Stake President Response Part 3

Previous Entries:

Introduction
Part 1
Part 2

Here is the audio clip for part 3, and here is its transcript.


The next thing the Stake President brings up is Joseph Smith and the lies/rumors that people have told about him. Right at the end of part 2, he says that sometimes some of the information one hears about Joseph Smith is taken out of context. One of the favorite things for apologists to say is that it was taken out of context, and that should we read the whole account in the right frame of mind, it would be easy for anyone to see how great of a guy he was.

One example given to me in Sunday School when I was a youth was that someone had taken the words of Korihor (or one of the other anti-Christs listed in the BoM) and put them out for the world to see. “This is what the Mormons believe!” my teacher said. We all thought how ridiculous this guy is because if he would have read just 5 more verses, he would have seen Jacob refuting him, etc. “Man, anti-mormons are dumb. All they do is take things out of context,” was basically the message. (This is known as a Straw Man Argument)

Here's a nice little essay (well, more of a rant, really) by RfM poster JiminyCricket about the context of the First Vision and Moroni visit that is an interesting read. It fits better in part 1 because of the topic, but I've decided to include it here because of the "context" aspect of it.

So now the Stake President jumps to the topic of polygamy and asks if anyone is surprised, and nobody is (shocking, I know). But this is Utah. Everyone knows about polygamy here. It’s part of the local history. But it turns out that’s not the case at all in most foreign countries. In fact, that is one of the biggest issues that the people in Sweden are having because they are just finding out about this, which inspired the church to do the “Swedish Rescue,” mentioned in the link to JiminyCricket’s rant. It’s practically unknown in the foreign church. I can personally testify that Japanese members of the LDS church had no idea about it.

Anyhow, he cautions the audience to not judge 19th century actions through 21st century eyes. That’s a valid point. It’s well documented that women were frequently married and/or having sexual relationships with older men while in their mid-teens in past human history or marrying cousins – something we’d call statutory rape and incest according to current US law.

But there’s a lot about polygamy that most members of the church, even Utah members, don’t know. But to further obfuscate some of the details, he brings up something Gordon Hinckley and Nephi both said: that they don’t know everything. This is the great fallback answer to almost everything that is hard to explain: it’s some form of “we don’t know the mysteries of God,” “that hasn't been revealed,” “it will be sorted out in the next life,” etc. He’s basically hinting that since we don’t have a really good answer, we shouldn't really pursue the issue. And he’s right to keep the members in the dark - it is really an indefensible issue so he uses a thought-stopper.

He pulls out the explanation that there were far more single women than men. This is not true at all. Census record from Utah show that were there more men than women for many, many years.

Year	Total Population	Males	Females
1850	11,380	6,046	5,334
1860	40,273	20,255	20,018
1870	86,786	44,121	42,665
1880	143,963	74,509	68,454
1890	210,779	111,975	98,804
1900	276,749	141,687	135,062

Those figures cover the main era of polygamy. For what it’s worth, there weren't more women than men in Utah until the 1960 census. Not surprisingly, this is one of the topics covered by the LDS church’s recent essays. Notice in the linked essay how it doesn't say that there were more women than men.

He says a lot of people get stuck on the logistics of polygamy – which wife does he sleep with on what day of the week, etc. Then he tells everyone to get their 21st Century mind out of the gutter. But here’s why critics have a big problem with this: it says specifically in the BoM, in very clear terms, that men should only have one (1) wife, and that what David and Solomon did was an abomination. But then there’s a little loophole that makes it OK if the Lord command it for the purpose of raising up seed (population propagation).

So the only reason polygamy should be used is to build up the population. Therefore, if Joseph Smith took on additional wives, he SHOULD have been trying to have kids with them.

One of the things that apologists will say is that there’s no evidence that Joseph Smith ever slept with his plural wives. After all, they never produced any known children through those marriages. This is the reason the Stake President tells them to get their minds out of the gutter (i.e., stop thinking about it): because if they consider both claims at the same time, it won’t make sense. If Joseph Smith obeyed by marrying additional wives because he was commanded to raise up seed, he failed on the raising up seed part. If he HAD produced children with these women, then we would know he slept with them and they couldn't claim they were sexless marriages.

