Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

A FAIR Analysis of: MormonThink A work by author: Anonymous

Overview

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

∗       ∗       ∗

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^[1]

FAIR's evaluation of the web site MormonThink

Here is another example of FAIR using the ‘standard LDS tactic’ of spitefully labeling those with whom it disagrees instead of dealing with the issue on its merits. It labels MormonThink as ‘anti-Mormon’ in an attempt to paint MT as untrustworthy and dishonest in the eyes of Latter-day Saints. “Anti-Mormon” is a spiteful label designed to stop critical thinking and obstruct a healthy exchange of ideas.
MormonThink's response to FAIR

∗       ∗       ∗

• FAIR considers a web site or a published work to be "anti-Mormon" if its goal is to demote one's faith in the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, particularly when it is run or produced by "active members" of the Church.
• 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 own 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. MormonThink considers this "the kind of snarky reply that drives honest investigators (members and others) away from the church," and that a "spiteful attitude toward honest investigation is unfair." However, the conclusion drawn over and over again on the site is that the Church and its leaders are dishonest and that the truth claims of the church are false.
• 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. Their response is that "[i]nvestigators at MormonThink (MT) do not want to be excommunicated or disciplined by the church for exercising their right to investigate Mormon history, question official versions, think critically, and point out obvious contradictions with a request for clarification."

Why does FAIR not link to the MormonThink website?

MormonThink provides a lengthy response to items listed in the review below. In their conclusion, MormonThink once again asks why FAIR does not link to their web site:

MormonThink welcomes the opinions and theories that FAIR offers as evidenced by the numerous links that MT has to FAIR as well as to other pro-LDS web sites. Yet FAIR does not link to MT or to any of the critics’ sites so how can FAIR really be fair?

The answer, quite simply, is that the FAIR Wiki has a policy of not linking to anti-Mormon web sites. The goal of MormonThink, which is further reinforced if one reads their response to FAIR's review, is to demonstrate that the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are false. It matters not that the site operators claim to be active members of the Church—the site claims that Joseph Smith was dishonest, that the General Authorities are dishonest, and that the Church is not what it claims to be. This qualifies the site as "anti-Mormon" in our opinion. FAIR's mission, in contrast, is to reinforce the faith of members. We do not, and will not, encourage members to visit web sites which attempt to destroy their faith.

FAIR will continue to respond to individual claims made on the MormonThink site (which are also contained in other anti-Mormon works), in individual FAIR Wiki articles in the future. Several claims are addressed here:

• Kolob-Sun
• Revolution Time

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 site's negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

The MormonThink web site also heavily promotes Grant Palmer's critical work An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. FAIR has analyzed this work and provides an index of claims and corresponding responses, and an examination of the author's use of source material.

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:

Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.

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 in which "he also makes some valid observations." 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.

MormonThink's list of 25 items 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.

Further, it seems odd, to say the least, that a site devoted to "Mormon thinking" would express a series of items that would "make the Church true." Is one to assume that if this list were not required, in the eyes of MormonThink authors, that the Church would somehow be true? Nowhere do the authors address the very simple concept that the best way to find out whether the Church is true is to do what God directs—to ask Him. This list doesn't represent what would make the Church true; it represents a list of things which its authors feel make the Church false.

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

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.

Readers ought to judge for themselves instead of letting unofficial apologists perform a Jedi mind-trick by suggesting, “You will see no contradictions or problems! The stories are flawless and complimentary!"
MormonThink's response to FAIR

∗       ∗       ∗

FAIR's response

• There are no "official" apologists—the idea that there are "official" apologists comes from Church critics. (see Apologetics). (FAIR's apologists, by the way, claim no ability to effectively utilize Jedi powers...)
• One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience. Indeed, stories that are "flawless" would make one suspicious of this very thing.
• Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time. Some contain elements that are not mentioned in others, but the accounts overall fit together.
• The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.

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.

FAIR's response

• The web site asks what the "official and authorized position" of the Church is regarding Moroni's visit. The Church teaches that Moroni's visit was an actual physical event, as described by Joseph Smith himself in the Pearl of Great Price.
• Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet MormonThink spends over 3600 words in explanation (http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm). FAIR's response is much simpler:
• Luke 1꞉37

For with God nothing shall be impossible.

