Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

"MormonThink" list of items that would "make the Church true"

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
∗       ∗       ∗

The web site "MormonThink" is an anti-Mormon web site that claims to be operated by members of the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church. The site operators claim that they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites, since it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to faith promoting sites such as FAIR. The site, however, is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark," but to lead people out of the church. The site's attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "George Carlin - Religion is BS". According to "MormonThink":

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

And what, do you suppose, we are supposed to "think" about this? In FAIR's opinion, "MormonThink" is a wolf in sheep's clothing—a site which masquerades as a balanced site run by members, but with the true goal of leading people out of the Church.

A list of things that "would make the Church true" according to "MormonThink"

According to MormonThink.com, if the Church were actually true, then "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website and FAIR's response. The questions come from the web page www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm.

There would be no variations in the story of the First Vision

According to "MormonThink":
"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."

Joseph's siblings would have been awakened by Moroni

2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.

Response

  • This is, quite possibly, one of the most ridiculous claims that FAIR has encountered, yet "MormonThink" spends over 3600 words attempting to explain it (http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm). FAIR's response is much simpler:

For with God nothing shall be impossible.
Luke 1꞉37

  • If God wanted Moroni's visit to be apparent only to Joseph, then He certainly had the capability to do so.
∗       ∗       ∗

Joseph would not have translated using a stone in a hat

3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.

Response

  • Why not? Since the web site stresses physical evidence, then we would ask: Was there some physical difference between the Urim and Thummim and the seer stone? Simply stating that the Urim and Thummim was "sacred" does not answer the question. Does not the Lord have the ability to make any object "sacred" if He so desires? What if, instead of a stone, Joseph had used a round brass ball with pointers, upon which words appeared?
  • It does not matter what object the Lord chooses to have his prophets use to help them develop or focus their faith.
  • See: Joseph Smith—Seer stones
∗       ∗       ∗

Joseph would have looked at the gold plates while he translated

4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.

Response

  • The only thing that Joseph himself ever said about the process of translation was that it was performed by the "gift and power of God."
  • Let us suppose for a moment that Joseph utilized only the Nephite interpreters, which were in the form of two stones set in a bow, mounted on a breastplate. What would one assume that the translation process was in this case? Do we assume that Joseph looked at the stones in the bow? Or, do we assume that he looked at the plates through the stones in the bow, like a pair of glasses? Are we then assuming that by looking through these "spectacles," that the "reformed Egyptian" characters were somehow transformed into English sentences? Why, then, is it any harder to believe that Joseph used either the Nephite interpreters and/or the seer stone as a means to receive a revelation which constituted the text of the Book of Mormon?
  • See: Joseph Smith—Seer stones
∗       ∗       ∗

Joseph would have re-translated the lost 116 pages

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.

The translation of the papyri and facsimilies would match that performed by Egyptologists

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.

∗       ∗       ∗

There would be no Book of Mormon anachronisms

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.

∗       ∗       ∗

Archaeology and linguistics would support the Book of Mormon

8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.

Response

  • The site authors are attempting to define just how much evidence is required in order to have faith. This is not only presumptuous and absurd, but it contradicts the scriptures. Moroni states that confirmation follows the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:

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

∗       ∗       ∗

There would be evidence of large battles at the Hill Cumorah

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

DNA would prove that Native Americans descended from Israel

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

Joseph would have claimed that the Kinderhood plates were a fraud

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

The witnesses statements would have been more definitive

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.

Some of the witnesses should have been skeptics

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.

The Church should have been the first to "proclaim equality for blacks"

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.

The "Curse of Cain" would never have been taught

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.

Polygamy would never have been practiced

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.

Joseph would not have claimed that a Greek psalter was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics

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.

Modern prophets would prophesy in the same manner as Joseph did

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.

The endowment would not have any relation to Masonry

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

The endowment "would not be so secretive"

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.

The endowment would not have changed

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 NOTE: the ellipsis contains temple content that was removed in the early 1990s]

The name of the Church would never have changed

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.

There would be no conflict between testimony and science

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

Everyone who prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon would receive the same answer

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

The Church would be the "most honest of organizations"

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.

Retrieved from "http://104.237.154.152/answers/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink&oldid=47189"