Thursday, January 10, 2008

Mormonism Discussion

Just a quick note… all next week, January 14th-18th, on the Bible Answer Man broadcast we will be discussing Mormonism. I will have special guests Sandra Tanner and Bill McKeever on to aid in the discussion. I would like to welcome anyone who wants to join us, including Mormons, to call in. You can call into the show at 1-888-275-4265 between 5:30pm and 8pm Eastern. If you would like to listen to the show and are not in an area in which we broadcast, you can listen online.

35 comments: said...

Hank, I love the work you're doing with CRI. I've blogged about your ministry:
and can't wait for the upcoming discussion of Mormonism as I bought the Ron Rhodes "Reasoning" book the last time he discussed Mormons.

Continued blessings and success to you and the folks at CRI

Your Brother in Christ,

Steve Kendall

david b mclaughlin said...

I could not have been more excited to learn you have started blogging. I have you on RSS feed on won't miss a post.


Anonymous said...

Though I am no longer Mormon, I have to say that Hank and others like him were responsible for my remaining in Mormonism far longer than I would have without them. Hank, McKeever, the Tanners, and others are just poor Christian apologists, use poor argumentation, and are generally use poor argumentation. Their grasp on traditional Christianity is lacking and overall their efforts probably harm more than they help. I suppose some lack wits appreciate them, but they embarrass their own more educated Christian compatriots. Keep up the good work driving people back into Mormonism by being so bad at what you do!!!

Kevin G.

Anonymous said...

It makes me cringe to hear all of the anti-mormon discussions on The Bible Answer Man. It's extremely biased and unfair, but hey, I think Hank actually believes it so to him he is doing a good thing. To me, I smile at interviews that have been done with McKeever, and overviews of the work by the Tanners, and I just wish people would look at both sides. If you want to learn the truth about the LDS church, go to people who do research for the LDS church. A great site that quotes from both of the people that will be on the show is

I hope you enjoy the truth!!

Anonymous said...

I forgot to mention that I wouldn't recommend any Latter-day Saints (or any other Christians for that matter), to participate in the show. You will never be able to fully explain yourself on the phone, and since they will be bashing on the thing that is most precious in your life, you will probably get all fired up and you will sound defensive. Your real defense is your testimony, which you can feel in your heart and can only be shared effectively in a Christ-like manner.

It was one of these shows that made me want to not listen anymore when an LDS man said that even David fell - trying to show that "even if" Joseph Smith fell, he was still a prophet. He didn't mean that Joseph fell, but was trying to point out that "even if" part. Just as the case with modern media, conflict and fighting sells. They want you to slip up and get angry so that they can make some money. Don't do it.

My advice is talk to people one on one about the gospel, if they want to learn. You can read up on Hank's show if you want, but you're going to get the same old thing. It's all over the internet, and these people have their own Web sites to talk bad about the church. Why support that?

For anyone who is not LDS, you are probably going to enjoy the show. You are going to learn things that make the Mormons "seem" bad and ignorant. I'm sorry if you fall into this trap, but I am telling you that unless you go to a credible source to see if the things you learned on the show are actually true, you will be in the category of ignorant - at least in regards to the things you learned on the show about the Mormons. The hardest part about it is that many things they will share are true, and just need additional, un-bias clarification.

Remember, "... no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." (1 Cor. 12:3) I would say that in addition to that, no man/women can know the things of the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Do as the Savior would do, and you will receive divine guidance.

Anonymous said...

Time and time again, Hank and his guests explain how Mormonism is NOT Christian. Mormons can't stand this because they can't understand the clear contradictions because they don't think and pray about it or they're just not willing to do such.

Nick's comment about Hank being biased is itself a biased statement so that's a mute point right there. And sorry, but they make completely fair points filled with common sense and scriptural backing. Mormons completely miss the point when they claim people are being mean to them just because they accurately prove why Mormonism is a false religion. And sorry again Nick but they don't want you to get angry on the phone. That's the caller's fault, not the hosts'.It's not personal but they take it as a personal attack without even contemplating the facts.

Hank, McKeever and Tanner are excellent apologists. Anyone who says they're not is clearly not paying attention.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if there is a checklist out there to classify someone as a Christian. Are there a specific number of criteria you must meet, or are you not a Christian if one item on the checklist is outside of the "definition."

