FAIR - User contributions [en]

Joseph Smith's First Vision/Early knowledge of the nature of God

2009-09-15T21:03:08Z

BlairHodges: /* Response */

{{FirstVisionPortal}}
==Criticism==

According to a historical document published in Kirtland, Ohio in 1835 the Prophet Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in the year 1823. This text, therefore, provides evidence that Joseph Smith simply made up the story about the First Vision happening in the year 1820.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Persuitte:Origins|pages=24}}

==Response==

The text that critics are referring to was created by Oliver Cowdery and printed in the Church's official Kirtland, Ohio newspaper in February 1835. The relevant passage reads:

:"This would bring the date down to the year 1823....[Joseph] continued to call upon the Lord in secret for a full manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him, the all important information, '''if a Supreme being did exist''', to have an assurance that he was accepted of [H]im." (''Messenger and Advocate'', vol. 1, no. 5, February 1835, 78; emphasis added).

Some historical texts can be read to mean different things by different readers. In many historical issues, good people can disagree. In this case, it appears as though critics misread Oliver Cowdery. First, the 1823 date seems to be a mistake. It seems Oliver is conflating the date of the First Vision (1820) with that of Moroni's visit (1823). Joseph Smith had already seen the Father and the Son by 1823 but by 1823 he felt he had not lived up to his previous experiences and wanted to know if he was still accepted of God. Readers can closely analyze Cowdery's wording and notice he was a particularly flowery and expressive writer as depicted in this quote. Oliver says that in 1823 Joseph Smith was already calling upon the Lord. What for? "For a full manifestation of divine approbation." So Joseph had faith enough to at least consider prayer. Moreover, Joseph was looking for "a full manifestation of divine approbation and for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of [H]im."

This sentence does not say that Joseph Smith was trying to find out if there was a God. Joseph was seeking for a full manifestation of divine approbation [or acceptance in the eyes of God, not in a God he doesn't already believe in] and for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist [a parenthetical aside rather than a question Joseph was asking], to have an assurance that he was accepted of [H]im [Joseph was seeking reassurance as to his own standing with God]."

Further, there are three major problems with the interpretation of Oliver Cowdery's text that is insisted upon by critics:

(#1) - A newspaper report states Oliver Cowdery "and his 'friends'" were teaching at the first of November 1830 that Joseph Smith had - previous to that time - seen God "personally." (''The Reflector'', vol. 2, no. 13, 14 February 1831 [Palmyra, New York])

(#2) - Joseph Smith's 1832 history plainly states that his "Parents . . . spared no pains to instructing [him] in <the> [C]hristian religion" and at the time of his First Vision he himself believed "<it is a> fool <that> saith in his heart there is no God." (Dean Jessee, ed., ''Personal Writings of Joseph Smith'', rev. ed. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2002], ---). It can be demonstrated that Oliver Cowdery had possession of the Prophet's 1832 history while he was writing his own 1835 historical account and so Cowdery knew not only about Joseph's personal belief in a Supreme Being prior to the First Vision but also that he saw Deity during that event. Or he ''didn't'' know and made an unwarranted assumption. Either way, if this description is thought to refer to the First Vision, Oliver's date was faulty (if we even assume Oliver was saying Joseph didn't know if there was a Supreme Being, which is an inaccurate reading).

(#3) - A close look at Joseph Smith's description of the First Vision given on 9 November 1835 (just a few months after Cowdery's statement was published) demonstrates that Cowdery was modifying a set of ideas that he had obviously heard the Prophet relate in verbal form.

:'''OLIVER COWDERY (February 1835):''' "the all important information, if a Supreme [B]eing did exist, to have an assurance....[H]is word remains steadfast"

:'''JOSEPH SMITH (November 1835):''' "under a realising sense that [the Lord] had said (if the Bible be true)"

Notice that both sets of remarks speak of (1) a supreme Being/the Lord (2) the Lord's word/the Bible, (3) being steadfast/true, and (4) the parenthetical question of "if."

Since Oliver Cowdery knew Joseph Smith believed in God ''before'' the First Vision took place, and knew for a fact that God existed ''because'' of his First Vision experience, then it is unreasonable to interpret Cowdery's printed words to mean that 'Joseph Smith was not sure if there was a God in 1823.'

Most importantly, the anomalous "1823" in Cowdery's article represents an incorrect editorial change he made which was reset to 1820 by the Prophet in subsequent historical texts (such as the 1838 recital and the Wentworth Letter).

==Conclusion==

Oliver Cowdery's February 1835 historical narrative should not be interpreted in the manner that critics of the Church insist upon. Their understanding of this issue is limited by their focus on the exploitation of perceived problems. An attempt to understand the nature and context of the document is much more enlightening and provides insight into an early period of the Church.

==Endnotes==

''None''

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{FirstVisionWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{FirstVisionFAIR}}

===External links===
{{FirstVisionLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{FirstVisionPrint}}
[[Category:First Vision]]

Jesus Christ/Relationship to Quetzalcoatl

2009-09-03T20:52:06Z

BlairHodges: /* A closer look at Quetzalcoatl */

{{draft}}

==Criticism==
*Critic claim that LDS scholars believe that Quetzalcoatl was Jesus Christ. However, Quetzalcoatl's association with a "feathered serpent" constitutes "snake worship," and is therefore inconsistent with worship of Jesus Christ.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=77 369 n.150-153}}

==Response==
Although critics would like to make the LDS association of Quetzalcoatl with Jesus Christ some sort of key element in an effort to "salvage their cherished faith," the reality is that Quetzalcoatl is rarely if ever discussed. The legend of Quetzalcoatl is of interest as a corroborative element in supporting the Book of Mormon, but it is by no means a critical element of anybody's belief. The association is intriguing to the LDS, as even the critics agree that certain elements of the legend are consistent with the Book of Mormon teaching that Jesus Christ appeared in the New World. Wallace E. Hunt Jr. lists the following elements, all drawn from non-LDS sources:

*Quetzalcoatl was the creator of life.
*Quetzalcoatl taught virtue.
*Quetzalcoatl was the greatest Lord of all.
*Quetzalcoatl had a "long beard and the features of a white man."
*The Mesoamericans believed Quetzalcoatl would return.

Critic Richard Abanes claims that the similarities in the comparison of Quetzalcoatl with Jesus Christ are "minor," while continuing on to note that "what LDS apologists tend to not mention are a few additional aspects of Quetzalcoatl, none of which seem very consistent with Jesus Christ." The following aspects of the Quetzalcoatl legend are those that critics claim that are "deemphasized" by LDS apologists:
*Snake worship
*Human sacrifice made to Quetzalcoatl
*Quetzalcoatl's twin brother Xolotl

===Snake worship associated with Jesus Christ?===
Critics claim that since Quetzalcoatl is associated with a "feathered serpent," that this constitutes "snake worship," and could in no way refer to Jesus Christ. In order to examine this claim, one has to look no further than the Bible:

{{s||Numbers|21|6-9}}
:6 And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
:7 Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord, and against thee; pray unto the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.
:8 And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

This incident foreshadowed the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and how one had to look to Him in order to be saved. Note that the people were not commanded to ''worship'' the serpent, but rather to simply look at it. Amazingly enough, many did not even have the faith to look upon the serpent and live.

There is no doubt that Mesoamericans worshipped the feathered serpent god Quetzalcoatl, and one could certainly agree that "snake worship" has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. What must be kept in mind is that this represents traditions of a people that apostatized from the teachings of Jesus Christ over a period of many hundreds of years. The real question is where and how the legend of Quetzalcoatl originated.

===Flying serpents?===
There is an additional intriguing element which indicates a possible relationship between the Book of Mormon and the "feathered serpent" Quetzalcoatl. When Nephi relates the story of Moses and the brazen serpent, he adds a detail that is ''not present in the Biblical account''. In Nephi's account, he refers to

:41 And he did straiten them in the wilderness with his rod; for they hardened their hearts, even as ye have; and the Lord straitened them because of their iniquity. He sent '''fiery flying serpents''' among them; and after they were bitten he prepared a way that they might be healed; and the labor which they had to perform was to look; and because of the simpleness of the way, or the easiness of it, there were many who perished. {{s|1|Nephi|17|41}} {{ea}}

Nephi refers to "fiery ''flying'' serpents." This brings the Book of Mormon account of this event ''more in line'' with the concept of Quetzalcoatl being a ''feathered'' serpent.{{ref|hunt1}} It is also interesting to note that Joseph Smith would not have gleaned this detail from a reading of the same story from the Bible.

===Have LDS apologists deemphasized aspects of Quetzalcoatl which are inconsistent with Jesus Christ?===

So, have "LDS apologists" (meaning, in this case, any LDS scholar) ignored or deemphasized aspects of the Quetzalcoatl legend?

Those (e.g., Milton R. Hunter) who have seen Quetzalcoatl as evidence for Christ's visit to the Americas generally saw the Quetzalcoatl legend as an apostate remnant of the truth. Thus, they saw some parallels which they felt applied to Jesus, while recognizing that fifteen hundred years of apostasy and corruption led to other elements being "grafted on" or altered.

While a legitimate perspective, this approach has the disadvantage of seeing parallels and ignoring contradictory aspects.

==A closer look at Quetzalcoatl==

Despite the enthusiasm of some earlier researchers, the Quetzalcoatl = Christ link has substantial problems.

Chief among these is the fact that most writers have not used the original sources of the Quetzalcoatl myths, but have relied on secondary sources—these sources often came via the Spanish, who likewise had an interest in seeing Christian parallels with native Amerindian myths.

When the original sources are studied, it becomes clear that the Christian parallels to Quetzalcoatl are not as significant as some authors have previously thought.

For extensive discussion, see:

*{{Sunstone|author=Brant Gardner|article=The Christianization of Quetzalcoatl: A History of the Metamorphosis|start=6|end=10|date=1986|num=11|vol=10}} {{pdflink|url=https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/file-index/7.html}}
* Brant Gardner, "Quetzalcoatl: Papers," {{link|url=http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/Quetzalcoatl.htm}}
* Blair Dee Hodges, "Method and Skepticism (and Quetzalcoatl....)," ''lifeongoldplates.com'' (29 September 2008) {{link|url=http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/09/method-and-skepticism-and-quetzalcoatl.html}}
*{{FR-19-1-4}}
* Gardner, ''FARMS Review'' 20/1 {{nw}}

==Conclusion==

Some LDS authors have seen Christian parallels to Quetzalcoatl. At least some of these parallels were probably imposed, however, by the secondary sources who also sought a Christian connection to native myth. Quetzalcoatl plays a minor—if any—role in modern LDS apologetics. Critics should not, however, act as if the association of a "snake" with Christ is completely foreign or strange—certainly the brass serpent placed on a pole and raised up by Moses has some symbolic links to Jesus.

Whether Quetzalcoatl can tell us anything about the Book of Mormon, however, remains unproven. FAIR does not at present recommend relying on this as "evidence" for the truth of the Book of Mormon account.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|hunt1}}{{JBMS-2-2-9}} 

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai265.html|topic=Quetzalcoatl}}

===External links===
*Joseph Allen, [http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/030926white.html "The White god Quetzalcoatl,"] ''Meridian Magazine'', 2003.
*Brant Gardner, [http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/Quetzalcoatl.htm Quetzalcoatl: Papers]
*{{JBMS-2-2-9}} 
*Jeff Lindsay, [http://www.jefflindsay.com/bme9.shtml Overlooking the Obvious? Legends of Quetzalcoatl and Ties to the Book of Mormon]
*John L. Sorenson, [http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookschapter.php?bookid=61&chapid=683 "The Decline of the God Quetzalcoatl"] from ''Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon'', pp. 234-236
*{{JBMS-11-1-5}} 
*{{FR-12-1-4}} 

===Printed material===
{{nw}}

Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep

2009-08-12T04:49:01Z

BlairHodges: /* Joseph didn't say that his family didn't wake up */

{{FirstVisionPortal}}
==Criticism==
Critics claim that when Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith in his room on September 21, 1823 that his siblings who were sleeping in the same room should have woken up. They claim that this is evidence that Joseph's story is false.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*''MormonThink'', "Moroni's Visitation". <nowiki>http://mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>

*Richard Van Wagoner and Steven Walker, "Joseph Smith: 'The Gift of Seeing," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15:2 (Summer 1982): 48–68.

==Response==
{{Main|Website reviews/MormonThink|l1=FAIR's Analysis of the website "MormonThink.com"}}

===Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up during Moroni's visit?===
The web site states,
<blockquote>
"Now the big question is when Moroni came and spoke with Joseph in the night of September 21, 1823, why didn't this wake up Joseph's brothers who were sleeping in the very same room with him?"
</blockquote>

Let's start with the basics. {{s||Genesis|2|21}} tells us,
<blockquote>
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
</blockquote>

What if we were to state,
<blockquote>
"Now the big question is that when the Lord God removed one of Adam's ribs, why didn't he wake up?"
</blockquote>

For anyone who believes that for God nothing is impossible, the question is simple to answer. Why, then, must we insist that Joseph's brother's ''should'' have been awakened? Why is it unreasonable to assume that God simply kept them asleep? Recall that Joseph was useless the next day on the farm. He was exhausted and totally drained from the experience. The family was very very poor, and they could not afford to take a day off of work. Had the other boys woken up with Joseph every time, they too would have been useless, and the farm would have suffered as a result. The animals wouldn't be fed, the cows wouldn't be milked, the crops wouldn't have been tended too. That would have created some severe problems for an already poverty stricken family.

Van Wagoner and Walker argue that it is possible Joseph saw Moroni in vision through his seer stone. In response, Mark Ashurst-McGee noted:
<blockquote>
"This argument falls short theoretically. For those who do not believe in Joseph's visions, there was nothing to wake anyone anyway. For those who do believe in Joseph's visions, the argument sounds theologically naive. Could not Moroni manifest himself to Joseph only? None of Paul's companions on the road to Damascus saw the resurrected Christ. A vision needs only to hold the attention of the visionary. Joseph's brothers can sleep in peace." {{ref|ashurst.293}}
</blockquote>

===Joseph didn't ''say'' that his family didn't wake up===
The site continues to drill down in detail by noting that "[t]here has never been anything recorded by Joseph Smith that the all-powerful creator used his powers to keep ten people from waking up during the night of September 21, 1823."

Why should Joseph Smith have recorded this mundane fact? Even the writer of the paragraph acknowledges that most people don't even think about it. Why should Joseph Smith have thought to mention it? Joseph didn't mention if he had short or long hair in his account, but we do not assume his head was shaved bald.

===Has God used his power to enforce sleep on other occasions?===
The site claims that there "no precedent for our Heavenly Father using his divine powers to keep people from waking up during spectacular events."

This is simply incorrect. Just a few examples from the Bible:
*Jesus sleeping in the boat during a storm
*Paul's companions not hearing or seeing Jesus appear to Paul
*Stephen's vision while being stoned
*The hosts of angels that Elijah couldn't see before him
*The angel that freed the apostles in prison
*Adam slept through his rib being removed
*The Lord calling to Samuel and Eli sleeping through it.

We also have this from the Book of Mormon ({{s||Mosiah|24|19}}),

<blockquote>
And in the morning the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon the Lamanites, yea, and all their task-masters were in a profound sleep.
</blockquote>

The assertion that there is "no precedent" for using "divine power" to keep people from waking up is simply a bad argument. The owners of ''MormonThink'' appear to be quite unfamiliar with the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

===God altering people's consciousness?===
Now the site gets to the real point of this entire argument. The claim is presented that, "If God would actually use his powers to alter people's consciousness then how could anyone really ever trust their senses?" In other words, the entire argument is simply a setup to prove that you can't trust visions. Joseph's experience with Moroni is then characterized as "dream or a hallucination," or even a "inspired fantasy."

This entire hypothesis is based on their premature conclusion that there is no way Joseph's brothers could have slept through the experience.

===Church artwork portrays Joseph as being alone===
''Some'' Church artwork does indeed portray Joseph as being along—this is simply an artistic interpretation. The August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, however, shows a painting of Joseph sitting up in his bed looking at Moroni. Next to Joseph one can clearly see three of his siblings in the same bed...sound asleep. ''Even the official LDS web site'' has a painting that shows one of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed during Moroni's visit. See: [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ].

==Conclusion==
The entire argument is not only absurd, but it is clearly refuted by the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and artwork presented by the Church itself.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|ashurst.293}}Mark Ashurst-McGee, "A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet," (Master's Thesis, University of Utah, Logan, Utah, 2000), 293.

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Website reviews/MormonThink|FAIR's review of the website ''MormonThink.com'']]

Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep

2009-08-12T01:40:35Z

BlairHodges: /* Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up during Moroni's visit? */

{{FirstVisionPortal}}
==Criticism==
Critics claim that when Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith in his room on September 21, 1823 that his siblings who were sleeping in the same room should have woken up. They claim that this is evidence that Joseph's story is false.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*''MormonThink'', "Moroni's Visitation". <nowiki>http://mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>

*Richard Van Wagoner and Steven Walker, "Joseph Smith: 'The Gift of Seeing," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15:2 (Summer 1982): 48–68.

==Response==
{{Main|Website reviews/MormonThink|l1=FAIR's Analysis of the website "MormonThink.com"}}

===Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up during Moroni's visit?===
The web site states,
<blockquote>
"Now the big question is when Moroni came and spoke with Joseph in the night of September 21, 1823, why didn't this wake up Joseph's brothers who were sleeping in the very same room with him?"
</blockquote>

Let's start with the basics. {{s||Genesis|2|21}} tells us,
<blockquote>
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
</blockquote>

What if we were to state,
<blockquote>
"Now the big question is that when the Lord God removed one of Adam's ribs, why didn't he wake up?"
</blockquote>

For anyone who believes that for God nothing is impossible, the question is simple to answer. Why, then, must we insist that Joseph's brother's ''should'' have been awakened? Why is it unreasonable to assume that God simply kept them asleep? Recall that Joseph was useless the next day on the farm. He was exhausted and totally drained from the experience. The family was very very poor, and they could not afford to take a day off of work. Had the other boys woken up with Joseph every time, they too would have been useless, and the farm would have suffered as a result. The animals wouldn't be fed, the cows wouldn't be milked, the crops wouldn't have been tended too. That would have created some severe problems for an already poverty stricken family.

Van Wagoner and Walker argue that it is possible Joseph saw Moroni in vision through his seer stone. In response, Mark Ashurst-McGee noted:
<blockquote>
"This argument falls short theoretically. For those who do not believe in Joseph's visions, there was nothing to wake anyone anyway. For those who do believe in Joseph's visions, the argument sounds theologically naive. Could not Moroni manifest himself to Joseph only? None of Paul's companions on the road to Damascus saw the resurrected Christ. A vision needs only to hold the attention of the visionary. Joseph's brothers can sleep in peace." {{ref|ashurst.293}}
</blockquote>

===Joseph didn't ''say'' that his family didn't wake up===
The site continues to drill down in detail by noting that "[t]here has never been anything recorded by Joseph Smith that the all-powerful creator used his powers to keep ten people from waking up during the night of September 21, 1823."

Why should Joseph Smith have recorded this mundane fact? Even the writer of the paragraph acknowledges that most people don't even think about it. Why should Joseph Smith have thought to mention it? .

===Has God used his power to enforce sleep on other occasions?===
The site claims that there "no precedent for our Heavenly Father using his divine powers to keep people from waking up during spectacular events."

This is simply incorrect. Just a few examples from the Bible:
*Jesus sleeping in the boat during a storm
*Paul's companions not hearing or seeing Jesus appear to Paul
*Stephen's vision while being stoned
*The hosts of angels that Elijah couldn't see before him
*The angel that freed the apostles in prison
*Adam slept through his rib being removed
*The Lord calling to Samuel and Eli sleeping through it.

We also have this from the Book of Mormon ({{s||Mosiah|24|19}}),

<blockquote>
And in the morning the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon the Lamanites, yea, and all their task-masters were in a profound sleep.
</blockquote>

The assertion that there is "no precedent" for using "divine power" to keep people from waking up is simply a bad argument. The owners of ''MormonThink'' appear to be quite unfamiliar with the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

===God altering people's consciousness?===
Now the site gets to the real point of this entire argument. The claim is presented that, "If God would actually use his powers to alter people's consciousness then how could anyone really ever trust their senses?" In other words, the entire argument is simply a setup to prove that you can't trust visions. Joseph's experience with Moroni is then characterized as "dream or a hallucination," or even a "inspired fantasy."

This entire hypothesis is based on their premature conclusion that there is no way Joseph's brothers could have slept through the experience.

===Church artwork portrays Joseph as being alone===
''Some'' Church artwork does indeed portray Joseph as being along—this is simply an artistic interpretation. The August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, however, shows a painting of Joseph sitting up in his bed looking at Moroni. Next to Joseph one can clearly see three of his siblings in the same bed...sound asleep. ''Even the official LDS web site'' has a painting that shows one of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed during Moroni's visit. See: [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ].

==Conclusion==
The entire argument is not only absurd, but it is clearly refuted by the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and artwork presented by the Church itself.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|ashurst.293}}Mark Ashurst-McGee, "A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet," (Master's Thesis, University of Utah, Logan, Utah, 2000), 293.

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Website reviews/MormonThink|FAIR's review of the website ''MormonThink.com'']]

Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep

2009-08-12T01:13:39Z

BlairHodges: /* Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up during Moroni's visit? */

{{FirstVisionPortal}}
==Criticism==
Critics claim that when Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith in his room on September 21, 1823 that his siblings who were sleeping in the same room should have woken up. They claim that this is evidence that Joseph's story is false.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*''MormonThink'', "Moroni's Visitation". <nowiki>http://mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>

*Richard Van Wagoner and Steven Walker, "Joseph Smith: 'The Gift of Seeing," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15:2 (Summer 1982): 48–68.

==Response==
{{Main|Website reviews/MormonThink|l1=FAIR's Analysis of the website "MormonThink.com"}}

===Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up during Moroni's visit?===
The site states, "Now the big question is when Moroni came and spoke with Joseph in the night of September 21, 1823, why didn't this wake up Joseph's brothers who were sleeping in the very same room with him?"

Let's start with the basics. {{s||Genesis|2|21}} tells us,
<blockquote>
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
</blockquote>

Therefore, one might state, "Now the big question is that when the Lord God removed one of Adam's ribs, why didn't he wake up?" For anyone who believes that for God nothing is impossible, the question is simply ridiculous. Why, then, are they insisting Joseph's brother's should have been awakened? Yet, the entire argument presented rests on the assumption that Joseph's brothers should have woken up. Why is it unreasonable to assume that God just kept them asleep? Recall that Joseph was useless the next day on the farm. He was exhausted and totally drained from the experience. The family was very very poor, and they could not afford to take a day off of work. Had the other boys woken up with Joseph every time, they too would have been useless, and the farm would have suffered as a result. The animals wouldn't be fed, the cows wouldn't be milked, the crops wouldn't have been tended too. That would have created some severe problems for an already poverty stricken family.

Van Wagoner and Walker argue that it is possible Joseph saw Moroni in vision through his seer stone. In response, Mark Ashurst-McGee noted: "This argument falls short theoretically. For those who do not believe in Joseph's visions, there was nothing to wake anyone anyway. For those who do believe in Joseph's visions, the argument sounds theologically naive. Could not Moroni manifest himself to Joseph only? None of Paul's companions on the road to Damascus saw the resurrected Christ. A vision needs only to hold the attention of the visionary. Joseph's brothers can sleep in peace." (Ashurst-McGee, pg. 293).

===Joseph didn't ''say'' that his family didn't wake up===
The site continues to drill down in detail by noting that "[t]here has never been anything recorded by Joseph Smith that the all-powerful creator used his powers to keep ten people from waking up during the night of September 21, 1823."

Why should Joseph Smith have recorded this mundane fact? Even the writer of the paragraph acknowledges that most people don't even think about it. Why should Joseph Smith have? .

===Has God used his power to enforce sleep on other occasions?===
The site claims that there "no precedent for our Heavenly Father using his divine powers to keep people from waking up during spectacular events."

This is simply incorrect. Just a few examples from the Bible:
*Jesus sleeping in the boat during a storm
*Paul's companions not hearing or seeing Jesus appear to Paul
*Stephen's vision while being stoned
*The hosts of angels that Elijah couldn't see before him
*The angel that freed the apostles in prison
*Adam slept through his rib being removed
*The Lord calling to Samuel and Eli sleeping through it.

This is simply a bad argument is simply a bad one.

===God altering people's consciousness?===
Now the site gets to the real point of this entire argument. The claim is presented that, "If God would actually use his powers to alter people's consciousness then how could anyone really ever trust their senses?" In other words, the entire argument is simply a setup to prove that you can't trust visions. Joseph's experience with Moroni is then characterized as "dream or a hallucination," or even a "inspired fantasy."

This entire hypothesis is based on their premature conclusion that there is no way Joseph's brothers could have slept through the experience.

===Church artwork portrays Joseph as being alone===
''Some'' Church artwork does indeed portray Joseph as being along—this is simply an artistic interpretation. The August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, however, shows a painting of Joseph sitting up in his bed looking at Moroni. Next to Joseph one can clearly see three of his siblings in the same bed...sound asleep. ''Even the official LDS web site'' has a painting that shows one of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed during Moroni's visit. See: [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ].

==Conclusion==
The entire argument is not only absurd, but it is clearly refuted by artwork presented by the Church itself.

==Endnotes==

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===

===External links===
===Printed material===

Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep

2009-08-12T01:07:53Z

BlairHodges: /* Source(s) of the Criticism */

{{FirstVisionPortal}}
==Criticism==
Critics claim that when Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith in his room on September 21, 1823 that his siblings who were sleeping in the same room should have woken up. They claim that this is evidence that Joseph's story is false.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*''MormonThink'', "Moroni's Visitation". <nowiki>http://mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>

*Richard Van Wagoner and Steven Walker, "Joseph Smith: 'The Gift of Seeing," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15:2 (Summer 1982): 48–68.

==Response==
{{Main|Website reviews/MormonThink|l1=FAIR's Analysis of the website "MormonThink.com"}}

===Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up during Moroni's visit?===
The site states, "Now the big question is when Moroni came and spoke with Joseph in the night of September 21, 1823, why didn't this wake up Joseph's brothers who were sleeping in the very same room with him?"

Let's start with the basics. {{s||Genesis|2|21}} tells us,
<blockquote>
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
</blockquote>

Therefore, one might state, "Now the big question is that when the Lord God removed one of Adam's ribs, why didn't he wake up?" For anyone who believes that for God nothing is impossible, the question is simply ridiculous. Why, then, are they insisting Joseph's brother's should have been awakened? Yet, the entire argument presented rests on the assumption that Joseph's brothers should have woken up. Why is it unreasonable to assume that God just kept them asleep? Recall that Joseph was useless the next day on the farm. He was exhausted and totally drained from the experience. The family was very very poor, and they could not afford to take a day off of work. Had the other boys woken up with Joseph every time, they too would have been useless, and the farm would have suffered as a result. The animals wouldn't be fed, the cows wouldn't be milked, the crops wouldn't have been tended too. That would have created some severe problems for an already poverty stricken family.

===Joseph didn't ''say'' that his family didn't wake up===
The site continues to drill down in detail by noting that "[t]here has never been anything recorded by Joseph Smith that the all-powerful creator used his powers to keep ten people from waking up during the night of September 21, 1823."

Why should Joseph Smith have recorded this mundane fact? Even the writer of the paragraph acknowledges that most people don't even think about it. Why should Joseph Smith have? .

===Has God used his power to enforce sleep on other occasions?===
The site claims that there "no precedent for our Heavenly Father using his divine powers to keep people from waking up during spectacular events."

This is simply incorrect. Just a few examples from the Bible:
*Jesus sleeping in the boat during a storm
*Paul's companions not hearing or seeing Jesus appear to Paul
*Stephen's vision while being stoned
*The hosts of angels that Elijah couldn't see before him
*The angel that freed the apostles in prison
*Adam slept through his rib being removed
*The Lord calling to Samuel and Eli sleeping through it.

This is simply a bad argument is simply a bad one.

===God altering people's consciousness?===
Now the site gets to the real point of this entire argument. The claim is presented that, "If God would actually use his powers to alter people's consciousness then how could anyone really ever trust their senses?" In other words, the entire argument is simply a setup to prove that you can't trust visions. Joseph's experience with Moroni is then characterized as "dream or a hallucination," or even a "inspired fantasy."

This entire hypothesis is based on their premature conclusion that there is no way Joseph's brothers could have slept through the experience.

===Church artwork portrays Joseph as being alone===
''Some'' Church artwork does indeed portray Joseph as being along—this is simply an artistic interpretation. The August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, however, shows a painting of Joseph sitting up in his bed looking at Moroni. Next to Joseph one can clearly see three of his siblings in the same bed...sound asleep. ''Even the official LDS web site'' has a painting that shows one of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed during Moroni's visit. See: [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ].

==Conclusion==
The entire argument is not only absurd, but it is clearly refuted by artwork presented by the Church itself.

==Endnotes==

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===

===External links===
===Printed material===

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T21:40:24Z

BlairHodges: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances. We encourage all thinking individuals to investigate further.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, MormonThink's claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism, like the former one, displays the site's fundamentalism—Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient."
*This is an unfortunate over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something they sincerely believed the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive or trite 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he/she does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own overtly anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty. Citing this example demonstrates a clear lack of historical analysis of the sources employed. It is akin to taking reports from the ''National Enquirer'' as reliable journalism today.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*It is unclear why the authors assume all prophets should be identical in approach. The Bible itself demonstrates a wide variety of the nature of the prophetic office. Joseph Smith was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory include the following facts:
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of any mockery or criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols both give and are given meaning. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols can also change. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time seem simplistic, misguided, or simply false in retrospect. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity has been shown to ''increase'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If an individual prays ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then they will get the answer that they are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Moreover, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else receives? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his/hers? We do not because we believe we cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*It is unclear why the authors believe the Church should disclose all financial information. It would be useful to know the motivation behind the request.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T21:37:57Z

BlairHodges: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances. We encourage all thinking individuals to investigate further.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, MormonThink's claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism, like the former one, displays the site's fundamentalism—Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient."
*This is an unfortunate over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something they sincerely believed the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive or trite 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he/she does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own overtly anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty. Citing this example demonstrates a clear lack of historical analysis of the sources employed. It is akin to taking reports from the ''National Enquirer'' as reliable journalism today.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*It is unclear why the authors assume all prophets should be identical in approach. The Bible itself demonstrates a wide variety of the nature of the prophetic office. Joseph Smith was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory include the following facts:
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of any mockery or criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols both give and are given meaning. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols can also change. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time seem simplistic, misguided, or simply false in retrospect. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity has been shown to ''increase'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If an individual prays ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then they will get the answer that they are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Moreover, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else receives? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his/hers? We do not because we believe we cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T21:35:30Z

BlairHodges: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances. We encourage all thinking individuals to investigate further.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, MormonThink's claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism, like the former one, displays the site's fundamentalism—Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient."
*This is an unfortunate over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something they sincerely believed the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive or trite 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he/she does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own overtly anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty. Citing this example demonstrates a clear lack of historical analysis of the sources employed. It is akin to taking reports from the ''National Enquirer'' as reliable journalism today.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*It is unclear why the authors assume all prophets should be identical in approach. The Bible itself demonstrates a wide variety of the nature of the prophetic office. Joseph Smith was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory include the following facts:
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of any mockery or criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols both give and are given meaning. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols can also change. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time seem simplistic, misguided, or simply false in retrospect. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity has been shown to ''increase'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T21:32:54Z

BlairHodges: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances. We encourage all thinking individuals to investigate further.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, MormonThink's claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism, like the former one, displays the site's fundamentalism—Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient."
*This is an unfortunate over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something they sincerely believed the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive or trite 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he/she does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own overtly anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty. Citing this example demonstrates a clear lack of historical analysis of the sources employed. It is akin to taking reports from the ''National Enquirer'' as reliable journalism today.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*It is unclear why the authors assume all prophets should be identical in approach. The Bible itself demonstrates a wide variety of the nature of the prophetic office. Joseph Smith was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory include the following facts:
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of any mockery or criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols both give and are given meaning. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols can also change. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T21:30:45Z

BlairHodges: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances. We encourage all thinking individuals to investigate further.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, MormonThink's claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism, like the former one, displays the site's fundamentalism—Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient."
*This is an unfortunate over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something they sincerely believed the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive or trite 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he/she does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own overtly anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty. Citing this example demonstrates a clear lack of historical analysis of the sources employed. It is akin to taking reports from the ''National Enquirer'' as reliable journalism today.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*It is unclear why the authors assume all prophets should be identical in approach. The Bible itself demonstrates a wide variety of the nature of the prophetic office. Joseph Smith was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory include the following facts:
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of any mockery or criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T21:29:47Z

BlairHodges: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances. We encourage all thinking individuals to investigate further.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, MormonThink's claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism, like the former one, displays the site's fundamentalism—Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient."
*This is an unfortunate over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something they sincerely believed the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive or trite 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he/she does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own overtly anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty. Citing this example demonstrates a clear lack of historical analysis of the sources employed. It is akin to taking reports from the ''National Enquirer'' as reliable journalism today.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*It is unclear why the authors assume all prophets should be identical in approach. The Bible itself demonstrates a wide variety of the nature of the prophetic office. Joseph Smith was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory include the following facts:
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T21:28:57Z

BlairHodges: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances. We encourage all thinking individuals to investigate further.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, MormonThink's claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism, like the former one, displays the site's fundamentalism—Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient."
*This is an unfortunate over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something they sincerely believed the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive or trite 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he/she does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own overtly anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty. Citing this example demonstrates a clear lack of historical analysis of the sources employed. It is akin to taking reports from the ''National Enquirer'' as reliable journalism today.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*It is unclear why the authors assume all prophets should be identical in approach. The Bible itself demonstrates a wide variety of the nature of the prophetic office. Joseph Smith was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T21:25:37Z

BlairHodges: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances. We encourage all thinking individuals to investigate further.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, MormonThink's claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism, like the former one, displays the site's fundamentalism—Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient."
*This is an unfortunate over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something they sincerely believed the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive or trite 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he/she does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own overtly anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty. Citing this example demonstrates a clear lack of historical analysis of the sources employed. It is akin to taking reports from the ''National Enquirer'' as reliable journalism today.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T21:23:34Z

BlairHodges: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances. We encourage all thinking individuals to investigate further.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, MormonThink's claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism, like the former one, displays the site's fundamentalism—Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient."
*This is an unfortunate over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something they sincerely believed the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive or trite 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he/she does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T21:21:00Z

BlairHodges: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances. We encourage all thinking individuals to investigate further.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, MormonThink's claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism, like the former one, displays the site's fundamentalism—Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient"!
*This is a gross over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something that they sincerely believed that the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive, trite, 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T21:18:07Z

BlairHodges: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances. We encourage all thinking individuals to investigate further.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, MormonThink's claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* The site's fundamentalism is showing—the LDS do not see prophets as men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient"!
*This is a gross over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something that they sincerely believed that the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive, trite, 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T21:15:45Z

BlairHodges: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances. We encourage all thinking individuals to investigate further.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, MormonThink's claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*The Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The site simplistically uses a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* The site's fundamentalism is showing—the LDS do not see prophets as men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient"!
*This is a gross over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something that they sincerely believed that the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive, trite, 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T21:11:19Z

BlairHodges: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances. We encourage all thinking individuals to investigate further.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, MormonThink's claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is absurd to imply that enemies of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is unfair to the witnesses to claim that they were not skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*The Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The site simplistically uses a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* The site's fundamentalism is showing—the LDS do not see prophets as men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient"!
*This is a gross over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something that they sincerely believed that the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive, trite, 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T21:10:23Z

BlairHodges: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances. We encourage all thinking individuals to investigate further.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, it is unfaithful to the historical record which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is absurd to imply that enemies of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is unfair to the witnesses to claim that they were not skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*The Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The site simplistically uses a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* The site's fundamentalism is showing—the LDS do not see prophets as men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient"!
*This is a gross over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something that they sincerely believed that the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive, trite, 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T21:06:18Z

BlairHodges: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances. We encourage all thinking individuals to investigate further.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*How much more "definitive" can one get than to state the following?
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is dishonest and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is absurd to imply that enemies of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is unfair to the witnesses to claim that they were not skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*The Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The site simplistically uses a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* The site's fundamentalism is showing—the LDS do not see prophets as men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient"!
*This is a gross over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something that they sincerely believed that the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive, trite, 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T21:01:42Z

BlairHodges: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances. We encourage all thinking individuals to investigate further.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This is not only presumptuous and absurd, but it contradicts the scriptures. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant effort to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*How much more "definitive" can one get than to state the following?
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is dishonest and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is absurd to imply that enemies of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is unfair to the witnesses to claim that they were not skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*The Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The site simplistically uses a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* The site's fundamentalism is showing—the LDS do not see prophets as men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient"!
*This is a gross over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something that they sincerely believed that the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive, trite, 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T20:58:06Z

BlairHodges: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances. We encourage all thinking individuals to investigate further.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* The critic has learned nothing from history. Many supposed "anachronisms" in Joseph Smith's day have turned out not to be anachronisms. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. Why would we think that further discoveries will not provide further matches?
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is only evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This is not only presumptuous and absurd, but it contradicts the scriptures. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant effort to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*How much more "definitive" can one get than to state the following?
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is dishonest and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is absurd to imply that enemies of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is unfair to the witnesses to claim that they were not skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*The Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The site simplistically uses a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* The site's fundamentalism is showing—the LDS do not see prophets as men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient"!
*This is a gross over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something that they sincerely believed that the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive, trite, 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T20:53:29Z

BlairHodges: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* The author surely has no professional expertise in Egyptology, and hopes we will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with him. In an area in which he—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might be to be less dogmatic.
* Since we are missing around 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases are showing when he insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. Why should small parts of the whole be expected to match?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author ignores that some Egyptological translations ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* The critic has learned nothing from history. Many supposed "anachronisms" in Joseph Smith's day have turned out not to be anachronisms. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. Why would we think that further discoveries will not provide further matches?
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is only evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This is not only presumptuous and absurd, but it contradicts the scriptures. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant effort to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*How much more "definitive" can one get than to state the following?
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is dishonest and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is absurd to imply that enemies of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is unfair to the witnesses to claim that they were not skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*The Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The site simplistically uses a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* The site's fundamentalism is showing—the LDS do not see prophets as men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient"!
*This is a gross over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something that they sincerely believed that the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive, trite, 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T20:50:37Z

