A Response to Matt Slick or Steve Smoot's Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell (Pt. 3)

"Through all of these years critics have tried to explain [the Book of Mormon]. They have spoken against it. They have ridiculed it. But it has outlived them all, and its influence today is greater than at any time in its history."

- President Gordon B. Hinckley

A double standard is a logical fallacy in which one subjects one's opponent to a standard that one is unwilling to subject to oneself. In other words, one is not being fair and balanced in how one evaluates the arguments of one's opponent when compared to how one allows another to evalute his or her own argument.





Matt Slick, in his treatment on textual variations in the Book of Mormon editions and manuscripts, employs a double standard that is both glaring and unfortunate. He, out of either "stunning ignorance or appalling cynicism[1]" has demonstrated that, when forced to, some anti-Mormons are not below employing double standards to fight against the Church of Jesus Christ.





On his website, Slick warmly endorses the Chicago Statement on biblical Inerrancy[2]. This statement, drafted in 1978, details the modern popular view of Scrpitural inerrancy amongst Evangelical Christians. Slick himself passionatly writes that "recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture [read: inerrancy] is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.[3]"





Thus, when Slick turns his cross hairs on the Book of Mormon, one would expect him to apply the same standard he employed for the Bible, right? Unfortunatly, to expect such is asking too much of Mr. Slick.





In his obtuse article "Some of the Many Changes in the Book of Mormon[4]", Slick again recounts the quote from Joseph Smith wherein the Prophet described the Book of Mormon as "the most correct book". Shortly thereafter, Slick reminds the reader that "allegedly it [the Book of Mormon] was translated by the power of God." Then, the bombshell:

Nevertheless, it has some 4,000 changes in it.

What?! Can he be serious! 4,000[5]? That sure is a high number! How can it be?

If that is not enough for the Latter-day Saints, Slick then asks two more questions that are sure to give the Saints some headaches:

Why is this so if the book of Mormon was translated accurately by the hand of God?

Why would the Mormon Church continue to change the work even after Joseph Smith's death?

After these two questions, Slick, in his usual form, provides a handy chart which compares a "very small sample of the changes in the Book of Mormon" and informs his audience that "some are mere spelling corrections, but others are significant changes." Some are mere spelling corrections? Royal Skousen has noted that the majority of the variations in the Book of Mormon are "mere spelling corrections" or grammar and punctuation corrections[6]. He concludes that "errors have crept into the text but no errors significantly interfere with either the message of the book or its doctrine. These textual errors have never prevented readers of the book from receiving their own personal witness of its truth--every sincere reader.[7]"

Thus we see first hand the disingenuous way in which Slick presents his information on the textual variations in the Book of Mormon. He leads his reader away with a red herring by making it seem that only "some" of the variations in the Book of Mormon are simply "spelling corrections". Furthermore, he also tries to make it seem like the majority of the textual changes in the Book of Mormon are of doctrinal import. However, just the opposite is the case. The vast majority of changes in the Book of Mormon are of minor importance (i.e. spelling, punctuating, grammar, etc.) while very few deal with doctrine[8].

But how is Slick pointing out the changes in the Book of Mormon employing a double standard? Remember that Slick is a firm disciple of biblical inerrancy. For him, therefore, to attack the Book of Mormon based on textual changes while simutaniously ignoring the fact that the New Testament alone has had, according to some textual critics, "literally hundreds of thousands"[9] of textual changes is a glarring double standard[10].

Therefore, unless he abandons his views of biblical inerrancy, Slick cannot attack the Book of Mormon based on textual variations because the Bible has had similar changes[11]. Furthermore, he cannot ask pedantic questions or make desperate comments like the following (Slick's comments are in red, mine are in black):

Why would the Mormon Church continue to change the work even after Joseph Smith's death?

For the same reason that the various sects of Christianity continue to change the Bible even to this day; namely, that 1) as new manuscript evidence becomes available new changes are required to best reflect the original texts and 2) because, as human beings at the time, the men who were charged with preserving both the Bible and the Book of Mormon were subject to making mistakes and corrupting God's word because of their limited ability to preserve writings[12].

Where will the Mormon Church change it next?

What kind of a question is this? Is it intended to reflect some spooky conspiracy that will alienate people more against the Church? Is it a rhetorical question gone horribly wrong? Whatever it is, if Slick wants to find out for himself, he can look at the 2004 Doubleday Edition of the Book of Mormon, published by the Church, which includes new variations based on the textual evidence brought forth by the work of Royal Skousen and others. Or he can go right to the source and look at the works of Royal Skousen himself on this subject[13].

As you can see, the Book of Mormon is a changing document.

Just like the Bible, and all of it's thousands upon thousands of changes through the centuries, right Mr. Slick?

