The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) did a review of the MormonThink.com website in August, 2009. Below is FAIR's review as of 8/10/09 (links deleted for brevity). Some of the contributors to MormonThink have compiled a response below to each of their comments (in blue). FAIR also mentioned MormonThink at their annual conference, August 7, 2009.
MormonThink (MT) has linked generously to FAIR’s website. There are almost 100 links to FAIR’s website and over 300 links to other pro-LDS sources on our website such as FARMS, SHIELDS, etc. However we can find no links to MormonThink.com or any critic’s website on FAIR’s website other than this page criticizing it. This is patently “UN-FAIR.” We welcome FAIR’s responses and will continue to link to them and other LDS apologists. As a contributor to MT, I have appealed to apologists in my Sunstone article to ask for their help in punching up the apologist point of view. We welcome the dialogue. Our main goal is to get discussion going on these topics. We want people to look at all points of view, including FAIR’s. In the interest of fairness, MT will put up the FAIR review unedited on our links here: FAIR’s review of MormonThink.com. FAIR, will you do the same with our response?
[Actually we did find one reference to MormonThink here on FAIR's site but in their childish way they refused to activate the link so readers will have to go through the trouble of copying and pasting the link into their browser instead of merely clicking on it. FAIR probably does that in an effort to not help MT's search rankings. MT doesn't play those games and simply links to anyone including FAIR so reader's can easily see the actual unedited arguments made by the critic or by the defender of the church.]
It should be noted that each of the items on this list that FAIR criticized is discussed in a section devoted to that issue on MT’s website. The points presented by FAIR can only really be evaluated fairly by analyzing the entire, related section for each item on the list. We encourage all those investigating Mormonism to analyze the related sections on the apologists' websites as well such as FAIR.
FAIR does not hesitate to engage in healthy skepticism when reading the MT site. If skepticism is a good tool for FAIR, it is a good tool for MT investigators as well. It’s only fair.
When members are asked to suspend critical thought or healthy skepticism by unofficial sources such as FAIR, it does not coincide with LDS leaders statements about truth claims of Mormonism. President Hugh B. Brown, counselor in the First Presidency said:
“I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent – if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression. . . This free exchange of ideas is not to be deplored as long as men and women remain humble and teachable. Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. . . . We must preserve the freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it.” (Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown, ed. Edwin B. Firmage (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1988), 137-39; Hugh B. Brown, “An Eternal Quest—Freedom of the Mind,” a speech delivered at Brigham Young University, 13 May 1969, in Speeches of the Year (Provo, UT): Brigham Young University Press, 1969); rpt. In Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 17 (Spring 1984): 77-83)
Website reviews/MormonThink
From FAIRMormon
< Website reviews
MormonThink's list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"
You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on?
—"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009
∗ ∗ ∗
Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up.
—Stephen Robinson
Overview
FAIR's evaluation of the web site MormonThink
MormonThink (MT) would first like to offer a correct perspective. FAIR does not represent the church’s official views on matters of doctrine. That is the province of the President of the Church only. ("When Are Church Leader's Words Entitled to Claim of Scripture?" Church News, 31 July 1954, pp. 10–11. This quote is included in the Student Manual for Institute, Teachings of the Living Prophets, Unit 1, Chapter 3; Section 3-5)
FAIR is an unofficial, unauthorized site based on the speculations and opinions of zealous members. Members at MT hope for the day when the General Authorities at the church will give official responses to members’ valid questions, which is what they are called to do. Members are told that they may look to their leaders for direction, but when they need questions answered, too often (1) they receive no satisfactory answers, (2) are distracted by unrelated counsel by leaders unfamiliar with the issues, (3) told to put their questions on the shelf, (4) counseled to ignore evidence that contradicts Mormon claims, (5) advised to pray and study more (ironic that study is what causes the questions in the first place); or worse yet, (6) they are accused of being unfaithful for asking valid questions.
We commend FAIR for trying to fill the void that general authorities are called to fill. But FAIR’s passionate defenses of the church are unofficial and merely the personal opinions of activist apologists, doing the best they can with limited resources, and without official authority. Often FAIR's unauthorized answers contradict church leaders’ past counsel.
Answers by FAIR are given in the context in which the questions were asked which is why we asked them in the first place. MT will amend any apologist comment if requested to do so, but reserves the right to present contradictions if they arise.
A backhanded compliment is no compliment at all. The “veneer of balance” is an unfair characterization and patently untrue. For each issue, we support the side that the weight of evidence seems to support. We don't always agree with the critics - for example we don't support what some critics cite as a problem when they assert that the gold plates must have weighed 200 lbs. The evidence speaks for itself and we invite all readers to view both sides of the arguments in their entirety before making up their minds about each topic.
This is the kind of snarky reply that drives honest investigators (members and others) away from the church. In the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10), Jesus drove home the point of his ministry. The real “neighbor” to the “half dead man” was “He that shewed mercy on him. Then Jesus said unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.” (Luke 10:37) Many of those who investigate Mormonism objectively are shown everything but mercy. If the church wants to be recognized “by their fruits” (Matthew 7:20), FAIR and others should know that a spiteful attitude toward honest investigation is unfair.
The reason for hiding the identity of members of the church is obvious and FAIR pretends not to know it. Investigators at MormonThink (MT) do not want to be excommunicated or disciplined by the church for exercising their right to investigate Mormon history, question official versions, think critically, and point out obvious contradictions with a request for clarification. Examples of this discipline include "The September Six", Grant Palmer and Thomas Murphy. Member investigators carry a heavy burden and they are shocked and surprised that the church purposely covers up uncomfortable historical truths. They are punished for discovering church history and asking for clarification. Some are branded with the epithet, “anti-Mormon.” We note that FAIR plays the “anti-Mormon” trump card in hopes of mocking a questioner or a critic instead of dealing with the issues.
Many who contribute to MT attend and serve the LDS Church and are enriched by their activity and involvement with the ward family. Though they may no longer believe the LDS Church represents “the-one-and-only-true-church-on-earth.” They are happy and satisfied to serve their LDS community of believers.
Some contributing members of MT have decided that they will no longer remain in the church and have identified themselves. Some who had their names removed did so to avoid being excommunicated because they discussed their doubts and questions with church leaders about orthodox church doctrine and practice, and were threatened. They were driven away. Their names, and those who left for conscience’s sake, can be found on the site. When the LDS church ceases to punish its members for telling the truth about its history – warts and all – MT’s members may consider publishing their names.
Summary
The web site MormonThink.com claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.
The argument in the Summary by FAIR is anything but fair. Mormon scripture insists that members are free to use their “agency” to think for themselves and ask valid questions as they read the church’s history – yet when they find an obvious contradiction, example of prevarication or immorality by a church leader, they are punished for their discovery and obvious confusion (D&C 58:26-28). Most contributors and investigators on MT believe that, “It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance” (D&C 131:6). Sadly, FAIR elevates loyalty and blind obedience above diligent study and honesty.
Recall that Boyd K. Packer insisted that “some [historical] truths are not very useful,” (Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect", 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271) And Dallin Oaks argued, “It does not matter that the criticism is true” when pointing out obvious contradictions, problems, inconsistencies and errors of the LDS leaders. (Dallin H. Oaks, "Reading Church History," CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium, Brigham Young University, 16 Aug. 1985, page 25. also see Dallin H. Oaks, "Elder Decries Criticism of LDS Leaders," quoted in The Salt Lake Tribune, Sunday August 18, 1985, p. 2B) These statements are a monument to duplicity.
FAIR often resorts to disrespect, derision and condescension. It labels those who study and then question church historical sources, as “anti-Mormon.” Name-calling as a consistent defense seems desperate and childish. We expect more from FAIR, though they are unauthorized spokesmen for the LDS church.
As stated previously, answers by FAIR are given in the context in which the questions were asked which is why we asked them in the first place. Rather than innuendo, please tell us exactly where we have quoted you out of context, so that we can fix it, and link directly back to you where the reader can see the whole thing.
What quality of "thinking" is recommended?
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". MormonThink comments:
Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.
Thus, according to MormonThink, the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of any religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's Religulous. This then, represents the level of "thinking" that MormonThink wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.
Joseph Smith said, “I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm yet deals justice to his neighbors and mercifully deals his substance to the poor, then the long, smooth-faced hypocrite. (History of the Church 5:401, Sabbath Address in Nauvoo, Illinois on 21 May, 1843)
The George Carlin reference is provided for its entertainment value. It is a comedy routine, but he also makes some valid observations. MormonThink will consider a wide variety of perspectives, and then let the readers decide for themselves.
MormonThink (MT) respects religious belief and practice. MT takes no official position on Christianity, except to support Christian organizations that avoid certainty and particularism, model tolerance, and eschew dogmatism. Some contributing members of MT participate with other Christian communities of faith.
A list of things that "would make the Church true"
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list is actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.
Here is another example of FAIR using the ‘standard LDS tactic’ of spitefully labeling those with whom it disagrees instead of dealing with the issue on its merits. It labels MormonThink as ‘anti-Mormon’ in an attempt to paint MT as untrustworthy and dishonest in the eyes of Latter-day Saints. “Anti-Mormon” is a spiteful label designed to stop critical thinking and obstruct a healthy exchange of ideas.
