Episode 46

Mormon Apologetics - The Problems

Original Air Date: 2023-10-06

ApologeticsFAIRDefense Tactics

Video

Watch on YouTube

Based on the transcript provided, here is a detailed summary of the video "Mormon Apologetics: The Problems | Ep. 1822 | LDS Discussions Ep. 46."

Overview and Definition

In this episode, host John Dehlin joins Mike from LDS Discussions and Nemo the Mormon to objectively analyze the methods and ethical problems surrounding Mormon apologetics 1. They define apologetics as reasoned arguments or writings used to justify a religious doctrine, noting that in a Mormon context, this often involves defending the church regardless of whether the arguments align with the consensus of historians or scientists 2. The hosts argue that while not all apologists are intentionally dishonest, the practice often prioritizes defending the faith over reconciling truth claims with evidence 2, 3.

The Conflict of Interest: Theology Disguised as Scholarship

A central theme of the discussion is the "conflict of interest" inherent in Mormon apologetics, where individuals use academic credentials to push theological conclusions 4.

  • Fitting Evidence to Conclusions: The hosts play a clip of BYU professor and Egyptologist Kerry Muhlestein, who admits that he starts with the assumption that the Book of Abraham and the church are true and fits any evidence he finds into that paradigm 5.
  • Academic Dishonesty: Mike and John critique this approach as fundamentally anti-science, noting that apologists often present themselves to church members as objective scholars without disclosing that they have set aside the scientific method to arrive at faith-promoting conclusions 6, 7.
  • The "Bart Ehrman" Standard: The episode concludes with a clip from biblical scholar Bart Ehrman, who argues that pretending to do history while actually doing theology is dishonest because it misleads audiences into thinking they are receiving historically verified information 8, 9.

    • Specific Apologetic Tactics and Problems

    The hosts detail several recurring tactics used by apologists to deflect criticism, arguing that these methods often rely on deception or logical fallacies.

  • 1. "The Past is a Foreign Country"Apologists often dismiss controversial history—such as Joseph Smith’s marriage to 14-year-old girls or the ban on Black members holding the priesthood—by claiming "the past is a foreign country" and that modern judgment constitutes "presentism" 10, 11.
  • The Problem: The hosts argue this is a misuse of the original literary quote (which referred to an individual looking back on their own youth) and serves as a smoke screen to avoid defending indefensible actions 12, 13.
  • Historical Reality: They point out that Joseph Smith’s behavior, such as polygamy with teenagers, was illegal and socially unacceptable even in the 1840s, meaning he was operating outside the norms of his own "country" 14.
  • 2. Misleading Footnotes and Cherry-PickingThe discussion highlights how church essays and apologists cite sources in ways that distort their original meaning.
  • The Warren Parrish Letter: The church’s essay on the Book of Abraham cites a letter by Warren Parrish to suggest close observers believed Smith received revelation; however, the hosts note the essay omits the part of the letter where Parrish calls Smith and Sidney Rigdon liars, deceivers, and frauds 15, 16.
  • The "Happiness Letter": Leaders frequently quote Joseph Smith’s "Happiness Letter" ("Happiness is the object and design of our existence...") as an uplifting teaching, while hiding the context that the letter was written to coerce a young woman, Nancy Rigdon, into a polygamous relationship 17, 18.
  • The Priesthood Ban: Apologists quote Brigham Young to suggest he prophesied the lifting of the priesthood ban, but they omit the rest of the quote where Young states Black people would not receive the priesthood until every white person on earth had received it 19, 20.
  • 3. "How Could Joseph Have Known?" and ParallelomaniaApologists often point to parallels between Mormon scripture and the ancient world to argue that Smith could not have guessed such details 21.
  • The "Texas Sharpshooter" Fallacy: Mike argues that apologists focus on one perceived "hit" while ignoring thousands of "misses" and anachronisms 21, 22.
  • Source Material: Claims that Smith couldn't have known about certain ancient concepts (like Abraham being sacrificed) are debunked by showing these ideas were present in sources Smith owned, such as the Adam Clarke commentary 23, 24.
  • Weak Parallels: The hosts discuss "parallelomania," where apologists stretch to find weak connections, such as equating the "Nahom" altar in the Middle East to the Book of Mormon despite linguistic discrepancies 25, 26.

    • 4. Redefining WordsWhen physical evidence contradicts scripture, apologists frequently redefine plain words to save the text.

  • Horses and Chariots: Because horses did not exist in pre-Columbian America, apologists like Daniel Peterson have suggested "horse" might actually mean "tapir" 27.
  • Translation: Because the Book of Abraham does not match the Egyptian papyri, "translation" is redefined as "revelation" or inspiration unconnected to the text 28.
  • Skin: The "curse of dark skin" is reinterpreted as a spiritual state or "countenance" rather than physical pigmentation, despite the text clearly distinguishing people by skin color 29, 30.

    • 5. Straw Man ArgumentsApologists often misrepresent critical arguments to make them easier to defeat. The hosts cite Tad Callister, who dismisses critics by claiming they have "flip-flopped" from calling Smith ignorant to calling him a "creative genius," while ignoring the actual argument: that Smith was an "inspired syncretist" who absorbed and remixed ideas from his 19th-century environment 31, 32.

    Systemic Dishonesty: "Lying for the Lord"

    The episode addresses the institutional culture of hiding history to protect faith.

  • Boyd K. Packer's Directive: The hosts cite Apostle Boyd K. Packer, who told church educators that "some things that are true are not very useful" and that historians who harm the church's image are breaking their covenants 33.
  • Prophetic Fallibility: When past prophets are proven wrong (e.g., regarding race or moon inhabitants), apologists claim they were "speaking as men" 34, 35. However, the hosts point out the double standard where members are currently told that a living prophet's words are scripture and cannot be led astray, creating a "tails I win, heads you lose" scenario 36, 37.

    • Conclusion

    The hosts conclude that while apologetics may temporarily keep people in the church by providing complex "mental gymnastics," they often accelerate faith crises for honest truth-seekers 38.

  • Insanity Later: Mike uses a Seinfeld analogy ("Serenity now, insanity later") to describe how apologetics offer immediate relief but lead to a collapse of faith when the member realizes the arguments are deceptive or factually unsound 38.
  • Failed Strategy: John Dehlin argues that the church's shift away from classic apologetics (like FARMS) suggests they realize these aggressive, ad-hominem styles of defense ultimately fail to persuade and often damage the church's credibility 37, 39.

    • Episode Info

    Guests: Mike (LDS Discussions), Nemo the Mormon

    Related Article: LDS Discussions