Gnat Straining and the Apologist

[Guest]

Over the years I've had several conversations with many faithful believing Mormons and have read several books from Mormon historians about the considerable intellectual and historical issues within Mormonism. The one consistent argument defenders of the faith ultimately entrench themselves into is that “men are not perfect” and that critics are merely “straining at gnats” when they criticize Mormon issues. I have read many complaints about the church that I agree simply do not reach the high bar needed to invalidate the church’s truth claims. So the question then becomes, what issues can we consider as gnat sized critisizms?

Let me illustrate a few examples of what I would consider “gnat straining” arguments. President Monson’s unfortunate statement during the ribbon cutting at the city creek mall, “One, two, three—let’s go shopping!” When some rouge local leader acts outside the bounds of reason, uses poor judgment and offends someone. Or when early church leaders would publicly debate some of the finer points of doctrine such as, whether God progresses eternally or not. While unfortunate, I would agree with the apologists, these types of small issues do not nullify the church’s truth claims. I would contend that when we criticize, what are clearly gnat sized human foibles that all men are subject too, we run the risk of sounding much like the hypocrites Jesus was condemning in Matthew 23:23-24.

Where the apologists get it very wrong is when they use the “straining at gnats” argument on very important, critical issues that strike at the very core of Mormonism. These issues are regarding the very foundations of the church, which speak to its credibility and clearly go well beyond gnat sized problems.

Let me illustrate just a few examples of problems that are much larger in scope than the gnat sized issues mentioned above:

• The “stone-in-hat” method of translation: This clearly connects Joseph to his glass looking occultic practices and questions his credibility, especially when his 1826 arrest and examination for glass looking is also considered.
• Sexual Impropriety: From the very beginning Joseph had issues around this subject. He eloped with Emma, then soon after his marriage rumors began about inappropriate advances to Emma’s friends, then Fanny Alger, the teenage marriages, and polyandry. Again, these are serious issues that help build the picture of his credibility.
• The temple ceremony: Many Mormon’s believe that Freemasonry was passed down by Stone Masons from Solomon’s temple, hence why so much of the Mormon ceremony contains Masonry. We now know that Masonry originated in Europe sometime in the 1400’s and that it developed over time to what is was in Josephs Smiths day. When Joseph’s original temple ceremony is compared to masonry it is strikingly similar in many ways suggesting plagiarism.
• The Book of Abraham, according to apologist, is no longer a translation of the papyri (as we would use the word translation) but rather the papyri were just tools to spur inspiration.
• All the anachronisms and problems with the Book of Mormon that are far too many to list in this post.


In comparison, these, along with several other items, are clearly much greater than gnats, these are the 800lb hippopotamus, or water horse in the room!

[_Tobin]

I have had many conversations over the years with faithful believing Mormons and read several books from Mormon historians about the considerable intellectual and historical issues within Mormonism. The one consistent argument defenders of the faith ultimately entrench themselves into is that “men are not perfect” and that critics are merely “straining at gnats” when they criticize Mormon issues. I have read many complaints about the church that I agree simply do not reach the high bar needed to invalidate the church’s truth claims. So the question then becomes, what do we consider as a gnat?

Let me illustrate a few examples of what I would consider “gnat straining” arguments. President Monson’s unfortunate statement during the ribbon cutting at the city creek mall, “One, two, three—let’s go shopping!” When some rouge local leader acts outside the bounds of reason, uses poor judgment and offends someone. Or when early church leaders would publicly debate some of the finer points of doctrine such as, whether God progresses externally of not. While unfortunate, I would agree with the apologists, these types of small issues do not nullify the church’s truth claims. I would contend that when we criticize, what are clearly gnat sized human foibles that all men are subject too, we run the risk of sounding much like the hypocrites Jesus was condemning in Matthew 23:23-24.

Where the apologists get it very wrong is when they use the “straining at gnats” argument on very important, critical issues that strike at the very core of Mormonism. These issues are regarding the very foundations of the church, which speak to its credibility and clearly go well beyond gnat sized problems.

Let me illustrate just a few examples of problems that go well beyond gnat sized issues:

• The “stone-in-hat” method of translation: This clearly connects Joseph to his glass looking occultic practices and questions his credibility, especially when his 1826 arrest and examination for glass looking is also considered.
• Sexual Impropriety: From the very beginning Joseph had issues around this subject. He eloped with Emma, then soon after his marriage rumors began about inappropriate advances to Emma’s friends, then Fanny Alger, the teenage marriages, and polyandry. Again, these are serious issues that help build the picture of his credibility.
• The temple ceremony: Many Mormon’s believe that Freemasonry was passed down by Stone Masons from Solomon’s temple, hence why so much of the Mormon ceremony contains Masonry. We now know that Masonry originated in Europe sometime in the 1400’s and that it developed over time to what is was in Josephs Smiths day. When Joseph’s original temple ceremony is compared to masonry it is strikingly similar in many ways suggesting plagiarism.
• The Book of Abraham, according to apologist, is no longer a translation of the papyri (as we would use the word translation) but rather the papyri were just tools to spur inspiration.
• All the anachronisms and problems with the Book of Mormon that are far too many to list in this post.


In comparison, these, along with several other items, are clearly much greater than gnats, these are the 800lb hippopotamus, or water horse in the room!

