This file can be printed for personal use and study. © Reachout Trust - www.reachouttrust.org

Mormon Apologetics - Fact or Fiction?

Michael R Ash, born a Mormon, is a retail manager in Utah and a 'factotum' for the Mormon apologist organisation FAIR. In a recent article in the unofficial online Mormon magazine Meridian, he addressed the question, "Why do Some People Assail the Church?"

The article can be found here.

It gives us an interesting insight into two factors concerning Mormon apologetics. First, apologetics, as we would recognise apologetics, is a recent development for Mormons. In the past Mormons took a more declamatory approach and, although a kind of reasoned defence was used, it was rather simplistic and didn't seriously address itself to the questions raised by critics. Mormons felt that the truth was self-evident; critics were just being obtuse and popular books like Legrand Richards' A Marvelous Work and a Wonder were sufficiently engaging. Richards' book would never do today and Mormons are now engaging with their critics in a way that was unheard of years ago. Secondly, it helps us understand the mindset that can look at compelling criticisms of Mormon doctrine and still dismiss it as malicious, born of ignorance and misguided.

The question is put, "Are all critics or disbelievers modern-day anti-Mormons?" and I was, as you would imagine, very interested in the answer:

"Certainly not. Disagreeing with LDS doctrine does not make someone an anti-Mormon, but there are certain critics who would like to see the demise of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. How can we differentiate between disagreeing nonbelievers and anti-Mormons? In some ways it's difficult to set parameters to categorize such critics."

It is my experience, from both inside and outside the Mormon Church, that parameters seem so difficult to set because anyone who asks the most reasonable question is almost invariably treated with suspicion and branded "anti-Mormon", or someone who has been "got at by anti-Mormons". This is the default position of every Mormon, a sort of "either you're for us or against us" approach.

The writer goes on to observe:

"Anti-Mormons often disregard the facts, current research, and the sacred beliefs of Latter-day Saints. They frequently engage in techniques that are aimed at destroying the faith of tender-testimonied Latter-day Saints or investigators, and are not usually interested in dialogue or reaching the truth."

I find this charge interesting since the rest of the article seems to demonstrate a singular lack of interest on the part of Mormons in fact, current research or dialogue. Take that famous quote from Spencer Kimball:

"Apostasy usually begins with question and doubt and criticism. It is a retrograding and devolutionary process. The seeds of doubt are planted by unscrupulous or misguided people, and seldom directed against the doctrine at first, but more often against the leaders." - Teachings of Spencer W Kimball, Pub. Bookcraft, 1982.

Do You Really Want the Facts?

Here we have a clear denunciation of the very factors that help us address and judge the facts of which Michael Ash speaks with enthusiasm. Questions that seek to find the facts, doubt that helps us pursue those questions instead of settling for whatever you're told, and criticism that helps others examine their own faith, either strengthening it, or changing it for the better.

Of course, Kimball casts those who seek facts and probe for data as unscrupulous or misguided people. This is typical of the Mormon approach to critics and is mirrored in the article itself:

"Why do these detractors want to see the Church fall? There are a variety of reasons. Some are bitter because they've been offended by members of the Church or because they have seen the human-side of LDS leaders. Others may attack the Church out of pride - pride in their supposed intelligence; they no longer need the "crutch" of religion. Others may recognize that they know more about early LDS history than is generally taught in Sunday School, Seminary, or Institute and thus come to believe that they also know more about spiritual things than the Prophets.

"Such people often assume that they have the inside "scoop" to the real LDS faith and that only the naïve' or uninformed could believe the stories told in Church. When pride replaces humility, criticism of others - especially leaders - is often a consort...Others resort to attacking the Church to hide their own sins."

It must be a great comfort for Mormons uniformly to be able to dismiss their critics as, "unscrupulous and misguided, bitter, proud, and sinful". It certainly beats having to answer your critics with intelligent arguments, facts, archaeological data, and a reasoned defence. Also interesting is the insight we gain into the Mormon approach to plain facts. The writer observes:

"There are also some members who leave the Church simply because they no longer believe. Such people generally do not have a spiritual testimony and they are not able to reconcile what they see as difficult issues."

A clear dichotomy is presented here between "spiritual testimony", based entirely on subjective experience, and "difficult issues" that someone "sees" and with which someone might struggle because of objective evidence. Referring to "false Christs", the writer asks:

"What types of "signs and wonders" might such a prophet have up his sleeve? Perhaps this might entail clever sounding arguments, or scientific or empirical data that might be used (in my view incorrectly) in a way that suggests that Christ is not real, or that the Restored Gospel is false."

So we begin with the charge that, "Anti-Mormons often disregard the facts, current research, and the sacred beliefs of Latter-day Saints", and end with a warning that "clever sounding arguments, or scientific or empirical data" is very likely the sign of the apostasy Mormons are warned against. Now the question we must ask is, "Do you really want the facts?" Do you want to tackle the "difficult issues", as modern Mormon apologists would lead us to believe, honestly and with a humility that says, "If I am wrong then I am wrong"? Or is the Mormon church true despite facts, empirical evidence, results of current research, and clever sounding arguments that might, indeed, be right?