BlairHodges: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why on earth would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the astonishing feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone?
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. He initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters, and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* The author surely has no professional expertise in Egyptology, and hopes we will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with him. In an area in which he—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might be to be less dogmatic.
* Since we are missing around 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases are showing when he insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. Why should small parts of the whole be expected to match?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author ignores that some Egyptological translations ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* The critic has learned nothing from history. Many supposed "anachronisms" in Joseph Smith's day have turned out not to be anachronisms. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. Why would we think that further discoveries will not provide further matches?
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is only evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This is not only presumptuous and absurd, but it contradicts the scriptures. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant effort to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*How much more "definitive" can one get than to state the following?
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is dishonest and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is absurd to imply that enemies of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is unfair to the witnesses to claim that they were not skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*The Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The site simplistically uses a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* The site's fundamentalism is showing—the LDS do not see prophets as men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient"!
*This is a gross over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something that they sincerely believed that the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive, trite, 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T20:49:19Z

BlairHodges: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*This is, quite possibly, one of the most ridiculous claims that FAIR has encountered, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words attempting to explain it (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why on earth would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the astonishing feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone?
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. He initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters, and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* The author surely has no professional expertise in Egyptology, and hopes we will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with him. In an area in which he—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might be to be less dogmatic.
* Since we are missing around 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases are showing when he insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. Why should small parts of the whole be expected to match?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author ignores that some Egyptological translations ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* The critic has learned nothing from history. Many supposed "anachronisms" in Joseph Smith's day have turned out not to be anachronisms. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. Why would we think that further discoveries will not provide further matches?
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is only evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This is not only presumptuous and absurd, but it contradicts the scriptures. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant effort to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*How much more "definitive" can one get than to state the following?
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is dishonest and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is absurd to imply that enemies of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is unfair to the witnesses to claim that they were not skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*The Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The site simplistically uses a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* The site's fundamentalism is showing—the LDS do not see prophets as men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient"!
*This is a gross over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something that they sincerely believed that the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive, trite, 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T20:47:07Z

BlairHodges: /* A list of things that "would make the Church true" */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* Only a performer or con-man tells the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*This is, quite possibly, one of the most ridiculous claims that FAIR has encountered, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words attempting to explain it (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why on earth would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the astonishing feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone?
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. He initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters, and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* The author surely has no professional expertise in Egyptology, and hopes we will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with him. In an area in which he—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might be to be less dogmatic.
* Since we are missing around 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases are showing when he insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. Why should small parts of the whole be expected to match?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author ignores that some Egyptological translations ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* The critic has learned nothing from history. Many supposed "anachronisms" in Joseph Smith's day have turned out not to be anachronisms. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. Why would we think that further discoveries will not provide further matches?
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is only evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This is not only presumptuous and absurd, but it contradicts the scriptures. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant effort to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*How much more "definitive" can one get than to state the following?
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is dishonest and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is absurd to imply that enemies of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is unfair to the witnesses to claim that they were not skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*The Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The site simplistically uses a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* The site's fundamentalism is showing—the LDS do not see prophets as men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient"!
*This is a gross over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something that they sincerely believed that the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive, trite, 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T20:46:00Z

BlairHodges: /* A list of things that "would make the Church true" */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church were actually true, then "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* Only a performer or con-man tells the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*This is, quite possibly, one of the most ridiculous claims that FAIR has encountered, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words attempting to explain it (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why on earth would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the astonishing feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone?
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. He initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters, and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* The author surely has no professional expertise in Egyptology, and hopes we will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with him. In an area in which he—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might be to be less dogmatic.
* Since we are missing around 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases are showing when he insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. Why should small parts of the whole be expected to match?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author ignores that some Egyptological translations ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* The critic has learned nothing from history. Many supposed "anachronisms" in Joseph Smith's day have turned out not to be anachronisms. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. Why would we think that further discoveries will not provide further matches?
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is only evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This is not only presumptuous and absurd, but it contradicts the scriptures. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant effort to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*How much more "definitive" can one get than to state the following?
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is dishonest and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is absurd to imply that enemies of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is unfair to the witnesses to claim that they were not skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*The Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The site simplistically uses a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* The site's fundamentalism is showing—the LDS do not see prophets as men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient"!
*This is a gross over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something that they sincerely believed that the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive, trite, 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T20:43:39Z

BlairHodges: /* What quality of "thinking" is recommended? */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church were actually true, then "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website and FAIR's response. Unsurprisingly, most are standard anti-Mormon fare, "asked and answered" a thousand times before. Almost all of them appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* Only a performer or con-man tells the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*This is, quite possibly, one of the most ridiculous claims that FAIR has encountered, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words attempting to explain it (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why on earth would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the astonishing feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone?
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. He initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters, and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* The author surely has no professional expertise in Egyptology, and hopes we will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with him. In an area in which he—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might be to be less dogmatic.
* Since we are missing around 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases are showing when he insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. Why should small parts of the whole be expected to match?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author ignores that some Egyptological translations ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* The critic has learned nothing from history. Many supposed "anachronisms" in Joseph Smith's day have turned out not to be anachronisms. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. Why would we think that further discoveries will not provide further matches?
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is only evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This is not only presumptuous and absurd, but it contradicts the scriptures. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant effort to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*How much more "definitive" can one get than to state the following?
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is dishonest and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is absurd to imply that enemies of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is unfair to the witnesses to claim that they were not skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*The Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The site simplistically uses a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* The site's fundamentalism is showing—the LDS do not see prophets as men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient"!
*This is a gross over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something that they sincerely believed that the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive, trite, 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T20:43:15Z

BlairHodges: /* What quality of "thinking" is recommended? */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church were actually true, then "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website and FAIR's response. Unsurprisingly, most are standard anti-Mormon fare, "asked and answered" a thousand times before. Almost all of them appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* Only a performer or con-man tells the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*This is, quite possibly, one of the most ridiculous claims that FAIR has encountered, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words attempting to explain it (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why on earth would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the astonishing feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone?
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. He initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters, and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* The author surely has no professional expertise in Egyptology, and hopes we will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with him. In an area in which he—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might be to be less dogmatic.
* Since we are missing around 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases are showing when he insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. Why should small parts of the whole be expected to match?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author ignores that some Egyptological translations ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* The critic has learned nothing from history. Many supposed "anachronisms" in Joseph Smith's day have turned out not to be anachronisms. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. Why would we think that further discoveries will not provide further matches?
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is only evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This is not only presumptuous and absurd, but it contradicts the scriptures. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant effort to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*How much more "definitive" can one get than to state the following?
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is dishonest and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is absurd to imply that enemies of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is unfair to the witnesses to claim that they were not skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*The Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The site simplistically uses a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* The site's fundamentalism is showing—the LDS do not see prophets as men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient"!
*This is a gross over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something that they sincerely believed that the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive, trite, 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T20:40:37Z

BlairHodges: /* Summary */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark," but rather an overt attempt to lead people out of the church. The site's attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>

And there you have it—according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes us to engage in.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church were actually true, then "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website and FAIR's response. Unsurprisingly, most are standard anti-Mormon fare, "asked and answered" a thousand times before. Almost all of them appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* Only a performer or con-man tells the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*This is, quite possibly, one of the most ridiculous claims that FAIR has encountered, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words attempting to explain it (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why on earth would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the astonishing feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone?
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. He initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters, and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* The author surely has no professional expertise in Egyptology, and hopes we will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with him. In an area in which he—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might be to be less dogmatic.
* Since we are missing around 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases are showing when he insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. Why should small parts of the whole be expected to match?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author ignores that some Egyptological translations ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* The critic has learned nothing from history. Many supposed "anachronisms" in Joseph Smith's day have turned out not to be anachronisms. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. Why would we think that further discoveries will not provide further matches?
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is only evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This is not only presumptuous and absurd, but it contradicts the scriptures. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant effort to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*How much more "definitive" can one get than to state the following?
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is dishonest and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is absurd to imply that enemies of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is unfair to the witnesses to claim that they were not skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*The Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The site simplistically uses a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* The site's fundamentalism is showing—the LDS do not see prophets as men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient"!
*This is a gross over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something that they sincerely believed that the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive, trite, 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T20:39:33Z

BlairHodges: /* Summary */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark," but rather an overt attempt to lead people out of the church. The site's attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>

And there you have it—according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes us to engage in.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church were actually true, then "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website and FAIR's response. Unsurprisingly, most are standard anti-Mormon fare, "asked and answered" a thousand times before. Almost all of them appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* Only a performer or con-man tells the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*This is, quite possibly, one of the most ridiculous claims that FAIR has encountered, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words attempting to explain it (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why on earth would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the astonishing feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone?
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. He initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters, and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* The author surely has no professional expertise in Egyptology, and hopes we will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with him. In an area in which he—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might be to be less dogmatic.
* Since we are missing around 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases are showing when he insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. Why should small parts of the whole be expected to match?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author ignores that some Egyptological translations ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* The critic has learned nothing from history. Many supposed "anachronisms" in Joseph Smith's day have turned out not to be anachronisms. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. Why would we think that further discoveries will not provide further matches?
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is only evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This is not only presumptuous and absurd, but it contradicts the scriptures. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant effort to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*How much more "definitive" can one get than to state the following?
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is dishonest and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is absurd to imply that enemies of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is unfair to the witnesses to claim that they were not skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*The Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The site simplistically uses a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* The site's fundamentalism is showing—the LDS do not see prophets as men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient"!
*This is a gross over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something that they sincerely believed that the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive, trite, 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T20:37:43Z

BlairHodges: /* Summary */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' is an anti-Mormon web site that superficially claims to be operated by active members of the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark," but rather an overt attempt to lead people out of the church. The site's attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>

And there you have it—according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes us to engage in.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church were actually true, then "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website and FAIR's response. Unsurprisingly, most are standard anti-Mormon fare, "asked and answered" a thousand times before. Almost all of them appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* Only a performer or con-man tells the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*This is, quite possibly, one of the most ridiculous claims that FAIR has encountered, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words attempting to explain it (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why on earth would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the astonishing feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone?
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. He initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters, and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* The author surely has no professional expertise in Egyptology, and hopes we will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with him. In an area in which he—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might be to be less dogmatic.
* Since we are missing around 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases are showing when he insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. Why should small parts of the whole be expected to match?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author ignores that some Egyptological translations ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* The critic has learned nothing from history. Many supposed "anachronisms" in Joseph Smith's day have turned out not to be anachronisms. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. Why would we think that further discoveries will not provide further matches?
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is only evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This is not only presumptuous and absurd, but it contradicts the scriptures. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant effort to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*How much more "definitive" can one get than to state the following?
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is dishonest and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is absurd to imply that enemies of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is unfair to the witnesses to claim that they were not skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*The Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The site simplistically uses a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* The site's fundamentalism is showing—the LDS do not see prophets as men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient"!
*This is a gross over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something that they sincerely believed that the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive, trite, 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T20:35:52Z

BlairHodges: /* FAIR's evaluation of the web site MormonThink */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' is an anti-Mormon web site that superficially claims to be operated by active members of the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators arrogantly claim that they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites, since it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark," but rather an overt attempt to lead people out of the church. The site's attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>

And there you have it—according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes us to engage in.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church were actually true, then "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website and FAIR's response. Unsurprisingly, most are standard anti-Mormon fare, "asked and answered" a thousand times before. Almost all of them appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* Only a performer or con-man tells the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*This is, quite possibly, one of the most ridiculous claims that FAIR has encountered, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words attempting to explain it (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why on earth would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the astonishing feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone?
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. He initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters, and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* The author surely has no professional expertise in Egyptology, and hopes we will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with him. In an area in which he—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might be to be less dogmatic.
* Since we are missing around 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases are showing when he insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. Why should small parts of the whole be expected to match?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author ignores that some Egyptological translations ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* The critic has learned nothing from history. Many supposed "anachronisms" in Joseph Smith's day have turned out not to be anachronisms. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. Why would we think that further discoveries will not provide further matches?
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is only evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This is not only presumptuous and absurd, but it contradicts the scriptures. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant effort to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*How much more "definitive" can one get than to state the following?
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is dishonest and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is absurd to imply that enemies of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is unfair to the witnesses to claim that they were not skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*The Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The site simplistically uses a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* The site's fundamentalism is showing—the LDS do not see prophets as men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient"!
*This is a gross over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something that they sincerely believed that the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive, trite, 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-07-12T20:34:29Z

BlairHodges: /* FAIR's evaluation of the web site MormonThink */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to "support" the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' is an anti-Mormon web site that superficially claims to be operated by active members of the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators arrogantly claim that they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites, since it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the sites negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark," but rather an overt attempt to lead people out of the church. The site's attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>

And there you have it—according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes us to engage in.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church were actually true, then "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website and FAIR's response. Unsurprisingly, most are standard anti-Mormon fare, "asked and answered" a thousand times before. Almost all of them appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

==There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision==
{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* Only a performer or con-man tells the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

==Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni==
{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*This is, quite possibly, one of the most ridiculous claims that FAIR has encountered, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words attempting to explain it (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>

==Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat==
{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why on earth would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the astonishing feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone?
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. He initially required the more powerful Nephite interpreters, and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require a physical focus for his faith.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—when it was swapped by Martin Harris, Joseph was unaware and unable to translate.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

==Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated==
{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

==Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages==
{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}
===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

==The translation of the papyri and facsimiles would match that performed by Egyptologists==
{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* The author surely has no professional expertise in Egyptology, and hopes we will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with him. In an area in which he—and most readers—are not competent to judge, the "thinking" person's response might be to be less dogmatic.
* Since we are missing around 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases are showing when he insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. Why should small parts of the whole be expected to match?
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author ignores that some Egyptological translations ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

==There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms==
{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* The critic has learned nothing from history. Many supposed "anachronisms" in Joseph Smith's day have turned out not to be anachronisms. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. Why would we think that further discoveries will not provide further matches?
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is only evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

==Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon==
{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This is not only presumptuous and absurd, but it contradicts the scriptures. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant effort to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

==There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah==
{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

==DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel==
{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware well (''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* This supposed "thinking" approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

==Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud==
{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

==The witnesses statements would have been more definitive==
{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*How much more "definitive" can one get than to state the following?
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is dishonest and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

==Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics==
{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is absurd to imply that enemies of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is unfair to the witnesses to claim that they were not skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

==The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"==
{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*The Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The site simplistically uses a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

==The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught==
{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* The site's fundamentalism is showing—the LDS do not see prophets as men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

==Polygamy would never have been practiced==
{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient"!
*This is a gross over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something that they sincerely believed that the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive, trite, 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

==Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics==
{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

==Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did==
{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*Joseph was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive constant and ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The web site authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith}}

==The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry==
{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}
===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

==The endowment "would not be so secretive"==
{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of mockery and criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

==The endowment would not have changed==
{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols have no meaning, save that which the audience gives to them. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols also changes. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

==The name of the Church would never have changed==
{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

==There would be no conflict between testimony and science==
{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time are laughable today. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity ''increases'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

==Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer==
{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If you pray ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then you will get the answer that you are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Besides, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else gets? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his? We do not. We cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

==The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"==
{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site naively states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*The constant refrain from critics for the Church to make its financial dealings public is based upon a belief that funds are being used in a dishonest manner. Indeed, the very theme of ''MormonThink'' is that the Church is dishonest. Critics are frustrated that, as a private organization, the Church is not obligated to disclose its financial dealings.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
</blockquote>

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Plan of salvation/Resurrection/Mormon views regarding

2008-12-12T19:04:06Z

BlairHodges: /* Further reading */

==Criticism==
Mormons believe men have the right to resurrect their spouses by a specific ordinance.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
During a lecture at Calvary Chapel in Chino, California, counter-cultist Kurt Van Gorden stated that Mormon men have the option of resurrecting their wives (or not resurrecting them), implying this could be used as a bargaining chip of sorts.

Source: Daniel C. Peterson, 2000 FAIR Conference
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2000_Easier_than_Research_More_Inflammatory_than_Truth.html

==Response==
Van Gorden was referring to speculations or statements from past church leaders who said resurrection will be an ordinance of sorts (or at least requiring priesthood keys in order to occur). Bearing in mind that not all statements of General Authorities carry the weight of revelation or scripture,2 Brigham Young tied "keys" to resurrection:

When the angel who holds the keys of the resurrection shall sound his trumpet, then the peculiar fundamental
particles that organized our bodies here, if we do honor to them, though they be deposited in the depths of the sea,
and though one particle is in the north, another in the south, another in the east, and another in the west, will be
brought together again in the twinkling of an eye, and our spirits will take possession of them.3

In 1872 he stated his belief that there are some ordinances the Church does not currently practice, one being resurrection:

It is supposed by this people that we have all the ordinances in our possession for life and salvation, and
exaltation, and that we are administering in these ordinances. This is not the case.

We are in possession of all the ordinances that can be administered in the flesh; but there are other ordinances
and administrations that must be administered beyond this world. I know you would ask what they are.

I will mention one. We have not, neither can we receive here, the ordinance and the keys of the resurrection. They
will be given to those who have passed off this stage of action and have received their bodies again, as many have
already done and many more will. They will be ordained, by those who hold the keys of the resurrection, to go forth
and resurrect the Saints, just as we receive the ordinance of baptism, then the keys of authority to baptize others
for the remission of their sins. This is one of the ordinances we can not receive here, and there are many more."4

Additionally, Wilford Woodruff's journal contains the following:

Who will resurrect Joseph's Body? It will be Peter, James, John, Moroni, or someone who has or will receive the
keys of the resurrection. It will probably be one of those who hold the keys of this dispensation and has delivered
them to Joseph and you will see Jesus and he will eat peaches and apples with you.5 But the world will not see it or
know it for wickedness will increase. Joseph and Jesus will be there. They will walk and talk with them at times and
no man mistrusts who they are. Joseph will lead the Armies of Israel whether He is seen or no, whether visible or
invisible as seemeth him good.

Joseph has got to receive the keys of the resurrection for you and I. After he is resurrected he will go and
resurrect Brother Brigham, Brother Heber, and Brother Carloss, and when that is done then He will say, "now go Brother
Brigham and resurrect your wives and children and gather them together. While this is done, the wicked will know
nothing of it, though they will be in our midst and they will be struck with fear. This is the way the resurrection
will be. All will not be raised at once but will continue in this way until all the righteous are resurrected.

After Joseph comes to us in his resurrected body, He will more fully instruct us concerning the baptism for the
dead and the sealing ordinances. He will say, be baptized for this man and that man and that man be sealed to that
such a man to such a man, and connect the Priesthood together. I tell you their will not be much of this done until
Joseph comes.... Our hearts are already turned to him and his to us.6

Perhaps there is some speculation in connection with a portion of the temple ceremony before a husband and wife are sealed.7 Hugh Nibley has made connections between ordinances and resurrection in Egyptian ritual, for example.8 The closest contemporary reference I could find dealt not with the resurrection as an ordinance, but with the priesthood keys playing a part in the final judgment as stated in Matthew 19:27-28 (see footnote 3 below). The Encyclopedia of Mormonism makes no mention of it in the Resurrection article but makes an oblique reference to priesthood power directing raising of the dead, which is considered temporal (such as in the raising of Lazarus) contrasted with the eternal resurrection.9

FOOTNOTES
[1]
Daniel C. Peterson, "Easier than Research, More Inflammatory than Truth," 2000 FAIR Conference address. The picture is Aaron Brown's "I never planned on falling in love with you," Exploding Dog Comics, Sept. 10, 2008.

[2]
See FAIRwiki, "Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders." The drift of this doctrinal stance has been mentioned by LDS leaders from Joseph Smith ("a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such" [History of the Church 5:265]) to the present. Also consider the recent statement from LDS Public Affairs:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church...Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines" (Approaching Mormon Doctrine," LDS Newsroom, May 4, 2007).

[3]
Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 372. Perhaps these keys involve the concept of judgment found in the New Testament, wherein Christ told the apostles "ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:27-28; see also Luke 22:28-30). Brigham and other early leaders taught this principle extended to whomever held the keys over a particular dispensation in which people live. For more, see "Priesthood: the chain that reaches from heaven to earth."

[4]
Brigham Young, Aug. 24, 1872, Journal of Discourses 15:137.

[5]
See "Priesthood: the chain that reaches from heaven to earth." It appears the concept of priesthood stewardship was part of Woodruff's reasoning as well.

[6]
Susan Staker, ed., Waiting for the World's End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff, pp.168-169. For a review, see Matt W., "Initial Thoughts on “Waiting for Worlds End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff," New Cool Thang, Nov. 10, 2008.

[7]
W. John Walsh's statements on Jeff Lindsay's Light Planet website appear to hint toward that interpretation, but asserts resurrection is the right of Christ:

Now, Latter-day Saints do believe that in some instances, a woman's husband will be given the privilege of performing the resurrection ordinance for and in behalf of the Savior. In cases where a woman does not have a worthy husband, the Savior may allow her father to do so. Likewise, a man's father will be given the privilege of resurrecting him. In such cases, the person performing the resurrection ordinance is simply performing the ordinance for and in behalf of the Savior (Walsh, "Do Husbands Resurrect Their Wives?" All About Mormons.)

[8]
Hugh Nibley, Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, 2nd ed. For an overview see Bryce Hammond's "The Egyptian Ankh, 'Life! Health! Strength!'" on his Temple Study blog.

[9]
Douglas L. Callister, "Resurrection," pp.1222-1223, and Dennis D. Flake, "Raising the Dead," p. 1192, in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

==Conclusion==

==Endnotes==

''None''



==Further reading==
BHodges, Life On Gold Plates, "Resurrection as an Ordinance?"
http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/12/resurrection-as-ordinance.html

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PriesthoodWiki}}
{{WomenWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide:

===Videos===

===External links===

===Printed material===

Plan of salvation/Resurrection/Mormon views regarding

2008-12-12T19:03:46Z

BlairHodges:

==Criticism==
Mormons believe men have the right to resurrect their spouses by a specific ordinance.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
During a lecture at Calvary Chapel in Chino, California, counter-cultist Kurt Van Gorden stated that Mormon men have the option of resurrecting their wives (or not resurrecting them), implying this could be used as a bargaining chip of sorts.

Source: Daniel C. Peterson, 2000 FAIR Conference
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2000_Easier_than_Research_More_Inflammatory_than_Truth.html

==Response==
Van Gorden was referring to speculations or statements from past church leaders who said resurrection will be an ordinance of sorts (or at least requiring priesthood keys in order to occur). Bearing in mind that not all statements of General Authorities carry the weight of revelation or scripture,2 Brigham Young tied "keys" to resurrection:

When the angel who holds the keys of the resurrection shall sound his trumpet, then the peculiar fundamental
particles that organized our bodies here, if we do honor to them, though they be deposited in the depths of the sea,
and though one particle is in the north, another in the south, another in the east, and another in the west, will be
brought together again in the twinkling of an eye, and our spirits will take possession of them.3

In 1872 he stated his belief that there are some ordinances the Church does not currently practice, one being resurrection:

It is supposed by this people that we have all the ordinances in our possession for life and salvation, and
exaltation, and that we are administering in these ordinances. This is not the case.

We are in possession of all the ordinances that can be administered in the flesh; but there are other ordinances
and administrations that must be administered beyond this world. I know you would ask what they are.

I will mention one. We have not, neither can we receive here, the ordinance and the keys of the resurrection. They
will be given to those who have passed off this stage of action and have received their bodies again, as many have
already done and many more will. They will be ordained, by those who hold the keys of the resurrection, to go forth
and resurrect the Saints, just as we receive the ordinance of baptism, then the keys of authority to baptize others
for the remission of their sins. This is one of the ordinances we can not receive here, and there are many more."4

Additionally, Wilford Woodruff's journal contains the following:

Who will resurrect Joseph's Body? It will be Peter, James, John, Moroni, or someone who has or will receive the
keys of the resurrection. It will probably be one of those who hold the keys of this dispensation and has delivered
them to Joseph and you will see Jesus and he will eat peaches and apples with you.5 But the world will not see it or
know it for wickedness will increase. Joseph and Jesus will be there. They will walk and talk with them at times and
no man mistrusts who they are. Joseph will lead the Armies of Israel whether He is seen or no, whether visible or
invisible as seemeth him good.

Joseph has got to receive the keys of the resurrection for you and I. After he is resurrected he will go and
resurrect Brother Brigham, Brother Heber, and Brother Carloss, and when that is done then He will say, "now go Brother
Brigham and resurrect your wives and children and gather them together. While this is done, the wicked will know
nothing of it, though they will be in our midst and they will be struck with fear. This is the way the resurrection
will be. All will not be raised at once but will continue in this way until all the righteous are resurrected.

After Joseph comes to us in his resurrected body, He will more fully instruct us concerning the baptism for the
dead and the sealing ordinances. He will say, be baptized for this man and that man and that man be sealed to that
such a man to such a man, and connect the Priesthood together. I tell you their will not be much of this done until
Joseph comes.... Our hearts are already turned to him and his to us.6

Perhaps there is some speculation in connection with a portion of the temple ceremony before a husband and wife are sealed.7 Hugh Nibley has made connections between ordinances and resurrection in Egyptian ritual, for example.8 The closest contemporary reference I could find dealt not with the resurrection as an ordinance, but with the priesthood keys playing a part in the final judgment as stated in Matthew 19:27-28 (see footnote 3 below). The Encyclopedia of Mormonism makes no mention of it in the Resurrection article but makes an oblique reference to priesthood power directing raising of the dead, which is considered temporal (such as in the raising of Lazarus) contrasted with the eternal resurrection.9

FOOTNOTES
[1]
Daniel C. Peterson, "Easier than Research, More Inflammatory than Truth," 2000 FAIR Conference address. The picture is Aaron Brown's "I never planned on falling in love with you," Exploding Dog Comics, Sept. 10, 2008.

[2]
See FAIRwiki, "Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders." The drift of this doctrinal stance has been mentioned by LDS leaders from Joseph Smith ("a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such" [History of the Church 5:265]) to the present. Also consider the recent statement from LDS Public Affairs:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church...Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines" (Approaching Mormon Doctrine," LDS Newsroom, May 4, 2007).

[3]
Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 372. Perhaps these keys involve the concept of judgment found in the New Testament, wherein Christ told the apostles "ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:27-28; see also Luke 22:28-30). Brigham and other early leaders taught this principle extended to whomever held the keys over a particular dispensation in which people live. For more, see "Priesthood: the chain that reaches from heaven to earth."

[4]
Brigham Young, Aug. 24, 1872, Journal of Discourses 15:137.

[5]
See "Priesthood: the chain that reaches from heaven to earth." It appears the concept of priesthood stewardship was part of Woodruff's reasoning as well.

[6]
Susan Staker, ed., Waiting for the World's End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff, pp.168-169. For a review, see Matt W., "Initial Thoughts on “Waiting for Worlds End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff," New Cool Thang, Nov. 10, 2008.

[7]
W. John Walsh's statements on Jeff Lindsay's Light Planet website appear to hint toward that interpretation, but asserts resurrection is the right of Christ:

Now, Latter-day Saints do believe that in some instances, a woman's husband will be given the privilege of performing the resurrection ordinance for and in behalf of the Savior. In cases where a woman does not have a worthy husband, the Savior may allow her father to do so. Likewise, a man's father will be given the privilege of resurrecting him. In such cases, the person performing the resurrection ordinance is simply performing the ordinance for and in behalf of the Savior (Walsh, "Do Husbands Resurrect Their Wives?" All About Mormons.)

[8]
Hugh Nibley, Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, 2nd ed. For an overview see Bryce Hammond's "The Egyptian Ankh, 'Life! Health! Strength!'" on his Temple Study blog.

[9]
Douglas L. Callister, "Resurrection," pp.1222-1223, and Dennis D. Flake, "Raising the Dead," p. 1192, in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

==Conclusion==

==Endnotes==

''None''



==Further reading==
BHofges, Life On Gold Plates, "Resurrection as an Ordinance?"
http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/12/resurrection-as-ordinance.html

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PriesthoodWiki}}
{{WomenWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide:

===Videos===

===External links===

===Printed material===

Talk:FAIRwiki:New page template

2008-12-12T17:34:33Z

BlairHodges:

{{Resurrection as an ordinance}}

==Criticism==
Mormons believe men have the right to resurrect their spouses by a specific ordinance.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
During a lecture at Calvary Chapel in Chino, California, counter-cultist Kurt Van Gorden stated that Mormon men have the option of resurrecting their wives (or not resurrecting them), implying this could be used as a bargaining chip of sorts.

Source: Daniel C. Peterson, 2000 FAIR Conference
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2000_Easier_than_Research_More_Inflammatory_than_Truth.html

==Response==
Van Gorden was referring to speculations or statements from past church leaders who said resurrection will be an ordinance of sorts (or at least requiring priesthood keys in order to occur). Bearing in mind that not all statements of General Authorities carry the weight of revelation or scripture,2 Brigham Young tied "keys" to resurrection:

When the angel who holds the keys of the resurrection shall sound his trumpet, then the peculiar fundamental particles that organized our bodies here, if we do honor to them, though they be deposited in the depths of the sea, and though one particle is in the north, another in the south, another in the east, and another in the west, will be brought together again in the twinkling of an eye, and our spirits will take possession of them.3

In 1872 he stated his belief that there are some ordinances the Church does not currently practice, one being resurrection:

It is supposed by this people that we have all the ordinances in our possession for life and salvation, and exaltation, and that we are administering in these ordinances. This is not the case.

We are in possession of all the ordinances that can be administered in the flesh; but there are other ordinances and administrations that must be administered beyond this world. I know you would ask what they are.

I will mention one. We have not, neither can we receive here, the ordinance and the keys of the resurrection. They will be given to those who have passed off this stage of action and have received their bodies again, as many have already done and many more will. They will be ordained, by those who hold the keys of the resurrection, to go forth and resurrect the Saints, just as we receive the ordinance of baptism, then the keys of authority to baptize others for the remission of their sins. This is one of the ordinances we can not receive here, and there are many more."4

Additionally, Wilford Woodruff's journal contains the following:

Who will resurrect Joseph's Body? It will be Peter, James, John, Moroni, or someone who has or will receive the keys of the resurrection. It will probably be one of those who hold the keys of this dispensation and has delivered them to Joseph and you will see Jesus and he will eat peaches and apples with you.5 But the world will not see it or know it for wickedness will increase. Joseph and Jesus will be there. They will walk and talk with them at times and no man mistrusts who they are. Joseph will lead the Armies of Israel whether He is seen or no, whether visible or invisible as seemeth him good.

Joseph has got to receive the keys of the resurrection for you and I. After he is resurrected he will go and resurrect Brother Brigham, Brother Heber, and Brother Carloss, and when that is done then He will say, "now go Brother Brigham and resurrect your wives and children and gather them together. While this is done, the wicked will know nothing of it, though they will be in our midst and they will be struck with fear. This is the way the resurrection will be. All will not be raised at once but will continue in this way until all the righteous are resurrected.

After Joseph comes to us in his resurrected body, He will more fully instruct us concerning the baptism for the dead and the sealing ordinances. He will say, be baptized for this man and that man and that man be sealed to that such a man to such a man, and connect the Priesthood together. I tell you their will not be much of this done until Joseph comes.... Our hearts are already turned to him and his to us.6

Perhaps there is some speculation in connection with a portion of the temple ceremony before a husband and wife are sealed.7 Hugh Nibley has made connections between ordinances and resurrection in Egyptian ritual, for example.8 The closest contemporary reference I could find dealt not with the resurrection as an ordinance, but with the priesthood keys playing a part in the final judgment as stated in Matthew 19:27-28 (see footnote 3 below). The Encyclopedia of Mormonism makes no mention of it in the Resurrection article but makes an oblique reference to priesthood power directing raising of the dead, which is considered temporal (such as in the raising of Lazarus) contrasted with the eternal resurrection.9

FOOTNOTES
[1]
Daniel C. Peterson, "Easier than Research, More Inflammatory than Truth," 2000 FAIR Conference address. The picture is Aaron Brown's "I never planned on falling in love with you," Exploding Dog Comics, Sept. 10, 2008.

[2]
See FAIRwiki, "Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders." The drift of this doctrinal stance has been mentioned by LDS leaders from Joseph Smith ("a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such" [History of the Church 5:265]) to the present. Also consider the recent statement from LDS Public Affairs:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church...Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines" (Approaching Mormon Doctrine," LDS Newsroom, May 4, 2007).

[3]
Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 372. Perhaps these keys involve the concept of judgment found in the New Testament, wherein Christ told the apostles "ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:27-28; see also Luke 22:28-30). Brigham and other early leaders taught this principle extended to whomever held the keys over a particular dispensation in which people live. For more, see "Priesthood: the chain that reaches from heaven to earth."

[4]
Brigham Young, Aug. 24, 1872, Journal of Discourses 15:137.

[5]
See "Priesthood: the chain that reaches from heaven to earth." It appears the concept of priesthood stewardship was part of Woodruff's reasoning as well.

[6]
Susan Staker, ed., Waiting for the World's End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff, pp.168-169. For a review, see Matt W., "Initial Thoughts on “Waiting for Worlds End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff," New Cool Thang, Nov. 10, 2008.

[7]
W. John Walsh's statements on Jeff Lindsay's Light Planet website appear to hint toward that interpretation, but asserts resurrection is the right of Christ:

Now, Latter-day Saints do believe that in some instances, a woman's husband will be given the privilege of performing the resurrection ordinance for and in behalf of the Savior. In cases where a woman does not have a worthy husband, the Savior may allow her father to do so. Likewise, a man's father will be given the privilege of resurrecting him. In such cases, the person performing the resurrection ordinance is simply performing the ordinance for and in behalf of the Savior (Walsh, "Do Husbands Resurrect Their Wives?" All About Mormons.)

[8]
Hugh Nibley, Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, 2nd ed. For an overview see Bryce Hammond's "The Egyptian Ankh, 'Life! Health! Strength!'" on his Temple Study blog.

[9]
Douglas L. Callister, "Resurrection," pp.1222-1223, and Dennis D. Flake, "Raising the Dead," p. 1192, in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

==Conclusion==

==Endnotes==

''None''



==Further reading==
BHofges, Life On Gold Plates, "Resurrection as an Ordinance?"
http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/12/resurrection-as-ordinance.html
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide:

===Videos===

===External links===

===Printed material===

Talk:FAIRwiki:New page template

2008-12-12T17:33:12Z

BlairHodges: New page: {{draft}} ==Criticism== Mormons believe men have the right to resurrect their spouses by a specific ordinance. ===Source(s) of the criticism=== During a lecture at Calvary Chapel in Chi...

{{draft}}

==Criticism==
Mormons believe men have the right to resurrect their spouses by a specific ordinance.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
During a lecture at Calvary Chapel in Chino, California, counter-cultist Kurt Van Gorden stated that Mormon men have the option of resurrecting their wives (or not resurrecting them), implying this could be used as a bargaining chip of sorts.

Source: Daniel C. Peterson, 2000 FAIR Conference
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2000_Easier_than_Research_More_Inflammatory_than_Truth.html

==Response==
Van Gorden was referring to speculations or statements from past church leaders who said resurrection will be an ordinance of sorts (or at least requiring priesthood keys in order to occur). Bearing in mind that not all statements of General Authorities carry the weight of revelation or scripture,2 Brigham Young tied "keys" to resurrection:

When the angel who holds the keys of the resurrection shall sound his trumpet, then the peculiar fundamental particles that organized our bodies here, if we do honor to them, though they be deposited in the depths of the sea, and though one particle is in the north, another in the south, another in the east, and another in the west, will be brought together again in the twinkling of an eye, and our spirits will take possession of them.3

In 1872 he stated his belief that there are some ordinances the Church does not currently practice, one being resurrection:

It is supposed by this people that we have all the ordinances in our possession for life and salvation, and exaltation, and that we are administering in these ordinances. This is not the case.

We are in possession of all the ordinances that can be administered in the flesh; but there are other ordinances and administrations that must be administered beyond this world. I know you would ask what they are.

I will mention one. We have not, neither can we receive here, the ordinance and the keys of the resurrection. They will be given to those who have passed off this stage of action and have received their bodies again, as many have already done and many more will. They will be ordained, by those who hold the keys of the resurrection, to go forth and resurrect the Saints, just as we receive the ordinance of baptism, then the keys of authority to baptize others for the remission of their sins. This is one of the ordinances we can not receive here, and there are many more."4

Additionally, Wilford Woodruff's journal contains the following:

Who will resurrect Joseph's Body? It will be Peter, James, John, Moroni, or someone who has or will receive the keys of the resurrection. It will probably be one of those who hold the keys of this dispensation and has delivered them to Joseph and you will see Jesus and he will eat peaches and apples with you.5 But the world will not see it or know it for wickedness will increase. Joseph and Jesus will be there. They will walk and talk with them at times and no man mistrusts who they are. Joseph will lead the Armies of Israel whether He is seen or no, whether visible or invisible as seemeth him good.

Joseph has got to receive the keys of the resurrection for you and I. After he is resurrected he will go and resurrect Brother Brigham, Brother Heber, and Brother Carloss, and when that is done then He will say, "now go Brother Brigham and resurrect your wives and children and gather them together. While this is done, the wicked will know nothing of it, though they will be in our midst and they will be struck with fear. This is the way the resurrection will be. All will not be raised at once but will continue in this way until all the righteous are resurrected.

After Joseph comes to us in his resurrected body, He will more fully instruct us concerning the baptism for the dead and the sealing ordinances. He will say, be baptized for this man and that man and that man be sealed to that such a man to such a man, and connect the Priesthood together. I tell you their will not be much of this done until Joseph comes.... Our hearts are already turned to him and his to us.6

Perhaps there is some speculation in connection with a portion of the temple ceremony before a husband and wife are sealed.7 Hugh Nibley has made connections between ordinances and resurrection in Egyptian ritual, for example.8 The closest contemporary reference I could find dealt not with the resurrection as an ordinance, but with the priesthood keys playing a part in the final judgment as stated in Matthew 19:27-28 (see footnote 3 below). The Encyclopedia of Mormonism makes no mention of it in the Resurrection article but makes an oblique reference to priesthood power directing raising of the dead, which is considered temporal (such as in the raising of Lazarus) contrasted with the eternal resurrection.9

FOOTNOTES
[1]
Daniel C. Peterson, "Easier than Research, More Inflammatory than Truth," 2000 FAIR Conference address. The picture is Aaron Brown's "I never planned on falling in love with you," Exploding Dog Comics, Sept. 10, 2008.

[2]
See FAIRwiki, "Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders." The drift of this doctrinal stance has been mentioned by LDS leaders from Joseph Smith ("a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such" [History of the Church 5:265]) to the present. Also consider the recent statement from LDS Public Affairs:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church...Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines" (Approaching Mormon Doctrine," LDS Newsroom, May 4, 2007).

[3]
Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 372. Perhaps these keys involve the concept of judgment found in the New Testament, wherein Christ told the apostles "ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:27-28; see also Luke 22:28-30). Brigham and other early leaders taught this principle extended to whomever held the keys over a particular dispensation in which people live. For more, see "Priesthood: the chain that reaches from heaven to earth."

