Is Mormonism a CULT?!

So? Is it?!

Well, that all depends on what you mean by "cult".

Jeff Lindsay, a Mormon apologist, put together a tongue-in-cheek website, MormonCult.org, to illustrate this concept. On the site he explains, in the voice of the Mormon church's detractors but while making the opposite argument, that he "pursued the most scholarly, objective approach [he] could take" and that "Mormons are clearly a cult". But the definitions he uses are the original ones right out of the dictionary.

Of course, Lindsay then goes on to explain, again tongue-in-cheek, how silly the new definition is and how it can be used to control peoples' thinking about religious groups that aren't a threat to anyone and just because they're "different".

Another great article about the Mormon church being a "cult" comes from esteemed AmericanTestament.com alumnus Stephen Smoot. He takes aim at a prominent ex-mormon podcasting duo who, under the very protective and controlling auspices of one of today's most prominent ex-mormons, have hurled this accusation at the Church in every episode.

But, as Smoot points out, they cannot or will not see that their own actions have put them and their efforts to discredit the Church squarely in the cross-hairs of that more modern definition of "cult".

So, now that we know that Mormonism is definitely a cult, also originally known as "a system of religious belief and worship", we can dispense with the silly name calling and mudslinging and focus on truth.

Criticisms and Responses: A "Burning in the Bosom"? What's That?

There are various primary criticisms that tend to be hurled at the Book of Mormon, but which have been addressed many times. One need only use Google to dredge them up, but similarly, Google can be used to find the counter-arguments. More people ought to do the latter when they see the former. This is the last article in a series of posts to represent my responses to those criticisms.   

Criticism: Getting a "testimony" or a "burning in the bosom" about the Book of Mormon or even the Bible goes directly against the Bible. 1 John 4:1 says "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." Besides, isn't "burning" something people do in Hell?


Response: Isn't it contradictory to say "do not ask God for an answer about scripture from His Spirit when you should just take it at face value" only to then quote a scripture which explicitly commands us to "test the spirits to see whether they are from God"? I don't follow this logic. And why would 1 John 4:1 conflict with James 1:5-6 and other scriptures which say "ask and ye shall receive" and "knock and it shall be opened to you"? Which doctrine, then, is true? Do we ask God for spiritual wisdom, or dare we not? If God is love, why would He reprimand His children for asking a question? Do we only ask Him for temporal knowledge and blessings and not spiritual knowledge and blessings?


Rather than accuse the Mormons of inventing what anti-Mormons consider to be Satanic-sounding "burning in the bosom" language, they should check the Bible first, particularly Luke 24:15-32.

Not every instance of "burning" in scripture is symbolic of or originates from Satan. If that were true, then the "burning bush" and "pillar of fire" stories of the Book of Exodus certainly need some revision or re-translation. Same with Elijah's duel with the priests of Baal and his miracle of calling down fire to consume the altar. Oh, and Elijah's chariot of fire would certainly be Satanic. Who ever heard of a flying chariot of fire carrying someone to heaven?


Do you see what I mean? Anything can be twisted to make it sound strange or wrong, even when it isn't.


I invite you to accept Moroni's simple promise.

Moroni 10:3-5

 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

 4 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.

 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

Book of Mormon Month - Day 24: Who are the Mormons?

While it is not the purpose of this blog to engage in debates about politics, you will be hearing a lot about Mormons in the coming year. More than that, if a Mormon happens to be elected to the highest office in the land.

There are a lot of poorly constructed opinion pieces out there that try to define what a Mormon is and believes, but their descriptions are only gleaned from the worst of the anti-Mormon web sites. One would rightly ask whether such treatment of a Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist, or Sikh candidate's religious beliefs would be acceptable.

It is better to balance out one's knowledge of another's religion with what that religion actually says about itself, is it not? With that in mind, I present to you, "Who are the Mormons?".

Related articles

• Wash Post: Will Romney's Mormonism hurt him in the GOP primaries (americablog.com)
• Why is it OK to to be prejudiced against Mormons? (csmonitor.com)
• Brandon Flowers Touts Membership in the Mormon Church: VIDEO (towleroad.com)
• Anti-Mormonism Is the New Racism (newser.com)
• Vast Majority Of Americans Have No Problem Voting For A Mormon (outsidethebeltway.com)

"Tis Enough; Mine Eyes Have Beheld": Responding to Criticisms of the Book of Mormon Witnesses

The Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon. From left to right: Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris.

A popular website[1] designed to equip Evangelical apologists with information on Mormonism has a brief but highly flawed article on the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. It asserts, in so many words, that the witnesses' testimony of seeing and handling the Book of Mormon plates are unreliable for various reasons.

Among the reasons given are 1) many of the witnesses were related to or friend with Joseph Smith 2) some of the witnesses claimed to see the plates only in vision with a subjective "eye of faith" 3) at least one of the witnesses claimed to have also been told by God to leave the Church, which presents a dilemma for Mormons because that same witness is said to have received that commandment from the same God who testified to him of the Book of Mormon and 4) the Witnesses were superstitious or gullible into believing things of a supernatural nature.

It is beyond the scope of this post to ascertain the validity of all the arguments for or against the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. A considerable corpus of literature has been created on this subject, and the intrepid reader is to read some of those offers to see the different arguments on the two sides of this debate.[2]

However, as a believing and active Latter-day Saint and after reading much of the aforementioned literature, it is my conviction that the witnesses to the Book of Mormon not only are reliable but that it is more parsimonious to believe in their testimony as it stands than in the theories of critics of the Book of Mormon.[3]

For this post, I will therefore only focus on the offerings given on the website in question and will not focus on other specific criticisms by the likes of Dan Vogel or Grant Palmer. 

1. The Book of Mormon Witnesses are unreliable or suspect because they are related to or in close association with Joseph Smith.

This is a classic example of the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem circumstantial. The premise of this argument is that the circumstances of an individual makes the individual "disposed to take a particular decision" and thus makes the individual and his/her claims unreliable. Therefore, this argument rests on "an attack on the bias of the source."[4] 

However, such is a logical fallacy for the reason that the circumstances or bias of an individual does not negate the validity of their arguments or their testimony. Or, as wikipedia helpfully explains, "the reason this is fallacious in syllogistic logic is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not does make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible."[5]

To use a modern analogy, imagine a man named Stan Smith. Mr. Smith is married with 4 kids, all of them adults. One evening Mr. Smith is gunned down in front of his family and some friends by an armed robber. When the robber is caught, the family and friends are called to testify as eyewitnesses to the crime on behalf of the prosecution. The defense, however, points out that the witnesses are immediate family and friends to Mr. Smith and thus they are unreliable witnesses because of their relationship with Mr. Smith. The defense argues that the close relationship of the witnesses, to use the words on the website, "raise the question about their level of discernment and their credibility as witnesses."

