Response to Fictional Mormon Doctrine - Part 1

Timothy Plumlee has recently published an article entitled Fictional Mormon Doctrine at Associated Content. The brief description provided states that There is far more deception beneath the surface of the Mormon Church than is apparent from the outside looking in. At the end of his article, he closes with the following statement:

May those who are being lured into the trap discover what the LDS church is really about. Read this and research what I have written. Compare the truth I present and what the LDS apologists, teachers, and leaders have to say. You will find they have not a leg to stand on. Their world and scriptures are fictional. You cannot prove or defend a lie. No matter how hard you try. {Emphasis mine}

His conclusion asks readers to Research what he has written, then compare the truths that he claims to have presented as to what LDS apologists, teachers, and leaders have to say. Then, with a sense of arrogance, he concludes that the readers of his article will find they {the LDS Apologists, teachers, and leaders} will not have a leg to stand on. Being that I am an LDS Apologist, I happened across Plumlee's recent article through Mormon Apologetics Discussion Board (MAD&B) where I frequent in discussion of Latter-day Saint teachings, doctrines, and other such things of interest. Therefore, my purpose for this article is to expose the logical fallacies that Timothy Plumlee has committed and provide the comparable information that shows forth Latter-day Saint Apologists truly do have a "leg to stand on" when it comes to defending our faith against atrocious arguments as this.

1. Is Mormonism a Christian Religion

Plumlee replies with the following statement - Absolutely Not! He then makes a very dangerous assessment with the following introductory paragraph:

Mormons are desperate to have their false faith viewed by the world as a Christian religion. They use the words God, and Christ, and Holy Spirit but the persons behind those names are not the Biblical deities. They flood the media with clips of loving, nurturing homes but there is much untold by those cozy scenes. They want to be seen as 'just normal folks'. They are anything but that.

First, he states that Mormons are desperate in having our faith viewed as a Christian religion. He further makes an argument of assumptive conclusion that not only is Mormon's Desperate in being recognized as a Christian religion, but that we are desperate in having our "False Faith" viewed by the world as a Christian Religion. In a very vague sense, Plumlee commits the logical fallacy of an Appeal to Belief. This type of fallacy is where one makes a statement that presupposes there is relevant truth to the claim. The claim here is that the Mormon Faith is a "False Faith". This is based upon the commonly held claim by modern Evangelical Christians that Mormonism is not compatible with Christianity today. While this is for a different topic of research and discussion, the point here is that he is making his first statement on a principle of a logical fallacy. Also, the entire introductory paragraph is a logical fallacy known as Appeal to Ridicule. In this fallacy, he makes the claim - Mormonism is a False Faith - and then concludes that Mormon's are not "just normal folks".

Secondly, Plumlee's statement has no factual value to it. It is a mere conjecture of an opinion that he has expressed out of his own personal viewpoint and perception. There is no relevant truth to the issue he has brought up. This issue, referring back to the first point of his article, is whether or not Mormonism is a Christian Religion. Plumlee is not the first person to ask the question - Are Mormon's Christians - and I am confidently assured that he is not going to be the last person to ask this question, and attempt to answer it. Despite this, many Latter-day Saint Leaders, Apologists, and Teachers have sufficiently answered this question. Let us take Hugh B. Brown as our first source.

According to Brown, he was asked by President David O. McKay (1873-1970) to go and speak with the Theological Presbyterian Seminary in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This was due in response to a letter the Head of the Seminary had sent to President McKay. Brown states the following:

One of the things that I would like to discuss with you for a few moments grew out of the discussion I had at that time. I was asked, "Are the Mormons Christians?" I asked him to define what it means to be a Christian. He said, "I think it is one who believes in Christ. " To this I agreed, but, I would add, "One who shows by his life that he believes in Christ, one whose life is patterned after the life of Christ."

Central to everything we teach is faith that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, the Redeemer, the Son of God. He, under God the Father, was the creator of all that is. Many scriptures substantiate this.[ Hugh, 1965][1]

Here, we see Plumlee fails to define how and what he perceives a Christian, and for that matter a Christian religion, to be. Yet, the perception that Mormonism is not a Christian Religion is mainly from the Evangelical Christian Camp. In his book - Are Mormon's Christians? Dr. Stephen E. Robinson writes that a group of evangelical Christians and former Mormons had come together in July of 1986 to present a petition to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, through a news conference, demanding that the LDS Church refrains from calling itself a "Christian" church (Robinson, 1991). In fact, according to Robinson, there were 20, 543 individuals from 49 states and 31 foreign countries (1991)[2]. Furthermore, Robinson states that the premise for his book is to not argue for the doctrines of the Latter-day Saint faith, but that it is the purpose to show the flawed argumentation used to exclude the Mormon faith from being called a "Christian" religion (1991). In fact, the very first chapter, Robinson discusses how the Mormon faith is not considered a Christian religion (by evangelical Christian definitions) as that of Exclusion by Definition. Here, Robinson asks the same question Brown asked of those he had met with at the Theological Presbyterian Seminary - What is a Christian? Unlike Brown and those he had met with, Robinson gives a more clarified definition; as well as some evidentiary reason and background into the term of "Christian":

