Apologetics

I must say, the world of apologetics is really unknown to the Mormon world. I know I had no idea that it even existed.  I will say that this fact is in and of itself is a bit of evidence that there is so much that is intentionally concealed from church members.  The Mormon definition of apologetics would be “a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Mormonism.”  I’m the first to admit that you can’t prove that the church is true. You also can’t prove that it is false, even if the evidence is stacked against the church in my opinion.

There are three main apologetics sites that I am familiar with.  The Maxwell Institute which is the official LDS site, Fair LDS, and Stay LDS.  All three are linked on the sidebar for your reference. 

The way I see it, if you want to be convinced that the church is still true, apologetics will do that.  I believe this is due to confirmation bias as opposed to real viable defenses put forth by apologists. To be fair, the same biases can be shown by “anti-Mormons” when they try to prove their evidences against the church.  I believe most apologetic responses are very weak.  I have yet to see an apologetic response that really satisfies my concerns. The link here at the bottom is a great representation of how ridiculous these apologetic defenses can be.  In fact, this proves that their so called evidences are often misleading and flat out lies. 
  
http://youtu.be/EReUoXIesMI

As a side note, that person that did that video has some other great videos I’d highly recommend so check out his YouTube channel after you watch this video.  He has done some great stuff for the doubting/disaffected/ExMo community.

Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon

My lexicon had never before contained the word anachronism but I have come to learn that this is a very important word in regards to confirming or disproving the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  The simple definition of anachronism is something or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological time, especially a thing or person that belongs to an earlier time: The sword is an anachronism in modern warfare.

The anachronisms in the BofM are very obvious when you read them if you take off your spiritual blinders that the church has you wear.  I have compiled a list of my favorites here. Please bear in mind, these are summaries and by no means comprehensive. There are links to some of the most common sources I’ve explored so please look to those for good science and research.

Quoting Isaiah- the book of Isaiah was not written by Isaiah but rather one or more other people sometime between 586 B.C. and 538 B.C., after it could have even been known to Lehi.

Horses- they did not exist on the continent until 1493 when Columbus brought them from Europe. There is no fossil evidence for pre-Columbus horses.

Elephants- they did not exist on the continent during the time of any of the inhabitants of the BofM lived on the continent

Barley and wheat- the introduction of domesticated modern barley and wheat to the New World was made by Europeans sometime after 1492, many centuries after the time in which the Book of Mormon is set.

Chariots or wheeled vehicles- there is no archaeological evidence to support the use of wheeled vehicles in Mesoamerica. Many parts of ancient Mesoamerica were not suitable for wheeled transport.

Silk- silk is a material that is created from the cocoon of the Asian moth Bombyx mori, and was unknown to the pre-Columbian Americas.

Windows-  the Jaredite people were familiar with the concept of "windows" near the time of the Biblical Tower of and that they specifically avoided crafting windows for lighting in their covered seagoing vessels, because the windows would be "dashed in pieces" during the ocean voyage.  The earliest known production of glass dates to 3500 BC in Egypt.

Steel and iron- There is no evidence of steel (hardened iron) production in North, Central, or South America during these periods. The process of smelting these metals leaves significant archeological evidences.

Christ and Messiah- "Christ" is the English transliteration of the Greek word Χριστός (transliterated precisely as Christós). Joseph Smith clearly stated “There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, through the grace of the Lord, translated the Book of Mormon.”  The Book of Mormon contains some names which appear to be Greek (e.g. Antipas, Archeantus, Esrom, Ezias, Jonas, Judea, Lachoneus and Zenos).

KJV anachronisms- a significant portion of the Book of Mormon quotes from the brass plates, which purport to be another source of Old Testament writings mirroring those of the Bible. In many cases, the Biblical quotations in the English-language Book of Mormon are close, or identical to the equivalent sections of the King James Version. This shows that Joseph copied errors out of the KJV and placed them in the BofM rather than translate them directly from the plates.

I do not claim that any of these things are “smoking guns” but it certainly stacks the evidence against believers.  Red flags do add up don't they?

Links:

Wikipedia

Mormon Expression

Mormon Handbook

Institute for Religious Research

FAIRMormon (if you want unreasonable excuses)

My favorite new word: Culty

Why do I like the word culty so much? I know firsthand how defensive I was whenever people would say that I was a member of a cult. How couldn't I be offended? Being associated with that word implies that I am a thoughtless zombie just following the leader.  Well I don't believe that Mormons are thoughtless zombies but come on, have you ever heard the primary song "Follow the Prophet"?  If that isn't the type of brainwashing that takes place in a cult, it is certainly culty behavior.

