new review - The Changing World of Mormonism
The Changing World of Mormonism
Author:
Jerald Tanner, Sandra Tanner
Publisher:
Moody Press
Date of Publication:
1979
ISBN:
0802412343
Rating:
6
Summary:
I was hesitant to read this book by the Tanners given they’re notoriety as virulent anti-Mormons (as though I’m not opposed to Mormonism myself). I guess I was a little concerned that I would end up reading false accusations and poorly researched claims. Thankfully, this was not the case.
I had read some of their other writing, but not much, and found it acceptable. And in the numerous books and articles I have read that discuss Mormonism, I have come to realize that many more objective scholars actually respect the research conducted by the Tanners. As it turns out, despite not attempting to portray things from an objective perspective, the Tanners actually do good research. So, when I found this book freely available on their website a while back (here: http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changecontents.htm), I decided I’d give it a look and see if what they had to say was both accurate and well-researched.
You can call Jerald and Sandra Tanner whatever you’d like – anti-Mormons, polemicists, muckrackers, etc. - but what you cannot call them is dishonest. Their work, while unfortunately cast in the evangelizing framework of conservative Christians, is still accurate and insightful into the problems of Mormonism. It’s too bad they don’t hold the Bible and teachings of Christianity up to the same level of scrutiny that they demand for Mormonism. Anyway, on to the summary…
The book doesn’t really seem to have a clear, logical flow to the chapters. They seem to be randomly arranged, but all address topics that are challenging to the beliefs and history of Mormonism. Topics covered include: changes in scripture, censorship by Mormon historians and church leaders, Joseph Smith’s use of a peepstone and his money digging adventures, Joseph Smith’s involvement with magic, the witnesses to the golden plates, criticisms of the Book of Mormon, the differing accounts of the First Vision, doctrinal changes, problems with Joseph Smith’s history, the Adam-God doctrine of Brigham Young, plural marriage – both polygamy and polyandry, blacks and the priesthood, the Book of Abraham and the “lost†papyrii, issues between the Book of Mormon and the Bible, Joseph Smith’s version of the Bible, Joseph Smith’s false and doctored prophecies, problems with the Priesthood ordination stories, Joseph Smith’s character flaws, and Mormon temple ceremonies and their ties to Freemasonry. The chapters are book-ended by testimonies and histories of the Tanners, detailing how they ultimately decided Mormonism is a fraud and left the religion.
Review:
There are several problems with the book, but they are pretty minor problems. First and foremost is the criticism I noted above: the authors don’t hold their beliefs to the same standard that they hold Mormonism – they remain conservative Christians believing in the authenticity of the Bible. I thought this perspective would be a bit more pervasive in the book, but I was pleasantly surprised. Their evangelizing only pops up on occasion, and it is easily glossed over. So, while it is distracting, it is not really that big of a deal.
In fact, there are actually a couple criticisms of Mormonism in the book that likely have resulted from their post-Mormon Biblical scholarship. For instance, the authors point out that Joseph Smith, in writing the Book of Mormon, draws heavily on the King James Version of the Bible. Mormons would reply that that makes sense, given Nephi and the other “authors†of the Bible had the Brass Plates, which are alleged to be an early copy of the Old Testament. The problem with this rebuttal is that if you carefully scrutinize sections of the Book of Mormon you find that it doesn’t quote the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible at all – it quotes the New Testament, “Simon Peter here paraphrases and condenses Moses’ lengthy statement…. The wording is quite different from that in Deuteronomy, but the writer of the Book of Mormon failed to check on the original statement and assumed that Peter’s report of it was a verbatim quotation. Therefore the Book of Mormon quotes Acts” (p. 123). That’s kind of a problem given the New Testament was written after that section of the Book of Mormon was allegedly written, and on the other side of the planet. Ooops!
Additionally, the Tanners point out that the Book of Mormon contains Greek names (like Timothy and Jonas), which were not found in the Old Testament. The alleged “authors†of the Book of Mormon would not have had access to those names. I’m sure apologists can come up with explanations, but it’s hard to refute Joseph Smith’s own, ignorant words, “When it was suggested that the word Mormon came from the Greek, he stated: “This is not the case. There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, … translated the Book of Mormon”†(p. 124). Finally, the Tanners take Mormons to task for criticizing the Bible. Considering the dependency of the Book of Mormon on the Bible, this is, in effect, undermining their own beliefs and simultaneously criticizes their “most correct†book – the Book of Mormon. In short, Mormons are way out of their league when it comes to their understanding of the Bible; any knowledgeable Christian can point to significant problems with Mormon beliefs. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Christians are right. I’m simply pointing out that Mormonism is not, in fact, congruous with many basic tenets of Christianity, despite being dependent on it.
The Tanners’ discussion of Mormonism and the Bible actually illustrated another important point. After leaving Mormonism I found myself questioning why Mormons continue to use an outdated version of the Bible when newer versions are written in modern language and have corrected the mistakes of the King James translation. The Tanners have an answer to that question: Given that the Book of Mormon plagiarizes so much of the King James Version of the Bible, if the religion ever moved to a newer, better version of the Bible (e.g., NIV), it would undermine the Book of Mormon. And since there are no “source†materials for the Book of Mormon to be retranslated into modern script, the Book of Mormon cannot, likewise, be updated. Thus, the Mormon religion is stuck using outdated scriptures because moving into the modern age would undermine Joseph Smith’s greatest fraud – his 19th century work of fiction known as The Book of Mormon… This is just one more way Mormonism is stuck behind the times.
