made a trench,' 'broke the ground'" (p. 170). A simple check of the 1828 Webster notes that the word fence means "a wall, hedge, ditch," the third example fitting well with the modern renderings. From examples such as this, it is clear that a thorough study of the Isaiah passages of the Book of Mormon should determine what the words meant in Joseph Smith's day.

Wright is not the first critic to point out presumed errors in the KJV's translation of Hebrew words that were perpetuated in the Book of Mormon. What is surprising is that some of these "errors" are an illusion because some of the KJV words had a different meaning in nineteenth-century American English than they do today.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Mortal Man]

For example:

http://maxwellinstit...=6&chapterID=53

That the Book of Mormon contains quotations of Isaiah 2

[mbh26]

There is a difference between not mentioning something and blatantly lying about it.

I don't think so. I think honesty means full disclosure.

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.

No it isn't just a Mormon problem for sure.

[wenglund]

I don't think so. I think honesty means full disclosure.

This strikes me as a fundamentalist interpretation of the word.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Balzer]

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.

I'm late to this thread so without going thru all 10 pages of posts, and assuming this wasn't a joke, can anyone direct me to a response to this offensive and absurd response? Just wondering if anyone else had a response and, if not, why not? I weep for any missionary taught by this person, and for any potential convert who might be subject to such an approach.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[Chris Smith]

Such an argument seems to me strangely remote from history.

I can't decipher, from your Nibley quote, exactly what your objection to the argument is.

In general yes, but at times, say the priesthood revelation, and we have Bruce R. McConkie saying, "Forget everything I said..."

The early Catholic councils contradicted each other, as well. However, the Catholic Church will never admit that a foundational doctrine has been changed, anymore than the LDS Church admits such a thing. Both groups persist in a view of continuing revelation as strictly additive and interpretive.

And if they all contain things that he can't accept, he also says that "it don't prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine."

I suspect most creedal Christians would agree.

I want the liberty of believing as I please, he says, and grants all men the same privilege.

The creeds do not restrict freedom of religion. States have done so, and have used the creeds as a standard of judgment, but this is not a necessary outcome of the use of creeds.

Joseph reports a vision. A minister tells him, No you didn't. He did not do so on the basis of superior knowledge. He was not, after all, there in the grove. He did so because a plenary view of scripture (complete, inerrant, and sufficient) dictated such an interpretation of Joseph's report. And for that matter, other reports like Joseph's. Joseph's aversion to creeds as limiting, it seems to me, grew directly out of his own personal experience.

The Westminster creed is cessationist, but I can't think of any cessationist passage in the creeds of Methodism. I suspect the minister's reaction had more to do with elitism and antirevivalism than creeds.

Yes. Creeds set up stakes and bounds, saying, hitherto thou shalt come, and no further.

Do they? Or do they simply say, "Hitherto shalt thou come," and leave off the "no further" part?

Did he? Like Augustine or Hilary or Chrysostom?

Joseph was responding to creedal Christians of 19th century America, not 4th century Europe and Africa.

Anyway, I don't really want to belabor the point. I merely wanted to point out that the demonization of creedal Christianity obscures not only its religious integrity, but also the similarities between it and Mormonism. Some degree of creedalism necessarily exists in any coherent ideological group, and Mormonism is no exception. It's a mistake to think that Joseph Smith transcended this mindset.

Peace,

-Chris

[consiglieri]

Some degree of creedalism necessarily exists in any coherent ideological group, and Mormonism is no exception. It's a mistake to think that Joseph Smith transcended this mindset.

Peace,

-Chris

I am surprised (and gratified) to see my OP has stimulated this much discussion. I have been following this thread as much as time permits, and have received a lot of good ideas as to what (and what not) to present tomorrow evening.

In reponse to your comment, Chris, I tend to think Joseph Smith actually did transcend this creedal mindset.

I see Joseph, even in his last two recorded sermons, continuing to push the envelope on the received knowledge about God.

I see Brigham Young as attempting to continue this pattern, but getting shut down when his teachings about God and Adam were not well received, and ultimately buried after his death.

It is at this point in Church history, beginning primarily with Joseph F. Smith's administration, likely as a response to the perceived dangers inherent in teachings espoused by Brigham Young, that I see a systemization of Joseph Smith's thought taking place.

As a result, Mormonism has become pretty much as creedal as that Christianity it was founded to transcend.

But there are still found with its ranks deep thinkers such as Kevin Christensen who feel to say, along with Joseph Smith, "It feels so good not to be trammeled."

Unfortunately, most of the "trammeling" today comes from within the Church rather than without.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[cdowis]

I'm late to this thread so without going thru all 10 pages of posts, and assuming this wasn't a joke, can anyone direct me to a response to this offensive and absurd response? Just wondering if anyone else had a response and, if not, why not? I weep for any missionary taught by this person, and for any potential convert who might be subject to such an approach.

Respectfully,

Balzer

Well, some have agreed that missionaries should be teaching the Gospel, and doctrines, and avoiding engaging the antis in arguments over archeology, church history, etc. I think that is the approach in the missionary handbook, Teach My Gospel. But, perhaps, I missed the section on responding to the antimormon arguments.

Anyway, I will be happy to lend you my handkerchief if you think that is such an offensive idea that you will cry. I would point out a scripture in the D&C that says the same thing, but I fear that you will collapse in shock.

Pull yourself together and I will get that scripture for you. Also why don't you look in the missionary handbook to see how the missionaries are taught.

[Balzer]

Well, some have agreed that missionaries should be teaching the Gospel, and doctrines, and avoiding engaging the antis in arguments over archeology, church history, etc. I think that is the approach in the missionary handbook, Teach My Gospel. But, perhaps, I missed the section on responding to the antimormon arguments.

Anyway, I will be happy to lend you my handkerchief if you think that is such an offensive idea that you will cry. I would point out a scripture in the D&C that says the same thing, but I fear that you will collapse in shock.

Pull yourself together and I will get that scripture for you. Also why don't you look in the missionary handbook to see how the missionaries are taught.

Where in the D & C does it teach that if a potential convert asks questions about archeology, history, etc., that they are "anti" Mormon? In fact, where in the D & C does the word "anti" appear at all? Where does it teach the missionary to first be disrespectful, then utterly dismissive, of the non-member? Where did any of the prophets teach that non-members were drooling, stupid, fumbling idiots? I'm guessing your mission was something less than successfull?

Respectfully,

Balzer

[saemo]

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

List away, it won't matter because as can be seen in this thread alone, Mormons don't take these questions seriously. Anyone who has them is instantly labeled "anti-Mormon", including investigators. People who ask these questions are serious about them. I know I was, at one time, but there isn't a Mormon on the planet who takes these questions seriously, or the people who are asking them. It is a waste of time, all around.

[Jeff K.]

List away, it won't matter because as can be seen in this thread alone, Mormons don't take these questions seriously. Anyone who has them is instantly labeled "anti-Mormon", including investigators. People who ask these questions are serious about them. I know I was, at one time, but there isn't a Mormon on the planet who takes these questions seriously, or the people who are asking them. It is a waste of time, all around.

I would disagree with the part in bold. Generally those aren't serious queries, they are attacks, and they are usually accompanied with a very strong double standard, in other words, they refuse to inquire in their own religious beliefs with the same intensity or honesty. It is one reason that Mormons do not attack other religions but merely present their own and let the person decide.