Christ is the Reason

The Term ‘Anti-Mormon’

Critics of the Church do not like the term Anti-Mormon. They feel the term is unfair because it conjures up caricatures in the minds of students of LDS doctrine in an Orwellian sort of way, erecting a wall of separation between ‘teacher’ and student. The term was initially self applied by political groups who were opposed to Mormon bloc voting, and has now come to encompass all of those who seek to bring down the church individually and collectively. Are all disbelievers and critics anti-Mormon? No. So how can you tell who is an Ant-Mormon? If the person you are talking to seem more interested in winning the argument of proving the church false more than actually understanding our beliefs, they are anti-Mormon. This may require some discernment, but much of the time it is very transparent.

II. Some Characteristics of Anti-Mormons[1]

1. Bitterness: They are bitter about their church experience, either by being offended or observing the faults of church members or leaders.
2. Pride: This is a secularist response by those who look at religion as sort of a crutch and feel compelled to bring down other people’s faith. Others in this category may feel they know more about church history or church doctrine than the average member, or even the Gospel Doctrine teacher, and there by cultivate the feeling of being above the Prophets and the Apostles as well. “Apostasy usually begins with question and doubt and criticism. It is a retrograding and devolutionary process. The seeds of doubt are planted by unscrupulous or misguided people, and seldom directed at the doctrine at first, but more often against church leaders.” – President Spencer W. Kimball
3. Many, if not most, are embarrassed because of past sin. This motivation is rejected by anti-Mormons. They would have you believe that all former members who have left the church, were faithful, active members who fell away due to some revelatory comment made by Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses or in Church History by Joseph Smith. I have never met an anti-Mormon like that. I would like to ask these people about what they believe outside of hating the doctrines of the Church. “Those who leave the Church, clothed in the deeds of darkness, are found attempting to expose the Church or demean its doctrines-activities necessitated by guilt, for they realize that if the Church is true they are servants of darkness and must needs repent.” –Joseph McConkie and Robert Millet
4. And there are those who have never been affiliated with our church in any meaningful way, have learned our doctrine in other denominational “Sunday School” classes, and have a sincere desire to help their Mormon brothers and sisters who have gone astray. I have never met anyone who sought to tear down my faith who I felt was sincerely motivated by love. But that doesn’t mean they’re not out there.

IV. Why Should We Avoid Debating Anti-Mormons?

1. “Little is to be gained by kicking skunks or entering into a spitting contest with camels. We accomplish more in the declaration of the truth-that is, in teaching the message the Lord has given us-than in responding to the endless falsehoods that are hurled against us. Few falsehoods deserve response. The adversary will often use such things to divert our attention from the greater labor of declaring our message.” –Joseph Fielding McConkie
2. We are "under no obligation to preach to or hold controversy...with those who, having once known the truth and partaken of the Spirit of the Lord, have turned away thereform. To talk with such individuals is time spent in vain....There are thousands of individuals with whom time can be profitably spent, who have never heard the truth and the message of this last dispensation." (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, ed. Jerreld L. Newquist, p. 492)
3. “It is light, intelligence, the power of God that make the wicked tremble and wish 'Mormonism' out of the way. If it were a false doctrine or a false theory, the Devil would not endeavor to disturb it, wicked men would not fear it, Heaven would not smile upon it, nor give a revelation to any man or woman to believe it, and we should have poor success; and Heaven forbid that we should have success or gain influence upon any other principle than the revelations of Jesus Christ.” -- Brigham Young
4. "Some real tares even masquerade as wheat, including the few eager individuals who lecture the rest of us about Church doctrines in which they no longer believe. They criticize the use of Church resources to which they no longer contribute. They condescendingly seek to counsel the Brethren whom they no longer sustain. Confrontive, except of themselves, of course, they leave the Church, but they cannot leave the Church alone (Ensign, Nov. 1980, 14).
5. “Like the throng on the ramparts of the “great and spacious building,” they are intensely and busily preoccupied, pointing fingers of scorn at the steadfast iron-rodders (1 Ne. 8:26-28, 33). Considering their ceaseless preoccupation, one wonders, is there no diversionary activity available to them, especially in such a large building—like a bowling alley? Perhaps in their mockings and beneath the stir are repressed doubts of their doubts." (“Becometh as a child”, Elder Neal A. Maxwell, April 1996 General Conference; emphasizes added).