Why is this so if the book of Mormon was translated accurately by the hand of God?

Could we not ask the same thing about the Bible if it is infallible? Why are there so many changes in the text if it is inerrant?

But why is this even an issue? The Book of Mormon never claimed infallibility or inerrancy. As FAIR reminds us, "the authors of the Book of Mormon themselves explained several times that their writing was imperfect, but that the teachings in the book were from God[14]." And as Hugh Nibley so rightly observed:

The second mortal offense of the Book of Mormon was the admission on the title page that this record, translated "by the gift and power of God," might possibly contain mistakes. Mistakes? In a book revealed by the power of God? Another blasphemous conception. Yet Bible scholars accept this proposition [for the Bible] as readily as they do the first...and once the possibility of human errors is conceded, why should the idea of corrected editions of the Book of Mormon be offensive[15]?

Thus, Slick has set up both a double standard and a straw man in his attack on the Book of Mormon based on textual changes. He is attacking a book for changes that never claims infallibility and ignores the fact that a book he holds to be infallible contains many more changes. Until Slick drops any notion of biblical infallibility, he has no authority or ground on which he can attack the Book of Mormon for textual variations.

** End of Part 3 **





[1]: Daniel C. Peterson in Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism. While the comment was directed to Evangelical anti-Mormons in general, they apply well to Slick specifically.





[2]: http://www.carm.org/creeds/chicago.htm





[3]: Ibid.





[4]: http://www.carm.org/lds/bom_changes.htm





[5]: Actually, Slick here is being a bit modest. According to Royal Skousen, Professor of Linguistics at Brigham Young University, who has worked on the critical text edition of the Book of Mormon manuscripts for well over 20 years, the number of changes in the Book of Mormon manuscripts is closer to 105,000. See his excellent discussion here.



[6]:See here.



[7]: Ibid. For Skousen's other works, see here.



[8]: Slick brings up the fact that "the Son of" has been added in later editions of the Book of Mormon, which, no doubt, is an attempt to cast doubt on the doctrines of the Book of Mormon. For a response to this charge, see here. Slick also brings up the changing of the name "Benjamin to "Mosiah" in Mosiah 21:28. For a response, see here and here.



[9]: Thomas A. Wayment "The Story of the New Testament" in The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ: From Bethlehem Through the Sermon on the Mount edited by Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Thomas A. Wayment (Deseret Book. 2005) page 45. For an excellent treament on the textual development of the New Testament, see Bart D. Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Harper San Francisco. 2005.) See especially page 6, wherein Ehrman comments on how there are more variations in the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament.



[10]: Note that I do not have the intention to "attack" the Bible. I am simply trying to show that Slick is holding a double standard. Also note that, like the Book of Mormon, the majority of the changes in the Bible are small changes to spelling, punctuation, and grammar.



[11]: See the following two essays (here and here) by Professor John Gee of BYU.



[12]: On the subject of errrors in the scriptures, see John Tvedtnes in "The Mistakes of Men: Can the Scriptures be Error-Free?". Found online here.



[13]: See the multi-volumed works of Royal Skousen (editor), in Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Brigham Young University.)

[14]: Found here.

[15]: Hugh Nibley in Since Cumorah (2nd edition. FARMS, 1981) pages. 3-4.

A Response to Matt Slick or Steve Smoot's Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell (Pt. 2)

"The whole structure of anti-Mormon scholarship rests on trumped-up evidence."

-Hugh W. Nibley

In the second half of his article "A Quick Look at the Book of Mormon", Matt Slick provides the reader with a handy chart comparing teachings of the Book of Mormon with other Latter-day Saint doctrines. This is not, however, to be mistaken with some attempt to show consistency between the teachings of the Book of Mormon and other LDS beliefs. Instead, Slick tries to show that Mormon doctrine and the Book of Mormon "is not internally consistent and it is self-contradictory." This is a rather bold pronouncement, one that needs to be investigated.

Below are the points made by Slick. They shall be in red while my comments will be in black.

There is only one God

Mosiah 15:1,5; Alma 11:28; 2 Nephi 31:21

Mormonism teaches there are many gods.

Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 5

First, the scripture references provided by Slick will be posted.

Mosiah 15: 1,5

[1] And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

[5] And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

Brant Gardner, commenting on these verses, writes:

The Nephite understanding was that Jehovah would come to earth as the Messiah. Modern readers read "Jehovah" as the premortal designation for Christ, and, hence, agree with the Nephites[1].

