apologetics

I have been studying Mormonism, its doctrine, history and issues for a number of years now. The more objectivity and impartiality one approaches the subject, the clearer and more unequivocal becomes what is already certain for an outside, independent researcher: Mormonism is a syncretic product of Joseph Smith and the way of thinking of the 19th century.

All the more astonishing is the vehemence with which Mormon scholars - apologists for short - try to defend the doctrine and belief in the "only true church". I have addressed their arguments at length on this site, so there is no need to repeat myself here. Nevertheless, I would like to offer some thoughts and conclusions from my observations.

For several decades, the Mormon Church has remained silent and has not responded to the many criticisms. And if you look at it correctly, it still doesn't do that today, because the "official" part of the community (General Authorities) has so far failed to give an answer. Instead, a group of Mormon scholars has formed at BYU, known as an organization calledFARMS (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies)occurs and have set themselves the goal of defusing the allegations.
Most of the apologists have a good scientific education. The best known of them are:
Hugh Nibley, John L Sorenson, Daniel C Peterson, Michael D Rhodes, John Gee, and Mat Roper.
It is important to note that FARMS only represents its own opinion and these are not to be equated with official statements from the community. Nevertheless, members looking for answers have no choice but to join the FARMS arguments, because otherwise there is nothing to refer to. General Authorities continue to advise members not to read critical material.

However, it is a phenomenon to see learned people arguing in a way that I believe defies all common sense. Apologists are willing to use highly questionable methodology for "their truth," even contradicting the established teachings of the Mormon Church.

I have therefore asked myself how such behavior can come about and have noticed that 1. there is a "reality shift" among those affected and 2. there is internal and external pressure to minimize dissonance (inconsistencies) by all means .

1. Reality Shift

This phenomenon takes place wherever ideologies or religions influence or form a person's worldview. Instead of one's own worldview, the one given by the "teaching" appears and largely replaces it. People who grew up in a religion or ideology are usually subject to this process even more intensively than converts. It is therefore often difficult for dropouts to overcome this psychological barrier and find themselves again.
Although, as already mentioned, apologists for the most part have solid training and qualifications, in the practice of apologetics this same shift in reality takes hold and the scientific arguments drift into the unreal. The result is speculative theories and hypotheses, as discussed in manifold ways on this site. A fine example of this are Nibley's numerousTheories on the Book of Abraham Problem.
Since belief is in principle the dominant area of the psyche and not reason, there must always be an explanation, since belief is "true". This also explains the sometimes acrobatic efforts to prove or explain things that cannot be proven because they are simply impossible. In faith, however, everything is possible and reality is suppressed or replaced by a "new" reality. The next point is closely related to the reality shift.

2. Reduction of dissonance

Cognitive dissonance (an inconsistency in recognizing/perceiving) most often results from a disillusionment caused by the non-occurrence of a belief-related event. (E.g. The Coming of Christ dated and not arrived)
Such disillusionment exists in all religions, especially where alleged predictions are made, which then do not come true or events that were assumed to be correct turn out to be wrong. There is a multitude of events and facts in Mormonism that create this same cognitive dissonance in the believer. This dissonance creates an uneasiness that the person concerned desperately wants to eliminate. The individual will then take several avenues to eliminate this dissonance, or resulting discomfort: (1) Change one or more beliefs, opinions, or behaviors. (2) Acquisition of new information or beliefs that reinforce the existing harmony and thus reduce the overall dissonance. (3) Forgetting or reducing the importance of those perceptions that are in dissonant relationship.
Mormonism is full of examples to show this. Mormon doctrine has adapted and changed over the years just to survive, and FARMS has proven to be a true master of the process.

