Answers to Anti's

The Catholic website, Catholic Answers, has a section devoted to (quite opinionated) information about non-Catholic groups. In this section, under the heading "non-Christian," is a series of articles devoted to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While it appears that the unnamed author(s) of these articles on Mormonism have done a tad more research than most, the information is still, at best, incomplete. As Joseph Smith stated, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may (AofF 1:11)." Therefore, we would like to overlook the condescending attitude of the author(s) and direct our attention to the specific LDS beliefs and doctrines that are discussed there.

You may wish to read the original article first.

Introduction

Our author(s) begin this article with an interesting denunciation of the workings of the Holy Ghost as even the Catholic Church declares it, claiming that we cannot rely on our feelings, but then producing no alternative method by which the Holy Ghost might work. The Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Holy Ghost, section IV. Gifts of the Holy Ghost, claims as Catholic doctrine that some of the gifts of the Spirit include such feelings as courage, piety, fear, love, and understanding. The scriptures tell us that the Holy Ghost will give us comfort (John 14:26, Acts 9:31), a testimony of the truth (John 15:26), a "pricking of the heart" (Acts 2:33,37), a burning heart (Luke 24:32), fear [of God] (Acts 2:43), "love, joy, peace [see also John 14:27], longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance" (Gal. 5:22-23), and knowledge of the things of God (1 Cor. 2:10-12) despite the teachings of the world (1 Cor. 2:13-16). All these things (notice, they are all "feelings") combine to give us a testimony that is grounded in God, and not man (Psalms 19:7, Matt. 16:17, John 5:34). It doesn't get much clearer than that.

But, our author(s) doubt such statements: "How often have you felt strongly about something or someone, only to learn your feelings were misguided? Feelings, although a part of our human makeup, can't be a yardstick in matters like this." So we don't listen to the Lord, the apostles, or the scriptures; we listen to Father So-and-so. Interesting.

This method of the Holy Ghost communicating to us through our feelings, presents truth to us in such a manner that it becomes a bond between the only two people who really know what is in your heart: you and God. People can say whatever they want, but in the end they can't tell you what you have felt! Of course, you can deny it later, or choose not to follow those promptings, and no one will know any better - except you and God. Joseph Smith was persecuted severely for saying that he had seen a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ, and he was eventually murdered for it, but he said: "I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation (JS-H 1:25)."

"When you tell the missionaries you don't need to pray about the Book of Mormon, they'll think you're copping out, that you're afraid to learn the truth. Admittedly, you'll seem like a cad if you simply refuse and leave it at that. You need to provide them with an explanation for refusing." It's true, of course; you are "copping out," although the author(s) don't want you to realize that. Because if our author(s) are so certain that the Book of Mormon is not true, what can it hurt to have people ask God? Personally, if I thought it was false, I would be urging people to ask God about it. After all, James 1:5 is very clear that if we ask God for wisdom, He will give it to us. Indeed, Jesus Himself instructs us to "ask, and [we] shall receive" (John 16:23-24)!

"The devout Mormon believes this text is inspired because Joseph Smith said it is. He believes Smith had the authority to claim divine inspiration for the Book of Mormon because the book itself says Smith was a prophet and had such authority." No, we believe that the Book of Mormon is true because we have felt the promptings of the Holy Ghost testify to us that it is true! That is the point! You don't do anything simply because someone says so. I understand, of course, that folks like the author(s) of this article would have you believe that that's the way Mormons do things; anyone who says so obviously does not know any Mormons. "Automatons?" asks Orson Scott Card, famed author, and Mormon. "Those who have actually lived in a Mormon ward--and especially those who have tried to lead a group of Mormons in any kind of activity--can all affirm one truth: Mormons may well be the most stubborn, independent-minded group of people ever assembled as a religious community (Orson Scott Card, "Hey, Who Are You Calling a Cult?")." Nor do we believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet simply because "the Book of Mormon says so." It doesn't. There is a prophecy in the Book of Mormon that Joseph Smith fulfilled, but that is not why we believe it is true. Likewise, we don't believe the Bible simply because Jesus fulfilled prophecies from it. We believe the Bible because the Holy Ghost bears witness of its truth, and we believe in Christ for the same reason.