The second problem I have with the book is the lack of logical ordering of the chapters. It makes sense why they are all in the book, but the order is not very clear. Also, the writing is not great. It is certainly understandable, but it is generally simple and to the point and does not make for particularly engaging reading. Of course, that is in comparison to well-written books. Compared to most of the “chloroform in print†that comes out of Mormonism, this book reads like a Dan Brown novel!
Also lacking in the book are convincing arguments that illustrate why the testimonies of the witnesses at the beginning of the Book of Mormon are worthless. The Tanners, in Chapter 5, attack the character of the witnesses. While that approach isn’t completely misguided, I prefer Grant Palmer’s tack: illustrating that most of these same men also acted as witnesses for a bunch of other crackpots and frauds. The implications of Palmer’s argument are pretty straightforward – these guys may have been upright citizens, but they were also ready and willing to jump on any supernatural claim and lend their (lack of) credibility to it by claiming it was divine. They never actually saw gold plates, since the gold plates did not and do not exist. But they were good at imagining things, and they imagined things for the rest of their lives, testifying that all sorts of books, prophecies, and frauds were true. Thus, any attack on the character of a witness of the gold plates should focus on their willingness to testify to the truthfulness of whatever fraudulent claim happened to be striking their fancy at the moment. They may not have been scoundrels, but neither were they very bright – they believed just about anything and would swear to that fact, regardless of the evidence.
Turning from criticisms to praise, the Tanners make some very good points that I have not seen as clearly illustrated in other critical works. For instance, the Tanners point out a basic assumption that is held by most Mormons: if revelation comes from god, it should be perfect. This assumption implies that, if the revelation changes, whoever presented the “revelation†didn’t really receive it from god or has nullified the validity of the revelation. The logic, while simplistic and not with its problems, fairly accurate represents the perspective of most believers – if god’s revelations change, they can’t really be from god. Apologists, of course, are quick to offer a retort: that the changes are insignificant and mostly pertain to grammar and spelling. Unfortunately for the apologists, the Tanners illustrate that there have been a number of significant changes made to both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants that significantly alter the doctrinal meanings of the sections. As I noted above, the Tanners’ logic isn’t perfect – there are alternative explanations (e.g., (1) god is not perfect; (2) god changes his/her/its mind; (3) the person claiming to receive the revelation is just making shit up). But one thing is certain, if the revelations have changed, something isn’t right. You want to know what that something is? Mormonism!
One apologist has offered an additional rebuttal to the above criticism, “Melvin J. Petersen wrote: Once a man has been recognized and accepted as a prophet and favored with communications from God, his great responsibility is to make sure, inasmuch as he has power to do so, that those to whom the communications are directed, understand what God has revealed for them. The power is his to revise, correct, omit, or change any of his writings in order that he might manifest more clearly what God revealed through him…. A prophet cannot be justly criticized when he rewrites the commandments he received from God, for he is only doing that which is part of his role as a prophet†(p. 64). Okay, I’ll accept that claim. But let me, then, illustrate the implications for Mr. Petersen: Claiming a prophet can revise his “revelations†redefines what it means to be a prophet. Prophets are, by this definition: a leader of the church who occasionally issues statements that are accepted as “scripture†until he or an interpreter/apologist decides they are no longer “scripture†and instead are personal opinion. Said prophets have no insights beyond the ability to run a mega-corporation. They have no knowledge of: evolution, the existence of dinosaurs, the nature of the universe, how to translate languages, or even what someone’s name is without someone else telling them ahead of time. In short, a prophet is a wholly fallible individual who has assumed a position that is imbued with charisma because several million people are so indoctrinated into obedience that they will follow the temporary guidance of some old guy who doesn’t know them, only cares about their money, and tells them what to do without consideration of their circumstances. People say such a man is holy; I think such a man should be thrown in jail…
Let me touch on just a few more good points before wrapping up. One important thing this book illustrates is that the Tanners are fairly objective in their criticisms. Even though the Tanners have a clear bone to pick with Mormonism, they don’t distort the truth – there is no need, Mormonism is crazy enough without it. One excerpt from the book clearly illustrates their objectivity, “Many Mormons have claimed that there have never been any changes in the Book of Mormon. Although this is certainly incorrect, some anti-Mormons have gone to the other extreme and tried to make it appear that the Book of Mormon has been completely rewritten. As we stated earlier, most of the 3,913 changes which we found were related to the correction of grammatical and spelling errors and do not really change the basic meaning of the text†(p. 131). They do, of course, detail instances where changes are significant, but the quote drives home the point – the Tanners’ criticisms are not overblown or untrue.
Another important contribution of this book is to illustrate that the leadership of the LDS religion have consciously attempted to deceive the general membership, “Because this statement by Joseph Smith contradicted the teaching that the Father and the Son appeared to him in the first vision of 1820, the Mormon church historians altered the words when they reprinted it in later editions of the History of the Church. They changed the wording so that the word “angels” was completely left out†(p. 157). For a long time I was hesitant to believe that willful deception was involved. I think the evidence illustrating as much is now overwhelming. Mormons are, at times, willfully deceived by their leaders.