I really hate the fact that Mormons immediately dismiss the entire conversation once the "c-word" is brought to the table. So to avoid that type of conversation discrimination I will not refer to Mormonism as a cult but rather it is very culty. There, is that better? It doesn't change the fact that the church uses mind control from a very early age to control the behavior of its members.  It starts with Primary with the songs.  It gets worse when an eight year old gets baptized (come on, is that really different than baby baptisms?).  It continues with the oppressive and mind controlling priesthood interviews.  It gets really deep with the endowment in the temple.  And what I consider the coupe de gras, the two year mission, seals the deal as far as what the commitment level is. This is why I believe the recent “revelation” to lower missionary ages is just a last ditch effort to stop 18 year-olds from discovering Google and actually using their brains (yes I am making fun of myself here as well since I served a mission). Of course celestial marriage and ongoing church callings continue the brainwashing and groupthink that persist in the church.

I can say that I now have personal experience with how duped one feels when they start to see the light. It is a frustrating and depressing realization that comes over you when you get to that point but the freedom that comes is simply priceless and worth the journey. I completely understand why true believers will always push back any contrary thoughts or teachings because that is how they have been groomed. One of my favorite quotes really embodies this predicament that Mormons can find themselves in:

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken."

-Carl Sagan

If you’d like to explore the issue I’d recommend listening the the Mormon Expression podcast #201 or the Mormon Expositor follow up podcasts #2A & #2b.  They discuss some of the indicators that can define any organization as a cult.  They are:

1. Their leader/s may claim a special, exclusive ministry, revelation or position of authority given by God.

2. They believe they are the only true church and take a critical stance regarding the Christian church while at the same time praising and exalting their own group, leader/s and work.

3. They use intimidation or psychological manipulation to keep members loyal to their ranks. This could be in the form of threats of dire calamity sent by God if they leave; certain death at Armageddon; being shunned by their family and friends etc. This is a vital part of the mind control process.

4. Members will be expected to give substantial financial support to the group. This could be compulsory tithing (which is checked); signing over all their property on entering the group; coercive methods of instilling guilt on those who have not contributed; selling magazines, flowers or other goods for the group as part of their “ministry”.

5. At the same time bible-based cults may ridicule churches that take up free-will offerings by passing collection plates and/or sell literature and tapes. They usually brag that they don’t do this. This gives outsiders the intimation that they are not interested in money.

6. There will be great emphasis on loyalty to the group and its teachings. The lives of members will be totally absorbed into the group’s activities. They will have little or no time to think for themselves because of physical and emotional exhaustion. This is also a vital part of the mind control process.

7. There will be total control over almost all aspects of the private lives of members. This control can be direct through communal living, or constant and repetitious teaching on “how to be a true Christian” or “being obedient to leadership”. Members will look to their leaders for guidance in everything they do.

Bible-based cults may proclaim they have no clergy/laity distinction and no paid ministry class – that they are all equal.

8. Any dissent or questioning of the group’s teachings is discouraged. Criticism in any form is seen as rebellion. There will be an emphasis on authority, unquestioning obedience and submission. This is vigilantly maintained.

9. Members are required to demonstrate their loyalty to the group in some way. This could be in the form of “dobbing” on fellow members (including family) under the guise of looking out for “spiritual welfare”.

10. They may be required to deliberately lie (heavenly deception/theocratic strategy) or give up their lives by refusing some form of medical treatment.

11. Attempts to leave or reveal embarrassing facts about the group may be met with threats. Some may have taken oaths of loyalty that involve their lives or have signed a “covenant” and feel threatened by this. Refugees of the group are usually faced with confrontations by other members with coercion to get them to return to the group.

If I were to rank the Mormon church on a scale of 1-10 of “cultyness” on these points, my average score of the 11 points would result in my opinion that the church is 84.5% culty. Bottom line, truth is truth no matter where it comes from no matter how much it cuts to the core. Even if it defines you as a member of a cult. I do know one thing, I am a firm believer that the truth really will set you free.