Further Reading:

• "The Messiah Ben Joseph, A Comparison to the Latter-Day Prophet - Chapter 38," by R. Merle Fowler [Download the Microsoft Word .doc file, from the Nephi Project library. 13 pages. Discusses in detail ancient Jewish prophecies that have great similarities to the life and work of Joseph Smith.]

Jesus Visited America?

In this section, our author(s) split hairs over many things.

"According to the Mormon church," the author(s) complain, "authentic Christianity can't be found in any of the so-called Christian churches-only, of course, in the Mormon church." This is only offensive, of course, because the Catholic Church believes the same thing about itself.

"Mormons run into no small difficulty," we learn, "in reconciling the great apostasy theory with Christ's promise in Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it." " Well, the powers of death certainly prevailed over Peter, so he was likely not the rock that Christ was referring to. Mormons believe that this "rock" that the Church was to be built upon was the revelation from God that Jesus referred to in the preceding verse (Matt. 16:17-18). This ability to receive revelation was not prevailed over by the death of Christ, since the Holy Ghost was sent for that purpose. As for the Church, Jesus alluded several times to its demise. Tertullian, who was born in the second century, states:

"The following statement, indeed, applies first to all without restriction, then specially to the apostles themselves: "Blessed shall ye be when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you, for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, since very great is your reward in heaven; for so used their fathers to do even to the prophets." So that He likewise foretold their having to be themselves also slain, after the example of the prophets." (Scorpiace, Chapter IX)

The method of the Apostles, as demonstrated in the New Testament, for calling a new Apostle when one had died is clearly shown in Acts 1:21-26, where the remaining apostles met together to determine a successor for Judas. Those eleven met together, discussed a list of "about an hundred and twenty" disciples (Acts 1:15), and then prayed together to come to a unanimous decision. This process was unable to be followed as the Apostles were killed off, and the authority to lead the church was lost. One might ask, What about the leaders of the local branches of the church? Did they not have authority? The answer is that they had authority only to lead their local congregations, and not the entire Church organization, nor to answer questions of doctrinal importance, which authority fell to the Apostles, as the scriptures show (1 Cor. 1:10-11, 1 Cor. 11:18-19, Gal. 1:6-7, Gal. 3:1, 1 Tim. 1:20, 2 Tim. 1:15, 2 Tim. 2:16-18). A reading of the verses just referenced will show that the guidance of the Apostles was sorely needed, as the Gospel was already being perverted even as it was beginning!

And what, pray tell, of 2 Thes. 2:1-3, where Paul declares to the Thessalonians not to expect the Savior's return yet, because there will be "a falling away" first? That seems an interesting way to say that the Church that Jesus had established was to remain on the Earth from that time forever!

"[T]he only church with an unbroken historical line to apostolic days is the Catholic Church", we next are told. That the line was never broken is debatable. Nevertheless, the LDS position has already been explained on this matter. LeGrand Richards, in his excellent book, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, relates the following:

Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke [in] the Salt Lake Tabernacle...

One day he said to me: "You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don't even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one one other tenable in the whole Christian world and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that's all there is to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days. (pp. 3-4)

"As non-Catholic historians admit, it can be demonstrated easily that early Church writers, such as Ignatius of Antioch, Eusebius, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp, had no conception of Mormon doctrine, and they knew nothing of a "great apostasy." Of course! They believed that they had the aforementioned apostolic succession! It can also be shown that the Jews, God's ancient covenant people, had no conception that they had rejected true prophets prior to Christ's coming, nor do they now believe that a Messiah has been! But believing in a thing does not make it right! There are other ancient writers who did believe in such things, and those writings have been coming forth with great rapidity in only the last century (See "Apocryphal Writings and Teachings of the Dead Sea Scrolls" below).

"Nowhere in their writings can one find references to Christians embracing any of the peculiarly Mormon doctrines, such as polytheism, polygamy, celestial marriage, and temple ceremonies. If the Church of the apostolic age was the prototype of today's Mormon church, it must have had all these beliefs and practices. But why is there no evidence of them in the early centuries, before the alleged apostasy began?" Once again: there is! Reaction to evidences that Mormons put forth, however, tends to be negative. So, we quietly go about our business, and new discoveries that support our beliefs we tend to keep to ourselves. This is in line with typical LDS belief that it is through the Holy Ghost that one must be converted, and not through physical evidences - we find them, and we appreciate them, but it is a poor Latter-day Saint who lives by them.