V. Avoid those who seek to tear down your faith. This is not a sign of weakness, nor fear that you have some inability to answer their questions. I have never heard an anti-Mormon question that I lacked the ability to answer (not that they are not out there). But I have found in the conversations I’ve had with anti-Mormons that they are not really looking for answers, but are just looking to sow seeds of doubt in your faith. Here’s an example of an exchange I had with one minister in Hiroshima:

Minister: I could show you prophecies that Willford Woodruff made that didn’t come true.

Elder Partridge: Prophecies about what?

Minister: Uh, the Second Coming of Christ.

Elder Partridge: Well, I can show you prophecies that Isaiah made about the Second Coming that haven’t come true yet, because it hasn’t happened yet.

Minister: Joseph Smith also made false prophecies.

Okay, did you see what happened there? I’ve personally observed this tactic of equivocation many times. Often anti-Mormons will ask another question before you’ve even answered their previous question, or sometimes they will not acknowledge that you’ve answered their questions. Why? Because they are not looking for answers, they are looking to destroy your faith or, at a minimum, waster your time. I am convinced that Satan smiles when good missionaries take the bait of wasting the Lord’s time with those who are not truly searching for the truth. Certainly there are those who are “kept from the truth because they know not where to find it”, but there are also those who are kept from the truth by those who willingly become obstacles to good hearted missionaries. Don’t take the bait.

VI. What Doctrines Do Missionaries Preach?

- “As to missionary work, we will wish to remember that in April of 1829, the Lord, speaking to Joseph and Oliver, said: ‘Say noth­ing but repentance unto this generation; keep my commandments, and assist to bring forth my work, according to my command­ments, and you shall be blessed.’ - D&C 6:9 (The commandment is also repeated in D&C 11:9 and 19:30-31)

- “And of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea even the Holy Ghost.” D&C 19:31

- What is a tenet? Paul defines it as “foolish and unlearned questions” and he councils that we should “avoid” them because “they do gender strifes.” (2 Tim 2:23)

VII. Ignoring Anti-Mormons and the Points they Bring Up Do Not Make Them Go Away

While I can’t stress enough the importance of not wasting time with those who seek to tear down your faith and waste your time, and keeping your general message focused, you may still be forced to deal with anti-Mormons and anti-Mormon literature. I hesitate to even discuss this because I don’t want to unduly divert your gospel studies from the trunk of the gospel to the far flung doctrinal branches brought up by Anti-Mormon literature. So why do I feel impressed to talk about this with you? There were at least three investigators I taught (two of which were baptized) in Japan who had friends hand them piles of papers filled with anti-Mormon rhetoric. This literature raised questions and doubts in the minds and hearts of these sincere investigators. Because I was familiar with anti-Mormon literature and arguments, I was recruited by different missionaries throughout the mission to help resolve some of these concerns. So what should you do as a missionary? How do you resolve these concerns? Should you resolve these concerns? If you don’t have this information going into your mission, it may be difficult to find some of these answers while on your mission due to time and resources. Here are some principles to keep in mind when resolving concerns raised by anti-Mormon literature. Again these principles only work with those that sincerely are looking for the truth, not those who are not interested in it.

1. There is at least three kinds of church doctrine:

a. Complete lies. One common example of this is “Mormons worship Joseph Smith.” Total lies are easily explainable to pure seekers of truth and can be resolved in a number of ways.

- “No we do not believe that.” For many, that answer is enough.

- “While we revere all prophets, including the unique role Joseph Smith played in the Restoration, are worship is directed only to God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ.”

