Difference between revisions of "Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101"

(→‎Overview and Introduction: intro)
m
 
(86 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
__NOTOC__
+
{{Main Page}}
−
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
 
−
|title=Mormonism 101
 
−
|author=Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson
 
−
|noauthor=
 
−
|section=
 
−
|previous=
 
−
|next=
 
−
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
 
−
}}
 
−
=Overview and Introduction=
 
−
==Examining Assumptions==
 
  
−
by Marc Schindler
 
  
−
When students enroll in a class called "101" they expect a comprehensive and sympathetic introduction to the subject at hand. For example, if you signed up for a university course called Astronomy 101, you'd expect an introduction to the principles of astronomy, including how the study of astronomy has improved our lives. You'd be shocked if your professor taught that astronomy was wrong, and that, say, astrology was a better way to understand the physical universe. It is a sign of the fundamental flaws in Mormonism 1011 that it does exactly that-presents itself as a religious primer when it is polemics; a more honest title would have been Anti-Mormonism 101.
+
{{To learn more box:responses to: McKeever and Johnson}}
 +
{{H1
 +
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101
 +
|H=Response to "Mormonism 101"
 +
|S=
 +
|L1=
 +
|T=Mormonism 101
 +
|A=Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson
 +
|<=
 +
|>=
 +
}}
 +
<!-- INSERT CHART HERE -->
 +
<onlyinclude>
 +
{{H2
 +
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101
 +
|H=Response to claims made in "Mormonism 101" by Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson
 +
|S=
 +
|L1=Introduction to Mormonism 101: Back to School by David Waltz
 +
|L2=Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 1: God the Father"
 +
|L3=Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 2: Jesus"
 +
|L4=Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 3: The Trinity"
 +
|L5=Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 4: Preexistence and the Second Estate"
 +
|L6=Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 5: The Fall"
 +
|L7=Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 6: Apostasy"
 +
|L8=Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 7: The Bible"
 +
|L9=Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 8: The Book of Mormon"
 +
|L10=Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 9: The Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price"
 +
|L11=Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 10: The Atonement"
 +
|L12=Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 11: Grace and Works"
 +
|L13=Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 12: Heaven and Hell"
 +
|L14=Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 13: Communion and Baptism"
 +
|L15=Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 14: The Word of Wisdom"
 +
|L16=Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 15: The Temple"
 +
|L17=Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 16: Lamanites, Seed of Cain, and Polygamy"
 +
|L18=Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 17: Joseph Smith"
 +
|L19=Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 18: The Church and Its Leadership"
 +
|L20=Response to Mormonism 101, Quote mining
 +
|L21=About this work
 +
}}
 +
</onlyinclude>
 +
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Introduction}}
 +
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 1}}
 +
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 2}}
 +
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 3}}
 +
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 4}}
 +
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 5}}
 +
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 6}}
 +
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 7}}
 +
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 8}}
 +
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 9}}
 +
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 10}}
 +
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 11}}
 +
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 12}}
 +
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 13}}
 +
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 14}}
 +
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 15}}
 +
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 16}}
 +
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 17}}
 +
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 18}}
 +
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Quote mining}}
  
−
Almost as big a flaw in Mormonism 101 is that it contributes absolutely nothing new to the body of anti-Mormonism-there is nothing in the book that hasn't been written about elsewhere (and usually better). It is simply another example of modern-day professional anti-Mormonism--attacking the Restored Gospel for money.
+
==About this work==
 +
{{Epigraph|When students enroll in a class called "101" they expect a comprehensive and sympathetic introduction to the subject at hand. For example, if you signed up for a university course called Astronomy 101, you'd expect an introduction to the principles of astronomy, including how the study of astronomy has improved our lives. You'd be shocked if your professor taught that astronomy was wrong, and that, say, astrology was a better way to understand the physical universe. It is a sign of the fundamental flaws in Mormonism 101 that it does exactly that-presents itself as a religious primer when it is polemics; a more honest title would have been Anti-Mormonism 101.<br>
 +
&mdash;Marc Schindler
 +
}}
 +
{{parabreak}}
  