One of the other problems that critics of the church have is that the “rules” for polygamy are clearly stated in D&C 132. They include (among other things) having to get the first wife’s permission, and that the plural wife must be a virgin. Fair enough. Let’s suppose that the BoM is true, JS really did talk with God, and what it says in the D&C are the real guidelines for plural marriage in God’s eyes. It’s pretty well documented that 11 of Joseph Smith’s wives were already married. Not women who had been divorced, and not widows. All 11 had living husbands at the time they were married (illegally) to JS, two of which were actually out on missions. So even if we accept the premise that what is set forth in the BoM and D&C is correct, JS still didn't follow the rules. All 11 of those wives were practicing what’s known as polyandry with Joseph Smith. UPDATE: LDS.ORG confirms Polyandry and teen-brides with a newly released essay. 

Another apologist claim is that polygamy wasn't illegal back when the church was practicing it. That’s utterly false. Most of Joseph Smith's polygamous marriages occurred in Illinois in the early 1840's. The Illinois Anti-bigamy Law enacted February 12th, 1833 clearly stated that polygamy was illegal. It reads:

"Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred."
Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99

That kinda goes against the whole belief in honoring and sustaining the law, doesn't it? John Taylor, the third president of the church, claimed that he believed in keeping all the laws of the United States "except one"--i.e., "The law in relation to polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, page 317)

If polygamy is such a non-issue, why isn't it discussed more in the manuals? The recent RS/MP Teaching of the Prophets manuals mention almost nothing about it. In fact, the manuals go out of their way to say that the topic won’t be discussed in the introduction. There are numerous cases where the quotes are changed from “wives” to “wife.” In fact, if you were someone who knew nothing about Mormons at all, and read about Brigham Young from the manual, you would probably get the picture that he had two wives, having remarried after his first wife died, but never at the same time. Is it any wonder foreign members have no clue about this aspect of the LDS church's history?

There’s so much that can be said about polygamy, but I've said enough. He uses another thought-stopper by citing a reference when Jesus was teaching a hard doctrine that caused some to leave him. This is sort of a “doubling-down” technique by essentially stating that 'you've been with me so far, but here’s something that’s going to be harder, and some of you are going to turn away.' (This gives us yet another fallacy - the Loss Aversion Fallacy or related Sunk Cost fallacy)

It works really well if you start with the premise that what god/church leader/etc. says is the truth, and this is going to be the thing that divides the cream of the crop from everyone else, most people want to be considered the cream by their leaders and peers and so they’ll accept this new hard concept. It’s very similar to the way people will begin a Facebook post with some variation of “Haters are gonna hate, but I’ll say it anyway.”

But I guess I shouldn't too surprised that the leaders of the church try to cover up, hide, and obfuscate this. The Stake President is just following the example of Gordon Hinckley when he lied on national TV about polygamy (recently contradicted by the more truthful essays), or when Jefferey Holland lied about how the temple used to have penalties.

Continued in Part 4

(Authored by Joseph)

Stake President Response Part 2

Previous Entries:

Introduction
Part 1

Here is the audio clip for part 2, and here is its transcript.

Joseph reports that the angel says his name will be had for good and bad, and we see that the prophecy has come true. It’s actually not that impressive of a prophecy if you think about it. Let’s say I want to start a business that will be helpful to certain members of humanity at the expense of others. At the start, I tell my employees that there will be both critics and proponents of our endeavors. Years later, it comes true, so I look somewhat foresighted. But any church has both nay-sayers and supporters. So does any movie, TV show, business, and political candidate. No big deal.

He lists a bunch of reasons that opponents of the church have for not believing in it, such as problems with the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith’s character, polygamy, etc. This list is by no means exhaustive; in fact, it’s a rather short list of the problems the church has in supporting its claims (if  you want a fairly exhaustive list, check out what's known as the CES Letter). One of the interesting ones is that he says the church is run like a big business. That came pretty much verbatim from Anne’s post on her blog months earlier.

What he's doing here is adding to the church's persecution complex. It's one of the things that I used to believe was evidence that the church was true. Why else would so many people rail against the church if it weren't true? A YouTube user has created a series of videos that are all excellent, but in this one he shows that it's not just the LDS church who is "persecuted." It's not unique at all. In a lot of cases, it's the church and its members seeing persecution where none was intended. If you train people to look for it, they will find it everywhere. I think Ralph Waldo Emerson said it best:

"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted."