See the problem with this line of reasoning? The relationship of the witnesses to Mr. Smith does not invalidate the fact that they witnessed the gunning down of Mr. Smith. The same applies for the Book of Mormon witnesses. The fact that the witnesses to the Book of Mormon were close associates or family with Joseph Smith does not invalidate their claim to having seen gold plates. If they really did see the plates, then their familial relationship with Joseph Smith becomes irrelevant.

However, Evangelical Christians, like the proprietor of the website, need to also be careful in using this argument since the same argument was employed by Celsus, and early anti-Christian Roman philosopher, to try and invalidate the witnesses to Jesus' resurrection. Celsus opined that the close association between the Apostles who witnessed the Savior's miracles and resurrection invalidated them as witnesses. In short, their association "raise the question about their level of discernment and their credibility as witnesses."

Celsus, in referring to the Apostles, inquired as to "what witnesses saw this wondrous event [i.e. the resurrection]... for I have only heard your voice, and have but your word for it."[6] Celsus likewise asks "Who really saw [the resurrection]? A hysterical woman [referring to Mary], as you admit and perhaps one other person - both deluded by [the Savior's] sorcery, or else so wrenched with grief at his failure that they hallucinated him rising from the dead by some sort of wishful thinking."[7]

Thus, the same tactics used by this Evangelical critic are identical to the tactics used by Celsus. Both Celsus and the critic operating the website attack the validity of their respective witnesses on the bases of both their close association with Jesus and Joseph, respectively, and the subjective nature of their claims. Which brings us to number two.

2. Some of the witnesses said they saw the plates with the "eye of faith" and in a subjective spiritual setting, thus casting doubt on their credibility.

This is a popular point of ridicule on some of the witnesses. Some of the witnesses, it is alleged, at one point described their seeing of the gold plates in seemingly subjective language. John Whitmer explained that he was shown the plates based on a "supernatural power" while Martin Harris said he saw the plates with an "eye of faith". Thus, according to the critics, this shows that the experience of both the Three and the Eight Witnesses was not based in reality but was subjective or purely visionary.

However, there are some problems with this approach. For one thing, it ignores all of those instances in which the witnesses described their experience in real, concrete and physical language. John Whitmer, for example, explained in 1836 that he "had most assuredly seen the plates from whence the Book of Mormon was translated, and I have handled these plates, and know of a surety that Joseph Smith, jr., has translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God."[8] Other examples of this could be multiplied, as has been on the helpful FAIR wiki website on this matter.

Turning to Martin Harris' statement that he saw the plates with an "eye of faith", we receive some rather helpful information once again from the FAIR wiki. The article explains that Martin Harris could have been employing scriptural language in describing the visitation of Moroni with the plates. After multiple examples are shown, the following conclusion is offered:

When Martin Harris said that he had seen the angel and the plates with his "spiritual eyes" or with an "eye of faith" he may have simply been employing some scriptural language that he was familiar with. Such statements do not mean that the angel and the plates were imaginary, hallucinatory, or just an inner mental image. But rather they were seen by physical eyes that had been enhanced by the power of God to view more objects than a mortal could normally see. Critics who insist otherwise do not provide their readers with all of Martin's statements, distorting the historical record.[9]

The FAIR wiki also explains:

Critics impose their own interpretation on phrases that do not match what the witnesses reported in many separate interviews. When challenged on the very point which the critics wish to read into their statements—their literal reality—both Harris and the other witnesses were adamant that their experience was literal, real, and undeniable.[10]

From this and other sources we learn that the assertion on the website that the witnesses "all initially describe[d] their experience with the angel and the plates as subjective and visionary rather than objective and concrete" is not warranted from the historical sources.   

3. One of the Witnesses, David Whitmer, said that God told him to leave the Church. He also said that if you believe his testimony of the Book of Mormon then you will believe his testimony out of the Church.

According to Book of Mormon Witness David Whitmer:

If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to "separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, should it be done unto them."[11]

Critics of the Book of Mormon regularly point to this statement in an attempt to put the Latter-day Saints in an awkward position. After all, if one accepts David Whitmer's testimony of the Book of Mormon then one is going to also have to accept that God commanded David to leave the Church. As Brent Lee Metcalfe wrote, the Latter-day Saints "must confront Whitmer's challenge: believe that God confirmed the Book of Mormon translation and later instructed him to repudiate Mormonism or reject his testimony in toto. For Whitmer there was no distinction between the two experiences."[12] 

Besides the fact that this is a standard fallacy known as a false dilemma, those critics who point to this statement fail to inform their readers that Whitmer had already been excommunicated from the Church a month earlier. As the FAIR wiki explains:

Thus, when he reports being told by God to "separate himself from among" the members of the Church, Whitmer was already out of the Church, but still living in Far West among members of the Church. Whitmer's decision to leave Far West was arguably a wise one. Tensions were high, and there were threats of violence against apostates (including Whitmer, who had been very prominent) from people like Sampson Avard... Whitmer was not instructed to leave the Church or "repudiate Mormonism," he was instructed to leave Far West after he was already excommunicated. This was arguably a very prudent course, both for Whitmer's safety and the integrity of the Restoration witnesses. Believing Latter-day Saints have no trouble seeing both of Whitmer's revelatory experiences as inspired of God. While God would not force Whitmer to remain in the Church, He might well take steps to ensure that the Three Witnesses remained alive. In fact, Whitmer's fidelity to his testimony despite great disagreements with Joseph and the Church strengthen its force. Critics are dishonest if they imply Whitmer did not leave the Church until God "told him to."[13]

Thus, the critics do not have the Latter-day Saints in the airtight bind that they think they do.