−
Thus the purpose of Mormonism 201 is to counter the false claims of Mormonism 101 and, we hope, also present the reader with a real version of what Mormonism 101 should have been, not the "wolf in sheep's clothing" that it is in fact.
+
Mormonism 101 contributes absolutely nothing new to the body of anti-Mormonism-there is nothing in the book that hasn't been written about elsewhere. It is simply another example of modern-day professional anti-Mormonism&mdash;attacking the Restored Gospel for money.<ref>{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101}} Bill McKeever is a professional anti-Mormon, being the founder of Mormonism Research Ministry in El Cajon, CA; Eric Johnson is an employee of the Mormonism Research Ministry.</ref> The authors insist on basing their arguments on their own preconceived assumptions, rather than trying to show how the Restored Gospel (which they refer to as "Mormonism") supposedly has inconsistencies or failures based on its assumptions. One may well ask, since the book's authors are not LDS, why they should be expected to accept our assumptions?
−
 
 
−
The reason the authors, Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, fail to contribute anything new of any significance isn't just because little of what they write is original and can be found in many other similar works (although there's certainly that); rather, it's because they insist on basing their arguments on their own preconceived assumptions, rather than trying to show how the Restored Gospel ("Mormonism") supposedly has inconsistencies or failures based on its assumptions. Put another way, you cannot show that an idea is wrong simply because it does not logically follow from your own assumptions-this merely shows that there is disagreement between your views and the other person's idea. Rather, you have to show how the other idea's conclusions are wrong based on neutral assumptions, or show that the assumptions upon which the other ideas are based are wrong.
 
−
 
 
−
One may well ask what's wrong with the approach taken by McKeever and Johnson. After all, they are not LDS, but are trying to attack LDS beliefs, so why should they be expected to buy into our assumptions?
 
−
 
 
−
The reason is that even if you don't accept an opponent's assumptions, you have to at least understand them and deal with them or you'll discredit yourself with neutral inquirers, and possibly even with your target audience, which in the case of Mormonism 101 is "Biblicists" who try to "witness" to Latter-day Saints. This is because, as will be shown time and again in this review, what McKeever and Johnson are actually criticizing are caricatures of the teachings of the Restored Gospel-teachings that they interpret on the basis of their own assumptions, rather than on ours. When the truth is examined, rather than caricatures or straw man arguments,2 works like Mormonism 101 lose their credibility. A polemical book that tries to ridicule the Restored Gospel-which is what Mormonism 101 is at heart-cannot afford to provide balanced arguments or it risks confusing the rather narrow world view of its intended audience of anti-Mormon "witnessers."3
 
  
 +
Marc Schindler notes,
 +
<blockquote>
 +
The reason is that even if you don't accept an opponent's assumptions, you have to at least understand them and deal with them or you'll discredit yourself with neutral inquirers, and possibly even with your target audience, which in the case of Mormonism 101 is "Biblicists" who try to "witness" to Latter-day Saints. This is because, as will be shown time and again in this review, what McKeever and Johnson are actually criticizing are caricatures of the teachings of the Restored Gospel-teachings that they interpret on the basis of their own assumptions, rather than on ours. When the truth is examined, rather than caricatures or straw man arguments,<ref>A [[Logical_fallacies/Page_4#Straw_man|straw man argument]] is when a person misrepresents another person's views, and argues against the misrepresentation instead of against the genuine view. It's called "straw man" because it's easier to do battle with a "scarecrow" of one's own devising than with a real, life enemy.</ref> works like Mormonism 101 lose their credibility. A polemical book that tries to ridicule the Restored Gospel-which is what Mormonism 101 is at heart-cannot afford to provide balanced arguments or it risks confusing the rather narrow world view of its intended audience of anti-Mormon "witnessers."<ref>For an example of why this assertion makes sense, see the second quotation-from the book's editorial description on Amazon.com-under the section entitled Weak Scholarship.</ref>
 +
<br><br>
 
Mormonism 101's failings can be summarized in terms of two very common errors, and the reader is encouraged to be on the lookout for them in each of the individual chapter reviews: The first error is what I call "preaching to the choir." Metaphorically speaking, if you think that a mirror is a window, your view of the "world" will be what you yourself already perceive, and you will be unable to see other points of view. Your logic will be circular, your thinking will merely confirm your preconceived notions, and your arguments will make sense only to those who already share your preconceived ideas. An example of this first type of error is if a person speaks only English, and reads the word gift, and then assumes that the English word is the only possible meaning; they could be making a grave error. For example, in German the word actually means poison! Of course this is a trivial example, but this type of error is made in Mormonism 101 time and time again with respect to both simple and obvious concepts, as well as regards more complex and subtle philosophical arguments-as readers will see.
 
