I previously posted the audio to this talk but now also have available a short paper which this talk is based on. I hope these resources will aid you in your witnessing opportunities with your Mormon friends and family members.
Topic: The Book of Mormon - Another Testament of Jesus Christ?
Overview:
Background of Mormonism
Background of the Book of Mormon
Praying about the Book of Mormon
Problems with the Book of Mormon
Witnessing Tips
Full MP3 audio here.
PDF file Mormon Epistemology 101 here.
Enjoy!
9 comments:
I really enjoyed the paper and will soon listen to the talk. I've been disaffected from the LDS Church for a few years now, and I'm still amazed that I didn't see how incredibly weak Mormon epistemology is. Mormons are taught to fall back on their testimony of the LDS Church and its teachings when all else fails. They are taught that bearing their testimony is an irrefutable defense. If they only knew.
I'm curious about your epistemology. It seems to rest on the Bible as an objective arbiter of truth. I may have that wrong since I just stumbled on to this site. At first glance though, what seems to be your epistemological approach seems (to me) to have some of the same problems as the Mormon pursuit of truth. Could you refer me to something that explains and perhaps defends your epistemology?
Thanks,
Zack Tacorin
Aaron,
I finally had the opportunity to listen to the talk. Congratulations on your accurate portrayal of Mormonism and some of the challenges one might face in trying to influence their religious perspective. There were a few points that I thought were not exactly accurate, but I think at least most of those were probably simplifications you provided so as to not confuse your audience. I usually only see this detail and depth of knowledge of Mormonism among former Mormons. Great job!
I especially appreciate your emphasis on making the first priority love, in the kindest Christian sense of the word. I served a two-year proselyting mission for the LDS Church in a foreign country. When I had been out for only a few months, I crossed paths with a pastor from a Christian church. I don’t remember if he was from the USA too, but he spoke English. We chatted for a couple of minutes, and then he let into me. He challenged me on Mormonism’s teachings of importance of works. I don’t remember the scripture(s) he quoted, but I do remember that I perceived it as a spiteful attack. I remember going back to my apartment that day, and studying hard to understand the apparent contradiction he had pointed out. The effect--I became more confident that my Church was correct on this point and correct overall. This was a classic backlash effect. Because I perceived his approach as unkind, the encounter had exactly the opposite effect of what he was probably hoping for.
Thanks for your post!
Zack Tacorin
Zack,
Thank you very much for your comments, compliments, and for the general feedback you have provided. I am very interested to hear your thoughts, especially with your background in Mormonism.
Regarding epistemology, I will try and answer as best I can with a few brief comments. You can let me know if you have any follow-up questions.
First, a few books you may want to check out: Philosophical Foundations For a Christian Worldview by Moreland and Craig, The Love of Wisdom by Cowan and Spiegel, and Doing Philospohy as a Christian by Deweese. Each of these books has sections on epistemology (though they are introductory).
Second, William Lane Craig provides a helpful distinction between knowing Christianity to be true and showing Christianity to be true. I do believe we can know Christianity to be true through the testimony of the Holy Spirit alone. However, the role of reason and argumentation is very important in showing Christianity to be true. The problem, I think, with Mormonism is that the Mormon must make knowledge claims in spite of the evidence, whereas the Christian can demonstrate the truthfulness of Christianity in light of the evidence. Reason and argumentation help confirm what the Christian already knows to be true. But the Mormon flips this on its head: they attempt to show that Mormonism is true, not by an appeal to objective reason and evidence, but by an appeal to their own subjective experience.
Third, I accept the traditional definition of knowledge as justified true belief (K=JTB). However, as you may know, there are disagreements about what exactly counts as justification, whether or not there should be a fourth criteria added to the JTB, etc.
Finally, please let me know what points from the talk you don't think were accurate. I would like to be able to correct them in the future or perhaps give a better explanation.
Thank you again Zack for your comments. Praying for you.
