Perhaps you have noticed that engaging with Mormon apologists is not what it was. The Bible was once the almost exclusive province of the Christian apologist, with Mormons bringing an obviously ‘different gospel.’ They seem these days better informed, better prepared for the debate, the language of biblical studies and Christian Church history sitting more easily with them.
Some Christians have found this intimidating because the Mormons are coming up with what look like substantive arguments, put across with big words. Others have found it frustrating because they know these Mormons are wrong, but can’t quite put their finger on what is being said because of how it is being said.
We seem to have to be on our mettle these days because the province of Christian history and biblical apologetics seems no longer exclusively our own. Latterly, Mormons appear to have discovered this territory and are determined to put their own spin on it all. What is happening?
Two Gods
It is well to remember that the whole Mormon enterprise is founded on one simple claim. That Joseph Smith, at the age of fourteen, went into the woods near his home and encountered two gods. I put it in those terms because, however they spin it, calling one ‘the Father’ and the other ‘the Son,’ the claim is that he met with two gods. This is called the First Vision, but it isn’t the first version.
The Mormon Church was founded on 6 April 1830, and if you were to travel back to that time those earliest church members would have known nothing of this First Vision. The story they would know would have been that of the angel Moroni and the gold plates. This was the founding narrative of the Mormon Church until well after Joseph Smith’s death. In fact, the so-called First Vision held little currency by comparison throughout much of the 19th century.
The earliest account of this First Vision was written in 1832, but was not made public until 1965. Even church leaders seemed unaware of this version until it was discovered in church archives in 1930, by which time an ‘official’ version had been established. It was subsequently placed in the care of apostle Joseph Fielding Smith who locked it up in a private safe.
It seems the earliest public knowledge of the 1832 version came in 1835. You can read about the different accounts here. They are clearly contradictory, and contradict the long held official narrative that there was only ever one account from the beginning, a story held to until the1980s.
It is very tiresome, frankly, to go over these issues, and my point is not to give a comprehensive history. That can be gained from the splendid work of Jerald and Sandra Tanner of Utah Lighthouse Ministry. My point is that there is no reason in the world to believe this ‘history’ because there is no evidence it ever happened. What is plain is that the narrative grew over time as Joseph Smith’s theology – such as it is – developed into the wilder claims of his later teachings.
The man was a charlatan who taught what suited him in the moment. He wanted other women, so he introduced polygamy; he wanted influence and to be taken seriously so he became a Freemason; he wanted to be a ‘god’ so he introduced the idea of men becoming gods; he wanted to rule the world, so he got up an army and ran for president.
Book of Mormon ‘Evidence’
When it comes to ‘evidence’ for Joseph Smith’s claims, we are presented with the Book of Mormon, as though this is definitive. Question it and you will be challenged, ‘If it didn’t come from God, then where did it come from?’
Of course, it isn’t for critics to show where it came from, it is for the Mormon Church to bring evidence for the claims they make for it. No such evidence exists, just Joseph Smith’s story of two gods, an angel, a hole in the ground, and gold plates. These days Mormons will insist that there is evidence, but closer inspection demonstrates that there is nothing to show.
There are, of course, the corroborating testimonies of the so-called witnesses, but here is a story of embarrassing denials, denouncements, accusations, counter-accusations, excommunications, reinstatements the like of which we never see from the original twelve apostles in the New Testament. It is all very sordid, tawdry, and unfortunate.
The key point, however, is that Mormonism has no reputable academic basis for its claims. In the absence of evidence prospective converts have always been told these stories then brought to Moroni’s challenge at the back of the Book of Mormon:
“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. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things” (Moroni 10:4–5)
The reasoning here is that, in his official account, Joseph Smith went into the woods and encountered two gods, prompted by James 1:5, ’If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.’ (ESV) The ‘witnesses’ to the Book of Mormon did the same and gained a testimony of the Book of Mormon, ergo Moroni’s promise will come true for you. See Moroni’s Empty Promise.
There is nothing in the Bible challenging us to pray about truth claims. Nowhere does Peter challenge those at Pentecost (Acts 2) to ‘pray about these things and God will reveal the truth of it to you.’ Stephen, at his martyrdom, didn’t urge his audience to ‘pray about it.’ Paul on Mars Hill never issues such a challenge (Act 17).
James is not saying anything like what Moroni is purportedly saying. James is writing to Christians, who know the truth, about gaining wisdom in light of what they already know and believe. It’s obvious once someone says it.
Mormon Apologists and Academia
In the 20th century, modern public facing Mormon apologetics grew out of the works of people like James E Talmage, whose works are generously described as ‘derivative,’ and LeGrand Richards, whose book A Marvellous Work and a Wonder formed the basis for the later development of Mormon missionary discussions.
After World War Two the academic side of Mormon apologetics was taken more seriously. From the early 1970s church archives were opened for serious Mormon and non-Mormon academics. Journals like Sunstone and Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought were launched.