- “There is a hymn about Joseph Smith we sing that is entitled “Praise to the Man”. While we certainly give praises to God for Joseph Smith it is because he “communed with Jehovah” not because he is Jehovah or God or anything that we worship.”

b. Distorted statements, or half truths. “Mormons are polytheists because they believe that they can become like God.” Do we believe that we are “Gods in embryo”? Yes. But do we worship each other? Will becoming like God force others to worship us? No. It is important that YOU, not the anti-Mormon, frame our doctrine.

c. Completely true doctrines of the church taken out of context. Example “Satan and Jesus are brothers.” Do not apologize for our doctrines, but they can be explained in a way that can be easily understood by investigators. Do not spend too much time on items that are not really important at the time for their individual progression at the time. (For example, answering questions like “Where is Kolob?” should not dominate too much discussion time.)

2. Every concern about true doctrinal points can be resolved in gaining a testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. I’ve even seen anti-Mormon websites who rail against this point. If the Book of Mormon is true than Joseph Smith is a prophet and the foundation he laid and subsequent revelations must be true. If they have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, things like the Temple, the Godhead, or any other restored doctrine that may be difficult for an investigator accept can be accepted as well. If they don’t have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, they will have to pray over each and every teaching of the church. Their testimony should be rooted in the Book of Mormon; it is true and it will bring them to Christ.

3. What about quotes from Church History, the Journal of Discourses, or other church documents that you’ve never heard of before or no how to explain? After your mission, you’ll have all the time in the world to research things like this if you’re interested. In the mean time, please explain to your investigator where our church doctrine comes from. It does not come from sources you’ve never heard of before.

- “In determining whether something is a part of the doctrine of the Church, we might ask: Is it found within the four standard works? Within official declarations or proclamations? In the general handbooks or approved curriculum of the Church today? Is it discussed in general conference or other official gatherings by general Church leaders today?” –Robert Millet “What is Church Doctrine?”[2]

Those sources listed by brother Millet is where we can learn about what we believe, namely:

1. The Scriptures

2. Official Declarations/ Proclamations

3. General Handbooks

4. Approved Church Curriculum

5. General Conference Reports

- There is another great talk by President J. Reuben Clark that can teach us much on the subject. It is entitled “When Are Church Leaders’ Words Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?”[3]

Conclusion: Getting bogged down in debates with anti-Mormons is a waste of time. However, sometimes they are able to raise doubts in the minds of sincere investigators. We need to understand what our doctrine is and where it comes from. As you continue to study the core elements of the gospel in your missionary preparation, try to be mindful of the concerns that may be arise in the minds of your future investigators. I promise you that the Lord will bless you with what you need to say in the very hour you need it.

Appendix

Given all the disclaimers above, I am aware there are some who still spend their time debating these issues with others. Again, if these people aren’t really looking for the truth, I believe your time can be used more constructively by studying the Book of Mormon and the doctrines of the church. Those who choose to debate anti-Mormon’s or feel compelled to do so, you should know that there are many resources that deal with these issues. Answers are out there to virtually every question and argument that those who oppose the church will raise. I have compiled just a few resources that may be useful if you feel you need help addressing these concerns.

I. Mormon Apologetic Websites

Groups

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/Abraham.html Book of Abraham Links

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/ The Book of Mormon

http://www.lehistrail.com/ Book of Mormon Answer Man

http://www.fair-lds.org/ Foundation for Apologetic Information Research (FAIR)

http://farms.byu.edu/ Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS)

http://www.lehistrail.com/ Lehi’s Trail

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/index.htm Light Planet

http://www.mormonfortress.com/ Mormon Fortress

http://www.mormonhaven.com/ansindex.htm Mormon Haven

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/mormonis.htm Mormonism Researched

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/index.htm Response to Criticism

http://www.shields-research.org/ Shield

http://www.angelfire.com/sk2/ldsdefense/index.html The Truth About Anti-Mormonism

Individuals

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/EC.html Barry Bickmore

http://home.rmci.net/cbolton/LDS.HTM Chris Bolton

http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id58.htm Mike Griffith

http://www.jefflindsay.com/MyPages.shtml#religion Jeff Lindsey

http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/ Elden Watson

http://web.byui.edu/presentations/ BYU Idaho Devotionals

http://www.mindlessfun.com/LDS/tubaloth/Clark.html J. Clark Talk

http://home.uchicago.edu/~spackman/millet.doc R. Millet Talk

II. Common Logical Fallacies of Anti-Mormon Arguments[4]

1. Ad hominem: a direct attack against the person, the persons circumstances, or the belief that the person doesn't practice what she/he preaches, rather than dealing with the opposing argument.