As an example of the evidences that I refer to, I offer the following from "The Dead Sea Scrolls: Some Questions and Answers," by Hugh W. Nibley. Keep in mind that this is a group of Jews that lived prior to the birth of Christ:

In a heretofore unparalleled situation we find the Qumran people offering animal sacrifice and observing the Law of Moses under the direction of legitimate priests and yet at the same time observing ordinances of a strangely Christian nature. It is a situation "difficult to visualize" (Cross), and yet its counterpart is found in the Book of Mormon...

They keep the Law of Moses but in everything anticipate the coming of the Messiah and the New Covenant. Their sacrament is "a liturgical anticipation of the Messianic banquet" (Cross), as are their baptisms and their white garments-all belong to "a church of anticipation." This parallels the Book of Mormon situation exactly.

They see a peculiar significance in going out into the wilderness and in choosing a site where they can establish a large and elaborate system of tanks and basins for washings and baptisms. One thinks immediately of Alma's community in the wilderness at the Waters of Mormon.

There they were organized into a general congregation with a council of twelve laymen headed by three priests. Scholars have agreed that we have here a definite tie-in with the organization of the Early Church. Its closest parallel is in Christ's organization of the Church in 3 Nephi.

Clearly there are evidences that distinctively "Mormon" practices existed before the Apostasy.

Further Reading:

• The Passing of the Primitive Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme, by Hugh W. Nibley ["The purpose of this paper is to list briefly the principal arguments supporting the thesis that the church founded by Jesus and the apostles did not survive and was not expected to."]


• Apocryphal Writings and Teachings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, by Hugh W. Nibley ["Since World War II tremendous discoveries have been made. Certain ancient libraries have been discovered: the Dead Sea Scrolls; Chenoboskion (Nag Hammadi), the earliest Christian library discovered the same year, under much the same circumstances, but a thousand miles away from the Dead Sea Scrolls; and then the Papyri Bodmer, which includes the Letters of Paul, far older than anything we have ever known about before. Then there are the Manichaean and Mandaean discoveries, and earlier than them, the Chester Beatty Papyri; and also the Odes of Solomon. We can go back to the Oxyrhynchus and the Bryennios Papyrus (the Didache), and finally to the big libraries of the nineteenth century. These sensational finds have completely changed our picture of the early Christian and Jewish world."]

Church History Is Catholic

"The fact is," the author(s) instruct us, "that there is no historical or archaeological indication of any kind that the early Church was other than the Catholic Church. When dealing with Mormon missionaries, remember that all the evidence is in favor of the claims of the Catholic Church. If you want to watch their sails go slack quickly, ask the missionaries to produce any historical proof to support their claim that in the early centuries the Church was Mormon. They can't do it because there is no such evidence." Clearly.

"The awkward part for the Mormon church is the total lack of historical and archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon." To say that there was a "total lack" would be quite a stretch. "For example, after the cataclysmic last battle... [h]undreds of thousands of men and beasts allegedly perished in that battle, and the ground was strewn with weapons and armor." Honestly, just as with the Bible, there certainly are some things for which there is no evidence as yet. But, also as with the Bible, the are most certainly some things for which there is evidence: chiasmus, a Hebrew literary form that was virtually unknown in Joseph Smith's day, is present all throughout the Book of Mormon; the Nephi Project has made significant discoveries over the past 12 years, including the likely locations of "every important site mentioned by Nephi in the Book of Mormon." "Potter [one of the discoverers] states with confidence, "if anyone doubts that the Book of Mormon is a literal history, they won't after reading our book and seeing our videos. The evidence that is found in Arabia is straight-forward and quite remarkable." Also, in his article, "The Linguistic Footprints of Lehi", Bruce A. Santucci tells us:

Lynn and Hope Hilton were the first to bring the Lihyanites to the attention of the LDS community, properly noting that the Lihyanites were the "people of Lihy", and that they came to power in northwest Arabia shortly after the time that Lehi passed through Arabia [about 600 B.C.]. Evidence exists on old tribal maps that the Lihyanites existed as a well-established tribe in the area east of Makkah during the lifetime of the Prophet Mohammed...