The Stake President then asks if the BoM is true, and everyone apparently already agrees it is. I realize that he’s not here to definitively prove it to be true based on evidence, but he starts off with the conclusion: that the BoM is true! That’s what’s known in logic as begging the question or circular reasoning.

He gives his own testimony about the BoM being true, but to his credit, he admits that he’s biased. In fairness, he then proposes that the BoM is on trial (something he may have planned before hand, or maybe he got the idea after he received my letter, I don’t know) and there are witnesses and decides to call Hugh Nibley to the stand. The Stake President talks about how smart Nibley was and how he must have heard every argument against the BoM, and yet he is firmly on “this side of the fence,” meaning on the side that believes the BoM to be true.

This is what’s known as an appeal to authority.

Of course, all court cases rely on the opinions of experts. The defense will call in a psychologist to explain why, according to the latest research, the defendant was unable to control him/herself because of an impulse control issue. Then the prosecution will call in a different one saying that other research shows differently, and the jury has to decide who is more credible. So he’s not doing anything out of the ordinary here. But here’s the problem I have with it: he presents the experts who are apologists, without giving due time to those who disagree with them. It’s totally a one-sided show and so the jurors (the members of the congregation present) don’t hear both sides.

Then he brings up Joseph L. Adams, and shows a book written by Dr. Adams. He says that Dr. Adams claims that Meso-American archaeology seems to match with what’s in the Book of Mormon, but doesn't really expound on this, so he’s expecting everyone to just believe that what Dr. Adams has to say must be the truth. One of the things that humans love is to find information that confirms what they already believe to solidify that their constructed paradigm of the world is correct. This is known as Confirmation Bias.

It’s tough for the brain to accept that what it has believed and the lifestyle it has been living is in some way flawed or incorrect, so it accepts anything that seems to bolster up its opinions, and reject anything that contradicts it.

One example of this is a Mayan stone carving that appears to show an elephant’s trunk, which would confirm the presence of elephants in the Book of Mormon. Some other archaeologists have said that it’s a carving of a macaw (what most people might call a parrot). One argument against it being an elephant is that in cultures where elephants existed (like India) the presence of elephants in artwork is ubiquitous, and that this would be the only example in the Mayan culture. The debate went on for a while, but later deciphering of the glyphs on the stone confirms it to be a macaw. However, people who want to confirm what they already believe will hang on to the belief that the Mayans carved an elephant.

Here is a great Carl Sagan quote that applies: “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”


Then he brings up the DNA issue, and then introduces John Butler, and basically pulls the same stunt that he’s smart so we should just believe what Butler says. Again, he uses an appeal to authority without giving due time to the opposition. I know of another guy, Simon Southerton, who is also a DNA expert who pulls apart Butler’s claims.

Besides Dr. Southerton, there are a host of other scientists and experts who disagree with John Butler. In fact, I wager that for every apologist that agrees with him, I can come up with at least ten who vehemently disagree. I specifically asked Dr. Southerton about what he thought of Dr. Butler. Here is his reply to me.

Here’s the truth about DNA: geneticists know enough about DNA that they would be able to recognize Hebrew DNA in a group of people many, many hundreds of years later. In fact, there has been one case where exactly that happened.

The fact that they haven’t been able to detect ANY Hebrew DNA in Native Americans is pretty telling. To be fair, the LDS church recently released an essay about this issue where they try to muddy the waters with their own spin on things.

Anyway, what’s interesting is that he says that John Butler is on this side of the ledger (meaning he believes), but doesn't actually tell anything about his claims – he just says that here’s a really smart guy and he believes, so you should too.

Finally, he brings Truman Madsen into the conversation and pulls the same stunt. He has studied the life of Joseph Smith extensively and has wrote a book and given talks promoting Joseph Smith. So most of what he’s done up to this point is appeal to authority and conduct a court trial where only the defense gets to testify. Can you imagine what would happen if the judge only let one side’s witnesses testify? But since he’s preaching to the choir in a manner of speaking, nobody probably noticed that the prosecution didn’t get a turn to state its case. Never once does the jury [audience] get to hear the actual arguments these men make – just that you should trust them explicitly.

