On March 22, 2025, Michael Thomas, a contributing writer, published an article titled The Challenge of Mormon 'Apologist', which takes aim at Latter-day Saint Christian Apologists, the foundational teachings and history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the efforts of modern LDS apologetics. This piece has been characterized as a "gotcha hit piece"—a critique designed not to foster understanding but to catch its target off guard with pointed accusations. In response, this post offers a careful and thorough examination of Thomas’s arguments, revealing the article for what it truly is: a work steeped in bias and misrepresentation. Beyond that, it seeks to encourage Evangelical Christian Apologists to look past such critiques, recognizing them as echoes of familiar anti-Mormon tropes that rely on perpetuated falsehoods, manipulative framing, and deceptive tactics.
A Closer Look at Thomas’s Critique
Thomas’s article sets out to challenge the credibility of Latter-day Saint apologetics by questioning the historical and doctrinal bedrock of the LDS Church. Yet, a mindful review of his arguments uncovers a pattern of selective interpretation and omission. For example, he critiques the LDS concept of priesthood authority—a cornerstone of the faith—without engaging with the biblical precedents that Latter-day Saints cite, such as prophetic succession or the restoration of divine keys. These ideas, rooted in scripture and central to LDS theology, are overlooked, leaving his analysis incomplete and his conclusions unconvincing. This omission suggests a reluctance to grapple with the full scope of the LDS position, undermining the article’s claim to scholarly rigor.
The “Gotcha” Approach and Its Shortcomings
What stands out most in Thomas’s piece is its tone and intent. Rather than inviting dialogue or wrestling with the complexities of interfaith disagreement, it leans heavily on a "gotcha" style—prioritizing rhetorical victories over substantive discussion. This approach reduces intricate theological and historical matters to oversimplified caricatures, trading depth for sensationalism. Such tactics may capture attention, but they fall short of fostering genuine understanding or advancing the conversation between faith communities. In this way, Thomas’s article reflects a broader trend in some apologetic circles, where scoring points often overshadows the pursuit of truth.
A Call for Thoughtful Engagement
True apologetics, whether from Latter-day Saints or Evangelicals, should aspire to a higher standard. It demands clarity of thought, a willingness to observe mindfully, and a commitment to respectful engagement. This means presenting one’s own beliefs with honesty—acknowledging both strengths and challenges—while extending the same courtesy to the perspectives of others. It also requires a dedication to truth, even when that truth complicates easy narratives. Unfortunately, Thomas’s piece sidesteps these principles, leaning instead on recycled criticisms that LDS scholars have addressed thoughtfully for decades. The result is a critique that feels more performative than probing.
An Invitation to Evangelical Apologists
To Evangelical Christian Apologists, this response extends an invitation: approach the LDS Faith with fresh eyes and rigorous inquiry. Engaging with Latter-day Saint beliefs means moving beyond surface-level attacks and wrestling with the historical and scriptural arguments that sustain them. The anti-Mormon tropes exemplified in Thomas’s article—built on distortion and half-truths—offer little of value to those seeking a meaningful exchange of ideas. Instead, let us pursue a dialogue grounded in mutual respect and intellectual honesty. Only through such an approach can we bridge the divide between our traditions and uncover insights that enrich both sides.
Building a Strawman Argument Fallacy and Begging the Question
Michael Thomas does not shy away from employing two logical fallacies right out of the gate. The first is begging the question - assuming the conclusion before offering any sound and reasonable evidence to support his assertions and claims. The second is an establishing a strawman argument of what he wants his readers to assume is true.
Perhaps you have noticed that engaging with Mormon apologists is not what it was. The Bible was once the almost exclusive province of the Christian apologist, with Mormons bringing an obviously ‘different gospel.’ They seem these days better informed, better prepared for the debate, the language of biblical studies and Christian Church history sitting more easily with them.