Mormonism 101's failings can be summarized in terms of two very common errors, and the reader is encouraged to be on the lookout for them in each of the individual chapter reviews: The first error is what I call "preaching to the choir." Metaphorically speaking, if you think that a mirror is a window, your view of the "world" will be what you yourself already perceive, and you will be unable to see other points of view. Your logic will be circular, your thinking will merely confirm your preconceived notions, and your arguments will make sense only to those who already share your preconceived ideas. An example of this first type of error is if a person speaks only English, and reads the word gift, and then assumes that the English word is the only possible meaning; they could be making a grave error. For example, in German the word actually means poison! Of course this is a trivial example, but this type of error is made in Mormonism 101 time and time again with respect to both simple and obvious concepts, as well as regards more complex and subtle philosophical arguments-as readers will see.
−
 
+
<br><br>
 
The second common error I call "co-opting of Christianity;" the incorrect assumption that one particular viewpoint can be applied to a wider audience, thereby deliberately excluding others on that near-sighted basis. An example of the second type of error is assuming that a very narrow and specific movement within Christendom, such as Biblicism (which I'll define shortly), constitutes "orthodox Christianity," thereby excluding 99% of all other Christians-not just Latter-day Saints, but also Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, mainstream Protestants and so on. This is the error one encounters most often in Mormonism 101-the assumption that the authors alone know what constitutes "real" Christianity.
 
The second common error I call "co-opting of Christianity;" the incorrect assumption that one particular viewpoint can be applied to a wider audience, thereby deliberately excluding others on that near-sighted basis. An example of the second type of error is assuming that a very narrow and specific movement within Christendom, such as Biblicism (which I'll define shortly), constitutes "orthodox Christianity," thereby excluding 99% of all other Christians-not just Latter-day Saints, but also Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, mainstream Protestants and so on. This is the error one encounters most often in Mormonism 101-the assumption that the authors alone know what constitutes "real" Christianity.
 +
</blockquote>
  
−
It is necessary to know a bit about Biblicism in order to understand where McKeever and Johnson are coming from. Biblicists claim that Latter-day Saints do not accept the Bible. Naturally, we do,4 but we believe it to be a record of the Word of God, not an und für sich (in and of itself, or existentially) the Word of God itself. Biblicism confuses the message with the messenger, in other words. We do not believe in a closed canon-we believe in continuing revelation-and we also recognize that the Bible, like any written record from the past, is open to interpretation-by the humans who wrote it, the humans who translated it, and the humans who read it. In the absence of continuing revelation this can lead to the chaos one sees in the Protestant world today.
+
{{Endnotes label}}
−
 
+
<references />
−
One of the circular arguments of Biblicism is that many of the ideas that they think are Biblical-concepts like Trinitarianism, rejection of the anthropomorphic nature of God (the belief that we are literally God's children), rejection of the need for prophets, belief in creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), rejection of baptism for the dead, and many other beliefs-all arose after the Bible was written. So what they think is Biblical is, ironically, the product of the philosophy of man mingled with a bit of scripture. When we reject Biblicism we are not rejecting the Bible, we are rejecting creedal Christianity-the brand of Christianity that arose during the Great Apostasy.
 
−
 
 
−
It reminds me of a humorous story told about Texas Governor James Ferguson. When asked why he vetoed a bill funding the teaching of Spanish in Texas schools in 1917, he allegedly said, "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for the schoolchildren of Texas."5 Substitute the philosophies of Gnosticism, Platonism and other Greek influences, all mixed in with Byzantine politics. Then add on the accretions of the Reformation such as Calvinist denial of free will, Lutheran rejection of certain books of the New Testament, the early 19th century notion of "rapture" and the late 19th-century anti-intellectualist movement amongst Baptists, and the racism of early Southern Baptists. Substitute all that for "English" in the Texas governor's witticism, and the thousands of Biblicist Protestant sects for "the schoolchildren of Texas" and you have the kaleidoscope world of modern Biblicism-full of circles, contradictions, inconsistencies and the kind of logic that's like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.
 