Finally, and this is a minor issue but important to me, the Tanners make a very good point about Mormon doctrine being flawed in their discussion of the Mormon perspective on the Trinity, “Mormon leaders are unable to explain why God the Father should have a body and yet the Holy Ghost be without one. It is claimed that a body is necessary for eternal progression, yet the Mormon church teaches that the Holy Ghost became a God without one†(p. 190). I came to a similar realization regarding Jehovah, the god of the Hebrew Bible, who Mormons claim is Jesus prior to his birth. If Jesus became a god before receiving a mortal body, why do Elohim’s (god the father’s) other children require a body? This undermines the entire “plan of salvation†from my perspective. In fact, I find this issue so intriguing I’m willing to reward anyone who can come up with a good explanation of this conundrum that validates Mormon doctrine with a $25.00 gift card to Borders Books. There are significant problems with Mormon theology, but because Mormons are discouraged from actually thinking about those problems, no one seems to see them.
There were a number of additional points made by the Tanners that I wanted to mention in this review, but I figured that since the book is available for free online, I’d keep this relatively short. Overall, I think this is a pretty good place for the individual interested in the problems with Mormonism to start their studies. The book is free and, while not the best written book in the world, it is accurate and fairly objective. Unfortunately, there is no real logic to the organization of the book, but the topics are all important. Better books are now available, and I would recommend them over this one (e.g., Grant Palmer’s “An Insider’s View of Mormon Originsâ€). But, if you aren’t sure you want to go down this road and don’t want to spend any money on your search, this is a great way to get your feet wet.
June 28th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
“Compared to most of the “chloroform in print†that comes out of Mormonism, this book reads like a Dan Brown novel!”
I think that’s the fourth time you’ve used Mark Twain’s quote: it’s a little hackneyed now.
Furthermore, Dan Brown? You think Dan Brown is the pinnacle of good writing? Shouldn’t we now question your constantly critical analysis of the syntax of religious authors?
June 28th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
“In short, a prophet is a wholly fallible individual who has assumed a position that is imbued with charisma because several million people feel so incompetent and docile they will follow the temporary guidance of some old guy who doesn’t know them, only cares about their money, and tells them what to do without consideration of their circumstances. People say such a man is holy; I think such a man should be thrown in jail…”
I guess that’s why he flies around the world in his 96th year and mops the floors of the church buildings of the incompetent and gives them words of encouragement in order to furnish (with their money, of course) his simple apartment in Salt Lake City. Wow, Ryan, if he deserves to be thrown in jail for that, what do you deserve?
Where do you draw the line betweem antagonism and respectable scholarship?
June 28th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Hey Ooops!
I didn’t say Dan Brown was a great author (see the review of his book I just posted). I do, however, think his novels are engaging. Certainly I’ve read much better written books, but in terms of sucking you in and forcing you to keep turning pages until the end, Dan Brown is hard to beat (his Best Seller status speaks to that point). Thus, as my comparison goes, it is apt - The Changing World of Mormonism is far more engaging reading than, say, Doctrines of Salvation or the latest book by an apostle or member of the first presidency (yawn!)…
As for my comment on prophets… I was speaking in generalities, not specifics. Gordon B. Hinckley, thanks to his position, is either the witting or unwitting recipient of a position imbued with charisma that, from my perspective as a former Mormon turned atheist, is a fraud. When you see it from my perspective, my comment makes perfect sense. Gordon B. Hinckley, just like all of the other Mormon prophets, does not know more than a few individual Mormons and, while he certainly claims to be concerned about their welfare, he does not make his decisions based upon individual cases. If he did, he would never make blanket statements about working mothers or homosexuals!!! Condemning both of those groups without consideration of their circumstances is the act of an ignorant old man! Some women have to work in order for their families to eat and enjoy a small modicum of middle-class life (I’m guessing you can think of one). For a man to give that woman a guilt complex as she puts food on the table because his wife never had to work is not kind; it’s despicable. He doesn’t care about her situation, and that is exactly why I have issues with Mormonism. The leadership is completely detached from reality.
They abuse their position in so many ways, and yet the members of the religion still give them their allegiance and respect. As for me finding some reason to respect a man who flies around at 96 mopping the floors of churches… Pshaw! If he had good intentions, maybe. But let’s get serious here for a minute. Why does he put on such masquarades? Is it not to continue the charade that he is some humble man? He doesn’t need to mop up people’s floors. He does it because it is good PR. He wouldn’t do it if he didn’t think it would encourage people’s allegiance. The Pope does the same thing, as do other religious functionaries. Some may actually have good, sincere intentions. Does Hinckley at this point - no way! He can barely walk. Any “service” he does is merely show for his followers. But, I will admit that I don’t know his inner most thoughts. Maybe he is sincere… But I doubt it. I’m guessing any such instances are carefully scripted for him by his PR people, just like George Bush’s actions are. Does Bush care about the poor? No more than Gordon Hinckley does…
Additionally, I have to take issue with your “incompetent” reference. Who, pray tell, are these “incompetents”? The hard working individuals paying for him to live in a multi-million dollar apartment in downtown Salt Lake? The individuals who live on less than a thousand dollars a year but still find a way to give 10% of that to a religion that has billions in its coffers? And you want me to respect a man who exploits such people? Tell you what, you need to read a couple of essays in some recent issues of Dialogue to see where the LDS religion’s priorities lie - there is a net flow of tithing to North America, not away from it. The LDS religion is taking money from the impoverished, not giving it to them, despite all of the media attention they get for sending shipments of goods to natural disaster areas:
-Walker, Bradley. Spreading Zion Southward, Part I: Improving Efficiency and Equity in the Allocation of Church Welfare Resources. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. 2002 Winter; 35(4):91-109.