I invite Hank to provide a written document that describes this checklist, and what specific beliefs (if different than the checklist items) make you a "non-Christian." That way the world can see who is Christian - according to Hank - and who is not. It's interesting, but before I joined the LDS church, I went to a Baptist church that taught the Trinity the way that Hank does. Several months later, another Baptist church brought by a flier for my grandpa that explained the Trinity completely differently, which I would say is more correct. The nature of God seems to be one of the checklist items for Hank's Christian Certificate Program!! Does this mean that one of the Baptists churches that I referred to is not Christian?

Hank made a few statements why Mormons aren't Christians that I would love to explain in writing, I would rather take care of the whole list at one time - rather than piece by piece. Now we must remember, the checklist by Hank should not be created to reflect how any one church is wrong, or I fear that it would be incomplete. Truly, what makes somebody a Christian - and can I have it in writing? It would also be helpful to have the biblical references to show that Christ taught it that way, so when comments about fig leaves are made, I will know that Hank is trying to be funny, and that it is not a part of his "official" checklist!!

Anonymous said...

Hey Nick: Here is a very brief "checklist" of some of the classifications of a non-Christian. None of this is taught in the bible and therefore it is not Christian. Doesn't take a genius to see the contrasts.

Mormonism teaches that God used to be a man on another world and that he became a god by following the laws and ordinances of his god on his home world. He brought his wife to this world, a woman he had married on the other world. She is, essentially a goddess.

In his present god-state, he rules our world. He has a body of flesh and bones. Since god and his wife are both exalted persons, they each possess physical bodies. In their exalted states as deities, they produce spirit children that grow and mature in the spiritual realm. The first spirit born was Jesus. Afterwards Lucifer was born along with the rest of us. So, Mormonism teaches that we all pre-existed in the spirit realm having been produced from the union of god and his goddess wife.

Therefore, we all existed in spirit form before coming down down and entering the bodies of human babies that are being born on earth. During this ‘compression' into the infant state, the memories of their pre-existence is 'veiled.'

God the father was concerned for the future salvation of the people on earth. In the heavenly realm, the Father had a plan for the salvation of the world. Jesus endorsed the Father's plan. Lucifer did not. Lucifer became jealous and rebelled. In his rebellion he convinced a large portion of the spirits existing in heaven to side with him and oppose god. God being more powerful then they, cursed these rebellious spirits to become demons. They can never be born in human bodies.
The remaining spirits sided with God. Since they chose the better way, when it comes time for them to live on earth, they have the privilege of being born in races and locations that are relative to their condition and choice made in the spirit realm.

The bible is divine in origin. The LDS book is pure fantasy.

Anonymous said...

I didn't think I would get what I asked for. That tends to be the standard for the show.

Anonymous said...

Hank loves to give the answers.

Anonymous said...

Are you upset because you didn't get a checklist but instead got paragraphs of Mormon theology which contradict biblical theology? Ya, I'd be upset to if I couldn't swallow my pride and admit it that I'm wrong. Ya. We know. It would be dangerous to leave the LDS too, so that's not gonna happen for you.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't say that I've noticed any contradictions between the LDS faith and the bible. All I've seen are a few hurtful comments, but that's ok, because Christ suffered for those.

In the meantime, I will continue to wait on my list so that I can share my thoughts and feelings about the LDS church in a way that Christ would have me do it. It's as simple as that. I can easily contribute teachings that would clarify the misconceptions, but that it obviously not on anyone's priority list.

I will leave this blog with my story of how I came to know the truth. It was opposition and meanness towards Latter-day Saints that made me curious about the church, and ultimately led to my baptism. Christians teach about the love of God, His perfect example, etc., and then go around preaching the gospel by not even teaching about God, but how others don't supposedly believe in God (which could easily be explained if the claims weren't so ignorant and arrogant). It was a devout Baptist that preached so heavily against the "Mormons" that eventually brought me into the church, and in the end, didn't teach me anything about the Savior or His plan for us. In fact, I taught her many things - when she was ready to listen. I hope that one day it will go for those of you who oppose the Church of God. You probably don't believe me, but I don't expect you to yet. I promise you that you will one day learn of the true character of God and His plan for you.

Finally, I am hoping to receive some kind of guidance on what is necessary (not what is not necessary) to be a Christian. With that, I hope that you provide the biblical support so that it can be explained, and missionary work can go forward. Put it this way, Christ taught that His disciples should preach the gospel, so if you want to be a disciple, you need to provide these simple answers so that you are not disobedient to the Lord. You will be accountable when somebody wants to learn about Christ, and you don't provide a way to learn. He never commanded us to teach how everyone is wrong, we teach of Him.

