Mormon Myths

More articles from this series: Part 1 Part 2 Mormon antagonist and Cavalry Admin Travis Anderson presents arguments for the credibility of the Three and Eight Witnesses of the Book of Mormon. His analysis responds to Michael Licona and Gary Habermas's 'A Case for the Resurrection of Jesus,' which compares Mormon witnesses to Jesus's resurrection witnesses. Though Anderson correctly identifies this as a false comparison, his commentary on Bart Ehrman's remarks about the Book of Mormon witnesses reveals an inconsistency. He selectively applies rigorous criticism to Licona and Habermas but not to Ehrman, reflecting a pattern in LDS apologetics where evidence standards shift based on their alignment with LDS truth claims. Anderson states: " None of those that left the church ever retracted or recanted their testimonies they continued to validate and verify what they had seen especially with the three Witnesses two of the witnesses Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris ...

More articles from this series: Part 1 Argument: " Theories that want to explain the Book of Mormon as a 19th century book, have to somehow account for not just the contents of the book, but the manner in which it was produced. " - Stephen Smoot's summary of Richard Bushman's argument in Rough Stone Rolling. Response: It would be both fair & accurate to describe this as rhetorical sleight of hand that conflates the method of production with substantive validation of it's contents. It is fundamentally arbitrary and a clever attempt at shifting the burden of proof. When employed, this argument creates an unattainably high evidentiary standard that amounts to a form of special pleading in order to sidestep well established standards of rigorous historical scrutiny with respect to ancient texts. A far more appropriate and balanced question would be:  ' Does the text's content align with the historical, archaeological, and linguistic evidence we have avail...

A little over two years ago when I started the Mormon Myths page, I was admittedly unaware of the latest wave of bizarre arguments coming from the likes of the Cavalry's admin/moderator roster. As time went on, more missionaries from that group would occasionally comment on my posts & send me messages parroting them. It eventually became clear to that these young men were getting these quips from someone/somewhere, and eventually I would pinpoint their origin with the help of one of those missionaries in particular. (Thanks Preston) Since then, I have had a lot of time to do reflection & study. Investigating whether they had any merit, and whether I was simply behind the times and needed to catch up. In this series, I'm going to seek to tackle the most frequent arguments I've heard/seen online from Cavalry members and Cavalry-adjacent Mormon apologists who use them in their discussions and respond from a historic Christian perspective with the necessary disclaim...

Recently, Mormon blogger-apologist Robert Boylan ( aka - ' Scriptural Mormonism ' ) took the opportunity to make some inflammatory remarks regarding Ex-Mormon Evangelical Micah Wilder, who had been part of the Christian musical ministry group geared towards Mormons & Ex-Mormons, known as Adam's Road.  Last month, Wilder confessed on his website to years of unrepentant sin during his time in the group and is no longer participating in ministry. A few brief points: 1. As awful as the situation is for all involved, confession of that sin is both biblical & appropriate. 2. I hope that Micah belongs to a solid church, that practices both membership & church discipline and are actively praying for & walking alongside him through a biblical process of repentance & restoration to the body. ( Please , be in prayer for them! )  7/30/24 Update: It seems as though he is not seeking to repent at this time, which is rather worrying. 3. Whenever circumstances as t...

Last week, a follower notified me of this post in the Somewhat Civil Christian Debates FaceBook group by their Mormon moderator: In this article, we are going to explore Smith's arguments & whether or not they hold any water under scrutiny, and I shall do my best to respond point by point. First , I'd like to point out that Smith is not giving credit to his source for these allegations of false prophecies in the Bible.  The content of Smith's forthcoming arguments originates (almost verbatim) from this  FAIRMormon / LDS article  and if one takes the time to compare the two, it is rather plain to see that he is well... plagiarizing his peers arguments here. Of course, Smith is free to do as he pleases on the internet. However I cannot help but wonder, why he didn't bother to just drop the link & point people to the relevant sections to read it for themselves? But I digress.  Those of us who are not believing members of the Mormon religion, may already be famil...

Theosis or Apotheosis: Which is it? Have you ever talked to a Mormon, either online or in person who quoted one of the early church fathers to support their belief that they can become a god in the next life?  If so, you're likely already aware that Mormons believe in a doctrine called ' eternal progression ', and when speaking with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox or Protestants/Evangelicals they will often claim that such a doctrine was taught by the early church fathers in their literature (Patristics), and is best known today as ' theosis '. This is then usually followed up with one or more quotations that in some cases, truly do seem to lend support to such a claim.  However, it must be pointed out that this is a false equivocation on the part of the Mormon and is by no means a novel tactic. ( See this excellent  article  from Fred Anson on beggarsbread.org for more information ) The definition of theosis that Mormons functionally use is actually known as apot...