• The official Church website shows a painting in which one of Joseph's siblings is clearly shown asleep during Moroni's visit.
• Note that page 54 of the August 2009 Ensign displays a painting "He called me by name," by Liz Lemon Swindle. This painting shows Joseph sitting up in his bed listening to Moroni. All three of his siblings are fast asleep alongside him.

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.

The responsibility to prove that J Smith was actually translating something is left with the church leaders. At this point, the accumulated evidence after 180 years indicates that there were no golden plates, that Smith translated nothing, and God did not put sentences in English on the rock in his hat.
MormonThink's response to FAIR

∗       ∗       ∗

FAIR's 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 for this criticism to 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 Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require the use of the physical interpreters or seer stones.
• Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—he and the early saints referred to both the Nephite interpreters and his other seer stones as Urim and Thummim. Joseph was unable to translate when Martin Harris secretly swapped the seer stone with a common stone.

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.

The church leaders should offer official and authoritative proof or supporting evidence that J Smith could translate anything at all using the “noisy angel” as revelator, using golden spectacles attached to a breastplate, or by staring at his favorite rock in a hat, claiming that God put the sentences on the rock for him to read while the plates were in a remote location. The evidence to date forces the reasonable person to conclude legitimately that J Smith fabricated the story about translation of golden plates. FAIR or authorized apologists ought to provide reasonable evidence.
MormonThink's response to FAIR

∗       ∗       ∗

FAIR's response

• There are no "authorized" apologists—the idea that there are "official" or "authorized" apologists comes from Church critics. (see Apologetics).
• 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?
• The critic fails to distinguish between early and late stages in the translation process.

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.

Perhaps the most obvious question that official sources or unofficial activist apologists have not answered is this: If J Smith possessed a miraculous, revelatory seer stone, why did he not consult it, locate the manuscript pages and go get them? Where is the awesome “power of God” when you really need it?
MormonThink's response to FAIR

∗       ∗       ∗

FAIR's response

• All apologists are "unofficial"—there are no "official" apologists. We are not certain what an "activist" apologist might be. Engagement in apologetics, by its very nature, involves an active committment. (see Apologetics)
• This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression. This incident is taught in Church to demonstrate the importance of heeding the Lord's commandments. The incident had a valuable purpose.
• 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. It wasn't necessary to obtain the original pages, therefore there was no reason for Joseph to attempt to locate it using a seer stone. The Lord did not command him to do so. In fact, 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:
• DC 3꞉6-10

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.

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.

FAIR's response

Since Joseph did not translate the Egyptian symbols correctly according to Egyptologists, the unauthorized apologists attempt to find parallels to anything that may be in the BOA with ancient Egypt. One problem is that they use parallels from any time period in their grasping at straws attempt to prove Joseph right.
MormonThink's response to FAIR

∗       ∗       ∗

• There are no "authorized" or "unauthorized" apologists. (see Apologetics)
• 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, a reasonable 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.

• The web site considers any Egyptological translations which do match Joseph Smith's translation as "grasping at straws."
• The web site also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.

• The web site 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.

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.

FAIR's response

Scholars with a background in history and archaeology, who regularly submit peer-reviewed articles to well-established and internationally-recognized academic journals, know that J Smith made fraudulent statements and perjured himself when he testified that the Book of Mormon was (1) translated by the gift and power of God, and (2) represents an accurate history of the American Indians (ancient inhabitants of the Americas). That is the state of the evidence at the present time.
MormonThink's response to FAIR

∗       ∗       ∗

• FAIR requests the references for statements by scholars who have published an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal in which they state that Joseph Smith "perjured himself" by claiming that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and that Joseph "perjured himself" by claiming that the Book of Mormon was "an accurate history of the American Indians (ancient inhabitants of the Americas)." Clearly stated: We wish to see one or more articles published by non-LDS scholars in peer-reviewed academic journals which support the statement made by MormonThink above.
• 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.

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.

FAIR's 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. In their response to FAIR, the site authors state,

[Mormon Think] believes that clear, accurate, compelling evidence is required for a reasonable person to exercise faith.

Yet, Moroni states that confirmation follows the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:

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.
—Ether 12꞉6

• 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. In response to the request: "FAIR, you state 'Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the BOM'. Would you please give the readers details of this evidence so they can examine it?" We refer the reader to the summary article linked below. Sub-articles dealing with indivdual issues are linked from that location.