As will become evident - there is a very solid and sound reason many Latter-day Saint apologists are quite informed, better prepared for ongoing discussions, and properly ready for a debate of our faith, history, and teachings. And there is a reason the language of biblical studies and Christian Church history sits well with Latter-day Saint apologists. The short answer to this is based on the idea of due diligence. Not just understanding certain aspects of Biblical interpretation, Church History, Early Church Fathers, Hebrew and Greek Linguistics and nuances, archaeology, and other predominate areas of study. Our due diligence is the result of thoughtful and mindful engagement, study, and application of scriptures - compared to the reality that many modern Evangelicals are predominately shown to be quite illiterate of the Bible. Despite the efforts of Christian apologetics in our modern times.
Take for instance the following from an article published on January 1, 2010, at the Modern Reformation website The Problem of Evangelical Biblical Illiteracy:
... a good bit of the blame for the existing crisis has to fall at the feet of historic American evangelicalism itself. In his book Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know–and Doesn’t, Stephen Prothero has drawn our attention to various religious shifts that took place as a result of the evangelistic Second Great Awakening that shook American culture in the first half of the nineteenth century, key characteristics of which continue to typify contemporary evangelical attitudes. For instance, there was a shift from learning to feeling, as revivalists of the period emphasized a heartfelt and unmediated experience of Jesus himself over religious education. While this strategy resulted in increased conversions and the creation of numerous popular nondenominational voluntary associations, it also had the effect of requiring Christians to agree to disagree when it came to doctrinal matters. There was a corresponding shift from the Bible to Jesus, as more and more Christians came to believe that the key test of Christian faithfulness was not the affirmation of a creed or catechism, or knowledge of the biblical text, but the capacity to claim an emotional relationship with what Prothero calls “an astonishingly malleable Jesus–an American Jesus buffeted here and there by the shifting winds of the nation’s social and cultural preoccupations.”
The most important shift, according to Prothero, was the shift from theology to morality. The nondenominationalist trend among Protestants tended to avoid doctrinal conflicts by searching for agreements in the moral realm. Christian socialists, such as Charles Sheldon, taught us to ask not “What does the Bible say?” but “What would Jesus do?” Advocates of the Social Gospel, such as Walter Rauschenbusch, taught that it was more important to care for the poor than to memorize the Apostles’ Creed.
Christians schooled in this rather anti-intellectual, common-denominator evangelistic approach to faith responded to the later twentieth-century decline in church attendance by looking not to more substantial catechesis but to business and consumer models to provide strategies for growth. By now we’re all familiar with the story: increasing attendance by means of niche marketing led church leaders to frame the content of their sermons and liturgies according to the self-reported perceived needs of potential “seekers” shaped by the logic of consumerism. Now many American consumer-congregants have come to expect their churches to function as communities of goods and services that provide care and comfort without the kind of challenge and discipline required for authentic Christian formation to take place.
And if this is not compelling enough to understand the state of affairs among modern Evangelical Christian thinking, belief, and understanding - a Pew Research shows that Latter-day Saints have consistently scored higher in understanding the Bible, Christianity, and other religious information.
Now imagine if I were to write the same paragraph - how will that sit well with modern Evangelical Christians?
Perhaps you have noticed that engaging with Evangelical Christian Apologists is not what it was. The idea of critical thinking, testing all things like a Berean, and being honest was once the exclusive province of thoughtful dialogue and discussion of formal debate and apologetics, with Christians bringing lies and deceptions to support an obvious "false and different gospel". They seem these days uneducated, illiterate, and lazy learners who are not adequately equipped and better prepared for a serious discussion that requires a high level of critical thinking and understanding. They do not engage in any due diligence of studying and instead, give themselves over to regurgitate and perpetuate false information without testing the validity and credibility of whether or not such information holds actual truth or is deemed deceptive and dishonest. And yet, such attitude and behavior sit more easily for them because they don't want to admit being deceived and manipulated into believing falsehoods.