What is a Christian? The term is found three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28;1 Pet. 4:16), but it is not defined in any of these passages. According to Webster's Third New International Dictionarythe term Christianmay be defined in a number of ways, but the most common is "one who believes or professes or is assumed to believe in Jesus Christ and the truth as taught by him: an adherent of Christianity: one who has accepted the Christian religious and moral principles of life: one who has faith in and has pledged allegiance to God thought of as revealed in Christ: one whose life is conformed to the doctrines of Christ." The second most common meaning is "a member of a church or group professing Christian doctrine or belief."

Thus, when Plumlee states that - Mormons are desperate to have their false faith viewed by the world as a Christian religion, he is essentially saying that Mormons are desperate to have their false faith of following the Christian religious and moral principles of life; of having faith in and has pledged their allegiance to God thought of as revealed in Christ, and a religion that teaches one to conform to the doctrines of Christ. This assertion of Plumlee begins to crumble when one actually takes the time to research out his so-called "facts" and statements of "truth" (as he has challenged the reader to do at the end of his article). Yet, let us not stop here. Because Robinson comments further that, based upon these two definitions, Latter-day Saints truly do qualify as Christians (1991).

Not only does Plumlee commit a couple logical fallacies in his opening argument, he also manipulates the term, without even defining what he means, Christian to exclude the Latter-day Saints (Mormon Faith). In this sense, Robinson addresses this issue of manipulation by showing that evangelical Christians (like Plumlee) use a more narrow sectarian sense of definition of the term Christian because they perceive that Mormonism could possibly not be a Christian religion (1991).

So, this begs the question - Are Mormon's Christian? The Answer is yes - Latter-day Saints are very much Christians just as much as Roman Catholics are Christians, just as much as Anglican's are Christians, Eastern Orthodox members are Christians, Reformed (Calvinistic) members are Christians, and so on. While we all believe different, worship differently, all faiths believe on Jesus Christ, follow his teachings, moral ethics of living, and accept his death, burial, and resurrection as a historical fact. Despite this, a more accurate question ought to be rendered as follows: Is Timothy Plumlee's understanding of Mormonism based upon facts and truths or misconception, false pretenses, and logical fallacies? The answer is given that his statements and arguments are not based upon facts and truths as he claims that they are.

2. Mormon Doctrine on the Holy Bible

Plumlee moves from the argument of Mormonism not being a Christian religion to a more typical regurgitation of Anti-Mormon propaganda. Stating the 8^th article of Faith, he presents a very loose and vague argument, with a logical fallacy of poisoning the well as it pertains to the Latter-day Saint position and the Bible. In fact, this type of maneuvering is typical and trite, and is presented with a fraction of the truth that is wrapped up in a blanket of false information.

Yes, it is true that the 8^th article of faith states the following: We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. What is false is Plumlee's statement that when the Bible seemingly does not agree with what the Mormons teach, it is considered to be translated incorrectly. The reason this is false is because Latter-day Saints typically do not view the Bible to be translated incorrectly when it comes to the doctrines of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, the real view of the 8^th Article of Faith and the Latter-day Saint position is based upon how the Bible has come to us through the milieu of various transcriptions, translations, and scholarly research on the Biblical texts.

While most Latter-day Saint believers (and for that matter, most evangelical Christian believers) do not take the time to concern themselves with the Biblical text and what is known as Textual Criticism. The latter has two forms - Lower and Higher Textual Criticisms. Lower Textual criticism mainly concerns itself with the investigation as to the source of the particular Biblical Text, a study of the composition, determination of the date in which the composition of the text took place, and tracing the influence and various transformations of the text throughout the ages. This, of course, is in regards to understanding, or coming close to understanding what the original (or autograph) may have contained. Higher Textual Criticism is a more advanced form of Textual Criticism in that it concerns itself with more of the literary origins and historical values of the books that compose the Bible as we have it today. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, we find that the German Biblical Scholar Eichhorn first used the term "higher criticism" in relation to a critical analysis of the larger portions of the Biblical texts. This is based upon modern philological, historical, and archaeological science as pertaining to the books contained within the Bible and the Ancient World.