Good luck, and I hope to hear from you soon with some answers.

Anonymous said...

It isn't complex. The bible clearly teaches what "checklist" one needs to adhere to be a follower of Christ. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. The problem is that Mormons have a different Jesus. Virtually every theological heresy begins with a misconception of nature of God. The LDS has supplanted God's word with beliefs that contradict the bible. Surely you can see that the bible does not teach that God was once a man. Hank among countless others have explained how the book of mormon contradicts the bible. I know teenagers that have figured this out. Nick, you've been told what biblical, orthodox Christianity teaches but you clearly do not want to adhere to those beliefs. It's obvious that no other checklist of what it means to be a Christian will you accept; unless it's a Mormon checklist. So there's not much more anyone else can do. It's up to you.

Anonymous said...

That's where the confussion comes in. I do believe in Jesus Christ, the same Jesus that is taught in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. That's why I am asking for a checklist. To clarify the point, here is a list of books that are referred to in the Bible, but are not in our Bible:

Ex. 24: 7 took the book of the covenant.
Num. 21: 14 book of the wars of the Lord.
Josh. 10: 13 (2 Sam. 1: 18) book of Jasher.
1 Sam. 10: 25 Samuel . . . wrote it in a book.
1 Kgs. 11: 41 book of the acts of Solomon.
1 Chr. 29: 29 book of Samuel the seer.
2 Chr. 9: 29 book of Nathan the prophet.
2 Chr. 12: 15 book of Shemaiah the prophet.
2 Chr. 13: 22 acts of Abijah . . . in the story of the prophet Iddo.
2 Chr. 20: 34 book of Jehu.
2 Chr. 33: 19 written among the sayings of the seers.
Matt. 2: 23 spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
1 Cor. 5: 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle.
Eph. 3: 3 as I wrote afore in few words.
Col. 4: 16 read the epistle from Laodicea.
Jude 1: 3 when I gave all diligence to write unto you.
Jude 1: 14 Enoch also . . . prophesied of these.

It is not accurate to claim that there is no additional scripture, and that if something about God is not taught in the Bible about God, then it is not true. I would emphasize that there is an infinite amount of knowledge and understanding of God not taught about in the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, or any other book. If you think that you understand everything that God does, then you will one day learn the truth.

Again, I ask for a written document explaining what a Christian is. If it is so simple, then why is it not provided. The truth is that you know it cannot be provided. All that can be provided are attacks on other people, neglecting a chance to have an effective discussion on what it means to be a follower of Christ.

Anonymous said...

Just in case you want an analysis on the work of Hank's guests:

These links will walk you through (chapter by chapter on some of them) some of the explanations that members of the LDS church give to accusations against Hank's guests. Even Hank himself wrote blogs reflecting these teachings, but easily enough, it can all be explained.

I am getting the feeling that the participants of this blog are all employed by CRI. At least then I could understand why you are so against learning both sides. It is impossible to say that you are not one-sided if you don't study both sides of the argument. I think it's sad that either a paycheck or pride will neglect you the blessings of true knowledge and willingness to follow God's plan for you.

As for me, I would say that I definitely qualify as someone who studies from multiple sources. If you would like to talk about any topic of the gospel, please inquire. Maybe we can talk about Lee Strobel's books, or Hank's other blogs (that I do agree with and look to for reference, mind you). Then you will see how much we agree on.

My last statement is this. I really do like Hank's show. I just don't appreciate an attack on any one specific group - especially when the attacks can be clarified. It would be nice to be able to support him again, but until he drops the incomplete criticisms, that's not going to happen. Maybe participating in his blog is supporting him. I hope that it is supporting both of us in teaching people what we believe.

This is why I would like a more detailed list in writing. That way there is no question to what I meant in my explanation. My intent is not to bash Hank. It is to more fully "equip" his listeners with the truth about the LDS church.

Anonymous said...

Clearly no one here is claiming they understand everything about God. And I am not employed by CRI. I don't agree with Hank on everything. On essentials, I agree with him. And clearly, Hank has studied both sides and it sounds like you have as well and I just cannot understand how you cannot see the immense differences. In your first paragraph you have already shown yourself to either not know what you're talking about or that you simply do not believe the doctrines of your LDS church. How can you be serious in saying that the Jesus of the bible is the same as the Jesus of the book of Mormon? The New Testament teaches that Jesus, God the Son, is eternal and has no beginning. Mormonism teaches that Jesus is a procreated being, the literal offspring of God the Father and one of His heavenly wives. You don’t see the contrast? You really don’t? That’s incredible

“We were sent here to receive a physical body. Before we came to earth, we dwelt with our Father in Heaven lacking a body of flesh and bone.” This is from an LDS website. The bible does not teach this.