- Example: "If you wish to understand the Bible, I suggest you put the BOM on the shelf, roll up your sleeves, and put your nose between its pages instead of a Concordance. A topical study or one where you merely trace the occurrence of a particular word via a concordance, and read two verses will not adequately present you with a picture of the teachings of the Bible. The “only” way one can comprehend scripture is through Spiritual revelation, and familiarity with the contents. The latter provides the foundation for the former. I sincerely hope that after reading the arguments I’ve presented, you will have the wisdom and humility to acknowledge this, if only to yourself, and the sincerity to apply yourself to understanding the truth. I would suggest that you commit the matter to fervent prayer."(doulos, August 26, 1999, in a post on the CARM "Mormonism" Bulletin Board)

- Analysis: By assuming that one needs humility and knowledge in order to understand the others point confuses the issues at hand by needlessly attacking the other person.

2. Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) : attempting to support a proposition with an argument that presupposes the proposition, or the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.

- Example: "I pray that their eyes may be opened to the beauty of the TRUE Gospel of Jesus Christ as found in ONLY the Holy Bible." When asked "where does it say in the Bible that the True Gospel of JC is found ONLY in the Bible," she replied: Colossians 1:25-26. (Posted by a person by the name of Steph, using the screen name of tundramom, in a thread on the Rountable Forum at ZLMB titled, "Breakpoint by Charles Colson," March 2002)

- Analysis: “Steph” is presupposing the Bible is true and using that premise to conclude that the bible is true without using any other form of evidence.

4. Equivocation: elements (such as definitions) of one's argument change as the discussion proceeds.

- Example: “Remember, Smith claimed his book was the most perfect book ever written. As he was personally moved by God to pen its words, bad grammar should be non-existent” (Buff Scott, Mormonism: GOD'S INSTITUTION OR SATAN'S INSTRUMENT?, the section titled, "HOW PERFECT IS SMITH'S BIBLE?")

- Analysis: Notice how the word “perfect” is changed from how the Prophet initially used the word (he actually said ‘most perfect’), which meant perfect in a doctrinal sense. But Scott changes the definition of perfect in a doctrinal sense to perfect in a grammatical sense, which again skirts the issue at hand.

5. Non-sequitur: offering a conclusion that does not follow logically from the premise or the facts.

- Example: "LDS male = priesthood holder
"priesthood holder = authority
"authority = leadership
"leadership = power"

(Posted by a person using the screen name of WAzing, in a thread on the Rountable Forum at ZLMB titled, "Women and the Priesthood," April 2002)

- Analysis: "Blue = color
"Color = light
"light = opposite of Dark
"Dark = evil
"Blue = opposite of evil

"Thus blue is a good color - thus the phrase “true blue” [as in True Blue Mormon (TBM)]. This is also the reason that it is one of BYU’s colors.

"Wade, aren’t you supposed to be collecting these things? You missed a biggy here. " (posted by a person using the screen name of ElMaughan, ibid.)

6. Oversimplification (Reductio ad absurdum): reducing an argument to an inaccurate absurdity--one where the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

-Example: "An all-powerful father sends his son to die on a cross, in the process saving his other children from an awful fate he himself ordained. Or so the story goes. According to a new book by two pathbreaking feminist theologians — each with close ties to the Unitarian Universalist Association — something is horribly wrong with this version of the story, something that has brought lasting harm to millions. When Christians identify the central story of their faith as the intentional sacrifice of a 'beloved son' by God, his own father, they unwittingly make a story about child abuse into a narrative of salvation. Believing that Jesus willingly submitted to crucifixion out of obedience and love, Christians have advocated an ethic of self-sacrificial love that can trap those most vulnerable to violence — women and children. For theologians Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker, this version of Christianity tries to make violence — intimate, family violence — into a form of redemption." (Posted by Roger Loomis in a thread on the Rountable Forum at ZLMB titled, "Christians Unite!!!," February 2002)