(Authored by Joseph)

Continued in Part 3

Stake President Response Part 1

Introduction

Here is the audio clip for part 1, and here is its transcript.

(If you would like to see the whole thing, go to the links in the Introduction.)

Most of the first half is the bishop taking care of ward business and introduction by the Stake President. Nothing to really argue or report for this, but I think it’s interesting that he’s telling people it’s OK to go to sleep and not listen. I wonder if he’s concerned that talking about these issues might cause others to fall away.

He brings up Gordon Hinckley, the previous president of the church, as a way of opening up the topic of whether Joseph Smith’s endeavors were fraudulent or not.

“The question is whether or not the gospel has really been restored as President Hinckley testified it was through the prophet Joseph Smith.”

Call me a nit-picker, but there should probably be a distinction between “the gospel of Jesus Christ” and the “restoration of the CoJCoLDS.” I realize that often, members of the LDS church use the terms interchangeably, but  the difference is that the “gospel” is the good news of Jesus’ atonement and resurrection, while the restoration of the church is more of what we now know as the corporate structure. There is a difference, though of late (last 40-50 years) they tend to promote the two of them as the same thing. Rock Waterman, a faithful member of the church pictured here, has an entire blog that deals with following the gospel while not buying into the corporation, but this post in particular addresses the issue.

The other big thing in this segment is Moroni’s visit to Joseph Smith and the First Vision. Let’s tackle the First Vision first. The LDS church recently started putting out a series of “essays” on their website.

As it turns out, there are multiple accounts of the First Vision, each with different details that are a bit contradictory. Also, there isn't any evidence that it was taught until long after it happened, and that there is some confusion between the details of the “grove visit of Heavenly Father and Jesus” and the “Moroni visit” in journals, including Lucy Mack Smith’s writings.

One of the things that strike me as weird is that the Moroni visit account is oddly specific, including the date and the scriptures that were quoted. The First Vision accounts, on the other hand, are somewhat more vague, including the date on which it happened and how old he was when it occurred (cross reference the dates for when the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods were restored – one has a really specific date and details, the other does not).

Another thing that he fails to bring up is that in one account, Joseph Smith said he was praying to learn if there was a supreme being or not on the night of September 22, 1823. One would think that having seen a pair of them several years ago, he wouldn't need to ask that kind of question again. Also, in a lot of the earlier accounts he reported the angel as having the name of Nephi, not Moroni.

When judging a court case, we are held to the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt,” and there is plenty of room to doubt. Read some of the information in the links and you might see why. All of the information in the links is taken from contemporary accounts and journals.

Continued in Part 2

(Authored by Joseph)

Stake President Response Introduction

This will be the introduction of a multi-part post (probably 6 parts).

As part of our process of leaving the LDS church officially, we sent a letter of resignation to the Membership Records office, our stake president, and our bishop (we had previously unofficially gotten out after I met with our bishop to tell him we didn't want callings or contact several months earlier). As expected, both of them showed up to our house to talk over some things, including getting the keys to the church back, and getting a missing signature for our son. As part of our conversation, he mentioned that he had read Anne’s blog post about why we left, and corrected us on the statement that he was saddened, not shocked.

And then he bore his testimony to me about the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Me, not being much of an in-person debater, thought of what I could say about the witnesses and remembered that Oliver Cowdery had called Joseph Smith’s situation with Fanny Alger a “nasty, filthy affair,” to which he asked me if Oliver had been telling the truth when he said that. He also happened to bring up Jeffery R. Holland’s most recent talk from General Conference and how powerful it was.

A little while later, through some random comments on Facebook from members of our former ward, Anne was able to piece together that there was to be a special meeting conducted by the stake president. We thought that there was a good chance that it was about us and/or apostasy, so we asked a trusted friend to record it for us just in case. Turns out that we were right. Another friend posted the audio on his YouTube channel and added a few random pictures.

I should also mention that in response to his visit, I sent Mr. Beech a letter in which I stated my case for not believing, and refuting his appeal to the witnesses. In it, I bring up the analogy of a court case on  Law and Order, and how sometimes the defense attorney is blindsided by a piece of information that the defendant forgot to disclose. This completely destroys the defense’s argument and is seen as a slam-dunk in court. I related how I felt like that attorney when I was defending the church to my friends in high school, only to find out the “lies” about the church were in fact true. I presume the letter arrived at his house either Friday or Saturday before this special meeting.

