Mormon visits: Episode 8

Text messages since our last meeting

Me: Nice chatting with you yesterday!

Me: I have just sent a copy of one of your images to an Egyptologist named Joann Fletcher, who works in the archaeology department at the university of York. Do you remember you said you would be willing to consider the possibility that the Book of Mormon was invented by Joseph Smith? What do you think the implications might be if his translations turn out to be wrong?

Me: Are you getting these messages? I think we need to talk. Can you come around tomorrow?

Them: We can come tonight.

They turned up looking very dejected. I greeted them and invited them in, they declined, saying that they don’t really have very long. “This isn’t a five minute thing,” I told them, “do you think you can come back another day?”

They looked at each other awkwardly, then French guy said “That’s the thing. You see, we’ve been talking about this and we think we shouldn’t come to visit you any more.” I was quite taken back by this, not because I wasn’t expecting it but because I wasn’t expecting it to be the first thing they said.  I don’t really recall what happened next. I do remember that I told them I had received a reply from the Egyptologist I had written to, and went to get it.

I handed them a copy each. It was the image that Smith drew and then the email contents. I had asked Joann to select A/B answers to indicate which of the two descriptions (if any) were most accurate. One would be the Smith explanation, and the other was the scholarly explanation. I even randomly shuffled them between A and B. French guy held his and just moved his hand to his side as if he wasn’t even holding it, USA guy folded it in half, and then made the crease very precise using his nails, in a way that showed me he was folding it with deliberation. “We are not going to read this” the French guy said.

“Why not?” I asked.

“We already know what it says,” USA guy said, “and we know it’s not good in favour of Mormonism.”

“I don’t understand,” I told them, “what do you mean?”

USA guy said “People say that it’s wrong.”

“So why won’t you look at it?” I asked.

“Because we don’t go by evidence” USA guy said. “Evidence is not important to us, we go by our testimony”

“But to do that you are willing to ignore evidence?” I asked.

“Have you done this research yourself?” USA guy asked.

“Yes,” I said, “I looked up what Egyptologists say the meanings are, then I printed out the picture and sent it to an Egypologist and asked if she would indicate which was correct in each case, and the answers are on that piece of paper.”

“I’ll bet you money she has seen this before,” USA guy said, “she knows what this is, she’ll have heard of it.”

I told him that it is obvious she will have seen it before because it is quite a common piece of evidence found in archaeology, “but that doesn’t mean she’ll know anything at all about it’s links with Mormonism.”

USA guy then asked me something about how I know she knew, or something along those lines. I told him “She can read hieroglyphs, she read it.”

“Do you know that?” he asked?

“Yes,” I told him. “I know because the black guy at the end, who Smith says is a slave, was identified by her as Anubis. She wrote that although the picture doesn’t have the typical Jackal head she, was able to tell who it was because she read it in the text written above him. So are you going to look at it?”

“No” they said.

“Why not?” I asked.

French guy gave me the same old stuff about how he has testimony from the Holy Spirit. I was really frustrated. USA tried to say something and I started to talk over him. I realised I was getting wound up so I said “I just started to talk over you, my brain was racing away and I shouldn’t have done that. I’m sorry, please tell me what you was going to say” and I sat down on the floor.

USA guy started to tell me about how my approach was wrong. Because of my past experiences I wasn’t willing to listen to the Holy Spirit and wanted to find proof. I told him I had found proof, but unfortunately it was proof against his position. He asked what I meant

“Evidence is something you collect,” I told him, “at some point you might find you have enough evidence to feel that it proves something, that is when you have proof. In my opinion, what you are holding in your hands is not just evidence, it’s proof!”

“Proof of what?” USA guy asked.

I told him “It is proof that Joseph Smith could not translate Egyptian hieroglyphs.”

“But this is the evidence of men” USA guy said.

“No it’s not,” I said, “it’s the evidence of A man. That man is Joseph Smith, the man you think is a prophet of God. It is a picture drawn with his own hands, and translation of the words on that picture that he also wrote with his own hands. This isn’t someone later recalling what they think he said years earlier, this is physical evidence of something that we know has not changed. This is the first time we have the before and after evidence to compare.”

“But any mistakes are the mistakes of men” said the USA guy.

“Sure, “I said. “We have already agreed that the original account was made by humans and so we can expect errors there. We have also agreed that the corrections made later were made by humans without divine instruction and that is why the same mistake elsewhere in the book was missed. The only thing we have left now tying The Book of Mormon to a divine entity is the claim that Smith could translate Egyptian hieroglyphs into English, and there in your hand you have physical evidence that he couldn’t.”