[4]
Brigham Young, Aug. 24, 1872, Journal of Discourses 15:137.

[5]
See "Priesthood: the chain that reaches from heaven to earth." It appears the concept of priesthood stewardship was part of Woodruff's reasoning as well.

[6]
Susan Staker, ed., Waiting for the World's End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff, pp.168-169. For a review, see Matt W., "Initial Thoughts on “Waiting for Worlds End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff," New Cool Thang, Nov. 10, 2008.

[7]
W. John Walsh's statements on Jeff Lindsay's Light Planet website appear to hint toward that interpretation, but asserts resurrection is the right of Christ:

Now, Latter-day Saints do believe that in some instances, a woman's husband will be given the privilege of performing the resurrection ordinance for and in behalf of the Savior. In cases where a woman does not have a worthy husband, the Savior may allow her father to do so. Likewise, a man's father will be given the privilege of resurrecting him. In such cases, the person performing the resurrection ordinance is simply performing the ordinance for and in behalf of the Savior (Walsh, "Do Husbands Resurrect Their Wives?" All About Mormons.)

[8]
Hugh Nibley, Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, 2nd ed. For an overview see Bryce Hammond's "The Egyptian Ankh, 'Life! Health! Strength!'" on his Temple Study blog.

[9]
Douglas L. Callister, "Resurrection," pp.1222-1223, and Dennis D. Flake, "Raising the Dead," p. 1192, in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

==Conclusion==

==Endnotes==

''None''



==Further reading==
BHofges, Life On Gold Plates, "Resurrection as an Ordinance?"
http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/12/resurrection-as-ordinance.html
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide:

===Videos===

===External links===

===Printed material===

Jesus Christ/Conception

2008-12-11T00:47:05Z

BlairHodges: /* History */

{{JesusChristPortal}}

==Criticism==
*Critics claim that Latter-day Saints believe Jesus was conceived through sexual intercourse between God the Father and Mary, therefore Mary was not a virgin when Jesus was born. As evidence they point to a handful statements from early LDS leaders that directly or indirectly say so.
*Mormons reject the "Evangelical belief" that "Christ was born of the virgin Mary, who, when the Holy Ghost came upon her, miraculously conceived the promised messiah."

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=183}}
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 2}}
*{{QuestionsMormonsShouldAsk}}
*Ron Rhodes, "Christ," in ''The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism'' (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1998), 129.
* {{50Questions}}

==Response==
Latter-day Saints believe in the virgin birth.

As the Church responded to this question posed by Fox News:

:The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary.{{ref|fox1}}

==History==
At the annunciation, Mary questioned the angel about how she could bear a child: "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/1/34#34 Luke 1:34]; the expression "know" in the Greek text is a euphemism for sexual relations). Nephi likewise described Mary as a virgin ([http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/11/13-20#13 1 Nephi 11:13-20]), as did Alma1 ([http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/7/10#10 Alma 7:10]).

Latter-day Saints believe Jesus was the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh (e.g., [http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/25/12#12 2 Nephi 25:12]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/93/11#11 D&C 93:11]). He was literally the Son of God, not the son of Joseph or even the son of the Holy Ghost.

What the Church has not taken a position on is ''how'' the conception took place, despite speculations by various early Church leaders. The canonized scriptures are silent on how the conception took place—even Nephi's detailed vision of then-future Messiah is veiled during the part where Mary conceives ([http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/11/19#19 1 Nephi 11:19]).

Some early leaders of the Church felt free to express their beliefs on the literal nature of God's Fatherhood of Jesus' physical body. For example, Brigham Young said the following in a discourse given 8 July 1860:

:"...[T]here is no act, no principle, no power belonging to the Deity that is not purely philosophical. The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers."{{ref|jd1}}

But are these types of statements official Church doctrine, required for all believing Latter-day Saints to accept? '''''No'''''—they were never submitted to the Church for ratification or canonization. (See [[General authorities' statements as scripture]].)

Critics have noted that this statement, and others like it, appear to indicate there was sexual intercourse involved in the conception of Jesus. Regardless of his speculation, Brigham Young's view may be seen by some contemporary Latter-day Saints as correct in that Jesus was literally physically the Son of God just as much as any children are "of our fathers," as modern science has discovered alternative methods of conceiving children that don't involve sexual intercourse. Thus, though processes such as artificial insemination were unknown to Brigham and thus likely not referenced by his statements, it does not necessarily follow from a modern perspective that the conception ''had'' to come about as the result of a literal sexual union. It is certainly not outside of God's power to conceive Christ by other means.

Ezra Taft Benson taught:

:He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, ''both before and after she gave birth''. (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/11/20#20 1 Nephi 11:20].){{ref|benson1}}

Benson's emphasis is on both the literalness of Jesus' divine birth, and the fact that Mary's virginal status persisted even immediately after conceiving and bearing Jesus.

===Theological differences===
Leaders' statements on the literal paternity of Christ were often a reaction to various ideas which are false:
* they disagreed with the tendency of conventional Christianity to deny the corporeality of God. They thus insisted that God the Father had a "natural," physical form. There was no need, in LDS theology, for a non-physical, wholly spirit God to resort to a mysterious process to conceive a Son.
* they disagreed with efforts to "allegorize" or "spiritualize" the virgin birth; they wished it understood that Christ is the literal Son of God in a physical, "natural" sense of sharing both human and divine traits in His makeup. This can be seen to be a reaction against more "liberal" strains in Christianity that saw Jesus as the literal son of Mary and Joseph, but someone endowed with God's power at some point in His life.
* they did not accept that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were of one "essence," but rather believed that they are distinct Personages. Thus, it is key to LDS theology that Jesus is the Son of the Father, not the Holy Ghost. To a creedal, trinitarian Christian, this might be a distinction without a difference; for an LDS Christian it is crucial.

Bruce R. McConkie said this about the birth of Christ:

:God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says.{{ref|MD1}}

In the same volume, Elder McConkie explained his reason for his emphasis:

:"Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father. Mary, his mother, "was carried away in the Spirit" (1 Ne. 11:13-21), was "overshadowed" by the Holy Ghost, and the conception which took place "by the power of the Holy Ghost" resulted in the bringing forth of the literal and personal Son of God the Father. (Alma 7:10; 2 Ne. 17:14; Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38.) Christ is not the Son of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 18-20.) Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false.{{ref|MD2}}

Note that McConkie emphasized the literal nature of Christ's divinity, his direct descent from the Father, and the fact that the Holy Ghost was a tool, but not the source of Jesus' divine Parenthood.

{{NoOfficial}}

==Conclusion==
Critics of the Church like to dig up quotes like those from Brigham Young for their shock value, but such statements do not represent the official doctrine of the Church. Furthermore, critics often read statements through their own theological lenses, and ignore the key distinctions which LDS theology is attempting to make by these statements. Instead, they try to put a salacious spin on the teaching, when this is far from the speakers' intent. The key, official doctrine of the Church is that Jesus is literally the son of God (i.e., this is not a symbolic or figurative expression), and Mary was a virgin before and after Christ's conception.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|fox1}} Fox News, "21 Questions Answered About Mormon Faith," (18 December 2007). {{link|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317272,00.html}}
#{{note|jd1}} {{JoD8_1|author=Brigham Young|title=Character of God and Christ, etc.|date=8 July 1860|start=115|end=115}} (See also ''Journal of Discourses'' [http://journalofdiscourses.org/volume-1 1:238]; [http://journalofdiscourses.org/volume-4 4:218]; [http://journalofdiscourses.org/volume-11 11:268]).
#{{note|benson1}} {{Ensign|author=Ezra Taft Benson|article=Joy in Christ|date=March 1986|start=3|end=4}} (emphasis added){{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1986.htm/ensign%20march%201986%20.htm/first%20presidency%20message%20joy%20in%20christ.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0}}
#{{note|MD1}} {{MD1|start=742}}
#{{note|MD2}} {{MD1|start=822}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[General authorities' statements as scripture]]
{{JesusWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
* Gary Bowler, "Does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Teach That God Had Sex with Mary?," FAIR brochure. {{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/GodMary.pdf}}
{{JesusFAIR}}

===External links===
*{{FR-12-1-14}}
*{{JtC1|start=1}}
*W. John Welsh, "Was Mary a virgin?" (''lightplanet.com'') {{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/virgin_mary.htm}}

===Printed material===
*{{EoM1|author=Eleanor Colton|article=Virgin Birth|vol=4|start=1510|end=y}}{{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/christ/virgin_birth.html}}
[[de:Die_Empf%C3%A4ngnis_von_Jesus_Christus]]

Jesus Christ/Conception

2008-12-11T00:42:10Z

BlairHodges: /* History */

{{JesusChristPortal}}

==Criticism==
*Critics claim that Latter-day Saints believe Jesus was conceived through sexual intercourse between God the Father and Mary, therefore Mary was not a virgin when Jesus was born. As evidence they point to a handful statements from early LDS leaders that directly or indirectly say so.
*Mormons reject the "Evangelical belief" that "Christ was born of the virgin Mary, who, when the Holy Ghost came upon her, miraculously conceived the promised messiah."

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=183}}
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 2}}
*{{QuestionsMormonsShouldAsk}}
*Ron Rhodes, "Christ," in ''The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism'' (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1998), 129.
* {{50Questions}}

==Response==
Latter-day Saints believe in the virgin birth.

As the Church responded to this question posed by Fox News:

:The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary.{{ref|fox1}}

==History==
At the annunciation, Mary questioned the angel about how she could bear a child: "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/1/34#34 Luke 1:34]; the expression "know" in the Greek text is a euphemism for sexual relations). Nephi likewise described Mary as a virgin ([http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/11/13-20#13 1 Nephi 11:13-20]), as did Alma1 ([http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/7/10#10 Alma 7:10]).

Latter-day Saints believe Jesus was the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh (e.g., [http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/25/12#12 2 Nephi 25:12]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/93/11#11 D&C 93:11]). He was literally the Son of God, not the son of Joseph or even the son of the Holy Ghost.

What the Church has not taken a position on is ''how'' the conception took place, despite speculations by various early Church leaders. The canonized scriptures are silent on how the conception took place—even Nephi's detailed vision of then-future Messiah is veiled during the part where Mary conceives ([http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/11/19#19 1 Nephi 11:19]).

Some early leaders of the Church felt free to express their beliefs on the literal nature of God's Fatherhood of Jesus' physical body. For example, Brigham Young said the following in a discourse given 8 July 1860:

:"...[T]here is no act, no principle, no power belonging to the Deity that is not purely philosophical. The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers."{{ref|jd1}}

But are these types of statements official Church doctrine, required for all believing Latter-day Saints to accept? '''''No'''''—they were never submitted to the Church for ratification or canonization. (See [[General authorities' statements as scripture]].)

Critics have forced this statement, and others like it, to mean that there was sex involved. Brigham Young's view may be seen by some contemporary Latter-day Saints as correct in that Jesus was literally physically the Son of God just as much as any children are "of our fathers," as modern science has discovered alternative methods of conceiving children that don't involve sexual intercourse. Thus, though processes such as artificial insemination were unknown to Brigham and thus likely not referenced by his statements, it does not necessarily follow from a modern perspective that the conception ''had'' to come about as the result of a literal sexual union. It is certainly not outside of God's power to conceive Christ by other means.

Ezra Taft Benson taught:

:He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, ''both before and after she gave birth''. (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/11/20#20 1 Nephi 11:20].){{ref|benson1}}

Benson's emphasis is on both the literalness of Jesus' divine birth, and the fact that Mary's virginal status persisted even immediately after conceiving and bearing Jesus.

===Theological differences===
Leaders' statements on the literal paternity of Christ were often a reaction to various ideas which are false:
* they disagreed with the tendency of conventional Christianity to deny the corporeality of God. They thus insisted that God the Father had a "natural," physical form. There was no need, in LDS theology, for a non-physical, wholly spirit God to resort to a mysterious process to conceive a Son.
* they disagreed with efforts to "allegorize" or "spiritualize" the virgin birth; they wished it understood that Christ is the literal Son of God in a physical, "natural" sense of sharing both human and divine traits in His makeup. This can be seen to be a reaction against more "liberal" strains in Christianity that saw Jesus as the literal son of Mary and Joseph, but someone endowed with God's power at some point in His life.
* they did not accept that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were of one "essence," but rather believed that they are distinct Personages. Thus, it is key to LDS theology that Jesus is the Son of the Father, not the Holy Ghost. To a creedal, trinitarian Christian, this might be a distinction without a difference; for an LDS Christian it is crucial.

Bruce R. McConkie said this about the birth of Christ:

:God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says.{{ref|MD1}}

In the same volume, Elder McConkie explained his reason for his emphasis:

:"Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father. Mary, his mother, "was carried away in the Spirit" (1 Ne. 11:13-21), was "overshadowed" by the Holy Ghost, and the conception which took place "by the power of the Holy Ghost" resulted in the bringing forth of the literal and personal Son of God the Father. (Alma 7:10; 2 Ne. 17:14; Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38.) Christ is not the Son of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 18-20.) Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false.{{ref|MD2}}

Note that McConkie emphasized the literal nature of Christ's divinity, his direct descent from the Father, and the fact that the Holy Ghost was a tool, but not the source of Jesus' divine Parenthood.

{{NoOfficial}}

==Conclusion==
Critics of the Church like to dig up quotes like those from Brigham Young for their shock value, but such statements do not represent the official doctrine of the Church. Furthermore, critics often read statements through their own theological lenses, and ignore the key distinctions which LDS theology is attempting to make by these statements. Instead, they try to put a salacious spin on the teaching, when this is far from the speakers' intent. The key, official doctrine of the Church is that Jesus is literally the son of God (i.e., this is not a symbolic or figurative expression), and Mary was a virgin before and after Christ's conception.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|fox1}} Fox News, "21 Questions Answered About Mormon Faith," (18 December 2007). {{link|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317272,00.html}}
#{{note|jd1}} {{JoD8_1|author=Brigham Young|title=Character of God and Christ, etc.|date=8 July 1860|start=115|end=115}} (See also ''Journal of Discourses'' [http://journalofdiscourses.org/volume-1 1:238]; [http://journalofdiscourses.org/volume-4 4:218]; [http://journalofdiscourses.org/volume-11 11:268]).
#{{note|benson1}} {{Ensign|author=Ezra Taft Benson|article=Joy in Christ|date=March 1986|start=3|end=4}} (emphasis added){{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1986.htm/ensign%20march%201986%20.htm/first%20presidency%20message%20joy%20in%20christ.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0}}
#{{note|MD1}} {{MD1|start=742}}
#{{note|MD2}} {{MD1|start=822}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[General authorities' statements as scripture]]
{{JesusWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
* Gary Bowler, "Does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Teach That God Had Sex with Mary?," FAIR brochure. {{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/GodMary.pdf}}
{{JesusFAIR}}

===External links===
*{{FR-12-1-14}}
*{{JtC1|start=1}}
*W. John Welsh, "Was Mary a virgin?" (''lightplanet.com'') {{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/virgin_mary.htm}}

===Printed material===
*{{EoM1|author=Eleanor Colton|article=Virgin Birth|vol=4|start=1510|end=y}}{{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/christ/virgin_birth.html}}
[[de:Die_Empf%C3%A4ngnis_von_Jesus_Christus]]

Jesus Christ/Conception

2008-12-11T00:35:50Z

BlairHodges: /* History */

{{JesusChristPortal}}

==Criticism==
*Critics claim that Latter-day Saints believe Jesus was conceived through sexual intercourse between God the Father and Mary, therefore Mary was not a virgin when Jesus was born. As evidence they point to a handful statements from early LDS leaders that directly or indirectly say so.
*Mormons reject the "Evangelical belief" that "Christ was born of the virgin Mary, who, when the Holy Ghost came upon her, miraculously conceived the promised messiah."

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=183}}
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 2}}
*{{QuestionsMormonsShouldAsk}}
*Ron Rhodes, "Christ," in ''The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism'' (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1998), 129.
* {{50Questions}}

==Response==
Latter-day Saints believe in the virgin birth.

As the Church responded to this question posed by Fox News:

:The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary.{{ref|fox1}}

==History==
At the annunciation, Mary questioned the angel about how she could bear a child: "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/1/34#34 Luke 1:34]; the expression "know" in the Greek text is a euphemism for sexual relations). Nephi likewise described Mary as a virgin ([http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/11/13-20#13 1 Nephi 11:13-20]), as did Alma1 ([http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/7/10#10 Alma 7:10]).

Latter-day Saints believe Jesus was the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh (e.g., [http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/25/12#12 2 Nephi 25:12]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/93/11#11 D&C 93:11]). He was literally the Son of God, not the son of Joseph or even the son of the Holy Ghost.

What the Church has not taken a position on is ''how'' the conception took place, despite speculations by various early Church leaders. The canonized scriptures are silent on how the conception took place—even Nephi's detailed vision of then-future Messiah is veiled during the part where Mary conceives ([http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/11/19#19 1 Nephi 11:19]).

Some early leaders of the Church felt free to express their beliefs on the literal nature of God's Fatherhood of Jesus' physical body. For example, Brigham Young said the following in a discourse given 8 July 1860:

:"...[T]here is no act, no principle, no power belonging to the Deity that is not purely philosophical. The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers."{{ref|jd1}}

But are these types of statements official Church doctrine, required for all believing Latter-day Saints to accept? '''''No'''''—they were never submitted to the Church for ratification or canonization. (See [[General authorities' statements as scripture]].)

Critics have forced this statement, and others like it, to mean that there was sex involved. Brigham Young was correct in that Jesus was literally physically the Son of God just as much as any children are "of our fathers," but it doesn't necessarily follow that the conception ''had'' to come about as the result of a sexual union. Science has discovered alternative methods of conceiving children that don't involve sex, so it is certainly not outside of God's power to conceive Christ by other means.

Ezra Taft Benson taught:

:He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, ''both before and after she gave birth''. (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/11/20#20 1 Nephi 11:20].){{ref|benson1}}

Benson's emphasis is on both the literalness of Jesus' divine birth, and the fact that Mary's virginal status persisted even immediately after conceiving and bearing Jesus.

===Theological differences===
Leaders' statements on the literal paternity of Christ were often a reaction to various ideas which are false:
* they disagreed with the tendency of conventional Christianity to deny the corporeality of God. They thus insisted that God the Father had a "natural," physical form. There was no need, in LDS theology, for a non-physical, wholly spirit God to resort to a mysterious process to conceive a Son.
* they disagreed with efforts to "allegorize" or "spiritualize" the virgin birth; they wished it understood that Christ is the literal Son of God in a physical, "natural" sense of sharing both human and divine traits in His makeup. This can be seen to be a reaction against more "liberal" strains in Christianity that saw Jesus as the literal son of Mary and Joseph, but someone endowed with God's power at some point in His life.
* they did not accept that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were of one "essence," but rather believed that they are distinct Personages. Thus, it is key to LDS theology that Jesus is the Son of the Father, not the Holy Ghost. To a creedal, trinitarian Christian, this might be a distinction without a difference; for an LDS Christian it is crucial.

Bruce R. McConkie said this about the birth of Christ:

:God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says.{{ref|MD1}}

In the same volume, Elder McConkie explained his reason for his emphasis:

:"Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father. Mary, his mother, "was carried away in the Spirit" (1 Ne. 11:13-21), was "overshadowed" by the Holy Ghost, and the conception which took place "by the power of the Holy Ghost" resulted in the bringing forth of the literal and personal Son of God the Father. (Alma 7:10; 2 Ne. 17:14; Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38.) Christ is not the Son of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 18-20.) Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false.{{ref|MD2}}

Note that McConkie emphasized the literal nature of Christ's divinity, his direct descent from the Father, and the fact that the Holy Ghost was a tool, but not the source of Jesus' divine Parenthood.

{{NoOfficial}}

==Conclusion==
Critics of the Church like to dig up quotes like those from Brigham Young for their shock value, but such statements do not represent the official doctrine of the Church. Furthermore, critics often read statements through their own theological lenses, and ignore the key distinctions which LDS theology is attempting to make by these statements. Instead, they try to put a salacious spin on the teaching, when this is far from the speakers' intent. The key, official doctrine of the Church is that Jesus is literally the son of God (i.e., this is not a symbolic or figurative expression), and Mary was a virgin before and after Christ's conception.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|fox1}} Fox News, "21 Questions Answered About Mormon Faith," (18 December 2007). {{link|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317272,00.html}}
#{{note|jd1}} {{JoD8_1|author=Brigham Young|title=Character of God and Christ, etc.|date=8 July 1860|start=115|end=115}} (See also ''Journal of Discourses'' [http://journalofdiscourses.org/volume-1 1:238]; [http://journalofdiscourses.org/volume-4 4:218]; [http://journalofdiscourses.org/volume-11 11:268]).
#{{note|benson1}} {{Ensign|author=Ezra Taft Benson|article=Joy in Christ|date=March 1986|start=3|end=4}} (emphasis added){{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1986.htm/ensign%20march%201986%20.htm/first%20presidency%20message%20joy%20in%20christ.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0}}
#{{note|MD1}} {{MD1|start=742}}
#{{note|MD2}} {{MD1|start=822}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[General authorities' statements as scripture]]
{{JesusWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
* Gary Bowler, "Does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Teach That God Had Sex with Mary?," FAIR brochure. {{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/GodMary.pdf}}
{{JesusFAIR}}

===External links===
*{{FR-12-1-14}}
*{{JtC1|start=1}}
*W. John Welsh, "Was Mary a virgin?" (''lightplanet.com'') {{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/virgin_mary.htm}}

===Printed material===
*{{EoM1|author=Eleanor Colton|article=Virgin Birth|vol=4|start=1510|end=y}}{{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/christ/virgin_birth.html}}
[[de:Die_Empf%C3%A4ngnis_von_Jesus_Christus]]

Paid and unpaid Church leaders

2008-07-02T15:42:49Z

BlairHodges: /* Printed material */

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Mormonism prides itself in having unpaid clergy as one proof of the Church's truthfulness. They then point to the fact that some general authorities, mission presidents, and others do, in fact, receive a living stipend while serving the Church, and point to this as evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* Bill McKeever, "Mormonism's Paid Ministry,"  (accessed April 28, 2008). 
* Sandra Tanner, "Do Mormon Leaders Receive Financial Support?"  (accessed April 28, 2008).
==Response==
===A modest living stipend===
Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some general authorities do receive a modest living stipend. While it is true that some Church leaders receive a living allowance while they serve in a given position, it cannot be said that the Church has a professional ministry in the traditional sense.

A call to serve as a general authority usually comes later in life, and none of these men has depended upon their Church service for their "career" or "income." And, given the high calibre and accomplishment of those called to full-time service, it is unreasonable to expect that they couldn't make much more money (with less trouble) in some other field of endeavor.

The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference:

:Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

:I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

:''I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.''{{ref|hinckley1}}

===No professional ministers===

There can be no doubt that the Church ''does'' have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a ''professional'' clergy. Consider:
* the vast majority of leadership positions in the Church are filled by those who receive absolutely no financial compensation. This includes bishops, stake presidents, area authority seventies, Relief Society presidents, priests, teachers, deacons, elders, missionaries, etc.
* the Church has no professional ministry — one does not "go into" the priesthood in Mormonism as a form of employment. The Church believes that "a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."{{ref|5thart}} No one can enter Church ecclesiastical government or administration as a career.
* those few Church leaders who receive a living allowance have already served for many years in unpaid, volunteer positions of Church leadership, from which they derived no financial gain, and from which they could have had little expectation of making their livelihood by being elevated to high positions in Church administration
* the Book of Mormon makes provision for Church leaders to be supported by donations ''if'' they are in a position of financial need: "all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."{{ref|bom1}}
* general authorities used sit on the board of directors of Church-owned businesses. This practice was discontinued in 1996.{{ref|board1}}

===Local Leadership (Ward and Stake)===

Much of the day-to-day “ministering” that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. That is, neither bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, nor any other leader or auxiliary worker at the ward/stake level receives any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service. A bishop usually serves for a period of 5 years, for example, but he remains in his normal occupation (accountant, welder, business owner, etc.) while he serves as a bishop. Early morning or release-time seminary teachers are an exception, but they are considered employees of CES (Church Education System). 

===Mission Leadership===

Mission presidents usually serve for a period of 3 years, and may sometimes receive a living allowance during their period of service, if it is required. Many mission presidents are financially able to take time out of work to support themselves during their service (and return to their vocations when their service is complete), and do not require a living allowance.

===General Leadership===

Some positions in the Church, namely a call to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Quorum of the Seventy, are “for life” positions, meaning that the man chosen to fill the position serves until the end of his life. In such cases, if required, they are also given a modest living allowance. While many members of the Church are unaware of these allowances, that they exist and that they are comparatively modest was acknowledged in general conference by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “... the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.{{ref|hinckley1}} Calls to other quorums of the seventy do not require the same full-time commitment, therefore those who serve these positions do not receive a living allowance.

==Conclusion==
While a very few members of the Church seek full-time teaching positions within the Church Education System, no one in the Church can decide that they are going to be a bishop, stake president, or relief society president (or any other position in a ward or stake) as a career choice. It is somewhat hypocritical for critics of the Church to complain about the use of Church funds, to which they do not contribute, to help leaders, whom they do not sustain. No one who examines the schedule or workload of the general authorites can claim that these men are looking for an "easy buck." They live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomlishments prior to being called to full-time Church service. No tithing funds provide for stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.

There are no colleges where one can go to train to be an LDS bishop, for example. Rather, we believe that these positions are filled through revelation and inspiration, and only for a given period of time. Article of Faith 5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."({{s||A+of+F|1|5}})

Latter-day Saints should not, however, use the "no paid ministry" card to argue the truthfulness of the Church. Many good people of other faiths desire to serve as clergy in their respective churches, and go through extensive training to do so, and we applaud their dedication and desire to serve. Most clergy get by on subsistance wages; the cliche of the corrupt, wealthy televangelist bilking old widows is an anomaly as troubling to other Christian ministers as he would be to Latter-day Saints.

The scriptures denounce preaching the gospel solely from a desire to make money and get rich, or to defraud people (see {{b|1|Peter|5|2}}). The Book of Mormon likewise defines "priestcraft" as teaching ''for the sake of getting gain'' while not seeking "the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}. Likewise, many members of other faiths devote time to their churches without any monetary compensation. Certainly they follow the teachings of Jesus by so doing, and accomplish much good thereby.

As with many things, this issue boils down to a question of the essentials—are the leaders of the Church called of God, by prophecy? Is their direction inspired? If one does not believe that they are inspired, then one must confront far more troubling issues than whether someone is receiving a living stipend.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Questions and Answers|date=November 1985|start=49}}{{nl}}
#{{note|5thart}} {{scripture||A+of+F|1|5}}
#{{note|bom1}} {{s||Mosiah|27|5}}
#{{note|board1}} Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," ''Deseret Morning News'' (30 September 2006). {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650194860,00.html}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
===External links===

===Printed material===
*{{Ensign1 | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=Questions and Answers|date=Nov. 1985|start=49}}
*{{Ensign1 | author=R. Lloyd Smith | article=Sharing the Gospel with Sensitivity|date=Jun. 2002|start=53}}
*{{Dialogue1|author=Lowell Bennion|article=A Mormon View of Life|vol=24|num=3|date=Fall 1991|start=68}}
*{{EoM |author=Maribeth Christensen|article=Volunteerism|vol=|start=1539|end=1540 }}
*{{EoM |author=Paul H. Thompson|article=Lay Participation and Leadership|vol=|start=814|end=816 }}

Mountain Meadows Massacre/History

2007-09-04T20:42:27Z

BlairHodges: /* Historical Healing */ Grammar

{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Mountain_Meadows_Massaker}}

==Criticism==
In September 1857 a group of Mormons in southern Utah killed all adult members of an Arkansas wagon train that was headed for California. Critics charge that the massacre was typical of Mormon "culture of violence," and claim that Church leaders—possibly as high as Brigham Young—approved of, or even ordered the killing.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*Richard Abanes, ''One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church''.
*Will Bagley, ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows''.
*David L. Bigler, ''Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847–1896'' (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1998).
*Sally Denton, ''American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows''.
*Jon Krakauer, ''Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith''.

==Response==
One of the most tragic and disturbing events in Mormon history took place on 11 September 1857, when approximately 120 men, women and children, travelling through Utah to California were massacred by a force consisting of Mormon militia members and Southern Paiute Indians. The Mountain Meadow Massacre, as it is known, has remained a topic of interest and controversy as Mormons and historians struggle to understand this event, and the Church's detractors seek to exploit it for polemical purposes.

===Setting the stage===
Shortly before July 24th, 1847, the first party of Mormon pioneers entered the Salt Lake Valley. These Saints were the first vanguard of Church members who had been driven from Nauvoo, Illinois, by angry mobs. At the time of its first settlement, the area that came to be known as Utah still belonged to Mexico, but was ceded to the United States in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo following the end of the Mexican-American War in early 1848. (The treaty ceded all of what would become California, Nevada, and Utah, as well as parts of modern-day Texas, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming.)

Over the next two years the bulk of the Church members who had been driven from Nauvoo reached the valley. Great Salt Lake City was built, and under Brigham Young's direction satellite settlements were established north, south, and west of the city. The sites for these settlements were often chosen because of proximity to an important natural resource; one such resource was the iron ore deposits found in what became known as Iron County in Southern Utah.

The continuation of successful missionary work in the Eastern United States and Europe brought a steady influx of Mormon converts to the Mormon communities; the population continued to grow, and settlement expanded outward into present-day Idaho, Canada, Nevada, California, Arizona, Wyoming, and Northern Mexico.

====The Utah War====
In 1850, Utah was established as a U.S. territory, with Brigham Young as its first governor. Because of its territorial status, the federal government retained the right to appoint officials at various levels, in addition to actual federal offices existing within the territory. While there were, no doubt, many honest public servants among them, a number of the federal appointees to both territorial and federal positions, including some judges, turned out to be both morally venal and abusive of the prerogatives of their offices. Scandals arose over the behavior of some of these men, who left the territory in disgrace. Rather than accepting responsibility for their own failures, a group of them, upon returning to the East, published claims that they had been forcibly expelled, and that the Mormons were rebelling against federal authority.

These claims caused quite an uproar in Washington, where the nascent Republican Party demanded something be done about the Mormons. Acting without benefit of an investigation, U.S. President James Buchanan appointed Alfred Cumming as territorial governor and, on June 29, 1857, ordered federal troops to escort Cumming to Utah. Additionally, Buchanan ordered the cessation of all mail service to Utah in an effort to provide the advantage of surprise for the advancing troops.

Despite the efforts of Buchanan to keep the advance of the army secret, Mormon mail runners notified Brigham Young, the incumbent territorial governor, the very next month that troops were travelling to Utah. He had not been officially notified that he was to be replaced, so he viewed the news—combined with the efforts to hide the movement of the troops—as an act of war by the United States government against the Mormons. Brigham closed all Church missions, instructing all missionaries to return to Utah, and ordered the abandonment of the more isolated Mormon colonies. He prepared to defend the territory against the approaching army by adopting a "scorched earth" policy. He sent small parties to harass the approaching troops with the intent of slowing their progress while he prepared the Saints for the plausible possibility of battles with U.S. troops.

The news of the approaching army spread quickly through the body of the Saints as preparations were made. Many Mormon settlers vividly remembered the hardships of being forcibly (and violently) expelled from Missouri and Illinois, and were resolved not to be driven from their homes again. The mood in the territory was grim and determined. This conflict, known as the Utah War, was ultimately resolved peacefully; but it was into this tense atmosphere the Baker-Fancher train entered in August of 1857.

====The Baker-Fancher Train====
[[Image:Mountain meadows map1-Utah1857.jpg|right|frame|Map showing the area around Mountain Meadows, highlighting the Spanish Trail]]
The Baker-Fancher train consisted of California-bound emigrants, men women and children, who started their journey in Arkansas and Missouri. The exact number of people in the train is estimated at 120, but some reports have put it as high as 140. Led by John T. Baker and Alexander Fancher, the train was reported to have been well-stocked, with plenty of cattle, horses, and mules.

The Baker-Fancher train arrived in Salt Lake City about the end of July 1857, camping west and a little south of the city on the Jordan River. Their arrival did not appear to raise any eyebrows or concerns, as there was no mention of them in the newspapers of the time. The group was advised by Elder Charles C. Rich of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to head toward California by circling around the northern edge of the Great Salt Lake, and they began in that direction. Upon travelling as far as the Bear River, the train decided to take the southern route. This caused them to pass through Salt Lake City again, moving further south through Provo, Springville, and Payson.

There were no reports of problems related to the Baker-Fancher party until they reached Fillmore, about 150 miles south of Salt Lake City. Commencing at this point and through settlements to the south, there were complaints that the emigrants boasted of participating the violence against Mormons in both Missouri and Illinois, that they poisoned a spring, and that they threatened to destroy one of the Mormon settlements.

It was also common knowledge that the train originated in Arkansas, where earlier in the year beloved apostle Parley P. Pratt had been murdered near the town of Van Buren. Rumor had it some of the members of the train were among those who had participated in Pratt's murder, or that they bragged about his killing. There are also reports that some of the emigrants told a few Latter-day Saints that once they had transported their families to California they would return, join the army, and help subdue the Mormons.

Whether there is any truth to these rumors, it is clear the travels of the Baker-Fancher train through southern Utah did not go unnoticed as they were in northern Utah. The presence of the train seemed to exacerbate the tensions already present due to the Utah War.

====Overland Travel Conditions====
Commencing with the opening of Oregon Territory, and accelerated by the discovery of gold in California, large numbers of emigrants crossed the interior of the continent to the West Coast. Before the completion of the first transcontinental railroad in 1869, overland travel was both difficult and dangerous. Native Americans, alarmed by the ever-increasing numbers of white settlers crossing their land, frequently attacked emigrant groups. Weather was another potential danger, with winter coming early to the high country and sudden storms occurring during all seasons of the year. For protection against these hazards, emigrants typically banded together in large parties called "wagon trains," covered wagons of the "pairie schooner" type being the most typical vehicles used. The climate made overland travel a seasonal affair as emigrant parties would try to complete their crossings during the warm months. To be caught on the high plains or the mountain passes when winter came was often a deadly mistake.

[[Image:MMMMap2.JPG|frame|left|Mountain Meadows site on modern map.
{{link|url=http://www.entradautah.com/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre_Site}}]]
The Mormon settlements of Utah provided important rest and reprovisioning points for overland travelers. One of the most widely used wagon trails to California branched off the Oregon trail in Northern Utah, running almost due South through Salt Lake City, eventually joining the Old Spanish Trail. Emigrants could purchase foodstuffs and other supplies from businesses in Salt Lake City and other towns, while their animals—both beasts of burden and any livestock—could find excellent grazing at a spot near the west end of the Pine Valley Mountains, about 30 miles west of Cedar City and 28 miles north of St. George, known as ''las Vegas de Santa Clara'' or the Mountain Meadows. It was common for emigrant parties to camp there for several days or even weeks while their animals gained condition for the gruelling desert crossings still to come.

===The Main Participants===
There were many participants in the tragedy at Mountain Meadows. The following are considered to be the main participants, from a historical perspective. (The individuals are listed in alphabetical order.)

'''William H. Dame''' was, at the time of the massacre, the commander of the Iron Military District with the militia rank of colonel. He was also serving as a bishop in the Mormon Church at that time. He did not participate personally in the massacre, but was, by the standards of military justice applicable both then and now, administratively responsible for the actions of officers and soldiers under his command.

'''Isaac C. Haight''' was born May 27, 1813, at Windham, New York. He was the commander of the Second Battalion in the Iron County militia with the rank of lieutenant colonel, and Colonel Dame's second-in-command. His ecclesiastical position was stake president. Haight's role in the massacre was a complex one; he was involved in its planning, but also made some efforts to stop or at least delay the actions against the emigrants. Efforts to bring Haight and others to justice after the massacre proved to be fruitless.

'''John H. Higbee''' was a major in the Iron County militia, serving under Isaac C. Haight. By all reports, he is the person who ordered the massacre to begin. His ecclesiastical position was first counselor in the stake presidency of Isaac C. Haight.

'''Philip Klingensmith''' was a bishop in Cedar City and an officer in the Iron County militia. In this latter role, he carried orders and other messages between various militia officers. He was present at the massacre and subsequently turned states' evidence, but his testimony was of no real help to the authorities.

'''John Doyle Lee''' was born September 12, 1812, at Kaskaskia, Illinois, and baptised on June 17, 1838. He served numerous missions for the Church and eventually moved to southern Utah in 1850 or 1851. At the time of the massacre he was a major in the Iron County militia, and commander of its Fourth Battalion. Lee was the only person ever brought to trial for his involvement in the massacre.

===The Massacre===
As the Baker-Fancher train camped at Mountain Meadows, some of the residents of Cedar City and the surrounding areas determined that some action needed to be taken against the emigrants. The heightened anxiety brought on by rumors swirling about the train, the advancing federal troops, the drought that many had suffered through for the year, and the memories of violence in Missouri and Illinois all combined in an explosive atmosphere; yet the residents were unclear on what action they should take.

This excellent summary of events in the days immediately preceding the massacre is provided by Robert H. Briggs:

:On or about 2 September 1857, some encounters between individuals in the Fancher train and others in the Mormon iron mining settlement of Cedar City sparked an angry reaction among the Mormon settlers. By Friday, 4 September, however, militia leaders in Cedar City had decided against direct Mormon interference with the train. Thus, Major (also stake president) Isaac Haight dispatched couriers to Pinto, a new settlement near the California Road directly west of Cedar City. The couriers, Joel White and Philip Klingensmith, carried orders for settlers there to not interfere with the approaching emigrant train. Meanwhile, however, a pivotal meeting occurred that same evening in Cedar City between Major Isaac Haight of the Second Battalion and Major John D. Lee of the Fourth. What emerged was a plan to incite local Paiute Indians to gather at Mountain Meadows with Lee as their leader. Lee departed in the early hours of Saturday, 5 September. Evidently, Lee had no further contact with militia leaders at Cedar for the better part of the next four days.

:Lee returned home to Fort Harmony and laid over on Saturday and part of Sunday, making preparations. He departed for the Meadows on Sunday and arrived there later that afternoon or evening. Other couriers carried word to outlying settlements, each relaying that Indians were to be assembled. There was some confusion about exactly where this rendezvous was to occur. Many Paiutes from the region of Cedar and Fort Harmony were sent to Mountain Meadows. Other bands along the Santa Clara River were urged to gather at Santa Clara Canyon (west of present Veyo).

:Similar preparations continued in Cedar City over the weekend but came to a halt in mid-afternoon on Sunday, 6 September. During the usual council meeting of community leaders from Cedar City and outlying settlements, Laban Morrill lead a faction which heatedly opposed Isaac Haight’s plan. Morrill extracted a promise from Haight that no aggressive action would be taken against any emigrants until they had sought the advice of President Brigham Young. Thus, as things stood in Cedar City, the plan was off.