Gardner explains elsewhere that the Nephite understanding of God, in the context of pre-exilic Israel, would have included a belief that YHWH, or Jehovah, as the God of Israel and also one of the 70 Sons of El, would come to atone for the sins of the people[2]. YHWH, however, is not to be confused with El Elyon (God most High) whom, as Margaret Barker has shown, was viewed as a separate deity by the ancient Israelites[3]. Thus, these verses do not compromise the teachings of plurality of gods as later taught by Joseph Smith as the Prophet himself taught that Jehovah and Elohim were two distinct personages, as is recorded in the Book of Mormon.

Alma 11:28 features a discussion between Zeezrom and Amulek in which Zeezrom, who is described as being an "expert in the devices of the devil"(Alma 11:21), tries to catch Amulek in his words by asking if there is a plurality of gods. Amulek, who had previously spoke of only one God, answers that there is one God in verse 29. Slick tries to use this as evidence against the Book of Mormon. However, as has been pointed out by Brant Gardner, it is clear that Amulek answered the way he did in order to avoid getting caught in Zeezrom's trap of catching a contradiction in Amulek's words[4]. Furthermore, notice how the Book of Mormon text capitalizes the "G" in God. While it is true that LDS believe that men and women can become gods - lower case "g" - we reserve worship and faith to God the Father, which is consistent with Amulek's words.

2 Nephi 31:21 reads:

[21] And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

However, once again, we need to look at these verses in the context of ancient pre-exillic Israel. To the ancient Nephites, the oneness of the Godhead would have been in the fact that they are united in their purpose; namely, to atone for the sins of the world and "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39).

Furthermore, there is some indication that the Book of Mormon teaches that man can become as God. In Alma 18:31 we read of how the righteous shall "become as Gods" if they follow the commandments.

The Trinity is one God

Alma 11:44; Mosiah 15:5; 2 Nephi 31:21

The Trinity is three separate gods.

James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 35. 1985.

Like with his other proof texts, Slick does not bother to read these verses in context. As should be noticed by the reader, he even repeats the same passages as he did in trying to establish Book of Mormon monotheism. However, Brant Gardner has shown that the ancient Nephite understanding of God is both consistent with the ancient pre-exilic Israelite idea of God and the Modern LDS view as well[5].

God is unchanging

Mormon 9:9,19; Moroni 8:18; Alma 41:8; 3 Nephi 24:6

God is increasing in knowledge.

Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 120.

Once again, Slick fails to read in context. Mormon 1:9,19 teaches that God is unchanging in that he will always grant miracles unto the children of men. This is consistent with the teachings of Joseph Smith, who taught that God will always give miracles and revelations unto men. Alma 41:8 teaches that the "decrees" of God are unalterable and says nothing of God himself not changing. 3 Nephi 24:6 and Moroni 8:18 teach that God is unchanging, but they need not mean in knowledge or power. The Book of Abraham teaches that all intelligence is eternal and that the spirits of men (including God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ) are equally unchanging (Abr. 3:18). The Prophet Joseph Smith in his King Follett discourse taught that:

Is it logic to say that a spirit is immortal and yet has a beginning? Because if a spirit has a beginning, it will have an end. That is good logic. I want to reason further on the spirit of man, for I am dwelling on the spirit and body of man--on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man, the immortal spirit, because it has no beginning. Suppose I cut it in two; as the Lord lives, because it has a beginning, it would have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation who say that man had a beginning prove that he must have an end. If that were so, the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house tops that God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself. Intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle; it is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. Moreover, all the spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible to enlargement[6].

Thus we see that, as is taught in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham and by the Prophet Joseph Smith, that the reason why God is not changing is because his spirit and intelligence is eternal.

God is spirit

Alma 18:24,28; 22:9,11

God has the form of a man.

Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3.

The verses cited in Alma which, according to Slick, demonstrate that God is a spirit read as follows:

Alma 18 -

[24] And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God?
[25] And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth.
[26] And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?
[27] And he said, Yea.
[28] And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?

Alma 22 -

[9] And the king said: Is God that Great Spirit that brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem?
[10] And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he created all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this?
[11] And he said: Yea, I believe that the Great Spirit created all things, and I desire that ye should tell me concerning all these things, and I will believe thy words.

The Latter-day Saints fully affirm that God has a spirit. Such is clearly taught in the scriptures both ancient and modern. However, we also believe that God has a physical body. What Slick fails to show his readers (probably on purpose) is that the Book of Mormon teaches this as well.

In the Book of Ether we read of the Brother of Jared who saw the finger of the Lord.

Ether 3 -

[6] And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear.

Furthermore, Brant Gardner has show that the specific identification of the Lord as a "Great Spirit" was probably to gain an association and connection on the part of Ammon between Lamoni who, as a Lamanite, would have been worshipping a pagan god. This is similar to Paul or the other early Christian apologists who associated Christ with various pagan gods in an attempt to make a connection with others and thus have a better chance of contextualzing the Gospel for non-members[7].