You must be joking that you cannot see the immense differences.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it would be helpful if you could give specific examples from the Book of Mormon that contradict the Bible.

You made the comment, "Mormonism teaches that Jesus is a procreated being, the literal offspring of God the Father and one of His heavenly wives." Can you please provide the source that shows that this is an LDS doctrine. I can, in contrast, show you dozens of places that specifically states that the church does not claim this as an official doctrine of the church. In fact, I have already provided it in one of the links I submitted previously.

You also stated that the Bible does not claim that we lived with God as spirits before coming to earth. This is because you have not learned where in the bible it teaches us that.

For example, see Jer. 1:5 - "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee."

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." (Jude 6)

"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device." (Acts 17:29)

If you want any other examples, please see the Web sites that I provided, I promise that you will find answers to your claims about what you think we believe. It is not contradictory to the Bible.

Again, I do believe that just because something is not taught in the Bible about God, the fullness of His plan, or the eternal outlook of everything, then it is not true. That's rediculous. John 21:25 says, And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

Please, if you are going to claim that the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible, then please provide specific examples from the Book of Mormon that you are referring to - not an LDS Web site. If you don't want to read the Book of Mormon to find your examples, then just google some. I can clarify secondary research as well as primary.

Also, if you are going to say that an LDS belief not found in the Book of Mormon is incorrect, then please show in the Bible where it says that it cannot be so. It is ignorant to say that just because something is not in the Bible, it cannot be true. If you continue with this claim, then my next post will clarify in the actual blog what early Christians and modern Evangelicals have taught on the topic, and how it coincides with history, scripture, and common sense.

Anonymous said...

The sources that state "Mormonism teaches that Jesus is a procreated being, the literal offspring of God the Father and one of His heavenly wives” are your fellow Mormons. Every Mormon I have ever spoken to believes this. Just because a Mormon website thinks they’re being clever by not revealing this, doesn’t mean you don’t believe it. You, Nick, may not believe it, but other Mormons do and it is taught. And that is precisely why you don't want to refer me to a Mormon website. That’s a statement of mistrust of your religion right there.

Jer. 1:15 neither implicitly or explicitly says that we lived with God as spirits before we came to Earth. You have superimposed that into the text. Orthodox Christianity does not teach this as well. Jude 6 speaks of angels, not humans, so that's another faulty text proof. Acts 17:29 also offers no support for your claim.

I will not dig up my book of Mormon. As I said, it’s fantasy. I don’t read fiction. Archaeology has proved its faulty claims. I have looked at the sites you listed. They aren’t substantive. Mormons have changed their doctrines over the years. The essentials of Christianity have not changed. Hank’s show this week gives more qualitative and quantitative info than I could ever give. But I know you won’t listen. It’s biased. Well, duh. It should be. Mormons use our Christian terminology and pour their own meanings into it. That's bogus.

I never said that there isn’t anything else about God that isn’t stated in the bible. Mormonism has added to the bible and the bible said not to do such a thing. You said it is ignorant to say that just because something is not in the Bible, it cannot be true. I never alluded to this. But when you add to revelation that contradicts biblical revelation (book of Mormon AND Mormon beliefs) then you contradict the revelation of God. God doesn’t change His mind. But Mormonism has tried to change His mind.

Anonymous said...

Here's your reference: Any LDS Web site you choose!!
and the list goes on .....

As I said, find me one that states otherwise. I guess relying on the "because my Mormon friends told me so" will be scholarly enough. That's about as in depth as we are seeing from you guys on this post.

If you don't mind, can you please show me the archeological evidences of how the Book of Mormon isn't true. Then I'll show you where to go and get some additional information on the topic.

Then you can provide examples of how we have added to the Bible.

Please do your research, and try again.

Anonymous said...

What a great show yesterday. Mckeever per usual states it quite correctly.

Brigham had 55 wives. What a monster! What fool would support anyone that would do such? Mormon apologists don't stand a chance against Christian apologists.

Mormonism: always in a state of flux. The bible says no marrying in heaven. Mormonism says otherwise. Mormonism is not Christian. Accept it, Mormons, you have a different God and a different Jesus. Please get out that cult!