:All of this was unknown to John D. Lee. At that moment, Lee was en route to the Mountain Meadows, his adopted Indian son in tow to act as interpreter. They met up with Paiute bands at Mountain Meadows that afternoon or evening. One line of evidence suggests that Santa Clara Canyon, roughly a dozen miles south of Mountain Meadows, was where the planned attack would occur. Yet early Monday morning, 7 September, Lee’s Paiute auxiliary force attacked the emigrant encampment at the southern tip of Mountain Meadows. We will probably never know for certain whether Lee attacked according to a preconceived plan or, driven by some personal desire or impulse, attacked on his own initiative. In any case, as things stood at the Meadows, the attack was on.

:Activity erupted throughout Southern Utah. In Cedar City, Major Haight dispatched the youthful Englishman James Haslam to Great Salt Lake City for orders from President Young. Haight also sent an express via Joseph Clews to Amos Thornton at Pinto which Thornton was to relay. In it, Haight ordered Lee to "keep the Indians off the emigrants and protect them from harm until further orders." Thornton rode to the Meadows but searched in vain for Lee. Unbeknownst to Thornton, Lee had gone south, spending the night near Santa Clara Canyon with Mormon militiamen and the Paiute allies he encountered there. This group arrived at the Meadows on Tuesday afternoon, 8 September. That is the earliest Lee could have received an express that the planned attack had been postponed.

:There were additional expresses between Tuesday, 8 September and Thursday, 10 September. The most significant of these was one from militia headquarters in Parowan which conveyed the ambiguous order to save emigrants lives yet not to precipitate a war with the Indians under any circumstances.{{ref|briggs1}}

In a meeting at Cedar City on the afternoon of September 6, 1857, local leaders received word the wagon train at Mountain Meadows had been surrounded by Paiute Indians who were determined to attack the emigrants. (Some historians are undecided as to whether Paiute Indians were actually involved in the massacre at all; some assert that it was white men disguised as Indians.) The leaders decided that they needed to ask Brigham Young what to do, so they dispatched a fast rider to Salt Lake City with a message to that effect. James H. Haslam, the messenger, left on Monday, September 7, and made the 300-mile journey in just a little more than three days. Within an hour he had an answer from Brigham Young and began the journey back to Cedar City. Young's message said, in part, "In regard to the emigration trains passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them." Unfortunately, the messenger arrived back in Cedar City two days after the massacre, on September 13, 1857.

As Haslam was leaving for Salt Lake City on September 7, the Indians' attack commenced. Several of the emigrants were killed, as were several of the Indians, producing a stalemate situation. The emigrants circled their wagons and dug into a rifle pit and the Indians sent a call to the surrounding country for reinforcements. They also sent for John D. Lee, an area farmer on friendly terms with the Indians. According to Lee's later court testimony, the Indians asked him to help with the attack. Lee instead sent word to Cedar City on September 10, asking what should be done.

It is at this point that the exact nature of the events becomes unclear; most details being provided by Lee, and the veracity of his testimony is naturally suspect. He indicated that in short order there were quite a few other Indians and white settlers who had joined the group outside of the siege. The night of September 10 and the following morning the whites debated what to do. It appears that one incident which factored into their eventual murderous decision was the killing, the night before, of one of the emigrants by white men. It appears that two men from the Baker-Fancher party left the camp, evaded those surrounding their camp, and started toward Cedar City to request help. Within a few miles the two met three white men, whom they asked for help, but then they were attacked by the white men. One of the two was killed, and the other was able to make his way back to the Baker-Fancher party.

How could such news factor into the decision to massacre the emigrants? There is no doubt the news that both Indians and white men—Mormons—were attacking the emigrants was not well received. If any of the emigrants should escape to California and tell the story, prejudice against the Mormons—already quite high—would be incited and there would be greater likelihood that a military force would move upon the southern settlements from the west. Facing down an army from the east might be bearable, but facing one from both the east and the west could seem unbearable.

Such reasoning does not excuse the decision the white men in the area made; it is only mentioned as a factor in understanding some of the excitement and the hysteria enveloping those in the area. The decision was apparently made on the morning of September 11 to destroy all in the Baker-Fancher party over the age of seven. To effect the massacre with a minimum of loss among the white men, it was decided to lure the emigrants out of their circled wagons and into the open. In the words of B.H. Roberts,

:The conception was diabolical; the execution of it horrible; and the responsibility for both must rest upon those men who conceived and executed it; for whatever of initiative may or may not have been taken by the Indians in the first assault upon these emigrants, responsibility for this deliberately planned massacre rests not with them.{{ref|bhr1}}

Thus it was that on September 11, a flag of truce was carried to the Baker-Fancher party by William Bateman. He was met outside the camp by one of the emigrants, a Mr. Hamilton, and an arrangement was made for John D. Lee to speak to the emigrants. Lee described to them a plan to get them through the hostile Indians. The plan involved the emigrants giving up their arms, loading the wounded into wagons, and then being followed by the women and the older children, with the men bring up the rear of the company in single-file order. In return for compliance with these terms, the white men would give the emigrants safe conduct back to Cedar City where they would be protected until they could continue their journey to California.

The emigrants agreed, the wagons were brought forward and loaded with the wounded and the weapons, and the procession started toward Cedar City. Within a short distance, one armed white man was positioned near each of the Baker-Fancher party adults, ostensibly for protection. When all was in place, a pre-determined signal was given and each of the armed white men turned, shot, and killed each of the unarmed Baker-Fancher party members. Within three to five minutes the entire massacre of men, women, and older children was complete. The only members of the original party remaining were those children judged to be under eight years old, numbering about 17 persons.

===The Aftermath===
After the massacre, local leaders attempted to portray the killings as solely the act of Indians. This effort began almost immediately, with John D. Lee's report to Brigham Young. It wasn't long, however, before charges started to surface that Indians were not the only participants, but that there were whites involved. Responding to the charges that whites were involved, Brigham Young urged Governor Cumming to investigate the matter fully. However, the governor maintained that if whites were involved, they would be pardoned under the general amnesty granted by the governor to the Mormons in June 1858. This amnesty was issued at the behest of U.S. President James Buchanan, and covered all hostile acts against the United States by any persons in the course of the Utah War.

Most scholars recognize that there was a local cover-up of the massacre. What there is disagreement on is how involved higher Church leaders were in any cover-up. Some have concluded that Brigham Young, himself, was involved in a cover-up, but others argue that the evidence does not support such a conclusion. It is known that Brigham was not privy to the full details at first; he was told that only Indians were involved. In April 1894 Wilford Woodruff stated the following concerning the massacre and Brigham Young's supposed involvement:

:One instance I will name here: A man went around Nauvoo asking every man he could, saying, "You come and be adopted to me, and I shall stand at the head of the kingdom, and you will be there with me." Now, what is the truth about this? Those who were adopted to that man, if they go with him, will have to go where he is. He was a participator in that horrible scene--the Mountain Meadow massacre. Men have tried to lay that to President Young. I was with President Young when the massacre was first reported to him. President Young was perfectly horrified at the recital of it, and wept over it. He asked: "Was there any white man had anything to do with that?" The reply was No; and by the representations then made to him he was misinformed concerning the whole transaction. I will say here, and call heaven and earth to witness, that President Young, during his whole life, never was the author of the shedding of the blood of any of the human family; and when the books are opened in the day of judgment these things will be proven to heaven and earth. Perhaps I had not ought to enter into these things, but it came to me.{{ref|ww1}}

Most historians have followed Juanita Brooks, who concluded that Brigham did not know about the massacre before-hand, and was horrified to learn of it.{{ref|brooks2}}

Of course, it wasn't just Indians who were involved. The best available evidence supports two levels of cover-up: (1) concerted denials of guilt by massacre participants, including attempts to shift the blame to their erstwhile Indian allies, and (2) attempts by Mormons not involved in the massacre to shield accused persons from capture or prosecution. The latter actions did not normally arise out of any approval for the massacre, and indeed were usually undertaken without knowledge of the guilt of the persons being shielded; rather they reflected a feeling of community solidarity versus the coercive power of an often-hostile government, and a pervasive mistrust of U.S. authorities and their willingness or ability to ensure that Mormon defendants would receive a fair trial. Accusations of any more substantial cover-up, either by the Mormon Church as an institution, or by its highest leaders, are not supported by the available evidence.

[[Image:LeeGrave.jpg|frame|Marker at grave site of John D. Lee, in Panguitch, Utah]]
Eventually, as more information came to light, some of the principal participants were excommunicated from the Church. One participant, John D. Lee, was found guilty of murder in federal court after twenty years and two trials. The first trial occurred in 1875, before the anti-Mormon judge Jacob Boreman. The prosecutor was an even more notorious anti-Mormon named R. N. Baskin. This official failed to properly try the case against Lee, presented very little evidence against him, and instead focused upon an attempt to prove Brigham Young's complicity in the massacre. This trial ended with a hung jury.

Lee's second trial occurred the following year; the prosecutor was U.S. District Attorney Sumner Howard, and Boreman was again the presiding judge. This time around, the case was properly tried; the jury heard overwhelming evidence against Lee, who was duly convicted and sentenced to be executed for his crime. On March 23, 1877, Lee was executed at Mountain Meadows and buried in Panguitch, Utah. Though other Mormons were certainly as culpable as Lee (he did not act alone), he was the only one executed.

The long hiatus between the massacre and Lee's trial is one of the factors which some feel support the accusations of an institutional cover-up. However, the reasons for this delay suggest otherwise. As mentioned earlier, Governor Alfred Cumming believed the massacre was covered by the Utah Amnesty, thus making any investigation pointless. This belief was shared by a number of eminent legal authorities, including some charged with law enforcement in Utah. The attempts by some politically minded judges, such as John Cradlebaugh, to direct the investigation and prosecution of crime in Utah and conduct "crusades" against the Mormon Church actually hindered, rather than helped, prosecutorial and investigative efforts.

An additional claim sometimes put forward is that Lee was a "scapegoat," that some kind of corrupt agreement existed between Church leaders and territorial authorities to not pursue anyone else. However, the historical records do not back this up. After Lee's execution, territorial authorities wanted to continue the investigations with a view to bringing more of the guilty parties to justice. The official correspondence shows a reward was offered for the capture of Isaac C. Haight, William Stewart and John Higbee, all suspects in the planning and/or execution of the massacre, and that this reward remained on offer for at least seven years. Lee was not tried as a "scapegoat" but as an actual participant in the massacre, evidently the leading participant, who had done more than any other person to bring it about, and who had actually killed five people.

===Polemical Accounts===
Almost as soon as news of the massacre reached the eastern United States, enemies of the Church began exploiting it for polemical purposes. The '''content''' of the various polemical accounts of the massacre varies considerably, but the '''intent''' of the accounts is always and everywhere the same: to explain the massacre as a consequence of the doctrine, beliefs, practices or culture of the Mormon Church, and thus destructive of its truth claims.

When writing about the Mountain Meadows Massacre in his ''Comprehensive History of the Church,'' B.H. Roberts stated that he

:recognizes it as the most difficult of all the many subjects with which he has to deal in this ''History.'' Difficult because it is well-nigh impossible to sift out the absolute truth of the matter from the mass of conflicting statements made by witnesses and near witnesses of the affair; and equally difficult to reconcile the differences of contending partisans. Anti-"Mormon" writers have been determined to fasten the crime upon the Church of the Latter-day Saints, or at least upon her leaders; and also, as a rule, holding that in some way "Mormon" doctrine and "Mormon" church polity was responsible for the crime. On the other hand, church people who in all good conscience, and justly, resent this imputation against their church and its leaders, have been naturally slow to admit all the facts that history may insist upon as inevitable.{{ref|bhr2}}

Most scholars and historians are quick to admit they don't have all the facts related to the massacre, and probably never will. That hasn't stopped some writers, for polemical reasons, from using a broad brush to denigrate the Church and its early leaders relative to the crimes of September 11, 1857.

There have been many accounts of the events surrounding the Mountain Meadows Massacre and a small library could be filled with pertinent materials. Perhaps the best-known of the recent polemical accounts are:

# Will Bagley, ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows''. This work attempts to argue that Brigham Young actually ordered the massacre of the Fancher Party. Bagley relies upon a strained interpretation of some new evidence, including minutes of a meeting that took place between Dimick Huntington and some Southern Utah Indian chiefs on September 1, 1857, ten days before the massacre. The very brief minutes (actually a diary entry made after the fact) indicate that the purpose of the meeting, as with similar meetings held in the previous few days, was to enlist the Indians as allies against the approaching army, and not against the Fancher party. Although the particular item of evidence is new, the thesis which it is pressed into service to support actually dates to the 19th century; for example, in her book ''Wife No. 19,'' Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning accused Brigham Young of ordering the massacre so that he could appropriate the property of the victims.
# Sally Denton, ''American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857.'' This book attempts to show that no Indians had anything to do with the massacre, but that every part of it was carried out exclusively by white men. This also repeats a nineteenth-century theme; Mark Twain in ''Roughing It'' implied that the Indian participants in the massacre were really white men "tricked out" as Indians.

Certain themes continue to re-emerge in polemical accounts of the massacre. The claim that it was the worst massacre in American history is a common one; accusations of direct complicity on the part of Brigham Young, of subsequent institutional cover-up or of the "scapegoating" of John D. Lee, are common. Perhaps the following comments relative to Brigham Young's involvement may be instructive:

:As a lad I worked in the Main Street Store of the United Order Building and Manufacturing Company in Logan, Utah, commonly known as the U.O. The Logan Branch of Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institution, familiarly known as the Z.C.M.I., was on the corner, one half block down the street. It was one of my duties to take our egg and butter accumulation, commodities of exchange in those days, to the egg and butter house of Z.C.M.I. It was a small building a little to the rear of the large Z.C.M.I. store building. The worker in charge there was a man who to my boyish eyes was old, perhaps in his sixties. His name was James Holton Haslam. He and I became good friends. Eager for knowledge, I discovered that he was the courier who traveled the road between Salt Lake City to Parowan and back to help President Young establish friendly feelings among the emigrant company, the settlers, and the Indians. The Indians were giving chief concern. He described minutely the trip from Cedar City to Salt Lake City riding three hundred miles in three days, to warn President Young that trouble for the traveling company was brewing in the south. Brigham Young was greatly troubled. Within a few hours after his arrival Brother Haslam was again in the saddle to instruct the people at Parowan and neighboring communities to do everything in their power to protect the emigrants. When he reached Parowan, the massacre had already occurred. He had come too late!

:He described to me in detail his meeting with President Young. As he recounted the events of the massacre as far as he learned them, and he had every opportunity of knowing them intimately, President Young wept. The President did everything in his power to prevent any tragedy. He knew that if he failed his people, trained to live in peace and to give love for hate, they would be charged with the commission of the crime. He had suffered persecution with his people for many years. Moreover, he understood the horror of taking life.

:The Latter-day Saints had been persecuted and driven from place to place since the beginning of the Church. He and the people prayed for peace to continue their work of redeeming the stubborn desert for human use. This terrible massacre would only intensify the hatred against the Latter-day Saints.

:In righteous anger Brother Haslam defended to me as he had done in the courts and elsewhere Brigham Young against the charge of being an accessory to the criminal act of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. He was very convincing to me; and a boy is not easily fooled.

:When later I read Brother Haslam's testimony in the question and answer method, as published in the ''The Journal,'' Logan, Utah, December 4, 1874, I became more than ever convinced that he told the whole and absolute truth, and that Brigham Young was wholly innocent of any complicity with those who committed the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Note an extract from the long testimony covering two newspaper pages. Apparently he arrived in Salt Lake City in the forenoon and found President Young in his office holding a council meeting with his brethren. Brigham Young asked him after reading the message, from Cedar City or Parowan, if he could take the trip back, if so, to take a little rest, and start back during noontime. "He (President Young) said that the Indians must be kept from the emigrants at all costs if it took all of Iron County to protect them." He felt the matter strongly. His eyes filled with tears, said Brother Haslam.

:It would have been difficult to fool Brother Haslam. I believed him, and the many other supporting evidences, in preference to others who faraway in time are setting up their own theories of explanation. Brigham Young was not responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.{{ref|jaw1}}

===Historical Healing===
The events that transpired during the Mountain Meadows Massacre have rightfully lived in infamy; there is no explanation that can justify the murders of those five days in September, and we cannot fully understand them. In the words of one scholar, "the complete—the absolute—truth of the affair can probably never be evaluated by any human being; attempts to understand the forces which culminated in it and those which were set into motion by it are all very inadequate at best."{{ref|brooks1}}

In spite of the tragedy, efforts have been made to heal the wounds gouged into the collective American psyche 150 years ago. In the 1980s descendants of the victims and the perpetrators met together to start bridging the divide and make peace with the past. In a series of meetings, the seeds of trust were planted and a hopeful sense of accord started to bloom. On September 15, 1990, many of these descendants gathered together at Mountain Meadows to dedicate a memorial and marker to those who died there. The new memorial was a rendition of the original rock cairn constructed at the site by a military expedition under the direction of Major James H. Carleton about two years after the massacre.


==Endnotes==
#{{note|briggs1}}{{Sunstone|author=Robert Briggs|num=125|article=Wrestling Brigham: Review of ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows'', by Will Bagley|date=December 2002|start=62|end=66}} A longer version was published as "Mountain Meadows and The Craft of History" and was available on sunstoneonline.com.
#{{note|bhr1}}{{CHC1|vol=4|start=156}}
#{{note|ww1}}{{CD1|author=Wilford Woodruff|date=8 April 1894|article=The Law of Adoption|vol=4|start=?}}
#{{note|brooks2}}Juanita Brooks, ''The Mountain Meadows Massacre'' (1950; reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 219
#{{note|bhr2}}Roberts, 139.
#{{note|jaw1}}{{IE1|author=John A. Widtsoe|article=Was Brigham Young Responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre?|date=August 1951|start=?}}
#{{note|brooks1}}Juanita Brooks, ''The Mountain Meadows Massacre,'' Revised Edition, (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 223.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{MMMWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{MMMFAIR}}
===External links===
{{MMMLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{MMMPrint}}

Mountain Meadows Massacre/History

2007-09-04T20:40:07Z

BlairHodges: /* Polemical Accounts */ grammar

{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Mountain_Meadows_Massaker}}

==Criticism==
In September 1857 a group of Mormons in southern Utah killed all adult members of an Arkansas wagon train that was headed for California. Critics charge that the massacre was typical of Mormon "culture of violence," and claim that Church leaders—possibly as high as Brigham Young—approved of, or even ordered the killing.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*Richard Abanes, ''One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church''.
*Will Bagley, ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows''.
*David L. Bigler, ''Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847–1896'' (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1998).
*Sally Denton, ''American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows''.
*Jon Krakauer, ''Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith''.

==Response==
One of the most tragic and disturbing events in Mormon history took place on 11 September 1857, when approximately 120 men, women and children, travelling through Utah to California were massacred by a force consisting of Mormon militia members and Southern Paiute Indians. The Mountain Meadow Massacre, as it is known, has remained a topic of interest and controversy as Mormons and historians struggle to understand this event, and the Church's detractors seek to exploit it for polemical purposes.

===Setting the stage===
Shortly before July 24th, 1847, the first party of Mormon pioneers entered the Salt Lake Valley. These Saints were the first vanguard of Church members who had been driven from Nauvoo, Illinois, by angry mobs. At the time of its first settlement, the area that came to be known as Utah still belonged to Mexico, but was ceded to the United States in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo following the end of the Mexican-American War in early 1848. (The treaty ceded all of what would become California, Nevada, and Utah, as well as parts of modern-day Texas, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming.)

Over the next two years the bulk of the Church members who had been driven from Nauvoo reached the valley. Great Salt Lake City was built, and under Brigham Young's direction satellite settlements were established north, south, and west of the city. The sites for these settlements were often chosen because of proximity to an important natural resource; one such resource was the iron ore deposits found in what became known as Iron County in Southern Utah.

The continuation of successful missionary work in the Eastern United States and Europe brought a steady influx of Mormon converts to the Mormon communities; the population continued to grow, and settlement expanded outward into present-day Idaho, Canada, Nevada, California, Arizona, Wyoming, and Northern Mexico.

====The Utah War====
In 1850, Utah was established as a U.S. territory, with Brigham Young as its first governor. Because of its territorial status, the federal government retained the right to appoint officials at various levels, in addition to actual federal offices existing within the territory. While there were, no doubt, many honest public servants among them, a number of the federal appointees to both territorial and federal positions, including some judges, turned out to be both morally venal and abusive of the prerogatives of their offices. Scandals arose over the behavior of some of these men, who left the territory in disgrace. Rather than accepting responsibility for their own failures, a group of them, upon returning to the East, published claims that they had been forcibly expelled, and that the Mormons were rebelling against federal authority.

These claims caused quite an uproar in Washington, where the nascent Republican Party demanded something be done about the Mormons. Acting without benefit of an investigation, U.S. President James Buchanan appointed Alfred Cumming as territorial governor and, on June 29, 1857, ordered federal troops to escort Cumming to Utah. Additionally, Buchanan ordered the cessation of all mail service to Utah in an effort to provide the advantage of surprise for the advancing troops.

Despite the efforts of Buchanan to keep the advance of the army secret, Mormon mail runners notified Brigham Young, the incumbent territorial governor, the very next month that troops were travelling to Utah. He had not been officially notified that he was to be replaced, so he viewed the news—combined with the efforts to hide the movement of the troops—as an act of war by the United States government against the Mormons. Brigham closed all Church missions, instructing all missionaries to return to Utah, and ordered the abandonment of the more isolated Mormon colonies. He prepared to defend the territory against the approaching army by adopting a "scorched earth" policy. He sent small parties to harass the approaching troops with the intent of slowing their progress while he prepared the Saints for the plausible possibility of battles with U.S. troops.

The news of the approaching army spread quickly through the body of the Saints as preparations were made. Many Mormon settlers vividly remembered the hardships of being forcibly (and violently) expelled from Missouri and Illinois, and were resolved not to be driven from their homes again. The mood in the territory was grim and determined. This conflict, known as the Utah War, was ultimately resolved peacefully; but it was into this tense atmosphere the Baker-Fancher train entered in August of 1857.

====The Baker-Fancher Train====
[[Image:Mountain meadows map1-Utah1857.jpg|right|frame|Map showing the area around Mountain Meadows, highlighting the Spanish Trail]]
The Baker-Fancher train consisted of California-bound emigrants, men women and children, who started their journey in Arkansas and Missouri. The exact number of people in the train is estimated at 120, but some reports have put it as high as 140. Led by John T. Baker and Alexander Fancher, the train was reported to have been well-stocked, with plenty of cattle, horses, and mules.

The Baker-Fancher train arrived in Salt Lake City about the end of July 1857, camping west and a little south of the city on the Jordan River. Their arrival did not appear to raise any eyebrows or concerns, as there was no mention of them in the newspapers of the time. The group was advised by Elder Charles C. Rich of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to head toward California by circling around the northern edge of the Great Salt Lake, and they began in that direction. Upon travelling as far as the Bear River, the train decided to take the southern route. This caused them to pass through Salt Lake City again, moving further south through Provo, Springville, and Payson.

There were no reports of problems related to the Baker-Fancher party until they reached Fillmore, about 150 miles south of Salt Lake City. Commencing at this point and through settlements to the south, there were complaints that the emigrants boasted of participating the violence against Mormons in both Missouri and Illinois, that they poisoned a spring, and that they threatened to destroy one of the Mormon settlements.

It was also common knowledge that the train originated in Arkansas, where earlier in the year beloved apostle Parley P. Pratt had been murdered near the town of Van Buren. Rumor had it some of the members of the train were among those who had participated in Pratt's murder, or that they bragged about his killing. There are also reports that some of the emigrants told a few Latter-day Saints that once they had transported their families to California they would return, join the army, and help subdue the Mormons.

Whether there is any truth to these rumors, it is clear the travels of the Baker-Fancher train through southern Utah did not go unnoticed as they were in northern Utah. The presence of the train seemed to exacerbate the tensions already present due to the Utah War.

====Overland Travel Conditions====
Commencing with the opening of Oregon Territory, and accelerated by the discovery of gold in California, large numbers of emigrants crossed the interior of the continent to the West Coast. Before the completion of the first transcontinental railroad in 1869, overland travel was both difficult and dangerous. Native Americans, alarmed by the ever-increasing numbers of white settlers crossing their land, frequently attacked emigrant groups. Weather was another potential danger, with winter coming early to the high country and sudden storms occurring during all seasons of the year. For protection against these hazards, emigrants typically banded together in large parties called "wagon trains," covered wagons of the "pairie schooner" type being the most typical vehicles used. The climate made overland travel a seasonal affair as emigrant parties would try to complete their crossings during the warm months. To be caught on the high plains or the mountain passes when winter came was often a deadly mistake.

[[Image:MMMMap2.JPG|frame|left|Mountain Meadows site on modern map.
{{link|url=http://www.entradautah.com/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre_Site}}]]
The Mormon settlements of Utah provided important rest and reprovisioning points for overland travelers. One of the most widely used wagon trails to California branched off the Oregon trail in Northern Utah, running almost due South through Salt Lake City, eventually joining the Old Spanish Trail. Emigrants could purchase foodstuffs and other supplies from businesses in Salt Lake City and other towns, while their animals—both beasts of burden and any livestock—could find excellent grazing at a spot near the west end of the Pine Valley Mountains, about 30 miles west of Cedar City and 28 miles north of St. George, known as ''las Vegas de Santa Clara'' or the Mountain Meadows. It was common for emigrant parties to camp there for several days or even weeks while their animals gained condition for the gruelling desert crossings still to come.

===The Main Participants===
There were many participants in the tragedy at Mountain Meadows. The following are considered to be the main participants, from a historical perspective. (The individuals are listed in alphabetical order.)

'''William H. Dame''' was, at the time of the massacre, the commander of the Iron Military District with the militia rank of colonel. He was also serving as a bishop in the Mormon Church at that time. He did not participate personally in the massacre, but was, by the standards of military justice applicable both then and now, administratively responsible for the actions of officers and soldiers under his command.

'''Isaac C. Haight''' was born May 27, 1813, at Windham, New York. He was the commander of the Second Battalion in the Iron County militia with the rank of lieutenant colonel, and Colonel Dame's second-in-command. His ecclesiastical position was stake president. Haight's role in the massacre was a complex one; he was involved in its planning, but also made some efforts to stop or at least delay the actions against the emigrants. Efforts to bring Haight and others to justice after the massacre proved to be fruitless.

'''John H. Higbee''' was a major in the Iron County militia, serving under Isaac C. Haight. By all reports, he is the person who ordered the massacre to begin. His ecclesiastical position was first counselor in the stake presidency of Isaac C. Haight.

'''Philip Klingensmith''' was a bishop in Cedar City and an officer in the Iron County militia. In this latter role, he carried orders and other messages between various militia officers. He was present at the massacre and subsequently turned states' evidence, but his testimony was of no real help to the authorities.

'''John Doyle Lee''' was born September 12, 1812, at Kaskaskia, Illinois, and baptised on June 17, 1838. He served numerous missions for the Church and eventually moved to southern Utah in 1850 or 1851. At the time of the massacre he was a major in the Iron County militia, and commander of its Fourth Battalion. Lee was the only person ever brought to trial for his involvement in the massacre.

===The Massacre===
As the Baker-Fancher train camped at Mountain Meadows, some of the residents of Cedar City and the surrounding areas determined that some action needed to be taken against the emigrants. The heightened anxiety brought on by rumors swirling about the train, the advancing federal troops, the drought that many had suffered through for the year, and the memories of violence in Missouri and Illinois all combined in an explosive atmosphere; yet the residents were unclear on what action they should take.

This excellent summary of events in the days immediately preceding the massacre is provided by Robert H. Briggs:

:On or about 2 September 1857, some encounters between individuals in the Fancher train and others in the Mormon iron mining settlement of Cedar City sparked an angry reaction among the Mormon settlers. By Friday, 4 September, however, militia leaders in Cedar City had decided against direct Mormon interference with the train. Thus, Major (also stake president) Isaac Haight dispatched couriers to Pinto, a new settlement near the California Road directly west of Cedar City. The couriers, Joel White and Philip Klingensmith, carried orders for settlers there to not interfere with the approaching emigrant train. Meanwhile, however, a pivotal meeting occurred that same evening in Cedar City between Major Isaac Haight of the Second Battalion and Major John D. Lee of the Fourth. What emerged was a plan to incite local Paiute Indians to gather at Mountain Meadows with Lee as their leader. Lee departed in the early hours of Saturday, 5 September. Evidently, Lee had no further contact with militia leaders at Cedar for the better part of the next four days.

:Lee returned home to Fort Harmony and laid over on Saturday and part of Sunday, making preparations. He departed for the Meadows on Sunday and arrived there later that afternoon or evening. Other couriers carried word to outlying settlements, each relaying that Indians were to be assembled. There was some confusion about exactly where this rendezvous was to occur. Many Paiutes from the region of Cedar and Fort Harmony were sent to Mountain Meadows. Other bands along the Santa Clara River were urged to gather at Santa Clara Canyon (west of present Veyo).

:Similar preparations continued in Cedar City over the weekend but came to a halt in mid-afternoon on Sunday, 6 September. During the usual council meeting of community leaders from Cedar City and outlying settlements, Laban Morrill lead a faction which heatedly opposed Isaac Haight’s plan. Morrill extracted a promise from Haight that no aggressive action would be taken against any emigrants until they had sought the advice of President Brigham Young. Thus, as things stood in Cedar City, the plan was off.

:All of this was unknown to John D. Lee. At that moment, Lee was en route to the Mountain Meadows, his adopted Indian son in tow to act as interpreter. They met up with Paiute bands at Mountain Meadows that afternoon or evening. One line of evidence suggests that Santa Clara Canyon, roughly a dozen miles south of Mountain Meadows, was where the planned attack would occur. Yet early Monday morning, 7 September, Lee’s Paiute auxiliary force attacked the emigrant encampment at the southern tip of Mountain Meadows. We will probably never know for certain whether Lee attacked according to a preconceived plan or, driven by some personal desire or impulse, attacked on his own initiative. In any case, as things stood at the Meadows, the attack was on.

:Activity erupted throughout Southern Utah. In Cedar City, Major Haight dispatched the youthful Englishman James Haslam to Great Salt Lake City for orders from President Young. Haight also sent an express via Joseph Clews to Amos Thornton at Pinto which Thornton was to relay. In it, Haight ordered Lee to "keep the Indians off the emigrants and protect them from harm until further orders." Thornton rode to the Meadows but searched in vain for Lee. Unbeknownst to Thornton, Lee had gone south, spending the night near Santa Clara Canyon with Mormon militiamen and the Paiute allies he encountered there. This group arrived at the Meadows on Tuesday afternoon, 8 September. That is the earliest Lee could have received an express that the planned attack had been postponed.

:There were additional expresses between Tuesday, 8 September and Thursday, 10 September. The most significant of these was one from militia headquarters in Parowan which conveyed the ambiguous order to save emigrants lives yet not to precipitate a war with the Indians under any circumstances.{{ref|briggs1}}

In a meeting at Cedar City on the afternoon of September 6, 1857, local leaders received word the wagon train at Mountain Meadows had been surrounded by Paiute Indians who were determined to attack the emigrants. (Some historians are undecided as to whether Paiute Indians were actually involved in the massacre at all; some assert that it was white men disguised as Indians.) The leaders decided that they needed to ask Brigham Young what to do, so they dispatched a fast rider to Salt Lake City with a message to that effect. James H. Haslam, the messenger, left on Monday, September 7, and made the 300-mile journey in just a little more than three days. Within an hour he had an answer from Brigham Young and began the journey back to Cedar City. Young's message said, in part, "In regard to the emigration trains passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them." Unfortunately, the messenger arrived back in Cedar City two days after the massacre, on September 13, 1857.

As Haslam was leaving for Salt Lake City on September 7, the Indians' attack commenced. Several of the emigrants were killed, as were several of the Indians, producing a stalemate situation. The emigrants circled their wagons and dug into a rifle pit and the Indians sent a call to the surrounding country for reinforcements. They also sent for John D. Lee, an area farmer on friendly terms with the Indians. According to Lee's later court testimony, the Indians asked him to help with the attack. Lee instead sent word to Cedar City on September 10, asking what should be done.

It is at this point that the exact nature of the events becomes unclear; most details being provided by Lee, and the veracity of his testimony is naturally suspect. He indicated that in short order there were quite a few other Indians and white settlers who had joined the group outside of the siege. The night of September 10 and the following morning the whites debated what to do. It appears that one incident which factored into their eventual murderous decision was the killing, the night before, of one of the emigrants by white men. It appears that two men from the Baker-Fancher party left the camp, evaded those surrounding their camp, and started toward Cedar City to request help. Within a few miles the two met three white men, whom they asked for help, but then they were attacked by the white men. One of the two was killed, and the other was able to make his way back to the Baker-Fancher party.

How could such news factor into the decision to massacre the emigrants? There is no doubt the news that both Indians and white men—Mormons—were attacking the emigrants was not well received. If any of the emigrants should escape to California and tell the story, prejudice against the Mormons—already quite high—would be incited and there would be greater likelihood that a military force would move upon the southern settlements from the west. Facing down an army from the east might be bearable, but facing one from both the east and the west could seem unbearable.

Such reasoning does not excuse the decision the white men in the area made; it is only mentioned as a factor in understanding some of the excitement and the hysteria enveloping those in the area. The decision was apparently made on the morning of September 11 to destroy all in the Baker-Fancher party over the age of seven. To effect the massacre with a minimum of loss among the white men, it was decided to lure the emigrants out of their circled wagons and into the open. In the words of B.H. Roberts,

:The conception was diabolical; the execution of it horrible; and the responsibility for both must rest upon those men who conceived and executed it; for whatever of initiative may or may not have been taken by the Indians in the first assault upon these emigrants, responsibility for this deliberately planned massacre rests not with them.{{ref|bhr1}}

Thus it was that on September 11, a flag of truce was carried to the Baker-Fancher party by William Bateman. He was met outside the camp by one of the emigrants, a Mr. Hamilton, and an arrangement was made for John D. Lee to speak to the emigrants. Lee described to them a plan to get them through the hostile Indians. The plan involved the emigrants giving up their arms, loading the wounded into wagons, and then being followed by the women and the older children, with the men bring up the rear of the company in single-file order. In return for compliance with these terms, the white men would give the emigrants safe conduct back to Cedar City where they would be protected until they could continue their journey to California.

The emigrants agreed, the wagons were brought forward and loaded with the wounded and the weapons, and the procession started toward Cedar City. Within a short distance, one armed white man was positioned near each of the Baker-Fancher party adults, ostensibly for protection. When all was in place, a pre-determined signal was given and each of the armed white men turned, shot, and killed each of the unarmed Baker-Fancher party members. Within three to five minutes the entire massacre of men, women, and older children was complete. The only members of the original party remaining were those children judged to be under eight years old, numbering about 17 persons.

===The Aftermath===
After the massacre, local leaders attempted to portray the killings as solely the act of Indians. This effort began almost immediately, with John D. Lee's report to Brigham Young. It wasn't long, however, before charges started to surface that Indians were not the only participants, but that there were whites involved. Responding to the charges that whites were involved, Brigham Young urged Governor Cumming to investigate the matter fully. However, the governor maintained that if whites were involved, they would be pardoned under the general amnesty granted by the governor to the Mormons in June 1858. This amnesty was issued at the behest of U.S. President James Buchanan, and covered all hostile acts against the United States by any persons in the course of the Utah War.

Most scholars recognize that there was a local cover-up of the massacre. What there is disagreement on is how involved higher Church leaders were in any cover-up. Some have concluded that Brigham Young, himself, was involved in a cover-up, but others argue that the evidence does not support such a conclusion. It is known that Brigham was not privy to the full details at first; he was told that only Indians were involved. In April 1894 Wilford Woodruff stated the following concerning the massacre and Brigham Young's supposed involvement:

:One instance I will name here: A man went around Nauvoo asking every man he could, saying, "You come and be adopted to me, and I shall stand at the head of the kingdom, and you will be there with me." Now, what is the truth about this? Those who were adopted to that man, if they go with him, will have to go where he is. He was a participator in that horrible scene--the Mountain Meadow massacre. Men have tried to lay that to President Young. I was with President Young when the massacre was first reported to him. President Young was perfectly horrified at the recital of it, and wept over it. He asked: "Was there any white man had anything to do with that?" The reply was No; and by the representations then made to him he was misinformed concerning the whole transaction. I will say here, and call heaven and earth to witness, that President Young, during his whole life, never was the author of the shedding of the blood of any of the human family; and when the books are opened in the day of judgment these things will be proven to heaven and earth. Perhaps I had not ought to enter into these things, but it came to me.{{ref|ww1}}

Most historians have followed Juanita Brooks, who concluded that Brigham did not know about the massacre before-hand, and was horrified to learn of it.{{ref|brooks2}}

Of course, it wasn't just Indians who were involved. The best available evidence supports two levels of cover-up: (1) concerted denials of guilt by massacre participants, including attempts to shift the blame to their erstwhile Indian allies, and (2) attempts by Mormons not involved in the massacre to shield accused persons from capture or prosecution. The latter actions did not normally arise out of any approval for the massacre, and indeed were usually undertaken without knowledge of the guilt of the persons being shielded; rather they reflected a feeling of community solidarity versus the coercive power of an often-hostile government, and a pervasive mistrust of U.S. authorities and their willingness or ability to ensure that Mormon defendants would receive a fair trial. Accusations of any more substantial cover-up, either by the Mormon Church as an institution, or by its highest leaders, are not supported by the available evidence.

[[Image:LeeGrave.jpg|frame|Marker at grave site of John D. Lee, in Panguitch, Utah]]
Eventually, as more information came to light, some of the principal participants were excommunicated from the Church. One participant, John D. Lee, was found guilty of murder in federal court after twenty years and two trials. The first trial occurred in 1875, before the anti-Mormon judge Jacob Boreman. The prosecutor was an even more notorious anti-Mormon named R. N. Baskin. This official failed to properly try the case against Lee, presented very little evidence against him, and instead focused upon an attempt to prove Brigham Young's complicity in the massacre. This trial ended with a hung jury.

Lee's second trial occurred the following year; the prosecutor was U.S. District Attorney Sumner Howard, and Boreman was again the presiding judge. This time around, the case was properly tried; the jury heard overwhelming evidence against Lee, who was duly convicted and sentenced to be executed for his crime. On March 23, 1877, Lee was executed at Mountain Meadows and buried in Panguitch, Utah. Though other Mormons were certainly as culpable as Lee (he did not act alone), he was the only one executed.

The long hiatus between the massacre and Lee's trial is one of the factors which some feel support the accusations of an institutional cover-up. However, the reasons for this delay suggest otherwise. As mentioned earlier, Governor Alfred Cumming believed the massacre was covered by the Utah Amnesty, thus making any investigation pointless. This belief was shared by a number of eminent legal authorities, including some charged with law enforcement in Utah. The attempts by some politically minded judges, such as John Cradlebaugh, to direct the investigation and prosecution of crime in Utah and conduct "crusades" against the Mormon Church actually hindered, rather than helped, prosecutorial and investigative efforts.