“No, we also have testimony” the French guy said.

I said to him “Are you really telling me that you are going to ignore evidence in favour how nice it feels when you close your eyes and think about something you like?”

“Yes” he said.

I asked if they knew that the document Smith said was written with Abraham’s own hand had been carbon dated and was about 1500 years too young.”

“What was dated? Where did it come from?” USA guy asked. I explained how the documents had been split into three scrolls and three sets of fragments of those scrolls. The scrolls burned in a museum fire, but the fragments were discovered elsewhere and dated.

“They won’t be the actual scrolls,” USA guy said, “the ones he translated from we don’t have.”

I told him that we do have fragments of the one Smith translated from, and we know this because of what Smith drew and what the Book of Abraham says about the contents of the scrolls. “I have spent some time collecting evidence, will you at least look at it?”

“No” they both said, shaking their heads with a mixture of what seemed to be a mixture of defiance, and pride in that defiance. I was honestly completely gob smacked.

“You actually won’t even look at evidence?”

“No” they said.

“Why not?”

USA guy smiled and said. “I am here on my Mormon Mission, do you think I am just going to pack up now and go home or something?”

“I don’t expect anything,” I told him. “I have no idea what you will make of the evidence. You might read it and just outright disagree with it. I don’t know what you will think. I am not interested in making you think things, I am only concerned that you won’t look at evidence just so that you can keep thinking them.”

French guy explained that the problem with proof is that it takes away our ability to have faith. “I think you are wrong.” I told him. “Take evolution as an example. There is more evidence for evolution than there is for just about anything else we know of. There is an abundance of it, and it spans across all areas of science; yet there are still people who reject it despite the proof. In addition to this, even knowing that there is a God I still have the option to choose to do right or wrong. I know that killing babies is wrong, I don’t need to believe or disbelieve in a God to know that.”

USA guy went on to explain that with proof I would have no option other than to believe it is true. “Then you don’t have the option of mercy,” he told me. “If you do something wrong and then die, God can show you mercy because you didn’t know about the mercy of Jesus. The only way to receive mercy when you believe is through the salvation of Jesus.”

“I don’t understand” I told him. “So if I don’t believe in the salvation of Jesus and do something wrong then God will forgive me for my ignorance, but if I do believe in the salvation of Jesus and I do something wrong then God will forgive me for believing in Jesus?”

“Erm, not exactly” USA guy said. “If you sin when you know it is true and you sin then you get cut off, no mercy, the end. Even if you make the littlest sin like a thought then you can be cut off if you don’t repent.”

“I don’t think anyone should ever be punished for a thought,” I told him.

French guy said “We are not going to come around any more, and we are not going to discuss religion with you any more. If you text us anything then we will not reply.”

“That’s a shame,” I told him, “because I like you guys, you are fun to talk to. I am okay with not discussing religion with you any more, but it would be nice if you could sometimes just say hello and we could ask each other how we are doing.”

“Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We like you too, that would be nice” USA guy said.

“We would like to thank you for the time you have given us” French guy said.

“So,” I asked, “are you willing to take these documents with you?”

“No” they said.

“How about this then?” I continued, “You don’t know what the Holy Spirit is or is not going to tell you to do. So how about you take them with you. Don’t read them, but just don’t throw them away. If one day the Holy Spirit says to look at them then they are there for you.”

“In that case I can just look on the Internet” USA guy said.

“No, I don’t think that’s a good idea,” I told him. “There are a lot of emotional people on the Internet making arguments from their emotions. Not only is this not a good way to decide what is true you will find that there are people out there who will be outright offensive. I don’t want you to be put off by it, and I wouldn’t want you to get upset either. So why not take it, and if the Holy Spirit tells you to, then read it.”

“I’ll tell you what,” USA guy said. “I will take your email address, and then if the Holy Spirit tells me to read it I will write to you and ask for it.” I knew this was the best I was going to get, so I agreed.

USA guy said “Please continue to read The Book of Mormon, and please keep praying. But we will not answer any questions you have, you will have to find the answers yourself. We won’t answer any of your text messages….well, unless you text us to tell us you have received your testimony.”

“Okay,” I said. “From this point onwards we shall not discuss religion, but will you do me a favour?” I asked.

“What is it?” asked USA guy.

“You believe you have this additional tool for discovering truth that for some reason I cannot access. So could you please keep praying for something for me?”

“What do you want me to pray for?” USA guy asked.