Eternal hell

Jacob 3:11; 6:10; 2 Nephi 19:16; 28:21-23.

Hell is not eternal.

James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 55.

First, none of the verses cited by Slick speak of an "eternal hell". 2 Ne. 28:23 does speak of hell as "endless torment" but, when read in light of D&C 19: 10, we find out that the phrase "endless torment" is a rhetorical usage that emphasizes God's judgment of the wicked.

Furthermore, The Nephite concept of hell has been explored by John Tvedtnes and David Bokovoy in their book Testaments: Links between the Book of Mormon and Hebrew Bible. In this is volume, they write that the Hebrew word "Sheol" - which is the equivilant of the English word "Hell" - is not a place of damnation, but is rather the dwelling place of spirits after death[8].

This is in strict accord with modern LDS teachings which speak of the spirit world (Spirit Paradise and Spirit Prison, respectively) that the spirits of all men and women will enter into upon death until the resurrection.

Polygamy condemned

Jacob 1:15; 2:23,24,27,31;3:5; Mosiah 11:2,4; Ether 10:5,7

Polygamy was taught and practiced.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266

Again, we turn to Brant Gardner. He has convincingly shown that the Nephites did not condemn polygamy per se, but instead condemned the pratice of plural marriage in the context of using this system to get personal wealth or power. In ancient Mesoamerica, the most likely place were the Book of Mormon events took place, social statues was exalted by not only material goods but also by how many wives men had. Notice that Jacob (and the other Nephite prophets) condemns both of these practices together in conjunction in these verses. This shows that while, as is indicated by Jacob, polygamy is acceptable if commanded by the Lord to raise up seed under the covenant[9], the practice of polygamy for personal gain is not acceptable[10].

After this impressive laundry list of items of supposed contradictions, Slick then asks:

If the Book of Mormon is the "most correct book of any on earth" (History of the Church, vol. 4:461), then why does it not contain essential Mormon doctrines such as...
1. Church organization
2. Plurality of Gods
3. Plurality of wives doctrine
4. Word of Wisdom
5. God is an exalted man
6. Celestial marriage
7. Men may become Gods
8. Three degrees of glory
9. Baptism for the dead
10. Eternal progression
11. The Aaronic Priesthood
12. Temple works of washings, anointing, endowmants, sealing.

First, it must be understood that the purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bring men unto the fulness of the Gospel of Christ and Salvation. The fulness of the Gospel of Christ, however, is different then those doctrines required for exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. The fulness of the Gospel of Christ is a 6 step program that is intended not for exaltation, but simply salvation in the Celestial Kingdom - one of the lower two degrees in the Celestial Kingdom - in and of itself. These six steps include:

1. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ
2. Repentance
3. Baptism by Immersion for the Remission of Sins
4. The Laying on the Hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost
5. The doctrine of the Resurrection
6. The doctrine of Eternal Judgment.[11]

The other doctrines selected by Slick, while being important for exaltation or becoming like god, do not have to do with the fulness of Christ' Gospel. This is why there is no explicit mention of some of these other items listed in the Book of Mormon; because they do not have to do with the fulness of Christ' Gospel.

However, some of the items listed by Slick are mentioned in the Book of Mormon, as we shall see. Once again, Slick's comments are in red and mine in black.

Plurality of Gods

Alma 12:31 speaks of men who shall "become as Gods".

Plurality of Wives

Jacob 2:30 teaches that the Lord will command polygamy if he desires to "raise up seed unto me".

Men may become Gods

See Alma 12:31 again. Furthermore, 3 Ne. 27:27 has an admonition by the Savior to his 12 Nephite disciples to be "even as I am" [i.e. deified beings or gods].

Temple Works

A fascinating article on the Temple in the Book of Mormon, including the rituals therein, has been discussed by Thomas R. Valletta in the book The Temple in Time and Eternity. In this volume, Valletta explores the temple and shows evidence for a Nephite understanding of the Endowment ceremony[12].

After yet another list, Slick then concludes that "essential Mormon doctrines aren't even found" in the Book of Mormon. However, one has to ask what doctrines aren't found. As has been said earlier, the purpose of the Book of Mormon was to proclaim the fulness of the Gospel of Christ.

This Gospel, however, is not to be mistaken for other doctrines that, while important, nay, essential for exaltation, are not required for salvation.

Slick, true to form, then ends his article with a giant logical fallacy. He declares that the reason these doctrines are not found in the Book of Mormon is because "the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a fictional account made up by Joseph Smith."