Since we weren't there to defend ourselves, and add to it the fact that I’m not much of a debater in person, I’m going to take the opportunity to deconstruct his talk. Before I get into it, let me state that I like the man, and enjoyed the meetings and conversations I had with him throughout the years. I’m not going to attack him personally, just the logic and factual information of his statements.

This was a 4th Sunday, usually when the Elders and RS have a “Teachings for Our Times” lesson, which is a rehashing of some general conference talk. But this was a special combined RS/MP/YM/YW meeting to “combat the apostaflu that was going around,” using the words of our inside man. It also happened to be one week after an article in the NY Times told of a former 70 Area Authority who left the church.

Because the talk is almost an hour long, I have carved it up into smaller bytes (Ha! See what I did there?) and will be doing this in 5 parts. There are several spots where the talk is inaudible or muffled, but I have done my best to make an accurate transcription of it. Here is the original audio, but in the rebuttal posts I will provide links to smaller audio files and their accompanying transcripts.

Continue to Part 1

(Authored by Joseph)

One Year Aniversary

We just reached our one year anniversary from the last time we attended a Sunday meeting. This past year has been awesome in many ways. First, we have had so much more time for family things. I didn’t really realize how busy the church kept both Joseph and me before. We probably spent a good 20 hours a week between our various church callings. A full two day weekend allows us a lot more time to get chores and errands done and to still have plenty of time to have family fun and relaxing time.

We have also been able to save a ton more money and have still been blessed even though we no longer pay a tithe. Joseph and I have both been blessed with more opportunities to make more money and all this extra money has been able to go straight into our savings. This has shown me that even though we don’t pay a tithe we are still blessed and that the church teaches people to believe otherwise because they want money for their corporation. That being said we do find ways to still donate to the needy and enjoy serving others that we come across. While we have always been good with money and have always had enough for our needs, it is nice to not have to use a credit card for an unexpected car repair or whatever it might be that comes up. We were able to begin and end last year debt free (with the exception of house mortgage and student loans). I should add that it is a nice feeling being able to pay cash for new couches.

Another positive thing is that we no longer have to sit through another boring church meeting hearing the same talk or lesson that is being repeated from years before. We don’t have to sit through fast and testimony meeting either. Fast and testimony meeting used to drive me crazy. I hated seeing young children get up and say what their parents whispered in their ears or reading what their parents had written down. It just seemed so much like brainwashing to me. I also didn’t like when certain people would carry on forever.

So there have been numerous positives for us, but the last one that I will mention is the fact that I no longer have to wear garments. It has been so freeing and so much nicer during the summer to shed that layer of clothing. My body doesn’t seem to regulate temperature very well so I usually feel like I am either freezing cold or on fire.  

I do miss some of the people from our former ward. I miss spending time with the Young Women. They were all such darling young ladies with so much personality. I have very fond memories with them from girl’s camps and various activities. I will always love them and cherish the time I was able to spend with them. I also miss mingling in the halls with a select few and having some social interaction. However, we have recently been able to meet with others like us who have left the church. It is nice being able to build a new social group and to make new friends. I didn’t realize how isolated I had become since moving to Utah. In California I had mostly non-member friends and I knew how to go about making friends a bit easier. But in my adult life I became rather isolated and only really hung out with people from church because that is where I spent most of my time outside of the home.

The last thing that I will mention is the grief that we have felt. It is not easy going from believing that we had the truth, “the one and only” to having the rug pulled out from under our feet. Many think we chose this because we didn’t want to live by the church’s standards but that is simply not true. We tried to logically prove the gospel as truth but instead found many faults. It has definitely been a grieving process for what we once had hoped was true. I know that many believe that we will return and realize the mistake we have made but that is simply not true. We can never go back knowing what we now know. 

Back Off, Man. I'm a Scientist.

That's probably my favorite line from the movie Ghostbusters. Being a science teacher, I’m keenly aware of how unfamiliar the general public is with the Scientific Method. So for your entertainment, a couple of my favorite humorous comics on the subject:


(here are links to the original sources if they're too small to read: Pic1   Pic2    Pic3)

As a rule, what is usually represented in movies, TV, and even textbooks is more often than not NOT what really happens. And how scientists go about doing what they do (the Scientific Method) is even more misunderstood. 