MT agrees that almost all of these points have been asked and answered by apologists (unsatisfactorily), but the unofficial answers provided by unauthorized apologists, and the official answers, are insufficient. If the issues were as simplistic as FAIR states, the church ought to post these answers on its official website.
The unofficial FAIR site and the official church leaders ask investigators to accept truth claims based on faith and trust. Critical examination of the issues invariably leads to doubts and concerns because investigators note the evasive tactics used by LDS apologists. Intentional failure to tell the whole truth is a sin of omission. MT is dedicated to putting out all the facts, and letting readers make up their own minds.
Further, it seems odd, to say the least, that a site devoted to "Mormon thinking" would express a series of items that would "make the Church true." Is one to assume that if this list were not required, in the eyes of MormonThink authors, that the Church would somehow be true? Nowhere do the authors address the very simple concept that the best way to find out whether the Church is true is to do what God directs—to ask Him. This list doesn't represent what would make the Church true; it represents a list of things which its authors feel make the Church false.
The list on MT demonstrates the problems associated with the LDS official presentation of church history, what actually happened, and how it’s being taught to its members. There is a substantial difference between what members have been taught in church and what is contained in the objective historical record. Members and those investigating the church have a right to know what those issues, gaps, contradictions and controversies are. They have a right to guidance from their spiritual leaders that consists of more than, “avoid anti-Mormon literature, study and pray more, and put your concerns on the shelf.” Investigators from other Christian denominations nurture their members’ questions, honestly share their own doubts, and join hands to walk the journey of Christian life together. MT waits for Mormonism to adopt this Christian practice.
FAIR says “Nowhere do the authors address the very simple concept that the best way to find out whether the Church is true is to do what God directs—to ask Him.” Many have asked and investigated the fruits of Mormonism and get different answers. They vary from “I got nothing” to “It was confirmed that it’s not true.” In the section entitled “Conclusions” MT states that many investigators and contributors to MT have asked:
“. . . many of us sincerely prayed about these issues after they were brought to our attention. None of us received any answers that would have comforted us enough to maintain our beliefs.”
1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.
Response
One might also expect an honest man to tell the same story, or at least avoid obvious contradictions that appear in the many different First Vision stories.
If this were true, it would not be so easy to point out the inconsistencies and obvious evolution of the First Vision accounts.
Readers ought to judge for themselves instead of letting unofficial apologists perform a Jedi mind-trick by suggesting, “You will see no contradictions or problems! The stories are flawless and complimentary!”
The evidence available from early sources, including Joseph Smith and his family, establish a number of important facts. Joseph did not relate his story consistently, but changed key elements over the years. He changed:
Examining all the versions of the First Vision story, one is presented with a pattern of contradictions and evolution, not mere elaboration on a single original experience. And the pattern of evolution points to a story growing more impressive and miraculous with each telling. This raises legitimate questions for fair-minded people.
FAIR says “in the minds of critics,” but it’s not only the critics that experience confusion, doubts or a problem with the various accounts of the First Vision. Here’s the account of a General Authority regarding the multiple accounts:
S. Dilworth Young was a senior member of the First Council of the Seventy, and one of the General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is apparent from this Improvement Era excerpt below, that Young was surprised to learn of Joseph's evolving accounts about the first vision and seems to indicate that Brother Young was somewhat distressed upon learning about this. This statement is from the June 1957 Improvement Era magazine:
"I cannot remember the time when I have not heard the story concerning the coming of the Father and the Son to the Prophet Joseph Smith."
"I am concerned however with one item which has recently been called to my attention on this matter. There appears to be going about our communities some writing to the effect that the Prophet Joseph Smith evolved his doctrine from what might have been a vision, in which he is supposed to have said that he saw an angel, instead of the Father and the Son. According to this theory, by the time he was inspired to write the occurrence in 1838, he had come to the conclusion that there were two beings."
"This rather shocked me. I can see no reason why the Prophet, with his brilliant mind, (italics added by MT for emphasis) would have failed to remember in sharp relief every detail of that eventful day. I can remember quite vividly that in 1915 I had a mere dream, and while the dream was prophetic in nature, it was not startling. It has been long since fulfilled, but I can remember every detail of it as sharply and clearly as though it had happened yesterday. How them could any man conceive that the Prophet, receiving such a vision as he received, would not remember it and would fail to write it clearly, distinctly, and accurately?" Improvement Era, June 1957, p 436
Read the various accounts for yourself and decide how significant the differences are:
http://www.irr.org/mit/first-vision/fvision-accounts.html
To learn more of the problems with the different versions of the First Vision: http://www.mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm#therareseveral
Joseph’s numerous conflicting accounts of the First Vision are merely one of the many problems with the First Vision story. This problem was not even the most significant one to MT contributors. To learn more about all of the problems related to the First Vision, see MormonThink’s information: http://www.mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm
2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.
Response
For with God nothing shall be impossible.
That might sound like a convenient and tidy excuse to someone with a sense of healthy skepticism; and another attempt to prevent further investigation. God can do anything, of course. God can change the Lamanite DNA from Hebrew to Asian. God can plant dinosaur bones on earth from other planets just to trick all the scientists. God can keep people from finding the hidden cave in Hill Cumorah that has wagonloads of plates as explained by Brigham Young. God can change the skin color of people when they accept the gospel. God can remove all the evidence from a huge civilization of steel-melting, chariot driving, temple building people that lived for over a thousand years and were so numerous that 2 million people died in a single battle. God could do all that, but did He? It’s a fair question that occurs to a majority of investigators and Mormons who think analytically when studying the Book of Mormon.
Exercising healthy skepticism is an every day behavior to keep from being taken in by misleading claims and false advertising. The unofficial FAIR apologists ought to welcome skeptics’ questions about Mormon sacred texts and related claims of origin. Elder James E. Talmage’s work, The Articles of Faith, states, “This book is entitled to the most thorough and impartial examination. Not only does the Book of Mormon merit such consideration, it claims, even demands the same.” (1982, page 273) MT would add that the related claims of origin demand the same consideration.
We ask FAIR a reasonable question. What is the official and authorized position of the church’s leaders describing the Moroni visit? Was it a dream, a vision in the mind of J Smith, or an actual, physical event? MT isn’t as interested in unofficial FAIR opinions as the official and authorized church view. Does the picture in the Ensign represent the official view of the current church leaders?
Much of what is published in the official church magazines is designated as the opinion of the writer or the painter, rather than the church, though members are led to believe that everything in the pages represents official church doctrine and practice. FAIR points to the picture in the Ensign as if it is the official church position. It may or may not be a reflection of official church doctrine or understanding. We would like to know if FAIR is speculating again, while pretending to know the church’s official position. Reasonable investigators want to know.
Why is it uncalled for and naive to expect that an angel and a mortal would make noise if they were talking out loud in the dead of night? That is how the story is presented in the official Mormon version. Joseph said the whole room lit up so brightly that it was “lighter than at noonday” and the angel “called me by name and said unto me that he was a messenger from the presence of God. . . . He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent. . .” (Joseph Smith History 1:30-34) And he did this all night long in three visits, and again on the next day. This is made by J Smith to sound very literal. Why not take it as such from the pen of J Smith’s scribe? We have to take the official account more seriously than speculation and private interpretations by the unauthorized FAIR site.
If the event occurred in a dream, then the church should say so plainly and reveal it as the official position. There is plenty to question about the validity of human dreams. If it is not a dream, was it an event that took place in J Smith’s imagination? That raises another set of important and justifiable questions.
It is up to the church leaders to explain how an angel and a teenage boy can talk all night and not wake up the sleeping siblings, or tell us that it occurred in Joseph’s imagination or semi-conscious dream state. Until the church’s leaders define the exact nature of the event, it’s a reasonable question to discuss and question. And it’s fair to regard FAIR’s speculations and conjecture as unofficial, unauthorized speculation about the event.
NOTE: As soon as MT members learned of the just-released August 2009 issue, MT published the painting depicted in the Ensign and updated the section accordingly. http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm#update
Perhaps web sites like MT are motivating the church leaders to be more accurate in its depictions of historical events. We don’t know what motivates them, but MT welcomes a more honest depiction of historical events. We hope that in the next month’s Ensign the church leaders will provide a depiction of Joseph translating the Book of Mormon by putting his face in a hat and staring at one of his peep stones. If accompanied by an official declaration by the President of the Church that the picture is an accurate depiction of the process of translation, many investigators would have their questions answered.
For more on Moroni’s visit: http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm
3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.
Response
Staring into a dark hat pulled over one’s face, looking into a rock, could be characterized as “a spiritual growing experience” or it can also raise questions because it looks like a lot of hocus pocus to many intelligent, reasonable and objective investigators. Most of the fair minded and good people in the world would likely agree that it looks like a scam in progress. So it’s a reasonable question and the rock-in-the-hat-process will be subject to ridicule and critical questioning until it can be demonstrated that it is a viable method of translating ancient documents. We are unaware of any credible scholars or linguists who use this method. Church employees who provide translation services indicate that they do not use the rock-in-the-hat-method either.