An additional claim sometimes put forward is that Lee was a "scapegoat," that some kind of corrupt agreement existed between Church leaders and territorial authorities to not pursue anyone else. However, the historical records do not back this up. After Lee's execution, territorial authorities wanted to continue the investigations with a view to bringing more of the guilty parties to justice. The official correspondence shows a reward was offered for the capture of Isaac C. Haight, William Stewart and John Higbee, all suspects in the planning and/or execution of the massacre, and that this reward remained on offer for at least seven years. Lee was not tried as a "scapegoat" but as an actual participant in the massacre, evidently the leading participant, who had done more than any other person to bring it about, and who had actually killed five people.

===Polemical Accounts===
Almost as soon as news of the massacre reached the eastern United States, enemies of the Church began exploiting it for polemical purposes. The '''content''' of the various polemical accounts of the massacre varies considerably, but the '''intent''' of the accounts is always and everywhere the same: to explain the massacre as a consequence of the doctrine, beliefs, practices or culture of the Mormon Church, and thus destructive of its truth claims.

When writing about the Mountain Meadows Massacre in his ''Comprehensive History of the Church,'' B.H. Roberts stated that he

:recognizes it as the most difficult of all the many subjects with which he has to deal in this ''History.'' Difficult because it is well-nigh impossible to sift out the absolute truth of the matter from the mass of conflicting statements made by witnesses and near witnesses of the affair; and equally difficult to reconcile the differences of contending partisans. Anti-"Mormon" writers have been determined to fasten the crime upon the Church of the Latter-day Saints, or at least upon her leaders; and also, as a rule, holding that in some way "Mormon" doctrine and "Mormon" church polity was responsible for the crime. On the other hand, church people who in all good conscience, and justly, resent this imputation against their church and its leaders, have been naturally slow to admit all the facts that history may insist upon as inevitable.{{ref|bhr2}}

Most scholars and historians are quick to admit they don't have all the facts related to the massacre, and probably never will. That hasn't stopped some writers, for polemical reasons, from using a broad brush to denigrate the Church and its early leaders relative to the crimes of September 11, 1857.

There have been many accounts of the events surrounding the Mountain Meadows Massacre and a small library could be filled with pertinent materials. Perhaps the best-known of the recent polemical accounts are:

# Will Bagley, ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows''. This work attempts to argue that Brigham Young actually ordered the massacre of the Fancher Party. Bagley relies upon a strained interpretation of some new evidence, including minutes of a meeting that took place between Dimick Huntington and some Southern Utah Indian chiefs on September 1, 1857, ten days before the massacre. The very brief minutes (actually a diary entry made after the fact) indicate that the purpose of the meeting, as with similar meetings held in the previous few days, was to enlist the Indians as allies against the approaching army, and not against the Fancher party. Although the particular item of evidence is new, the thesis which it is pressed into service to support actually dates to the 19th century; for example, in her book ''Wife No. 19,'' Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning accused Brigham Young of ordering the massacre so that he could appropriate the property of the victims.
# Sally Denton, ''American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857.'' This book attempts to show that no Indians had anything to do with the massacre, but that every part of it was carried out exclusively by white men. This also repeats a nineteenth-century theme; Mark Twain in ''Roughing It'' implied that the Indian participants in the massacre were really white men "tricked out" as Indians.

Certain themes continue to re-emerge in polemical accounts of the massacre. The claim that it was the worst massacre in American history is a common one; accusations of direct complicity on the part of Brigham Young, of subsequent institutional cover-up or of the "scapegoating" of John D. Lee, are common. Perhaps the following comments relative to Brigham Young's involvement may be instructive:

:As a lad I worked in the Main Street Store of the United Order Building and Manufacturing Company in Logan, Utah, commonly known as the U.O. The Logan Branch of Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institution, familiarly known as the Z.C.M.I., was on the corner, one half block down the street. It was one of my duties to take our egg and butter accumulation, commodities of exchange in those days, to the egg and butter house of Z.C.M.I. It was a small building a little to the rear of the large Z.C.M.I. store building. The worker in charge there was a man who to my boyish eyes was old, perhaps in his sixties. His name was James Holton Haslam. He and I became good friends. Eager for knowledge, I discovered that he was the courier who traveled the road between Salt Lake City to Parowan and back to help President Young establish friendly feelings among the emigrant company, the settlers, and the Indians. The Indians were giving chief concern. He described minutely the trip from Cedar City to Salt Lake City riding three hundred miles in three days, to warn President Young that trouble for the traveling company was brewing in the south. Brigham Young was greatly troubled. Within a few hours after his arrival Brother Haslam was again in the saddle to instruct the people at Parowan and neighboring communities to do everything in their power to protect the emigrants. When he reached Parowan, the massacre had already occurred. He had come too late!

:He described to me in detail his meeting with President Young. As he recounted the events of the massacre as far as he learned them, and he had every opportunity of knowing them intimately, President Young wept. The President did everything in his power to prevent any tragedy. He knew that if he failed his people, trained to live in peace and to give love for hate, they would be charged with the commission of the crime. He had suffered persecution with his people for many years. Moreover, he understood the horror of taking life.

:The Latter-day Saints had been persecuted and driven from place to place since the beginning of the Church. He and the people prayed for peace to continue their work of redeeming the stubborn desert for human use. This terrible massacre would only intensify the hatred against the Latter-day Saints.

:In righteous anger Brother Haslam defended to me as he had done in the courts and elsewhere Brigham Young against the charge of being an accessory to the criminal act of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. He was very convincing to me; and a boy is not easily fooled.

:When later I read Brother Haslam's testimony in the question and answer method, as published in the ''The Journal,'' Logan, Utah, December 4, 1874, I became more than ever convinced that he told the whole and absolute truth, and that Brigham Young was wholly innocent of any complicity with those who committed the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Note an extract from the long testimony covering two newspaper pages. Apparently he arrived in Salt Lake City in the forenoon and found President Young in his office holding a council meeting with his brethren. Brigham Young asked him after reading the message, from Cedar City or Parowan, if he could take the trip back, if so, to take a little rest, and start back during noontime. "He (President Young) said that the Indians must be kept from the emigrants at all costs if it took all of Iron County to protect them." He felt the matter strongly. His eyes filled with tears, said Brother Haslam.

:It would have been difficult to fool Brother Haslam. I believed him, and the many other supporting evidences, in preference to others who faraway in time are setting up their own theories of explanation. Brigham Young was not responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.{{ref|jaw1}}

===Historical Healing===
The events that transpired during the Mountain Meadows Massacre have lived (as they should) in infamy; there is no explanation that will justify the murders of those five days in September, and we cannot fully understand them. In the words of one scholar, "the complete—the absolute—truth of the affair can probably never be evaluated by any human being; attempts to understand the forces which culminated in it and those which were set into motion by it are all very inadequate at best."{{ref|brooks1}}

In spite of the tragedy, efforts have been made to heal the wounds that were gouged into the collective American psyche 150 years ago. In the 1980s descendants of the victims and the perpetrators met together to start bridging the divide and make peace with the past. In a series of meetings, the seeds of trust were planted and a hopeful sense of accord started to bloom. On September 15, 1990, many of these descendants gathered together at Mountain Meadows to dedicate a memorial and marker to those who died there. The new memorial was a rendition of the original rock cairn constructed at the site by a military expedition under the direction of Major James H. Carleton about two years after the massacre.


==Endnotes==
#{{note|briggs1}}{{Sunstone|author=Robert Briggs|num=125|article=Wrestling Brigham: Review of ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows'', by Will Bagley|date=December 2002|start=62|end=66}} A longer version was published as "Mountain Meadows and The Craft of History" and was available on sunstoneonline.com.
#{{note|bhr1}}{{CHC1|vol=4|start=156}}
#{{note|ww1}}{{CD1|author=Wilford Woodruff|date=8 April 1894|article=The Law of Adoption|vol=4|start=?}}
#{{note|brooks2}}Juanita Brooks, ''The Mountain Meadows Massacre'' (1950; reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 219
#{{note|bhr2}}Roberts, 139.
#{{note|jaw1}}{{IE1|author=John A. Widtsoe|article=Was Brigham Young Responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre?|date=August 1951|start=?}}
#{{note|brooks1}}Juanita Brooks, ''The Mountain Meadows Massacre,'' Revised Edition, (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 223.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{MMMWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{MMMFAIR}}
===External links===
{{MMMLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{MMMPrint}}

Mountain Meadows Massacre/History

2007-09-04T20:32:10Z

BlairHodges: /* The Aftermath */ grammar, spelling

{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Mountain_Meadows_Massaker}}

==Criticism==
In September 1857 a group of Mormons in southern Utah killed all adult members of an Arkansas wagon train that was headed for California. Critics charge that the massacre was typical of Mormon "culture of violence," and claim that Church leaders—possibly as high as Brigham Young—approved of, or even ordered the killing.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*Richard Abanes, ''One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church''.
*Will Bagley, ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows''.
*David L. Bigler, ''Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847–1896'' (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1998).
*Sally Denton, ''American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows''.
*Jon Krakauer, ''Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith''.

==Response==
One of the most tragic and disturbing events in Mormon history took place on 11 September 1857, when approximately 120 men, women and children, travelling through Utah to California were massacred by a force consisting of Mormon militia members and Southern Paiute Indians. The Mountain Meadow Massacre, as it is known, has remained a topic of interest and controversy as Mormons and historians struggle to understand this event, and the Church's detractors seek to exploit it for polemical purposes.

===Setting the stage===
Shortly before July 24th, 1847, the first party of Mormon pioneers entered the Salt Lake Valley. These Saints were the first vanguard of Church members who had been driven from Nauvoo, Illinois, by angry mobs. At the time of its first settlement, the area that came to be known as Utah still belonged to Mexico, but was ceded to the United States in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo following the end of the Mexican-American War in early 1848. (The treaty ceded all of what would become California, Nevada, and Utah, as well as parts of modern-day Texas, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming.)

Over the next two years the bulk of the Church members who had been driven from Nauvoo reached the valley. Great Salt Lake City was built, and under Brigham Young's direction satellite settlements were established north, south, and west of the city. The sites for these settlements were often chosen because of proximity to an important natural resource; one such resource was the iron ore deposits found in what became known as Iron County in Southern Utah.

The continuation of successful missionary work in the Eastern United States and Europe brought a steady influx of Mormon converts to the Mormon communities; the population continued to grow, and settlement expanded outward into present-day Idaho, Canada, Nevada, California, Arizona, Wyoming, and Northern Mexico.

====The Utah War====
In 1850, Utah was established as a U.S. territory, with Brigham Young as its first governor. Because of its territorial status, the federal government retained the right to appoint officials at various levels, in addition to actual federal offices existing within the territory. While there were, no doubt, many honest public servants among them, a number of the federal appointees to both territorial and federal positions, including some judges, turned out to be both morally venal and abusive of the prerogatives of their offices. Scandals arose over the behavior of some of these men, who left the territory in disgrace. Rather than accepting responsibility for their own failures, a group of them, upon returning to the East, published claims that they had been forcibly expelled, and that the Mormons were rebelling against federal authority.

These claims caused quite an uproar in Washington, where the nascent Republican Party demanded something be done about the Mormons. Acting without benefit of an investigation, U.S. President James Buchanan appointed Alfred Cumming as territorial governor and, on June 29, 1857, ordered federal troops to escort Cumming to Utah. Additionally, Buchanan ordered the cessation of all mail service to Utah in an effort to provide the advantage of surprise for the advancing troops.

Despite the efforts of Buchanan to keep the advance of the army secret, Mormon mail runners notified Brigham Young, the incumbent territorial governor, the very next month that troops were travelling to Utah. He had not been officially notified that he was to be replaced, so he viewed the news—combined with the efforts to hide the movement of the troops—as an act of war by the United States government against the Mormons. Brigham closed all Church missions, instructing all missionaries to return to Utah, and ordered the abandonment of the more isolated Mormon colonies. He prepared to defend the territory against the approaching army by adopting a "scorched earth" policy. He sent small parties to harass the approaching troops with the intent of slowing their progress while he prepared the Saints for the plausible possibility of battles with U.S. troops.

The news of the approaching army spread quickly through the body of the Saints as preparations were made. Many Mormon settlers vividly remembered the hardships of being forcibly (and violently) expelled from Missouri and Illinois, and were resolved not to be driven from their homes again. The mood in the territory was grim and determined. This conflict, known as the Utah War, was ultimately resolved peacefully; but it was into this tense atmosphere the Baker-Fancher train entered in August of 1857.

====The Baker-Fancher Train====
[[Image:Mountain meadows map1-Utah1857.jpg|right|frame|Map showing the area around Mountain Meadows, highlighting the Spanish Trail]]
The Baker-Fancher train consisted of California-bound emigrants, men women and children, who started their journey in Arkansas and Missouri. The exact number of people in the train is estimated at 120, but some reports have put it as high as 140. Led by John T. Baker and Alexander Fancher, the train was reported to have been well-stocked, with plenty of cattle, horses, and mules.

The Baker-Fancher train arrived in Salt Lake City about the end of July 1857, camping west and a little south of the city on the Jordan River. Their arrival did not appear to raise any eyebrows or concerns, as there was no mention of them in the newspapers of the time. The group was advised by Elder Charles C. Rich of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to head toward California by circling around the northern edge of the Great Salt Lake, and they began in that direction. Upon travelling as far as the Bear River, the train decided to take the southern route. This caused them to pass through Salt Lake City again, moving further south through Provo, Springville, and Payson.

There were no reports of problems related to the Baker-Fancher party until they reached Fillmore, about 150 miles south of Salt Lake City. Commencing at this point and through settlements to the south, there were complaints that the emigrants boasted of participating the violence against Mormons in both Missouri and Illinois, that they poisoned a spring, and that they threatened to destroy one of the Mormon settlements.

It was also common knowledge that the train originated in Arkansas, where earlier in the year beloved apostle Parley P. Pratt had been murdered near the town of Van Buren. Rumor had it some of the members of the train were among those who had participated in Pratt's murder, or that they bragged about his killing. There are also reports that some of the emigrants told a few Latter-day Saints that once they had transported their families to California they would return, join the army, and help subdue the Mormons.

Whether there is any truth to these rumors, it is clear the travels of the Baker-Fancher train through southern Utah did not go unnoticed as they were in northern Utah. The presence of the train seemed to exacerbate the tensions already present due to the Utah War.

====Overland Travel Conditions====
Commencing with the opening of Oregon Territory, and accelerated by the discovery of gold in California, large numbers of emigrants crossed the interior of the continent to the West Coast. Before the completion of the first transcontinental railroad in 1869, overland travel was both difficult and dangerous. Native Americans, alarmed by the ever-increasing numbers of white settlers crossing their land, frequently attacked emigrant groups. Weather was another potential danger, with winter coming early to the high country and sudden storms occurring during all seasons of the year. For protection against these hazards, emigrants typically banded together in large parties called "wagon trains," covered wagons of the "pairie schooner" type being the most typical vehicles used. The climate made overland travel a seasonal affair as emigrant parties would try to complete their crossings during the warm months. To be caught on the high plains or the mountain passes when winter came was often a deadly mistake.

[[Image:MMMMap2.JPG|frame|left|Mountain Meadows site on modern map.
{{link|url=http://www.entradautah.com/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre_Site}}]]
The Mormon settlements of Utah provided important rest and reprovisioning points for overland travelers. One of the most widely used wagon trails to California branched off the Oregon trail in Northern Utah, running almost due South through Salt Lake City, eventually joining the Old Spanish Trail. Emigrants could purchase foodstuffs and other supplies from businesses in Salt Lake City and other towns, while their animals—both beasts of burden and any livestock—could find excellent grazing at a spot near the west end of the Pine Valley Mountains, about 30 miles west of Cedar City and 28 miles north of St. George, known as ''las Vegas de Santa Clara'' or the Mountain Meadows. It was common for emigrant parties to camp there for several days or even weeks while their animals gained condition for the gruelling desert crossings still to come.

===The Main Participants===
There were many participants in the tragedy at Mountain Meadows. The following are considered to be the main participants, from a historical perspective. (The individuals are listed in alphabetical order.)

'''William H. Dame''' was, at the time of the massacre, the commander of the Iron Military District with the militia rank of colonel. He was also serving as a bishop in the Mormon Church at that time. He did not participate personally in the massacre, but was, by the standards of military justice applicable both then and now, administratively responsible for the actions of officers and soldiers under his command.

'''Isaac C. Haight''' was born May 27, 1813, at Windham, New York. He was the commander of the Second Battalion in the Iron County militia with the rank of lieutenant colonel, and Colonel Dame's second-in-command. His ecclesiastical position was stake president. Haight's role in the massacre was a complex one; he was involved in its planning, but also made some efforts to stop or at least delay the actions against the emigrants. Efforts to bring Haight and others to justice after the massacre proved to be fruitless.

'''John H. Higbee''' was a major in the Iron County militia, serving under Isaac C. Haight. By all reports, he is the person who ordered the massacre to begin. His ecclesiastical position was first counselor in the stake presidency of Isaac C. Haight.

'''Philip Klingensmith''' was a bishop in Cedar City and an officer in the Iron County militia. In this latter role, he carried orders and other messages between various militia officers. He was present at the massacre and subsequently turned states' evidence, but his testimony was of no real help to the authorities.

'''John Doyle Lee''' was born September 12, 1812, at Kaskaskia, Illinois, and baptised on June 17, 1838. He served numerous missions for the Church and eventually moved to southern Utah in 1850 or 1851. At the time of the massacre he was a major in the Iron County militia, and commander of its Fourth Battalion. Lee was the only person ever brought to trial for his involvement in the massacre.

===The Massacre===
As the Baker-Fancher train camped at Mountain Meadows, some of the residents of Cedar City and the surrounding areas determined that some action needed to be taken against the emigrants. The heightened anxiety brought on by rumors swirling about the train, the advancing federal troops, the drought that many had suffered through for the year, and the memories of violence in Missouri and Illinois all combined in an explosive atmosphere; yet the residents were unclear on what action they should take.

This excellent summary of events in the days immediately preceding the massacre is provided by Robert H. Briggs:

:On or about 2 September 1857, some encounters between individuals in the Fancher train and others in the Mormon iron mining settlement of Cedar City sparked an angry reaction among the Mormon settlers. By Friday, 4 September, however, militia leaders in Cedar City had decided against direct Mormon interference with the train. Thus, Major (also stake president) Isaac Haight dispatched couriers to Pinto, a new settlement near the California Road directly west of Cedar City. The couriers, Joel White and Philip Klingensmith, carried orders for settlers there to not interfere with the approaching emigrant train. Meanwhile, however, a pivotal meeting occurred that same evening in Cedar City between Major Isaac Haight of the Second Battalion and Major John D. Lee of the Fourth. What emerged was a plan to incite local Paiute Indians to gather at Mountain Meadows with Lee as their leader. Lee departed in the early hours of Saturday, 5 September. Evidently, Lee had no further contact with militia leaders at Cedar for the better part of the next four days.

:Lee returned home to Fort Harmony and laid over on Saturday and part of Sunday, making preparations. He departed for the Meadows on Sunday and arrived there later that afternoon or evening. Other couriers carried word to outlying settlements, each relaying that Indians were to be assembled. There was some confusion about exactly where this rendezvous was to occur. Many Paiutes from the region of Cedar and Fort Harmony were sent to Mountain Meadows. Other bands along the Santa Clara River were urged to gather at Santa Clara Canyon (west of present Veyo).

:Similar preparations continued in Cedar City over the weekend but came to a halt in mid-afternoon on Sunday, 6 September. During the usual council meeting of community leaders from Cedar City and outlying settlements, Laban Morrill lead a faction which heatedly opposed Isaac Haight’s plan. Morrill extracted a promise from Haight that no aggressive action would be taken against any emigrants until they had sought the advice of President Brigham Young. Thus, as things stood in Cedar City, the plan was off.

:All of this was unknown to John D. Lee. At that moment, Lee was en route to the Mountain Meadows, his adopted Indian son in tow to act as interpreter. They met up with Paiute bands at Mountain Meadows that afternoon or evening. One line of evidence suggests that Santa Clara Canyon, roughly a dozen miles south of Mountain Meadows, was where the planned attack would occur. Yet early Monday morning, 7 September, Lee’s Paiute auxiliary force attacked the emigrant encampment at the southern tip of Mountain Meadows. We will probably never know for certain whether Lee attacked according to a preconceived plan or, driven by some personal desire or impulse, attacked on his own initiative. In any case, as things stood at the Meadows, the attack was on.

:Activity erupted throughout Southern Utah. In Cedar City, Major Haight dispatched the youthful Englishman James Haslam to Great Salt Lake City for orders from President Young. Haight also sent an express via Joseph Clews to Amos Thornton at Pinto which Thornton was to relay. In it, Haight ordered Lee to "keep the Indians off the emigrants and protect them from harm until further orders." Thornton rode to the Meadows but searched in vain for Lee. Unbeknownst to Thornton, Lee had gone south, spending the night near Santa Clara Canyon with Mormon militiamen and the Paiute allies he encountered there. This group arrived at the Meadows on Tuesday afternoon, 8 September. That is the earliest Lee could have received an express that the planned attack had been postponed.

:There were additional expresses between Tuesday, 8 September and Thursday, 10 September. The most significant of these was one from militia headquarters in Parowan which conveyed the ambiguous order to save emigrants lives yet not to precipitate a war with the Indians under any circumstances.{{ref|briggs1}}

In a meeting at Cedar City on the afternoon of September 6, 1857, local leaders received word the wagon train at Mountain Meadows had been surrounded by Paiute Indians who were determined to attack the emigrants. (Some historians are undecided as to whether Paiute Indians were actually involved in the massacre at all; some assert that it was white men disguised as Indians.) The leaders decided that they needed to ask Brigham Young what to do, so they dispatched a fast rider to Salt Lake City with a message to that effect. James H. Haslam, the messenger, left on Monday, September 7, and made the 300-mile journey in just a little more than three days. Within an hour he had an answer from Brigham Young and began the journey back to Cedar City. Young's message said, in part, "In regard to the emigration trains passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them." Unfortunately, the messenger arrived back in Cedar City two days after the massacre, on September 13, 1857.

As Haslam was leaving for Salt Lake City on September 7, the Indians' attack commenced. Several of the emigrants were killed, as were several of the Indians, producing a stalemate situation. The emigrants circled their wagons and dug into a rifle pit and the Indians sent a call to the surrounding country for reinforcements. They also sent for John D. Lee, an area farmer on friendly terms with the Indians. According to Lee's later court testimony, the Indians asked him to help with the attack. Lee instead sent word to Cedar City on September 10, asking what should be done.

It is at this point that the exact nature of the events becomes unclear; most details being provided by Lee, and the veracity of his testimony is naturally suspect. He indicated that in short order there were quite a few other Indians and white settlers who had joined the group outside of the siege. The night of September 10 and the following morning the whites debated what to do. It appears that one incident which factored into their eventual murderous decision was the killing, the night before, of one of the emigrants by white men. It appears that two men from the Baker-Fancher party left the camp, evaded those surrounding their camp, and started toward Cedar City to request help. Within a few miles the two met three white men, whom they asked for help, but then they were attacked by the white men. One of the two was killed, and the other was able to make his way back to the Baker-Fancher party.

How could such news factor into the decision to massacre the emigrants? There is no doubt the news that both Indians and white men—Mormons—were attacking the emigrants was not well received. If any of the emigrants should escape to California and tell the story, prejudice against the Mormons—already quite high—would be incited and there would be greater likelihood that a military force would move upon the southern settlements from the west. Facing down an army from the east might be bearable, but facing one from both the east and the west could seem unbearable.

Such reasoning does not excuse the decision the white men in the area made; it is only mentioned as a factor in understanding some of the excitement and the hysteria enveloping those in the area. The decision was apparently made on the morning of September 11 to destroy all in the Baker-Fancher party over the age of seven. To effect the massacre with a minimum of loss among the white men, it was decided to lure the emigrants out of their circled wagons and into the open. In the words of B.H. Roberts,

:The conception was diabolical; the execution of it horrible; and the responsibility for both must rest upon those men who conceived and executed it; for whatever of initiative may or may not have been taken by the Indians in the first assault upon these emigrants, responsibility for this deliberately planned massacre rests not with them.{{ref|bhr1}}

Thus it was that on September 11, a flag of truce was carried to the Baker-Fancher party by William Bateman. He was met outside the camp by one of the emigrants, a Mr. Hamilton, and an arrangement was made for John D. Lee to speak to the emigrants. Lee described to them a plan to get them through the hostile Indians. The plan involved the emigrants giving up their arms, loading the wounded into wagons, and then being followed by the women and the older children, with the men bring up the rear of the company in single-file order. In return for compliance with these terms, the white men would give the emigrants safe conduct back to Cedar City where they would be protected until they could continue their journey to California.

The emigrants agreed, the wagons were brought forward and loaded with the wounded and the weapons, and the procession started toward Cedar City. Within a short distance, one armed white man was positioned near each of the Baker-Fancher party adults, ostensibly for protection. When all was in place, a pre-determined signal was given and each of the armed white men turned, shot, and killed each of the unarmed Baker-Fancher party members. Within three to five minutes the entire massacre of men, women, and older children was complete. The only members of the original party remaining were those children judged to be under eight years old, numbering about 17 persons.

===The Aftermath===
After the massacre, local leaders attempted to portray the killings as solely the act of Indians. This effort began almost immediately, with John D. Lee's report to Brigham Young. It wasn't long, however, before charges started to surface that Indians were not the only participants, but that there were whites involved. Responding to the charges that whites were involved, Brigham Young urged Governor Cumming to investigate the matter fully. However, the governor maintained that if whites were involved, they would be pardoned under the general amnesty granted by the governor to the Mormons in June 1858. This amnesty was issued at the behest of U.S. President James Buchanan, and covered all hostile acts against the United States by any persons in the course of the Utah War.

Most scholars recognize that there was a local cover-up of the massacre. What there is disagreement on is how involved higher Church leaders were in any cover-up. Some have concluded that Brigham Young, himself, was involved in a cover-up, but others argue that the evidence does not support such a conclusion. It is known that Brigham was not privy to the full details at first; he was told that only Indians were involved. In April 1894 Wilford Woodruff stated the following concerning the massacre and Brigham Young's supposed involvement:

:One instance I will name here: A man went around Nauvoo asking every man he could, saying, "You come and be adopted to me, and I shall stand at the head of the kingdom, and you will be there with me." Now, what is the truth about this? Those who were adopted to that man, if they go with him, will have to go where he is. He was a participator in that horrible scene--the Mountain Meadow massacre. Men have tried to lay that to President Young. I was with President Young when the massacre was first reported to him. President Young was perfectly horrified at the recital of it, and wept over it. He asked: "Was there any white man had anything to do with that?" The reply was No; and by the representations then made to him he was misinformed concerning the whole transaction. I will say here, and call heaven and earth to witness, that President Young, during his whole life, never was the author of the shedding of the blood of any of the human family; and when the books are opened in the day of judgment these things will be proven to heaven and earth. Perhaps I had not ought to enter into these things, but it came to me.{{ref|ww1}}

Most historians have followed Juanita Brooks, who concluded that Brigham did not know about the massacre before-hand, and was horrified to learn of it.{{ref|brooks2}}

Of course, it wasn't just Indians who were involved. The best available evidence supports two levels of cover-up: (1) concerted denials of guilt by massacre participants, including attempts to shift the blame to their erstwhile Indian allies, and (2) attempts by Mormons not involved in the massacre to shield accused persons from capture or prosecution. The latter actions did not normally arise out of any approval for the massacre, and indeed were usually undertaken without knowledge of the guilt of the persons being shielded; rather they reflected a feeling of community solidarity versus the coercive power of an often-hostile government, and a pervasive mistrust of U.S. authorities and their willingness or ability to ensure that Mormon defendants would receive a fair trial. Accusations of any more substantial cover-up, either by the Mormon Church as an institution, or by its highest leaders, are not supported by the available evidence.

[[Image:LeeGrave.jpg|frame|Marker at grave site of John D. Lee, in Panguitch, Utah]]
Eventually, as more information came to light, some of the principal participants were excommunicated from the Church. One participant, John D. Lee, was found guilty of murder in federal court after twenty years and two trials. The first trial occurred in 1875, before the anti-Mormon judge Jacob Boreman. The prosecutor was an even more notorious anti-Mormon named R. N. Baskin. This official failed to properly try the case against Lee, presented very little evidence against him, and instead focused upon an attempt to prove Brigham Young's complicity in the massacre. This trial ended with a hung jury.

Lee's second trial occurred the following year; the prosecutor was U.S. District Attorney Sumner Howard, and Boreman was again the presiding judge. This time around, the case was properly tried; the jury heard overwhelming evidence against Lee, who was duly convicted and sentenced to be executed for his crime. On March 23, 1877, Lee was executed at Mountain Meadows and buried in Panguitch, Utah. Though other Mormons were certainly as culpable as Lee (he did not act alone), he was the only one executed.

The long hiatus between the massacre and Lee's trial is one of the factors which some feel support the accusations of an institutional cover-up. However, the reasons for this delay suggest otherwise. As mentioned earlier, Governor Alfred Cumming believed the massacre was covered by the Utah Amnesty, thus making any investigation pointless. This belief was shared by a number of eminent legal authorities, including some charged with law enforcement in Utah. The attempts by some politically minded judges, such as John Cradlebaugh, to direct the investigation and prosecution of crime in Utah and conduct "crusades" against the Mormon Church actually hindered, rather than helped, prosecutorial and investigative efforts.

An additional claim sometimes put forward is that Lee was a "scapegoat," that some kind of corrupt agreement existed between Church leaders and territorial authorities to not pursue anyone else. However, the historical records do not back this up. After Lee's execution, territorial authorities wanted to continue the investigations with a view to bringing more of the guilty parties to justice. The official correspondence shows a reward was offered for the capture of Isaac C. Haight, William Stewart and John Higbee, all suspects in the planning and/or execution of the massacre, and that this reward remained on offer for at least seven years. Lee was not tried as a "scapegoat" but as an actual participant in the massacre, evidently the leading participant, who had done more than any other person to bring it about, and who had actually killed five people.

===Polemical Accounts===
Almost as soon as news of the massacre reached the eastern United States, enemies of the Church began exploiting it for polemical purposes. The '''content''' of the various polemical accounts of the massacre varies considerably, but the '''intent''' of them is always and everywhere the same: to explain the massacre as a consequence of the doctrine, beliefs, practices or culture of the Mormon Church, and thus destructive of its truth claims.

When writing about the Mountain Meadows Massacre in his ''Comprehensive History of the Church,'' B.H. Roberts stated that he

:recognizes it as the most difficult of all the many subjects with which he has to deal in this ''History.'' Difficult because it is well-nigh impossible to sift out the absolute truth of the matter from the mass of conflicting statements made by witnesses and near witnesses of the affair; and equally difficult to reconcile the differences of contending partisans. Anti-"Mormon" writers have been determined to fasten the crime upon the Church of the Latter-day Saints, or at least upon her leaders; and also, as a rule, holding that in some way "Mormon" doctrine and "Mormon" church polity was responsible for the crime. On the other hand, church people who in all good conscience, and justly, resent this imputation against their church and its leaders, have been naturally slow to admit all the facts that history may insist upon as inevitable.{{ref|bhr2}}

Most scholars and historians are quick to admit that we don't have all the facts related to the massacre, and we probably never will have all of them. That hasn't stopped some people, for polemical reasons, from using a broad brush to denigrate the Church and its early leaders relative to the crimes of September 1857.

There have been many accounts of the events that occurred in relation to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and a small library could be filled with pertinent materials. Perhaps the best-known of the recent polemical accounts are:

# Will Bagley, ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows''. This work attempts to argue that Brigham Young actually ordered the massacre of the Fancher Party. Bagley relies upon a strained interpretation of some new evidence, including minutes of a meeting that took place between Dimick Huntington and some Southern Utah Indian chiefs on September 1, 1857, ten days before the massacre. The very brief minutes (actually a diary entry made after the fact) indicate that the purpose of the meeting, as with similar meetings held in the previous few days, was to enlist the Indians as allies against the approaching army, and not against the Fancher party. Although the particular item of evidence is new, the thesis which it is pressed into service to support actually dates to the 19th century; for example, in her book ''Wife No. 19,'' Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning accused Brigham Young of ordering the massacre so that he could appropriate the property of the victims.
# Sally Denton, ''American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857.'' This book attempts to show that no Indians had anything to do with the massacre, but that every part of it was carried out exclusively by white men. This also repeats a nineteenth-century theme; Mark Twain in ''Roughing It'' implied that the Indian participants in the massacre were really white men "tricked out" as Indians.

Certain themes continue to re-emerge in polemical accounts of the massacre. The claim that it was the worst massacre in American history is a common one; accusations of direct complicity on the part of Brigham Young, of subsequent institutional cover-up or of the "scapegoating" of John D. Lee, are common. Perhaps the following comments relative to Brigham Young's involvement may be instructive:

:As a lad I worked in the Main Street Store of the United Order Building and Manufacturing Company in Logan, Utah, commonly known as the U.O. The Logan Branch of Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institution, familiarly known as the Z.C.M.I., was on the corner, one half block down the street. It was one of my duties to take our egg and butter accumulation, commodities of exchange in those days, to the egg and butter house of Z.C.M.I. It was a small building a little to the rear of the large Z.C.M.I. store building. The worker in charge there was a man who to my boyish eyes was old, perhaps in his sixties. His name was James Holton Haslam. He and I became good friends. Eager for knowledge, I discovered that he was the courier who traveled the road between Salt Lake City to Parowan and back to help President Young establish friendly feelings among the emigrant company, the settlers, and the Indians. The Indians were giving chief concern. He described minutely the trip from Cedar City to Salt Lake City riding three hundred miles in three days, to warn President Young that trouble for the traveling company was brewing in the south. Brigham Young was greatly troubled. Within a few hours after his arrival Brother Haslam was again in the saddle to instruct the people at Parowan and neighboring communities to do everything in their power to protect the emigrants. When he reached Parowan, the massacre had already occurred. He had come too late!

:He described to me in detail his meeting with President Young. As he recounted the events of the massacre as far as he learned them, and he had every opportunity of knowing them intimately, President Young wept. The President did everything in his power to prevent any tragedy. He knew that if he failed his people, trained to live in peace and to give love for hate, they would be charged with the commission of the crime. He had suffered persecution with his people for many years. Moreover, he understood the horror of taking life.

:The Latter-day Saints had been persecuted and driven from place to place since the beginning of the Church. He and the people prayed for peace to continue their work of redeeming the stubborn desert for human use. This terrible massacre would only intensify the hatred against the Latter-day Saints.

:In righteous anger Brother Haslam defended to me as he had done in the courts and elsewhere Brigham Young against the charge of being an accessory to the criminal act of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. He was very convincing to me; and a boy is not easily fooled.

:When later I read Brother Haslam's testimony in the question and answer method, as published in the ''The Journal,'' Logan, Utah, December 4, 1874, I became more than ever convinced that he told the whole and absolute truth, and that Brigham Young was wholly innocent of any complicity with those who committed the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Note an extract from the long testimony covering two newspaper pages. Apparently he arrived in Salt Lake City in the forenoon and found President Young in his office holding a council meeting with his brethren. Brigham Young asked him after reading the message, from Cedar City or Parowan, if he could take the trip back, if so, to take a little rest, and start back during noontime. "He (President Young) said that the Indians must be kept from the emigrants at all costs if it took all of Iron County to protect them." He felt the matter strongly. His eyes filled with tears, said Brother Haslam.

:It would have been difficult to fool Brother Haslam. I believed him, and the many other supporting evidences, in preference to others who faraway in time are setting up their own theories of explanation. Brigham Young was not responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.{{ref|jaw1}}

===Historical Healing===
The events that transpired during the Mountain Meadows Massacre have lived (as they should) in infamy; there is no explanation that will justify the murders of those five days in September, and we cannot fully understand them. In the words of one scholar, "the complete—the absolute—truth of the affair can probably never be evaluated by any human being; attempts to understand the forces which culminated in it and those which were set into motion by it are all very inadequate at best."{{ref|brooks1}}

In spite of the tragedy, efforts have been made to heal the wounds that were gouged into the collective American psyche 150 years ago. In the 1980s descendants of the victims and the perpetrators met together to start bridging the divide and make peace with the past. In a series of meetings, the seeds of trust were planted and a hopeful sense of accord started to bloom. On September 15, 1990, many of these descendants gathered together at Mountain Meadows to dedicate a memorial and marker to those who died there. The new memorial was a rendition of the original rock cairn constructed at the site by a military expedition under the direction of Major James H. Carleton about two years after the massacre.


==Endnotes==
#{{note|briggs1}}{{Sunstone|author=Robert Briggs|num=125|article=Wrestling Brigham: Review of ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows'', by Will Bagley|date=December 2002|start=62|end=66}} A longer version was published as "Mountain Meadows and The Craft of History" and was available on sunstoneonline.com.
#{{note|bhr1}}{{CHC1|vol=4|start=156}}
#{{note|ww1}}{{CD1|author=Wilford Woodruff|date=8 April 1894|article=The Law of Adoption|vol=4|start=?}}
#{{note|brooks2}}Juanita Brooks, ''The Mountain Meadows Massacre'' (1950; reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 219
#{{note|bhr2}}Roberts, 139.
#{{note|jaw1}}{{IE1|author=John A. Widtsoe|article=Was Brigham Young Responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre?|date=August 1951|start=?}}
#{{note|brooks1}}Juanita Brooks, ''The Mountain Meadows Massacre,'' Revised Edition, (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 223.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{MMMWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{MMMFAIR}}
===External links===
{{MMMLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{MMMPrint}}

Mountain Meadows Massacre/History

2007-09-04T20:10:54Z

BlairHodges: /* The Massacre */ grammar, spelling

{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Mountain_Meadows_Massaker}}

==Criticism==
In September 1857 a group of Mormons in southern Utah killed all adult members of an Arkansas wagon train that was headed for California. Critics charge that the massacre was typical of Mormon "culture of violence," and claim that Church leaders—possibly as high as Brigham Young—approved of, or even ordered the killing.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*Richard Abanes, ''One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church''.
*Will Bagley, ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows''.
*David L. Bigler, ''Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847–1896'' (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1998).
*Sally Denton, ''American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows''.
*Jon Krakauer, ''Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith''.

==Response==
One of the most tragic and disturbing events in Mormon history took place on 11 September 1857, when approximately 120 men, women and children, travelling through Utah to California were massacred by a force consisting of Mormon militia members and Southern Paiute Indians. The Mountain Meadow Massacre, as it is known, has remained a topic of interest and controversy as Mormons and historians struggle to understand this event, and the Church's detractors seek to exploit it for polemical purposes.