−
 
 
−
Mike Ash's definition of Biblicism cuts to the core of the matter:
 
−
 
 
−
Biblicism: bib·li·cism (...) n. 1. A more neutral term for what some have referred to as Bibliolatry (Bible worship). Biblicism is the belief that the Bible is the sole source of truth to the point that the power by which Biblical ideas were given (i.e. Revelation from God) is overlooked. Biblicists fail to recognize that the Bible is not, in itself, revelation, but is rather a record of the revelations which God gave to his servants. God, of course (in LDS belief), continues to impart such revelations to his prophets today.6
 
−
 
 
−
A Biblicist world view may not make any difference when it comes to some topics, but when our critics attack us for doctrines that we claim to be restorations of original Christianity, they need to make clear that they are not actually representing doctrines which arose after the New Testament was written and which they are reading back into the New Testament, else their arguments are liable to be fallacious. This is where the ironically extra-biblical nature of Biblicism falls down. A Southern Baptist may reasonably dispute with a Methodist without this inherent contradiction giving way like a weak weld in a pipeline. But when the pressure is on in a different part of the pipe, so to speak-when disputing with a non-Biblicist-the pipe bursts at weak critical welds.
 
−
Weak Scholarship
 
−
 
 
−
Latter-day Saints are not the only ones to have noticed this blind spot in Biblicism, incidentally. Harold Bloom, Sterling Professor of Humanities at Yale and one of America's most distinguished literary critics (author of The Book of J and The Western Canon among others), has very harsh words for what we are calling Biblicists. He is speaking specifically of the Fundamentalist faction of the Southern Baptist Convention, but the criticism could be applied to all Biblicists:
 
−
 
 
−
Even as Fundamentalists insist upon the inerrancy of the Bible, they give up all actual reading of the Bible, since in fact its language is too remote and difficult for them to begin to understand. What is left is the Bible as physical object, limp and leather, a final icon or magical talisman. To read Criswell [an anti-intellectual leader of the Fundamentalist faction of the Southern Baptist Convention] or any other Fundamentalist clergyman on the Bible is almost a literal impossibility, at least for me, because they are not writing about the text, in any sense whatsoever of text, or of that text. They write about their own dogmatic social, political, cultural, moral, and even economic convictions, and biblical texts simply are quoted, with frenetic abandon, whether or not they in any way illustrate or even approach the areas where the convictions center. They are quoted also as though they interpreted themselves and were perfectly transparent in their meanings.7
 
−
 
 
−
The co-opting of Christianity by a tiny but vocal group of professional Biblicist anti-Mormons is demonstrated beautifully by the editorial review of Mormonism 101 on Amazon.com:
 
−
 
 
−
Mormonism is one of the fastest growing religions in the world, with over five million Mormons in the United States alone. For those who have wondered in what specific ways Mormonism differs from the Christian faith [note the co-opting terminology], Mormonism 101 provides definitive answers.
 
−
 
 
−
Introducing their study with this provocative quotation from Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie: "Mormonism is Christianity; Christianity is Mormonism; they are one and the same." The authors refute that claim. They examine the major tenets of Mormon theology and compare them with orthodox Christian beliefs [there it is again]. Their helpful, point-by-point study contains succinct conclusions at the end of each major section and numerous quotes from authoritative Mormon sources.
 
−
 
 
−
In addition, Mormonism 101 offers practical, end-of-chapter witnessing tips. Readers will not only learn about Mormon teachings but will also be better equipped to witness to friends and family within the Mormon church. This book is also a valuable resource for students studying cults and comparative religion, as well as for organizations and ministries that reach out to Mormons.8
 
−
 
 
−
When knowledgeable LDS read Mormonism 101 they will see all this and quickly consign this work to the less sophisticated bin of anti-Mormonism, rather than being a truly scholarly and neutral treatment of the Restored Gospel. Ironically, even knowledgeable Biblicists and other Christians will see this in Mormonism 101 and will likewise avoid using McKeever and Johnson in time, even if they learn the hard way by using McKeever and Johnson against knowledgeable LDS and come away the worse for the encounter. There are honest critics of the Gospel, those who, while perhaps misguided in our eyes, are sincere and well trained in scholarly techniques. McKeever and Johnson do not belong to this group.
 
