A lot has been said online about the Talk that Anderson gave last week, and a lot of good points have been made, but I think that this talk was particularly dense with bad arguments and I thought I'd throw in my two cents a week later. So I give you my review of the talk if you're interested.
One of my favorite ways to challenge Mormon apologetics is take the apologetic argument and switch out the Mormonism with something comparable or less favorable. Forcing them to explain why a distinction should be made. It helps to expose double standards. I'll do this multiple times with this talk. Starting now:
Should we be surprised with the evil spoken against him? The Apostle Paul was called mad and deranged." Our Beloved Savior, the Son of God, was labeled gluttonous, a winebibber, and possessed of a devil.”
Should we be surprised with the “evil” spoken against Warren Jeffs? I think we should be more concerned with whether or not the criticism is true and take it on a case by case basis.
The Lord told Joseph of his destiny:
“The ends of the earth shall inquire after thy name, and fools shall have thee in derision, and hell shall rage against thee;
“While the pure in heart, … the wise, … and the virtuous, shall seek … blessings constantly from under thy hand.”
If I'm pure in heart, wise, and virtuous I'll seek Joseph Smith. If I'm foolish I'l have him in derision. This is little more than an “Emperor’s new clothes” style of narrative building. You might as well tell me that If I can see the emperor’s clothes that it means I’m smart. Again it would be trivial to swap out Joseph’s name with someone else’s and it would be just as meaningless.
If I'm pure in heart, wise, and virtuous I'd seek the Pope.Why does the Lord allow the evil speaking to chase after the good? One reason is that opposition against the things of God sends seekers of truth to their knees for answers.
Again a catholic person could say this about the Pope. A Christian could say this when a favorite pastor comes under fire. What makes Mormonism special?
Many of those who dismiss the work of the Restoration simply do not believe that heavenly beings speak to men on earth. Impossible, they say, that golden plates were delivered by an angel and translated by the power of God. From that disbelief, they quickly reject Joseph’s testimony, and a few unfortunately sink to discrediting the Prophet’s life and slandering his character.
I would say the first part is probably true for at least some number of outsiders. People who aren't emotionally invested in Mormonism. They don’t take it seriously. But to be fair, I’m not sure why they should. To Ex-Mormons like myself who are emotionally invested we often didn't just dismiss it out of hand or randomly.
Note the loaded language, they
sink to discrediting the prophets life. They
slander his character. Please elaborate on which parts you consider to be Slander Mr. Anderson. Post it on LDS.org. We're waiting.
We are especially saddened when someone who once revered Joseph retreats from his or her conviction and then maligns the Prophet
Maybe Anderson should stop feeling sad and try harder to convince people why they shouldn't "retreat" from their conviction.
“Studying the Church … through the eyes of its defectors,” Elder Neal A. Maxwell once said, is “like interviewing Judas to understand Jesus.
Even cherry picking the extreme example of Judas, his rhetoric doesn’t hold. If by some machination we had the ability to interview Judas, would we pass up the opportunity? Who honestly wouldn’t want to hear his side of the story? Even if we choose not to believe him, who would assert blindly that no insights or perspectives could be gained in such an interview. I don’t think anyone is advocating that you learn about the LDS church or anything solely through their defectors. But again here is a double standard. Does Anderson or did Maxwell ignore the defectors of other religions? If they saw an interview on TV with someone who had defected from the FLDS church, would they ignore it? How about a methodist that converted to Mormonism. Would they ignore his commentary on Methodism?
When I make a purchase on Amazaon, I very intentionally check the one-star reviews. Why? Because I'm interested in their perspective. What made them so unhappy with their purchase? Did it break easily? Did it not work? Was it hard to use? I take their criticisms into consideration. But maybe I should take the Anderson/Maxwell approach and just ignore the dissatisfied customers.
"Defectors always tell us more about themselves than about that from which they have departed.”
Always? Are we talking about everything or just the LDS church? Do defectors of the FLDS or Jehovah’s Witnesses “always tell us more about themselves?” Or are we once again treating Mormonism as the special case?