4. The Witnesses were gullible and credulous when it came to supernatural matters.

This is a strange criticism to be coming from Evangelical Christians, as the exact same argument could be and has been used by secularists against the witnesses of the miracles of the Bible. Notwithstanding, this form of character assassination is not only gratuitously disparaging but also runs contrary to the character of the Witnesses. As Michael Ash explained:

Could the Three Witnesses have been so caught up in the excitement that they imagined they saw an angel, or lied about seeing an angel to heighten the stimulation? An affirmative answer may suffice for testifying in the “heat of the moment,” but this explanation is not satisfactory when we look at the testimony that they continued to proclaim throughout their lives—through persecution, financial ruin, excommunication, embarrassment, and bitter-feelings. A testimony born in the excitement of the moment would die quickly under such adverse conditions.[14]

Or, as the FAIR wiki explains:

The witnesses were men considered honest, responsible, and intelligent. Their contemporaries did not know quite what to make of three such men who testified of angels and gold plates, but they did not impugn the character or reliability of the men who bore that testimony.[15]

Professor Richard L. Anderson perhaps knows more about the lives and the character of the Witnesses more than any other man on earth. He has written numerous articles and a book on the witnesses of the Book of Mormon and his research spans decades. When I spoke with Professor Anderson in person in December of 2008 at a conference sponsored by Olivewood Bookstore in Provo, I asked him if the witnesses, especially Martin Harris, were gullible or overly credulous about superstitious matters. Professor Anderson promptly explained that the only contemporaries of these men who thought they were gullible or easily duped were anti-Mormons with a high prejudice against the Witnesses. Others, both Mormon and non-Mormons alike, who knew these men personally knew them to be good, honest, industrious men of intelligence, sound minds and understanding. 

Conclusion

It can never be proved, or disproved for that matter, that Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris saw the plates. However, the historical evidence, in my view, supports the traditional LDS understanding of the Witnesses and the validity of their testimonies. The objections raised against the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon by this Evangelical website are, in my opinion, misplaced, misguided and wholly insufficient to explain away the Witnesses. They suffer from a general lack of scholarly and logical rigor and don't stand up to close scrutiny. For various reasons, as best explained by Professor Daniel C. Peterson[16], I find the testimony of these men to be strong evidence for the truthfulness of the claims of Joseph Smith. Whatever happened to those men, it was powerful enough to make Martin Harris exclaim "tis enough; mine eyes have beheld!"[17] 

Notes:

[1]: This website is not to be confused with www.mormonwiki.com, which is a pro-LDS website.

[2]: The most pertinent works include; from an LDS apologetic perspective Richard L. Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, (Salt Lake City, Deseret Book: 1981); Richard L. Anderson, "Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Eight Witnesses", Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/1 (2005), 18-31; from a critical perspective Dan Vogel, "The Validity of the Witnesses' Testimonies", in Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe, eds., American Apocrypha (Salt Lake City, Signiture Books: 2005), 79-121 and Grant H. Palmer, "Witnesses to the Gold Plates", chapter 6 of An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City, Signature Books: 2002).

[3]: Michael Ash has done an amiable job of summarizing the LDS arguments for the validity of the Witnesses' testimonies in his work Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith (Springville, Cedar Fort: 2008), 15-20. See also Michael Ash in Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One's Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 2008), 193-200.

[4]: Wikipedia entry under "Ad Hominem". Available online here. Accessed 6 June, 2009.

[5]: Ibid.

[6]: Quoted in Aaron Christensen, "Celsus and Modern Anti-Mormonism". FAIR paper, 2002. p.g. 4

[7]: Ibid. Christensen helpfully observes that "by way of modern parallel, the testimony of the eleven witnesses to the reality of the gold plates are discarded" based on the same standard used by Celsus.

[8]: See "Book of Mormon Witnesses/Eight Witnesses/Shown to Me by a Spiritual Power" on the FAIR wiki. Link here.

[9]: See "'Eye of Faith'/'Spiritual Eye' Statements by Martin Harris" on the FAIR wiki. Link here.

[10]: See "Book of Mormon Witnesses/ Spiritual or Literal?" on the FAIR wiki. Link here.

[11]: David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ by a Witness to the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon (David Whitmer: Richmond, Virginia, 1887), 27-28. Ironically, anti-Mormons love to cite this work despite the fact that Whitmer emphatically and loquaciously affirmed his testimony in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon throughout its pages.

[12]: Brent Lee Metcalfe, "Apologetic and Critical Assumptions About Book of Mormon Historicity," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 26/3 (Fall 1993): 176-177

[13]: See "Book of Mormon Witnesses/David Whitmer Told to Leave" on the FAIR wiki. Link here.

[14]: Michael Ash, "Book of Mormon Witnesses, Part 1: Motives", FAIR Paper (FAIR, 2003), 2. Ash's series on the Witnesses, located on the FAIR website, offer another good overview of the LDS apologetic views on the issues surrounding the Witnesses.

[15]: See "Book of Mormon Witnesses/Character" on the FAIR wiki. Link here.

[16]: An mp3 version of Daniel C. Peterson's excellent "A Tangible Restoration: The Witnesses and What They Experienced", is available for download from the FAIR website. 

[17]: Quoted in "History of Joseph Smith", Times and Seasons 3/21 (1 September, 1842): 898

And it Came to Pass that the Phrase "And it Came to Pass" was Discovered to be a Hebraism

Christopher Miller on his lurid website "Mormonism Disproved" argues that the high occurrence of the phrase "and it came to pass" in the Book of Mormon is evidence that "Joseph Smith was the single author of the Book of Mormon, that it was not translated, but created from his very creative imagination." And what exactly is the evidence that Mr. Miller provides for this claim? Why, nothing less than the fact that the phrase "and it came to pass" occurs at a much higher frequency in the Book of Mormon than in the current King James Bible. After all, according to our sleuth, "the extensive use of the phrase "and it came to pass" in the Book of Mormon across all of the books" clearly points to single authorship.

The final nail in the coffin, according to Miller, is the fact that the word "exceedingly" also occurs more often in the Book of Mormon than in the Bible. But it doesn't stop there. The thoroughly unbiblical phrase "in other words" is also evidence to Miller that Joseph Smith was a fraud.

I must admit that I was rather amused at not only the sheer desperation of these charges, but also at the fact that Mr. Miller betrays absolutely no knowledge of the fact that the phrase "and it came to pass" is actually a good Hebraism. Rather than belabor the point, I will simply be lazy and quote Professor Donald W. Parry on this matter:

The expression and it came to pass is the translation of a Hebrew expression used frequently in scriptural histories and chronologies and far less frequently in poetry, prophe-cies, or direct speech. Although in its Hebrew form the expression is found in the Hebrew Bible some 1,200 times, it was translated in the King James Version as "and it came to pass" only about 727 times. The King James translators probably found the expression redundant and cumbersome, which would explain why they often translated it as "and it became," "and it was," or "and." On a number of occasions they simply ignored the expression altogether.

Given the Semitic background of the Book of Mormon and the fact that it contains histories and chronologies comparable to those of the Old Testament, it is not surprising that and it came to pass is a characteristic feature of the book. Novelist and humorist Mark Twain once joked that if Joseph Smith had left out the many instances of and it came to pass from the Book of Mormon, the book would have been only a pamphlet.