-Walker, Bradley. Spreading Zion Southward, Part II: Sharing Our Loaves and Fishes. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. 2003 Spring; 36(1):33-47.
(If you don’t have access to this, let me know and I’ll email you copies. They should be mandatory reading for all Mormons!)
When the LDS religion sells off all of its business interests and moves seriously into the realm of charitable works I’ll give them some respect. But right now they are taking your hard earned money and buying cattle ranches, radio stations, and insurance companies. They just broke ground on a residential neighborhood in Hawaii… That facilitates their charitable mission how?
What do I deserve? Well, considering I’m not trying to deceive anyone as my primary occupation (unlike Mormon prophets) and I’m not living off the contributions of unwitting marks, I’d say I deserve what every other hard-working individual deserves - the basic necessities of life. I work hard to earn those necessities. I’m not giving them to anyone who does not deserve them. The Mormon ledership certainly does not, on top of the fact that they don’t need my money. I don’t think I deserve more than any other human deserves - just basic human rights and an opportunity to contribute to society. Maybe that’s asking too much…
As for drawing the line between antagonism and respectable scholarship… I’m not sure if you’re asking this in regards to my work or the Tanner’s work. As regards my work, I don’t antagonize anyone in my professional writing. I try to write from the most objective, non-biased perspective I can. Those articles get submitted to professional, peer-reviewed journals. I have yet to be criticized for being biased in such publications. But I, like you, have opinions. And outside of my professional work I feel no obligation to keep my opinions unvoiced. I think Mormonism is based on fraud and deciet. I think religion is a social construction without any physical counterpart - it is all made up. There is no evidence for any of the supernatural claims. As a result, I think the leaders of such organizations are deceivers, whether they are doing so wittingly or not. I don’t think Mormons are bad people - most of the Mormons I know are wonderful people and I care deeply for many of them. But I do think they are wrong in their beliefs. There’s no way to get around that - if I thought they were right I never would have left.
As for me being antagonistic in my personal views, sure, I can see that. When I say Joseph Smith was an adulterous asshole, I’m sure that is antagonistic for some people to read. People will take offense at that statement, despite the fact he clearly slept with numerous women without marrying them legitimately (as if you can marry multiple women legitimately). He lied to his wife about it, and to his followers. He was a lecher and charlatan. If you find such statements offensive, well, I’m sorry, but I’m not going to back down. Some times the truth hurts…
If you mean the Tanner’s work, I don’t think it’s antagonistic at all. If anything, it is meant as a gesture of kindness - they honestly believe Mormons are deceived and they are trying to help. Their efforts are no different than the efforts of Mormons in sending out missionaries and baptizing the dead - they think they are being kind.
Frankly, I see my criticisms of Mormonism as being in the same boat as those of the Tanner’s - I feel like I was deceived and telling people the truth is an act of good will. I could present it in prettier wrapping, but it doesn’t change the message. Here’s an example: (1) Joseph smith was an adulterous asshole vs. (2) Joseph Smith had sexual relations with a 14 or 15 year-old girl named Fanny Alger while living in Kirtland Ohio and tried to hide it from his wife. He was later accused by Oliver Cowdery of having illicit relations with her, an accusation he did not deny. Smith did, however, claim it was not “adultery,” which apologists like Richard Bushman believe indicates he “married” her before having sex with her (note, he doesn’t deny the sexual relationship). In my opinion, Joseph committed adultery and tried to deceive his wife. That makes Joseph Smith a dishonest person who was unwilling to control his sexual appetites.
The second approach is less antagonostic, but says the same thing…
I appreciate your comments, even though I don’t agree with them. I thought this review might stir up some controversy. That’s too bad, too, because what I was hoping would happen is people would read the Tanners’ book. You may have already read it, I don’t know. If you haven’t, you should. Or, better yet, read Grant Palmer’s book. If you don’t want to spend the money on it, I’ll send you a copy. And if you have read them, I’d really like to know how you reconcile your affiliation with Mormonism with the information they contain. I, personally, could not. I couldn’t live with nor support a lie… How do you do it? (And yes, that is a sincere question…)
June 28th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
I was expecting a prolific response.
I only have one counter-comment on the entire affair: I only used the term “incompetent” to mimic your previous use of the word in the paragraph I included in my first comment. You insulted me (a “docile” follower) and probably several of your family members for whom you care “deeply.” Does the brilliance of academia necessitate your disdain for the suddenly “incompetent” who don’t adhere to your privileged knowledge and opinions? I don’t think it should. Or more importantly, you typically act as if doesn’t, but write a great deal that personally insults those who you vehemently consider “wrong in their beliefs.” In short, there’s no sense in arguing several of your points, as I consider most matters of perspective–we can agree to disagree. But your use of “incompetence” only illuminates the true depth of your pride (and yes, I mean the “Mormon” definition of it). The same pride that will continue to separate you from those you love as you increasingly mock their intelligence.
