Greg Trimble's 11 Book of Mormon evidences

If you have Mormon friends on social media, chances are you've been presented with links to some pretty interesting Mormon logic. One post I've recently seen from a popular blog makes the case for The Book of Mormon in 11 poorly thought out proofs. The proofs are stated as questions and are the typical examples offered by general authorities of why The Book of Mormon is true which means they're the kinds of things you can say in church meetings to make yourself feel important and everyone else feel comfortable, but predictably they are not very convincing.

Here are the eleven questions that will prove the authenticity of The Book of Mormon and my brief responses.

1. Could an uneducated boy come up with 531 pages of ancient scripture on his own that was historically accurate and prophetic in nature?

Answer: Yes, absolutely. Please open your copy of the book to essentially any page that isn't copied almost verbatim from the King James Bible (that might be harder than it sounds). Now tell me how many verses you have to read before you find one that sounds like an uneducated young man (calling someone in his early 20s a "boy" is condescending and inaccurate) er-ing and um-ing a dictation from his head. Not many. Joseph Smith loaded his book so full of place keepers, redundancies, filler and slip ups that I'm amazed when I make it through a single verse without feeling the need to edit.

Keep in mind that this is how it reads even after the Church's editing of all the more egregious frontier farmer speech.

2. Would it be possible for that boy to understand and include ancient Hebrew literary writing styles such as idioms and Chiasmus, some of which weren’t even discovered until long after Joseph Smith was gone ?

Answer: Easily. He read the Bible a lot. He, like every other human being who reads, would absorb and reproduce the style of what he reads to some degree. As for chiasmus, it's an extremely common organizational tool that certainly appears in Jewish literature but is not in any way limited to it. I made a chiasmus on accident once, others are more carefully thought out. You can find chiasmus in children's literature as easily as you find it in adult literature from all over the world, European literature included. This just came to mind, maybe Jews wrote it:

(A) Hickory dickory dock! 
(B)/(C) The mouse went up the clock.
(C) The clock struck one,
(B) The mouse ran down.
(A) Hickory dickory dock!

And quit insisting Joseph was a "boy" when he wrote The Book of Mormon; he was a married man.

3. How would Joseph Smith have been able to know so much about the Middle East, especially the Arabian Peninsula where Lehi and his family traveled? The book includes findings in that region that no one had discovered yet.

Answer: The "knowledge" about the Middle East found in the Book of Mormon could have been derived from having been shown a map. What do you think has been discovered there after the printing of The Book of Mormon that was included in the text? The "NHM" alter? Come on, give us what you've got. Everything apologists have thrown out there has been debunked.

4. How could Joseph Smith come up with roughly 200 new names in the Book of Mormon and then have them turn out to be Semitic in nature?

Answer: He read the Bible a lot. He reused many of those names, modifying them as he saw fit. It wouldn't be hard to throw in a few more made up names that look similar to what's found in the Bible.

5. If you think Joseph Smith couldn’t have written this book, then where did it come from? If one says the devil put him up to it…then why would Satan want to publish another testament of Jesus Christ and a book that does nothing but promote righteousness. Jesus said that a house divided against itself would fall.

Answer: Only a moron would say the devil wrote or inspired the writing of The Book of Mormon. It's origins are clearly early 19th century publications and popular thought.

6. Who were the “other sheep” that would hear Jesus’s voice in John 10:16?

Answer: The "Gentiles", in other words, the non-Jews.

7. Why are there volumes of books written by non-LDS authors stating that Christ came and visited the America’s a couple thousand years ago just like it says in 3rd Nephi? (See Example “He Walked The America’s”) How would Joseph Smith have known this when at the time no one even considered it?

Answer: No one has a monopoly on stupidity, ethnocentrism and wishful thinking. The one book you linked us to is very revealing about yourself as a thinker.

8. If we have the stick of Judah (record of the Jews or the Bible), then where is the stick of Joseph that is referenced in Ezekiel 37:15-20? The Book of Mormon is the only explanation for this scripture. Lehi was a descendant of Joseph. Think Joseph Smith could have gotten that right by sheer chance?

Answer: This is a misinterpretation of the Bible.

9. How could there be so many witnesses of the Book of Mormon and the plates and not one of them deny their testimony even when some of them became bitter toward Joseph Smith? With so many people involved…a hoax of this magnitude could never go uncovered.
 
Answer: People do and say all sorts of things for friendship, family and their reputation. Historian Dan Vogel has some presented some important information for you to consider.

10. How could the Book of Mormon never contradict itself while being an extremely complex book? After all these years…someone would have found something…but no.