Similar to Old Testament usage, the phrase and it came to pass is rarely found in Book of Mormon psalms, lamentations, proverbs, blessings, curses, prayers, speeches, and dialogues where the first-person pronoun (Ior we) is used. The expression is obviously missing from the Psalm of Nephi (2 Nephi 4:16–35); the speeches of such personalities as King Benjamin, Abinadi, Alma, and Jesus Christ; and the several epistles found in the Book of Mormon.[1]

But that is not all, Parry has noted elsewhere that "this expression is commonly mentioned in Hebrew grammars. See, for example, Joshua Blau, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1976), 107."[2]

In the December 1992 issue of the Ensign, Professor Parry observed the following:

Mark Twain once joked that if Joseph Smith had left out the many instances of “and it came to pass” from the Book of Mormon, the book would have been only a pamphlet. (Roughing It, Hartford, Conn.: American Publishing Co., 1901, p. 133.) There are, however, some very good reasons behind the usage of the phrase—reasons that further attest the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

The English translation of the Hebrew word wayehi (often used to connect two ideas or events), “and it came to pass,” appears some 727 times in the King James Version of the Old Testament. The expression is rarely found in Hebrew poetic, literary, or prophetic writings. Most often, it appears in the Old Testament narratives, such as the books by Moses recounting the history of the children of Israel.

As in the Old Testament, the expression in the Book of Mormon (where it appears some 1,404 times) occurs in the narrative selections and is clearly missing in the more literary parts, such as the psalm of Nephi (see 2 Ne. 4:20–25); the direct speeches of King Benjamin, Abinadi, Alma, and Jesus Christ; and the several epistles.

But why does the phrase “and it came to pass” appear in the Book of Mormon so much more often, page for page, than it does in the Old Testament? The answer is twofold. First, the Book of Mormon contains much more narrative, chapter for chapter, than the Bible. Second, but equally important, the translators of the King James Version did not always render wayehi as “and it came to pass.” Instead, they were at liberty to draw from a multitude of similar expressions like “and it happened,” “and … became,” or “and … was.”

Wayehi is found about 1,204 times in the Hebrew Bible, but it was translated only 727 times as “and it came to pass” in the King James Version. Joseph Smith did not introduce such variety into the translation of the Book of Mormon. He retained the precision of “and it came to pass,” which better performs the transitional function of the Hebrew word.

The Prophet Joseph Smith may not have used the phrase at all—or at least not consistently—in the Book of Mormon had he created that record. The discriminating use of the Hebraic phrase in the Book of Mormon is further evidence that the record is what it says it is—a translation from a language (reformed Egyptian) with ties to the Hebrew language. (See Morm. 9:32–33.)[3]

Thus, far from being evidence of single authorship of the Book of Mormon, as the quixotic Mr. Miller implies, the continual occurrence of the phrase "and it came to pass" in the Book of Mormon is evidence of the book's ancient authenticity. It is likewise evidence for a Semitic primacy of the language of the Book of Mormon. 

But what about Miller's accusations about the use of "exceedingly" and "in other words" in the Book of Mormon? To me, this is much ado about nothing. I ask; so what if Joseph Smith, in translating the Book of Mormon into modern English, used these words and phrases? Surely one cannot fault him for using modern lingual expressions in translating an ancient language into a modern one. Such is nothing but sheer desperation to get anything on Joseph Smith to make him look bad. 

However, the fun does not stop there. Miller mocks the lengthiness of the Book of Mormon and the repetitive nature of the text. However, had Miller bothered to consult any Hebrew grammar, he would understand that lengthiness and repetitiveness is a common feature in biblical Hebrew. As Brian D. Stubbs explains:

Book of Mormon language frequently contains lengthy structures of rather awkward English. Some may consider these to be instances of poor grammar, weakness in writing (Ether 12:23—26), or the literary ineptness of a fraudulent author; however, I see them as potentially significant support for a translation from a Near Eastern language in an ancient American setting. Many of these lengths of awkward English parallel Semitic (and Egyptian) patterns, particularly the circumstantial or hal-clause.[4]

Jeff Lindsay, in summarizing Stubbs' arguments, notes:

He [Brian Stubbs] responds to Edward Ashment's attack on the Book of Mormon which claims the long, awkward sentences found in so many Book of Mormon verses are much different than the short, concise sentences found in the Old Testament, supposedly showing that the Book of Mormon was not derived from Hebrew. Stubbs shows that the short sentences alleged to be characteristic of Biblical Hebrew may be characteristic of the King James translation of the Old Testament, but are not characteristic of the actual Hebrew. In fact, numerous sentence structures in the Book of Mormon show much more in common with genuine Hebraic sentences than with the English of the King James Bible or with the English of Joseph Smith's day.[5]

Elsewhere, Lindsay observes to "complain about the Book of Mormon being too Hebraic, if you will, but the wordiness of the text is most reasonably interpreted as indirect evidence of authenticity rather than evidence of fraud."[6]

One final note. Miller, in mocking Nephi's comments in 1 Nephi 10:4, asks rhetorically if "any Hebrew speaking person in that time did not know what a Messiah was" and "if any biblical author would find it necessary to explain that to his audience." Contra Miller, who boasts that "common sense" demands that the answer is no, the answer, in light of biblical evidence, is in fact a resounding YES.

Consider, if you will, the fact that the Hebrew word for Messiah, "mashiach" or literally "anointed one", is never explicitly used for a title of Jehovah in the Old Testament, but instead has been applied to Israelite royalty (1 Sam. 24:6; 26:11; 2 Sam. 19:21; 22:51; Ps. 18:50; 132:17), Aaronic High Priests (Lev. 4:5) and even the Persian king Cyrus (Isa. 45:1) and you begin to understand why Nephi had to clarify with his readers who exactly he was speaking of when he mentioned the "Messiah, or, in other words, A Savior of the World" (1 Ne. 10:4). He wanted his readers to be sure that he was speaking of the Savior Jesus Christ, not others who have been held the label "Messiah".[7] Miller, it seems, can have his "common sense" all he wants, but he should not for one moment presume that such is evidence for his claim.

Thus, if our intrepid Don Quixote insists that the presence of "and it came to pass" and the lengthiness of the Book of Mormon is evidence of fraud, he will first have to explain this contrary evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon.

Notes:

[1]: Donald W. Parry, "Hebraisms and Other Ancient Peculiarities in the Book of Mormon", in Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, John W. Welch, eds., Echos and Evidences of the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2002), 163-64.

[2]: Ibid, note 11.

[3]: Donald W. Parry, "I Have A Question: Why is the phrase "and it came to pass" so prevalent in the Book of Mormon?", Ensign, December 1992, 29.