Aaron <><
Aaron,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. It looks like your epistemology is a little more involved than just accepting the Bible as the basis for all truth. I'll have to look into some of your references and see if it makes sense to me. I agree, that Mormons allow their interpretations and perceptions of their spiritual experiences to trump even overwhelming evidence. IMO, the LDS Church usually does not concede it was wrong unless there is significant political pressure to add to the weight of evidence.
I have a list of inaccuracies I'll provide in another comment--it's long. If it's too long or too contentious, I understand you decide to not post it.
Thanks, Zack
Aaron,
It looks like my "inaccuracies" comment is more than twice as long as can be accepted in one comment. I'll submit this to you by e-mail and let you decide if any of it is worth sharing with your audience.
Zack
Zack,
I read through the list, you are more than welcome to post it here. I think it would be beneficial to readers of the blog and those who listen to the audio. Try breaking it up into two comments so that you are able to post it.
Thanks,
Aaron <><
(page 1 of 3 from Zack Tacorin)
Aaron,
Thanks for your kind invitation.
Here's my list of some possible inaccuracies I found in your talk. I must emphasize that this should in no way be taken as diminishing the great job you did on this talk. I think most everything I’m going to point out will appear as nit-picking. In fact, many Mormons/former Mormons like me might make the same mistakes. However there is some value in trying to be as accurate as possible. From my study of belief from a cognitive psychology perspective, I’ve come to understand that most of us tend to rationalize our beliefs, especially if they are important to us. For a believing Mormon, teachings of the Church tend to be closely associated with the believers identity. If the believing Mormon thinks you are in any way threatening his beliefs, he is likely to see it as a threat to himself. This is not unique to Mormons, but it is key to understanding why any inaccuracy in critical analysis of Mormonism, no matter how immaterial, will likely be used by the believing Mormon to rationalize why he does not need to listen to the analysis.
Before each point, I’ll list a time that approximates the start of the issue or point in question.
12:13
You state that the Pearl of Great Price (a Mormon canonized book of scripture) is claimed to have been translated by Joseph Smith from some ancient papyri. This is one of those mistakes that I’ve probably made myself. The Pearl of Great Price actually contains:
- Selections from the Book of Moses
- The Book of Abraham (the part said to be translated from ancient papyri)
- Joseph Smith--Matthew (Smith’s attempt to correct this part of the Bible)
- Joseph Smith--History
- The Articles of Faith of the LDS Church
15:15
Mormons married in the temple only have a divorce rate of 5%. Since first learning of Mormon temple marriages, I was always taught by the LDS that the divorce rate for temple marriages was significantly lower than the average divorce rate. I suspect this is generally true. The 5% number seems absolutely unreasonable though. The little research I did reveals that this number (whether 5 or 6 %) seems to come from a computation by Brigham Young University professor, Daniel Judd. This computation however, seems to refer to temple divorces. It should be noted that those who have married in the temple and end up divorced civilly, often do not receive a temple divorce (see this article athttp://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_divo.htm). I don’t think Professor Judd’s number accurately tells the story of Mormon temple marriage divorce rates; he seems to be undercounting divorces. In fact, the little research I’ve done, suggests the divorce rates for Mormons married in the temple probably isn’t as low as I would have originally guessed. The good side of this “inaccuracy” is that you’re giving the Mormons the benefit of the doubt, and the “inaccuracy” I’ve pointed out is immaterial.
15:45
Mormon Apostles and Prophets encourage us to examine claims of the LDS Church and Joseph Smith. True . . . but don’t think the Mormons are likely to appreciate a critical examination of their beliefs. In practice, they are taught to accept and follow the claims of the Church and its general leaders without question. If not handled delicately, a critical examination of their beliefs will more often be taken as a personal attack. This was not an inaccuracy on your part, but I thought a word of caution could be helpful.