It is also important to point out that early scribes of J Smith describe his activities as a reader, not a translator. He saw English text on the rock in the bottom of his hat, the plates were never in view, and he dictated English sentences as they appeared. Those who reported this reading method were Emma Hale Smith (wife), Isaac Hale (father-in-law), Michael Morse (brother-in-law), Martin Harris, and Joseph Knight Sr. (For Primary sources and an excellent discussion of this issue, Grant H. Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, Signature Books, pages 2-5, and footnotes).
The responsibility to prove that J Smith was actually translating something is left with the church leaders. At this point, the accumulated evidence after 180 years indicates that there were no golden plates, that Smith translated nothing, and God did not put sentences in English on the rock in his hat. The first edition Book of Mormon provides ample evidence of that, due to the thousands of grammatical errors and contradictions. An admission by Smith that this is true is evidenced by his campaign to clean up the book’s grammar and publish a revised and heavily-edited version in 1837.
Smith’s edited book, from 1830 to the present, has corrected approximately 4,000 errors in: (1) punctuation, (2) uneducated grammar (they was a runnin), (3) editing out obvious mistakes, and (4) changing 2 Nephi 11 to coincide with Smith’s evolving belief system about God. The Book itself is why critics and skeptics wonder why Smith referred to the Book of Mormon as the “most correct book of any on earth.” Thousands of revisions, is not evidence in favor of J Smith’s claims. And investigators should not be belittled if they choose to keep asking “Did J Smith translate golden plates?” It’s a reasonable question.
If God gave J Smith revelations about the ancient Americas, why does the Book of Mormon reflect 19th century American myths about American Indians? Why don’t the large Nephite cities in the Americas turn up Nephite artifacts to support the book’s claims? Why was Smith wrong about America’s language, culture, mode of transportation (horses and chariots), flora and fauna? Why do the errors in the King James Version of the Bible that J Smith used (1796 version), show up in the Book of Mormon? Why do unofficial apologists put BOM geography on coasters to be rolled all over the Americas to try and find a place for them that makes sense? The official authorities say the Bom events occurred exactly where Smith said they did – North and South America.
Apostle Marion G. Romney reminded zealous apologists like FAIR to remember this. "I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting, I drove him home. … When we got to his home I got out of the car and went up on the porch with him. Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.'" (Marion G. Romney, in Conference Report, Oct. 1960, p. 78.) How do you reconcile the counsel from an esteemed apostle with all the errors in the foundational sacred text of Mormonism?
FAIR has no valid reason to complain that members ask legitimate and reasonable questions regarding the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, especially when unofficial answers contradict the answers of the general authorities and past presidents of the church. Most of the humans on the planet who have considered the church’s claims as presented by the missionaries, also find them without merit.
Joseph’s peep stone was an ordinary rock
FAIR states that the stone Smith used to translate the Book of Mormon wasn’t common, claiming it possessed special revelatory properties. FAIR points to an event where Joseph claimed he was unable to translate when Martin Harris secretly swapped his favorite seer stone with a common stone. Smith’s stone was found some 20 feet underground on Willard Chase’s property when Joseph and Hyrum were digging a well for Mr. Chase years before the BOM was ever translated. A rock dug up from the dirt is not the equivalent of a “special” stone with special magical properties. Smith’s stone was not a singular stone carefully preserved in the stone box along with the gold plates for thousands of years. It was a rock – a very common, very ordinary, New England rock! Please provide evidence, other than “because we say so” that this rock had some special revelatory properties. If these supernatural rocks exist, why don’t the LDS prophets today use them? Since LDS prophets are seers, why don’t they end the controversy and answer all the justifiable questions reasonable people ask about magic, revelatory rocks?
Martin Harris swapping stones
As FAIR stated, Martin Harris wanted to test Joseph, so he found a small stone of a similar size, shape and color of the seer stone Joseph was using. He substituted this for the one Joseph was using when Joseph wasn't looking. When Joseph tried to translate again using this stone, he couldn't. So FAIR uses that as evidence that the seer stone must have had some special property and not merely have been an object to focus on, or Joseph would have been able to translate from the stone Martin substituted. Or perhaps more likely Joseph noticed that the stone was different and used this as an opportunity to prove to Martin that he was indeed a seer. Take in mind that Joseph carried this stone with him everywhere and gazed at it all the time, so he would have easily detected that Martin had switched the stone.
MT finds it unlikely that Martin could quickly find a stone that was lying around that matched the same size, color and shape almost exactly of the one Joseph had. To Martin, they would have looked similar enough, but Joseph would have known the difference.
FAIR has not explained why the very instrument preserved with the plates for the purpose of translating them (Urim and Thummim) was not returned to Joseph along with the plates, by the angel, after the lost 116 pages were stolen.
Since this stone is reportedly still in possession of the church, MT is willing to give FAIR 100 to 1 odds that if the church would let a panel of non-Mormon, disinterested, objective geologists examine the seer stone, that they would determine that it was just a common, ordinary stone. Please use your considerable influence with LDS authorities to agree to an examination.
For more on the translation process problems for MT: http://www.mormonthink.com/transbomweb.htm
4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.
Response
Saying that the critic fails to distinguish between early and late stages in the translation process is a weak complaint and a diversion away from the actual problem. The “criticism” is more of a skeptic’s analysis. MT values healthy skepticism as it searches for evidence rather than comforting feelings.
The church leaders should offer official and authoritative proof or supporting evidence that J Smith could translate anything at all using the “noisy angel” as revelator, using golden spectacles attached to a breastplate, or by staring at his favorite rock in a hat, claiming that God put the sentences on the rock for him to read while the plates were in a remote location. The evidence to date forces the reasonable person to conclude legitimately that J Smith fabricated the story about translation of golden plates. FAIR or authorized apologists ought to provide reasonable evidence.
There is no current prophet using these incredible aids to revelation. If they work so well, and inspire so much faith on the part of members, it would be more convincing if LDS leaders used them and reported the results publicly. (No it’s not too sacred to report – don’t go there.) If church leaders claim that Smith translated gold plates, objective investigators ought to be skeptical since everything he chronicled about the Americas is based on 19th century myths and wildly inaccurate information. The burden of proof is on the church leaders in authority.
5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.
Response
And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men. For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words— Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.
MT takes the reasonable person approach with this issue. This 116 pages story is identical to “the-dog-ate-my-homework” dodge used by grade schoolers. Teachers don’t fall for it, and no one else should either.
FAIR’s “testimony” does not explain adequately what happened to the “evil men” that stole the pages. What did they do with this valuable manuscript, just tear it up; and if so why? And who are “they?” The motive for explaining the theft in latter-day scripture is unconvincing to reasonable investigators. Most acquainted with the 116 pages tale agree that the manuscript was likely burned by Martin Harris’s wife. A legitimate explanation is that Joseph was afraid she did not destroy it, but feared she secretly hid it in an attempt to discredit or entrap him. As Rev. M.T. Lamb pointed out in 1887:
“If the work was really of God, the manuscript could be reproduced word for word without a mistake. If, however, Joseph inspired it himself, his memory would hardly be adequate to such a task, without numberless changes or verbal differences—and thus "give himself away," since he loudly professed to be all the time aided "by the gift and power of God. (The Golden Bible, pages 118-126)
Perhaps the most obvious question that official sources or unofficial activist apologists have not answered is this: If J Smith possessed a miraculous, revelatory seer stone, why did he not consult it, locate the manuscript pages and go get them? Where is the awesome “power of God” when you really need it? Didn’t the stone lead him to locate the gold plates according to his father-in-law Isaac Hale and even affirmed by FAIR.
For more on the lost 116 pages for MT: http://www.mormonthink.com/lost116web.htm
6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.
Response
Several qualified non-LDS Egyptologists have examined the facsimiles and papyri. They all have arrived at the same conclusion, that Joseph got it wrong - the translation is really no translation at all. MT’s position based on the evidence to date is that 99.9 percent of Egyptologists in the world would discredit Joseph’s translation of the papyri.
The papyri match perfectly with the "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" produced by Joseph Smith. The facsimiles are specific as to the exact Egyptian symbols Joseph “translated”, and they are all wrong according to every objective Egyptologist that has ever examined the facsimiles.
Since Joseph did not translate the Egyptian symbols correctly according to Egyptologists, the unauthorized apologists attempt to find parallels to anything that may be in the BOA with ancient Egypt. One problem is that they use parallels from any time period in their grasping at straws attempt to prove Joseph right. Perhaps misleading parallels can best be addressed by a fellow LDS apologist:
Here is an assessment from a FARMS contributor, Larry Morris, in an article he wrote concerning the BOA:
Douglas F. Salmon, “Parallelomania and the Study of Latter-day Scripture: Confirmation, Coincidence, or the Collective Unconscious?” Dialogue 33/2 (2000): 154—55. See William J. Hamblin’s review of Salmon’s article in “Joseph or Jung? A Response to Douglas Salmon,” FARMS Review of Books 13/2 (2001): 87—104. Believers in the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham have every reason to move cautiously when citing parallels in support of their belief because the use of parallels is a two-edged sword. Critics of the Book of Mormon, for example, have long cited parallels between that book of scripture and Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews (published before the Book of Mormon) as evidence that Joseph Smith borrowed freely from Ethan Smith. Similarly, Thomas E. Donofrio has recently attempted to prove that Joseph Smith drew on such sources as David Ramsay’s Life of George Washington and Mercy Otis Warren’s History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution in producing the Book of Mormon. Donofrio cites phrases common to both the Book of Mormon and either Ramsey or Warren, such as “the cause of liberty,” “in the cause of their country,” “surrendered themselves prisoners of war,” and “supply of provisions,” concluding that “the tally of similarities begin[s] to defy random chance.” Donofrio’s material is at the following Web site: www.post-mormons.com/tories.htm (accessed 6 April 2004).