Of course, there are things to which we adhere simply on the basis of faith alone. Of course, facts don't prove all the big issues such as those things to do with the spiritual realm. However, I find Mormons all too readily put into this category of "spiritual testimony" anything and everything that doesn't fit their picture of the world. Facts are facts only when they serve the Mormon cause, it seems. When they don't, they become "clever sounding arguments" designed to engender apostasy. The list of people who have been censured or excommunicated for daring to face these facts and pronounce their findings is growing all the time. The real question is, does the Mormon Church "disregard the facts, current research, and the sacred beliefs" of those who have allowed those facts to lead them away from the Latter-day Saints into a greater light? If the "apostate" is following the facts and walking into the light, shouldn't the Mormon apologist stop name-calling and at least give the reasoned arguments of critics a FAIR hearing?

Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon

Chiasmus is "a figure of speech by which the order of the words in the first of two parallel clauses is reversed in the second" (Oxford Companion to English Literature, 1985 ed.). One way of identifying a chiastic quote is to mark the repeated words or phrases with the letters ABBA. To illustrate, one of the most familiar examples of this is the phrase spoken at the foot of the Cross:

"He saved others, himself he cannot save."

Which becomes:

A. He saved
B. others,
B. himself
A. he cannot save.

There is an excellent web site dedicated to the subject, and it's a lot of fun as well as educational. Why are we talking about chiasmus? Because Mormons claim that examples of chiastic writing in the Book of Mormon help authenticate the book. Chiasmus is a sophisticated literary device that ranges from the most simple, as illustrated above, to complex examples. The Bible, Old and New Testaments, abound with examples and it is accepted that it is typical of one form of Hebraic writing.

A good example from the Book of Mormon is found 2 Nephi 29:13:

The Jews
shall have the words
of the Nephites
and the Nephites
shall have the words
of the Jews;
and the Nephites and the Jews
shall have the words
of the lost tribes of Israel;
and the lost tribes of Israel
shall have the words of the
Nephites and of the Jews.

The example Mormons most like to talk about is chapter 36 of Alma, 30 verses which, verse for verse, sets out parallels, verse 1 with verse 30, verse 2 with verse 29, etc. If you read it yourself, it is easy enough to identify the parallels. Does this lend weight to Mormon claims?

Contrary to past Mormon claims, Chiasmus was not unknown at the time of Joseph Smith. Today Mormon scholars have recognised that this literary form was known at that time but still insist it is unlikely that Smith was aware of it. The Book of Mormon has many examples and, at first sight, this seems impressive. Furthermore, while it is common in the Bible, Old and New Testaments, as well as the Book of Mormon, it is by no means restricted to these. It is a generally used literary style found in many cultures, both in simple and complex forms, and people even use it unconsciously. Take for example the famous Mormon couplet

A. As man is
B. God once was
B. As God is
A. Man may become

The person who coined this phrase didn't think "I will put it in chiasmic form to make it memorable". It just came out that familiar way we all recognise but don't know its name. One of my favourite quotes is by Thomas Fuller:

A. If an ass
B. Goes a travelling
B. He'll not come back
A. A Horse

An example from a nursery rhyme is:

Hickory, dickory, dock
the mouse ran up the clock
The clock struck one
The mouse ran down
Hickory, dickory, dock.

Even if Smith didn't know the word chiasm, he would have had ready access to the distinctive form in his reading of the King James Bible. Indeed, if he copied his style from the Bible, it would seem inevitable that his work would contain chiasmus, not just in those parts he plagiarised but even in those parts peculiar to the Book of Mormon. It is so common you practically trip over it at every turn.

To show this, you need to realise that chiastic forms are found in the Doctrine and Covenants. It can't be explained, then, simply as an ancient literary form whose presence "proves" the Book of Mormon, and Mormon scholars readily acknowledge the accidental nature of its presence in the D&C. If Smith could draft chiasmic forms in the D&C he could have done the same with the Book of Mormon - whether consciously or no. Here is an example from D&C 107:34-38

The Seventy
are to act in the name of the
Lord, under the direction of the
Twelve
or the travelling high council, in the building up of and regulating all the affairs of the same
in all nations, first unto the Gen tiles and then to the Jews;
The Twelve being sent out, holding the keys, to open the door by the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and first unto the Gentiles and then unto the Jews.
The standing high councils, at the stakes of Zion,
form a quorum equal in authority in the affairs of the church,
in all their decisions, to the quorum of the presidency or to the travelling high council.
The high council in Zion form a quorum equal in authority in the affairs of the church,
in all to the councils of the Twelve at the stakes of Zion.
It is the duty of the travelling high council to call upon the Seventy,
when they need assistance, to fill the several calls for preaching and administering the gospel instead of others.

Other D&C texts include 76:28-30; 76:89-98; 109:24-28.

Don't make the mistake of thinking this a simplistic literary style. It can be very complex and involved. But don't make the mistake, either, of thinking that its presence in a text is compelling proof of a claim. It is a style, both complicated and common, that the untutored can easily fall into, the educated unconsciously copy to a degree of complexity, and the trained and determined can reproduce well enough, or offer involved enough comment on to impress the unwary.

Chiasmus
is a form
not a proof.
Proof comes
In the form of
Christ.