(page 2 of 3 from Zack Tacorin)
18:50
You mention the religious revival said to have been the context of Joseph Smith’s “First Vision” in 1820. This coincides with Joseph’s 1838 account of his “First vision” which is accepted as the official version by the LDS Church (refer to Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith--History). This is relevant to most former Mormons, because it does not coincide with historical accounts of the religious environment at the time. Historical evidence indicates the said revivals probably took place in about 1824, making the timing of Joseph’s account of events leading up to the “restoration of the Church” very unlikely. Again, this goes to your good for giving the Mormons the benefit of the doubt. In addition, showing a Mormon this inaccuracy in the Church’s own history could be counterproductive unless handled carefully.
In discussing this religious revival, you indicated that this is what led to Joseph’s confusion over which church to join. This again coincides with the LDS Church’s official version of its history. However, it’s not even clear that Joseph really had such confusion. In an earlier account of the “First Vision” (1832), Joseph indicated that he concluded before praying to God that all the existing Churches were wrong.
You mention that there are contradictory accounts of this “First Vision”. That is why I think you stuck with the LDS official version of things to simplify, thereby helping your audience take in the relevant points, and not get bogged down in the detail.
22:30
You mention that Joseph Smith said the plates from which the Book of Mormon is claimed to be translated was written in reformed Egyptian. You point out there is no language called reformed Egyptian. You are correct on this. A Mormon who understands the issue will likely agree with you. It could be argued that any language or dialect derived from Egyptian is reformed Egyptian, as in Egyptian that has been modified in some way. In the same way, I could say that hillbillies speak reformed or modified English. I think some Mormon apologists handle this particular objection quite well (one example is at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=636&cat_id=339).
23:04
You said the Book of Mormon is an account of civilizations in America form about 600 B.C. to about 421 A.D. I would assume this is a simplification to avoid confusing your audience. The earliest American civilizations referred to in the Book of Mormon, the Jaredites, starts at about 2000 B.C. You can find this in the second-to-last book of the Book of Mormon called Ether.
28:23
You explain the “Book of Mormon promise” found in Moroni 10:4-5--that if one prays with sincerity, real intent, and faith in Christ, they can know whether the Book of Mormon is true. You explain this promise is circular reasoning. I’ve seen many ex-Mormons refer to this as circular reasoning too. If this were given as a proof, I’d say you were correct, but I see it as an invitation (misleading as it is) to seek verification of the books veracity from God. Here’s an example I think is analogous. If I claimed to be certified to practice medicine in your state, I might tell you not to rely on my word, but to verify it for yourself with the appropriate state agency. And if you ask the state agency with real intent, and a nominal fee, they will verify the truth of my certification to you by the power of the independent documentation they have. Mormons actually think you will get this outside verification of the Book of Mormon by asking God properly. As you pointed out, it is set up to make it so the inquirer either finds out the Book of Mormon is true, or the Mormons judge the inquirer as insincere or lacking faith if he does not think God has told him the truthfulness of the book.
(page 3 of 3 from Zack Tacorin)
58:53
This is the idea of salvation by grace vs. the Mormon emphasis on works. Clearly the Bible teaches that a person is powerless to enter heaven and that this can only be achieved through the grace of God. Mormons however believe that certain ordinances like baptism and Mormon temple ordinances are prerequisites to salvation (they would actually call it eternal life). However, if you talk with Mormons about the importance of works, they may not be thinking of these so called essential ordinances. They may think you are talking about the importance to do the will of God as mentioned in Matthew 7:21. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” (KJV) So this isn’t an inaccuracy, it’s just that I think much of Christianity and the Mormons are talking right past each other on this one. I suggest your audience should follow your advice to make sure definitions are clear. That might help out a lot if this topic ever comes up.
In summary, these are minor issues or not issues at all. Sometimes simplification is more appropriate than an abundance of detail. I could list many talks by Mormon general leaders that have many mistakes, and many of the mistakes are material to the claims they are making. Your talk was not only accurate, but I agree with your emphasis on the overall approach--that it’s essential to share your message with love.
Great job!
Zack
Post a Comment