So here's a quick, non-scientific way of putting it: Say you want to find out why something happens the way it does. You and a group of friends think of 1000 different reasons why this might be the way it is. After making the list of potential reasons, you start systematically testing each one, and you prove that 999 of them are definitely not the correct reason. That one that you couldn’t disprove is likely on the right track. The next step is to get it published so other people can confirm your results, and collectively come up with another 1000 possible explanations to test. Eventually, after 10,000 reasons have been tested (by multiple labs) and only one is still standing, odds are that’s the reason. But it is only valid until it happens to be proven wrong at some future date.

In his search for a viable material to use in an incandescent light bulb, Edison tested thousands of materials to see what would work best. When asked about all the negative results, he said, “I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.”

Here's a video clip from a science blog on YouTube that gives a good demonstration using a number-guessing game (you may have seen this on Facebook recently). No, really. Watch that clip (its only 5 minutes long). 

Science is often like that video clip. We find what doesn’t work and write it down for everyone so not everyone has to find the same dead-end that we did (though, it’s nice to have several other people confirm its dead-end status). Scientists want the ‘no’ to tell them what not to try again. It's like how a coach tells the team that a loss is more instructional than a win.

As an example, Einstein came up with relativity in 1905 and was unable to test it with the equipment readily available. But once technology was able to catch up with his vision, scientists couldn’t wait to start trying to disprove it. So far, every one of the tests has failed. At this point it’s probably safe to conclude that he was on to something.


Here’s where science is different from human nature (and religion) though. In the future, we may come across something that we can’t explain that seems to defy what we think. And when it does, they will find new equations and new ways to explain things. And then scientists (the good ones, anyway) will adjust their views to match the evidence and what has been observed.

For example, imagine someone says that man will never fly is invited to Kitty Hawk in 1903 to witness the Wright Brothers’ plane. After seeing flight achieved (and even after being allowed to test it personally) the person has 2 options: change his views to say that he was wrong about man never flying, or refuse to believe it and double-down on his statement by trying to discount what happened. 

Actually, something like this has happened in LDS history. Joseph Fielding Smith said that man would never reach the moon. Come July 20, 1969, there was a particular step for mankind that happened. Later, when asked about it, he simply said, “Well, I was wrong.” He was presented with evidence, and adjusted his views. 




 I can respect him for that.



In a recent debate between Bill Nye (the science guy) and Ken Ham (the young-earth creationist museum guy), someone asked what it would take to change their mind about the views they held. 

One of the great things about the Scientific Method is that it doesn't allow us to start with the conclusion we want and work backwards from there. It makes us work from the ground up to find evidence for and against a hypothesis. Once we have both sides, we have to see which evidence is more compelling. 

Another aspect of science is that claims have to be falsifiable. A good scientist says to himself/herself, "If this hypothesis is true, I would expect to see x, y, and z. If the hypothesis is false, I would expect to see a, b, and c." So in the spirit of doing just that, I present two excellent lists.

A lot of quotes from LDS General Authorities and members seem to indicate that the Book of Mormon or the claimed number of members is a smoking gun for proof that Joseph was a prophet, the church is true, etc. There’s a poster who goes by the name of “Cinepro” on the Mormon Dialogue website. When asked what one piece of evidence would cause him to start believing in the LDS church’s claims, he responded with this beautiful piece of writing:

“I believe the surety of whether something is “true” or not doesn't rest on one piece of evidence or experience. The knowledge only comes piece by piece, question by question, almost like a sculptor chiseling away to reveal his masterpiece. So we don't have one experience or piece of evidence upon which we base our knowledge, we have dozens, or hundreds, or thousands. Different pieces of a puzzle that combine to make a coherent picture.

So, when people ask me “what would it take,” I respond that I'm not looking for one piece of evidence. I'm looking for a thousand. It should also be noted that I believe the burden of "proof" rests on the person making the claim, so I need evidence supporting the Church's claims before I will believe.