The Hiltons pointed out that the Lihyanites built a temple at Dedan, which had a font that was nearly the same in dimensions as the one at Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem. The cistern at the Lihyanite temple has stairs going into it, and if one stands in it, the lower half of one's body is below the surrounding surface of the earth [identical to fonts that are used by Mormons today in performing baptisms for the dead].

"Lifting" from the King James Bible

"[C]ritics of Mormonism have shown convincing proof," according to our author(s), "that the Book of Mormon is a synthesis of earlier works (written by other men), of the vivid imaginings of Joseph Smith, and of simple plagiarisms of the King James Bible." One at a time:

1. "a synthesis of earlier works (written by other men)"
   
   ---> Our author(s) are more than likely referring to the argument that Joseph Smith used one or both of two books, an originally unknown manuscript by Solomon Spaulding, and the 1823 book "View of the Hebrews" by Ethan Smith, as the basis for the Book of Mormon. A brief history of the Solomon Spaulding issue can be read here (Ask the Apologist, FAIR; other articles here), and of "View of the Hebrews" here (LDSFAQ). Of the latter book, Richard C. Roberts tells us, "While some have claimed it to be a source for the Book of Mormon, no direct connections between this book and the Book of Mormon have been demonstrated." Spaulding's manuscript was discovered in 1884, when some "[b]elievers in the Book of Mormon... published [it] to show the world it was not the source for the Book of Mormon (What is the "Spaulding Manuscript" theory?, LDSFAQ)."


2. "the vivid imaginings of Joseph Smith"
   
   ---> Please see What do we know about the authorship of the Book of Mormon? (LDSFAQ).


3. "plagiarisms of the King James"
   
   ---> This is an accusation that has been around long, but against which there is much evidence that Joseph Smith did not simply copy passages from the King James, as it might seem. To begin with, Oliver Cowdery (one of the scribes to whom Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon), and others (including his wife, Emma, who eventually left the Church), all stated that Joseph Smith read from the Golden Plates (that the Book of Mormon was translated from) and always began where he left off, without ever asking that the last passage they had done be read to him. He read it, they wrote it. Of course, they were all Mormons, so they were probably all liars, too. So, we must turn to other, more scientific means of determining whether or not Joseph Smith simply "[plagiarized] the King James Bible." Wordprinting studies have shown the Book of Mormon to have multiple authors (i.e., the book of Mormon prophets), as it claims (See What have wordprinting studies shown about the authorship of the Book of Mormon?, LDSFAQ). Of course, we can always look at the texts themselves, too. If Joseph Smith did actually take passages directly from the KJV, it is interesting that he would have changed them in some minor ways. "But of course!" critics will say. "He would have to change the Bible to coincide with his new, perverted doctrines!" A tremendously brilliant charge, were it not for the fact that many of Joseph Smith's so-called "alterations" coincide perfectly with ancient scriptural texts that have been discovered after the publication of the Book of Mormon! (For one discussion of this phenomenon, see "The Bible and the Book of Mormon", by Alma Allred, at the FAIR website.)

Further Reading:

• Daniel C. Peterson, "Mounting Evidence for the Book of Mormon," Ensign, Jan 2000, 19 [This article contains Emma Smith's comments on seeing Joseph dictate from the plates and nothing else.]

The "Fullness" of the Gospel?

In this section, our author(s) note that "a standard Mormon theological work, Doctrines of Salvation, [contains] this definition: "By fullness of the gospel is meant all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the exaltation of the celestial kingdom"... That's an official Mormon statement on the subject. But there's a problem. If the Book of Mormon contains all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the gospel, why don't Mormonism's esoteric doctrines show up in it?" The first "problem" is actually the false claim of the author(s) that this was "an official Mormon Statement." It was not. This book is not binding doctrine, although the author, Joseph Fielding Smith, certainly knew what he was talking about, and this was no exception. According to Ehab Abunuwara, the phrase "fulness of the gospel" is used in the scriptures

to refer to the good news of Christ's atonement and resurrection-his triumph over sin and death that opened the door of salvation to mankind. This particular definition is found in the Book of Mormon as well as in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price (see, for example, 3 Nephi 27:13-21; D&C 76:40-42; Abraham 2:11)...