All of the the issues you list above are relatively unimportant compared to the real issues involved. Mormonism boils down to a belief that God can tell you what is true and what is not. Speak with God and do what God tells you to do. I know apologists want to defend Mormonism on another basis, but as I've often stated on this forum - Mormonism is untenable because of its outlandish claims (we are literally talking about people seeing God, Angels, and having Gold Plates land in their lap) and should be considered a fraud and a hoax UNLESS God tells you it is true. That is the only reason to be Mormon and is exactly what God intended with it. Moroni's promise, the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith's first vision, and so on are all about speaking with God directly and doing what God tells you to do and believe.

[_sleepyhead]

All of the the issues you list above are relatively unimportant compared to the real issues involved. Mormonism boils down to a belief that God can tell you what is true and what is not. Speak with God and do what God tells you to do. I know apologists want to defend Mormonism on another basis, but as I've often stated on this forum - Mormonism is untenable because of its outlandish claims (we are literally talking about people seeing God, Angels, and having Gold Plates land in their lap) and should be considered a fraud and a hoax UNLESS God tells you it is true. That is the only reason to be Mormon and is exactly what God intended with it. Moroni's promise, the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith's first vision, and so on are all about speaking with God directly and doing what God tells you to do and believe.

The verse from James refers to obtaining wisdom from God. The Moroni promise, and now you, claim that one can obtain knowledge from God. The difference between wisdom and knowledge is that knowledge is knowing a set of facts. Wisdom involves how we make use of the knowledge we have. The historicity of the Book of Mormon, The claims of Joseph Smith, would all be considered knowledge.
Many people (including Joseph Smith) have attempted to use there claimed psychic ability to unravel the mysteries of the universe. When they attempt to use God as a source of knowledge they seem to end up with differing scenarios.
Moses talked to God for 40 years. If God wanted to provide knowledge about everything he had ample opportunity. The fact that he didn't shows that he didn't want to. He doesn't really care what we believe.

[_Drifting]

Mormonism is untenable because of its outlandish claims (we are literally talking about people seeing God...

Are you saying that someone's claim of seeing God should be automatically treated as 'outlandish'?

[_Albion]

Within the premise of accepting God and his desire for our salvation anything that detracts from worship of that God would be the creation of the adversary. If the adversary is capable of creating falsehoods he is surely capable of giving false "inspiration" for mortals to accept those falsehoods . Even the devil can transform himself into an angel of light.

[_Tobin]

All of the the issues you list above are relatively unimportant compared to the real issues involved. Mormonism boils down to a belief that God can tell you what is true and what is not. Speak with God and do what God tells you to do. I know apologists want to defend Mormonism on another basis, but as I've often stated on this forum - Mormonism is untenable because of its outlandish claims (we are literally talking about people seeing God, Angels, and having Gold Plates land in their lap) and should be considered a fraud and a hoax UNLESS God tells you it is true. That is the only reason to be Mormon and is exactly what God intended with it. Moroni's promise, the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith's first vision, and so on are all about speaking with God directly and doing what God tells you to do and believe.

The verse from James refers to obtaining wisdom from God. The Moroni promise, and now you, claim that one can obtain knowledge from God. The difference between wisdom and knowledge is that knowledge is knowing a set of facts. Wisdom involves how we make use of the knowledge we have. The historicity of the Book of Mormon, The claims of Joseph Smith, would all be considered knowledge.
Many people (including Joseph Smith) have attempted to use there claimed psychic ability to unravel the mysteries of the universe. When they attempt to use God as a source of knowledge they seem to end up with differing scenarios.
Moses talked to God for 40 years. If God wanted to provide knowledge about everything he had ample opportunity. The fact that he didn't shows that he didn't want to. He doesn't really care what we believe.

Do you know for a fact that God did or did not speak with Joseph Smith? Do you know for a fact that God did not reveal the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith? And so on...

These aren't things in which we are trying to gain further insight into them (seeking wisdom). We are trying to determine if they are true at all. Unless God tells you they are true, there is no reason to believe these claims.

[_Themis]

Within the premise of accepting God and his desire for our salvation anything that detracts from worship of that God would be the creation of the adversary. If the adversary is capable of creating falsehoods he is surely capable of giving false "inspiration" for mortals to accept those falsehoods . Even the devil can transform himself into an angel of light.

Shh, Tobin is not suppose to know this.

[_Tobin]

Within the premise of accepting God and his desire for our salvation anything that detracts from worship of that God would be the creation of the adversary. If the adversary is capable of creating falsehoods he is surely capable of giving false "inspiration" for mortals to accept those falsehoods . Even the devil can transform himself into an angel of light.

Shh, Tobin is not suppose to know this.

Only if you believe the devil is more powerful than God which is ludicrous.

[_Themis]

Only if you believe the devil is more powerful than God which is ludicrous.

How would you know that Satan wasn't the one who appeared before you? How do you know there not some other explanation you are not willing to look at.

[_Tobin]

Only if you believe the devil is more powerful than God which is ludicrous.

How would you know that Satan wasn't the one who appeared before you? How do you know there not some other explanation you are not willing to look at.

Again, as I've stated, you aren't thinking very clearly. If it was Satan, he just demonstrated that such beings exist and Satan encouraged me to seek after and worship God. As I said, your whole position is completely ludicrous.