Jesus said, “Bless them that curse you, … and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Let us offer kindness to those who criticize Joseph Smith, knowing in our own hearts that he was a prophet of God and taking comfort that all this was long ago foretold by Moroni.
Notice the scripture Anderson quotes. I suppose to Anderson criticizing Joseph Smith is ‘cursing', 'despitefully using', or ‘persecuting' Smith or the modern day Latter day saints. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that he is advocating kindness. But people who criticize Smith didn’t do anything wrong to begin with. Especially if the criticism is true.
How should we respond to a sincere inquirer who is concerned about negative comments he or she has heard or read about the Prophet Joseph Smith? Of course, we always welcome honest and genuine questions.
And who will answer these questions? If for example say I’m concerned why Joseph Smith married his foster daughter Lucy Walker. Say I’m concerned about polyandry. Where do I turn? There is no official response I’ve ever seen. How can you say you welcome questions, when you haven’t answered those questions. You don't even officially acknowledge the questions exist.
To questions about Joseph’s character, we might share the words of thousands who knew him personally and who gave their lives for the work he helped establish. John Taylor, who was shot four times by the mob that killed Joseph, would later declare: “I testify before God, angels, and men, that [Joseph] was a good, honorable, [and] virtuous man— … [and] that his private and public character was unimpeachable—and that he lived and died as a man of God.
Okay, so with my questions about Lucy Walker and polyandry the response will be that others believed in Joseph. It’s fairly meaningless in the boarder context of all world religions. There are many religions that have had true believers who have also made notable sacrifices. Pointing to those who sincerely believe in Warren Jeffs doesn't answers my questions or criticisms about Warren Jeffs. Why should it cause me to shelve my questions about Joseph Smith?
We might remind the sincere inquirer that Internet information does not have a “truth” filter. Some information, no matter how convincing, is simply not true.
Which part isn’t true exactly? Please enlighten us. Debunk specifics. I suppose Mr. Anderson knows but he is holding out on us. To our damnation.
Years ago I read a Time magazine article that reported the discovery of a letter, supposedly written by Martin Harris, that conflicted with Joseph Smith’s account of finding the Book of Mormon plates.
A few members left the Church because of the document
Sadly, they left too quickly. Months later experts discovered (and the forger confessed) that the letter was a complete deception. You may understandably question what you hear on the news, but you need never doubt the testimony of God’s prophets.
I assume the point of this example is to suggest that some of what we know about Joseph Smith could be overthrown in the future? But when it comes to polygamy we have many documents that substantiate the problems. As others have pointed out, those members were not the only ones deceived by Hoffman. The prophets, seers, and revelators were as well. I suppose the prophets believing in the authenticity of the strange document (enough to try to purchase it) 'never needed to doubt their testimonies' either.
The negative commentary about the Prophet Joseph Smith will increase as we move toward the Second Coming of the Savior. The half-truths and subtle deceptions will not diminish. There will be family members and friends who will need your help. Now is the time to adjust your own spiritual oxygen mask so that you are prepared to help others who are seeking the truth.
Here Anderson seems to acknowledge that the whitewashed version of Joseph Smith is somewhat coming undone. So he encourages members to fortify their testimonies. Now with the oxygen mask example what he is really saying is stay away from people who are doubting Joseph Smith, if you yourself start to doubt Joseph Smith. Imagine if an FLDS person did this. That every time they started to doubt Warren Jeffs they back away from the person challenging them and then just tried to reinforce their testimony of Warren Jeffs. Until they felt secure enough in their testimony of Warren Jeffs to reach out again. The problems with this approach should be self-explanatory. Because it basically just results in no one ever changing their minds.
Consider recording the testimony of Joseph Smith in your own voice, listening to it regularly, and sharing it with friends. Listening to the Prophet’s testimony in your own voice will help bring the witness you seek.
Imagine a young FLDS person in Colorado City listening to the testimony of Warren Jeffs recorded in their own voice over and over again. How about if a young catholic person did this with the "testimony" of the Pope? Are they getting closer to the truth or just learning by repetition? Please explain why this method of learning would be valid in the case of Joseph Smith, but would not be valid in any another case.
There is just too much to unpack in this talk.