[4]: Brian D. Stubbs, "A Lengthier Treatment on Length", Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5/2 (1996): 82

[5]: Jeff Lindsay, "Numerous Hebraic Language Structures", available online here: http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#hebraic

[6]: Jeff Lindsay, "Too Wordy to be True?", available online at: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/wordy.shtml

[7]: See the entry under "Messiah" in Dennis L. Largey, ed., The Book of Mormon Reference Companion (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2003), 536

Are All Evangelical Critics Anti-Mormons?

I have communicated with a number of Evangelicals who, by their own admission, are critical of the Church and its teachings. In our dialogues together, I have at times used the phrase "evangelical anti-Mormons" to which some of my corespondents have taken umbrage. They say that they are not anti-Mormon but instead anti-Mormonism, or something similar. Others have at times expressed their view that Mormons can be too dismissive of critical voices by just labeling them as "anti-Mormons".

I would like to discuss the question as to whether or not any Evangelical[1] critical of Mormonism is an anti-Mormon.

In response to this inquiry, I would have to affirm that indeed not all Evangelicals who are critical of Mormonism constitute an anti-Mormon. Many of them have sincere questions and doubts as to the validity of the truth claims of Joseph Smith and the Church. Just because they have questions, that does not mean that they are "anti-Mormon". The Prophet Lehi affirmed that opposition is needed in all things, and I see this fulfilled in part by the role of apologists vs. critics for or of the Church. We all, as humans, have our questions and point of view; none of us, after all, are perfect in knowledge and objectivity. Therefore, to question things is a natural part of life.

On this blog and elsewhere, I have challenged conventional Christian doctrines and expressed my disbelief in the theories of those critical of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. In my view, apart from my spiritual conviction that the Book of Mormon is true, I see the evidence in favor for Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Does that make me "anti-Christian" because of such? No. No more than an Evangelical disbelieving in the claims of Joseph Smith automatically becomes an anti-Mormon.

However, why then do I use that phrase and to whom am I applying it to? When I mention "Evangelical anti-Mormons" I am most of the time speaking specifically of men and women such as Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Ed Decker, Joel Kramer and others; all of whom are Evangelical Christians and all of whom are staunch opponents of the Church. These individuals have devoted their entire lives and ministries to combating Mormonism. It is not just a question of disagreeing with Mormonism; these individuals are fighting Mormonism. They have produced an endless stream of books, articles, newsletters and DVDs criticizing the claims of the Church. It cannot be denied, therefore, that these individuals, who have focused their entire efforts on debunking Mormonism with great hubris (usually mixed with some vitriol and virulence) and loud declarations, are not just critical of Mormonism but decidedly opposed to it[2]. Hence the name "anti-Mormon".

Therefore, in my future dialogues with you, let me state for my Evangelical friends and associates that, unless your words and or actions speak contrary, I will try to not assume of the bat that you are an anti-Mormon. This is something I have been guilty of in the past, and I am sorry for such. I will in all ernest try to respectfully dialogue without any snarkiness or triumphalism unbefitting a Latter-day Saint.

And what do I ask in return? Only that you provide the same courtesy for me and my fellow Latter-day Saints. Lets us both approach the table in a feeling of mutual trust and respect for each other, so that, in the end, we can discover the truth.   

Notes:

[1]: While this post is speaking specifically of Evangelicals, other religious, or areligious, individuals can apply themselves to this situation.

[2]: Bill McKeever, for example, brags that his organization has been "challenging the claims of Mormonism since 1979." 

Alma 5 - Alma the Younger and Salvation by Grace...and Works

I felt impressed tonight to post about Alma Chapter 5 in the Book of Mormon. I realize I'm skipping ahead in my long neglected, chronological, chapter-by-chapter posting regimen, but this particular chapter has been on my mind.

Lately, there have been some interesting individuals with whom I've had conversations about whether we're saved by works or by grace--the very topics leading up to and culminating in Alma 5.

This chapter is one of the most classically Christian parts of the Book of Mormon and supports the Bible's teachings 100%, yet I am told by various traditional / protestant / fundamentalist / evangelical Christians (the vast majority of whom have never read beyond the Book of Mormon introduction page) that my belief in the Book of Mormon as Christian scripture is unfounded. I find this attitude both troubling and puzzling. I often want to ask them to try a little experiment--come to an LDS Sacrament meeting and ask any random member this question: "How are you saved?" The answer they get will be very much the opposite of what they've read in anti-Mormon literature.

Yet they continue to fail to explain adequately the provenance of the Book of Mormon, simply preferring as the basis for their arguments the regurgitation of anti-Mormon statements about (debunked) Spaulding manuscripts, (inconsequential) seer stones, and other (irrelevant) tangential topics. Quite often, when they don't have an answer to counter reasonable replies, they change the subject in an attempt to put the balance of the conversation back in their favor. They are ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. In doing so, they habitually refuse to ever read the book, or even accept the minutest possibility that God might be lovingly offering additional wisdom from on high tailored to the complex times in which we live.

Alma the Younger was, obviously, the namesake son of another man--a prophet, actually--named Alma. Unlike his righteous father, Alma the Younger was once a very rebellious person, given to fighting with all his might against the Church over which his father was a high priest at the time.

Alma the Elder had prayed mightily that his son would stop destroying the Church from within with his exceedingly wicked behaviors and false teachings. His righteous prayer was answered one day when an angel appeared suddenly to Alma and his apostate companions, who were sons of the also righteous King Mosiah, and commanded them to stop persecuting the Church or be destroyed. Alma was in a catatonic or "near death" state for two days while he suffered the most excruciating spiritual experience of being shown all of his sins, their consequences, and all of his inadequacies. At "rock bottom" during this experience, he called on Christ and was saved--by grace, and not by any merit of his own--from his evil works.

A beautiful hebraic poetry form called "chiasmus" was later written by Alma the Younger in order to describe to one of his sons his experience with salvation through and by the grace of Christ alone, conditional upon his work of calling upon Jesus and by sincere repentance.

After his full repentance and restoration to good standing within the Church, Alma's repentant companions left to serve a mission among their enemies, the Lamanites. Alma went to a city called Zarahemla to teach the introspective that we find in Alma 5.

Read that chapter, then ask yourself the following questions as if Alma were speaking directly to you.