===Setting the stage===
Shortly before July 24th, 1847, the first party of Mormon pioneers entered the Salt Lake Valley. These Saints were the first vanguard of Church members who had been driven from Nauvoo, Illinois, by angry mobs. At the time of its first settlement, the area that came to be known as Utah still belonged to Mexico, but was ceded to the United States in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo following the end of the Mexican-American War in early 1848. (The treaty ceded all of what would become California, Nevada, and Utah, as well as parts of modern-day Texas, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming.)

Over the next two years the bulk of the Church members who had been driven from Nauvoo reached the valley. Great Salt Lake City was built, and under Brigham Young's direction satellite settlements were established north, south, and west of the city. The sites for these settlements were often chosen because of proximity to an important natural resource; one such resource was the iron ore deposits found in what became known as Iron County in Southern Utah.

The continuation of successful missionary work in the Eastern United States and Europe brought a steady influx of Mormon converts to the Mormon communities; the population continued to grow, and settlement expanded outward into present-day Idaho, Canada, Nevada, California, Arizona, Wyoming, and Northern Mexico.

====The Utah War====
In 1850, Utah was established as a U.S. territory, with Brigham Young as its first governor. Because of its territorial status, the federal government retained the right to appoint officials at various levels, in addition to actual federal offices existing within the territory. While there were, no doubt, many honest public servants among them, a number of the federal appointees to both territorial and federal positions, including some judges, turned out to be both morally venal and abusive of the prerogatives of their offices. Scandals arose over the behavior of some of these men, who left the territory in disgrace. Rather than accepting responsibility for their own failures, a group of them, upon returning to the East, published claims that they had been forcibly expelled, and that the Mormons were rebelling against federal authority.

These claims caused quite an uproar in Washington, where the nascent Republican Party demanded something be done about the Mormons. Acting without benefit of an investigation, U.S. President James Buchanan appointed Alfred Cumming as territorial governor and, on June 29, 1857, ordered federal troops to escort Cumming to Utah. Additionally, Buchanan ordered the cessation of all mail service to Utah in an effort to provide the advantage of surprise for the advancing troops.

Despite the efforts of Buchanan to keep the advance of the army secret, Mormon mail runners notified Brigham Young, the incumbent territorial governor, the very next month that troops were travelling to Utah. He had not been officially notified that he was to be replaced, so he viewed the news—combined with the efforts to hide the movement of the troops—as an act of war by the United States government against the Mormons. Brigham closed all Church missions, instructing all missionaries to return to Utah, and ordered the abandonment of the more isolated Mormon colonies. He prepared to defend the territory against the approaching army by adopting a "scorched earth" policy. He sent small parties to harass the approaching troops with the intent of slowing their progress while he prepared the Saints for the plausible possibility of battles with U.S. troops.

The news of the approaching army spread quickly through the body of the Saints as preparations were made. Many Mormon settlers vividly remembered the hardships of being forcibly (and violently) expelled from Missouri and Illinois, and were resolved not to be driven from their homes again. The mood in the territory was grim and determined. This conflict, known as the Utah War, was ultimately resolved peacefully; but it was into this tense atmosphere the Baker-Fancher train entered in August of 1857.

====The Baker-Fancher Train====
[[Image:Mountain meadows map1-Utah1857.jpg|right|frame|Map showing the area around Mountain Meadows, highlighting the Spanish Trail]]
The Baker-Fancher train consisted of California-bound emigrants, men women and children, who started their journey in Arkansas and Missouri. The exact number of people in the train is estimated at 120, but some reports have put it as high as 140. Led by John T. Baker and Alexander Fancher, the train was reported to have been well-stocked, with plenty of cattle, horses, and mules.

The Baker-Fancher train arrived in Salt Lake City about the end of July 1857, camping west and a little south of the city on the Jordan River. Their arrival did not appear to raise any eyebrows or concerns, as there was no mention of them in the newspapers of the time. The group was advised by Elder Charles C. Rich of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to head toward California by circling around the northern edge of the Great Salt Lake, and they began in that direction. Upon travelling as far as the Bear River, the train decided to take the southern route. This caused them to pass through Salt Lake City again, moving further south through Provo, Springville, and Payson.

There were no reports of problems related to the Baker-Fancher party until they reached Fillmore, about 150 miles south of Salt Lake City. Commencing at this point and through settlements to the south, there were complaints that the emigrants boasted of participating the violence against Mormons in both Missouri and Illinois, that they poisoned a spring, and that they threatened to destroy one of the Mormon settlements.

It was also common knowledge that the train originated in Arkansas, where earlier in the year beloved apostle Parley P. Pratt had been murdered near the town of Van Buren. Rumor had it some of the members of the train were among those who had participated in Pratt's murder, or that they bragged about his killing. There are also reports that some of the emigrants told a few Latter-day Saints that once they had transported their families to California they would return, join the army, and help subdue the Mormons.

Whether there is any truth to these rumors, it is clear the travels of the Baker-Fancher train through southern Utah did not go unnoticed as they were in northern Utah. The presence of the train seemed to exacerbate the tensions already present due to the Utah War.

====Overland Travel Conditions====
Commencing with the opening of Oregon Territory, and accelerated by the discovery of gold in California, large numbers of emigrants crossed the interior of the continent to the West Coast. Before the completion of the first transcontinental railroad in 1869, overland travel was both difficult and dangerous. Native Americans, alarmed by the ever-increasing numbers of white settlers crossing their land, frequently attacked emigrant groups. Weather was another potential danger, with winter coming early to the high country and sudden storms occurring during all seasons of the year. For protection against these hazards, emigrants typically banded together in large parties called "wagon trains," covered wagons of the "pairie schooner" type being the most typical vehicles used. The climate made overland travel a seasonal affair as emigrant parties would try to complete their crossings during the warm months. To be caught on the high plains or the mountain passes when winter came was often a deadly mistake.

[[Image:MMMMap2.JPG|frame|left|Mountain Meadows site on modern map.
{{link|url=http://www.entradautah.com/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre_Site}}]]
The Mormon settlements of Utah provided important rest and reprovisioning points for overland travelers. One of the most widely used wagon trails to California branched off the Oregon trail in Northern Utah, running almost due South through Salt Lake City, eventually joining the Old Spanish Trail. Emigrants could purchase foodstuffs and other supplies from businesses in Salt Lake City and other towns, while their animals—both beasts of burden and any livestock—could find excellent grazing at a spot near the west end of the Pine Valley Mountains, about 30 miles west of Cedar City and 28 miles north of St. George, known as ''las Vegas de Santa Clara'' or the Mountain Meadows. It was common for emigrant parties to camp there for several days or even weeks while their animals gained condition for the gruelling desert crossings still to come.

===The Main Participants===
There were many participants in the tragedy at Mountain Meadows. The following are considered to be the main participants, from a historical perspective. (The individuals are listed in alphabetical order.)

'''William H. Dame''' was, at the time of the massacre, the commander of the Iron Military District with the militia rank of colonel. He was also serving as a bishop in the Mormon Church at that time. He did not participate personally in the massacre, but was, by the standards of military justice applicable both then and now, administratively responsible for the actions of officers and soldiers under his command.

'''Isaac C. Haight''' was born May 27, 1813, at Windham, New York. He was the commander of the Second Battalion in the Iron County militia with the rank of lieutenant colonel, and Colonel Dame's second-in-command. His ecclesiastical position was stake president. Haight's role in the massacre was a complex one; he was involved in its planning, but also made some efforts to stop or at least delay the actions against the emigrants. Efforts to bring Haight and others to justice after the massacre proved to be fruitless.

'''John H. Higbee''' was a major in the Iron County militia, serving under Isaac C. Haight. By all reports, he is the person who ordered the massacre to begin. His ecclesiastical position was first counselor in the stake presidency of Isaac C. Haight.

'''Philip Klingensmith''' was a bishop in Cedar City and an officer in the Iron County militia. In this latter role, he carried orders and other messages between various militia officers. He was present at the massacre and subsequently turned states' evidence, but his testimony was of no real help to the authorities.

'''John Doyle Lee''' was born September 12, 1812, at Kaskaskia, Illinois, and baptised on June 17, 1838. He served numerous missions for the Church and eventually moved to southern Utah in 1850 or 1851. At the time of the massacre he was a major in the Iron County militia, and commander of its Fourth Battalion. Lee was the only person ever brought to trial for his involvement in the massacre.

===The Massacre===
As the Baker-Fancher train camped at Mountain Meadows, some of the residents of Cedar City and the surrounding areas determined that some action needed to be taken against the emigrants. The heightened anxiety brought on by rumors swirling about the train, the advancing federal troops, the drought that many had suffered through for the year, and the memories of violence in Missouri and Illinois all combined in an explosive atmosphere; yet the residents were unclear on what action they should take.

This excellent summary of events in the days immediately preceding the massacre is provided by Robert H. Briggs:

:On or about 2 September 1857, some encounters between individuals in the Fancher train and others in the Mormon iron mining settlement of Cedar City sparked an angry reaction among the Mormon settlers. By Friday, 4 September, however, militia leaders in Cedar City had decided against direct Mormon interference with the train. Thus, Major (also stake president) Isaac Haight dispatched couriers to Pinto, a new settlement near the California Road directly west of Cedar City. The couriers, Joel White and Philip Klingensmith, carried orders for settlers there to not interfere with the approaching emigrant train. Meanwhile, however, a pivotal meeting occurred that same evening in Cedar City between Major Isaac Haight of the Second Battalion and Major John D. Lee of the Fourth. What emerged was a plan to incite local Paiute Indians to gather at Mountain Meadows with Lee as their leader. Lee departed in the early hours of Saturday, 5 September. Evidently, Lee had no further contact with militia leaders at Cedar for the better part of the next four days.

:Lee returned home to Fort Harmony and laid over on Saturday and part of Sunday, making preparations. He departed for the Meadows on Sunday and arrived there later that afternoon or evening. Other couriers carried word to outlying settlements, each relaying that Indians were to be assembled. There was some confusion about exactly where this rendezvous was to occur. Many Paiutes from the region of Cedar and Fort Harmony were sent to Mountain Meadows. Other bands along the Santa Clara River were urged to gather at Santa Clara Canyon (west of present Veyo).

:Similar preparations continued in Cedar City over the weekend but came to a halt in mid-afternoon on Sunday, 6 September. During the usual council meeting of community leaders from Cedar City and outlying settlements, Laban Morrill lead a faction which heatedly opposed Isaac Haight’s plan. Morrill extracted a promise from Haight that no aggressive action would be taken against any emigrants until they had sought the advice of President Brigham Young. Thus, as things stood in Cedar City, the plan was off.

:All of this was unknown to John D. Lee. At that moment, Lee was en route to the Mountain Meadows, his adopted Indian son in tow to act as interpreter. They met up with Paiute bands at Mountain Meadows that afternoon or evening. One line of evidence suggests that Santa Clara Canyon, roughly a dozen miles south of Mountain Meadows, was where the planned attack would occur. Yet early Monday morning, 7 September, Lee’s Paiute auxiliary force attacked the emigrant encampment at the southern tip of Mountain Meadows. We will probably never know for certain whether Lee attacked according to a preconceived plan or, driven by some personal desire or impulse, attacked on his own initiative. In any case, as things stood at the Meadows, the attack was on.

:Activity erupted throughout Southern Utah. In Cedar City, Major Haight dispatched the youthful Englishman James Haslam to Great Salt Lake City for orders from President Young. Haight also sent an express via Joseph Clews to Amos Thornton at Pinto which Thornton was to relay. In it, Haight ordered Lee to "keep the Indians off the emigrants and protect them from harm until further orders." Thornton rode to the Meadows but searched in vain for Lee. Unbeknownst to Thornton, Lee had gone south, spending the night near Santa Clara Canyon with Mormon militiamen and the Paiute allies he encountered there. This group arrived at the Meadows on Tuesday afternoon, 8 September. That is the earliest Lee could have received an express that the planned attack had been postponed.

:There were additional expresses between Tuesday, 8 September and Thursday, 10 September. The most significant of these was one from militia headquarters in Parowan which conveyed the ambiguous order to save emigrants lives yet not to precipitate a war with the Indians under any circumstances.{{ref|briggs1}}

In a meeting at Cedar City on the afternoon of September 6, 1857, local leaders received word the wagon train at Mountain Meadows had been surrounded by Paiute Indians who were determined to attack the emigrants. (Some historians are undecided as to whether Paiute Indians were actually involved in the massacre at all; some assert that it was white men disguised as Indians.) The leaders decided that they needed to ask Brigham Young what to do, so they dispatched a fast rider to Salt Lake City with a message to that effect. James H. Haslam, the messenger, left on Monday, September 7, and made the 300-mile journey in just a little more than three days. Within an hour he had an answer from Brigham Young and began the journey back to Cedar City. Young's message said, in part, "In regard to the emigration trains passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them." Unfortunately, the messenger arrived back in Cedar City two days after the massacre, on September 13, 1857.

As Haslam was leaving for Salt Lake City on September 7, the Indians' attack commenced. Several of the emigrants were killed, as were several of the Indians, producing a stalemate situation. The emigrants circled their wagons and dug into a rifle pit and the Indians sent a call to the surrounding country for reinforcements. They also sent for John D. Lee, an area farmer on friendly terms with the Indians. According to Lee's later court testimony, the Indians asked him to help with the attack. Lee instead sent word to Cedar City on September 10, asking what should be done.

It is at this point that the exact nature of the events becomes unclear; most details being provided by Lee, and the veracity of his testimony is naturally suspect. He indicated that in short order there were quite a few other Indians and white settlers who had joined the group outside of the siege. The night of September 10 and the following morning the whites debated what to do. It appears that one incident which factored into their eventual murderous decision was the killing, the night before, of one of the emigrants by white men. It appears that two men from the Baker-Fancher party left the camp, evaded those surrounding their camp, and started toward Cedar City to request help. Within a few miles the two met three white men, whom they asked for help, but then they were attacked by the white men. One of the two was killed, and the other was able to make his way back to the Baker-Fancher party.

How could such news factor into the decision to massacre the emigrants? There is no doubt the news that both Indians and white men—Mormons—were attacking the emigrants was not well received. If any of the emigrants should escape to California and tell the story, prejudice against the Mormons—already quite high—would be incited and there would be greater likelihood that a military force would move upon the southern settlements from the west. Facing down an army from the east might be bearable, but facing one from both the east and the west could seem unbearable.

Such reasoning does not excuse the decision the white men in the area made; it is only mentioned as a factor in understanding some of the excitement and the hysteria enveloping those in the area. The decision was apparently made on the morning of September 11 to destroy all in the Baker-Fancher party over the age of seven. To effect the massacre with a minimum of loss among the white men, it was decided to lure the emigrants out of their circled wagons and into the open. In the words of B.H. Roberts,

:The conception was diabolical; the execution of it horrible; and the responsibility for both must rest upon those men who conceived and executed it; for whatever of initiative may or may not have been taken by the Indians in the first assault upon these emigrants, responsibility for this deliberately planned massacre rests not with them.{{ref|bhr1}}

Thus it was that on September 11, a flag of truce was carried to the Baker-Fancher party by William Bateman. He was met outside the camp by one of the emigrants, a Mr. Hamilton, and an arrangement was made for John D. Lee to speak to the emigrants. Lee described to them a plan to get them through the hostile Indians. The plan involved the emigrants giving up their arms, loading the wounded into wagons, and then being followed by the women and the older children, with the men bring up the rear of the company in single-file order. In return for compliance with these terms, the white men would give the emigrants safe conduct back to Cedar City where they would be protected until they could continue their journey to California.

The emigrants agreed, the wagons were brought forward and loaded with the wounded and the weapons, and the procession started toward Cedar City. Within a short distance, one armed white man was positioned near each of the Baker-Fancher party adults, ostensibly for protection. When all was in place, a pre-determined signal was given and each of the armed white men turned, shot, and killed each of the unarmed Baker-Fancher party members. Within three to five minutes the entire massacre of men, women, and older children was complete. The only members of the original party remaining were those children judged to be under eight years old, numbering about 17 persons.

===The Aftermath===
After the massacre, local leaders attempted to portray the killings as solely the act of Indians. This effort began almost immediately, with John D. Lee's report to Brigham Young. It wasn't long, however, before charges started to surface that Indians were not the only participants, but that there were whites involved. Responding to the charges that whites were involved, Brigham Young urged Governor Cumming to investigate the matter fully. However, the governor maintained that if whites were involved, they would be pardoned under the general amnesty granted by the governor to the Mormons in June 1858. This amnesty was issued at the behest of U.S. President James Buchanan, and covered all hostile acts against the United States by any persons in the course of the Utah War.

Most scholars recognize that there was a local cover-up of the massacre. What there is disagreement on is how involved higher Church leaders were in any cover-up. Some have concluded that Brigham Young, himself, was involved in a cover-up, but others argue that the evidence does not support such a conclusion. It is known that Brigham was not privy to the full details at first; he was told that only Indians were involved. In April 1894 Wilford Woodruff stated the following concerning the massacre and Brigham Young's supposed involvement:

:One instance I will name here: A man went around Nauvoo asking every man he could, saying, "You come and be adopted to me, and I shall stand at the head of the kingdom, and you will be there with me." Now, what is the truth about this? Those who were adopted to that man, if they go with him, will have to go where he is. He was a participator in that horrible scene--the Mountain Meadow massacre. Men have tried to lay that to President Young. I was with President Young when the massacre was first reported to him. President Young was perfectly horrified at the recital of it, and wept over it. He asked: "Was there any white man had anything to do with that?" The reply was No; and by the representations then made to him he was misinformed concerning the whole transaction. I will say here, and call heaven and earth to witness, that President Young, during his whole life, never was the author of the shedding of the blood of any of the human family; and when the books are opened in the day of judgment these things will be proven to heaven and earth. Perhaps I had not ought to enter into these things, but it came to me.{{ref|ww1}}

Most historians have followed Juanita Brooks, who concluded that Brigham did not know about the massacre before-hand, and was horrified to learn of it.{{ref|brooks2}}

Of course, it wasn't just Indians who were involved. The best available evidence supports two levels of cover-up: (1) concerted denials of guilt by massacre participants, including attempts to shift the blame to their erstwhile Indian allies, and (2) attempts by Mormons not involved in the massacre to shield accused persons from capture or prosecution. The latter actions did not normally arise out of any approval for the massacre, and indeed were usually undertaken without knowledge of the guilt of the persons being shielded; rather they reflected a feeling of community solidarity versus the coercive power of an often-hostile government, and a pervasive mistrust of U.S. authorities and their willingness or ability to ensure that Mormon defendants would receive a fair trial. Accusations of any more substantial cover-up, either by the Mormon Church as an institution, or by its highest leaders, are not supported by the available evidence.

[[Image:LeeGrave.jpg|frame|Marker at grave site of John D. Lee, in Panguitch, Utah]]
Eventually, as more information came to light, some of the principal participants were excommunicated from the Church. One participant, John D. Lee, was found guilty of murder in federal court after twenty years and two trials. The first trial occurred in 1875, before the anti-Mormon judge Jacob Boreman. The prosecutor was an even more notorious anti-Mormon named R. N. Baskin. This official failed to properly try the case against Lee, presented very little evidence against him, and instead focused upon an attempt to prove Brigham Young's complicity in the massacre. This trial ended with a hung jury.

Lee's second trial occurred the following year; the prosecutor was U.S. District Attorney Sumner Howard, and Boreman was again the presiding judge. This time around, the case was properly tried; the jury heard overwhelming evidence against Lee, who was duly convicted and sentenced to be executed for his crime. On March 23, 1877, Lee was executed at Mountain Meadows and buried in Panguitch, Utah. Though other Mormons were certainly as culpable as Lee (he did not act alone), he was the only one executed.

The long hiatus between the massacre and Lee's trial is one of the factors which some feel supports the accusations of an institutional cover-up. However, the true reasons for this delay are quite different. As mentioned earlier, Governor Alfred Cumming believed that the massacre was covered by the Utah Amnesty, thus making any investigation pointless. This belief was shared by a number of eminent legal authorities, including some charged with law enforcement in Utah. The attempts by some politically minded judges, such as John Cradlebaugh, to direct the investigation and prosecution of crime in Utah and conduct "crusades" against the Mormon Church actually hindered rather than helped prosecutorial and investigative efforts.

An additional claim sometimes put forward is that Lee was a "scapegoat" and that some kind of corrupt agreement existed between Church leaders and territorial authorities to not pursue anyone else. However, the record does not back this up. After Lee's execution, territorial authorities wanted to continue the investigations with a view to bringing more of the guilty parties to justice. The official correspondence shows that a reward was offered for the capture of Isaac C. Haight, William Stewart and John Higbee, all suspects in the planning and/or execution of the massacre, and that this reward remained on offer for at least seven years. Lee was not tried as a "scapegoat" but as an actual participant--evidently the leading participant--in the massacre, who had done more than any other person to bring it about, and who had actually killed five people.

===Polemical Accounts===
Almost as soon as news of the massacre reached the eastern United States, enemies of the Church began exploiting it for polemical purposes. The '''content''' of the various polemical accounts of the massacre varies considerably, but the '''intent''' of them is always and everywhere the same: to explain the massacre as a consequence of the doctrine, beliefs, practices or culture of the Mormon Church, and thus destructive of its truth claims.

When writing about the Mountain Meadows Massacre in his ''Comprehensive History of the Church,'' B.H. Roberts stated that he

:recognizes it as the most difficult of all the many subjects with which he has to deal in this ''History.'' Difficult because it is well-nigh impossible to sift out the absolute truth of the matter from the mass of conflicting statements made by witnesses and near witnesses of the affair; and equally difficult to reconcile the differences of contending partisans. Anti-"Mormon" writers have been determined to fasten the crime upon the Church of the Latter-day Saints, or at least upon her leaders; and also, as a rule, holding that in some way "Mormon" doctrine and "Mormon" church polity was responsible for the crime. On the other hand, church people who in all good conscience, and justly, resent this imputation against their church and its leaders, have been naturally slow to admit all the facts that history may insist upon as inevitable.{{ref|bhr2}}

Most scholars and historians are quick to admit that we don't have all the facts related to the massacre, and we probably never will have all of them. That hasn't stopped some people, for polemical reasons, from using a broad brush to denigrate the Church and its early leaders relative to the crimes of September 1857.

There have been many accounts of the events that occurred in relation to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and a small library could be filled with pertinent materials. Perhaps the best-known of the recent polemical accounts are:

# Will Bagley, ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows''. This work attempts to argue that Brigham Young actually ordered the massacre of the Fancher Party. Bagley relies upon a strained interpretation of some new evidence, including minutes of a meeting that took place between Dimick Huntington and some Southern Utah Indian chiefs on September 1, 1857, ten days before the massacre. The very brief minutes (actually a diary entry made after the fact) indicate that the purpose of the meeting, as with similar meetings held in the previous few days, was to enlist the Indians as allies against the approaching army, and not against the Fancher party. Although the particular item of evidence is new, the thesis which it is pressed into service to support actually dates to the 19th century; for example, in her book ''Wife No. 19,'' Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning accused Brigham Young of ordering the massacre so that he could appropriate the property of the victims.
# Sally Denton, ''American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857.'' This book attempts to show that no Indians had anything to do with the massacre, but that every part of it was carried out exclusively by white men. This also repeats a nineteenth-century theme; Mark Twain in ''Roughing It'' implied that the Indian participants in the massacre were really white men "tricked out" as Indians.

Certain themes continue to re-emerge in polemical accounts of the massacre. The claim that it was the worst massacre in American history is a common one; accusations of direct complicity on the part of Brigham Young, of subsequent institutional cover-up or of the "scapegoating" of John D. Lee, are common. Perhaps the following comments relative to Brigham Young's involvement may be instructive:

:As a lad I worked in the Main Street Store of the United Order Building and Manufacturing Company in Logan, Utah, commonly known as the U.O. The Logan Branch of Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institution, familiarly known as the Z.C.M.I., was on the corner, one half block down the street. It was one of my duties to take our egg and butter accumulation, commodities of exchange in those days, to the egg and butter house of Z.C.M.I. It was a small building a little to the rear of the large Z.C.M.I. store building. The worker in charge there was a man who to my boyish eyes was old, perhaps in his sixties. His name was James Holton Haslam. He and I became good friends. Eager for knowledge, I discovered that he was the courier who traveled the road between Salt Lake City to Parowan and back to help President Young establish friendly feelings among the emigrant company, the settlers, and the Indians. The Indians were giving chief concern. He described minutely the trip from Cedar City to Salt Lake City riding three hundred miles in three days, to warn President Young that trouble for the traveling company was brewing in the south. Brigham Young was greatly troubled. Within a few hours after his arrival Brother Haslam was again in the saddle to instruct the people at Parowan and neighboring communities to do everything in their power to protect the emigrants. When he reached Parowan, the massacre had already occurred. He had come too late!

:He described to me in detail his meeting with President Young. As he recounted the events of the massacre as far as he learned them, and he had every opportunity of knowing them intimately, President Young wept. The President did everything in his power to prevent any tragedy. He knew that if he failed his people, trained to live in peace and to give love for hate, they would be charged with the commission of the crime. He had suffered persecution with his people for many years. Moreover, he understood the horror of taking life.

:The Latter-day Saints had been persecuted and driven from place to place since the beginning of the Church. He and the people prayed for peace to continue their work of redeeming the stubborn desert for human use. This terrible massacre would only intensify the hatred against the Latter-day Saints.

:In righteous anger Brother Haslam defended to me as he had done in the courts and elsewhere Brigham Young against the charge of being an accessory to the criminal act of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. He was very convincing to me; and a boy is not easily fooled.

:When later I read Brother Haslam's testimony in the question and answer method, as published in the ''The Journal,'' Logan, Utah, December 4, 1874, I became more than ever convinced that he told the whole and absolute truth, and that Brigham Young was wholly innocent of any complicity with those who committed the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Note an extract from the long testimony covering two newspaper pages. Apparently he arrived in Salt Lake City in the forenoon and found President Young in his office holding a council meeting with his brethren. Brigham Young asked him after reading the message, from Cedar City or Parowan, if he could take the trip back, if so, to take a little rest, and start back during noontime. "He (President Young) said that the Indians must be kept from the emigrants at all costs if it took all of Iron County to protect them." He felt the matter strongly. His eyes filled with tears, said Brother Haslam.

:It would have been difficult to fool Brother Haslam. I believed him, and the many other supporting evidences, in preference to others who faraway in time are setting up their own theories of explanation. Brigham Young was not responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.{{ref|jaw1}}

===Historical Healing===
The events that transpired during the Mountain Meadows Massacre have lived (as they should) in infamy; there is no explanation that will justify the murders of those five days in September, and we cannot fully understand them. In the words of one scholar, "the complete—the absolute—truth of the affair can probably never be evaluated by any human being; attempts to understand the forces which culminated in it and those which were set into motion by it are all very inadequate at best."{{ref|brooks1}}

In spite of the tragedy, efforts have been made to heal the wounds that were gouged into the collective American psyche 150 years ago. In the 1980s descendants of the victims and the perpetrators met together to start bridging the divide and make peace with the past. In a series of meetings, the seeds of trust were planted and a hopeful sense of accord started to bloom. On September 15, 1990, many of these descendants gathered together at Mountain Meadows to dedicate a memorial and marker to those who died there. The new memorial was a rendition of the original rock cairn constructed at the site by a military expedition under the direction of Major James H. Carleton about two years after the massacre.


==Endnotes==
#{{note|briggs1}}{{Sunstone|author=Robert Briggs|num=125|article=Wrestling Brigham: Review of ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows'', by Will Bagley|date=December 2002|start=62|end=66}} A longer version was published as "Mountain Meadows and The Craft of History" and was available on sunstoneonline.com.
#{{note|bhr1}}{{CHC1|vol=4|start=156}}
#{{note|ww1}}{{CD1|author=Wilford Woodruff|date=8 April 1894|article=The Law of Adoption|vol=4|start=?}}
#{{note|brooks2}}Juanita Brooks, ''The Mountain Meadows Massacre'' (1950; reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 219
#{{note|bhr2}}Roberts, 139.
#{{note|jaw1}}{{IE1|author=John A. Widtsoe|article=Was Brigham Young Responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre?|date=August 1951|start=?}}
#{{note|brooks1}}Juanita Brooks, ''The Mountain Meadows Massacre,'' Revised Edition, (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 223.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{MMMWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{MMMFAIR}}
===External links===
{{MMMLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{MMMPrint}}

Mountain Meadows Massacre/History

2007-09-04T19:58:20Z

BlairHodges: /* The Massacre */

{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Mountain_Meadows_Massaker}}

==Criticism==
In September 1857 a group of Mormons in southern Utah killed all adult members of an Arkansas wagon train that was headed for California. Critics charge that the massacre was typical of Mormon "culture of violence," and claim that Church leaders—possibly as high as Brigham Young—approved of, or even ordered the killing.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*Richard Abanes, ''One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church''.
*Will Bagley, ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows''.
*David L. Bigler, ''Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847–1896'' (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1998).
*Sally Denton, ''American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows''.
*Jon Krakauer, ''Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith''.

==Response==
One of the most tragic and disturbing events in Mormon history took place on 11 September 1857, when approximately 120 men, women and children, travelling through Utah to California were massacred by a force consisting of Mormon militia members and Southern Paiute Indians. The Mountain Meadow Massacre, as it is known, has remained a topic of interest and controversy as Mormons and historians struggle to understand this event, and the Church's detractors seek to exploit it for polemical purposes.

===Setting the stage===
Shortly before July 24th, 1847, the first party of Mormon pioneers entered the Salt Lake Valley. These Saints were the first vanguard of Church members who had been driven from Nauvoo, Illinois, by angry mobs. At the time of its first settlement, the area that came to be known as Utah still belonged to Mexico, but was ceded to the United States in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo following the end of the Mexican-American War in early 1848. (The treaty ceded all of what would become California, Nevada, and Utah, as well as parts of modern-day Texas, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming.)

Over the next two years the bulk of the Church members who had been driven from Nauvoo reached the valley. Great Salt Lake City was built, and under Brigham Young's direction satellite settlements were established north, south, and west of the city. The sites for these settlements were often chosen because of proximity to an important natural resource; one such resource was the iron ore deposits found in what became known as Iron County in Southern Utah.

The continuation of successful missionary work in the Eastern United States and Europe brought a steady influx of Mormon converts to the Mormon communities; the population continued to grow, and settlement expanded outward into present-day Idaho, Canada, Nevada, California, Arizona, Wyoming, and Northern Mexico.

====The Utah War====
In 1850, Utah was established as a U.S. territory, with Brigham Young as its first governor. Because of its territorial status, the federal government retained the right to appoint officials at various levels, in addition to actual federal offices existing within the territory. While there were, no doubt, many honest public servants among them, a number of the federal appointees to both territorial and federal positions, including some judges, turned out to be both morally venal and abusive of the prerogatives of their offices. Scandals arose over the behavior of some of these men, who left the territory in disgrace. Rather than accepting responsibility for their own failures, a group of them, upon returning to the East, published claims that they had been forcibly expelled, and that the Mormons were rebelling against federal authority.

These claims caused quite an uproar in Washington, where the nascent Republican Party demanded something be done about the Mormons. Acting without benefit of an investigation, U.S. President James Buchanan appointed Alfred Cumming as territorial governor and, on June 29, 1857, ordered federal troops to escort Cumming to Utah. Additionally, Buchanan ordered the cessation of all mail service to Utah in an effort to provide the advantage of surprise for the advancing troops.

Despite the efforts of Buchanan to keep the advance of the army secret, Mormon mail runners notified Brigham Young, the incumbent territorial governor, the very next month that troops were travelling to Utah. He had not been officially notified that he was to be replaced, so he viewed the news—combined with the efforts to hide the movement of the troops—as an act of war by the United States government against the Mormons. Brigham closed all Church missions, instructing all missionaries to return to Utah, and ordered the abandonment of the more isolated Mormon colonies. He prepared to defend the territory against the approaching army by adopting a "scorched earth" policy. He sent small parties to harass the approaching troops with the intent of slowing their progress while he prepared the Saints for the plausible possibility of battles with U.S. troops.

The news of the approaching army spread quickly through the body of the Saints as preparations were made. Many Mormon settlers vividly remembered the hardships of being forcibly (and violently) expelled from Missouri and Illinois, and were resolved not to be driven from their homes again. The mood in the territory was grim and determined. This conflict, known as the Utah War, was ultimately resolved peacefully; but it was into this tense atmosphere the Baker-Fancher train entered in August of 1857.

====The Baker-Fancher Train====
[[Image:Mountain meadows map1-Utah1857.jpg|right|frame|Map showing the area around Mountain Meadows, highlighting the Spanish Trail]]
The Baker-Fancher train consisted of California-bound emigrants, men women and children, who started their journey in Arkansas and Missouri. The exact number of people in the train is estimated at 120, but some reports have put it as high as 140. Led by John T. Baker and Alexander Fancher, the train was reported to have been well-stocked, with plenty of cattle, horses, and mules.

The Baker-Fancher train arrived in Salt Lake City about the end of July 1857, camping west and a little south of the city on the Jordan River. Their arrival did not appear to raise any eyebrows or concerns, as there was no mention of them in the newspapers of the time. The group was advised by Elder Charles C. Rich of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to head toward California by circling around the northern edge of the Great Salt Lake, and they began in that direction. Upon travelling as far as the Bear River, the train decided to take the southern route. This caused them to pass through Salt Lake City again, moving further south through Provo, Springville, and Payson.

There were no reports of problems related to the Baker-Fancher party until they reached Fillmore, about 150 miles south of Salt Lake City. Commencing at this point and through settlements to the south, there were complaints that the emigrants boasted of participating the violence against Mormons in both Missouri and Illinois, that they poisoned a spring, and that they threatened to destroy one of the Mormon settlements.

It was also common knowledge that the train originated in Arkansas, where earlier in the year beloved apostle Parley P. Pratt had been murdered near the town of Van Buren. Rumor had it some of the members of the train were among those who had participated in Pratt's murder, or that they bragged about his killing. There are also reports that some of the emigrants told a few Latter-day Saints that once they had transported their families to California they would return, join the army, and help subdue the Mormons.

Whether there is any truth to these rumors, it is clear the travels of the Baker-Fancher train through southern Utah did not go unnoticed as they were in northern Utah. The presence of the train seemed to exacerbate the tensions already present due to the Utah War.

====Overland Travel Conditions====
Commencing with the opening of Oregon Territory, and accelerated by the discovery of gold in California, large numbers of emigrants crossed the interior of the continent to the West Coast. Before the completion of the first transcontinental railroad in 1869, overland travel was both difficult and dangerous. Native Americans, alarmed by the ever-increasing numbers of white settlers crossing their land, frequently attacked emigrant groups. Weather was another potential danger, with winter coming early to the high country and sudden storms occurring during all seasons of the year. For protection against these hazards, emigrants typically banded together in large parties called "wagon trains," covered wagons of the "pairie schooner" type being the most typical vehicles used. The climate made overland travel a seasonal affair as emigrant parties would try to complete their crossings during the warm months. To be caught on the high plains or the mountain passes when winter came was often a deadly mistake.

[[Image:MMMMap2.JPG|frame|left|Mountain Meadows site on modern map.
{{link|url=http://www.entradautah.com/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre_Site}}]]
The Mormon settlements of Utah provided important rest and reprovisioning points for overland travelers. One of the most widely used wagon trails to California branched off the Oregon trail in Northern Utah, running almost due South through Salt Lake City, eventually joining the Old Spanish Trail. Emigrants could purchase foodstuffs and other supplies from businesses in Salt Lake City and other towns, while their animals—both beasts of burden and any livestock—could find excellent grazing at a spot near the west end of the Pine Valley Mountains, about 30 miles west of Cedar City and 28 miles north of St. George, known as ''las Vegas de Santa Clara'' or the Mountain Meadows. It was common for emigrant parties to camp there for several days or even weeks while their animals gained condition for the gruelling desert crossings still to come.

===The Main Participants===
There were many participants in the tragedy at Mountain Meadows. The following are considered to be the main participants, from a historical perspective. (The individuals are listed in alphabetical order.)

'''William H. Dame''' was, at the time of the massacre, the commander of the Iron Military District with the militia rank of colonel. He was also serving as a bishop in the Mormon Church at that time. He did not participate personally in the massacre, but was, by the standards of military justice applicable both then and now, administratively responsible for the actions of officers and soldiers under his command.

'''Isaac C. Haight''' was born May 27, 1813, at Windham, New York. He was the commander of the Second Battalion in the Iron County militia with the rank of lieutenant colonel, and Colonel Dame's second-in-command. His ecclesiastical position was stake president. Haight's role in the massacre was a complex one; he was involved in its planning, but also made some efforts to stop or at least delay the actions against the emigrants. Efforts to bring Haight and others to justice after the massacre proved to be fruitless.

'''John H. Higbee''' was a major in the Iron County militia, serving under Isaac C. Haight. By all reports, he is the person who ordered the massacre to begin. His ecclesiastical position was first counselor in the stake presidency of Isaac C. Haight.

'''Philip Klingensmith''' was a bishop in Cedar City and an officer in the Iron County militia. In this latter role, he carried orders and other messages between various militia officers. He was present at the massacre and subsequently turned states' evidence, but his testimony was of no real help to the authorities.

'''John Doyle Lee''' was born September 12, 1812, at Kaskaskia, Illinois, and baptised on June 17, 1838. He served numerous missions for the Church and eventually moved to southern Utah in 1850 or 1851. At the time of the massacre he was a major in the Iron County militia, and commander of its Fourth Battalion. Lee was the only person ever brought to trial for his involvement in the massacre.

===The Massacre===
As the Baker-Fancher train camped at Mountain Meadows, some of the residents of Cedar City and the surrounding areas determined that some action needed to be taken against the emigrants. The heightened anxiety brought on by rumors swirling about the train, the advancing federal troops, the drought that many had suffered through for the year, and the memories of violence in Missouri and Illinois all combined in an explosive atmosphere; yet the residents were unclear on what action they should take.

This excellent summary of events in the days immediately preceding the massacre is provided by Robert H. Briggs:

:On or about 2 September 1857, some encounters between individuals in the Fancher train and others in the Mormon iron mining settlement of Cedar City sparked an angry reaction among the Mormon settlers. By Friday, 4 September, however, militia leaders in Cedar City had decided against direct Mormon interference with the train. Thus, Major (also stake president) Isaac Haight dispatched couriers to Pinto, a new settlement near the California Road directly west of Cedar City. The couriers, Joel White and Philip Klingensmith, carried orders for settlers there to not interfere with the approaching emigrant train. Meanwhile, however, a pivotal meeting occurred that same evening in Cedar City between Major Isaac Haight of the Second Battalion and Major John D. Lee of the Fourth. What emerged was a plan to incite local Paiute Indians to gather at Mountain Meadows with Lee as their leader. Lee departed in the early hours of Saturday, 5 September. Evidently, Lee had no further contact with militia leaders at Cedar for the better part of the next four days.