I read your last question, and trusting its sincerity, I will answer it as you have answered me. Thank you for your comments.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Well, you’re right - incompetent is not the right word. I apologize for that. I’ll change it in the review. “Impotent” is the word I meant, “incompetent” is not the right one. As for the “brilliance” of academia, I don’t know where you’re going with that, so I’ll leave it be… I don’t think my views are privileged - I’m guessing you’re familiar with academia, you know how academics think. We pursue truth. We value truth. If that makes us “proud,” well, so be it…
As for insulting those I claim to care about… There is no way around that. All I have to do is open mouth and tell them what I believe and they seem to think that is an insult. When I say I think Joseph Smith is a fraud, they take that as an insult. If I say I think the Book of Mormon was made up by Joseph Smith, they take that as an insult. Hell, sometimes it seems that by becoming an atheist and leaving Mormonism I insult my family. I’ve even had family members say that to me, “You threw away the “truth,” and that is a shame to the family name.” It’s difficult to not insult someone when they hold their beliefs as personally as Mormons seem to. I disagree with the fundamental beliefs of Mormons, many find that offensive. There is very little I can do about that. I intentionally do not bring up Mormon issues around family so it is not an issue - in that regard, I try to respect their beliefs. I’d love to discuss these things with them, but, based on past experience, I don’t believe that will turn out well…
I didn’t mean to demean anyone’s intelligence. I know many Mormons who are far more intelligent than I am. And I mean that sincerely. I don’t think, however, that they have the same understanding of Mormon history and theology that I do. They apply their intelligence to other areas - like biology, the law, or chemistry. If they were to take the time to examine Mormon history as presented in the New Mormon History approaches beginning in the 1960s, I think we would come to an understanding. And, honestly, I wouldn’t mind if they remain Mormon as long as they recognize the problems and don’t deny them. If they can find a way to reconcile their belief and faith with Mormonism’s spotty past - great! I couldn’t, but I know people who can. And, frankly, I highly respect many of the people who do reconcile their knowledge of Mormonism with their faith, even though I disagree with some of their positions.
In short, you’re right to call me out for using the word incompetent in my review - that was not what I meant. I didn’t see your point the first time around, now I do. I apologize. I don’t think I’m smarter than Mormons, au contrair, I think I happened to find out some things that most Mormons don’t know. That has nothing to do with intelligence, it has everything to do with information. For me, that information meant leaving. For others it may mean dealing with issues in other ways. To each their own. I look forward to hearing how you reconcile your beliefs with your understanding of Mormon history.
September 14th, 2006 at 10:41 am
In response to the book of mormon quoting acts. Since the days of simon peter the old testement had been translated over 20 times into various languages. We do not have the originol hebrew manuscript. Perhaps peter was quoting a translation of the bible in his day the same of which was contained on the brass plates that Lehi brought with him out of Jeruselem. This would prove that the old testement books of Simon Peter’s time were in fact more exact and derived from the same source as the brass plates. Think before you speak. You did not live in new testement times so how can you say with a surety that the old testement was translated the same in 1 BC as it is in 2006 AD? Just scripture for thought. This only proves that the book of mormon prophets had the same information as Simon Peter and not the king James version of the bible as we have today.
September 14th, 2006 at 11:04 am
Hi Benny,
I will admit that we cannot know what you are claiming, which is precisely why I have a problem with your claim. You are basically making a non-falsifiable argument, which is the approach often taken by apologists when they have no other recourse. I can’t know if Peter was quoting some unknown and unknowable text and that the prophets in the Book of Mormon were doing the same because that unknown and unknowable text doesn’t exist. So, you win - you can provide a nonfalsifiable explanation for it.
I can too. Let me try my hand - god speaks exactly the same to prophets in different cultures, making the same errors and everything because, as we all know, god is unchanging (oops, not for Mormons…). Well, that’s equally non-falsifiable because we can’t prove a god communicates with man nor that a god ever did.
Here’s another non-falsifiable - a magical wind carried the writings of Peter back in time to Nephi as he was leaving Jerusalem with his family. Et Voila, he has the exact writing of Peter - and they have the same translation errors of the King James Version of the Bible 2600 years in the future. Why? It’s a magical wind! See, anyone can come up with nonfalsifiable explanations. It’s harder to come up with plausible, falsifiable explanations.
Following Occam’s Razor, there is a far more plausible explanation - Joseph Smith didn’t translate anything. Joseph Smith simply made it up and copied some of what he made up straight out of the King James Version of the Bible - errors and all.
The evidence favors my explanation. Your explanation is speculation and non-falsifiable. With all of the other errors in the Book of Mormon (archeaology, history, demography, etc.), this is just one more example of how it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
Remember, all of this could be resolved if we just had the gold plates. Conveniently, they’re gone. What better way to make something non-falsifiable then to claim it was taken away by angels? (Remember my magical wind?) The most damning evidence against the Book of Mormon is that the source material is missing!
In short, I appreciate your thoughts, but keep in mind that there are far more plausible and probable explanations. Yours requires substantial leaps of faith and is 100% non-falsifiable. While mine may not be 100% falsifiable, it is far more plausible and logical.
Any other thoughts?
Best,
Ryan
September 14th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
I don’t know what planet your logic comes from but if you can’t “prove” there ever was a person name Jesus then maybe I will believe in what you say. But alas you can’t. It is by faith that we know the truth not by the precepts of men. You are just a man with his own philosophy just as I. I am sorry that you didn’t live in the days of Jesus but I for one do not need proof. Faith is all the Lord requires and I have more proof in that then you do in the bible whichever version of the hundreds of translations that you believe in.