This is a massive non sequitor. The logic simply does not follow. Just because certain doctrinal concepts later introducted by Joseph Smith are not found in the Book of Mormon, that does not mean that the Book of Mormon events are fictional. How on earth does the fact that the because the Book of Mormon does not teach baptisms for the dead that therefore means that an ancient American named Mormon could not have written it? How is it that because the Book of Mormon is silent on issues like God once being a mortal that therefore means that there was never a battle at Cumorah or a city called Zarahemla? The historical aspects of the Book of Mormon are to be judged based on historical criteria such as archaeological and/or anthrological evidence, not theological evidence.

That being said, Slick in another essay does devote some attention to the historical aspects of the Book of Mormon, which we shall explore next time.

**End of Part 2**

[1]: Brant Gardner in Second Witness: Analytical & Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon (Greg Kofford Books. 2007. 6 volumes.) volume 3 pages 299-300. Henceforth this title shall be abbreviated SW followed by the volume and page number

[2]: See Gardner in Monotheism, Messiah, and Mormon's Book presented at the 2003 FAIR Conference. Link here.

[3]: See Margaret Barker The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God (Westminster John Knoxs Press. 1992.) For a discussion of the early Israelite understanding of monotheism and polytheism, see Mark Smith in The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Ploytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford University Press. 2001.)

[4]: SW 4:187

[5]: Aside from Gardner's excellent article referenced in note 2, also see his Excursus: The Nephite Understanding of God in SW 1:214-222. For an excellent rebuttal to the claim that the Book of Mormon reflects modalism, see David Paulsen in the FARMS Review (13/2). Found here.

[6]: Found online here.

[7]: SW 4: 281-283, 331

[8]: John Tvedtnes and David Bokovoy in Testaments: Links between the Book of Mormon and Hebrew Bible (Heritage Press. 2003.) pg. 81.

[9]: SW 2: 483-499

[10]: Ibid. Also see Jacob 2:30

[11]: 3 Ne. 11:31-39 and 27:13-21 outline the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon. The JST translation of Hebrews 6:1-3 also provides these six points as the "principles" of the Gospel of Christ. And, finally, in a discourse delivered 27 June 1839 the Prophet Joseph Smith further elaborated on these principles and other items. See Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook in The Words of Joseph Smith (Religious Studies Center. 1980.) pgs. 3-6.

[12]: See "Conflicting Orders: Alma and Amulek in Ammonihah" in The Temple in Time and Eternity (FARMS. 1999.) pgs. 183-231. Found online here. Also worth reading is John W. Welch "The Temple in the Book of Mormon: The Temples at the Cities of Nephi, Zarahemla and Bountiful" in Temples of the Ancient World (FARMS. 1994.) pgs. 297-387.

A Response to Matt Slick or Steve Smoot's Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell (Pt. 1)

"Anti-Mormonism of the evangelical kind has come, with a few exceptions, to bore me intensely."

- Daniel C. Peterson

A popular website for Evangelical apologists (including those who are also critical of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) is the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry or CARM. This website, hosted by one Matt Slick, is devoted to "equip Christians and refute error". For Mr. Slick, this means debunking religions that he has effectively called "cults"[1]. Some of these religious groups include Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholicism, Seventh Day Adventism and, of course, Mormonism[2].

Considering that Matt offers some articles on the Book of Mormon, and considering that I just happen to be keeping a blog on Book of Mormon issues, I thought it appropriate to explore some of Matt's ideas and contentions regarding the Book of Mormon[3]. After all, Mr. Slick himself has declared:

Now, before you go slamming me with some irate e-mail telling me I don’t know what I am talking about, first read my material on my site, and if I am wrong, correct me by showing precisely where I am wrong. Document the sources you want to quote to prove me wrong. If you do, I’ll change my page[4].

So, with this in mind, let us begin.

In his article "A Quick Look at the Book of Mormon", Mr. Slick sates that "according to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 461) and contains the truths of Mormonism.[5]" Slick then asks, "Why does the Book of Mormon contradict Mormon theology?" Mr. Slick then offers us a helpful answer:

This is because the theology of Joseph Smith didn't really start to go off the deep end until after the Book of Mormon was printed. To harmonize their changing theology with their written scripture, the Mormons gradually redefined common Christian words.

Such an accusation has been explored by Kerry Shirts in the FARMS Review (12/1). Shirts writes:

The methodology the Tanners use to make their case is very simple. They define a religious term as it is used by Latter-day Saints and quote LDS authors to support their case. They then define the term evangelically and give biblical passages to support their ideas. Anyone unfamiliar with scholarly writing will feel this chapter is authoritative both because it has numerous quotations and because it seems easy to follow.

