Critique the critique sounds like the name of a dance song, like Beguine the Beguine. Perhaps I will set this to music some day.

I recently wrote an article entitled The Challenge of Mormon Apologists. A critique of the article was quickly, I would say hastily, out of the blocks, A Thorough and Exegetical Latter-day Saint Response to “The Challenge of Mormon Apologists” by Reachout Trust Ministries. It was written by Timothy Berman, a Mormon apologist.

This is my critique of that critique of my original article. Who knows, if it carries on like this we might get a book and a beautiful partnership out of it. This critique was intended as a Facebook comment, but as you see it ran away with me. I have highlighted the charges brought and hope this helps.

Dear Timothy Berman

Reachout Trust

Reachout Trust is not ’a newly established cult ministry.’ We have been around since 1982. It depends, of course, on your definition of ‘newly established.’ Compared to Mormonism I suppose it might seem recent, but then, compared to proper Christianity, Mormonism is ‘newly established.’

The ministry was established by the late Doug Harris. When he died in 2013 I was invited to take his place. That makes me the chairman of the trust, not just ‘a contributor.’ Titles don’t really matter to me, but they must be had by law, and so I have one.

Reachout’s efforts are not aimed, ‘primarily to examining and addressing the beliefs, teachings, history, and doctrines of the Latter-day Saint movement.’ Only a Mormon would assume that his world would be the centre of our world.

Our mission, as clearly explained on the About page of our website, is reaching out to people in cults, educating Christians on how to identify error and share their faith with cult members, and publishing material that keeps people informed and equipped with biblical truth. You might sum it up with the words of Jude:

‘…to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.’ Jude 3

We have not ‘recently extended our reach to X and YouTube.’ We have had an active presence on both, especially on YouTube, for years, indeed going back to the days of our founder. There is a wealth of material on our YouTube channel to demonstrate as much. It is embarrassing for you that this information would have been so easy to get right.

Gotcha!

Of course the piece I wrote is a ‘gotcha hit piece.’ It is polemical! Do you imagine that I intended otherwise? Honestly, you fellows take yourselves far too seriously, that’s half your trouble. Mormon apologists are so indignantly po-faced and serious, they don’t appreciate when they have been poked with a stick. To respond with ‘how very dare you!’ is comical.

It is not, however, just a gotcha hit piece. I can do nothing about your missing my point, but miss it you have. Perhaps this response will help you find it.

I was saying that sometimes somebody simply needs a wake-up call, both Mormons and Christians. To Mormons the message is, the stuff you are sharing is just so much skubala, and you sometimes need to be plainly told. The message for Christians is, smell this for what it is, and stop being intimidated by big words, loaded hermeneutics, and bogus expressions of indignation.

The piece is biased; agreed. I am Evangelical, I have a strong bias toward Bible truth. You are not a Christian as Christians understand ‘Christian,’ and that matters. Does this really surprise you?

Jesus didn’t say, ’go into all the world and make conversation.’ Jesus said, ‘go into all the world and make disciples.’ Sometimes that involves calling out error, seeing it for what it is and saying as much. Your Mormon friends in online discussions don’t hold back in this respect, and neither do I.

Of the 27 books in the New Testament, 26 urge us to guard against error. Jude is almost entirely dedicated to the theme. Jesus warned often of wolves in sheep’s clothing, of false prophets. I am alert to the danger. Paul in his farewell address to the Ephesian Elders charged them:

‘Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his won blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.’ (Acts 20:28)

I am paying careful attention, and warning Christians of the threat I see in false gospels. It’s the remit of the ministry. You go about telling everyone who will listen that we are apostate, we go about telling them you are in error. Is this so hard to understand?

What is obvious is that, when you had to do the work in finding out about Reachout Trust, you got so much wrong, and when you come on to answering my article you appear to raise your game. This is an illusion, since your response here is little more than a typical cut-and-paste exercise.

Have I misrepresented Mormon apologists in my piece? I don’t believe I have, but read on and see for yourself.

You insist, ‘he critiques the LDS concept of priesthood authority.’ I would love to know what you mean here.

The Devil in the Details

You scold me for not, ‘inviting dialogue or wrestling with the complexities of interfaith disagreement.’ Interfaith? I don’t believe in any ‘let’s see if we can find common ground’ interfaith initiatives, unlike your leaders who seem more than happy to be seen visiting pagan temples.

As to ‘complexities,’ you have heard the saying ‘the devil is in the details?’ That is where error hides, in convoluted discussions, obfuscations, and controversies got up for the occasion. There are no complexities except the ones Mormons wish to hide behind. I am reminded, time and again in this ministry, of the words of a certain character in Genesis, ‘Did God really say?’ Mormons ask this question an awful lot.