What, then, does this have to do with the LDS position and the 8^th Article of Faith? First, one has to understand the position of the Mormon Religion as to how and why we accept the Holy Bible. Second, one has to understand that because of recent archaeological findings, historical analysis of the Ancient World, and recent discoveries (the Ugaritic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls), the Bible has not only been validated, but many things within the Bible have come to light as to their presence, or lack thereof. Let us deal with the first aspect of this.

Do Mormon's accept the Bible?

Short answer is yes. Long answer is how and why we accept the validity of the Bible. James E. Talmage wrote an expository book on the twelve articles of faith. In this work, he treats every point of the LDS doctrines, teachings, and historical significance of such as to how they relate to the Bible, Christian teaching, and modern day revelation. Within this work, he opens up his treatise on the Holy Bible by explaining the Mormon acceptance of the Bible. He writes, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts the Holy Bible as the foremost of her standard works, first among the books which have been proclaimed as her written guides in faith and doctrine (Talmage, 1976). Talmage further writes that because of this, Latter-day Saints accept the genuineness of the Biblical record just as much as any other Christian Denomination does (1976). He then states that unlike other Christian denominations, we have the capacity where there is "reservation" pertaining to particular aspects of the Biblical Text. These reservations are confirmed by Biblical Scholars (1976).

This brings us to a brief discussion of inerrancy of the Biblical text vs. errancy of the Biblical text. To the modern evangelical Christian (like Plumlee) the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Meaning, there could possibly not be any errors contained within the Biblical text at all. Yet, evidence strongly denies the inerrancy claim and argument, and gives profound significance to the LDS position and the reason for the 8^th article of faith (keeping in mind that the articles of faith Joseph Smith, junior penned were contained in what is now known as the Wentworth Letter). What follows are some examples of errors found within the Biblical text:

a) 2 Samuel 6:23, we read in the King James Version that Michal, the Daughter of Saul had no children. It reads that she had died without bearing any children. Yet, in 2 Samuel 21:8, we read that Michal had five sons.

b) Mark 16:9-20 is commonly referred to as the Long Ending of Mark. This simply means that early Manuscript evidence of the Gospel of Mark does not include verses 9-20. The Longer ending appeared in later manuscript evidences of the Gospel of Mark, and is therefore concluded to have been added by a different author because of the abrupt end of vs. 8.

c) Deuteronomy 32:8-9 has recently been discovered to have been doctrinally changed by those of the Masoretes. The Masoretes produced what is now called the Masoretic Text that most all English translations of the Old Testament refer to - even the King James Version. The significance of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, in light of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and a comparative analysis of the LXX - or Septuagint - shows that the original reading of this passage ought to be rendered as follows[3]:

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. For the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.

Instead of the current rendering that we have it in today.

What do we conclude here? There is evidence to support that while the Bible is genuine and Historical, there are significant amounts of errors contained within it that have occurred due to copyists errors, transcription alterations, and blatant change of content to reflect a more "modern" and appropriate "doctrinal" viewpoint. The three samples given are not proof that the Bible is False but to show forth that when the Latter-day Saint says that we believe the Bible to be the word of God, we accept it as it has come down to us through the process and hands of men over time.

Therefore, Plumlee's assertion that we accept the Bible on the basis that it agrees with us, or Latter-day Saints have manipulated the text to mean one thing when it means something else is another false argumentation that has no factual basis to it. As provided, there is scholarly evidence of Biblical Criticism to show forth that there are varying degree of errors contained within the Biblical Text. This is not to deny the authenticity of the Bible as the Word of God, but accepting the Bible as the Word of God in the manner in which it has been preserved and brought to us in our modern times.

Now, what is interesting to note is that Plumlee devotes a quotation of the 8^th Article of Faith, and then only one sentence as to what he perceives is the "true" and "factual" representation of the Latter-day Saint position as to how we accept the Bible. The rest of his argument has nothing to do with the Bible at all, but is a blatant attack on The Book of Mormon (and subsequent scriptures that are accepted alongside the Bible). He, then, quotes Joseph Smith, links to a FAIR-WIKI article (that is maintained by the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research group) that discusses how the Book of Mormon is the "most correct book". His warning that comes after the link is the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. His conclusion ends with a question that has no basis in facts. Again, we must separate falsehoods from what is accepted and believed.