Church leaders were very nervous about these developments and made their views known. They were anxious, of course, about what might be discovered that would discredit the Mormon founding narrative. They had good reason to worry, as evidenced by the work of the Tanners. This golden period of access did not last long as Mormon leaders sought to regain firm control of what the public saw of Mormonism.
For all this, the typical Christian experience of Mormon apologetics was still that of Mormons knowing little or nothing of Christian history beyond the selective stories told by their church. Mormon apologetics witnessing was from an open King James Bible, with interpretations drawn from the English text. Not so very long ago your typical Mormon would likely not know the difference between an evangelist and an Evangelical. How things have changed.
The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) was founded in 1979 as an informal collaboration of academics devoted to Latter-day Saint historical scholarship. It became a formal part of Brigham Young University (BYU) in 1997.
Its declared aim is to produce reliable scholarship in support of Mormonism and Christianity. When you realise that Mormons consider theirs the only true Christianity, it becomes clear that both aims are the same; to produce reliable scholarship in support of Mormonism.
The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FairMormon since 2013 and with the Acronym FAIR) was founded in 1997. Its declared aim is Mormon apologetics and responses to critics of the Mormon Church.
It is from initiatives like these that Mormon apologetics took on a new depth and style in the public space. Mormon apologists now come with a new language, a renewed vigour, a confidence born of actually learning a thing or two. So, what have they learned?
Gods Many and Lords Many
The Bible makes clear that there is only one God. God says in Isaiah, ‘I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.’ Is.44:6 cf Isaiah 45:5,6; Deuteronomy 6:4
Joseph Smith, however, insisted, ‘In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it’ (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 349).
How does the Mormon apologist square this with the plain words of the Bible? Paul, in 1 Corinthians 8, insists, ‘there is no God but one.’ (v.4) Jesus himself refers to ‘the only true God.’ (John 17:3)
In the face of these the Mormon will point out that Paul also says, ‘there are gods many and lords many.’ (1 Corinthians 8:5) One Mormon recently said to me, ‘Even Paul doesn’t know how many gods there are!’ The argument is brought that there are, indeed, many gods, ‘yet for us there is one God,’ as Paul goes on to say. In other words, ‘we don’t worship those other gods.’
This is such a bizarre and heretical idea, an attack on the plain words of the Bible, on two-thousand years of Christian teaching, you might wonder if they have learned anything. They have learned to better couch their apologetic in impressive Christian terms with big words and confusing hermeneutics, but it’s the same old story.
A Moot Point
‘Moot’ derives from the Old English to meet. Under Anglo-Saxon rule, regular gatherings known as moots were convened for each county, or shire, where legal cases were adjudicated, and local issues were deliberated. Presiding over the moot would be the Earl and the local bishop. A moot point is, among other things, an issue open to debate.
Mormons bring controversies of their own making then insist that any controversy must simply be ‘brought to the moot’ for resolution, but there is no controversy. History shows that we have been to the moot and these are settled issues.
We return from time to time, in the form of church councils, to revisit issues whenever they are challenged, but the authority is always the established word of God, which says that there is one God. Yet the Mormon apologist has learned to insist that these issues he raises are all and always moot points.
They pretend they are playing by the same rules as us, but they are not. Just as they use the same vocabulary but a different dictionary, so they use the same familiar process but to a very different end. They are not interested in the decisions of the moot, they are interested only in using it to make Mormonism into official Christianity, and Christians into Mormons.
Mormonism is Mormonism
No matter how better equipped the Mormon apologists appear to be, their understanding and beliefs do not come from what they have learned, but from the teachings of Mormonism, which they desperately work to prop up with big scholarly words, using any and every biblical and extra-biblical resource available to cast doubt on the Bible and on the historical church.
It is still true that Mormonism has no credible academic or theological foundation. Mormon teaching cannot be found in the Bible except by the age old malpractice of Scripture twisting. Mormon ‘biblical studies’ are eisegetical, bringing their beliefs to the Bible, not exegetical, getting them from the Bible.
It is not possible to meaningfully study the historiographical, historical, archaeological, topical, or textual context of the Book of Mormon as we can the Bible. The Book of Mormon has no historical, archaeological, topical, or textual context in the real world. It relates to nothing outside of Mormonism.
Mormonism is Mormonism and nothing else.
Exegeting the Book of Mormon would be like exegeting The Hound of the Baskervilles, which Sherlock Holmes fans would no doubt appreciate (true fans do speak of the Conanical texts) but this would be entertainment, not serious historical or biographical research.
Whatever it looks like, the Mormon apologists are not ‘reasoning from the Scriptures,’ they are questioning the long-established authority of the Scriptures, they are reasoning from Mormonism, questioning the teachings and claims of the historical Christian Church. They want the Bible to be unreliable, otherwise the whole Mormon enterprise comes crashing down.
For the Mormon apologist every Christian believer, every theologian, reformer, preacher, evangelist, and teacher, no matter how impressive his qualifications, how credible his reasoning, how compelling his Bible teaching, has got it wrong. Joseph Smith got it right because he met two gods in the woods, an angel by his bed, and found gold plates in a hole in the ground.