Mormon protests at their claims not being taken seriously remind me of a quote from the late Margaret Thatcher, who said, ’If you have to tell people you are a lady, you are not.’

Virtue Smuggling

Some years ago I met and spoke with two academics from Tyndale House, Cambridge. They were speaking at an event on the subject of Bible texts, translation work, etc. I had an opportunity to corner them and ask if they knew about the work being done on the Isaiah scroll at BYU.

The Mormon Church had been touring a copy of the scroll, piggy-backing on it an exhibition about the Book of Mormon. A poor attempt at borrowing virtue from a credible source, virtue smuggling, but who would know if someone like me didn’t tell people.

They said that they knew the work of BYU, and considered it competent, good work. I expected nothing less. I then asked them what they thought about the Book of Mormon. They smiled indulgently, shook their heads, and tried to be kind.

When you write of Mormon ‘peer-reviewed academics,’ I think of this conversation and wonder what is being reviewed, and who is doing the reviewing? I ask myself, what do outside reviewers make of the Book of Mormon, or are Mormon academics reviewing and marking each other’s own work? Are strident claims of academic rigour just another example of virtue smuggling?

I liked very much the article by David Neinur bemoaning biblical illiteracy among Evangelicals, although the part you lifted is so general as to be almost meaningless in this discussion. Some of it, indeed, is almost exclusively applicable to the American Church. An example would be the business/mega-church model that has never been popular this side of the Atlantic.

The trouble with your citing it is that you apply the general to the particular but fail to show how this is a legitimate application. Instead you simply create a false syllogism in readers’ minds:

Evangelicals generally don’t know the Bible

Michael Thomas is an Evangelical

Michael Thomas doesn’t know his Bible

Mormons do this kind of thing all the time. For example:

You bring an answer that is no more than a claim and insist there is nothing more to be said, assuming what has yet to be proven. This is exemplified by your assertion that ‘the Bible itself hints at a divine council, (Psalm 82:1).’ Only through some eyes, and never the way Mormons read it.

A Mormon will typically claim a proposition is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false. An example is, ‘If Joseph Smith didn’t see an angel and gold plates, how do you explain the Book of Mormon?’ A logical fallacy common among Mormons.

Another example is the insistence that Mormonism is the original Christianity, while the Christianity of history is merely ‘creedal Christianity.’ This narrative is based on a premise that is demonstratively false. that Mormonism is truly Christianity. If you Mormons keep going around calling people names, easily dismissing what is not so easily dismissed, how can you reasonably expect ‘respectable dialogue?’

It is true that biblical ignorance is a problem across the churches, but that doesn’t make historical Christianity a product of the fourth century.

What is worse, as I have pointed out many times, is the situation among Mormons who know Bible proof-texts but simply don’t know or trust the Bible. Indeed, they simply don’t want the Bible to be truly the inerrant word of God. This is evidenced by Mormons continually bringing what they consider ‘proof’ that it can’t be relied upon. If it is the inerrant word of God, then a key founding claim of restorationist Mormonism crumbles.

Rebutting Rebuttals

Your rebuttals, they are so typical. A nice cut-and-paste job in refuting the contradictions between Joseph Smith’s accounts is to be expected I suppose. They cannot be reconciled, but you must insist they can in order to maintain the reputation of the sainted Joseph.

As for your appeal to chiasmus in Alma 36. There is chiasmus everywhere there is literature. From nursery rhymes (hickory-dickory dock), to Milton’s Paradise Lost, ‘make a heaven of hell or a hell of heaven’ and Orwell’s 1984, ‘If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.’

It is a literary device so commonplace that authors have sometimes been surprised that they have subconsciously used it. It does not evidence divine inspiration, but simply demonstrates a well-read mind. You can read more about chiasmus here.

God’s many, and Lord’s many. I have misrepresented you as a polytheist when you are a henotheist? Really? That is your defence? Both are heresies, both put Mormonism outside the scope of orthodoxy. I am not sure what you think you have achieved here.

There are ‘gods many, and lords many’ today, not least in Mormonism itself. Joseph Smith met two of them in the woods, allegedly. They are all false gods, which is what Paul was saying. The God of the Bible exhausts the category of ‘God.’ He says as much throughout Scripture, and attempts by Mormons to qualify the plain word of God are just begging the question.

I am not surprised that you cite the late Michael Heiser, for whom I have great respect as a theologian. His peers do not agree with him on Psalm 82, his is a minority view. More significantly, Michael Heiser was a confessing Trinitarian, Evangelical believer who had enormous problems with what Mormons make of Psalm 82 and of his work.