Answer: The Book of Mormon is relatively straight forward in its narrative. It basically just tells the same story over and over again. The repetition is numbing, not profound. Despite the simplicity of the repeated narrative, contradictions and errors have in fact been found (you just have to be brave enough to read something other than LDS apologetic literature). It also contradicts known archealogy, natural history, and the history of religious and political thought; it contradicts other Mormon scripture; it contradicts current LDS beliefs (e.g. temporary suffering in hell vs. eternal suffering and the nature of the Godhead).

Even though The Book of Mormon isn't horribly riddled with internal contradictions, why does that somehow make it true? Many authors manage to avoid totally screwing up their stories, does that mean their books are true? Absolutely not.

11. How do I feel while I read the Book of Mormon? Don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t trust your feelings. We are spiritual beings, and if we can’t trust our feelings, then what do we have? Over and over again in the Old and New Testament we’re told that we can trust that “still small voice” to guide us in our decisions. (1 Kings 19:12) I can write evidence after evidence to back up the Book of Mormon but each of those evidences I found were only secondary to the whispering of the Spirit I felt that day before I began waxing up my surf board.

Answer: Epistemology is a tricky thing. You're insisting that emotions are all we have. That's an unfortunate move on your part because we have a lot more than that: we have other senses to work with and we have logic. But if you're going to insist on feelings let's look at your feelings. Let's say you wake up from a dream about your wife cheating on you and you feel hurt and angry. You can't look at her the same for weeks. Did she really cheat on you? Are your feelings reliable? And what about others' feelings? Why do you seem so willing to disregard anyone's feelings and impressions that don't align with your own? What makes you think yours are the only true ones when members of essentially every other religion will use the same evidence as proof of their religion being true?

P.S. I wrote this blog immediately after reading the questions. The answers were too easy. I then went back to the blog to read the comments and saw that several people had written their responses as well. Several were similar to my own but I definitely encourage others to read through them.

Neil Andersen criticized

For any of you who have ever doubted Joseph Smith because of something you've read online or from uncorrelated material, please read or listen to Neil Andersen's recent Conference talk. His strategy of quoting Joseph Smith about himself, reading a crazy-ass quote from John Taylor and offering up brainwashy methods of "gaining a testimony" should be enough to make you wonder if he's sincerely illogical or carefully hiding something. I can't help but think that his talk will ultimately do more harm to members' testimonies than he could possibly imagine. (And he's showing much love when he categorizes dissenters as Judases.)

Why will it harm members' testimonies? Because, as in the case of the Church's anti-science stance, Neil's argument requires that you reject study (as least anything you study that the Church won't like) and favor ignorance instead. In this case instead of repeating "I don't know" to ourselves we're supposed to repeat Joseph's false history to ourselves until we believe it. A testimony like that can only be protected by plugging your ears and shutting off your critical thinking.

Stereotyping

 
The other half of "Closed-mindedness" takes the form of "stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid".

This sounds a lot like the top 5 myths that circulate when someone leaves the LDS Church.

All of the standard assumptions about why someone would leave Mormonism denigrate the doubter's character. Being easily offended shows weakness of character. Desiring to sin means you're evil, or weak when faced with temptation. Accusing someone of never having a real testimony is like calling him a tenderfoot or a faker. Calling someone lazy is just another way of calling them weak. Pinning everything on anti-Mormon arguments suggests the person who decided to listen to those arguments was being stupid and succumbing to those arguments is evidence of one's powerlessness when it comes to controlling his or her thoughts. The general approach within Mormonism tends towards belittling the doubter.

Thank goodness John Dehlin and people like him have been making extensive efforts to dispel these styrotypes.

Freedom of speech

Anti-Christs are so awful!

Utah Mormons these days have rekindled their love for the U.S. Constitution. Their favorite part is the freedom to impose religion on everyone within a given geographic area. Their least favorite part is the freedom of others to speak their mind. Maybe that's because The Book of Mormon has a wonderfully un-patriotic story about a man, Korihor, being arrested for teaching against religious prophecies. Basically the believers were getting upset that this Korihor guy was actually convincing people to stop believing so they had him arrested and his case ended up in the Nephite Supreme Court, where it was discovered that Korihor was "possessed of a lying spirit." In the end God was his judge and God struck Korihor dumb for the rest of his few remaining days, which he lived out as a beggar. So be careful what you say, people of the Free World! Just because you can and want to say something doesn't mean you should.

"Give me a sign, yo!"

This story might sound a bit harsh (or just plain stupid) to anyone who didn't grow up with it, but bear in mind that Jehovah-Jesus was very harsh about these sorts of things. He instituted thought crime in no unclear terms. If you've thought it and wanted it, you've committed the sin. Mysterious as it is, that's God's way.