Anonymous said...

Nick: I don't have any Mormon friends so your quote was bogus. I don't know any Mormons. These are people I have spoken with. I went out of my way to ask them their beliefs.

Anonymous said...

Well, I guess there's not much more I can do here to help anyone learn the truths about the LDS church. I do appreciate all of the e-mails from Mark. At least there is one blogger on here that has done his homework.

As for Hank, I know that you could provide me more information than has been submitted in this blog. Maybe one day, when you go back through these postings, you will see that I tried and maybe we can have a real discussion. As mentioned in my postings, I would prefer to do it in writing so that there is no question to the responses that are given.

As for everyone else, good luck in your missionary efforts. I'd love to write one on one with any of you who would like to learn why I believe what I do, and why I believe that it is easy to teach the absolute truth while providing any references or research to support my beliefs. My e-mail address is

Again, the Web site can help clarify many misconceptions about the church, even go comment by comment through complete shows by Hank. The series is called Answering the Bible Answer Man. What do you have to lose?

Take care.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't say that I've noticed any contradictions between the LDS faith and the bible.
If this is truly the case, then you're not reading the Bible.

I do have some honest questions about Mormonism:

Is the entire faith predicated on a subjective feeling of “burning in your bosom”?
What if someone gets a negative feeling after reading the Book of Mormon and sincerely praying to God with faith in Christ? Doesn’t this assure us that the book, in fact, is not true?

Why has the Book of Mormon changed thousands of times when it comes to names, essential teachings, etc.? And why, if Joe Smith was receiving revelation straight from God, was God speaking in King James English? Isn’t the Book of Mormon supposed to predate the KJV by thousands of years??
If the Book of Mormon was written primarily by Old Testament era Jews, why would they write in a language Joe Smith called “Reformed Egyptian,” and why was Smith the only one in human history who had or has heard of this language? Also, how does one explain the numerous appearances of words that are translations of Greek words and which contain New Testament ideas? These include the words; Christ (a Jew would have used the word Messiah), church, bible, speaking in tongues [occurs prior to the resurrection of Jesus in the BOM], crucifixion, epistle, disciple, apostle, martyr, anti-Christ, gospel, baptism, baptize, carnal, elected, type and Alpha and Omega. Are we now supposed to believe that a Hebrew man wrote in Reformed Egyptian using Greek words?

Why hasn’t anyone ever found any archaeological confirmation of the peoples, places, and events recorded in the BOM? If the Nephites and Lamanites filled the land for hundreds of years building incredible structures and fighting huge wars, why hasn’t any outside source ever confirmed the finding of one structure, one place, one person, one piece of pottery, or even one coin chronicled in the BOM? The only people who believe the people, places, and events chronicled in the BOM existed seem to be LDS teachers themselves. I know that archeology has confirmed most of the people, places, and events recorded in the Bible. In fact, this is one reason we have maps in the backs of our Bibles. The places the Bible records have actually been proven to exist. Could this be why Mormons don’t have maps in the BOM? Because none of these places ever existed except in Joe Smith’s mind? I’m aware Mormons cite Indian cities and edifices of Central America, but are they aware that archaeologists disagree with them?

I think it’s pretty clear that not only is there no evidence to support Mormonism, but the evidence shows pretty conclusively that Mormonism is probably just the product of one man’s fertile imagination.

These are honest questions that deserve answers, not a referral to trips around the World Wide Web.


Anonymous said...

What would contain more details and words - a question, or an answer? Well, I would say that an answer would be much longer than a question. To ask the question, "Is the entire faith predicated on a subjective feeling of “burning in your bosom”? How many words is this? 14, good job!! The answer to this question can be endless, but here's an answer with 609 words (which I am obviously not going to put into a blog).

All of the other questions, literally, all of them, are answered at either the same site, or at others I provided. Please use some reasoning to know why questions can't be answered in a blog, and that it just makes sense to go to an online source that can give you adequate information to answer your questions.

Good luck!!

Anonymous said...

Mormonism = fantasy

Anonymous said...

For those of you who seek the truth, here is another detailed explanation on one of the works that Hank promotes to be a "credible" source to show that Mormons aren't Christian.

This is a section by section defense of The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon. Good reading!!


Anonymous said...

I forgot to mention that it is a 16,000 word document, so please don't question why I don't answer directly into the blog.