The biggest problem with articles written by FARMS is that ordinary members cannot in any way verify the correctness of the facts presented. Most of them don't want that either, but gratefully believe everything that is presented to them. This has created an Eldorado for apologists, in which the protagonists mentioned above really put themselves in the limelight. First and foremost Hugh Nibley.
Fortunately, however, there are enough scholars within and outside the fellowship who have studied Mormonism and the writings of FARMS to help bring the truth to light. It is interesting to note that there are a growing number of Mormon scholars who have very good scholarly approaches and who disagree with FARMS on many points. Among them the Egyptologists Edward H. Ashment and Steven E. Thompson. But a number of professors at BYU do not share the opinion of FARMS either, but are beginning to paint a much more realistic picture.
Dan Vogel's bookThe Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), which contains several very good essays by Mormon scholars that are also cited on this site, serves as a good example.
Also, more and more scholars are leaving the community, since the overwhelming evidence against the faith can no longer be justified with anything. For example Simon Southerton, a former bishop and molecular biologist who left the Mormon Church because of the genetic findings. Other scholars are excommunicated from the community for their studies contrary to doctrine.

As an aside, it should also be noted that there has been a veritable battle of explanations between FARMS scholars and Evangelical apologists, in which some Evangelicals even feel pushed onto the defensive. I don't want to go into detail about this area as this is a battle of defending myths and beliefs. Who should win there? John Weldon goes in his article:Response To Mosser/Owen and FARMScloser to it.

I will now briefly give some examples of the above. More detailed information is located throughout this page.

Hugh Nibley and his methodology

Let's start with chief apologist Hugh Nibley:
Nibley impresses his readers with his incredible knowledge in the most diverse fields. He has been releasing publication after publication for years and has certainly garnered a certain following within the Mormon community. I myself know members who make their faith dependent on what Nibley writes. And yet Nibley has become the master of "reduced dissonance". No other is so free in the choice of his scientific method and interpretation. Some of his theories are highly speculative and hypothetical. Using the example ofbook of Abrahamand the theories raised by him make this very clear.
Commenting on Charles M. Larson's book, Egyptologist Steven E. Thompson said...by his own hand upon papyrus:

"In my opinion it is the best source to go to if you want to know what the book of Abraham is all about... Nothing written from the apologetic side comes close to being correct... .
Well, I tell you, it's far more accurate than anything Hugh Nibley ever wrote on the subject..."(Interview with Steven E. Thompson)

Egyptologist Edward H. Ashment also criticizes Nibley's methodology in relation to the Book of Abraham. In his essay:Reducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham as a Case Study, is it [called:

"It is suggested, therefore, that such dealings with dissonance be omitted in relation to the Book of Abraham. An observation by Bible scholar Jacob Neusner seems pertinent here: 'an ancient Christian text, say one of the first century, may considered a worthy subject for scholarly inquiry [by historians of religion]. But fresh Christian expression (I have the Book of Mormon in mind) is actually available for mockery, but never for study. Third-century religious experience is fascinating. Religious experience in the twentieth century [or nineteenth] is scary or absurd.'
Mormon apologists have fully accepted the flawed hypothesis that Neusner speaks of. Evidence of this is their attempt to make the Book of Abraham 'a worthy subject for scholarly inquiry' and to keep it from being an object of derision by unnecessarily archaicizing it. It seems more appropriate - and more accurate - to consider it a 'fresh Christian expression'. Let the LDS community begin to study, ponder, and learn from the Book of Abraham for what it is - not what some in the community would like it to be."

In this essay, Ashment primarily denies various theories put forward by Nibley.
Ashment has also exposed Nibley's mistakes on previous occasions. For example in Sunstone, Dec. 1979. Nibley said:

"Having heard Brother Ashment, I must make some amendments to what I have already said."
"I am not responsible for anything I wrote more than three years ago."(Salt Lake City Messenger #82)

This last statement sums up pretty well what to think of Nibley's methodology. We have here a scholar who develops speculative theories for which after a certain time he no longer feels responsible.