September 14th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
I will not respond to your replies further. I just wanted you to know of the errors in your philosophy about the book of mormon. You may not see them as errors and that is fine. Everyone has the right to believe how they wish. When was doing good ever bad. Afterall if I believe in the name of Jesus then I am saved. If I do so maybe it doesn’t matter which religion I follow. I respect that you disagree with the LDS faith. That is the right God gave to every man or woman that is born on earth. I hope you find peace within yourself concerning the LDS faith or anyother faith that you needlessly provoke. I am a very logical person. If the LDS faith wasn’t logical I would have no part of it. How logical is GOD as three in one and one in three. I believe GOD is a logical being. Perfect logic. To me my faith makes sense. It isn’t easy but it follows rules and is highly organized. I believe GOD is a being of order and means more for us to just say a prayer to be saved. We have hundreds of pages of scripture available to us. For all that to be summerized in a prayer then you can toss the book out isn’t very logical. I have yet in the 28 years in the LDS church ever found anything that didn’t make sense. There are answers for all my questions. There is peace in the answers, that is why the church continues to grow despite efforts by some people to tear down faith and replace it with fear and doubt. Again I hope you find peace to your questions wherever you find them.
September 14th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Benny,
Once again you have employed two tools from the apologist’s toolbox. First, you claim that my perspective is just opinion, just like yours, and since they are both opinion neither is worth more than the other. As a result, you believe your position is just as valid (though, you imply it is more so). Second, you cut off the discussion, basically saying, “I got the last word in and I’m above debating, so there!”
That’s fine. No one is going to make you do otherwise. Even so, I feel obligated to point out some of the errors in your thinking. As regards the first position, that is basically a postmodernist approach that says, “Well, everything is relative so, whatever I think is just as valid as whatever you think.” The problems with that line of reasoning are many. The biggest, of course, is that it simply isn’t true. If you woke up tomorrow morning and the sun was blue but the first person you asked said it was yellow, would that make it yellow? No. The way knowledge is developed is through empiricism and confirmation - we ask questions, develop methods of testing them, and then have other people confirm them. Empiricism is what makes it possible for the F-16s at Hill Air Force Base to fly, not some guy’s opinion. It is hours and years of experimentation and confirmation and improvement on that. You’re basically saying that your opinion on aerodynamics is just as valid as all of the engineers who design fighter planes because, well, you have an opinion. Unless you happen to be one of those engineers, I think you would agree that your opinion is not as valid. Yet you are making the same argument concerning religion. You are claiming that, because we don’t have perfect knowledge about something that your speculation is just as good as mine. In fact, it is not. You see, your speculation involves supernatural claims, like Jesus rising from the dead, healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, etc. The problem with that claim, Benny, is that, to paraphrase Hume, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I deny that those things ever happened precisely because they do not happen today. I would believe them if they happened today or, if thousands of independent, non-biased observers witnessed them and all testified to that fact (that did not happen either). That would be extraordinary evidence. You have none. In short, your position on this point is not as strong as my position is. You’re welcome to make extraordinary claims, but the burden of proof is on you.
As for your second point, cutting off the conversation, that’s just childish. I’m not going to go into it.
I will, however, comment on some of the other stuff you say. First, you seem to be arguing with someone else, perhaps an evangelical Christian or Catholic or someone else who believes in god. I don’t. Your argument about the trinity is moot when it comes to me. I say the god you believe in doesn’t exist. You say he does. I say prove it. You can’t.
You also say that you don’t need proof that Jesus lived and that he is the Savior of mankind - you have faith. That’s fine. Just so long as you recognize that you don’t have any proof. You’re welcome to believe that some Jewish dude who may have lived roughly 2,000 years ago is your Savior, but you have no proof. You can put your faith in anything you want. I prefer to put my faith in things that are reliable - like science and empiricism.
As for Mormonism being logical… I beg to differ. Here’s a logic puzzle for you: How come Elohim’s children need bodies to become gods when Jehovah (a.k.a. Jesus) became a god (the god of the Old Testament) without one? Or, how about this one: If god is all-knowing, how come you need a secret handshake to get into heaven? Wouldn’t he know who you are?
Don’t worry, Benny, I’m not trying to get you to leave Mormonism. Seriously. I’m fine with you being Mormon. You’re welcome to believe whatever you want - the secular constitution of the U.S. grants you that inalienable right (not god, you’re god would take that away from me with the threat of eternal damnation). I do, however, think you should be logical and reasonable in your faith. You shouldn’t deny that there is no evidence supporting the idea that the Book of Mormon is a translation and that the evidence all favors the idea that it is a 19th century work of fiction. You shouldn’t deny that Joseph Smith slept with other men’s wives. You shouldn’t deny that Brigham Young believed Adam was God incarnate. You shouldn’t deny that the leadership of the religion have intentionally manipulated the history of the religion to cover up some of the more egregious abuses of the early leaders. You should know the facts about your religion. That’s all. Know the facts! If you know them and decide to stay - great.
As for me finding peace… Trust me, I have. Life outside of Mormonism is amazing! Really, it’s great. I get to decide what to do with so many aspects of my life. I don’t have to do all of the stupid things some old guys in Salt Lake dream up any more. I think my own thoughts. I don’t have to pretend to believe anymore. I don’t have to participate in the indoctrination of others. I am free! It’s wonderful! I’ve never been more happy nor more at peace! Leaving Mormonism was, hands down, the best thing I ever did - even better than marrying my wife, because it has made my relationship with my wife so much better. If you’re afraid of what life is like outside, you shouldn’t be. Though I will admit that the transition is tough - learning to think for yourself for the first time is challenging, but oh so worth it!