Dr. Morris assumed that Donofrio “attempted to prove” Smith’s reliance on historical sources. MT cannot “prove” he had those works. However, it waddles and quacks like a duck. He did get the point about it being a danger to faith promoting parallels. There is no magic wand that makes the good parallels good, and the bad ones bad, except in the eye of the believer. MT believes it is reasonable and legitimate to use common sense when examining LDS claims. As stated before, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. All evidence points to J Smith as fraudulently claiming to translate an ancient document, which he said was written by Abraham.
Until a reputable, objective, non-LDS Egyptologists supports Smith’s translation or until the church officially endorses the theory, it will be categorized as another unofficial, activist, apologist hypothesis, unsupported by any real evidence. MT did however add the link to our list of pro-LDS sources.
For more on the Book of Abraham from MT: http://www.mormonthink.com/boaweb.htm
7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.
Response
Scholars with a background in history and archaeology, who regularly submit peer-reviewed articles to well-established and internationally-recognized academic journals, know that J Smith made fraudulent statements and perjured himself when he testified that the Book of Mormon was (1) translated by the gift and power of God, and (2) represents an accurate history of the American Indians (ancient inhabitants of the Americas). That is the state of the evidence at the present time.
In 1973 Michael Coe, one of the best known authorities on archaeology of the New World, wrote an article for Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. In this article he stated:
Mormon archaeologists over the years have almost unanimously accepted the Book of Mormon as an accurate, historical account of the New World peoples.... They believe that Smith could translate hieroglyphs.... Likewise, they accept the Kinderhook Plates as a bona fide archaeological discovery, and the reading of them as correct. Let me now state uncategorically that as far as I know there is not one professionally-trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true, and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group....
The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1973, pp.41, 42, 46).
Dr. Coe made it clear that nothing has changed since his statement in1973. He was interviewed for the PBS Frontline – American Perspective 2007 documentary by Helen Whitney entitled The Mormons.
For more on the Book of Mormon problems from MT: http://www.mormonthink.com/bomweb.htm
8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.
Response
And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.
—Ether 12:6
Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
“If after a rigid examination, it [the Book of Mormon] be found an imposition, it should be extensively published as such; the evidence and arguments on which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated, that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived may perceive the nature of the deception and be reclaimed, and that those who continue to publish the delusion, may be silenced."-- Apostle Orson Pratt
Muslims, Roman Catholics and Baptists also believe there is abundant information available to confirm their respective faiths, and they outnumber the Mormons by a huge margin. By sheer numbers, Mormons cannot justifiably appeal to “we believe,” feelings that comfort the average Mormon apologist. All humans feel deep spiritual feelings from time to time. This does not make Mormonism’s claims true. It makes Mormons the tiny fraction of earth’s population who experience sentimental feelings about the Book of Mormon.
MT believes that clear, accurate, compelling evidence is required for a reasonable person to exercise faith. MT does not believe that one must believe in spite of contradictory evidence; but that evidence will support one’s beliefs. Members should not to be required to “put your doubts on the shelf” and suspend analytical thought. Hugh B. Brown, counselor in the First Presidency, again:
“I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent – if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression. . . This free exchange of ideas is not to be deplored as long as men and women remain humble and teachable. Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. . . . We must preserve the freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it.” (Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown, ed. Edwin B. Firmage (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1988), 137-39; Hugh B. Brown, “An Eternal Quest—Freedom of the Mind,” a speech delivered at Brigham Young University, 13 May 1969, in Speeches of the Year (Provo, UT): Brigham Young University Press, 1969); rpt. In Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 17 (Spring 1984): 77-83)
MT notes that throughout history, LDS leaders have boldly claimed that there is plenty of evidence to support their religious claims. Yet the vast majority of good men and women in the world today, who have been exposed to those beliefs and attendant claims, find that the evidence points to a different conclusion – J Smith was less than honest about the origins of the LDS church. Members of other Christian churches read about Jerusalem in the Bible and can visit Jerusalem and other points of interest mentioned in the Bible. The believers in the Book of Mormon cannot visit any of the sites listed in their sacred text, and in fact, cannot agree where the actual events took place, though the book’s author was clear about one place – Cumorah was the location of the last Nephite battle and the location of the buried plates (see article below). But there is no evidence to support these claims.
Until evidence appears to support the Mormon truth claims, it is reasonable to assume a sensible position – the events did not take place, except in the imagination of J. Smith. That is after all, what Book of Mormon expert and General Authority B.H. Roberts concluded:
"One other subject remains to be considered in this division... viz.—was Joseph Smith possessed of a sufficiently vivid and creative imagination as to produce such a work as the Book of Mormon from such materials as have been indicated in the preceding chapters... That such power of imagination would have to be of a high order is conceded; that Joseph Smith possessed such a gift of mind there can be no question....
"In the light of this evidence, there can be no doubt as to the possession of a vividly strong, creative imagination by Joseph Smith, the Prophet, an imagination, it could with reason be urged, which, given the suggestions that are found in the 'common knowledge' of accepted American antiquities of the times, supplemented by such a work as Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, would make it possible for him to create a book such as the Book of Mormon is." (Studies of the Book of Mormon, pp. 243, 250)
"If from all that has gone before in Part 1, the view be taken that the Book of Mormon is merely of human origin... if it be assumed that he is the author of it, then it could be said there is much internal evidence in the book itself to sustain such a view.
"In the first place there is a certain lack of perspective in the things the book relates as history that points quite clearly to an undeveloped mind as their origin. The narrative proceeds in characteristic disregard of conditions necessary to its reasonableness, as if it were a tale told by a child, with utter disregard for consistency." (Ibid., page 251)
"There were other Anti-Christs among the Nephites, but they were more military leaders than religious innovators... they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and undeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator. It is difficult to believe that they are the product of history, that they come upon the scene separated by long periods of time, and among a race which was the ancestral race of the red man of America." (Ibid., page 271)
FAIR, you state "Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the BOM". Would you please give the readers details of this evidence so they can examine it?
For information on whether Joseph could have written the BOM: http://www.mormonthink.com/josephweb.htm
9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.
Response
The conclusion MT draws about Cumorah is the authorized one, while FAIR’s unofficial ad-hoc version contradicts the church’s official view. The LDS prophets are the only people authorized to offer the official views representing the Mormon Church doctrine and practice. For example, in 1990 a Mormon bishop asked the First Presidency about the location of the Hill Cumorah. In a letter dated Oct. 16, 1990, the Secretary to the First Presidency replied to his inquiry:
Dear Bishop Brooks:
I have been asked to forward to you for acknowledgment and handling the enclosed copy of a letter to President Gordon B. Hinckley from Ronnie Sparks of your ward. Brother Sparks inquired about the location of the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon, where the last battle between the Nephites and Lamanites took place.
The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.
FAIR has a right to form its own opinions contradicting Mormon official doctrine, but not to fashion its own facts. Does FAIR see the LDS prophets as fallen prophets who have led members astray regarding the Book of Mormon?
Even if Cumorah happened somewhere else in the Americas, where is archeological evidence of any location where over 2M warriors died in a single battle?
For more information on the Hill Cumorah location: http://www.mormonthink.com/bomweb.htm#cumorah
10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.
Response
The world lacks an official an authoritative Mormon position on this issue. Mormon authorities refuse to speak publicly on the matter as they are called and paid to do. FAIR and other unofficial and unauthorized organizations maintained by zealous, activist members, routinely produce hundreds of pages criticizing any who acknowledge that DNA evidence undercuts Book of Mormon claims.
DNA is recognized by the U.S. courts of law as admissible evidence. It is a proven scientific method. Why would the LDS Church reject it? MT stands by its article which is consistent with recognized standards, accepted by reputable genetic scientists who routinely publish peer reviewed articles for the scholars all over the world to critique. MT challenges readers to compare the defense by FAIR and other unauthorized sites to the evidence placed on MT. The evidence from reputable scientists speaks for itself.
For more information on the DNA evidence: http://www.mormonthink.com/bomweb.htm#DNA
11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.
Response
Member and other investigators are frustrated because modern church presidents and apostles do not provide official responses on challenging historical matters, including the Kinderhook Plates. Past church leaders declared the Kinderhook Plates authentic, but now their “inspired counsel” is rejected by unofficial FAIR apologists.