Analysis: This may be the best example of oversimplification I have ever read. Try applying this ridiculous logic to any charitable act. For example, lets say a mother donated an organ to her child while dying in the process. Using the logic above, this is clearly a case bodily mutilation, parental abuse and suicide. This type of logic is used to distort beautiful doctrines of the gospel by reducing them to unintelligible forms.

7. Special pleading (double standards) and self-undermining reasoning: refusing to apply the same principles to oneself that one applies to others.

-Example: "Though grand claims are made for this book (the Book of Mormon), nothing has been verified by archaeology." (Edward Mellott, from his article "Christian Historicity vs. Mormon Subjectivism")

- There are a lot of different fallacies here, (including ignoring the mountains of archeological evidence surrounding the Book of Mormon) but in terms of a special pleading, this self professed Christian does not seem to realize that the Bible is subject to the same criticism of lacking archeological evidence.

8. Appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): citing someone who is incompetent, or non-objective, or lacking specific scholastic or experiential background; or, the experts in the field disagree; or, the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious.

9. Red herring: attempting to support one proposition by arguing for a different one entirely, or dodging the main argument by going off on a tangent.

- Example: "The 'anti-Mormon' label is disrespectful and intended to 'excite the emotions and play to the audience.'" (James White, in an email to Daniel Peterson on 4/15/98)

- Analysis: Even if the term of Anti-Mormon excited emotions, that alone would not be enough to disprove the usefulness of the term.

10. Tu quoque or "two wrongs make a right": dodging the main argument by including the opposition in the blame ("you did it to"), or justifying an action because one's opponent has performed it.

-Example: "Does the Mormon church condemn other religious systems? The answer is definitely, 'Yes.' Let's look at Mormon writers and see what they have said. . ." (Matt Slick, in his article "Does Mormonism Attack Other Religions?")

-Analysis: In justifying his own campaign against the church, this anti-Mormon tries to show that the church has done the same thing, so its okay.

11. Arguing from silence (argumentum ad ignorantium): argument based on the unknown--something is considered valid because it is not proved false, or something is considered false because it is not proved true.

- Example: "Note in Alma 31:15-38 that those who say God is a spirit are not corrected in the prayer of the prophet involved even though other errors are. In none of the references are any of the speakers corrected for calling God a 'spirit' or the 'Great Spirit'. . . .Hence, the Book of Mormon teaches that God is a Spirit." (John Farkas, from his article "TEACHINGS OF THE MORMON CHURCH COMPARED")

- Analysis: He is saying that, because Alma doesn’t correct a falsehood, he must thereby be endorsing it.

12. Fallacy of interrogative presupposition: loaded questions or statements (like "have you stopped beating your wife").

- Example: When did you start brainwashing people?

13. False dichotomy (bifurcation), "either/or", or the "all-or-nothing" mistake: presenting only two options (typically where both are are undesirable) where multiple options exist.

-Example: "We are of different faiths, different religions. Joseph Smith calls me apostate. The more politically correct Mr. Barksdale says we are of different parties. Either way, you are wrong or we are wrong. We cannot both be Christian. The doctrinal beliefs of both sides make that clear distinction. Either you are Mormon and I am Christian or you are Christian and I am not." –anonymous e-mail

14. Straw man: attempting to refute one's opponent's proposition by attacking the misrepresentation of the opponent's position.

-Example: “Saying that the only way to believe in God is to acknowledge miracles doesn’t make sense because there are no miracles therefore God does not exist.”- Paraphrase of a conversation with an atheist.

-Analysis: You can also see circular reasoning here. It is a good straw man example because it is an argument that I never made ( I never said acknowledging miracles is the only way of knowing God lives or even one of the ways of knowing God lives.) By mischaracterizing the argument it becomes much easier to attack it.