David P. Wright, Professor of the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near East, examined the contents of the Book of Abraham as written by Joseph Smith and found that it had nothing to do with Egyptian, but rather Hebrew. He made the following statement, referring to Nibley:

"This evidence, together with Thompson's observations, shows that the Book of Abraham was not written by Abraham, is not historical, and is, in fact, the product of Joseph Smith's creative - inspired, if you will - interpretation of the Bible. This conclusion can be made with certainty. It is far from wild speculation. On the contrary, it must be emphasized that most of the research written to defend the book's ancient origins (and Abrahamic provenance or historicity) (mostly by Hugh Nibley ), are weak and speculative and show shortcomings due to imprecise textual analysis and methodological inaccuracy."(David P. Wright: Egyptology and the Book of Abraham)

The more orthodox Mormon Kent P. Jackson, in BYU Studies (article removed by FARMS), criticized the methodology Nibley used in The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley. Vol. 1, Old Testament and Related Studies. He writes:

"1. In most articles, Nibley shows a tendency to collect source material from a variety of cultures from across the Old World, then throw it together and then select the bits and pieces he needs...
2. In this book, Nibley uses the secondary sources in the same way as the primary sources, taking statements out of context to construct arguments that those he quotes from would be unlikely to agree...
3. Several articles lack sufficient documentation and some lack it altogether.
4. Nibley's perspicacity has made him one of the most sought-after speakers in the church. But I am dismayed to find in this compilation several passages in which his satire tends toward sarcasm and abuse that should have no place in serious scholarship..."

These problems can also be found in other works by Nibley.
Finally, perhaps one can cite the following remark from the book BYU:A House of Faith as the best observation:

"As a former BYU history professor [Richard Poll] observed in 1984, '[Nibley] is the security blanket of the Latter-day Saints for whom dissonance is unacceptable...His contribution to dissonance management is not so much what he wrote, but that he wrote.Having known Hugh Nibley for 40 years now, it seems to me that he was fooling around with his readers... Relatively few Latter-day Saints read the books they give each other, do they the well-annotated articles he has contributed to Church publications. For most of us, it is enough that they exist.'" (BYU:A House of Faith, by Bergera and Priddis, p.362)

Hugh Nibley as dissonance manager and security blanket. A fitting comparison.

distortion of historical facts

In FARMS articles, the reduction of dissonance is also often expressed in the distortion of historical facts. This is particularly evident in the example of the Kinderhook records and theJoseph Smith Manuscriptsvisible. Attempts today are made to downplay Joseph Smith's interest in the Kinderhook records and blame the scribes for the clear evidence against Smith in Church history. Similarly, the manuscripts of the Book of Abraham clearly show that Smith could not translate Egyptian at all. Here, too, an attempt is made to avert Smith's problem and blame the writers (Nibley). Edward H. Ashment wrote in the essayReducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham as a Case Study, explains in great detail why FARMS is wrong about this. He writes:

"Not only does this evidence contradict Nibley's assumption that 'the English of the Book of Abraham was written here before the Egyptian characters were added', and that the hieratic characters 'were copied out... by a single scribe in a prominent and rather skilful manner Manuscript' but also shows that in these manuscripts the 'eighteen hieratic marginal symbols' of Papyrus JS 11 are directly related to the English of the Book of Abraham."

Smith wrote very little himself throughout his tenure, employing scribes instead. Blaming the writers every time there is a problem seems to have become a typical argument game and a good example of dissonance reduction.

Questionable scientific point of view

An article regarding the Book of Abraham was officially printed in the Ensign in 1992. In this, John Gee claims that the word Abraham is said to appear in the papyri found and that there is a connection between the patriarch and the papyri - also in connection with facsimile no.1.
This paper was also written by Edward H. Ashment(The Use of Egyptian Magical Papyri to Authenticate the Book of Abraham)denied and declared false. Ashment shows that Gee hides from his readers that he uses magical papyri for his research that are much younger than the JS papyri. He further reveals that the person in these papyri is a woman about whom magic spells are cast on a lion couch and not Abraham who is to be sacrificed. He concludes his treatise with the following words:

"Gee's articles graphically demonstrate the two approaches used by the Mormon school of apologists to deal with the main problem it faces, which is that the profusion of truths proclaimed to be rooted in history is matched by very scant evidence stand.
The first approach, used elsewhere, denies contrary evidence with philosophical arguments. It simply assumes, relativistically, that evidence not conducive to belief existed only in the mind of the 'objectivist' historian, who proceeds according to a hidden plan of action but pretends to proceed empirically. On the other hand, it objectivistically assumes that the apologist has certain 'objective knowledge' of the proclaimed truth, which means that he deals with evidence at his own discretion...