Fifty Questions to Ask Yourself After Reading Alma 5

1. Have you sufficiently retained in remembrance the captivity of your fathers?
2. Have you sufficiently retained in remembrance God's mercy and long-suffering towards your fathers?
3. Have you sufficiently retained in remembrance that He has delivered their souls from hell?
4. Were your fathers destroyed?
5. Were the bands of death broken, and the chains of hell which encircled your fathers about, were they loosed?
6. On what conditions were your fathers saved?
7. On what grounds had they hope for salvation?
8. What is the cause of your fathers' being loosed from the bands of death, yea, and also the chains of hell?
9. Did not my father Alma believe in the words which were delivered by the mouth of Abinadi?
10. Was Abinadi not a holy prophet?
11. Did Abinadi not speak the words of God?
12. Did my father Alma believe them?
13. Have you spiritually been born of God?
14. Have you received His image in your countenance?
15. Have you experienced this mighty change in your heart?
16. Do you exercise faith in the redemption of Him who created you?
17. Do you look forward with an eye of faith?
18. Do you view this mortal body raised in immortality, and this corruption raised in incorruption, to stand before God to be judged according to the deeds which have been done in the mortal body?
19. Can you imagine yourself that you hear the voice of the Lord, saying to you, in that day: "Come unto me you blessed, for behold your works have been works of righteousness upon the face of the earth?"
20. Or do you imagine to yourself that you can lie unto the Lord in that day, and say--"Lord, my works have been righteous works upon the face of the earth"--and He will save you?
21. Or otherwise, can you imagine yourself brought before the tribunal of God with your soul filled with guilt and remorse, having a remembrance of all your guilt, yea, a perfect remembrance of all your wickedness, yea, a remembrance that you have set at defiance the commandments of God?
22. Can you look up to God at that day with a pure heart and clean hands?
23. Can you look up, having the image of God engraven upon your countenance?
24. Can you think of being saved when you have yielded yourself to become subject to the devil?
25. How will you feel if you shall stand before the bar of God, having your garments stained with blood and all manner of filthiness?
26. What will these things testify against you?
27. Will they not testify that you are a murderer?
28. Will they not also testify that you are guilty of all manner of wickedness?
29. Do you suppose that such an one can have a place to sit down in the kingdom of God, with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob, and also all the holy prophets, whose garments are cleansed and are spotless, pure and white?
30. If you have experienced a change of heart, and if you have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, can you feel so now?
31. Have you walked, keeping yourself blameless before God?
32. Could you say, if you were called to die at this time, within yourself, that you have been sufficiently humble?
33. Could you say that your garments have been cleansed and made white through the blood of Christ?
34. Are you stripped of pride?
35. Is there one among you who is not stripped of envy?
36. Is there one among you that doth make a mock of his brother, or that heapeth upon him persecutions?
37. If you are not the sheep of the good shepherd, of what fold are you?
38. The devil is your shepherd, and you are of his fold: and now who can deny this?
39. Do you not suppose that I know of these things myself?
40. How do you supose that I know of their surety?
41. Can you withstand these sayings?
42. Can you lay aside these things and trample the Holy One under your feet?
43. Can you be puffed up in the pride of your heart?
44. Will you still persist in the wearing of costly apparel and setting your heart upon the vain things of the world, upon your riches?
45. Will you persist in supposing that you are better than another?
46. Will you persist in the persecution of your brethren, who humble themselves and do walk after the Holy Order of God, wherewith they have been brought into this Church having been sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and they do bring forth works which are meet for repentance?
47. Will you persist in turning your back upon the poor and the needy, and in withholding your substance from them?
48. The names of the righteous shall be written in the Book of Life, and unto them will I grant an inheritance at my right hand. What have you to say against this?
49. What shepherd is there having many sheep doth not watch over them, that the wolves enter not and devour his flock?
50. If a wolf enter his flock doth the shepherd not drive him out?

If you want a quick check of where you stand before God with respect to salvation and exaltation, answer these questions for yourself, whether you're LDS or not. These are universal truths that apply to all men and women. And, that is exactly why the Book of Mormon is considered by members of the LDS Church to be an additional witness of Christ.

Top 5 Arguments Evangelical Anti-Mormons Can't Use Against the Book of Mormon - Video Additions

In a previous post, I outlined 5 arguments that Evangelical anti-Mormons cannot use against the Book of Mormon because of the fact that these arguments are a double standard. I have produced a series of video follow ups to this previous post which elaborates on these arguments a little further.

Enjoy.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Top 5 Arguments Evangelical Anti-Mormons Can't Use Against the Book of Mormon

Evangelical critics of the Book of Mormon use many arguments to call into question the validity of the Book of Mormon. However, many of them are double standards. Evangelical critics usually throw out these arguments against the Book of Mormon while they ignore the fact that these same arguments can and have been used against the Bible. Here is a sampling:

5. The Book of Mormon has textual changes.

While this is true, it is even truer for the Bible, which, over the centuries of transmission and translation, has accumulated hundreds of thousands of textual variations in between manuscripts.

4. We Don't Have the Gold Plates to the Book of Mormon

Neither do we have the original manuscripts to the supposedly inerrant, complete, perfect Bible. 

3.  DNA Disproves the Book of Mormon

Many genetic scientists have also been using the exact same DNA data and methods to call into question the veracity of the fundamentalist Protestant interpretation of the opening stories of the Book of Genesis, such as Adam and Eve and Noah's Flood covering the entire world.

2. Archaeology Disproves the Book of Mormon

There is a popular, albeit false, notion amongst some Evangelical critics of the Book of Mormon that the Bible has been proven by archaeology and that the Book of Mormon has been disproven by archaeology. However, many of the historical claims of the Bible (such as the Israelite captivity in Egypt, the exodus from Egypt in the wilderness for 40 years and the Israelite conquest of Canaan, to name only a few) have been questioned by top biblical archaeologists. 

1. The Bible is Sufficient and Disqualifies the Book of Mormon as being Scripture.

The current Bible as we have it now did not spring up automatically but was compiled and edited over a course of many years. The passages used by Evangelicals to somehow prove that the Book of Mormon cannot be scripture because there cannot be anymore scripture could easily be applied to the Bible in its current form. For example, the Gospel of John is believed by many biblical textual critics to have been written after the Book of Revelation. If Evangelicals insist on using those verses from Revelation 22:18-19 and apply it to the Book of Mormon because the Book of Mormon came after the Book of Revelation, then, for the sake of consistency, they too would have to use it against the Gospel of John because it too postdates the Book of Revelation.

Please note that I do not bring up these points because I am "bashing" the Bible. I affirm the Bible as the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly. I love the Bible and its teachings have had a deep impact on my life. However, I do bring up these points to show that the Evangelical critics of the Book of Mormon should be careful in their criticisms of the Book of Mormon because many of their arguments could be used against the Bible. In other words, I am trying to show that these arguments are double standards and cannot be used by Evangelical critics.