“You believe that Smith translated Egyptian hieroglyphs into English despite the original evidence of the plates not being available, and yet at the same time can see that he couldn’t translate Egyptian into English based on the physical evidence you have in your hand. To me that’s logically inconsistent, you have to believe two opposite things at the same time.”

“Hmm,” USA guy said, “I really don’t understand why that is, but I know the Book of Mormon is true and Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.

“When we met I told you I was interested in your brains, and this is exactly the kind of thing I am interested in” I told them. “Holding two opposing facts as true at the same time is really interesting. So, no matter how long it takes would you keep praying for an answer to me? Could you pray for an answer which explains why Smith got the translation wrong for the facsimile he drew? Please keep thinking about it, and if in a year’s time or something you get an answer that makes sense to you then please email me and tell me what it is. I won’t use it as an opportunity to discuss religion with you, I just want you to keep thinking about it.”

Then they left, and I threw lots of printed paper in the recycle bin.

PS: TV programme has started on Channel 4 called “Meet the Mormons”. The narrator said that during their mission work they are not allowed to use their first names, that’ll explain why I always found it so difficult to get them to respond using their “real” names.

2 comments

  • Anonymous

    u/_TheRationalizer_
    At OP I don’t know you at all, but you appear to have an agenda and insist that said agenda is finding the truth, but your underlying agenda seems to be to get these Missionaries to come to the conclusion that their own Religion is false;
    In Episode 4 Your 13th paragraph says:
    “I pretended to be surprised and asked”
    In your 17th paragraph you said:
    “Then one of them looked sheepish, as if he was about to confess something. He asked “have you read about Benjamin?” I knew what he was talking about but didn’t want to appear to know too much, so I simply told him that I haven’t read that far yet, and asked him what it is about.”