The Book of Mormon as the Most Correct Book

Since Plumlee linked to the FAIR-WIKI article entitled Book of Mormon as the Most Correct Book my question is this - did he actually read it? Have his readers of his article read the link? Most critics, from my own personal experience in dealing with them and their criticism, do not take the time to really examine and read something that they have quoted from. Instead, they link to it, but warn their readers that it is very biased, and not to be taken seriously. As previously mentioned, this type of argument is called poisoning the well because he is already informing his readers that his perception is that the article really is not worth their time reading to gain a more objective understanding. Secondly, if Plumlee had actually read the very article he linked to (which is the only source he cites in his article), one would expect a more objective answer to the article's response to the very criticism he briefly mentions.

The article describes how Critics misapply, and attempt to redefine exactly what Joseph Smith said when he stated that the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book. They forget the qualifying aspect of Smith's statements in that he says "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts". This is regarding the correctness of the principles the Book of Mormon Teaches, and not a set of scriptures that is more perfect than any other set of scriptures. In fact, we do not believe there is a notion of Scriptural Inerrancy, even when the Leaders of our Church speak.

Thus, to say that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book than any other is not putting it above the Bible, it is merely stating that what it teaches, it teaches it perfectly than any other Book. This is much like saying that even though the Bible has errors within its pages does not mean that the principles and the teachings thereof are erroneous. Yet, what of the 3,000 plus changes that Plumlee mentions? This argument actually comes from someone who is familiar with Gerald and Sandra Tanners work - 3,194 changes in the Book of Mormon where they attempt to show forth that many of the changes from the original 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon had significant doctrinal changes. Several Articles have been written to address these particular changes - but suffice it to say, many of the criticisms launched by Gerald and Sandra Tanner's book have all but adequately been answered over time. Whether the critic wishes to accept those answers, which is entirely up to them. [4]

Finally, the burden of proof is upon Plumlee to show forth that when Joseph Smith stated that the Book of Mormon is the most correct and that a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts meant that this replaces the Bible in the life of the LDS Believer. The reality is that the Book of Mormon is another witness to the reality of Christ, and how one ought live their lives according to the moral principles that Christ himself taught. Many times, the Book of Mormon (if the true investigator wants to read) teaches that a man must give an account of his life before a Just and Supreme Being, and that a Man will be blessed if they keep the commandments of God.

Conclusion

As we have previously discussed, the arguments Plumlee has presented are based upon logical fallacies. When the reader truly does examine what Plumlee has written, research out his information, they can conclude one thing - his arguments are not based on fact, nor do they possess any relevant truth. Having taken up the challenge, I have briefly provide some accurate information in where his logic falls short, how he misrepresents what Mormonism does and does not teach, and have provided adequate resources as to how his arguments as to whether or not Mormons are Christians, and the acceptance of the Bible as the Word of God within the LDS canon of Scripture. While it is up to the reader to come to their own conclusions, the reality is that I personally find his article void or any relevant truth and lacks any factual reasoning on the topic that he has published.

It is truly my hope that a person who is sincerely seeking answers to their questions about Mormonism, that they do this with a very objective and open mind by examining all arguments in light of how the information is presented.

References

Hugh, B. (1965). Abundant life. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book.

Robinson, S. E. (1991). Are mormons christians?. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book.

Talmage, J. E. (1976). The articles of faith. Salt Lake City, UT: University Press.

ENDNOTES
[1] This was a speech Hugh B. Brown gave in Monks Park England on October 26, 1962.

[2]This is in reference to a Deseret News article that appeared in the 25 of July 1986 issue on p. A-10.

[3] Since the discovery of the Ugartic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls, the idea that Ancient Israel held the belief in a Divine Counsel has shed significant light upon the nature of such passages as that of Deuteronomy 32:8-9. According to the Jewish Study Bible, we read the following Entry: 8: Most High, or "Elyon," is the formal title of El, the senior god who presided over the divine council in the Ugaritic Literature of ancient Canaan. The reference thus invokes, as do other biblical texts, the Near Eastern convention of a pantheon of gods ruled by the chief deity (Pss. 82.1, 89:6-8). Israelite authors regularly applied El's title to Israel's God (Gen. 14.18-22; Num. 24:16; Pss. 46.5;47.3).

[4] See the Following articles: I Have a Question - Why have changes been made in the printed editions of the Book of Mormon, Ensign, March 1987; p. 47; Royal Skousen, Changes in the Book of Mormon; Stephen R. Gibson, One-Minute Answers - Why were 4,000 changes made in the Book of Mormon, Horizon Publishers; Jeff Lindsay - Changes in the Book of Mormon; and W. John Walsh, Robert Matthews and Van Hale's article Changes to the Book of Mormon are all found on FAIRLDS.org