Here is the argument framed by B.H. Roberts when he said (underlining added):
“How easy to have covered Joseph Smith and his followers with ridicule by proclaiming the hoax as soon as they accepted the Kinderhook plates as genuine! Why was it not done? The fact that Fugate's story was not told until thirty-six years after the event, and that he alone of all those who were connected with the event gives that version of it, is rather strong evidence that his story is the hoax, not the discovery of the plates, nor the engravings upon them.” (History of the Church' by Joseph Smith pages vol. 5, page 379
If the men were lying about faking the Kinderhook Plates, then the Kinderhook Plates must be real. In the History of the Church, not some anti-Mormon book, it says right there plain as can be:
"I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook... I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, and that he received his Kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth." Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 5, p. 372
The following is from page 372 of History of the Church, vol 5. by Joseph Smith.
Notice to the left that it clearly says "Comment of the Prophet on the Kinderhook Plates".
There really is no valid reason to doubt that Joseph made those comments on the Kinderhook Plates.
The only way out of this debacle is if the plates were really genuine, but the church has already admitted that the Kinderhook Plates were a hoax in the August, 1981 Ensign, although they don’t say that prior to this time that the Kinderhook Plates were believed to be genuine by the church.
Why did the perpetrators wait so long? That’s a fair question. MT does not pretend to know, but can speculate as well as others can. They may have hoped that Joseph, or some other LDS prophet, would eventually write a long sequel to the Book of Mormon using the Kinderhook Plates, as was rumored by some at the time. Since that didn’t happen, and after Joseph was killed a year later, they probably just let it go as Joseph only wrote a paragraph of translation vs an entire hoped-for book. But obviously someone had to fake the plates as today no one, not even the church, believes that they are genuine. And since the modern-day analysis of the plates determined that it was made in the exact manner (etching with acid) as claimed by the alleged perpetrator Wilbur Fugate, it is reasonable to acknowledge that he was responsible for the hoax.
What is clear is that J Smith fell for the hoax. Trying to excuse him from his boast that he could translate the “plates” by blaming his personal secretary is dishonest and misleading. Most of the official history of the church that church apologists accept was written by persons other than J. Smith. It is intellectually unfair to cherry pick segments of church history you like (written by a scribe) and then find weak excuses to disown the rest because it was also written by a scribe. Unofficial apologists fail to offer believable evidence why William Clayton, who was a faithful and diligent secretary, and with the prophet on that very day, would not write a correct account.
For more on the Kinderhook Plates from MT: http://www.mormonthink.com/kinderhookweb.htm
12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.
Response
And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.
—From the Testimony of Three Witnesses
Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.
—From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses
Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, MormonThink's claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
MT unapologetically cites confessions by Martin Harris admitting that he and others fabricated witness stories; or failing to explain that the witness accounts took place in their individual imaginations. Asking MT to cite all of the fabricated statements to the contrary (such as those written by J Smith for the witnesses), deliberately sidesteps an important consideration in the presentation of evidence.
Members are well aware of the church’s official position – that the three and eight witnesses claimed to have seen and handled physical objects, and it is explained fully on the MT site. What members are not taught, because church leaders believe that “some truths are not very useful,” is that Martin Harris confessed that he saw nothing, nor did the other witnesses. Asking that MT publish the many untruthful claims by Smith and his witnesses is like asking the Commissioner of Major League Baseball to publish all of Pete Rose’s denials that “I never, ever bet on baseball.” The few actual admissions or confessions by Rose that he did indeed bet on baseball, is sufficient proof that he lied. So it is with the myth of the three and eight witnesses.
This complaint by the unofficial group FAIR also gives members another opportunity to ask why it is that the church leaders do not trust them enough to tell them the whole truth about the church’s truth claims and the origins of Mormonism. Publish Harris’s confessions and explain that the witnesses’ events were the result of an active imagination, wishful thinking and magic-world view. Most people on planet earth find this to be the most reasonable explanation in light of the evidence.
For more on the witnesses from MT: http://www.mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm
13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.
Response
MT never said enemies. There are unlimited numbers of non-relatives who are not enemies that could have served as impartial witnesses.
And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. In its unauthorized capacity, FAIR offers only quotes from the Book of Mormon, which they cannot prove is what it claims to be. Until the LDS Church leaders support Book of Mormon claims and provide sufficient evidence that it is what it claims to be, it is silly to quote from its preface and ask reasonable people to accept statements by Smith as evidence.
Martin Harris was anything but a skeptical witness. He was known by his peers as an unstable, gullible and superstitious man. He claimed he saw Jesus Christ in the form of a deer. He claimed he walked alongside and conversed with him (Jesus/the deer) for several miles. (Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, p. 271) Reports assert that he and the other witnesses never literally saw the gold plates, but only an object said to be the plates, covered with a cloth. Casual observers and fair-minded persons of all faiths are allowed to question the veracity of the three and eight witnesses, including the gullible Martin Harris.
Ronald W. Walker gave examples of Harris’s gullible and superstitious nature. He wrote, “His imagination was excitable and fecund [fertile]. Once while reading scripture, he reportedly mistook a candle’s sputtering as a sign that the devil desired to stop him. Another time he excitedly awoke from his sleep believing that a creature as large as a dog had been upon his chest, though a nearby associate could find nothing to confirm his fears. Several hostile and perhaps unreliable accounts told of visionary experiences with Satan and Christ. Harris once reporting that Christ had been poised on a roof beam. (Ronald W. Walker, “Martin Harris: Mormonism’s Early Convert,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19 (Winter 1986): 30-33)
The Reverend John A. Clark, who knew Harris, said Martin “had always been a firm believer in dreams, and visions and supernatural appearances, such as apparitions and ghosts, and therefore was a fit subject for such men as Smith and his colleagues to operate on.” Lorenzo Saunders said Harris was a “great man for seeing spooks.” Presbyterian minister Jesse Townsend of Palmyra called Harris a “visionary fanatic.” Harris was gullible enough to believe Smith when told that if he were to look upon the plates, God would strike him dead. Harris was a perfect target for any con man. Unless the authorized defenders of the church can defend Harris’s character better than the unofficial FAIR site, it is reasonable to harbor doubts about the veracity of J Smith and his work with the witnesses.
Isaac Hale, Smith’s father-in-law stated that Joseph “pretended to read and interpret [the writing on the peep stone] was the same [method he used] as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and hat over his face, while the book of plates were at the same time hid in the woods. (Affadivit of Isaac Hale, 20 March 1834, in Susquehanna Register and Northern Pennsylvanian, 1 May 1834.) Martin Harris confirmed that J Smith used the peep stone to discover the plates. (in Tiffany’s Monthly, 163; quoted in Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents 2:302)
This begs the question: If FAIR presents both sides of the truth, where are these stories about the superstitious Martin Harris located on their site? MT challenges FAIR to be fair and to research the unflattering side of Martin Harris and the other witnesses and present that side in full, alongside their complimentary and flattering descriptions.
14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.
Response
We find it hard to believe that the church bowed down to societal pressures regarding the blacks yet ignored societal norms in order to practice polygamy which most Americans regarded as barbaric in the 19th century.
It is one thing to deny blacks the priesthood when everyone else did, but quite another to be the last major religion in America to grant equal religious status to blacks. It just doesn’t seem like the one, true church would be the last hold-out to change something that everyone now agrees is right.
FAIR states that “the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks”. How progressive was Brigham Young when he said these gems (emphasis added):
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)
"You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation ...When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:336).
If Utah was admitted into the Union as a sovereign State, and we chose to introduce slavery here, it is not their business to meddle with it; and even if we treated our slaves in an oppressive manner, it is still none of their business and they ought not to meddle with it. Journal of Discourses 4:39-40 (Aug 31, 1856)
Does this sound progressive?
D. Michael Quinn records the LDS Church attitude toward people of color. The article may be found in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 33, No. 3, Fall 2000, 1-52. the article is entitled, Prelude to the National “Defense of Marriage” Campaign: Civil Discrimination Against Feared or Despised Minorities.
Brigham Young “instructed the Utah legislature in 1852 to legalize the slavery of African-Americans.”
“For more than a century, Utah restricted African-Americans from patronizing white restaurants and hotels, prohibited them from public swimming pools, and required them to sit in the balconies of theaters.”
“During World War II, African-Americans wearing their nation’s uniform had to sit in the balcony of Utah theaters, while German prisoners-of-war sat on the main floor with servicemen and civilians. Utah law also prohibited marriage between a white person and a black (including persons only one-eighth Negro).”
“Utah’s racial discrimination did not occur by happenstance nor did it continue into modern times by accident. It was promoted by the highest leaders of the state’s dominant church. As late as 1941, Counselor J. Reuben Clark used the word “nigger” in his First Presidency office diary. In 1944 the First Presidency authorized local LDS leaders to join ‘as individuals a civic organization whose purpose is to restrict and control negro settlement’ in Salt lake City. A year later, LDS president George Albert Smith wrote: “Talked to Pres Clark & Nicholas [G. Smith an Assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] about the use of [LDS] meeting houses for meetings to prevent Negroes from becoming neighbors.” Nicholas G. Smith described this action as race hatred.