I welcome discussion, Benny, I really do. Just don’t try the apologist games (e.g., I get the last word, so there!). That won’t fly. And, be honest with me. I don’t mind faith, it’s ignorance that bugs me.
Best,
Ryan
September 14th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Ryan,
I just finished reading some of your acedemic achievements and feel I am totally unprepared to meet you on the intellectual front. Nor would I be ready for years to come. I apologize for being hasty and assuming that you were trying to be antogonistic. I am curious though. I hope I will not bore you as I can see that your time is very valuable. Iwas wondering what you believe. Scientifically what are your views of the world and how it came to be? Big Bang? I love science or at least what I understand of it. I don’t understand all but I feel I have a good grasp on how things work in the world. I said before that my faith provides answers to my deepest questions. When ever I learn something new about the way things work, whether it be atoms, the universe, gravity, rocks and fossils and pretty much all knowledge, I think to myself “how does this fit into my religion.” I can say that my religion can provide answers to these questions. For example many christians still hold strong to the belief that the world was created in 6 days. Well after studying many different books and resources both scientific and secular I found that there was room to believe that the earth is in fact millions of years old. There is imperical proof to support this. Well back to my question. What do you believe or support? What do you value as truth? Maybe a conversation about this will be less provoke and more open. I am not interested in arguing points on theology alone but more so on how you came to the conclusions you have about religion. You nor anyone else will be able to convince me that my religion is a fallacy as it was I who convinced myself that it wasn’t. Yes my feelings did guide me in my decisions. Kind of like how my feelings and intelect steered me toward this approach to discussion. I also appologize if my writing is not so organized. My mind is logical but it has always been my weakness in getting that logic on paper the same way that it appears in my mind. If you have any questions on some of the deadends in my thoughts please ask. Thanks.
September 14th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
One more thought. If you have found peace then why do you have this blog? Have you ever heard the phrase. “Misery loves company” It seems you can’t let the fact that you left the mormon church go. Joseph Smith once said that those who leave the church will never go back to neutral ground. They will hate and despise what they once thought to be true. It will cosume them. It appears that this has consumed your life or at least part of it. Are you bitter? I know something about phsychology. Wouldn’t a reasonable person put the pain of their past behind them? You don’t have to answer these questions but in a way this blog is validating Joseph Smith’s promise. That’s all. I still would like to know your current beliefs if you have the time to share them.
September 15th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Hi Benny,
I’m going to email you a response. I think this is a discussion better suited for email. I’ll email you shortly.
Best,
Ryan
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Hi Benny,
I like the turn this conversation has taken. It seems as though you are more interested in talking now instead of debating or flinging thoughts at each other. I much prefer this path.
As for being totally unprepared to meet me on an “intellectual” front, I’ll take that as a compliment but I don’t think that is entirely true. If you are willing to really delve into some of these issues I think we can have some really good conversations - advanced educational degrees aren’t required for that.
Thank you for recognizing that I’m not trying to be antagonistic - at least, not anymore (and not on this blog; I occasionally blog elsewhere and can be more antagonistic, but I try not to be too much these days). The blog where you posted is my personal blog and it is pretty sanitized when it comes to religion. I occasionally mention things that some people might find offensive, but then, people can take offense to just about anything these days
As for what I believe, you kind of hit on it. I believe in what science offers as explanations - the big bang is the best theory yet with the most evidence. I believe in evolution (and know it has occurred - the evidence for it is overwhelming; I’ll happily recommend some books on this if you’d like though you’re post seems to indicate you recognize this as a possibility). I believe we humans evolved from single-celled organisms and are animals. But, most importantly, I believe in the value and importance of life. This is the point where most of the Mormons I talk to get bogged down and find my position… odd. First, when I tell people I’m an atheist they think that I must be absolutely immoral (meaning, I don’t have morals), because I don’t derive them from some divine being. Then they think that I have no purpose in life and that I can’t find something to believe in without a supernatural entity. On both fronts they are absolutely wrong, though I don’t blame for thinking this way as it seems hard to understand for someone coming from that perspective that there is another way. I said I believe in life but I didn’t explain why. I believe in life and the importance of life because it is what makes it possible for me to even consider the question of what life is all about. In other words, without life I can’t ponder the meaning of life. Thus, in a rather paradoxical way, for me, the meaning of life is life itself! I value life and humanity above all else. This makes me something of a pacifist - I despise wars of aggression (though not defensive wars). I despise senseless violence. Both of these are moral positions that I derive from my primary axiom about life - that life is more important than anything else. This is also where I derive all of my morals, for I am a very moral person. I believe in being honest, true, etc. But the reason I believe in being those things is not because some supernatural entity dictates that I should and that I’ll be punished if I don’t live that way. I believe those things because they are good for life. They result in a better quality of life for the greater number of people. Thus, when I am faced with a moral predicament I ask myself not, “What would god want me to do?” but rather, “How does this relate to life and keeping people alive and making life better for people?” In short, I am a skeptical scientist who has found a purpose in life - life itself. I have other purposes I add to that, like adding to the body of scientific knowledge (in my case, sociology), and sharing my life with my wonderful wife. But, fundamentally, life is what it is all about for me. And from that axiom I derive all of my other moral positions and values.
As for not being clear in your writing, well, I think I understood your question. So, no worries. If I didn’t, let me know and I’ll clarify. I have a tendency to go off on tangents as well, so don’t feel bad that you do - that’s how our minds work.