I would be happy to answer one question at a time so that the reply is not so lengthy, then I can move on to the next question. Does anybody want to submit the first question, or should I just start from the top and work my way down on Mr. Anon's posting?

Anonymous said...

I'll bite.

If the Bible and the Book of Mormon conflict, which should I believe? Why?

Nick said...

Thank you for your posting. It is nice to see that we can learn from one another without an argument!!

Most people would say that a Mormon will believe the Book of Mormon over the Bible if a discrepancy exists between the two. The church does not teach this. We believe, as I hope anyone else would, that you accept the doctrine that is most correct.

My true opinion is that you will not find a major contradiction between the two books - at least one that cannot be explained. People can read various contradictions from researchers like the Tanners, or Websites like Let's just say that I would be happy to answer any questions if you provide these supposedly discrepant teachings.

Now, the church doesn't claim that any book of scripture is infallible, because though they contain the word of God written by inspiration, they were still written, copied, translated, etc. by fallible men. The Book of Mormon even teaches that the writings would not be perfect, because they were not perfect people. We feel the same about the Bible. As wonderful as it is, it is not a flawless book. I know that frustrates many people to hear that, but it is clearly the truth.

So to answer your question more directly, if you do find a contradiction, live by the one that is actually correct. If there is a real contradiction, then there will be an explanation. The hard part is trusting the other side when an explanation is provided.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure you answered my question :)

This statement is troublesome to me: "We believe, as I hope anyone else would, that you accept the doctrine that is most correct."

If neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon is the ultimate source of truth, how can one determine "the doctrine that is most correct"? Who decides? What is the source of truth?

Nick said...

You have to look at it this way. If there is a true contradiction, there are only three possibilities for what can be right. Let's pretend that there is a contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon - either the Bible is right and the Book of Mormon is wrong, or the Book of Mormon is right and the Bible is wrong, or they are both wrong. Obviously, if there are teachings that are completely different, they cannot both be right (in regards to that specific teaching, not the entire book). They are both inspired books written by His disciples, and then hundreds of years later, or thousands in the case of the Book of Mormon, translated and copied.

The problem is that you believe there is a book on earth that is the ultimate source of truth. This is not taught anywhere in scripture, and I would be happy to discuss this topic further. The ultimate source of truth is God, and since he does give revelation to His children, we can know if something translated by fallible men is correct or not. The Bible does teach that "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7)

So the answer remains the same, if you believe there is a discrepancy between the two, then you need to do your research and find out which teaching is more correct. I can promise you that God will answer your prayers if you just ask Him in faith.

Anonymous said...

The web sites you refer to are largely unsubstantial. Many of them seem to use an accumulation of useless words in order to overwhelm the reader and wear him down. They also distort biblical scripture and use subtle semantics in order to make their arguments and interpretations seem plausible. This is called sophistry.

The truth of DNA evidence, archaeological evidence, the conclusions of ancient language experts, and the complete lack of evidence to support Joe Smith’s claims is clear and unmistakable.

There comes a point when someone will cling to any objection, spin any fact, or insist on joining two irreconcilable things even when the evidence is plain and undeniable just to avoid confronting reality.

Nick said...

Thanks for the clarification, even though no examples were provided. I look forward to responding to something, not just an empty claim.

Anonymous said...

Kevin G.,

You've got my curiosity up. Can you give some specifics? How could Hank, McKeever, the Tanners, etc. have done the job of apologetics better? What arguments finally turned you away from Mormonism?

Nick said...

I don't know the reasoning for Kevin G., but let me share my example. I joined the LDS church because a strong Baptist was bashing on the "crazy" doctrines of the LDS church, and it made me want to learn more about the church. While learning, I not only found out that her claims weren't true, but they were easy to clarify. I went back to her and explained what I had learned about the things she said about the LDS church, and she had no idea how to respond.

I continued to learn and realize that most claims, including those by Hank, the Tanners, and McKeever, are not correct. I have a handful from Hank himself that I could easily clarify.

Now to answer your question about how they can be better apologists, they need to just keep doing what they are doing. I think Hank is a very good apologist - I just think he is lacking much truth about the LDS church. I wouldn't consider the Tanners apologists, because an apologists purpose is to defend the faith, not argue about other people's beliefs. At least if you're going to do that, you should lose your bias and get more accurate information. When you do have accurate information, such as with the Journal of Discourses, acknowledge what the writings are and who they were written to, and then you can better understand the meanings. I think the Tanners are wicked people, and they are not good apologists - they are biased anti-mormons.