More than anything else, the articles suggest that Gee's scholarly perspective is obscured by his efforts to produce 'faith-enhancing' evidence. Consequently, readers of such defense articles must be extremely cautious about accepting such 'faith-promoting' claims. As the above examination [from his paper] shows, defense articles can convey 'believable history' that is not rigorously historically scrutinized by an unsuspecting public. Unfortunately, everyone loses: Justifiers are not taken seriously by their peers in academia; Church members misinformed; and embarrassment will eventually come back to the church..."

I know members who are still distributing Gee articles today without ever having checked what their content actually says and who feel safe about it. Gee is a good example of how scholarly work can be misused to justify one's beliefs. And I agree with Ashment: Unfortunately, everyone loses.

contradiction to church doctrine

As mentioned earlier, FARMS scholars are also willing to challenge the official teachings of the Mormon Church (if there is any) with their theories. This is evident in John L. Sorenson and his Book of Mormon geography. In Joseph Smith's day, it was still firmly believed that the Hebrews (lost 10 tribes) were the ancestors of the Indians and that the Nephites and Lamanites had spread throughout North and South America. This was 19th-century thinking, and so was the Book of Mormon. However, over the last century, archaeological research has revealed that the Indians are of Mongolian origin. So it was conceded by the Mormon Church that there were others, but the main bloodline was Israelite (McConkie). By the end of the last century it was becoming increasingly clear that there was no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon doctrine of Native American origin. In addition, modern genetic studies have long since proven that the Indians are of Mongolian origin and none of the studies has confirmed the Book of Mormon. This led Sorenson to pin down the geography of the Book of Mormon to a very small area somewhere in central Mexico. An area that has not been found or proven to this day. Sorenson's theory not only raises new problems regarding the Book of Mormon, but contradicts what has been officially taught since Joseph Smith. Sorenson even goes so far as to call the orthodox views "nonsense". Well, while he's right that these views are nonsense, he doesn't realize that his theory is nothing more than dissonance reduction and an escape from reality. Modern archeology and genetics have long since dealt the deathblow to the Book of Mormon.
Perhaps it is appropriate to quote a statement by Michael D. Coe, Professor of Anthropology at Yale University (Emeritus):

"The bare fact is that nothing, absolutely nothing, from the New World excavations would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon was, as Joseph Smith claimed, a historical document dealing with the early inhabitants of our hemisphere ....
Now let me state categorically that there is, to my knowledge, no professional non-Mormon archaeologist who sees any scientific evidence supporting the truth of the above, and I will assert that there are some Mormon archaeologists who do Join group." (Mormons and Archeology: An Outside View. Dialouge, 1973)

Typical reasoning behavior

Apologists seem to get caught up in the same arguments over and over again. A detailed description can be found in the article:Review of FARMS Review of Books, fromdr Shade. Here are some short examples:

"Joseph Smith didn't actually say that."

Statements made by Smith are pushed onto his scribes or averted from him

"We are under attack"

FARMS interprets any criticism of the Church or doctrine as a direct attack that must be fended off at all costs. It almost seems compulsive. (See dissonance)

Dazzle the reader with science

Apologists try to impress their members with scientific sophistication and thereby reassure them

Demand for a godlike standard of literature

Pedantic criticism is leveled at any article that speaks against the Church. It is often more about stylistic trivia than about content

topic avoidance

As in the case of Charles M. Larson's book ...by his own hand upon papyrus, attempts are made to discredit the author's qualifications. But the real problem is bypassed

"This has been misquoted or taken out of context"

A favorite argument used by all Mormons to justify embarrassing or questionable statements

"It's the same old anti-Mormon argument that's been going around for years"

With this statement apologists suggest that after such a long time a suitable answer has long since been found and the argument is therefore irrelevant. As a rule, exactly the opposite is the case.