−
 
 
−
Incidentally, an evangelical Christian who goes under the pseudonym J.P. Holding gave Mormonism 101 a less than sterling rating on his Web site, even though one would assume they're all on the same side. One of the reasons was McKeever and Johnson's failure to come to grips with the new generation of amateur LDS apologists (that is, non-BYU professors, nor General Authorities) that has cropped up:
 
−
 
 
−
I was very disappointed that there was not greater interaction with modern Mormon apologetic efforts. Names like [Richard] Hopkins [a Salt Lake City area attorney] and [BYU Professor of Arabic, and FARMS executive director Daniel] Peterson are barely discovered. I will grant that this was obviously intended as an introductory book… We recommend Mormonism 101 for all who are taking their initial steps into this field-but be aware of its limitations."9
 
−
 
 
−
Which brings us to consider the "coyotes" of the anti-Mormon world-those creatures of prey that do not particularly care if they are "right" in some transcendent and meaningful manner, so long as they can cull the flocks of the Gospel of its weak, ignorant and spiritually ailing. A Machiavellian approach, this is sometimes known wryly as "lying for Jesus." The irony is, of course, that they thereby strengthen the flock, although we must not at the same time allow ourselves to be cavalier about the fate of the "culled."
 
−
 
 
−
As you read Mormonism 201 I would invite you to keep these two underlying misconceptions of Biblicism in mind-assuming that the Restored Gospel can be judged on Biblicist principles, and the co-opting (almost one could say "hijacking") of Christianity by a small squad of "theo-terrorists." The author of the reviews of each chapter will make these points time and time again.
 
−
*[[/Introduction|Introduction]]
 
−
 
 
−
==Index of Claims==
 
−
*[[/Index|Index of Claims]]
 
−
 
 
−
==Quote mining, selective quotation and distortion==
 
−
*[[/Quote mining|Quote mining]]
 
−
 
 
−
==Endnotes==
 
−
Endnotes
 
−
 
 
−
1 Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000). Bill McKeever is a professional anti-Mormon, being the founder of Mormonism Research Ministry in El Cajon CA; Eric Johnson is an employee of the Mormonism Research Ministry.
 
−
 
 
−
2 A straw man argument is when a person misrepresents another person's views, and argues against the misrepresentation instead of against the genuine view. It's called "straw man" because it's easier to do battle with a "scarecrow" of one's own devising than with a real, life enemy.
 
−
 
 
−
3 For an example of why this assertion makes sense, see the second quotation-from the book's editorial description on Amazon.com-under the section entitled Weak Scholarship.
 
−
 
 
−
4 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. (Eighth Article of Faith)
 
−
 
 
−
5 http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/azrael/hquotes.html, http://www.infosatellite.com/news/2002/02/p250202quotes.html. Sometimes this quote is attributed to a slightly later governor, Miriam "Ma" Ferguson: http://www.epinions.com/book-review-68D7-54C270E-3859CBFF-prod5, inter alia.
 
−
 
 
−
6 "Apologeez: the Language of LDS Apologists," www.mormonfortress.com/gloss2.html.
 
−
 
 
−
7 Harold Bloom, The American Religion (New York City: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 222.
 
−
 
 
−
8 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0801063353/reviews/ref=pm_dp_ln_b_6/103-8171047-9077419
 
−
 
 
−
9 http://www.tektonics.org/BM.M101_0801063353.html#Review
 

Latest revision as of 22:48, 11 May 2024

Contents


To learn more about responses to: McKeever and Johnson
Wiki links
Navigators

Response to "Mormonism 101"



A FAIR Analysis of: Mormonism 101, a work by author: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson

Response to claims made in "Mormonism 101" by Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson


Jump to details:


Introduction to Mormonism 101: Back to School by David Waltz

Summary: I have been an ardent student of Mormonism since 1987. It has been my intent, from the beginning of my studies, to be as objective as humanly possible in my examination. I have seriously studied Mormonism from many different angles. In the process, I have accumulated more than 1,700 books on Mormonism, including more than 150 anti-Mormon books. Add to this my collection of BYU Studies, Dialogue, Sunstone, and the vast majority of FARMS publications, and one could say I have a fairly substantial Mormon collection. I guess word of my studies has "gotten around," and I have been asked to contribute to FAIR's review of McKeever and Johnson's Mormonism 101.



Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 1: God the Father"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 2: Jesus"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 3: The Trinity"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 4: Preexistence and the Second Estate"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 5: The Fall"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 6: Apostasy"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 7: The Bible"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 8: The Book of Mormon"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 9: The Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 10: The Atonement"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 11: Grace and Works"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 12: Heaven and Hell"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 13: Communion and Baptism"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 14: The Word of Wisdom"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 15: The Temple"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 16: Lamanites, Seed of Cain, and Polygamy"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 17: Joseph Smith"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 18: The Church and Its Leadership"


Jump to details:


Response to Mormonism 101, Quote mining

Summary: The authors mine their sources by extracting quotes from their context in order to make the statement imply something other that what it was originally intended to mean.



About this work

When students enroll in a class called "101" they expect a comprehensive and sympathetic introduction to the subject at hand. For example, if you signed up for a university course called Astronomy 101, you'd expect an introduction to the principles of astronomy, including how the study of astronomy has improved our lives. You'd be shocked if your professor taught that astronomy was wrong, and that, say, astrology was a better way to understand the physical universe. It is a sign of the fundamental flaws in Mormonism 101 that it does exactly that-presents itself as a religious primer when it is polemics; a more honest title would have been Anti-Mormonism 101.

—Marc Schindler

∗       ∗       ∗

Mormonism 101 contributes absolutely nothing new to the body of anti-Mormonism-there is nothing in the book that hasn't been written about elsewhere. It is simply another example of modern-day professional anti-Mormonism—attacking the Restored Gospel for money.[1] The authors insist on basing their arguments on their own preconceived assumptions, rather than trying to show how the Restored Gospel (which they refer to as "Mormonism") supposedly has inconsistencies or failures based on its assumptions. One may well ask, since the book's authors are not LDS, why they should be expected to accept our assumptions?

Marc Schindler notes,

The reason is that even if you don't accept an opponent's assumptions, you have to at least understand them and deal with them or you'll discredit yourself with neutral inquirers, and possibly even with your target audience, which in the case of Mormonism 101 is "Biblicists" who try to "witness" to Latter-day Saints. This is because, as will be shown time and again in this review, what McKeever and Johnson are actually criticizing are caricatures of the teachings of the Restored Gospel-teachings that they interpret on the basis of their own assumptions, rather than on ours. When the truth is examined, rather than caricatures or straw man arguments,[2] works like Mormonism 101 lose their credibility. A polemical book that tries to ridicule the Restored Gospel-which is what Mormonism 101 is at heart-cannot afford to provide balanced arguments or it risks confusing the rather narrow world view of its intended audience of anti-Mormon "witnessers."[3]

Mormonism 101's failings can be summarized in terms of two very common errors, and the reader is encouraged to be on the lookout for them in each of the individual chapter reviews: The first error is what I call "preaching to the choir." Metaphorically speaking, if you think that a mirror is a window, your view of the "world" will be what you yourself already perceive, and you will be unable to see other points of view. Your logic will be circular, your thinking will merely confirm your preconceived notions, and your arguments will make sense only to those who already share your preconceived ideas. An example of this first type of error is if a person speaks only English, and reads the word gift, and then assumes that the English word is the only possible meaning; they could be making a grave error. For example, in German the word actually means poison! Of course this is a trivial example, but this type of error is made in Mormonism 101 time and time again with respect to both simple and obvious concepts, as well as regards more complex and subtle philosophical arguments-as readers will see.

The second common error I call "co-opting of Christianity;" the incorrect assumption that one particular viewpoint can be applied to a wider audience, thereby deliberately excluding others on that near-sighted basis. An example of the second type of error is assuming that a very narrow and specific movement within Christendom, such as Biblicism (which I'll define shortly), constitutes "orthodox Christianity," thereby excluding 99% of all other Christians-not just Latter-day Saints, but also Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, mainstream Protestants and so on. This is the error one encounters most often in Mormonism 101-the assumption that the authors alone know what constitutes "real" Christianity.


Notes

  1. ↑ Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000). ( Index of claims ) Bill McKeever is a professional anti-Mormon, being the founder of Mormonism Research Ministry in El Cajon, CA; Eric Johnson is an employee of the Mormonism Research Ministry.
  2. ↑ A straw man argument is when a person misrepresents another person's views, and argues against the misrepresentation instead of against the genuine view. It's called "straw man" because it's easier to do battle with a "scarecrow" of one's own devising than with a real, life enemy.
  3. ↑ For an example of why this assertion makes sense, see the second quotation-from the book's editorial description on Amazon.com-under the section entitled Weak Scholarship.
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Mormonism_101&oldid=257884"