The Evil Tanners

Well before any period of disaffection took place in my mind I was well aware of Jerald and Sandra Tanner and their very “anti-Mormon” messages they preached. If you are unaware, they founded the Utah Lighthouse Ministry in Salt Lake which has a bookstore spreading “evil rumors” about the LDS church.  In my research I have always wanted to search for information form original historical sources and I have tried to avoid the likes of Ed Decker and the Tanners due to their perceived bias. Since my study from original source material has already kicked me well into my crisis of faith, I thought it might be interesting to dive into some of that biased material. What do I have to lose at this point?

I have recently been reading the Tanner’s book The Changing World of Mormonism (available free online) and I have been shocked to see that the bulk of what they present is fair and accurate.  I am the first to admit that they are very biased against the church and have their own Christian objectives.  They have been criticized for making some leaps and connections without historical references but the points that they are making leaps between are still accurate and historically factual.  One thing I have enjoyed about this book is the included copies of actual historical documents that they refer to. I believe that they are (and were in Jerald’s case) good people trying to help people find truth.  Although I am not too interested in their Christian views at this point, I think their information is still useful. I wouldn’t recommend their stuff if you are just starting to research the truth about the LDS church (remember milk before meat, right?) but they do present some good information that I found to be informative and useful.

Why do people leave the church?

This last Sunday in my Elders Quorum class, the discussion of why people leave the church came up. In my readings of people's personal experiences when leaving the church I had always heard members of the church always claiming the reasons for leaving the church are one of two things: the person sinned or they were offended.

How obtuse of an outlook can people have? That is the most uninformed and judgmental bias I could imagine in this circumstance. How hurtful is it to judge what the reasons why someone else left the church are without being willing to hear those very reasons.

Maybe they are right about being offended but in the wrong way. If I end up leaving the church I guess it will because I am offended. Not offended by another church member or by rules or by tough commandments. I will be offended that the church is a lie and although I will admit it has benefited me in multiple ways, it has stolen much of my life away from me.

Where's the revelation?

I'm the first to admit that if the church has continuing revelation like Moses or even Joseph Smith's accounts, I want to be a member of that church. So where is the real doctrine? Where are the visions? If there are still visions, why are the apostles afraid to share? Joseph wasn't afraid to share sacred experiences (even if the stories changed). What new doctrine has come to pass since Joseph? No flip flops in church? Single ear piercings? No skinny jeans while taking tests? Well here are two examples of how it is now done with the "prophets."

In this clip, if you go to the 3 min mark you will hear the following from Dallin Oaks regarding how missionaries are called:
"He said, you're the servant of the Lord, and your action is the Lord's action. You study it out in your mind, and you assign them, and they're assigned by the Lord."

So they don't need to actually get recognizable revelation. They just study it out in their mind, then they make a decision and then they claim it's the Lord doing it. In today's church, "revelation" goes from leaders to God and not the other way around. 

This was also implied by an interview Spencer Kimball gave after the so-called "revelation" ending racist practices in 1978. He was asked how it came about. He answered:

"I asked the Twelve not to go home when the time came. . . . I offered the final prayer and I told the Lord that if it wasn't right, if He didn't want this change to come in the Church, that I would be true to it all the rest of my life. . . ."

In other words the "revelation" was already decided before it was taken to the Lord. They prayed and took the fact that they felt good about what they had already decided to mean the Lord wants it. Now with revelation in the church it is the arrogant attitude of "if we like it it must be from God."

That's how revelation happens these days. Apostles feel good about something and then they claim that the Lord told them when it was really the other way around. Far from what Joseph claimed and far from what missionaries proselytize. The church I am still a member of is not the church it once was or the church it claims to be.

The "sacred revelation" of polygamy was used as an excuse for Joseph's multiple sexual partners

Most LDS members think that Brigham Young started polygamy and the apologist reasons for this are many and are ridiculous. The truth is that Brigham had quite the mentor in Joseph Smith:
http://www.mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm#other

Now hearing how Joseph started polygamy was shocking to me as a life long Mormon. Unfortunately this was the easiest pill to swallow. Enter the term polyandry. I had never heard this term before but it is far worse than polygamy:
http://www.mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm#other

But don't worry, he didn't actually have sex with them. He did it for sealing purposes only right? Wrong. Even LDS apologists on FAIR as well as FARMS admit that based on the evidence it is likely he had sex with most if not all of his wives.
http://www.mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm#sex

The best part is that Joseph LIED about it repeatedly! That is ok though. He did it for good reasons. Don't you remember all of those times Jesus lied in the NT? Oh yea, he didn't.
http://www.mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm#lied

Polygamy and Polyandry in the church is a deep and very confusing issue and I don't mean to oversimplify the issue, but to me it looks like a typical power hungry man trying to get some on the side. Not the first or last man to literally lie his pants off.