Continuing quotes from Quinn’s article: “In 1949, while criticizing the legislative efforts in Arizona to ‘guarantee rights of Negroes,’ LDS presidency counselof David O. McKay said, ‘The South knows how to handle them and they do not have any trouble, and the colored people are better off down there—[but] in California they are becoming very progressive and insolent in many cases. Likewise, in 1950 Counselor Clark wrote: ‘Race tolerance: the trend is just terrible’ (emphasis in original).
“Joseph Fielding Smith wrote to the First Presidency about African-American members of the LDS church in Utah and referred to the “danger of intermarriage.”
Quinn notes that in 1953 the secretary to the First Presidency boasted to a white Mormon, “The LDS Hospital here in Salt Lake City has a blood bank which does not contain any colored blood.” This policy of separating “colored blood” from “white blood” “was intended to protect the purity of the blood streams of the people of this Church” so said President J. Reuben Clark.
When prominent African-Americans were invited to Utah, such as Nobel Peace Prize recipient Ralph Bunche, the First Presidency relaxed its normal policy of not allowing African-American celebrities to stay in the church-owned Hotel Utah. But they required him to use the freight elevator instead of the normal elevator provided to customers, and he was forced to take his meals in his room and not permitted to come into the dining room. President J. Reuben Clark explained, “Since they are not entitled to the Priesthood, the Church discourages social intercourse with the negro race. . . . Therefore, African-Americans were denied equal access to the LDS church’s hotel in order to ‘preserve the purity of the race that is entitled to hold the Priesthood.”
The LDS Church leaders promoted all-white neighborhoods in Utah. They used Utah’s Uniform Real Estate Contract, Form 30, which “prohibited the purchaser of real estate and his/her heirs from reselling the property ‘to any person not of the Caucasian race.’
“The Salt Lake City School District prohibited blacks from being teachers and from fulfilling student-teaching requirements of their university training.”
“Blacks were prohibited from eating at the lunch counter of Salt Lake City’s City-County Building.”
“All of Utah’s bowling alleys excluded African-Americans, and LDS hospitals segregated black patients, sometimes requiring them to pay for private rooms. This was also the policy at Utah’s Catholic hospitals.”
Conclusion: Contrary to what FAIR claims, it's clear that the LDS leadership, from the time of the restoration through the 1960s, was not more progressive than the rest of America in their racial attitudes and in some cases was far less progressive as other churches had allowed blacks the rights to the priesthood long before the LDS Church did.
For more on the blacks and the priesthood from MT:
http://www.mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm
15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.
Response
MT already mentions the “Curse of Cain” belief as pre-dating the LDS church belief. It's important to note that the Latter-day Saints have unique scriptures that say that blacks are cursed from God such as Moses 7:22, Book of Abraham 1:26-27, 2 Nephi 5: 21, Alma 3: 6, 2 Nephi 30: 6 and 3 Nephi 2:15.
Church members cannot find anything official from the church as to whether or not the ban on blacks having the priesthood, and the reasons for it, was divinely inspired or a mistake made by the leaders of the church. FAIR's response stated that the prophets are not perfect which implies that they made a mistake here. FAIR do you believe the prophets erred when they denied blacks the priesthood?
When Gordon B. Hinckley is asked publicly about the ban, his response is he doesn't know why blacks were banned from the priesthood for 150 years until 1978 and he just says it is all behind us now - much like his response to polygamy. If we are to accept the LDS Church as God's one true church on the earth, and is indeed lead by prophets that communicate with God, then we think we deserve more of an answer. Is that too much to ask?
Mormon prophets “are not perfect men” is a convenient dodge. Investigators object when Mormon prophets are not only imperfect, but dishonest, ignorant and dishonorable. Why Mormons are eager to claim that their “inspired leaders” had no more insight than early bigoted Protestants is a mystery. But if they want to insist that their prophets are no more inspired than the Protestants, then we have no disagreement.
It is disingenuous for unofficial apologists to hide behind “line upon line” as the method of revealed truth. It is patently false in many cases. And it sidesteps the point that Mormons deliberately regarded people of color as inferior. Elijah Abel was ordained to the priesthood but denied temple blessings, as was Jane Manning. Many enlightened men and women who were members of other faiths saw the horrible inequity driven by hatred, racism and slavery, and spoke out against it. Mormon prophet Brigham Young on the other hand, embraced slavery and further threatened blacks and whites with death on the spot should they marry. This is barbaric, whether it represented 19th century thought or not. This prophet led Mormons astray. Why didn’t God remove him from office?
If FAIR regards the LDS treatment and beliefs about blacks as merely an "error" or "misconception of truth" then what real value are the prophets over other religions where they corrected their primitive thinking long before the LDS did?
16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.
Response
MT does not assume that polygamy could have been ordained by God the way Smith introduced it. Having sex in the barn with Fanny Alger, without Emma’s consent, is adultery and not plural marriage. The keys for plural marriage had not been “delivered” yet.
MT does not look upon J Smith’s repeated threat, “an angel with a drawn sword appeared to me and ordered me to take you as a plural wife/practice polygamy/etc.” as an honest man’s account. If Smith did actually use this ruse, it ranks with other ruses men have used to have sex with other women such as “I belong to the CIA/FBI, etc.” It does not pass the smell test.
MT does not apologize for questioning the early church leaders’ honesty after learning that Smith did not support his wives, kept them secret from Emma, and threatened Emma with destruction in a revelation that conveniently told her to let Smith do as he pleased (D&C 132). MT questions anyone who would defend Smith for locking Nancy Rigdon (age 19) in a room and demanding that she marry him, and then lying about it afterward (Mormon Polygamy: A History by Richard Van Wagoner, 2nd Edition, pages 29, 32-33). MT condemns Smith for character assassination of young girls who refused his advances (Martha Brotherton and Sarah Pratt ) (Ibid. page 26, note 7; pages 29-36, 41). MT does not believe that God reveals certain laws to his church, and then requires disciples to intentionally lie to continue its practice. The practice of polygamy bears all the earmarks of a man-invented, man-sustained practice without any inspiration. There is no evidence to the contrary except FAIR’s offer to pray about it. If there is anyone out there reading this that can honestly say that they get a good, warm, spiritual feeling that God commanded Joseph to illegally marry other men's wives and 14 year-old girls and to lie about it, please email us and we'll post your impressions.
For more on the polygamy from MT: http://www.mormonthink.com/polyweb.htm
17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.
Response
As The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship (formerly FARMS) is actually owned by the LDS Church (located on BYU’s campus), their arguments should trump FAIR’s arguments as FAIR is a private group of members with no authority to speak for the church. The Neal A. Maxwell Institute on the other hand is often referred to on the church’s official website for members to read probable explanations to troubling issues. It is troubling to members trying to understand historically embarrassing events, that general authorities of the church do not speak out on these issues rather than hiring others to speak for them. Members are told that church leaders are fearless defenders of truth.
In a review of Grant Palmer's book An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, the most prominent pro-LDS organization, the Neal A.Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, issued the following in response to the Greek Psalter incident as portrayed by Palmer:
Caswall wrote that when he challenged Latter-day Saint apostle Willard Richards with Smith's mistaken identification, Richards responded that "sometimes Mr. Smith speaks as a prophet, and sometimes as a mere man." Knowing that Smith had a great interest in languages and studied them when he could, Richards understood this, but Caswall failed to grasp the distinction. Apparently Palmer struggles with the distinction as well. He takes the episode as evidence against Joseph's ability to translate anything.
http://www.farmsresearch.com/display.php?table=review&id=513
Note: FARMS has their usual disclaimer which they customarily have on virtually every article published on their website: "The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
According to an article published on the website of the Maxwell Institute (as close to official as one can find), they do not question that the Greek Psalter incident took place as described. They support Apostle Richard's assertion that Joseph was speaking as a man and that Joseph only gave his scholarly opinion to Caswall, thus not really harming Joseph's credibility as a prophet, seer and translator.
We support professor Caswall's response to Joseph's error: "Whether he spoke as a prophet or as a mere man, he has committed himself, for he has said what is not true. If he spoke as a prophet, therefore, he is a false prophet. If he spoke as a mere man, he cannot be trusted, for he spoke positively and like an oracle respecting that which he knew nothing."
When Joseph speaks and leads others to assume he is speaking as a prophet, then he needs to be accountable for what he says. It is too convenient to say Joseph speaks as a man whenever he's proved wrong, and as a prophet whenever his statements can't be proven right or wrong, or haven't been proven one way or the other yet.
Regarding John Taylor
FAIR states "Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty." On the contrary, MT clearly states the source as Caswall yet FAIR doesn't inform their readers about John Taylor's dishonesty regarding his explicit denial of polygamy.
FAIR, please give us a reference for John Taylor calling Caswell a liar, as we can't find it.
In the meantime, here is a source for John Taylor's veracity:
"We are accused here of polygamy,... and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief;... I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us containing some of the articles of our Faith. 'Doctrine and Covenants,' page 330... Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death,..."' (tract published by John Taylor in England, in 1850, page 8; published in "Orson Pratt's Works," 1851 edition).