However, anyone who has been taught to write a persuasive paper (and almost everyone who has been to high school has) will notice a major problem with this method: never once do the Tanners bring up those quotations or biblical passages that may in some way bring their definitions into question. To truly make their case, the Tanners would have to look at how the Latter-day Saints use the Bible and what arguments they use to support their interpretation. The Tanners select quotations from certain, perhaps disaffected, Latter-day Saint authors, but they never address the responses that other Latter-day Saints have made to the anti-Mormon material.[6]

Even though Shirts was reviewing a work by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, his words apply equally well to Matt Slick.

Shortly thereafter Matt writes that we should not pray about whether or not the Book of Mormon is true because "you don't pray about truth, you look into the Bible for it"[7]. Matt then offers a series of biblical proof texts (including Jeremiah 17:9[8]) to try and persuade people not to pray about the Book of Mormon. However, as has been shown, the Latter-day Saint approach to determining the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is biblical, contra Slick[9].

After his tirade against praying about the Book of Mormon, Matt Slick then adds that "the Book of Mormon does not contain Mormonism. It is more Christian than it is Mormon. Mormon theology is about many gods, god being a man, men and women potentially becoming gods, but the Book of Mormon is basically Christian in its teachings." This is a stunning assertion and a classic example of several logical fallacies. First, Slick begs the question by claiming that Mormons are not Christian[10]. He then compliments his logical fallacy by then making a false dilemma and a false premise regarding the doctrines of the Book of Mormon, especially the nature of God[11]. And finally he sets up a straw man by only presenting parts of Mormon theology and then claiming that this is what Mormon theology is. While it is true that the Church teaches that man can become like God (a doctrine with both historical and biblical support[12]) this alone does not constitute "Mormon theology". Mormon theology also focuses on Christ, His atonement, faith, repentance, baptism, service to others, the priesthood (all of which are discussed at length in the Book of Momon) and many other items that Slick has (perhaps intentionally) overlooked.

**End of Part 1**

[1]: On the problematic usage of the word "cult" by anti-Mormons, see Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks in Offenders for a Word. This wonderful book can be accessed online.

[2]: Louis C. Midgley has written some excellent works exploring the zealous Evangelical countercult movement and it's relationship with Mormonism.

[3]: I, of course, am not the first to cross swords with Mr. Slick. Other LDS apologists have also documented problems with Mr. Slick's website in the past. Some examples include this, this, this and this.

[4]: As quoted here.

[5]: "...the Book of Mormon [is] the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." This is the quote from the entry in History of the Church. However, it is interesting to note how Slick purposely points to the Bible in an attempt to scandalize Evangelicals against these words by Joseph Smith.

[6]: http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=12&num=1&id=342

[7]: On whether or not it is biblical to pray about the Book of Mormon, see the web page from my good friend Robert Boylan. To access the particular paper, click on the PDH file review of Cork Free Presbyterian Church and scroll down the file until one hits the section on "Praying about the Book of Mormon". Slick also pretentiously accuses Mormons of simply relying on "emotions" and not gaining a sincere testimony from God (he even suggests that any spiritual experience that affirms the Book of Mormon is from Satan). On such, see the following from FAIR.


[8]: An online poster named James has offered some helpful insights into this verse in Jeremiah and the shortcomings of anti-Mormon proof texting in this regard. On another note, Slick also tries to refute James 1: 5 as evidence from the Bible that we should pray to gain wisdom about the Book of Mormon. Bo Reike has said the following on James 1:5.

Wisdom is necessary in dealing with trials and afflictions; it may be obtained
through prayer to God, vs. 5a. With this divine wisdom the readers will be above
to endure suffering with patience and to escape ultimate danger and
temptation…It is likely that James had such sources of “wisdom” [I.e., books] in
mind when he advises his readers to strive after the true wisdom that comes only
though prayer. [Emphasis added]

See The Anchor Bible: The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude (Garden City, New York:
Doubleday & Company Inc., 1964), 14. Special thanks to Robert Boylan for pointing out this passage.

[9]: A good place to read about the LDS view of "Moroni's Challenge" can be found here.

[10]: To see just how dismal the anti-Mormon charge that Mormons are not Christians is, see Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks in Offenders for a Word.

[11]: For an excellent discussion on the Nephite understanding of God from an ancient Near Eastern context, see Brant Gardner Monotheism, Messiah, and Mormon's Book. This paper was delivered at the 2003 FAIR Conference and can be accessed here.

[12]: On such, see the works of Daniel C. Peterson, Barry Bickmore and David Paulsen.

Gilligan's Island - Jaredite Style!!

During my daily meander throughout Youtube, I came across this hillarious video!

Enjoy!