You say that I assume theological questions are universally settled and beyond discussion. I have said nothing of the sort. Church history is best characterised by the motto Ecclesia semper reformanda est, the church must always be reforming. Reforming is not, however, the same as replacing. I have already stated that we come back to the moot periodically to settle issues, but the long-settled, established orthodoxy of the Bible and the church is our canon, not the latest theories on an issue.

Mormons, on the other hand, wish to turn over the tables, question everything, and make themselves the judges of the moot. ‘We have priesthood, and a faculty of academics!’ But it is a Christian moot, not a Mormon. This brings us back to the remit of Reachout Trust. You go about telling everyone that we are apostate, we go about telling everyone that you are in error. You write:

‘The article’s appeal to “settled” authority dismisses ongoing exegetical debates, revealing an unwillingness to engage with LDS arguments on their merits.’

There is a settled authority, just one you refuse to recognise. There is no problem in the Christian community with ongoing exegetical debates; remember, reformed and always reforming. We do engage with LDS arguments, demonstrating that they have no merit.

As to cited Mormon academic authorities and peer reviewed papers, here are the ones you reference:

‘John Leon Sorenson (April 8, 1924 – December 8, 2021) was an American anthropologist, scholar and author. He was a professor of anthropology  at Brigham Young University, and the author of An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, as well as many other books and articles on the Book of Mormon and archaeology….He also served as bishop of the BYU 99th Ward.’

‘Hugh Winder Nibley (March 27, 1910 – February 24, 2005) was an American scholar and member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) who was a professor at Brigham Young University (BYU) for nearly 50 years. He was a prolific author, and wrote apologetic works supporting the archaeological, linguistic, and historical claims of Joseph Smith. He was a member of the LDS Church, and wrote and lectured on LDS scripture and doctrinal topics, publishing many articles in the LDS Church magazines.’

Their association with the Mormon Church does not disqualify them as legitimate academics, but it doesn’t help you gain credibility when you cite scholars so closely associated with the institution being challenged. Outside the rarefied atmosphere of Mormonism, where are the academics who take seriously Mormon claims for the Book of Mormon?

If there is so much solid academic work being done, where are the maps at the back of the Book of Mormon? If this academic output is so prolific and convincing, why does nobody in the wider academic field put their name to it? Where is this robust LDS scholarship, apart from inside the hallowed halls of the Mormon world? It looks like Mormon academics are operating in an echo chamber when it comes to Mormon claims.

I have an 1888 copy of the Book of Mormon with footnotes identifying places ‘believed to be’ where certain events took place. As you see from the above picture, they were a good deal more particular and confident in 1888. Surely, scholarship has moved beyond these best guesses? Has current scholarship moved beyond ‘believed to be,’ or is it still ‘believed to be’ expressed in different terms? Might have been, could have been, ‘some [Mormon]scholars think.’

Critiquing LDS Educational Philosophy

Jason J. Barker, Director of the Southwest Institute for Orthodox Studies, Arlington, TX, in a paper entitled Who is the Representative Mormon Intellectual? Assessing Mormon Apologetics, examines the LDS educational philosophy. Whilst recognising that “an increasing number of Latter-day Saints are currently active in mainstream academics”, he goes on to quote the late Karl Sandberg, a Mormon and a French professor (emeritus) at Macalester College, who observes;

“There are Mormons who do scholarship in all of the various disciplines – they play by the same rules as everyone else, they participate in the same dynamics, and they produce the same kind of knowledge. This is not the case, however, when Mormons do scholarship about Mormonism or directly related subjects.”

Barker goes on to explain that “The primary reason for this discrepancy…is that Mormon-specific scholarship in the LDS Church is necessarily limited by the boundaries of Mormon orthodoxy and orthopraxy.” He quotes Sanburg further who elaborates;

“There are prominent examples of Mormon scholarship whose purpose appears to be that of giving scholarly permission to people to believe what they already believed on subjective grounds and of answering and repulsing any perceived attacks on the Church.”

The late Boyd K Packer, Mormon General Authority, had the following to say in attacking even professionals as they attempt to achieve impartiality in telling the truth about Mormonism: “There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.  Some things that are true are not very useful.” (Apostle Boyd K. Packer, “The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect,” BYU Studies, Summer 1981, pp. 263, 267).

In other words, a Mormon scholar admits that there are distinct boundaries to Mormon scholarship as the Mormon Church insists on favouring faith over intellect. A Mormon apostle confirms this when he speaks of facts that are ‘unhelpful.’ With this sort of reputation why should the world trust exclusively to Mormon scholarship? Discuss.