At the time of Taylor's declaration, he had at least six wives back in the USA.
For more on the Greek Psalter from MT: http://www.mormonthink.com/greekweb.htm
18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.
Response
Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."
A significant part of one quote by J Smith to a Pittsburgh newspaper editor (David Nye White) was left out of the FAIR quote. Joseph Smith told David Nye White, senior editor of Pennsylvania’s Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette on 28 August 1843 that when he was in a “quandary,” he asked the Lord for a revelation, and when he could not get it, he “followed the dictates of his own judgment, which were as good as a revelation to him.” (Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, Volume 1, page 181).
This sounds like the feelings, hunches, intuition and imagination that all mortals use.
Smith also believed revelation consisted of “sudden strokes of ideas” that mingled with his thoughts. (Joseph Smith, 27 June 1839 discourse in History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. B.H. Roberts, 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1978 printing), 3:381
Recall that scribes to J Smith admitted that the plates were not in view when he read from the peep stone. This appears to have set a precedent. God answers tough questions – all of them, including what to dictate to scribes. Many revelations were received in this way, or the way that J Smith described to David Nye White (his own judgment, which was as good as a revelation to him).
In other words, his imagination or his guesswork is the engine that drove his revelations. Most Mormons on any given Fast Sunday claim fervently (often in tears) that God does answer all the tough questions.
For more on the prophets since Joseph from MT: http://www.mormonthink.com/prophetsweb.htm
19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the Middle Ages.
Response
That’s hardly proof since Joseph claimed many things that can’t be verified such as the First Vision or historicity of the BOM.
Joseph also knew about Masonry before Nauvoo as many of the LDS men that Joseph associated with, including his father and brother, were Masons and Masonry was commonly practiced where he lived.
What evidence? Go to the link that FAIR provided to answer this question Temple endowment and Freemasonry, and you’ll see that there is no specific evidence given of the endowment ceremony performed in ancient Israel.
FAIR Masonry expert Greg Kearney admits on FAIR’s web site that the Masonry Rituals that resemble the LDS Temple Ceremony date from the 1700s and definitely were not used in Solomon's temple:
"Unfortunately, there is no historical evidence to support a continuous functioning line from Solomon's Temple to the present. We know what went on in Solomon's Temple; it's the ritualistic slaughter of animals." "The Message and the Messenger: Latter-day Saints and Freemasonry" by Greg Kearney
fairlds.org (scroll to the last page)
"Masonry, while claiming a root in antiquity, can only be reliably traced to mediaeval stone tradesmen."
"It is clear that Freemasonry and its traditions played a role in the development of the endowment ritual."
fairlds.org
Masonry cannot be traced beyond the mediaeval stone tradesmen, and it did not emerge from Solomon’s temple ceremonies. FAIR provides no evidence that the ancient Israelites and Christians practiced these ceremonies other than “because-we-say-so”.
FAIR did not provide any specific parallels on their website that we could examine. But even so, as noted above in our answer for Question #6, the use of parallels by the apologists (instead of just providing direct evidence for their claims) is a double-edged sword that works against the apologists in many circumstances, but FAIR does not recognize this, as they selectively pick and choose what parallels are meaningful and what parallels are coincidence.
For more on the Temple from MT: http://www.mormonthink.com/templeweb.htm
20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.
Response
For some people it is uplifting, but many, many members have found the ceremony to be disturbing, especially those that went through the ceremony before 1990 when the death oaths and five points of fellowship were still performed.
That’s true that MT would prefer the temple ceremony to be about Christ or something that inspires us to be better people. If one believes that the temple ceremony was revealed from God, even if it is not what we mere mortals would like, most reasonable people do not expect this divine ceremony to be changing significantly over the years. It begs the question: Who is really the author of temple ceremonies, mortals or God?
Older Latter-day Saints who experienced the temple before 1990 were told by church leaders that the ceremony was given to Joseph Smith by revelation, that it had never been changed, and that it would never BE changed. From August 2001 Ensign (page 22), in big bold print above a large colorful portrait of Joseph Smith:
"The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, 'Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed.'"
The Church goes on to declare:
"It is this principle of consistent and unalterable requirements that gives true meaning to the performance of vicarious ordinances in the temple. The Prophet wrote that baptism for the dead and the recording of such baptisms conform to the ordinance and preparation that the Lord ordained and prepared before the foundation of the world, for the salvation of the dead who should die without a knowledge of the gospel."
"Through time and apostasy following Christ's Resurrection and Ascension, however, the divine authority of the priesthood and the sacred ordinances were changed or lost, and the associated covenants were broken. The Lord revealed His displeasure over this situation in these words: 'For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant; They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god.' This situation required a restoration of knowledge pertaining to the importance, significance, and appointed administration of sacred gospel ordinances, both live and vicarious, as well as the divine authority of the priesthood and priesthood keys to administer them."
- "Ordinances and Covenants", Ensign, August 2001, page 23
The forced secrecy also has the benefit of keeping members from discussing the “strangeness” of the ceremony and possibly concluding that the ceremony really isn’t as divine as they were told it was, or how similar it is to Masonry.
21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.
Response
We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.
The ellipsis that FAIR inserted was for “the five points of fellowship in it, which came directly from the Masons, and has nothing at all to do with religion.”
FAIR said the reason they eliminated these words is that we “will not discuss such content in this forum.” This is silly since anyone can search for the “five points of fellowship” on FAIR’s own website, and that exact phrase is shown many times. So why is it reasonable to discuss this on the FAIR web site but not in response to MormonThink’s question?
The answer, of course, is that there is no good defense for why the five points of fellowship was ever in the temple ceremony to begin with for 150 years. Greg Kearney of FAIR openly discusses the five points of fellowship right on FAIR’s website:
“for instance, we used to have the Five Points of Fellowship--this is a direct Masonic thing.” http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_Latter-day_Saints_and_Freemasonry.html
Five points of Fellowship
> A Masonic tradition once used in the temple. Removed after 1990 as it had become meaningless to modern saints. http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Similarities_between_Masonic_and_Mormon_Temple_Ritual.html
FAIR ducked the question by using the ellipses, but the question remains, why on earth would a purely Masonic ritual known as the five points of fellowship ever be part of the sacred temple ceremony to begin with?
FAIR said, “No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand”. So what do the symbols mean? They aren’t helpful if the people that go through the ceremony don’t know what the symbols even mean. Most LDS members that MT is acquainted with believe that they will have to present knowledge of the signs and tokens to gain entrance into heaven as Brigham Young taught. It doesn’t make much sense that members have to have perfect knowledge of the signs and tokens, if they are only symbols that most LDS don’t understand. It’s too sacred to discuss – right?
Until the LDS Church, in an official capacity, explains why these things were changed in the temple ceremony over the years, FAIR’s explanation is only unofficial, unauthorized conjecture. It is perhaps more likely that people were very disturbed by these parts of the ceremony, and the church changed them to appease the members (or prevent lawsuits), and not from revelation or changes in culture.
. [top]
22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.
Response
If the church changed something as important and basic as its official name, and if they did so in error (without revelation), then that appears to reasonable people that the LDS leaders are not any more inspired than average humans. Since the name change took four years before they were ‘inspired’ to correct, it is also very troubling for these men to be called prophets, seers and revelators. It appears that the church is run by mortals with whatever administrative ability they happen to possess, just like most other institutions, organizations or corporations.
Book of Mormon witness David Whitmer also had a problem with the name change (emphasis added):
"In June, 1829, the Lord gave us the name by which we must call the church, being the same as he gave the Nephites. We obeyed His commandment, and called it the Church of Christ until 1834, when, through the influence of Sydney Rigdon, the name of the church was changed to `The Church of the Latter Day Saints,' dropping out the name of Christ entirely, that name which we were strictly commanded to call the church by, and which Christ by His own lips makes so plain" (Address to All Believers in Christ, pg. 73)
For more information on the name changes of the church from MT: http://www.mormonthink.com/nameweb.htm
23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.
Response
All facts are not known, and this isn’t the 19th century. Science has taught us much in 200 years. We feel it’s important to know when established science dramatically conflicts with fundamental religious beliefs. For example, in the 19th century, Joseph Smith could have said that the Book of Abraham papyri meant anything he wanted because science couldn’t definitely say otherwise, but now science knows how to translate Egyptian. So it only makes sense to use this new-found knowledge to test the church’s extraordinary claims when possible. The church wouldn’t hesitate to use science if it would help its claims, would it?
Many members are simply not aware of the contradictions between science and what the church has taught. It’s only when members are informed of the many anachronisms in the BOM that this becomes a problem. For example, most members aren’t aware that the BOM mentions things that didn’t exist in BOM times in the Americas such as horses, elephants, wheat, barley, steel, silk, etc. Many members are not aware of the numerous impossibilities presented by the story of Noah and the Global Flood as taught by the church as a true account. The average member isn’t even aware that the Book of Abraham papyri has been found, and that Egyptologists (who can actually translate Egyptian) translate the papyri and facsimiles completely differently than Joseph did.