:Lee returned home to Fort Harmony and laid over on Saturday and part of Sunday, making preparations. He departed for the Meadows on Sunday and arrived there later that afternoon or evening. Other couriers carried word to outlying settlements, each relaying that Indians were to be assembled. There was some confusion about exactly where this rendezvous was to occur. Many Paiutes from the region of Cedar and Fort Harmony were sent to Mountain Meadows. Other bands along the Santa Clara River were urged to gather at Santa Clara Canyon (west of present Veyo).

:Similar preparations continued in Cedar City over the weekend but came to a halt in mid-afternoon on Sunday, 6 September. During the usual council meeting of community leaders from Cedar City and outlying settlements, Laban Morrill lead a faction which heatedly opposed Isaac Haight’s plan. Morrill extracted a promise from Haight that no aggressive action would be taken against any emigrants until they had sought the advice of President Brigham Young. Thus, as things stood in Cedar City, the plan was off.

:All of this was unknown to John D. Lee. At that moment, Lee was en route to the Mountain Meadows, his adopted Indian son in tow to act as interpreter. They met up with Paiute bands at Mountain Meadows that afternoon or evening. One line of evidence suggests that Santa Clara Canyon, roughly a dozen miles south of Mountain Meadows, was where the planned attack would occur. Yet early Monday morning, 7 September, Lee’s Paiute auxiliary force attacked the emigrant encampment at the southern tip of Mountain Meadows. We will probably never know for certain whether Lee attacked according to a preconceived plan or, driven by some personal desire or impulse, attacked on his own initiative. In any case, as things stood at the Meadows, the attack was on.

:Activity erupted throughout Southern Utah. In Cedar City, Major Haight dispatched the youthful Englishman James Haslam to Great Salt Lake City for orders from President Young. Haight also sent an express via Joseph Clews to Amos Thornton at Pinto which Thornton was to relay. In it, Haight ordered Lee to "keep the Indians off the emigrants and protect them from harm until further orders." Thornton rode to the Meadows but searched in vain for Lee. Unbeknownst to Thornton, Lee had gone south, spending the night near Santa Clara Canyon with Mormon militiamen and the Paiute allies he encountered there. This group arrived at the Meadows on Tuesday afternoon, 8 September. That is the earliest Lee could have received an express that the planned attack had been postponed.

:There were additional expresses between Tuesday, 8 September and Thursday, 10 September. The most significant of these was one from militia headquarters in Parowan which conveyed the ambiguous order to save emigrants lives yet not to precipitate a war with the Indians under any circumstances.{{ref|briggs1}}

In a meeting at Cedar City on the afternoon of September 6, 1857, local leaders received word the wagon train at Mountain Meadows had been surrounded by Paiute Indians who were determined to attack the emigrants. (Some historians are undecided as to whether Paiute Indians were actually involved in the massacre at all; some assert that it was white men disguised as Indians.) The leaders decided that they needed to ask Brigham Young what to do, so they dispatched a fast rider to Salt Lake City with a message to that effect. James H. Haslam, the messenger, left on Monday, September 7, and made the 300-mile journey in just a little more than three days. Within an hour he had an answer from Brigham and began the journey back to Cedar City. Brigham's message said, in part, "In regard to the emigration trains passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them." Unfortunately, the messenger arrived back in Cedar City two days after the massacre, on September 13, 1857.

As Haslam was leaving for Salt Lake City on September 7, the Indians' attack commenced. Several of the emigrants were killed, as were several of the Indians, producing a stalemate situation. The emigrants circled their wagons and dug into a rifle pit, and the Indians sent a call to the surrounding country for reinforcements. They also sent for John D. Lee, an area farmer on friendly terms with the Indians. According to Lee's later court testimony, the Indians asked him to help with the attack. Lee instead sent word to Cedar City on September 10, asking what should be done.

It is at this point that the exact nature of the events becomes sketchy; most are provided by Lee, and the veracity of his testimony is naturally suspect. He indicated that in short order there were quite a few other Indians and white settlers who had joined the group outside of the siege. The night of September 10 and the following morning the whites debated what to do. It appears that one incident which factored into their eventual murderous decision was the killing, the night before, of one of the emigrants by white men. It appears that two men from the Baker-Fancher party left the camp, evaded those surrounding their camp, and started toward Cedar City to request help. Within a few miles the two met three white men, whom they asked for help, but then they were attacked by the white men. One of the two was killed, and the other was able to make his way back to the Baker-Fancher party.

How could such news factor into the decision to massacre the emigrants? There is no doubt the news that both Indians and white men—Mormons—were attacking the emigrants was not well received. If any of the emigrants should escape to California and tell the story, prejudice against the Mormons—already quite high—would be incited and there would be greater likelihood that a military force would move upon the southern settlements from the west. Facing down an army from the east might be bearable, but facing one from both the east and the west was unbearable.

Such reasoning does not excuse, of course, the decision that the white men in the area then made; it is only offered as a way to understand some of the excitement and the hysteria that enveloped those in the area. The decision was apparently made on the morning of September 11 to destroy those in the Baker-Fancher party who were over the age of seven. To effect the massacre with a minimum of loss among the white men, it was decided to lure the emigrants out of their circled wagons and into the open. In the words of B.H. Roberts,

:The conception was diabolical; the execution of it horrible; and the responsibility for both must rest upon those men who conceived and executed it; for whatever of initiative may or may not have been taken by the Indians in the first assault upon these emigrants, responsibility for this deliberately planned massacre rests not with them.{{ref|bhr1}}

Thus it was that on September 11, a flag of truce was carried to the Baker-Fancher party by William Bateman. He was met outside the camp by one of the emigrants, a Mr. Hamilton, and an arrangement was made for John D. Lee to speak to the emigrants. Lee described to them a plan to get them through the hostile Indians. The plan involved the emigrants giving up their arms, loading the wounded into wagons, and then being followed by the women and the older children, with the men bring up the rear of the company in a single-file order. In return for compliance with these terms, the white men would give the emigrants safe conduct back to Cedar City where they would be protected until they could continue their journey to California.

The emigrants agreed, the wagons were brought forward and loaded with the wounded and the weapons, and the procession started toward Cedar City. Within a short distance, one armed white man was positioned near each of the Baker-Fancher party adults, ostensibly for protection. When all was in place, a pre-determined signal was given and each of the armed white men turned, shot, and killed each of the unarmed Baker-Fancher party members. Within three to five minutes the entire massacre of men, women, and older children was completed. The only members of the original party remaining were those children judged to be under eight years old, numbering about 17 persons.

===The Aftermath===
After the massacre, local leaders attempted to portray the killings as solely the act of Indians. This effort began almost immediately, with John D. Lee's report to Brigham Young. It wasn't long, however, before charges started to surface that Indians were not the only participants, but that there were whites involved. Responding to the charges that whites were involved, Brigham Young urged Governor Cumming to investigate the matter fully. However, the governor maintained that if whites were involved, they would be pardoned under the general amnesty granted by the governor to the Mormons in June 1858. This amnesty was issued at the behest of U.S. President James Buchanan, and covered all hostile acts against the United States by any persons in the course of the Utah War.

Most scholars recognize that there was a local cover-up of the massacre. What there is disagreement on is how involved higher Church leaders were in any cover-up. Some have concluded that Brigham Young, himself, was involved in a cover-up, but others argue that the evidence does not support such a conclusion. It is known that Brigham was not privy to the full details at first; he was told that only Indians were involved. In April 1894 Wilford Woodruff stated the following concerning the massacre and Brigham Young's supposed involvement:

:One instance I will name here: A man went around Nauvoo asking every man he could, saying, "You come and be adopted to me, and I shall stand at the head of the kingdom, and you will be there with me." Now, what is the truth about this? Those who were adopted to that man, if they go with him, will have to go where he is. He was a participator in that horrible scene--the Mountain Meadow massacre. Men have tried to lay that to President Young. I was with President Young when the massacre was first reported to him. President Young was perfectly horrified at the recital of it, and wept over it. He asked: "Was there any white man had anything to do with that?" The reply was No; and by the representations then made to him he was misinformed concerning the whole transaction. I will say here, and call heaven and earth to witness, that President Young, during his whole life, never was the author of the shedding of the blood of any of the human family; and when the books are opened in the day of judgment these things will be proven to heaven and earth. Perhaps I had not ought to enter into these things, but it came to me.{{ref|ww1}}

Most historians have followed Juanita Brooks, who concluded that Brigham did not know about the massacre before-hand, and was horrified to learn of it.{{ref|brooks2}}

Of course, it wasn't just Indians who were involved. The best available evidence supports two levels of cover-up: (1) concerted denials of guilt by massacre participants, including attempts to shift the blame to their erstwhile Indian allies, and (2) attempts by Mormons not involved in the massacre to shield accused persons from capture or prosecution. The latter actions did not normally arise out of any approval for the massacre, and indeed were usually undertaken without knowledge of the guilt of the persons being shielded; rather they reflected a feeling of community solidarity versus the coercive power of an often-hostile government, and a pervasive mistrust of U.S. authorities and their willingness or ability to ensure that Mormon defendants would receive a fair trial. Accusations of any more substantial cover-up, either by the Mormon Church as an institution, or by its highest leaders, are not supported by the available evidence.

[[Image:LeeGrave.jpg|frame|Marker at grave site of John D. Lee, in Panguitch, Utah]]
Eventually, as more information came to light, some of the principal participants were excommunicated from the Church. One participant, John D. Lee, was found guilty of murder in federal court after twenty years and two trials. The first trial occurred in 1875, before the anti-Mormon judge Jacob Boreman. The prosecutor was an even more notorious anti-Mormon named R. N. Baskin. This official failed to properly try the case against Lee, presented very little evidence against him, and instead focused upon an attempt to prove Brigham Young's complicity in the massacre. This trial ended with a hung jury.

Lee's second trial occurred the following year; the prosecutor was U.S. District Attorney Sumner Howard, and Boreman was again the presiding judge. This time around, the case was properly tried; the jury heard overwhelming evidence against Lee, who was duly convicted and sentenced to be executed for his crime. On March 23, 1877, Lee was executed at Mountain Meadows and buried in Panguitch, Utah. Though other Mormons were certainly as culpable as Lee (he did not act alone), he was the only one executed.

The long hiatus between the massacre and Lee's trial is one of the factors which some feel supports the accusations of an institutional cover-up. However, the true reasons for this delay are quite different. As mentioned earlier, Governor Alfred Cumming believed that the massacre was covered by the Utah Amnesty, thus making any investigation pointless. This belief was shared by a number of eminent legal authorities, including some charged with law enforcement in Utah. The attempts by some politically minded judges, such as John Cradlebaugh, to direct the investigation and prosecution of crime in Utah and conduct "crusades" against the Mormon Church actually hindered rather than helped prosecutorial and investigative efforts.

An additional claim sometimes put forward is that Lee was a "scapegoat" and that some kind of corrupt agreement existed between Church leaders and territorial authorities to not pursue anyone else. However, the record does not back this up. After Lee's execution, territorial authorities wanted to continue the investigations with a view to bringing more of the guilty parties to justice. The official correspondence shows that a reward was offered for the capture of Isaac C. Haight, William Stewart and John Higbee, all suspects in the planning and/or execution of the massacre, and that this reward remained on offer for at least seven years. Lee was not tried as a "scapegoat" but as an actual participant--evidently the leading participant--in the massacre, who had done more than any other person to bring it about, and who had actually killed five people.

===Polemical Accounts===
Almost as soon as news of the massacre reached the eastern United States, enemies of the Church began exploiting it for polemical purposes. The '''content''' of the various polemical accounts of the massacre varies considerably, but the '''intent''' of them is always and everywhere the same: to explain the massacre as a consequence of the doctrine, beliefs, practices or culture of the Mormon Church, and thus destructive of its truth claims.

When writing about the Mountain Meadows Massacre in his ''Comprehensive History of the Church,'' B.H. Roberts stated that he

:recognizes it as the most difficult of all the many subjects with which he has to deal in this ''History.'' Difficult because it is well-nigh impossible to sift out the absolute truth of the matter from the mass of conflicting statements made by witnesses and near witnesses of the affair; and equally difficult to reconcile the differences of contending partisans. Anti-"Mormon" writers have been determined to fasten the crime upon the Church of the Latter-day Saints, or at least upon her leaders; and also, as a rule, holding that in some way "Mormon" doctrine and "Mormon" church polity was responsible for the crime. On the other hand, church people who in all good conscience, and justly, resent this imputation against their church and its leaders, have been naturally slow to admit all the facts that history may insist upon as inevitable.{{ref|bhr2}}

Most scholars and historians are quick to admit that we don't have all the facts related to the massacre, and we probably never will have all of them. That hasn't stopped some people, for polemical reasons, from using a broad brush to denigrate the Church and its early leaders relative to the crimes of September 1857.

There have been many accounts of the events that occurred in relation to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and a small library could be filled with pertinent materials. Perhaps the best-known of the recent polemical accounts are:

# Will Bagley, ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows''. This work attempts to argue that Brigham Young actually ordered the massacre of the Fancher Party. Bagley relies upon a strained interpretation of some new evidence, including minutes of a meeting that took place between Dimick Huntington and some Southern Utah Indian chiefs on September 1, 1857, ten days before the massacre. The very brief minutes (actually a diary entry made after the fact) indicate that the purpose of the meeting, as with similar meetings held in the previous few days, was to enlist the Indians as allies against the approaching army, and not against the Fancher party. Although the particular item of evidence is new, the thesis which it is pressed into service to support actually dates to the 19th century; for example, in her book ''Wife No. 19,'' Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning accused Brigham Young of ordering the massacre so that he could appropriate the property of the victims.
# Sally Denton, ''American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857.'' This book attempts to show that no Indians had anything to do with the massacre, but that every part of it was carried out exclusively by white men. This also repeats a nineteenth-century theme; Mark Twain in ''Roughing It'' implied that the Indian participants in the massacre were really white men "tricked out" as Indians.

Certain themes continue to re-emerge in polemical accounts of the massacre. The claim that it was the worst massacre in American history is a common one; accusations of direct complicity on the part of Brigham Young, of subsequent institutional cover-up or of the "scapegoating" of John D. Lee, are common. Perhaps the following comments relative to Brigham Young's involvement may be instructive:

:As a lad I worked in the Main Street Store of the United Order Building and Manufacturing Company in Logan, Utah, commonly known as the U.O. The Logan Branch of Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institution, familiarly known as the Z.C.M.I., was on the corner, one half block down the street. It was one of my duties to take our egg and butter accumulation, commodities of exchange in those days, to the egg and butter house of Z.C.M.I. It was a small building a little to the rear of the large Z.C.M.I. store building. The worker in charge there was a man who to my boyish eyes was old, perhaps in his sixties. His name was James Holton Haslam. He and I became good friends. Eager for knowledge, I discovered that he was the courier who traveled the road between Salt Lake City to Parowan and back to help President Young establish friendly feelings among the emigrant company, the settlers, and the Indians. The Indians were giving chief concern. He described minutely the trip from Cedar City to Salt Lake City riding three hundred miles in three days, to warn President Young that trouble for the traveling company was brewing in the south. Brigham Young was greatly troubled. Within a few hours after his arrival Brother Haslam was again in the saddle to instruct the people at Parowan and neighboring communities to do everything in their power to protect the emigrants. When he reached Parowan, the massacre had already occurred. He had come too late!

:He described to me in detail his meeting with President Young. As he recounted the events of the massacre as far as he learned them, and he had every opportunity of knowing them intimately, President Young wept. The President did everything in his power to prevent any tragedy. He knew that if he failed his people, trained to live in peace and to give love for hate, they would be charged with the commission of the crime. He had suffered persecution with his people for many years. Moreover, he understood the horror of taking life.

:The Latter-day Saints had been persecuted and driven from place to place since the beginning of the Church. He and the people prayed for peace to continue their work of redeeming the stubborn desert for human use. This terrible massacre would only intensify the hatred against the Latter-day Saints.

:In righteous anger Brother Haslam defended to me as he had done in the courts and elsewhere Brigham Young against the charge of being an accessory to the criminal act of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. He was very convincing to me; and a boy is not easily fooled.

:When later I read Brother Haslam's testimony in the question and answer method, as published in the ''The Journal,'' Logan, Utah, December 4, 1874, I became more than ever convinced that he told the whole and absolute truth, and that Brigham Young was wholly innocent of any complicity with those who committed the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Note an extract from the long testimony covering two newspaper pages. Apparently he arrived in Salt Lake City in the forenoon and found President Young in his office holding a council meeting with his brethren. Brigham Young asked him after reading the message, from Cedar City or Parowan, if he could take the trip back, if so, to take a little rest, and start back during noontime. "He (President Young) said that the Indians must be kept from the emigrants at all costs if it took all of Iron County to protect them." He felt the matter strongly. His eyes filled with tears, said Brother Haslam.

:It would have been difficult to fool Brother Haslam. I believed him, and the many other supporting evidences, in preference to others who faraway in time are setting up their own theories of explanation. Brigham Young was not responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.{{ref|jaw1}}

===Historical Healing===
The events that transpired during the Mountain Meadows Massacre have lived (as they should) in infamy; there is no explanation that will justify the murders of those five days in September, and we cannot fully understand them. In the words of one scholar, "the complete—the absolute—truth of the affair can probably never be evaluated by any human being; attempts to understand the forces which culminated in it and those which were set into motion by it are all very inadequate at best."{{ref|brooks1}}

In spite of the tragedy, efforts have been made to heal the wounds that were gouged into the collective American psyche 150 years ago. In the 1980s descendants of the victims and the perpetrators met together to start bridging the divide and make peace with the past. In a series of meetings, the seeds of trust were planted and a hopeful sense of accord started to bloom. On September 15, 1990, many of these descendants gathered together at Mountain Meadows to dedicate a memorial and marker to those who died there. The new memorial was a rendition of the original rock cairn constructed at the site by a military expedition under the direction of Major James H. Carleton about two years after the massacre.


==Endnotes==
#{{note|briggs1}}{{Sunstone|author=Robert Briggs|num=125|article=Wrestling Brigham: Review of ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows'', by Will Bagley|date=December 2002|start=62|end=66}} A longer version was published as "Mountain Meadows and The Craft of History" and was available on sunstoneonline.com.
#{{note|bhr1}}{{CHC1|vol=4|start=156}}
#{{note|ww1}}{{CD1|author=Wilford Woodruff|date=8 April 1894|article=The Law of Adoption|vol=4|start=?}}
#{{note|brooks2}}Juanita Brooks, ''The Mountain Meadows Massacre'' (1950; reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 219
#{{note|bhr2}}Roberts, 139.
#{{note|jaw1}}{{IE1|author=John A. Widtsoe|article=Was Brigham Young Responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre?|date=August 1951|start=?}}
#{{note|brooks1}}Juanita Brooks, ''The Mountain Meadows Massacre,'' Revised Edition, (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 223.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{MMMWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{MMMFAIR}}
===External links===
{{MMMLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{MMMPrint}}

Mountain Meadows Massacre/History

2007-09-04T19:56:02Z

BlairHodges: /* The Main Participants */ Grammer

{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Mountain_Meadows_Massaker}}

==Criticism==
In September 1857 a group of Mormons in southern Utah killed all adult members of an Arkansas wagon train that was headed for California. Critics charge that the massacre was typical of Mormon "culture of violence," and claim that Church leaders—possibly as high as Brigham Young—approved of, or even ordered the killing.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*Richard Abanes, ''One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church''.
*Will Bagley, ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows''.
*David L. Bigler, ''Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847–1896'' (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1998).
*Sally Denton, ''American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows''.
*Jon Krakauer, ''Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith''.

==Response==
One of the most tragic and disturbing events in Mormon history took place on 11 September 1857, when approximately 120 men, women and children, travelling through Utah to California were massacred by a force consisting of Mormon militia members and Southern Paiute Indians. The Mountain Meadow Massacre, as it is known, has remained a topic of interest and controversy as Mormons and historians struggle to understand this event, and the Church's detractors seek to exploit it for polemical purposes.

===Setting the stage===
Shortly before July 24th, 1847, the first party of Mormon pioneers entered the Salt Lake Valley. These Saints were the first vanguard of Church members who had been driven from Nauvoo, Illinois, by angry mobs. At the time of its first settlement, the area that came to be known as Utah still belonged to Mexico, but was ceded to the United States in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo following the end of the Mexican-American War in early 1848. (The treaty ceded all of what would become California, Nevada, and Utah, as well as parts of modern-day Texas, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming.)

Over the next two years the bulk of the Church members who had been driven from Nauvoo reached the valley. Great Salt Lake City was built, and under Brigham Young's direction satellite settlements were established north, south, and west of the city. The sites for these settlements were often chosen because of proximity to an important natural resource; one such resource was the iron ore deposits found in what became known as Iron County in Southern Utah.

The continuation of successful missionary work in the Eastern United States and Europe brought a steady influx of Mormon converts to the Mormon communities; the population continued to grow, and settlement expanded outward into present-day Idaho, Canada, Nevada, California, Arizona, Wyoming, and Northern Mexico.

====The Utah War====
In 1850, Utah was established as a U.S. territory, with Brigham Young as its first governor. Because of its territorial status, the federal government retained the right to appoint officials at various levels, in addition to actual federal offices existing within the territory. While there were, no doubt, many honest public servants among them, a number of the federal appointees to both territorial and federal positions, including some judges, turned out to be both morally venal and abusive of the prerogatives of their offices. Scandals arose over the behavior of some of these men, who left the territory in disgrace. Rather than accepting responsibility for their own failures, a group of them, upon returning to the East, published claims that they had been forcibly expelled, and that the Mormons were rebelling against federal authority.

These claims caused quite an uproar in Washington, where the nascent Republican Party demanded something be done about the Mormons. Acting without benefit of an investigation, U.S. President James Buchanan appointed Alfred Cumming as territorial governor and, on June 29, 1857, ordered federal troops to escort Cumming to Utah. Additionally, Buchanan ordered the cessation of all mail service to Utah in an effort to provide the advantage of surprise for the advancing troops.

Despite the efforts of Buchanan to keep the advance of the army secret, Mormon mail runners notified Brigham Young, the incumbent territorial governor, the very next month that troops were travelling to Utah. He had not been officially notified that he was to be replaced, so he viewed the news—combined with the efforts to hide the movement of the troops—as an act of war by the United States government against the Mormons. Brigham closed all Church missions, instructing all missionaries to return to Utah, and ordered the abandonment of the more isolated Mormon colonies. He prepared to defend the territory against the approaching army by adopting a "scorched earth" policy. He sent small parties to harass the approaching troops with the intent of slowing their progress while he prepared the Saints for the plausible possibility of battles with U.S. troops.

The news of the approaching army spread quickly through the body of the Saints as preparations were made. Many Mormon settlers vividly remembered the hardships of being forcibly (and violently) expelled from Missouri and Illinois, and were resolved not to be driven from their homes again. The mood in the territory was grim and determined. This conflict, known as the Utah War, was ultimately resolved peacefully; but it was into this tense atmosphere the Baker-Fancher train entered in August of 1857.

====The Baker-Fancher Train====
[[Image:Mountain meadows map1-Utah1857.jpg|right|frame|Map showing the area around Mountain Meadows, highlighting the Spanish Trail]]
The Baker-Fancher train consisted of California-bound emigrants, men women and children, who started their journey in Arkansas and Missouri. The exact number of people in the train is estimated at 120, but some reports have put it as high as 140. Led by John T. Baker and Alexander Fancher, the train was reported to have been well-stocked, with plenty of cattle, horses, and mules.

The Baker-Fancher train arrived in Salt Lake City about the end of July 1857, camping west and a little south of the city on the Jordan River. Their arrival did not appear to raise any eyebrows or concerns, as there was no mention of them in the newspapers of the time. The group was advised by Elder Charles C. Rich of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to head toward California by circling around the northern edge of the Great Salt Lake, and they began in that direction. Upon travelling as far as the Bear River, the train decided to take the southern route. This caused them to pass through Salt Lake City again, moving further south through Provo, Springville, and Payson.

There were no reports of problems related to the Baker-Fancher party until they reached Fillmore, about 150 miles south of Salt Lake City. Commencing at this point and through settlements to the south, there were complaints that the emigrants boasted of participating the violence against Mormons in both Missouri and Illinois, that they poisoned a spring, and that they threatened to destroy one of the Mormon settlements.

It was also common knowledge that the train originated in Arkansas, where earlier in the year beloved apostle Parley P. Pratt had been murdered near the town of Van Buren. Rumor had it some of the members of the train were among those who had participated in Pratt's murder, or that they bragged about his killing. There are also reports that some of the emigrants told a few Latter-day Saints that once they had transported their families to California they would return, join the army, and help subdue the Mormons.

Whether there is any truth to these rumors, it is clear the travels of the Baker-Fancher train through southern Utah did not go unnoticed as they were in northern Utah. The presence of the train seemed to exacerbate the tensions already present due to the Utah War.

====Overland Travel Conditions====
Commencing with the opening of Oregon Territory, and accelerated by the discovery of gold in California, large numbers of emigrants crossed the interior of the continent to the West Coast. Before the completion of the first transcontinental railroad in 1869, overland travel was both difficult and dangerous. Native Americans, alarmed by the ever-increasing numbers of white settlers crossing their land, frequently attacked emigrant groups. Weather was another potential danger, with winter coming early to the high country and sudden storms occurring during all seasons of the year. For protection against these hazards, emigrants typically banded together in large parties called "wagon trains," covered wagons of the "pairie schooner" type being the most typical vehicles used. The climate made overland travel a seasonal affair as emigrant parties would try to complete their crossings during the warm months. To be caught on the high plains or the mountain passes when winter came was often a deadly mistake.

[[Image:MMMMap2.JPG|frame|left|Mountain Meadows site on modern map.
{{link|url=http://www.entradautah.com/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre_Site}}]]
The Mormon settlements of Utah provided important rest and reprovisioning points for overland travelers. One of the most widely used wagon trails to California branched off the Oregon trail in Northern Utah, running almost due South through Salt Lake City, eventually joining the Old Spanish Trail. Emigrants could purchase foodstuffs and other supplies from businesses in Salt Lake City and other towns, while their animals—both beasts of burden and any livestock—could find excellent grazing at a spot near the west end of the Pine Valley Mountains, about 30 miles west of Cedar City and 28 miles north of St. George, known as ''las Vegas de Santa Clara'' or the Mountain Meadows. It was common for emigrant parties to camp there for several days or even weeks while their animals gained condition for the gruelling desert crossings still to come.

===The Main Participants===
There were many participants in the tragedy at Mountain Meadows. The following are considered to be the main participants, from a historical perspective. (The individuals are listed in alphabetical order.)

'''William H. Dame''' was, at the time of the massacre, the commander of the Iron Military District with the militia rank of colonel. He was also serving as a bishop in the Mormon Church at that time. He did not participate personally in the massacre, but was, by the standards of military justice applicable both then and now, administratively responsible for the actions of officers and soldiers under his command.

'''Isaac C. Haight''' was born May 27, 1813, at Windham, New York. He was the commander of the Second Battalion in the Iron County militia with the rank of lieutenant colonel, and Colonel Dame's second-in-command. His ecclesiastical position was stake president. Haight's role in the massacre was a complex one; he was involved in its planning, but also made some efforts to stop or at least delay the actions against the emigrants. Efforts to bring Haight and others to justice after the massacre proved to be fruitless.

'''John H. Higbee''' was a major in the Iron County militia, serving under Isaac C. Haight. By all reports, he is the person who ordered the massacre to begin. His ecclesiastical position was first counselor in the stake presidency of Isaac C. Haight.

'''Philip Klingensmith''' was a bishop in Cedar City and an officer in the Iron County militia. In this latter role, he carried orders and other messages between various militia officers. He was present at the massacre and subsequently turned states' evidence, but his testimony was of no real help to the authorities.

'''John Doyle Lee''' was born September 12, 1812, at Kaskaskia, Illinois, and baptised on June 17, 1838. He served numerous missions for the Church and eventually moved to southern Utah in 1850 or 1851. At the time of the massacre he was a major in the Iron County militia, and commander of its Fourth Battalion. Lee was the only person ever brought to trial for his involvement in the massacre.

===The Massacre===
As the Baker-Fancher train camped at Mountain Meadows, some of the residents of Cedar City and the surrounding areas determined that some action needed to be taken against the emigrants. The heightened anxiety brought on by rumors swirling about the train, the advancing federal troops, the drought that many had suffered through for the year, and the memories of violence in Missouri and Illinois all combined in an explosive atmosphere, yet the residents were unclear on what action they should take.

This excellent summary of events in the days immediately preceding the massacre is provided by Robert H. Briggs:

:On or about 2 September 1857, some encounters between individuals in the Fancher train and others in the Mormon iron mining settlement of Cedar City sparked an angry reaction among the Mormon settlers. By Friday, 4 September, however, militia leaders in Cedar City had decided against direct Mormon interference with the train. Thus, Major (also stake president) Isaac Haight dispatched couriers to Pinto, a new settlement near the California Road directly west of Cedar City. The couriers, Joel White and Philip Klingensmith, carried orders for settlers there to not interfere with the approaching emigrant train. Meanwhile, however, a pivotal meeting occurred that same evening in Cedar City between Major Isaac Haight of the Second Battalion and Major John D. Lee of the Fourth. What emerged was a plan to incite local Paiute Indians to gather at Mountain Meadows with Lee as their leader. Lee departed in the early hours of Saturday, 5 September. Evidently, Lee had no further contact with militia leaders at Cedar for the better part of the next four days.

:Lee returned home to Fort Harmony and laid over on Saturday and part of Sunday, making preparations. He departed for the Meadows on Sunday and arrived there later that afternoon or evening. Other couriers carried word to outlying settlements, each relaying that Indians were to be assembled. There was some confusion about exactly where this rendezvous was to occur. Many Paiutes from the region of Cedar and Fort Harmony were sent to Mountain Meadows. Other bands along the Santa Clara River were urged to gather at Santa Clara Canyon (west of present Veyo).

:Similar preparations continued in Cedar City over the weekend but came to a halt in mid-afternoon on Sunday, 6 September. During the usual council meeting of community leaders from Cedar City and outlying settlements, Laban Morrill lead a faction which heatedly opposed Isaac Haight’s plan. Morrill extracted a promise from Haight that no aggressive action would be taken against any emigrants until they had sought the advice of President Brigham Young. Thus, as things stood in Cedar City, the plan was off.

:All of this was unknown to John D. Lee. At that moment, Lee was en route to the Mountain Meadows, his adopted Indian son in tow to act as interpreter. They met up with Paiute bands at Mountain Meadows that afternoon or evening. One line of evidence suggests that Santa Clara Canyon, roughly a dozen miles south of Mountain Meadows, was where the planned attack would occur. Yet early Monday morning, 7 September, Lee’s Paiute auxiliary force attacked the emigrant encampment at the southern tip of Mountain Meadows. We will probably never know for certain whether Lee attacked according to a preconceived plan or, driven by some personal desire or impulse, attacked on his own initiative. In any case, as things stood at the Meadows, the attack was on.

:Activity erupted throughout Southern Utah. In Cedar City, Major Haight dispatched the youthful Englishman James Haslam to Great Salt Lake City for orders from President Young. Haight also sent an express via Joseph Clews to Amos Thornton at Pinto which Thornton was to relay. In it, Haight ordered Lee to "keep the Indians off the emigrants and protect them from harm until further orders." Thornton rode to the Meadows but searched in vain for Lee. Unbeknownst to Thornton, Lee had gone south, spending the night near Santa Clara Canyon with Mormon militiamen and the Paiute allies he encountered there. This group arrived at the Meadows on Tuesday afternoon, 8 September. That is the earliest Lee could have received an express that the planned attack had been postponed.

:There were additional expresses between Tuesday, 8 September and Thursday, 10 September. The most significant of these was one from militia headquarters in Parowan which conveyed the ambiguous order to save emigrants lives yet not to precipitate a war with the Indians under any circumstances.{{ref|briggs1}}

In a meeting at Cedar City on the afternoon of September 6, 1857, local leaders received word that the wagon train, at Mountain Meadows, had been surrounded by Paiute Indians who were determined to attack the emigrants. (Some historians are undecided as to whether Paiute Indians were actually involved in the massacre at all; some assert that it was white men disguised as Indians.) The leaders decided that they needed to ask Brigham Young what to do, so they dispatched a fast rider to Salt Lake City with a message to that effect. James H. Haslam, the messenger, left on Monday, September 7, and made the 300-mile journey in just a little more than three days. Within an hour he had an answer from Brigham and began the journey back to Cedar City. Brigham's message said, in part, "In regard to the emigration trains passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them." Unfortunately, the messenger arrived back in Cedar City two days after the massacre, on September 13, 1857.

As Haslam was leaving for Salt Lake City on September 7, the Indians' attack commenced. Several of the emigrants were killed, as were several of the Indians, producing a stalemate situation. The emigrants circled their wagons and dug into a rifle pit, and the Indians sent a call to the surrounding country for reinforcements. They also sent for John D. Lee, an area farmer on friendly terms with the Indians. According to Lee's later court testimony, the Indians asked him to help with the attack. Lee instead sent word to Cedar City on September 10, asking what should be done.

It is at this point that the exact nature of the events becomes sketchy; most are provided by Lee, and the veracity of his testimony is naturally suspect. He indicated that in short order there were quite a few other Indians and white settlers who had joined the group outside of the siege. The night of September 10 and the following morning the whites debated what to do. It appears that one incident which factored into their eventual murderous decision was the killing, the night before, of one of the emigrants by white men. It appears that two men from the Baker-Fancher party left the camp, evaded those surrounding their camp, and started toward Cedar City to request help. Within a few miles the two met three white men, whom they asked for help, but then they were attacked by the white men. One of the two was killed, and the other was able to make his way back to the Baker-Fancher party.

How could such news factor into the decision to massacre the emigrants? There is no doubt the news that both Indians and white men—Mormons—were attacking the emigrants was not well received. If any of the emigrants should escape to California and tell the story, prejudice against the Mormons—already quite high—would be incited and there would be greater likelihood that a military force would move upon the southern settlements from the west. Facing down an army from the east might be bearable, but facing one from both the east and the west was unbearable.

Such reasoning does not excuse, of course, the decision that the white men in the area then made; it is only offered as a way to understand some of the excitement and the hysteria that enveloped those in the area. The decision was apparently made on the morning of September 11 to destroy those in the Baker-Fancher party who were over the age of seven. To effect the massacre with a minimum of loss among the white men, it was decided to lure the emigrants out of their circled wagons and into the open. In the words of B.H. Roberts,

:The conception was diabolical; the execution of it horrible; and the responsibility for both must rest upon those men who conceived and executed it; for whatever of initiative may or may not have been taken by the Indians in the first assault upon these emigrants, responsibility for this deliberately planned massacre rests not with them.{{ref|bhr1}}

Thus it was that on September 11, a flag of truce was carried to the Baker-Fancher party by William Bateman. He was met outside the camp by one of the emigrants, a Mr. Hamilton, and an arrangement was made for John D. Lee to speak to the emigrants. Lee described to them a plan to get them through the hostile Indians. The plan involved the emigrants giving up their arms, loading the wounded into wagons, and then being followed by the women and the older children, with the men bring up the rear of the company in a single-file order. In return for compliance with these terms, the white men would give the emigrants safe conduct back to Cedar City where they would be protected until they could continue their journey to California.

The emigrants agreed, the wagons were brought forward and loaded with the wounded and the weapons, and the procession started toward Cedar City. Within a short distance, one armed white man was positioned near each of the Baker-Fancher party adults, ostensibly for protection. When all was in place, a pre-determined signal was given and each of the armed white men turned, shot, and killed each of the unarmed Baker-Fancher party members. Within three to five minutes the entire massacre of men, women, and older children was completed. The only members of the original party remaining were those children judged to be under eight years old, numbering about 17 persons.

===The Aftermath===
After the massacre, local leaders attempted to portray the killings as solely the act of Indians. This effort began almost immediately, with John D. Lee's report to Brigham Young. It wasn't long, however, before charges started to surface that Indians were not the only participants, but that there were whites involved. Responding to the charges that whites were involved, Brigham Young urged Governor Cumming to investigate the matter fully. However, the governor maintained that if whites were involved, they would be pardoned under the general amnesty granted by the governor to the Mormons in June 1858. This amnesty was issued at the behest of U.S. President James Buchanan, and covered all hostile acts against the United States by any persons in the course of the Utah War.

Most scholars recognize that there was a local cover-up of the massacre. What there is disagreement on is how involved higher Church leaders were in any cover-up. Some have concluded that Brigham Young, himself, was involved in a cover-up, but others argue that the evidence does not support such a conclusion. It is known that Brigham was not privy to the full details at first; he was told that only Indians were involved. In April 1894 Wilford Woodruff stated the following concerning the massacre and Brigham Young's supposed involvement:

:One instance I will name here: A man went around Nauvoo asking every man he could, saying, "You come and be adopted to me, and I shall stand at the head of the kingdom, and you will be there with me." Now, what is the truth about this? Those who were adopted to that man, if they go with him, will have to go where he is. He was a participator in that horrible scene--the Mountain Meadow massacre. Men have tried to lay that to President Young. I was with President Young when the massacre was first reported to him. President Young was perfectly horrified at the recital of it, and wept over it. He asked: "Was there any white man had anything to do with that?" The reply was No; and by the representations then made to him he was misinformed concerning the whole transaction. I will say here, and call heaven and earth to witness, that President Young, during his whole life, never was the author of the shedding of the blood of any of the human family; and when the books are opened in the day of judgment these things will be proven to heaven and earth. Perhaps I had not ought to enter into these things, but it came to me.{{ref|ww1}}

Most historians have followed Juanita Brooks, who concluded that Brigham did not know about the massacre before-hand, and was horrified to learn of it.{{ref|brooks2}}

Of course, it wasn't just Indians who were involved. The best available evidence supports two levels of cover-up: (1) concerted denials of guilt by massacre participants, including attempts to shift the blame to their erstwhile Indian allies, and (2) attempts by Mormons not involved in the massacre to shield accused persons from capture or prosecution. The latter actions did not normally arise out of any approval for the massacre, and indeed were usually undertaken without knowledge of the guilt of the persons being shielded; rather they reflected a feeling of community solidarity versus the coercive power of an often-hostile government, and a pervasive mistrust of U.S. authorities and their willingness or ability to ensure that Mormon defendants would receive a fair trial. Accusations of any more substantial cover-up, either by the Mormon Church as an institution, or by its highest leaders, are not supported by the available evidence.

[[Image:LeeGrave.jpg|frame|Marker at grave site of John D. Lee, in Panguitch, Utah]]
Eventually, as more information came to light, some of the principal participants were excommunicated from the Church. One participant, John D. Lee, was found guilty of murder in federal court after twenty years and two trials. The first trial occurred in 1875, before the anti-Mormon judge Jacob Boreman. The prosecutor was an even more notorious anti-Mormon named R. N. Baskin. This official failed to properly try the case against Lee, presented very little evidence against him, and instead focused upon an attempt to prove Brigham Young's complicity in the massacre. This trial ended with a hung jury.