    If you need to be dishonest with those who you chose to converse, how are you any different than modern day Mormonism?
    Ironically just a few paragraphs more and you speak of honesty, whilst being duplicitous yourself.
    Paragraph 22,23,24:
    “If the book was in error and said Benjamin, and then when it was realised it couldn’t have been Benjamin the book was changed to another name, what options do you think you would have to consider?”
    The silence was quite golden, I could almost hear the whizzing noise of their brains processing.  Then the guy from Utah said it. “Joseph Smith wrote it”. I asked him to be clear “Do you mean he authored the book?” “Yes, ” he said, “I would say that Joseph Smith made it all up”. His friend nodded and said “Well yes, of course”. They were sheepish and very cautious, but adamant that if this is what had happened then it could only mean that Joseph Smith had made it all up.
    I gave him a very positive response, I smiled and shook his hand. I thanked him for his honesty. I told him that if he hadn’t said that then I would have known he was being dishonest and I would not have trusted him from that point on. He said “No, well I should be honest with you”. I congratulated him on even entertaining the idea, and even more so for saying it out loud.”
    Going back to Episode 3 Paragraph 5 reads:
    “I wasn’t interested in proving him right or wrong on this, I just pointed out how fantastic it was that we had a question, we got an answer, and then we looked at the evidence to decide if the answer was correct. I am trying to get them to see that checking the evidence is not arrogant or sinful but just common sense, and when what you believe is true then the evidence can only help to support your case.”
    But clearly, you do have an agenda.
    Episode 4 Paragraph 31 says: “I didn’t mention Smith’s multiple marriages because I do not yet have the evidence, and our meeting was over anyway.”
    Earlier you spoke of trust, while choosing to be duplicitous. I should think that the same standards which you hold others too, should first apply to yourself.
    Episode 1 Paragraph 2 says:
    “I’ve little or no knowledge of Mormonism so I thought it might be a good opportunity to learn.”
    Yet, in Episode 2 you link directly to this document:
    https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1#!/paperSummary/history-circa-summer-1832&p=3
    While supposedly having little or no knowledge about Mormonism.
    Ironically in Episode 5 you said:
    “It would show that some people knew things that other people did not know.”
    You’re referencing Benjamin being changed to Mosiah, and I’m referencing that you know more in regards to Mormonism, than you want these Elders to know you knew.
    Finally to drive that point home you said:
    “They looked at their watches and said that they had to leave, indicating that our journey had gone as far as it possibly could because I had obviously made my mind up already and there wasn’t much point in them coming back. I told them to remember that I had previously told them that even if up to the last page I thought the Book of Mormon was man made I’d continue to read it because I wouldn’t make a final decision until I had read every word, because there might be something on the last page that completely changes my mind. They said that they remembered.
    I told them that if they don’t come back it will be a shame because I like them. I told them that if ever they are passing and want a drink they can come and say hello and if I need to I will promise to not discuss religion with them then I would honour that promise. I reassured them that I am only collecting evidence to help me to make up my mind, and I have only found evidence that the LDS website has led me to.
    “Exactly!” they said. I took this to mean “If it was anything untoward about this then the LDS wouldn’t tell you about it”. I suggested this and they confirmed. I said “but that still doesn’t mean it makes sense to me”. The American guy was really frustrated “This is really frustrating for me. I just know it’s true” he said. I told him “Yes, you feel it is true in a very special way but you are frustrated because you can’t just take it out of your body and give it to me?”
    “Yes!” he said. “How can I convince you it’s true if everything I have ever believed in….you’ve blown out of the water?”
    They wanted to leave so we finished with a prayer that I led. I deliberately placed myself between them so that they would see me in the position of importance/authority (centre of the group) and prayed asking if there is a God to please let us all know what the truth is, to guide us to the truth and to not let our emotions get in the way; and if there is no truth you (God) are trying to give us then give us the wisdom to realise that we are only hearing our own thoughts and desires just like followers of every other religion do.”
    And finally you said:
    “I implored them to never stop looking at the evidence. I told them that if God didn’t want them to see some specific evidence then that evidence would not exist. It’s not about finding proof for your belief, but instead making sure that you are being honest with yourself and knowing that you believe what you because you are convinced it is true rather than because you have refused to think about certain things.”
    Episode 6:
    At the beginning, I accused you of having an agenda. And now I finally came to said agenda.
    You said: “I was pleased that they had taken a step towards accepting their book was not divinely micro-managed.”
    And: “I am looking forward to seeing how they deal with Smith’s massively erroneous interpretations of the ancient papyrus he illustrated and translated.”
    Episode 8:
    You said: “I don’t expect anything,” I told him. “I have no idea what you will make of the evidence. You might read it and just outright disagree with it. I don’t know what you will think. I am not interested in making you think things, I am only concerned that you won’t look at evidence just so that you can keep thinking them.”
    Lets be honest, this isn’t true. You do expect something. You expect these Elder’s to arrive at the same conclusion you arrived at, that based on the evidence presented that their belief is not true.
    Previously you said: “French guy gave me the same old stuff about how he has testimony from the Holy Spirit. I was really frustrated. USA tried to say something and I started to talk over him. I realised I was getting wound up so I said “I just started to talk over you, my brain was racing away and I shouldn’t have done that. I’m sorry, please tell me what you was going to say” and I sat down on the floor.”
    I wonder what conclusion you would draw if someone could read everything you wrote, which in reality isn’t any different than the https://cesletter.org/CES-Letter.pdf and still choose to believe.
    I also wonder why you needed this ruse of not knowing anything about Mormonism, when it was obviously, not true. You knew things before this meeting.
    You said: “I said to him “Are you really telling me that you are going to ignore evidence in favour how nice it feels when you close your eyes and think about something you like?”
    “Yes” he said.”
    Why do you have a need to destroy someone else’s faith? Does their belief impugn your evidence? It doesn’t. I guess your dialogue wouldn’t have lasted as long if you would have just asked about the CES letter to begin with.

    Reply
    • The Rationalizer

      Thanks for your comment. I will answer inline…

      > At OP I don’t know you at all, but you appear to have an agenda and insist that said agenda is finding the truth, but your underlying agenda seems to be to get these Missionaries to come to the conclusion that their own Religion is false;

      Both are true. If two parties hold mutually exclusive positions then one party is clearly wrong. I didn’t care if it was me or them. If it was me then I wanted to be convinced so I could change my mind (“finding the truth”). If it was them then I wanted them to realise their religion is false. To be objective you should only care about being right in the end, not that you were right in the beginning.

      But I was also just fine with nobody changing their minds. As I said at the beginning, I was very interested in their brains. I am interested in how people believe more than what they believe. I was interested in how they would react to challenging questions, if they would have credible answers, what they would do when they didn’t, etc.

      My ultimate goal was for us to agree. Both sides believed we were in the right at the start, I just wanted us all to agree in the end – regardless of who changed their mind.

      > “I pretended to be surprised and asked”
      > If you need to be dishonest with those who you chose to converse, how are you any different than modern day Mormonism?

      You are misunderstanding how I pretended to be surprised. I actually didn’t know there were different sects in Mormonism, but when they said there were I was surprised to learn it (because I hadn’t thought of it), but at the same time part of me was saying “are you really that surprised? It’s religion, all religions diverge!”