Although the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel in the scriptural sense... it does not contain nor purport to contain all revealed knowledge... Book of Mormon prophets invite us to look forward to additional precepts, teaching, truths, and even scriptures to be revealed in the Lord's due time, "line upon line," through God's prophets by means of the Holy Ghost (see 2 Nephi 27:10-11; 28:29-30; 29:8-14; 30:17-18; 3 Nephi 26:6-11>; Mormon 8:12; Ether 4:13-16).
(The Book of Mormon Contains the "Fulness of the Gospel", BYU website)

Every facet of "Mormonism's esoteric doctrines" fall under this definition - each serving a specific function in Christ's mission of salvation for mankind.

The Book of Mormon is Anti-Mormon

Here, we learn that "pivotal Mormon doctrines are flatly refuted by the Book of Mormon. For instance... refutation of the Mormon doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are actually three separate gods is found in Alma 11:28-31: "Now Zeezrom said: 'Is there more than one God?' and [Amulek] answered, 'No.' " Oh, you got us there! I guess the Mormon Church is false. Oh, wait. Amulek answers this issue 13 verses later, when he tells us what we knew all along: that "Christ the Son... God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, [are] one Eternal God" (Alma 11:44). By which Mormons understand that they are one in all ways except physical: they teach the same doctrines, they have the same goals, and they will never say or do anything to contradict one another. This is what Jesus clearly meant when He talked of being one with His followers (See John 17:11,21; and Godhead and the Trinity, at the FAIR website).

The Bottom Line

"[T]he Book of Mormon abounds in... factual errors..." our author(s) tell us. "If you're asked by Mormon missionaries to point out examples of such errors, here are two you can use. We read that Jesus "shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem, which is in the land of our forefathers" (Alma 7:10). But Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem (Matt. 2:1). If you mention this to a Mormon missionary, he might say Jerusalem and Bethlehem are only a few miles apart and that Alma could have been referring to the general area around Jerusalem. But Bethany is even closer to Jerusalem than is Bethlehem, yet the Gospels make frequent reference to Bethany as a separate town." Interesting observation. You know, Jesus and God are said to be one, yet frequent reference is made to them as being separate individuals. I used to live in Rancho Cordova, CA, and yet I frequently tell people that I lived in Sacramento! I must be a lying Mormon! OR, people have a tendency to generalize smaller towns into larger metropolitan areas when discussing them. Well, there you go! I used just the excuse the author(s) said I would! I suppose that means there can't be any truth in it, right? I've had people tell me that they were from large cities when they were actually from smaller ones that were not even close; I've also had people give me the names of the actual small towns that they were from. The point is, that's just what people sometimes do! The interesting thing in Joseph Smith's case, though, is the fact that this phraseology is consistent with Middle Eastern terminology (Please see Book of Mormon anachronisms:Jerusalem vs Bethlehem for an in-depth discussion of this topic at the FAIR website).

The next factual problem from the Book of Mormon, according to our author(s), is that "[s]cientists have demonstrated that honey bees were first brought to the New World by Spanish explorers in the fifteenth century, but the Book of Mormon, in Ether 2:3, claims they were introduced around 2000 B.C." If bees were "first brought to the New World by Spanish explorers," it would be interesting to know, then, how bees are mentioned in the Book of Chilam Balam, a pre-Columbian text of the Mayans (for instance, see pp. 63-66 of that text here). Hugh Nibley, our favorite professor of ancient scripture, discusses the bees from the Book of Ether in way too much detail here (This document is extremely long; scroll down about 40%, to the heading, "Where Abraham Comes In... The Two Migrations" to begin the discussion of the Jaredites from the Book of Ether, and their bees). "[Joseph Smith] saw bees in America," the author(s) tell us, "and threw them in the Book of Mormon as a little local color. He didn't realize he'd get stung by them." Indeed, it would appear that just the opposite is true: once again, Mormons have stood by their beliefs despite "scientific evidence" to the contrary, only to have later scientific evidence confirm them ("Word of Wisdom," anyone?). We're patient.

To close this series of articles out, our author(s) instruct the reader to "[t]ell the Mormon missionaries: "Look, it is foolish to pray about things you know are not God's will." This is an interesting concept, for is it not through prayer that one can most certainly discern God's will? What is there to be afraid of?