Even if a member realizes the problems encountered by science with the church, they will often listen to the gospel doctrine teacher (using the church issued manual), who merely dismisses all problems with a wave of a hand by giving some ludicrous explanation such as how the dinosaur bones really came from another planet and not from life that existed here millions of years ago.
True believers may also cite research by some rogue scientist that supports the church, or worse still, be told that all they need to do is follow the prophet, even if he’s wrong (Ensign, July 1972, p. 98).
We only ask that members be informed of the problems related to the church’s conflicts with science that have been identified by respected scientists, and then they can make up their own minds as to how significant these problems are, as opposed to relying on a subjective testimony to supersede facts and ongoing scientific discovery.
For more information on conflicts with science from MT: http://www.mormonthink.com/scienceweb.htm
24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.
Response
And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Many people the world over have made known their experiences praying about the truthfulness of the LDS Church known. We have read countless stories of how there was either no confirmation given that the church was true, or in many cases a strong feeling that the church was a deception. Also, the contributors to the MT site have all prayed about whether or not the church is true, and none of us received any sort of confirming answer. Also as missionaries, we all had investigators that took the discussions, read the BOM and did not join the church because they said that they didn’t get a confirmation from God that it is true. These people wanted to know if it was true. They were sincere. We were sincere.
FAIR asked “How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his/hers?” Please note that warm fuzzy feelings do not define truth. Given the very high inactivity rate, it doesn’t sound like the majority of members have solid testimonies anyway. All I can say is that speaking for myself, I prayed earnestly daily for 5 years every night after finding out about the true history of the church and asked the questions; ‘Is the church true?’, ‘Was Joseph a prophet’, ‘Is the BOM an actual true account of peoples that lived somewhere in the Americas thousands of years ago’? I never received any answers at all that would indicate the church was true. I implore all sincere truthseekers to use prayer also and try to get definitive, positive answers to those questions.
And of course, if we accept that some members do get answers in the affirmative about the LDS Church being true, then how do we account for members of other religions that get similar answers about their religions? Is it not arrogant to say that my testimony is real, but yours must be false? And the vast majority of humans on earth disagree with Mormons on that point.
For more information on testimonies from MT: http://www.mormonthink.com/testimonyweb.htm
25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.
Response
These pictures are used as teaching aids by instructors within the church to teach historic and doctrinal truths to the members. The vast majority of LDS members believe Joseph translated the BOM using the Urim and Thummim in conjunction with the gold plates. Most of them believe that by looking at these kinds of pictures published by the church. So why not make these teaching aids accurate – unless the church has something it wishes to hide from the common member?
And as stated in our answer to Question 2, as soon as MT members learned of the just-released August 2009 issue, MT published the painting depicted in the Ensign and updated the section accordingly. http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm#update
We know it is not required by the church, but many churches are very up front about their finances, and we feel that financial disclosure is a Christ like quality of trustworthiness that is to be admired and aspired to. As members, we are of course, required to essentially disclose our income during tithing settlement (it doesn’t take a genius to calculate income from a 10 percent tithing payment), so why should not the church as an entity do the same and lead by example?
Simply put, we would expect the one, true church to be more honest and forthcoming about its money than churches that are not ‘as true’. Suppose we had two churches; the first church was completely open about how much money it has, where it spends its money and how much its clergy are paid. Then we have the second church where they are very secretive about their money, no one is told how much money they have or what exactly they spend it on, and no one has any idea how much their leaders are paid. So which church sounds like it is God's true church? By their fruits ye shall know them.
Most local leaders and missionaries merely pass on what they were taught, so they are blameless. And it’s possible that even at the highest levels that, many of the top brethren do not know about the true Mormon history or are not interested in knowing details about potential problems. Of course it is a little disconcerting to think that the FAIR apologists know more about the true nature of the church than the prophet and apostles. But certainly some of the top men know about these issues, such as Brother Nelson’s acknowledgement of the ‘stone in the hat’ or Brother Oak’s admission that Joseph lied about polygamy.
More to the point, the dishonesty begins at the highest levels. When members and Church Education System teachers and administrators are told not to teach an objective account of the church history, that some truths aren’t very useful, that’s an order to withhold vital information and practice unethical behavior – by ignoring full disclosure. This is patently dishonest.
The brethren certainly know that historians have problems with the history of the church. We can’t believe that the top leadership is unaware of the contents of the PBS Special, which detailed a few of the problems. So they must know about some of the problems at a minimum. So why don’t they address these issues that cause many thousands of members to leave the church every year? Instead, they actively encourage members to ignore historical issues and avoid reading objective histories, which they label as “anti-Mormon”.
Information is not clearly communicated to the members when it is known by the leadership of the church. Members still look at the numerous pictures of Joseph translating the BOM, using the plates, that continue to be published every year as accurate, and not a lone paragraph buried in an obscure church magazine article written over 15 years ago that gives a different method. If members are going to get their information from these sources, and use them as teaching aids no less, there is no reason that the church, with its vast resources, shouldn’t make a stronger effort to have the articles and depictions be reasonably accurate and consistent.
Teachings for Our Day This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
Well first of all, that 2nd to last statement isn’t even true: “In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church”. Michael Quinn extensively researched this and found hundreds of examples of post-manifesto polygamous marriages performed by even the apostles themselves, so it clearly did not ‘discontinue plural marriage’.
From LDS researcher Todd Compton:
News of post-Manifesto plural marriages inevitably leaked out, and when Reed Smoot was voted into the Senate in 1904, he was not allowed to sit without hearings examining the LDS church's commitment to stopping polygamy entirely. These hearings were a considerable embarrassment to church leaders. Under great pressure, Joseph F. Smith released what is known as the "Second Manifesto" in 1904.
It was because of the embarrassing revelations of "new polygamy" in the Reed Smoot hearings (1904-06) that church leaders ceased authorizing new plural marriages. President Joseph F. Smith issued a "second manifesto" to let clandestine polygamists know that church leaders meant business this time (as opposed to Woodruff's 1890 manifesto, which critics say was merely a ruse to deceive the government.)
In fact on FAIR’s website http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_after_the_Manifesto, FAIR admits that marriages took place after the 1890 manifesto: “It is estimated that fewer than two hundred plural marriages were sanctioned between 1890 and 1904.”
To read more of the post-manifesto polygamy: http://www.mormonthink.com/polyweb.htm#1890
Quinn's essay on post-manifesto polygamy can be found at: http://www.lds-mormon.com/quinn_polygamy.shtml
To the second point
The disclaimer in the lesson manual cited by FAIR does not say that the church took liberties with the actual historical accounts, and edited them by changing actual historical text to say ‘wife’ instead of ‘wives’ for example, which misleads the readers to believe that the early leaders of the church only had one wife each.
These actions sound like an organization that is trying to be deceptive. We feel that the one, true church should be held to at least as high a standard as that required of its members, e.g. to enter the temple we must formally answer that we have been honest in all our dealings. It would be interesting to see how the church as an entity would answer the temple recommend honesty question if asked.
Evaluating a brief summary list of 25 items mentioned without any supporting detail allowed by MT is hardly fair. But even so, we have responded on our web site to your comments about these 25 items. Show how fair you are by linking to our rebuttal on your site, the way we link to you and FAIR’s review of MormonThink.
MormonThink welcomes the opinions and theories that FAIR offers as evidenced by the numerous links that MT has to FAIR as well as to other pro-LDS web sites. Yet FAIR does not link to MT or to any of the critics’ sites so how can FAIR really be fair?
An important difference between FAIR and MT is that we aren't trying to hide either side's viewpoints in any way.
We at Mormonthink.com want everyone to look at ALL of the credible information out there by all sides, even if we don't agree with it – critics, LDS apologists, average members, official LDS sites, etc. But the people at FAIR only want you to only look at their information. We ask the readers out there, who do you think is dealing more fairly with you? Who has something that they don't want you to see – the people that link to sites on both sides of the debate so you can see all the evidence and lets each side argue the strongest for their viewpoint OR the site that frames problems the way they wish to answer them and provides no links to the other side for rebuttals?
FAIR would probably say that they adequately discuss the issues from their viewpoint. An analogy: If you were involved in a court case and the opposing lawyer said that you don't need a lawyer, that instead he would fairly state your case and then argue against it, would you do it? - of course not. Only a lawyer working for you would present the strongest arguments for your side.
Also, FAIR and FARMS (and most other apologetic web sites) often only show part of the problem, and the average member would also then think that all of the issues have been covered in a given topic, but in reality only the issues that they choose to bring up are discussed. Also, since the apologist sites only present a sentence or two of the criticism they are defending, there is no way for the reader to view all the supporting documentation that the critics may have. FAIR, why won’t you simply let the critics, or at least MormonThink, explain the problem with a link to their sites and then you can argue against them? To do otherwise isn’t really fair, FAIR.
Related Link by Dr. Shades: Inside the minds of LDS apologists
__________________
More Topics
__________________
Other
__________________
Mormon Media
__________________
Other Languages
__________________
RSS | Site Map | Links
Print
Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity Debates
Michael Quinn
Richard Bushman
Lyndon Lamborn
The Joseph Smith Papers Project
How fair is FAIR?
Introducing the Dawn of a New Era in BofM Geography Research