New Book on the Book of Mormon

John W. Welch of BYU has released a new and exciting book on the Book of Mormon entitled The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon. In this new volume, published by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Welch explores the trials and legal cases in the Book of Mormon (such as the trial of Abinadi) and attempts to show an ancient context for the reasoning, verdict, and cases presented in each trial. Welch covers many legal cases in this volume, and offers unique insights into all of them in the context of the ancient Near East and biblical law.

Welch is no stranger to Book of Mormon studies. He has written many articles on the Book of Mormon and the ancient world, including, most importantly, the importance of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.[1] The reader is highly recommened to read his materials on the FARMS website.

The book may be purchased here: http://www.jrcls.org/book.php or here: http://www.byubookstore.com/ePOS?this_category=127&store=439&item_number=3258151&form=shared3%2fgm%2fdetail%2ehtml&design=439

[1] It was Welch who discovered chiasmus in the Book of Mormon while he was on his mission in Germany. To see the whole story, click here.

"First to Cross the Ocean"

As I was traveling by plane last month from New York City to home on a business trip, the National Geographic program playing in the built-in screen on the head rest in front of me was called "Naked Earth: Prehistoric Americans". If you have access to an archive of this show via your National Geographic subscription, I highly recommend it. Evidence examined in the last 20 years blows out of the water that antiquated and increasingly laughable notion that it was purely by the Bering Strait land bridge that only Asians arrived here and were the sole progenitors of the inhabitants found in 1492 by Columbus.

Another show along the same theme is scheduled to air on Thursday, August 28th. It is called "Naked Science: First to Cross the Ocean". My pet peeve about "establishment science" is that it is, perhaps unintentionally, condescending to ancient humans. It says that they were smart enough to do, think, and create many surprisingly sophisticated things, but not to lash together some logs and float across the ocean on currents. In "Prehistoric Americans", at least three probable routes were proposed for migration between oceans: Bering Strait, kelp "highways" extending along the coasts of the Pacific Rim, and a fishing route following the ice-to-sea interface of an ancient glacier in the North Atlantic.

Mormon scholars are often accused of a priori thinking based on inherent prejudices when forming conclusions about ancient history. It's true. We admit that. It's an inevitable part of human nature. But so-called "mainstream scientists" are no different in that they often fall prey to their own cultural biases.

According to establishment science, ancient humans were either stupid or blind. They were simply too primitive to have an original, inventive thought about anything. They had never seen a log float down a river and thought, "Gee, I wonder if I could sit on that and get from point A to point B a lot faster than walking." or "If I tie my cloak to a stick and spread it out, maybe I can use the wind to go even faster." According to the mainstream textbooks, the wheel didn't exist in America until the Spaniards brought it with them. Apparently, no ancient human living on the American continent had ever seen a rock roll down a hill and thought, "Hmm, if I carved that a bit and put a stick through it, like I do with arrowheads and obsidian clubs, I could wheel this pile of dirt on a platform easier than I can carry it in a basket."

If "First to Cross the Ocean" is as good as "Prehistoric Americans" at summarizing the latest research, I guarantee it will knock your socks off.

Mormon Conspiracy Unvail'd!!

Pardon the indulgence into a bit of satire, but I heard the following caller on the Michael Medved radio show and couldn't help myself.

Michael Medved, who is Jewish, has been an outspoken defender of people of the LDS faith whenever callers to his show have tried to attack us. This video adaptation of a typical Michael Medved Show "Conspiracy Day" call from a few weeks ago is a classic that needs to be passed around as much as possible.

Why I (Rob) am a Book of Mormon Apologist

Steve posted his reasons for being a Book of Mormon apologist, and I now feel compelled to do so as well.

I had the privilege of serving an LDS mission in Guatemala. About 8 months into my mission, I purchased a children's copy of the Popol Vuh (if only to match my limited Spanish reading comprehension at the time). One of my district leaders, a fellow from Chiquimula, Guatemala, saw the book and asked me why I had purchased it instead of the full version. When I told him why, he asked me if I understood what it contained. I told him that it looked like any other Native American legend book to me and that I had read many like it in my rural Southwestern U.S. hometown.

He then proceded to school me in what the Popol Vuh means, or should mean, to Latter-day Saints who want to know more about Book of Mormon history. He said that contrary to what his Catholic and secular school teachers had taught when he read it in school, it wasn't just a book of random legends, writings, and mythologies. When read in the context of the Restoration of the Gospel, it was quite literally a fragment of the Gospel knowledge that remained of a post Nephite and declining Lamanite society. Its seemingly esoteric (rather, exoteric) ramblings actually corresponded to real and basic Gospel principles, but in a corrupted and apostate form.