      So my “pretended to be surprised” wasn’t about me knowing, it was me trying not to portray “Yeah, I’m not surprised” – whilst also trying to show them I was interested in hearing more (which I was).

      > Ironically just a few paragraphs more and you speak of honesty, whilst being duplicitous yourself…..But clearly, you do have an agenda.

      Yes, I had multiple agendas. Ultimately I wanted them to agree with me, or for me to agree with them. As I said, I didn’t care which happened. I wanted both sides to air their thought processes. I wanted them to challenge my beliefs just as I wanted to challenge theirs (and they wanted to challenge mine). My agenda was fair, I was willing to go either way, their agenda was only to convert me.

      The other part of my agenda (as I stated) was that I wanted them to feel free to entertain whatever thoughts they wished, so they could be free thinkers. What conclusions they reach with that mental freedom is completely up to them.

      > “I didn’t mention Smith’s multiple marriages because I do not yet have the evidence, and our meeting was over anyway.”
      > Earlier you spoke of trust, while choosing to be duplicitous. I should think that the same standards which you hold others too, should first apply to yourself.

      I explicitly said why I didn’t mention it. “Because I do not yet have the evidence”. This proves two points
      1: I didn’t know much about Mormonism, as I said
      2: I don’t just read anti-Mormon sites and assume they are true. I needed to find hard evidence (which the LDS website gave me).

      I’m not going to jump in with “Joseph Smith was a polygamist” until I know it is true. Just as with Islam I didn’t jump in with “Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old” until I had found the evidence for myself. Making claims you haven’t verified is a dick thing to do. It not only makes you look ignorant, but also easily deceived in the cases where you turn out to be wrong.

      > Episode 1 Paragraph 2 says: “I’ve little or no knowledge of Mormonism so I thought it might be a good opportunity to learn.”
      > Yet, in Episode 2 you link directly to this document:

      As I said in the 1st part, I would buy an 1830’s print of The Book of Mormon. That’s the kind of you find when searchng for old Mormon artefacts. I didn’t know this information in advance, nor did I suddenly know it. The 2nd meeting was a whole week after the first, it’s not hard to find one or two old documents using Google given a week.

      > “It would show that some people knew things that other people did not know.”
      > You’re referencing Benjamin being changed to Mosiah, and I’m referencing that you know more in regards to Mormonism, than you want these Elders to know you knew.

      At the time they mentioned it I had never heard of this Benjamin/Mosiah thing. I was pleased he told me. The thing to remember is that I would write up these blogs after the meeting (obviously). At the time I knew nothing, by the time I wrote the account I would have checked some of the things they told me so I know what I’d like to talk about in the next visit. That’s why it says “Thought as I write” and not “I kept quiet that I knew….”

      You then go on to quote lots of what I wrote without making a point, so I don’t know how to respond.

      > You said: “I don’t expect anything,…I have no idea what you will make of the evidence. You might read it and just outright disagree with it. I don’t know what you will think. I am not interested in making you think things, I am only concerned that you won’t look at evidence just so that you can keep thinking them.”
      > Lets be honest, this isn’t true. You do expect something. You expect these Elder’s to arrive at the same conclusion you arrived at, that based on the evidence presented that their belief is not true.

      You are confusing the word “expect” and “want”. I didn’t expect anything from them. I wanted them to look at the evidence. We had reached a point now where the evidence was clear. I wanted them to accept the evidence and agree with me, yes, but that’s just where we ended up. If they had presented evidence as compelling as mine then I would have accepted their evidence and agreed with them.

      So, I wanted them to agree with me, but I absolutely didn’t expect it to happen. Religious people mostly don’t just throw up their arms and say “well, evidence is king, I no longer believe”. I expected them to look at the evidence (it surprised me that they didn’t). But, as I said, my ultimate goal was for us to agree with each other – no matter which route that took.

      > I also wonder why you needed this ruse of not knowing anything about Mormonism, when it was obviously, not true. You knew things before this meeting.

      I knew just about nothing about Mormonism before the first meeting. I had heard it was something to do with Hieroglyphs, was from America, I knew the name Joseph Smith, and I thought it was a polygamist religion.

      The mistake you are making is thinking that I only learned from these two guys, but that is not the case. After the first meeting I would check things they said, I would look for the 1830’s editing of the BoM. I would find related information of interest on the LDS site. Then I would discuss with them what I had found out about their claims.

      Really, it’s not very difficult to check stuff give Google and a week.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.