9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.

The conclusion MT draws about Cumorah is the authorized one, while FAIR’s unofficial ad-hoc version contradicts the church’s official view. The LDS prophets are the only people authorized to offer the official views representing the Mormon Church doctrine and practice. For example, in 1990 a Mormon bishop asked the First Presidency about the location of the Hill Cumorah. In a letter dated Oct. 16, 1990, the Secretary to the First Presidency replied to his inquiry...
MormonThink's response to FAIR

∗       ∗       ∗

FAIR's response

• The Church has no official position on the location of the Hill Cumorah described in the Book of Mormon. The citation of F. Michael Watson's letter is often used by critics in order to claim that such a position exists. Bro. Watson seems to have been speaking on his own understanding of the matter, and not as an official declaration of Church policy. In 1993, he sent a clarification letter:

The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.

• 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 evidence from the Book of Mormon text clearly contradicts this assumption.

10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.

FAIR's response

Mormon authorities refuse to speak publicly on the matter as they are called and paid to do. FAIR and other unofficial and unauthorized organizations maintained by zealous, activist members, routinely produce hundreds of pages criticizing any who acknowledge that DNA evidence undercuts Book of Mormon claims.
MormonThink's response to FAIR

∗       ∗       ∗

• The General Authorities are not "called and paid" to respond to DNA claims.
• One of the primary critical works related to the DNA challenge is Dr. Simon G. Southerton's book Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church. FAIR's analysis of this work may be viewed here.
• No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
• LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for over a century.
• In the Ensign in 1984, long before the advances in DNA science, LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. However, attentive students of such matters were aware (well before the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.^[2]
• The author's 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.

11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.

Member and other investigators are frustrated because modern church presidents and apostles do not provide official responses on challenging historical matters, including the Kinderhook Plates. Past church leaders declared the Kinderhook Plates authentic, but now their “inspired counsel” is rejected by unofficial FAIR apologists.
MormonThink's response to FAIR

∗       ∗       ∗

FAIR's response

• Actually, the Kinderhook plates, which for years were believed by Church leaders to have been authentic, were confirmed to be a hoax in the August 1981 Ensign. FAIR's apologists simply accept what was published in the Ensign. There is no previous "inspired counsel" regarding the Kinderhook Plates, as no translation was ever produced. The Ensign article may be viewed here: Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax
• 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 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 surrounding areas in Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.

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.

Publish Harris’s confessions and explain that the witnesses’ events were the result of an active imagination, wishful thinking and magic-world view. Most people on planet earth find this to be the most reasonable explanation in light of the evidence.
MormonThink's response to FAIR

∗       ∗       ∗

FAIR's response

• FAIR does indeed address Martin Harris' statements regarding the "Eye of Faith" here: "Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris. We suggest the "most people on planet earth" are, in reality, unconcerned with or unaware of this claim.
• Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:

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 Testimony of Three Witnesses

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.
—From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses

• 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.

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.

Until the LDS Church leaders support Book of Mormon claims and provide sufficient evidence that it is what it claims to be, it is silly to quote from its preface and ask reasonable people to accept statements by Smith as evidence.
MormonThink's response to FAIR

∗       ∗       ∗

FAIR's response

• It is strange to imply that "unlimited numbers of non-relatives who are not enemies that could have served as impartial witnesses" ought to have been included among the Three and Eight witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who lacked belief. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
• DC 5꞉23-25

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.

• 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.

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.

Contrary to what FAIR claims, it's clear that the LDS leadership, from the time of the restoration through the 1960s, was not more progressive than the rest of America in their racial attitudes and in some cases was far less progressive as other churches had allowed blacks the rights to the priesthood long before the LDS Church did.
MormonThink's response to FAIR

∗       ∗       ∗

FAIR's 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.

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.

FAIR's 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 reveals a naïveté concerning the role of prophets. 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."

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.

MT does not assume that polygamy could have been ordained by God the way Smith introduced it.
MormonThink's response to FAIR

∗       ∗       ∗

FAIR's response

• The authors of the site simply take the position 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 19th 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.

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.