With that in mind, I re-read the Popol Vuh book, with notes my district leader wrote in it to help with the translation into English and possible Gospel concepts, and was astonished at what I had missed. I have plans to make that the subject of another post (or two, or five) because it really is that interesting. But for now, let's just say that this was the catalyst that compelled me to study the Book of Mormon in more depth than ever before.

Toward the end of my mission, an Elder with whom I had come into the mission showed me a book called "The Title of the Lords of Totonicapan" that a local member had given him. I opened it, and with my considerably improved Spanish reading comprehension, was excited to find that it was another local Maya tribe's version of many of the same events and symbols found in the Popol Vuh. The "Title"'s author, during the Spanish conquest of the 1550s, made direct (but today often disputed) claims to a direct descendancy of his people from Israel.

The common linkages I began to see between these two books and Biblical and Book of Mormon concepts and doctrines began to galvanize my desire to fully study the additional physical evidences that must surely exist.

Since then, even though I make no claims to be any kind of professional or experienced anthropologist/archaeologist/ethnographist/etc., I have kept an eye out for anything and everything that might point to evidence of the Book of Mormon's claims. I marvel at the knowledge that has come to light and that experienced scholars such as Daniel Peterson and John Tvedtnes are able to build a solid foundation upon which these evidences can rest.

I want to categorically and undeniably state, at the same time, that I have a firm knowledge, completely independent and antecedent to the above experiences, that the Book of Mormon is true and exactly what it claims to be. Even if the Conquistadores had burned and destroyed every last vestige of Mesoamerican literature and monuments, the hard and simple truths of the book stand on their own, brilliantly testify of the Bible's authenticity, and teach and prophesy correctly of Christ. It is, as Joseph Smith taught, "the most correct of any book on earth". I testify that I have grown closer to God because of it.

Joseph Smith: A True Superman

Check out this awesome video from Seth Adam Smith on Youtube. Really inspirational stuff!

Shaken Faith Syndrome

Have you ever had a shaken testimony? What about friends or family? If so, then Mike Ash (owner and proprietor of www.mormonfortress.com) has just the book for you. In this new volume entitled Shaken Faith Syndrome, Mike details some of the ways to strengthen one's testimony in the face of criticisms and doubt and offers introductions to some of the apologetic responses to hard questions about the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith & Brigham Young, Church history and doctrine and dealing with cognitive dissonance (or thought disharmony).

The book is basically divided into two sections. The first section is an introduction to dealing with doubt and criticisms of the Church and includes the following chapters:

1. Dealing with Doubt

2. Ex-Mormons, Critics, and Fundamentalist Assumptions

3. Unrealistic Expectations of Prophets

4. Confusing Tradition with Doctrine (This section can be read online here.)

5. Paradigms, Evidence, and Imposing Our Views on Others

6. Scholarly, Historical and Scientific Limitations & Unrealistic Expectations

7. Betrayal and Church "Cover-up"

8. Adding Cognitions (Beliefs)

9. Anti-Mormon Disdain for LDS Scholarship and Apologetics

10. Summary to Part 1: "The Answers Are Out There"

While Mike has something to offer in all of these areas, chapter 6 was my favorite. In this chapter, Mike points out several things which includes:

1. That anti-Mormons rarely deal with real LDS scholarship and instead rely on straw men most of the time.

2. That, contrary to anti-Mormon allegations, LDS scholars are real scholars with real degrees from prestigious universities.

3. That LDS scholars are widely accepted in mainstream academia and their works are often cited favorably by non-LDS scholarly venues.

4. That a number of non-LDS researchers are coming to recognize aspects of LDS scholarship.

Part two of Mike's book then tackles some of the issues raised by anti-Mormons or critics and includes chapters on the following:

11. Joseph Smith, Abraham, and Modern Egyptology (This is a section on the Book of Abraham that I highly recommend be read)

12. Anachronisms: The Wrong Things at the Wrong Times

13. Book of Mormon Geography

14. Book of Mormon Textual Changes

15. DNA and the Book of Mormon

16. Fulness of the Gospel

17. Joseph's Environment and the Book of Mormon

18. Others in the Book of Mormon

19. Reformed Egyptian and Book of Mormon Languages

20. Who are the "Lamanites"?

21. The Book of Mormon Witnesses

22. Journal of Discourses

23. Kinderhook Plates

24. Plural Marriage

25. The Temple (This is also a good chapter that I highly recommend)

26. The First Vision

27. "Magic", Treasure Digging, and the Young Joseph Smith

28. Part II Summary: Conclusions

There is much that could be said about this wonderful book, but I will let the reader see for him or herself. All in all, it is a fine volume that offers a good introduction to Mormon apologetics and is an excellent resource in helping strengthen one's (as well as one's family and friends) testimony in the face of criticisms and doubt.