By the way, next time you tell any non-Mormon we don't believe in polygamy, you are lying as well. D&C Section 132 has never been removed or revoked. You can't even say we just don't practice it anymore. Just ask the countless "celestial" polygamist apostles that are sealed to multiple women over the years and even today. 

My purpose isn't to incriminate Joseph or all of the Mormon polygamists but to rather show how the church hides this truth from its members. The church purposefully hides all evidences of polygamy but never outright denies it. This causes good believing Mormons to defend their church ignorantly all the while allowing the church to have plausible deniability on the matter. 

The LDS church conceals its finances

A very large problem I have with the LDS church is the fact that despite its claim of divine perfection, it conceals its finances from its own members.  What possible reason would such an divinely operated organization have for lacking transparency with it's finances? I believe the only reasonable explanation it does not disclose this information is because there really is something to hide.  Take your pick of things they don't want you to see: General Authority pay(yes this does happen), lawsuit settlements, extravagant "corporate" spending, non-religious business investments (i.e. City Creek) just to name a few.

I will admit, paying tithing has always been a hard thing for me to do but I have always done so. I will no longer give my family's hard earned money to a corporation that won't disclose what is being done with it. If I had a way to give it to the Lord I would but to call tithing "the Lord's money" is laughable.

No matter how you slice it, I can't see Jesus doing what Thomas Monson did at the ribbon cutting for City Creek- “One, two, three—let’s go shopping!”

Really? Divine? Come on, Really?

Here are a couple of the many available links for you to refer to on this matter:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-10/how-the-mormons-make-money
http://mormonthink.com/tithing.htm

Also, after seeing first hand how easily bishops can be extorted in regards to fast offerings, I'd advise against paying them at all. All you have to do is act semi-interested in becoming active and "the windows of heaven" will certainly open up in an effort to schmooze you back into activity.  Now I know how to supplement my welfare, WIC, unemployment and food stamps shall I ever lose my job. Don't get me wrong, i acknowledge the great amounts of resources, time and money the church spends caring for the needy but if the whole system is pure, disclose it!

I certainly advocate donating to charity but I plan to donate my time and money to real charities that make the rubber meet the road more effectively.

The LDS Church has lied and deliberately concealed historical facts to maintain a clean image

Church leaders have for years been guilty of "Lying for the Lord." By my definition this is lying to others about the truth because for whatever reason you believe it is what the lord wants you to do "for the cause."  This type of exception to the rule decision making can be seen with Nephi murdering Laban. When Joseph wrote this into scripture, he gave himself a get out of jail free card he could play with believers for whatever he needed. Brigham and many others have continued to use lying for the lord as their tool when they thought it was convenient.  How can anyone trust these people? I have always been taught in church and by the prophets that omission is also lying.  The church is constantly withholding information from the general membership even to this day.  CES employees have been told that if information isn't uplifting and testimony building it shouldn't be taught.  Boyd Packer made his infamous quote I mentioned earlier in a post "Some things that are true are not very useful" which I find comical.  I can't begin to wonder why each prophet has continued the lies (ego, personal gain, the greater good) but there is no question that they have. 

My favorite source on this is from a former CES teacher that I think is great. They are broken up so you will have to watch each segment but it is worth it:
http://youtu.be/gKt7ozdKeBk

Here are a few other links I like:
http://www.mormonthink.com/lying.htm
http://www.exmormon.org/lying.htm
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord

The Book of Mormon is not a true historical account as claimed

There are so many problems with the BofM that it is ridiculous to think I ever believed in it. Yes it has good but so does Dr. Seuss. This doesn't mean I should base my life on it. (You will have to pardon my extreme examples I give but it is just how I am. Just wait until I use the Nazis in my examples.) Anyway, just a few points:

A. DNA evidence overwhelmingly proves that Native Americans are not form the middle east
B. No archaeological evidence exists of these massive battles, horses, steel, wheels, glass .........
C. Joseph Smith plagiarized from the bible and other literary texts of his time
D. Hill Cumorah has no evidence of battles

E.
F.
.....................
Z.

http://mormonthink.com/book-of-mormon-problems.htm