FAIR's 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. (MormonThink claims that they could not find FAIR's reference for John Taylor's statement—they apparently did not follow the link to the article below. We now include the reference here.) According to John Taylor:

Concerning Mr. Caswall, I was at Nauvoo during the time of his visit. He came for the purpose of looking for evil. He was a wicked man, and associated with reprobates, mobocrats, and murderers. It is, I suppose, true that he was reverend gentleman; but it has been no uncommon thing with us to witness associations of this kind, nor for reverend gentlemen; so called, to be found leading on mobs to deeds of plunder and death. I saw Mr. Caswall in the printing office at Nauvoo; he had with him an old manuscript, and professed to be anxious to know what it was. I looked at it, and told him that I believed it was a Greek manuscript. In his book, he states that it was a Greek Psalter; but that none of the Mormons told him what it was. Herein is a falsehood, for I told him. Yet these are the men and books that we are to have our evidence from. ([John Taylor,] "Three Nights: A Public Discussion between the Revds. C. W. Cleeve, James Robertson, and Philip Cater, and Elder John Taylor of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at Boulogne-Sur-Mer, France" (Liverpool: John Taylor, 1850), 5. off-site)

• There is much more detail in the article linked below.

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.

In other words, [Joseph's] imagination or his guesswork is the engine that drove his revelations. Most Mormons on any given Fast Sunday claim fervently (often in tears) that God does answer all the tough questions.
MormonThink's response to FAIR

∗       ∗       ∗

FAIR's response

• MormonThink's response in this case is to mock the idea that revelation even occurs.
• 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 frequent, 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."^[3]

19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.

FAIR's 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:

1. Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
2. 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
3. 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.

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.

FAIR's 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."

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.

FAIR's 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. It is FAIR Wiki policy not to write about or discuss specific temple content, either past or present. 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 site owners at MormonThink consider this "silly," since such content can be found outside the FAIR Wiki. The site claims that FAIR is avoiding the issue because "there is no good defense," and concludes that it "appears to reasonable people that the LDS leaders are not any more inspired than average humans." In other words, if one does not agree with MormonThink's negative conclusion, then one is not a "reasonable" person. Quite frankly, it does not matter to us how the endowment is presented or how it has evolved over time—what matters to us is that we made covenants with the Lord, and it is to Him and Him alone that we are responsible for the manner in which we keep those covenants. We do not engage is a discussion of these things simply because a website owner considers them not to be "religious" in nature.
• 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.^[4]

• 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.

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.

FAIR's response

• The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in 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.

23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.

FAIR's 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. According to MormonThink, any scientist who is also a believer is an anomaly—thus their declaration that "[t]rue believers may also cite research by some rogue scientist that supports the church, or worse still, be told that all they need to do is follow the prophet, even if he’s wrong (Ensign, July 1972, p. 98)." Believers would never consider following the prophet to be the "worse" choice, yet this is what MormonThink flatly states in their response to FAIR.
• 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.

24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.

[T]he contributors to the MT site have all prayed about whether or not the church is true, and none of us received any sort of confirming answer.
MormonThink's response to FAIR.

∗       ∗       ∗

FAIR's response

• The response above 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:
• Moroni 10꞉4

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.

• 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."

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.

Of course it is a little disconcerting to think that the FAIR apologists know more about the true nature of the church than the prophet and apostles...
MormonThink's response to FAIR

∗       ∗       ∗

FAIR's response

• Of course, FAIR does not "know more about the true nature of the church than the prophet and apostles." It is naive for one to assume this.
• 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.
• With regard to "Church art" leading people to believe that Joseph was alone during Moroni's visit, we refer the reader to the August 2009 Ensign, page 54, which shows a depiction of Moroni's visit by artist Liz Lemmon Swindle ("He Spoke My Name"). The painting clearly shows three of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed beside him as he listens to Moroni.

• The site 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.

• 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:

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.

Endnotes

1. [note]  Stephen E. Robinson, "Review of The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture by Dan Vogel," FARMS Review of Books 3/1 (1991): 312–318. off-site
2. [note]  John L. Sorenson, "Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1," Ensign (September 1984). off-site For second part of the article, see off-site
3. [note]  Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), xxi. citing Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette, September 15, 1843, Papers of Joseph Smith 1:443.
4. [note]  John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine (April 1921): 62.