Today the Church doesn't worry as much about what you think so much as what you say. For some it's better to sit and learn in silence rather than open your mouth and share.

You don't determine what Mormonism is, the Church does. The Church sets the terms for everyone. Deal with it.

The Fridge Profet on leaving one's faith

Here's a great post from the Church of the Fridge. Read it. We thank thee, O God, for the Profet.

Persecution

I used to wonder what the world had against Mormons and the LDS Church. Ever since Joseph Smith's first vision in 1820 persecution has hounded the Restoration. Why? Why would anyone turn a 14 year old into a pariah for having a vision? Why would anyone attack peaceful, industrious settlers? Why would a governor drive a religious group from the state? Why all the rumors about Mormon boys being born with horns? Why the accusation that Mormons aren't Christian? Why all the disinformation in the media? Why would anyone mistreat a young missionary?

Because Satan.

Remember how Satan bound young Joseph's tongue to keep him from praying? That's the kind of asshole we're dealing with. He hates the work of God. He hates the truth. He controls the hearts of man. He appeals to the minds of everyone who wants the easy way and not the straight and narrow. Satan sucks! It's his evil influence (and God's curse against Adam and Eve) (and human nature, which was designed by God) that makes people persecute the One True Church and the saints.

The problem is that we have no reason to believe persecution is even the slightest indication of God's truth under attack. We don't point to the persecution of pre-contact indigenous Americans as evidence of closeness to God. We don't look at the American institution of slavery as evidence that Blacks had the truth. We don't study the ways of the persecuted Aborigines of Australia either. We don't look at those living in slave labor-like conditions today and draw the conclusion that Satan is trying to suppress their saintly souls. We don't look at the opposition faced by other churches and faith traditions to determine their truthfulness. The very idea of using persecution as a measuring stick of truthfulness is absurd - UNLESS IT'S APPLIED TO MORMONISM.

Let me repeat that last point: in the Mormon brain, persecution is only a valid signifier of truth if applied to Mormonism (and sometimes Christianity at large).

Now please don't misunderstand me. Violence, oppression, litigation, misinformation, slander, etc. exist and can all factor in to the unjustifiably adverse treatment of other people. Willfully hurting other people because they don't accept all of your faith claims is immoral, but disagreeing with and challenging someone's faith claims is an everyday part of life and a huge part of the learning process.

Being asked to shoulder the burden of proof is not persecution. Having that proof examined is not persecution. Having that proof rejected on the basis of logic is not persecution. Having someone pointing out that your claims are highly suspicious is not persecution. Having someone speak openly about the lack of proof behind your claims is not persecution.

But it does give you a shit feeling when someone doesn't except your claims at face value. And it feels like shit when someone rejects what you consider solid proof. It especially feels awful when you've based who you are and all of your life plans on those claims. It's easy to feel attacked when everything you think about yourself and the world is based on something so many others find questionable, if not ridiculous.

I wouldn't doubt that having two teenagers show up at your door telling you your brain and life are all wrong might feel equally shitty. Some might even feel a bit persecuted. Especially if you're, say, homosexual or something.

Anti-Antis!

Stepping out meant taking a step in and that was scary. I wasn't worried about stepping into a dangerous, violent world of corruption and depravity. So the Church didn't work out for me! Not the end of the world. So God didn't pull through! Shucks, but life goes on. I was worried about becoming an Anti-Mormon in the eyes of my family and friends.

A "fall" like mine meant that I had probably become an enemy to the Church. I could no longer bear testimony of the truthfulness of it all. I was no longer cool with those most sacred of covenants made in the holy house of the Lord. What if I started telling people I no longer believed in the Church? How many fragile testimonies might my disbelief damage? What if I started sharing temple secrets? What if I tried to oppose the Church? What if I became obsessed with bringing the Church down?!

Well guess what. I was as opposed to Anti-Mormons as much as I was before. I couldn't understand why anyone would dedicate time to trash talking Mormons. I didn't want to say anything that might lead someone down my path of disbelief. So why the blog?

Mormons would love to control the narrative of Mormonism. They would love to eliminate all uncorrelated thoughts, practices, and voices. They hate it when a weirdo gets up in fast and testimony meeting, they hate it when someone digs up a crazy comment by a prophet or apostle, they hate it when someone gets in the media saying something that isn't exactly what they want that person to say. Mormons want to be beautiful and perfect. They want all warts burned off.

Unfortunately I and all the other warts are still here, and it's only fair that I and the other warts get a chance to talk about our thoughts and experiences. We don't have to silence ourselves for the Church's sake, especially when the Church - its leaders and its members - feel obligated to continue not just preaching, but also speaking ill of those who leave the faith.

It's past time for open dialog.