Your second post raises a good question and it is one I have been asked by several people - If you’re out of Mormonism, why still mess with it? And I remember the quote from Joseph Smith, that people who leave the religion will never be able to leave it alone. When I was Mormon I used to think the same thing about the people I thought were “anti-Mormons.” Rather than answer this question directly, let me direct you toward something else on my website. I was contacted by a “travel” company back a few years ago that made me all sorts of promises about a great trip to Florida. I bought into it and had a pretty terrible experience. Before I even made it back home I had posted about the whole thing on my blog:
http://genesoc.com/blog1/?p=322
I felt like I had been deceived by the company who set it all up and set out to help other people avoid the experience I had. It is 4 years later and I am still fighting that company and its dishonest business practices:
http://genesoc.com/blog1/?page_id=817
Similarly, I was invited to a sales pitch for a group purchasing club that I exposed as a scam and wrote that up on my blog. I was even interviewed by the local television station as a result of my blog write-up about that company:
http://genesoc.com/blog1/?p=793
Why am I telling you about all of this? Well, Benny, here’s why: I am the type of person that, when I think I have been deceived, I try to prevent other people from experiencing that same deception. As you can see by my other activity, I don’t like things that I think are frauds. I do everything in my power to show people that they are frauds. When it comes to Mormonism, I believe it is a fraud. I don’t say that to insult you or to offend you, I really don’t. That just happens to be my perspective on the religion. And, unlike the Florida Travel scam that cost me $500 and about 4 days of my life, Mormonism cost me thousands and thousands of dollars (well over $20,000 in tithing and other lost revenue) plus 25 years of my life. The religion set me back years in terms of education and scientific understanding. What’s more, it continues to exist and most of my family still belong to it. Now, the reasons why I think Mormonism are a fraud are a different issue, one we can talk about at length. But when it boils down to it, the reason I still think about and take issue with Mormonism is the same reason I take issue with Travel Universal - I think it is deceiving people and now that I have that opinion, I am trying to do something about it. Keep in mind, though, that I’m not actively proselytizing any Mormons. I don’t go door-to-door in Utah trying to convince people to leave. I post my thoughts about Mormonism and religion online and welcome discussion, especially from people like you who want to understand. I consider what I do passive secular proselytizing.
I should also point out, as I noted above, that the blog you posted on is my personal blog. I basically consider it a sanitized, public version of my personal diary. Most of what I post on there relates to travel and other relatively innocuous events in my daily life, stuff that I later add to my personal journal. I seldom talk about religion on there anymore as my family members who read the blog are easily offended by just about anything I say about religion, especially Mormonism. The person who commented on my review of the Tanner’s book before you is probably my brother-in-law; he occasionally comments on my blog but does so anonymously. I don’t mind - I understand his concern. As you can see, he took offense to what I said. I don’t like offending family, so I try to keep this blog pretty free from religious commentary, though occasionally stuff slips in. I’m not going to hide my atheism from them, but I won’t post intentionally antagonistic comments about Mormonism on this blog. I do, however, post my more caustic comments on religion on a different blog. It’s a group blog where I post anonymously. It’s a good venue for me to express my anger and frustration at the things I see happening in religions. Keep in mind, I still harbor some anger toward the religion that I feel deceived me for 25 years.
Let me give you a comparison to see if it makes sense. I don’t know if you are married or not, but let’s say you are. If you suddenly found out that your wife of 25 years had been taking some of your hard-earned money to spend on drugs (or some other nefarious purpose), wouldn’t you be angry? Would you do anything about it or would you just forget about it and move on with your life? I know that isn’t the best comparison, but it kind of illustrates my thinking. I’m guessing it is hard for you to understand that someone would feel like they had been deceived by the Mormon religion, but please try. Once you understand that you’ll begin to understand why so many of the people who leave the religion remain angry and continue to think, write, and comment about it. It’s not, in my mind, because Joseph Smith was right (we’re all minions of the devil trying to pull people away from the truth); it’s because we found out some stuff about Joseph Smith (e.g., child-brides, marrying other men’s wives, manipulations, deceit, etc.) and are steaming mad! We were told over and over again that he was a great person. No one ever told me that he was caught sleeping around in Kirtland, OH and that is part of the reason why he was tarred and feathered. People just don’t mention those things. No one told me that Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat to “translate” the Book of Mormon; people just don’t talk about those things. So, when I really started studying things, I felt deceived. I felt like I had been lied to for 25 years. I was mad. And sometimes I’m still mad. And when I read things like Russell M. Nelson signing a petition advocating a Constitutional Amendment mandating that marriage be only between (1) husband and (1) wife but learn he married his second “eternal” wife just weeks before it, I get mad. That is hypocrisy. That is dishonesty. That really bugs me.
Like I said, this may not make sense to you, but do try to understand. I’m not being controlled by some divine, evil being to attack Mormonism. Not at all. I’m doing what I think is moral, just like I am doing with the travel company and the group factory direct buying company - I’m trying to raise awareness about something I think is a fraud. If my actions in that regard are misguided, I fail to see why.
Anyway, I hope this clarifies. I’d love to hear what you think about this. I always invite dialog over these issues. Also, I’m completely open to questions you might have about, well, pretty much anything. I wish you the best.
P.S. My website documents IP addresses - that’s how I knew you were writing from Hill Air Force Base. I grew up around there, up in Morgan. I was just there a few weeks ago in fact. I hope the weather’s nice - that is a great place to live when it isn’t too hot or too cold out! Take care and I hope to hear from you soon.
Best,
Ryan