Street Preacher Videos

Every 6 months the Church holds its General Conference. The Latter-day Saints cherish these events as moments wherein they can hear sermons given by their leaders, whom they believe are inspired Prophets, Seers and Revelators, including but not limited to members of the Quorum of the Seventy, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency of the Church.

However, with every General Conference comes the Street Preachers - Evangelical fundamentalist Protestants (normally) who, among other things, proclaim that the Latter-day Saints are going to hell, that they follow a false prophet, that they worship a "different Jesus" and especially that they are not Christians.

These videos were shot by me at the October 4th, 2008 General Conference. Watch these videos and ask yourself, 

"Are these Street Preachers 'Christian'?"

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Normally I would not post these videos on the blog, since I do not enjoy the spirit that they invite. Nevertheless, I believe that it is crucial for everyone to see the thoroughly un-Christian behavior of those who accuse the Latter-day Saints as not being Christian.

The Strong Reasons Against the Book of Mormon

On December 1, 1831, the Prophet Joseph Smith received the following revelation, now recorded as D&C 71:8-9:

"Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you in both public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful, their shame shall be made manifest. Wherefore, let them bring their strong reasons against the Lord."

Both the Latter-day Saints and their critics have seemingly taken this admonition to heart. Not only have the Latter-day Saints passionately defended their faith since before the actual founding of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, but their critics have produced a long stream of "strong reasons" against the faith of the Saints.

One such website[1] offers a few of these "Reasons to Reject the Book of Mormon". As usual, the comments and points made in the article shall be in red while mine rejoinder shall be in black.

But before I launch into my investigation, the sage words of Hugh Nibley from his classic essay How to Write and Anti-Mormon Book, should be considered very carefully:

Rule 17: In place of evidence use Rhetoric

When one is making grave criminal charges, either directly or by broad implication as all anti-Mormon writers do, questions of evidence can be very bothersome unless one has the wisdom and foresight to avoid all such questions...the public prefers rhetoric to evidence. [2]

With that in mind, let us proceed.

1. There is no room for the Book of Mormon because the Bible itself claims to be all-sufficient, complete and incorruptible and our judge on the last day.

This aptly describes the fundamentalist Protestant view of sola scriptura, or the sufficiency of scripture for salvation and guiding the Church. However, this view is flawed in several ways. For one thing, it circularly argues that the Bible itself is able to interpret itself. In other words, because the Bible says that it is "all-sufficient and complete" - which, of course, the Bible never claims - that this is enough to preclude any other need for modern scripture.

Common proof texts that Evangelicals like to use to bolster this claim comes from 2 Timothy 3:5-17 and Revelation 22:18-19. Furthermore, Evangelical critics of the Church of Jesus Christ often like to cite these scriptures as proof that there can be no more addition to the scriptures. However, as has been demonstrated time and time again, this view is both myopic and ignorant of the nature of biblical textual transmission and criticism[3].

2. The Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible.

It would be most appreciated if the author would point out where exactly the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible.

3. The Book of Mormon makes many scientifically false statements.

I can't help but wonder just exactly how the author can claim this about the Book of Mormon and then conveniently ignore the fact that secular scholars and scientists have long been pointing out that the Bible suffers from "scientifically false" claims. It is simply a double standard.

4. Absolutely none of the specific historical content has been verified through Archaeological finds.

That's news to the researchers at the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, who, among others, have documented a wide range of many ancient findings that support the historical claims of the Book of Mormon[4]. Furthermore, the author, who makes it abundantly clear on his/her webpage that he/she espouses a view of biblical inerrancy, should be careful when making this claim. If one is going to live by the sword of archaeology, then one is going to die by the sword of archaeology. Many biblical scholars have been contesting the historicity of the Old Testament and there is still a rather large debate on that point[5].

5. We do not have the Gold Nephi Plates for the world to examine.

Nor do we have the original manuscripts of the books of the Bible for the world to examine. The oldest manuscripts of some of the books of the Bible date decades and even centuries after the books were supposedly written, which has forced some scholars to question the veracity of the biblical texts.

Furthermore, as Hugh Nibley pointed out in 1957:

Critics of the Book of Mormon often remark sarcastically that it is a great pity that the golden plates have disappeared, since they would very conveniently prove Joseph Smith's story. They would do nothing of the sort. The presence of the plates would only prove that there were plates, no more: it would not prove that Nephites wrote them, or that an angel brought them, or that they had been translated by the gift and power of God; and we can be sure that scholars would quarrel about the writing on them for generations without coming to any agreement, exactly as they did about the writings of Homer and parts of the Bible. The possession of the plates would have a very disruptive effect, and it would prove virtually nothing. On the other hand, a far more impressive claim is put forth when the whole work is given to the world in what is claimed to be a divinely inspired translation—in such a text any cause or pretext for disagreement and speculation about the text is reduced to an absolute minimum: it is a text which all the world can read and understand, and is a far more miraculous object than any gold plates would be.[6]

Once again, the author of the article has deployed another double standard that has backfired.

6. Although the original 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon was alleged to be inspired in its English translation, there have been thousands of changes, corrections, additions and deletions. Most Mormons have never seen the original 1830 "inspired" edition and would be shocked if they did.

Just like the Bible, right? While it is true that there have been many changes in the Book of Mormon - something that I covered in my response to Matt Slick - there have also been thousands of changes in the Bible. How the author can criticize the Book of Mormon for textual changes and still hold to a view of biblical inerrancy is simply amazing to me.

It is also interesting how the author knows that most Mormons would be "shocked" if they saw the changes in the Book of Mormon. Perhapse he graduated with a degree from the Fawn M. Brodie Institute of Psychology and can therefore read the minds of "most" Mormons. Or perhaps he is simply using an irresponsible hyperbolic straw man attack on the Latter-day Saints. I personally vouch for the latter.

7. Although they claims direct guidence by God, the Mormon church is among the most divided Church in the world with more than 89 sects who will not cooperate with each other.

 As opposed to the 33,000+ Protestant denominations who all claim "direct guidance from God"[7]? If anyone has to worry about division amongst their sect of Christianity, it is the fundamentalist Protestant author of this article.

8. The Doctrine and Covenants is very different depending upon which sect you are talking to.

If the differentiation of canon is a proof against a religious tradition, then the Judeo-Christian tradition would be in hot water. After all, Catholics include the Apocrypha in their canon, while Protestants do not. And Jews only have the Old Testament and reject the New Testament. And what about the early Gnostic scriptures not included in the present canon?