Lee's second trial occurred the following year; the prosecutor was U.S. District Attorney Sumner Howard, and Boreman was again the presiding judge. This time around, the case was properly tried; the jury heard overwhelming evidence against Lee, who was duly convicted and sentenced to be executed for his crime. On March 23, 1877, Lee was executed at Mountain Meadows and buried in Panguitch, Utah. Though other Mormons were certainly as culpable as Lee (he did not act alone), he was the only one executed.

The long hiatus between the massacre and Lee's trial is one of the factors which some feel supports the accusations of an institutional cover-up. However, the true reasons for this delay are quite different. As mentioned earlier, Governor Alfred Cumming believed that the massacre was covered by the Utah Amnesty, thus making any investigation pointless. This belief was shared by a number of eminent legal authorities, including some charged with law enforcement in Utah. The attempts by some politically minded judges, such as John Cradlebaugh, to direct the investigation and prosecution of crime in Utah and conduct "crusades" against the Mormon Church actually hindered rather than helped prosecutorial and investigative efforts.

An additional claim sometimes put forward is that Lee was a "scapegoat" and that some kind of corrupt agreement existed between Church leaders and territorial authorities to not pursue anyone else. However, the record does not back this up. After Lee's execution, territorial authorities wanted to continue the investigations with a view to bringing more of the guilty parties to justice. The official correspondence shows that a reward was offered for the capture of Isaac C. Haight, William Stewart and John Higbee, all suspects in the planning and/or execution of the massacre, and that this reward remained on offer for at least seven years. Lee was not tried as a "scapegoat" but as an actual participant--evidently the leading participant--in the massacre, who had done more than any other person to bring it about, and who had actually killed five people.

===Polemical Accounts===
Almost as soon as news of the massacre reached the eastern United States, enemies of the Church began exploiting it for polemical purposes. The '''content''' of the various polemical accounts of the massacre varies considerably, but the '''intent''' of them is always and everywhere the same: to explain the massacre as a consequence of the doctrine, beliefs, practices or culture of the Mormon Church, and thus destructive of its truth claims.

When writing about the Mountain Meadows Massacre in his ''Comprehensive History of the Church,'' B.H. Roberts stated that he

:recognizes it as the most difficult of all the many subjects with which he has to deal in this ''History.'' Difficult because it is well-nigh impossible to sift out the absolute truth of the matter from the mass of conflicting statements made by witnesses and near witnesses of the affair; and equally difficult to reconcile the differences of contending partisans. Anti-"Mormon" writers have been determined to fasten the crime upon the Church of the Latter-day Saints, or at least upon her leaders; and also, as a rule, holding that in some way "Mormon" doctrine and "Mormon" church polity was responsible for the crime. On the other hand, church people who in all good conscience, and justly, resent this imputation against their church and its leaders, have been naturally slow to admit all the facts that history may insist upon as inevitable.{{ref|bhr2}}

Most scholars and historians are quick to admit that we don't have all the facts related to the massacre, and we probably never will have all of them. That hasn't stopped some people, for polemical reasons, from using a broad brush to denigrate the Church and its early leaders relative to the crimes of September 1857.

There have been many accounts of the events that occurred in relation to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and a small library could be filled with pertinent materials. Perhaps the best-known of the recent polemical accounts are:

# Will Bagley, ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows''. This work attempts to argue that Brigham Young actually ordered the massacre of the Fancher Party. Bagley relies upon a strained interpretation of some new evidence, including minutes of a meeting that took place between Dimick Huntington and some Southern Utah Indian chiefs on September 1, 1857, ten days before the massacre. The very brief minutes (actually a diary entry made after the fact) indicate that the purpose of the meeting, as with similar meetings held in the previous few days, was to enlist the Indians as allies against the approaching army, and not against the Fancher party. Although the particular item of evidence is new, the thesis which it is pressed into service to support actually dates to the 19th century; for example, in her book ''Wife No. 19,'' Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning accused Brigham Young of ordering the massacre so that he could appropriate the property of the victims.
# Sally Denton, ''American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857.'' This book attempts to show that no Indians had anything to do with the massacre, but that every part of it was carried out exclusively by white men. This also repeats a nineteenth-century theme; Mark Twain in ''Roughing It'' implied that the Indian participants in the massacre were really white men "tricked out" as Indians.

Certain themes continue to re-emerge in polemical accounts of the massacre. The claim that it was the worst massacre in American history is a common one; accusations of direct complicity on the part of Brigham Young, of subsequent institutional cover-up or of the "scapegoating" of John D. Lee, are common. Perhaps the following comments relative to Brigham Young's involvement may be instructive:

:As a lad I worked in the Main Street Store of the United Order Building and Manufacturing Company in Logan, Utah, commonly known as the U.O. The Logan Branch of Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institution, familiarly known as the Z.C.M.I., was on the corner, one half block down the street. It was one of my duties to take our egg and butter accumulation, commodities of exchange in those days, to the egg and butter house of Z.C.M.I. It was a small building a little to the rear of the large Z.C.M.I. store building. The worker in charge there was a man who to my boyish eyes was old, perhaps in his sixties. His name was James Holton Haslam. He and I became good friends. Eager for knowledge, I discovered that he was the courier who traveled the road between Salt Lake City to Parowan and back to help President Young establish friendly feelings among the emigrant company, the settlers, and the Indians. The Indians were giving chief concern. He described minutely the trip from Cedar City to Salt Lake City riding three hundred miles in three days, to warn President Young that trouble for the traveling company was brewing in the south. Brigham Young was greatly troubled. Within a few hours after his arrival Brother Haslam was again in the saddle to instruct the people at Parowan and neighboring communities to do everything in their power to protect the emigrants. When he reached Parowan, the massacre had already occurred. He had come too late!

:He described to me in detail his meeting with President Young. As he recounted the events of the massacre as far as he learned them, and he had every opportunity of knowing them intimately, President Young wept. The President did everything in his power to prevent any tragedy. He knew that if he failed his people, trained to live in peace and to give love for hate, they would be charged with the commission of the crime. He had suffered persecution with his people for many years. Moreover, he understood the horror of taking life.

:The Latter-day Saints had been persecuted and driven from place to place since the beginning of the Church. He and the people prayed for peace to continue their work of redeeming the stubborn desert for human use. This terrible massacre would only intensify the hatred against the Latter-day Saints.

:In righteous anger Brother Haslam defended to me as he had done in the courts and elsewhere Brigham Young against the charge of being an accessory to the criminal act of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. He was very convincing to me; and a boy is not easily fooled.

:When later I read Brother Haslam's testimony in the question and answer method, as published in the ''The Journal,'' Logan, Utah, December 4, 1874, I became more than ever convinced that he told the whole and absolute truth, and that Brigham Young was wholly innocent of any complicity with those who committed the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Note an extract from the long testimony covering two newspaper pages. Apparently he arrived in Salt Lake City in the forenoon and found President Young in his office holding a council meeting with his brethren. Brigham Young asked him after reading the message, from Cedar City or Parowan, if he could take the trip back, if so, to take a little rest, and start back during noontime. "He (President Young) said that the Indians must be kept from the emigrants at all costs if it took all of Iron County to protect them." He felt the matter strongly. His eyes filled with tears, said Brother Haslam.

:It would have been difficult to fool Brother Haslam. I believed him, and the many other supporting evidences, in preference to others who faraway in time are setting up their own theories of explanation. Brigham Young was not responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.{{ref|jaw1}}

===Historical Healing===
The events that transpired during the Mountain Meadows Massacre have lived (as they should) in infamy; there is no explanation that will justify the murders of those five days in September, and we cannot fully understand them. In the words of one scholar, "the complete—the absolute—truth of the affair can probably never be evaluated by any human being; attempts to understand the forces which culminated in it and those which were set into motion by it are all very inadequate at best."{{ref|brooks1}}

In spite of the tragedy, efforts have been made to heal the wounds that were gouged into the collective American psyche 150 years ago. In the 1980s descendants of the victims and the perpetrators met together to start bridging the divide and make peace with the past. In a series of meetings, the seeds of trust were planted and a hopeful sense of accord started to bloom. On September 15, 1990, many of these descendants gathered together at Mountain Meadows to dedicate a memorial and marker to those who died there. The new memorial was a rendition of the original rock cairn constructed at the site by a military expedition under the direction of Major James H. Carleton about two years after the massacre.


==Endnotes==
#{{note|briggs1}}{{Sunstone|author=Robert Briggs|num=125|article=Wrestling Brigham: Review of ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows'', by Will Bagley|date=December 2002|start=62|end=66}} A longer version was published as "Mountain Meadows and The Craft of History" and was available on sunstoneonline.com.
#{{note|bhr1}}{{CHC1|vol=4|start=156}}
#{{note|ww1}}{{CD1|author=Wilford Woodruff|date=8 April 1894|article=The Law of Adoption|vol=4|start=?}}
#{{note|brooks2}}Juanita Brooks, ''The Mountain Meadows Massacre'' (1950; reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 219
#{{note|bhr2}}Roberts, 139.
#{{note|jaw1}}{{IE1|author=John A. Widtsoe|article=Was Brigham Young Responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre?|date=August 1951|start=?}}
#{{note|brooks1}}Juanita Brooks, ''The Mountain Meadows Massacre,'' Revised Edition, (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 223.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{MMMWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{MMMFAIR}}
===External links===
{{MMMLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{MMMPrint}}

Mountain Meadows Massacre/History

2007-09-04T19:53:15Z

BlairHodges: /* Overland Travel Conditions */ Grammar, spelling.

{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Mountain_Meadows_Massaker}}

==Criticism==
In September 1857 a group of Mormons in southern Utah killed all adult members of an Arkansas wagon train that was headed for California. Critics charge that the massacre was typical of Mormon "culture of violence," and claim that Church leaders—possibly as high as Brigham Young—approved of, or even ordered the killing.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*Richard Abanes, ''One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church''.
*Will Bagley, ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows''.
*David L. Bigler, ''Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847–1896'' (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1998).
*Sally Denton, ''American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows''.
*Jon Krakauer, ''Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith''.

==Response==
One of the most tragic and disturbing events in Mormon history took place on 11 September 1857, when approximately 120 men, women and children, travelling through Utah to California were massacred by a force consisting of Mormon militia members and Southern Paiute Indians. The Mountain Meadow Massacre, as it is known, has remained a topic of interest and controversy as Mormons and historians struggle to understand this event, and the Church's detractors seek to exploit it for polemical purposes.

===Setting the stage===
Shortly before July 24th, 1847, the first party of Mormon pioneers entered the Salt Lake Valley. These Saints were the first vanguard of Church members who had been driven from Nauvoo, Illinois, by angry mobs. At the time of its first settlement, the area that came to be known as Utah still belonged to Mexico, but was ceded to the United States in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo following the end of the Mexican-American War in early 1848. (The treaty ceded all of what would become California, Nevada, and Utah, as well as parts of modern-day Texas, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming.)

Over the next two years the bulk of the Church members who had been driven from Nauvoo reached the valley. Great Salt Lake City was built, and under Brigham Young's direction satellite settlements were established north, south, and west of the city. The sites for these settlements were often chosen because of proximity to an important natural resource; one such resource was the iron ore deposits found in what became known as Iron County in Southern Utah.

The continuation of successful missionary work in the Eastern United States and Europe brought a steady influx of Mormon converts to the Mormon communities; the population continued to grow, and settlement expanded outward into present-day Idaho, Canada, Nevada, California, Arizona, Wyoming, and Northern Mexico.

====The Utah War====
In 1850, Utah was established as a U.S. territory, with Brigham Young as its first governor. Because of its territorial status, the federal government retained the right to appoint officials at various levels, in addition to actual federal offices existing within the territory. While there were, no doubt, many honest public servants among them, a number of the federal appointees to both territorial and federal positions, including some judges, turned out to be both morally venal and abusive of the prerogatives of their offices. Scandals arose over the behavior of some of these men, who left the territory in disgrace. Rather than accepting responsibility for their own failures, a group of them, upon returning to the East, published claims that they had been forcibly expelled, and that the Mormons were rebelling against federal authority.

These claims caused quite an uproar in Washington, where the nascent Republican Party demanded something be done about the Mormons. Acting without benefit of an investigation, U.S. President James Buchanan appointed Alfred Cumming as territorial governor and, on June 29, 1857, ordered federal troops to escort Cumming to Utah. Additionally, Buchanan ordered the cessation of all mail service to Utah in an effort to provide the advantage of surprise for the advancing troops.

Despite the efforts of Buchanan to keep the advance of the army secret, Mormon mail runners notified Brigham Young, the incumbent territorial governor, the very next month that troops were travelling to Utah. He had not been officially notified that he was to be replaced, so he viewed the news—combined with the efforts to hide the movement of the troops—as an act of war by the United States government against the Mormons. Brigham closed all Church missions, instructing all missionaries to return to Utah, and ordered the abandonment of the more isolated Mormon colonies. He prepared to defend the territory against the approaching army by adopting a "scorched earth" policy. He sent small parties to harass the approaching troops with the intent of slowing their progress while he prepared the Saints for the plausible possibility of battles with U.S. troops.

The news of the approaching army spread quickly through the body of the Saints as preparations were made. Many Mormon settlers vividly remembered the hardships of being forcibly (and violently) expelled from Missouri and Illinois, and were resolved not to be driven from their homes again. The mood in the territory was grim and determined. This conflict, known as the Utah War, was ultimately resolved peacefully; but it was into this tense atmosphere the Baker-Fancher train entered in August of 1857.

====The Baker-Fancher Train====
[[Image:Mountain meadows map1-Utah1857.jpg|right|frame|Map showing the area around Mountain Meadows, highlighting the Spanish Trail]]
The Baker-Fancher train consisted of California-bound emigrants, men women and children, who started their journey in Arkansas and Missouri. The exact number of people in the train is estimated at 120, but some reports have put it as high as 140. Led by John T. Baker and Alexander Fancher, the train was reported to have been well-stocked, with plenty of cattle, horses, and mules.

The Baker-Fancher train arrived in Salt Lake City about the end of July 1857, camping west and a little south of the city on the Jordan River. Their arrival did not appear to raise any eyebrows or concerns, as there was no mention of them in the newspapers of the time. The group was advised by Elder Charles C. Rich of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to head toward California by circling around the northern edge of the Great Salt Lake, and they began in that direction. Upon travelling as far as the Bear River, the train decided to take the southern route. This caused them to pass through Salt Lake City again, moving further south through Provo, Springville, and Payson.

There were no reports of problems related to the Baker-Fancher party until they reached Fillmore, about 150 miles south of Salt Lake City. Commencing at this point and through settlements to the south, there were complaints that the emigrants boasted of participating the violence against Mormons in both Missouri and Illinois, that they poisoned a spring, and that they threatened to destroy one of the Mormon settlements.

It was also common knowledge that the train originated in Arkansas, where earlier in the year beloved apostle Parley P. Pratt had been murdered near the town of Van Buren. Rumor had it some of the members of the train were among those who had participated in Pratt's murder, or that they bragged about his killing. There are also reports that some of the emigrants told a few Latter-day Saints that once they had transported their families to California they would return, join the army, and help subdue the Mormons.

Whether there is any truth to these rumors, it is clear the travels of the Baker-Fancher train through southern Utah did not go unnoticed as they were in northern Utah. The presence of the train seemed to exacerbate the tensions already present due to the Utah War.

====Overland Travel Conditions====
Commencing with the opening of Oregon Territory, and accelerated by the discovery of gold in California, large numbers of emigrants crossed the interior of the continent to the West Coast. Before the completion of the first transcontinental railroad in 1869, overland travel was both difficult and dangerous. Native Americans, alarmed by the ever-increasing numbers of white settlers crossing their land, frequently attacked emigrant groups. Weather was another potential danger, with winter coming early to the high country and sudden storms occurring during all seasons of the year. For protection against these hazards, emigrants typically banded together in large parties called "wagon trains," covered wagons of the "pairie schooner" type being the most typical vehicles used. The climate made overland travel a seasonal affair as emigrant parties would try to complete their crossings during the warm months. To be caught on the high plains or the mountain passes when winter came was often a deadly mistake.

[[Image:MMMMap2.JPG|frame|left|Mountain Meadows site on modern map.
{{link|url=http://www.entradautah.com/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre_Site}}]]
The Mormon settlements of Utah provided important rest and reprovisioning points for overland travelers. One of the most widely used wagon trails to California branched off the Oregon trail in Northern Utah, running almost due South through Salt Lake City, eventually joining the Old Spanish Trail. Emigrants could purchase foodstuffs and other supplies from businesses in Salt Lake City and other towns, while their animals—both beasts of burden and any livestock—could find excellent grazing at a spot near the west end of the Pine Valley Mountains, about 30 miles west of Cedar City and 28 miles north of St. George, known as ''las Vegas de Santa Clara'' or the Mountain Meadows. It was common for emigrant parties to camp there for several days or even weeks while their animals gained condition for the gruelling desert crossings still to come.

===The Main Participants===
There were many, many participants in the tragedy at Mountain Meadows. The following are those considered to be the main participants, from a historical perspective. (The individuals are listed in alphabetical order.)

'''William H. Dame''' was, at the time of the massacre, the commander of the Iron Military District with the militia rank of colonel. He was also serving as a bishop in the Mormon Church at that time. He did not participate personally in the massacre, but was, by the standards of military justice applicable both then and now, administratively responsible for the actions of officers and soldiers under his command.

'''Isaac C. Haight''' was born May 27, 1813, at Windham, New York. He was the commander of the Second Battalion in the Iron County militia with the rank of lieutenant colonel, and Colonel Dame's second-in-command. His ecclesiastical position was stake president. Haight's role in the massacre was a complex one; he was involved in its planning, but also made some efforts to stop or at least delay the actions against the emigrants. Efforts to bring Haight and others to justice after the massacre proved to be fruitless.

'''John H. Higbee''' was a major in the Iron County militia, and served under Isaac C. Haight. He is, by all reports, the person who ordered the massacre to begin. His ecclesiastical position was first counselor in the stake presidency of Isaac C. Haight.

'''Philip Klingensmith''' was a bishop in Cedar City and an officer in the Iron County militia. In this latter role, he carried orders and other messages between various militia officers. He was present at the massacre and subsequently turned states' evidence, but his testimony was of no real help to the authorities.

'''John Doyle Lee''' was born September 12, 1812, at Kaskaskia, Illinois, and baptised on June 17, 1838. He served numerous missions for the Church and eventually moved to southern Utah in 1850 or 1851. At the time of the massacre he was a major in the Iron County militia, and commander of its Fourth Battalion. Lee was the only person ever brought to trial for his involvement in the massacre.

===The Massacre===
As the Baker-Fancher train camped at Mountain Meadows, some of the residents of Cedar City and the surrounding areas determined that some action needed to be taken against the emigrants. The heightened anxiety brought on by rumors swirling about the train, the advancing federal troops, the drought that many had suffered through for the year, and the memories of violence in Missouri and Illinois all combined in an explosive atmosphere, yet the residents were unclear on what action they should take.

This excellent summary of events in the days immediately preceding the massacre is provided by Robert H. Briggs:

:On or about 2 September 1857, some encounters between individuals in the Fancher train and others in the Mormon iron mining settlement of Cedar City sparked an angry reaction among the Mormon settlers. By Friday, 4 September, however, militia leaders in Cedar City had decided against direct Mormon interference with the train. Thus, Major (also stake president) Isaac Haight dispatched couriers to Pinto, a new settlement near the California Road directly west of Cedar City. The couriers, Joel White and Philip Klingensmith, carried orders for settlers there to not interfere with the approaching emigrant train. Meanwhile, however, a pivotal meeting occurred that same evening in Cedar City between Major Isaac Haight of the Second Battalion and Major John D. Lee of the Fourth. What emerged was a plan to incite local Paiute Indians to gather at Mountain Meadows with Lee as their leader. Lee departed in the early hours of Saturday, 5 September. Evidently, Lee had no further contact with militia leaders at Cedar for the better part of the next four days.

:Lee returned home to Fort Harmony and laid over on Saturday and part of Sunday, making preparations. He departed for the Meadows on Sunday and arrived there later that afternoon or evening. Other couriers carried word to outlying settlements, each relaying that Indians were to be assembled. There was some confusion about exactly where this rendezvous was to occur. Many Paiutes from the region of Cedar and Fort Harmony were sent to Mountain Meadows. Other bands along the Santa Clara River were urged to gather at Santa Clara Canyon (west of present Veyo).

:Similar preparations continued in Cedar City over the weekend but came to a halt in mid-afternoon on Sunday, 6 September. During the usual council meeting of community leaders from Cedar City and outlying settlements, Laban Morrill lead a faction which heatedly opposed Isaac Haight’s plan. Morrill extracted a promise from Haight that no aggressive action would be taken against any emigrants until they had sought the advice of President Brigham Young. Thus, as things stood in Cedar City, the plan was off.

:All of this was unknown to John D. Lee. At that moment, Lee was en route to the Mountain Meadows, his adopted Indian son in tow to act as interpreter. They met up with Paiute bands at Mountain Meadows that afternoon or evening. One line of evidence suggests that Santa Clara Canyon, roughly a dozen miles south of Mountain Meadows, was where the planned attack would occur. Yet early Monday morning, 7 September, Lee’s Paiute auxiliary force attacked the emigrant encampment at the southern tip of Mountain Meadows. We will probably never know for certain whether Lee attacked according to a preconceived plan or, driven by some personal desire or impulse, attacked on his own initiative. In any case, as things stood at the Meadows, the attack was on.

:Activity erupted throughout Southern Utah. In Cedar City, Major Haight dispatched the youthful Englishman James Haslam to Great Salt Lake City for orders from President Young. Haight also sent an express via Joseph Clews to Amos Thornton at Pinto which Thornton was to relay. In it, Haight ordered Lee to "keep the Indians off the emigrants and protect them from harm until further orders." Thornton rode to the Meadows but searched in vain for Lee. Unbeknownst to Thornton, Lee had gone south, spending the night near Santa Clara Canyon with Mormon militiamen and the Paiute allies he encountered there. This group arrived at the Meadows on Tuesday afternoon, 8 September. That is the earliest Lee could have received an express that the planned attack had been postponed.

:There were additional expresses between Tuesday, 8 September and Thursday, 10 September. The most significant of these was one from militia headquarters in Parowan which conveyed the ambiguous order to save emigrants lives yet not to precipitate a war with the Indians under any circumstances.{{ref|briggs1}}

In a meeting at Cedar City on the afternoon of September 6, 1857, local leaders received word that the wagon train, at Mountain Meadows, had been surrounded by Paiute Indians who were determined to attack the emigrants. (Some historians are undecided as to whether Paiute Indians were actually involved in the massacre at all; some assert that it was white men disguised as Indians.) The leaders decided that they needed to ask Brigham Young what to do, so they dispatched a fast rider to Salt Lake City with a message to that effect. James H. Haslam, the messenger, left on Monday, September 7, and made the 300-mile journey in just a little more than three days. Within an hour he had an answer from Brigham and began the journey back to Cedar City. Brigham's message said, in part, "In regard to the emigration trains passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them." Unfortunately, the messenger arrived back in Cedar City two days after the massacre, on September 13, 1857.

As Haslam was leaving for Salt Lake City on September 7, the Indians' attack commenced. Several of the emigrants were killed, as were several of the Indians, producing a stalemate situation. The emigrants circled their wagons and dug into a rifle pit, and the Indians sent a call to the surrounding country for reinforcements. They also sent for John D. Lee, an area farmer on friendly terms with the Indians. According to Lee's later court testimony, the Indians asked him to help with the attack. Lee instead sent word to Cedar City on September 10, asking what should be done.

It is at this point that the exact nature of the events becomes sketchy; most are provided by Lee, and the veracity of his testimony is naturally suspect. He indicated that in short order there were quite a few other Indians and white settlers who had joined the group outside of the siege. The night of September 10 and the following morning the whites debated what to do. It appears that one incident which factored into their eventual murderous decision was the killing, the night before, of one of the emigrants by white men. It appears that two men from the Baker-Fancher party left the camp, evaded those surrounding their camp, and started toward Cedar City to request help. Within a few miles the two met three white men, whom they asked for help, but then they were attacked by the white men. One of the two was killed, and the other was able to make his way back to the Baker-Fancher party.

How could such news factor into the decision to massacre the emigrants? There is no doubt the news that both Indians and white men—Mormons—were attacking the emigrants was not well received. If any of the emigrants should escape to California and tell the story, prejudice against the Mormons—already quite high—would be incited and there would be greater likelihood that a military force would move upon the southern settlements from the west. Facing down an army from the east might be bearable, but facing one from both the east and the west was unbearable.

Such reasoning does not excuse, of course, the decision that the white men in the area then made; it is only offered as a way to understand some of the excitement and the hysteria that enveloped those in the area. The decision was apparently made on the morning of September 11 to destroy those in the Baker-Fancher party who were over the age of seven. To effect the massacre with a minimum of loss among the white men, it was decided to lure the emigrants out of their circled wagons and into the open. In the words of B.H. Roberts,

:The conception was diabolical; the execution of it horrible; and the responsibility for both must rest upon those men who conceived and executed it; for whatever of initiative may or may not have been taken by the Indians in the first assault upon these emigrants, responsibility for this deliberately planned massacre rests not with them.{{ref|bhr1}}

Thus it was that on September 11, a flag of truce was carried to the Baker-Fancher party by William Bateman. He was met outside the camp by one of the emigrants, a Mr. Hamilton, and an arrangement was made for John D. Lee to speak to the emigrants. Lee described to them a plan to get them through the hostile Indians. The plan involved the emigrants giving up their arms, loading the wounded into wagons, and then being followed by the women and the older children, with the men bring up the rear of the company in a single-file order. In return for compliance with these terms, the white men would give the emigrants safe conduct back to Cedar City where they would be protected until they could continue their journey to California.

The emigrants agreed, the wagons were brought forward and loaded with the wounded and the weapons, and the procession started toward Cedar City. Within a short distance, one armed white man was positioned near each of the Baker-Fancher party adults, ostensibly for protection. When all was in place, a pre-determined signal was given and each of the armed white men turned, shot, and killed each of the unarmed Baker-Fancher party members. Within three to five minutes the entire massacre of men, women, and older children was completed. The only members of the original party remaining were those children judged to be under eight years old, numbering about 17 persons.

===The Aftermath===
After the massacre, local leaders attempted to portray the killings as solely the act of Indians. This effort began almost immediately, with John D. Lee's report to Brigham Young. It wasn't long, however, before charges started to surface that Indians were not the only participants, but that there were whites involved. Responding to the charges that whites were involved, Brigham Young urged Governor Cumming to investigate the matter fully. However, the governor maintained that if whites were involved, they would be pardoned under the general amnesty granted by the governor to the Mormons in June 1858. This amnesty was issued at the behest of U.S. President James Buchanan, and covered all hostile acts against the United States by any persons in the course of the Utah War.

Most scholars recognize that there was a local cover-up of the massacre. What there is disagreement on is how involved higher Church leaders were in any cover-up. Some have concluded that Brigham Young, himself, was involved in a cover-up, but others argue that the evidence does not support such a conclusion. It is known that Brigham was not privy to the full details at first; he was told that only Indians were involved. In April 1894 Wilford Woodruff stated the following concerning the massacre and Brigham Young's supposed involvement:

:One instance I will name here: A man went around Nauvoo asking every man he could, saying, "You come and be adopted to me, and I shall stand at the head of the kingdom, and you will be there with me." Now, what is the truth about this? Those who were adopted to that man, if they go with him, will have to go where he is. He was a participator in that horrible scene--the Mountain Meadow massacre. Men have tried to lay that to President Young. I was with President Young when the massacre was first reported to him. President Young was perfectly horrified at the recital of it, and wept over it. He asked: "Was there any white man had anything to do with that?" The reply was No; and by the representations then made to him he was misinformed concerning the whole transaction. I will say here, and call heaven and earth to witness, that President Young, during his whole life, never was the author of the shedding of the blood of any of the human family; and when the books are opened in the day of judgment these things will be proven to heaven and earth. Perhaps I had not ought to enter into these things, but it came to me.{{ref|ww1}}

Most historians have followed Juanita Brooks, who concluded that Brigham did not know about the massacre before-hand, and was horrified to learn of it.{{ref|brooks2}}

Of course, it wasn't just Indians who were involved. The best available evidence supports two levels of cover-up: (1) concerted denials of guilt by massacre participants, including attempts to shift the blame to their erstwhile Indian allies, and (2) attempts by Mormons not involved in the massacre to shield accused persons from capture or prosecution. The latter actions did not normally arise out of any approval for the massacre, and indeed were usually undertaken without knowledge of the guilt of the persons being shielded; rather they reflected a feeling of community solidarity versus the coercive power of an often-hostile government, and a pervasive mistrust of U.S. authorities and their willingness or ability to ensure that Mormon defendants would receive a fair trial. Accusations of any more substantial cover-up, either by the Mormon Church as an institution, or by its highest leaders, are not supported by the available evidence.

[[Image:LeeGrave.jpg|frame|Marker at grave site of John D. Lee, in Panguitch, Utah]]
Eventually, as more information came to light, some of the principal participants were excommunicated from the Church. One participant, John D. Lee, was found guilty of murder in federal court after twenty years and two trials. The first trial occurred in 1875, before the anti-Mormon judge Jacob Boreman. The prosecutor was an even more notorious anti-Mormon named R. N. Baskin. This official failed to properly try the case against Lee, presented very little evidence against him, and instead focused upon an attempt to prove Brigham Young's complicity in the massacre. This trial ended with a hung jury.

Lee's second trial occurred the following year; the prosecutor was U.S. District Attorney Sumner Howard, and Boreman was again the presiding judge. This time around, the case was properly tried; the jury heard overwhelming evidence against Lee, who was duly convicted and sentenced to be executed for his crime. On March 23, 1877, Lee was executed at Mountain Meadows and buried in Panguitch, Utah. Though other Mormons were certainly as culpable as Lee (he did not act alone), he was the only one executed.

The long hiatus between the massacre and Lee's trial is one of the factors which some feel supports the accusations of an institutional cover-up. However, the true reasons for this delay are quite different. As mentioned earlier, Governor Alfred Cumming believed that the massacre was covered by the Utah Amnesty, thus making any investigation pointless. This belief was shared by a number of eminent legal authorities, including some charged with law enforcement in Utah. The attempts by some politically minded judges, such as John Cradlebaugh, to direct the investigation and prosecution of crime in Utah and conduct "crusades" against the Mormon Church actually hindered rather than helped prosecutorial and investigative efforts.

An additional claim sometimes put forward is that Lee was a "scapegoat" and that some kind of corrupt agreement existed between Church leaders and territorial authorities to not pursue anyone else. However, the record does not back this up. After Lee's execution, territorial authorities wanted to continue the investigations with a view to bringing more of the guilty parties to justice. The official correspondence shows that a reward was offered for the capture of Isaac C. Haight, William Stewart and John Higbee, all suspects in the planning and/or execution of the massacre, and that this reward remained on offer for at least seven years. Lee was not tried as a "scapegoat" but as an actual participant--evidently the leading participant--in the massacre, who had done more than any other person to bring it about, and who had actually killed five people.

===Polemical Accounts===
Almost as soon as news of the massacre reached the eastern United States, enemies of the Church began exploiting it for polemical purposes. The '''content''' of the various polemical accounts of the massacre varies considerably, but the '''intent''' of them is always and everywhere the same: to explain the massacre as a consequence of the doctrine, beliefs, practices or culture of the Mormon Church, and thus destructive of its truth claims.

When writing about the Mountain Meadows Massacre in his ''Comprehensive History of the Church,'' B.H. Roberts stated that he

:recognizes it as the most difficult of all the many subjects with which he has to deal in this ''History.'' Difficult because it is well-nigh impossible to sift out the absolute truth of the matter from the mass of conflicting statements made by witnesses and near witnesses of the affair; and equally difficult to reconcile the differences of contending partisans. Anti-"Mormon" writers have been determined to fasten the crime upon the Church of the Latter-day Saints, or at least upon her leaders; and also, as a rule, holding that in some way "Mormon" doctrine and "Mormon" church polity was responsible for the crime. On the other hand, church people who in all good conscience, and justly, resent this imputation against their church and its leaders, have been naturally slow to admit all the facts that history may insist upon as inevitable.{{ref|bhr2}}

Most scholars and historians are quick to admit that we don't have all the facts related to the massacre, and we probably never will have all of them. That hasn't stopped some people, for polemical reasons, from using a broad brush to denigrate the Church and its early leaders relative to the crimes of September 1857.

There have been many accounts of the events that occurred in relation to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and a small library could be filled with pertinent materials. Perhaps the best-known of the recent polemical accounts are:

# Will Bagley, ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows''. This work attempts to argue that Brigham Young actually ordered the massacre of the Fancher Party. Bagley relies upon a strained interpretation of some new evidence, including minutes of a meeting that took place between Dimick Huntington and some Southern Utah Indian chiefs on September 1, 1857, ten days before the massacre. The very brief minutes (actually a diary entry made after the fact) indicate that the purpose of the meeting, as with similar meetings held in the previous few days, was to enlist the Indians as allies against the approaching army, and not against the Fancher party. Although the particular item of evidence is new, the thesis which it is pressed into service to support actually dates to the 19th century; for example, in her book ''Wife No. 19,'' Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning accused Brigham Young of ordering the massacre so that he could appropriate the property of the victims.
# Sally Denton, ''American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857.'' This book attempts to show that no Indians had anything to do with the massacre, but that every part of it was carried out exclusively by white men. This also repeats a nineteenth-century theme; Mark Twain in ''Roughing It'' implied that the Indian participants in the massacre were really white men "tricked out" as Indians.

Certain themes continue to re-emerge in polemical accounts of the massacre. The claim that it was the worst massacre in American history is a common one; accusations of direct complicity on the part of Brigham Young, of subsequent institutional cover-up or of the "scapegoating" of John D. Lee, are common. Perhaps the following comments relative to Brigham Young's involvement may be instructive:

:As a lad I worked in the Main Street Store of the United Order Building and Manufacturing Company in Logan, Utah, commonly known as the U.O. The Logan Branch of Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institution, familiarly known as the Z.C.M.I., was on the corner, one half block down the street. It was one of my duties to take our egg and butter accumulation, commodities of exchange in those days, to the egg and butter house of Z.C.M.I. It was a small building a little to the rear of the large Z.C.M.I. store building. The worker in charge there was a man who to my boyish eyes was old, perhaps in his sixties. His name was James Holton Haslam. He and I became good friends. Eager for knowledge, I discovered that he was the courier who traveled the road between Salt Lake City to Parowan and back to help President Young establish friendly feelings among the emigrant company, the settlers, and the Indians. The Indians were giving chief concern. He described minutely the trip from Cedar City to Salt Lake City riding three hundred miles in three days, to warn President Young that trouble for the traveling company was brewing in the south. Brigham Young was greatly troubled. Within a few hours after his arrival Brother Haslam was again in the saddle to instruct the people at Parowan and neighboring communities to do everything in their power to protect the emigrants. When he reached Parowan, the massacre had already occurred. He had come too late!

:He described to me in detail his meeting with President Young. As he recounted the events of the massacre as far as he learned them, and he had every opportunity of knowing them intimately, President Young wept. The President did everything in his power to prevent any tragedy. He knew that if he failed his people, trained to live in peace and to give love for hate, they would be charged with the commission of the crime. He had suffered persecution with his people for many years. Moreover, he understood the horror of taking life.

:The Latter-day Saints had been persecuted and driven from place to place since the beginning of the Church. He and the people prayed for peace to continue their work of redeeming the stubborn desert for human use. This terrible massacre would only intensify the hatred against the Latter-day Saints.

:In righteous anger Brother Haslam defended to me as he had done in the courts and elsewhere Brigham Young against the charge of being an accessory to the criminal act of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. He was very convincing to me; and a boy is not easily fooled.

:When later I read Brother Haslam's testimony in the question and answer method, as published in the ''The Journal,'' Logan, Utah, December 4, 1874, I became more than ever convinced that he told the whole and absolute truth, and that Brigham Young was wholly innocent of any complicity with those who committed the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Note an extract from the long testimony covering two newspaper pages. Apparently he arrived in Salt Lake City in the forenoon and found President Young in his office holding a council meeting with his brethren. Brigham Young asked him after reading the message, from Cedar City or Parowan, if he could take the trip back, if so, to take a little rest, and start back during noontime. "He (President Young) said that the Indians must be kept from the emigrants at all costs if it took all of Iron County to protect them." He felt the matter strongly. His eyes filled with tears, said Brother Haslam.

:It would have been difficult to fool Brother Haslam. I believed him, and the many other supporting evidences, in preference to others who faraway in time are setting up their own theories of explanation. Brigham Young was not responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.{{ref|jaw1}}

===Historical Healing===
The events that transpired during the Mountain Meadows Massacre have lived (as they should) in infamy; there is no explanation that will justify the murders of those five days in September, and we cannot fully understand them. In the words of one scholar, "the complete—the absolute—truth of the affair can probably never be evaluated by any human being; attempts to understand the forces which culminated in it and those which were set into motion by it are all very inadequate at best."{{ref|brooks1}}

In spite of the tragedy, efforts have been made to heal the wounds that were gouged into the collective American psyche 150 years ago. In the 1980s descendants of the victims and the perpetrators met together to start bridging the divide and make peace with the past. In a series of meetings, the seeds of trust were planted and a hopeful sense of accord started to bloom. On September 15, 1990, many of these descendants gathered together at Mountain Meadows to dedicate a memorial and marker to those who died there. The new memorial was a rendition of the original rock cairn constructed at the site by a military expedition under the direction of Major James H. Carleton about two years after the massacre.


==Endnotes==
#{{note|briggs1}}{{Sunstone|author=Robert Briggs|num=125|article=Wrestling Brigham: Review of ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows'', by Will Bagley|date=December 2002|start=62|end=66}} A longer version was published as "Mountain Meadows and The Craft of History" and was available on sunstoneonline.com.
#{{note|bhr1}}{{CHC1|vol=4|start=156}}
#{{note|ww1}}{{CD1|author=Wilford Woodruff|date=8 April 1894|article=The Law of Adoption|vol=4|start=?}}
#{{note|brooks2}}Juanita Brooks, ''The Mountain Meadows Massacre'' (1950; reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 219
#{{note|bhr2}}Roberts, 139.
#{{note|jaw1}}{{IE1|author=John A. Widtsoe|article=Was Brigham Young Responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre?|date=August 1951|start=?}}
#{{note|brooks1}}Juanita Brooks, ''The Mountain Meadows Massacre,'' Revised Edition, (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 223.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{MMMWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{MMMFAIR}}
===External links===
{{MMMLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{MMMPrint}}