If the claims of the Book of Mormon were true, we would have every Mesoamerican researcher publishing papers saying, “You know, it looks like we have a colony of Christ believing Hebrews here.” And over the years, that belief would get more and more evidence, not less. There would be evidences of massive battles and wars of extinction around 400AD, metal plates with odd, Egyptian-like writing turning up in digs all over Mesoamerica, and vestiges of Biblical beliefs in Adam and Eve, Noah's ark, the Tower of Babel, and the atonement turning up in central American murals and stelae. And the date of 33AD would be very, very notable for the huge change in population, and a consolidation of beliefs to pure, New Testament Christianity for hundreds of years over the entire proposed Book of Mormon geography. FARMS would publish article after article about how there really were horses and chariots and steel swords back then, instead of explaining why not.

God wouldn't hide Book of Mormon restoration evidences like the breastplate, sword of Laban, and Moroni's stone box.

Modern day spiritual claims would build up to an incredible “evidence”; you would see BYU conducting research breakthroughs in every field that surpass anything else in the world.

LDS artists, authors, filmmakers, and musicians would consistently amaze us with creations that surpass the skill of any gentile talent. LDS athletes would be breaking world records right and left, and BYU would have scores of championship trophies in every sport and field; with the priesthood, Holy Ghost, and “health in their navel(s) and marrow to their bones,” there just wouldn't be competition.

In every field, church members would show a level of knowledge and understanding that surpasses what could be done without the “Holy Ghost.”

Priesthood blessings would work more frequently than a placebo, patriarchal blessings would be more accurate than a $5 palm reading, and faithful church members would never, ever fall for medical, financial or any other kinds of scams, especially after praying about it.

When anyone says something that isn't the Truth in Church (including urban legends and Faith Promoting Rumors that aren't true), the whole congregation would know instantly by the spirit.

When a member of the ward is a child molester, or cheating on their spouse, they wouldn't be called to positions of authority; leaders would be especially inspired by the “spirit” to not put a child molester in charge of the 11-year-old Scouts.

Our prophets, seers, and revelators would make prophecies that are better and more accurate than Nostradamus, translate the Book of Mormon into other languages with a seer stone instead of the BYU translation department, translate the Book of Joseph so it could be added to the Pearl of Great Price where it should be, and reveal incredible knowledge that will still be consistent with science 200 years from now.

The JST would be used by every Bible scholar, because incredibly, it just gets more things right compared to the ancient manuscripts. And the JST would even be used by the Church, instead of being a footnote to the KJV. Or President Hinckley would finish the JST, and we would take the “translated correctly” part out of the Articles of Faith, because now it is translated correctly.

Official Doctrine wouldn't need to be defined after we know whether or not the Church leader was wrong. It would be clearly stated, without equivocation.”      - Cinepro


On the flip side, there is a really nice document known as the CES Letter to consider. It was created by Jeremy Runnells and addressed to a CES director who asked him to list his concerns about the history of the LDS church. It ended up being 76 pages long.

Besides being a very nice summary of the problems with church history and doctrine, one of the things it does magnificently is show just how many problems there are. Any one problem by itself is much easier to dismiss if that's all you're looking at. Having hundreds of problems all together shows that they are not “one little mistake,” but a pattern of willful, systematic deception. I fully realize that the leaders aren't infallible, and make human mistakes like the rest of us. But one would think that god wouldn't have let the "one, true" church have so many problems and cause so much confusion.

It's like the difference between charging someone with vehicular manslaughter for hitting and killing a pedestrian “by accident” one time, and charging them with vehicular manslaughter for hitting and killing 200 pedestrians on 200 separate occasions. In the latter case, it's not an accident, it's a hobby.

So it's not just the separate issues alone that are so problematic; it's the pattern. A pattern of behavior lends itself to understanding character. If someone was deceptive about these hundred pieces, how is it not reasonable to extrapolate that they were also deceptive about some other piece?

In my opinion, there isn't one, single "smoking gun" that disproves the LDS church's claims, though there are some big ones that ex-mormons commonly cite as the straw that broke the camels back, such as Lying for the Lord, the Book of Abraham papyrus, Joseph's Polyandry (not polgamy), or the changes to the temple ceremony. 

What I find is that the list of expected evidences for the church's claims comes up short, while the list of evidences against is overwhelming. Looking at the whole picture, it just doesn't make good, logical sense. 

(written by Joseph)