9. The three witnesses of the B of M were all excommunicated by the Mormon Church and were of less than ideal character.

This is a red herring. While it is true that the Three Witnesses (Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdry and Daivd Whitmer) were excommunicated after a falling out with Joseph Smith during the Kirtland apostasy of the mid 1830's, the website never bothers to tell you that two of them, Oliver Cowdry and Martin Harris, were re-baptized back into the Church and all three of the witnesses NEVER denied their testimony in the Book of Mormon and that they had seen the plates.

Furthermore, the claim of the website that the witnesses were of "less than ideal character" cannot be substantiated by the historical record. Richard L. Anderson has written extensively on the witnesses of the Book of Mormon and has convincingly documented that the three witnesses not only were of high moral character and integrity, but that their testimonies in the Book of Mormon not only never changed but are also trustworthy[8].

In short, this sad list of "reasons to reject the Book of Mormon" is anything but. The author frequently deploys double standards and other logical fallacies and ignores contemporary LDS scholarship on the Book of Mormon. If this is all that the critics can muster, then the Latter-day Saints can rejoice in their faith on the Book of Mormon as an ancient record written by Prophets who testify of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

In short, the critics are going to need stronger reasons than these in order to impugn the Book of Mormon as another testimony of Jesus Christ.

**Notes**

[1]: Because this website has links that shows temple ordinances, I will not post the link here.

[2]: Hugh Nibley in How to Write and Anti-Mormon Book reprinted in Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass: The Art of Telling Tales about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (FARMS, 1991) pg. 495. In a similar vein, John Taylor, writing in 1842 in the Church newspaper, theTimes and Season (Sept. 15, 1842), wrote that "facts are stubborn things" when it comes to critics of the Church having to deal with the evidence for the Book of Mormon.

[3]: For Latter-day Saint perspectives on the issue of "adding to the Bible" see this set of linksfrom the Foundation of Apologetic Information and Research as well as the work of James at the blog named Lehi's Library. During the 2008 Spring General Conference, Elder Jeffry R. Holland of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles delivered a talk worth reading entitled "My Words... Never Cease" in which he addressed the issue of an open vs. closed canon.

[4]: For a quick overview of these evidences, see Echos and Evidences of the Book of Mormon(link here) and Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (linkhere). Another excellent resource on this is Brant Gardner's recent Book of Mormon commentary Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon(Greg Kofford Books, 2007).

[5]: For an overview of this position, see Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman in The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (Touchstone, 2001). It must be said that, despite what some Evangelical anti-Mormons might think, I do not bring up these objections to the Bible because I do not accept it as the Word of God or because I am "attacking" the Bible. Instead, I bring up these issues in order to demonstrate the Evangelical anti-Mormon double standard when it comes to evaluating the historicity of the Book of Mormon when compared to the Bible.

[6]: Hugh Nibley in An Approach to the Book of Mormon (link here for the specific excerpt from the book).

[7]: The World Christian Encyclopedia ed. David B. Barrett, George T. Kurian, Todd M. Johnson (Oxford University Press, 2001) Vol. I Pg. 16

[8]: Richard L. Anderson Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Deseret Book, 1981).

"Winning" the battle and not knowing it?

In 1998, ten years ago almost to this day, Trinity Journal published an article by Carl Mosser and Paul Owen titled "Mormon scholarship, apologetics, and evangelical neglect: Losing the battle and not knowing it?" in which they warn fellow evangelicals that the anti-Mormon arguments previously published were in danger of carrying less scholarly weight than before.

Their conclusions (remember, this was almost exactly TEN years ago), might startle evangelicals who have not yet read the article. The "call to action" was this (my personal comments interspersed):

The evangelical world needs to wake up and respond to contemporary Mormon scholarship. If not, we will needlessy [sic] lose the battle without ever knowing it. Our suggestions are as follows: First, evangelicals need to overcome inaccurate presuppositions about Mormonism.

This goes without saying as it is the first rule of true scholarship.

Second, evangelical counter-cultists need to refer to qualified persons LDS scholarship that is beyond their ability to rebut.

Good luck with that. Still haven't seen it happen. Many counter-cultists are simply out to make money and the way that they do it is to sensationalize their subject so as to make it appear to be something it's not. Referring scholarship to more qualified persons on items beyond their ability to rebut would put them right out of business.

Third, evangelical academicians need to make Mormonism, or some aspects of it, an area of professional interest.

They have, but all we've seen so far is more of the same...they've just stepped up the marketing efforts and sold more books and movies.

Fourth, evangelical publishers need to cease publishing works that are uninformed, misleading, or otherwise inadequate.

Thank you. This is, in part, a duplicate of #2. We Mormons anxiously await the day when this happens.

Fifth, scholars in the evangelical community ought to collaborate in several books addressing the issues raised in this paper. Related to this, professional journals should encourage articles on these same topics. Finally, might we suggest that evangelical scholarly societies form study groups to assess the claims made by LDS scholars. Members of the Evangelical Theological Society have made a move in this direction with the recent formation of the Society for the Study of Alternative Religions (SSAR). The fact is that the growth of Mormonism is outpacing even the highest predictions of professional sociologists of religion, and is on its way, within eighty years, to becoming the first world-religion since Islam in the seventh century. With such growth, the needs expressed in this paper will become ever more pressing as the twenty-first century approaches.

I would merely add that it would be nice to see more brotherly humility and even evangelicals conceding rather than wresting the scriptures (see comment #14) in a misguided attempt to be "correct" about popular misconceptions of LDS beliefs. The LDS scholars I read are more than willing to say, "I don't know" in a number of instances because, quite simply, the evidence isn't in (yet). But that is fine. It is better to argue from what you know than from what you don't know or don't yet understand. I put more credence in a scholar who says "Let's wait and see if more evidence arises" than ones who say "Not a shred of evidence has ever been found that there were advanced civilizations of the type Joseph Smith described existed in the Americas." and then try to "prove" it by attempting to discredit nearly every archaeological find cited.

Those anti-Mormon authors who did not take the Mosser's and Owens' advice to heart need only look around to see that they were correct and that their predictions have come true. The Church continues to grow in spite of persecution by evangelical "scholars" precisely because of the ludicrousness and sensationalism of their claims against us. Mormon scholars are winning the upper-hand on evidence and arguments quite handily.

In closing, I couldn't agree more with Mosser and Owen in their conclusion:

This spiritual warfare can be considered under the aegis of a contest of the gods, a neglected biblical theme I want to retrieve.... The various religions and their gods appear to be vying for people's allegiance. Competition in religion is not only biblical, it is empirically evident. Vital religions always compete with other's claims. If you can find a religion that is not competitive, you will have found a religion on its last legs. A dynamic religion always wants to tell its story, which adherents think is the best story ever told, and the one most worthy of commitment.

In other words, if your claims can't stand up to criticism and scrutiny, what are they worth to anyone?