Most likely - it would not sit well with Evangelical Christian Apologists. And the reason it will not sit well with Evangelical Christian apologists is because it is quite accusatory, judgmental, and arrogant. It is the same with Thomas's opening statement in the article he wrote up and published at Reachout Trust Ministries website. However, he does not stop there. He continues:
Some Christians have found this intimidating because the Mormons are coming up with what look like substantive arguments, put across with big words. Others have found it frustrating because they know these Mormons are wrong but can't quite put their finger on what is being said because of how it is being said.
Here is the reality, the reason Christians may find it intimidating is because Latter-day Saints have come to understand and know what the Scriptures actually teach. They come to know and appreciate the rich history of the Restored Gospel, have come to understand the nuance historical aspect of Christian history in general and Latter-day Saint history specifically. It is not so many Christians are intimidated and uncertain because they think the "Mormons" are wrong. It is more to the point that Christians are intimidated because they finally have no excuse of being lazy learners, relying on perpetuated lies and deceptions that have been a long-standing mechanism and means of the counter-cult ministries since the late 1970's.
In fact, since the launch of the internet, and the early stages of online discussions - Latter-day Saint apologetic groups like FAIR (Faithful Answers, Informed Responses) and other long standing LDS Apologetic groups and organizations. These individuals were consistently combating the many lies and deceptions of the counter-cult ministry groups, and misinformed Evangelical and Protestant Christians.
Despite Thomas's obvious displeasure of Latter-day Saint apologetics having a firm foundation in defending our faith, history, and doctrine - he continues:
We seem to have to be on our mettle these days because the province of Christian history and biblical apologetics seems no longer exclusively our own. Latterly, Mormons appear to have discovered this territory and are determined to put their own spin on it all. What is happening?
What is happening, Michael Thomas, is that Latter-day Saints are not going to engage in any niceness culture when it comes to persistent, and perpetual lies and deceptions of our faith. Specifically, when it comes from very incompetent, lazy learning, and desperate Evangelical Christians who are nothing more than trollish keyboard warriors making hit gotcha statements via social media posts and discussions. If you are thoroughly offended by how Latter-day Saints are better equipped to defend our faith, our history, and our doctrines utilizing the Bible, Christian history, early church fathers, archaeology, linguistics, original Greek and Hebrew nuances of the Bible, then you best remove yourself from entering into the ring of apologetics and discussions.
1. The First Vision: Misrepresenting a Foundational Event
Article’s Claim
The article asserts that Joseph Smith’s First Vision—his encounter with God the Father and Jesus Christ—evolved over time, was not widely known until later, and is thus unreliable. It highlights differing accounts and suggests they contradict the official narrative, portraying Joseph Smith as a charlatan whose story grew to suit his theological whims.
LDS Response
This critique employs a strawman argument, misrepresenting the First Vision accounts as contradictory rather than complementary. Joseph Smith recorded multiple accounts of his 1820 vision (e.g., 1832, 1835, 1838), each tailored to its audience and purpose, not unlike the varying Gospel accounts of Christ’s life in the Bible (e.g., Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). For instance:
The 1832 account emphasizes Joseph’s personal forgiveness, reflecting an intimate, reflective tone.
The 1838 account, canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, highlights the broader restoration of the gospel, addressing a wider audience.
These differences do not indicate fabrication but rather context-driven retellings. Historical evidence shows early Church members were aware of the First Vision, even if the Book of Mormon and angel Moroni’s visitation dominated early narratives. The claim that it "held little currency" until later ignores its presence in sermons and writings, such as the 1842 Wentworth Letter.
The article’s assertion that the 1832 account was hidden until 1965 is misleading. While not widely published initially, it was preserved in Church archives, and its rediscovery reflects historical transparency, not suppression. The charge of contradiction stems from a sharpshooter fallacy, cherry-picking details to paint a false picture of inconsistency, rather than engaging with the accounts’ harmonious core: Joseph sought divine guidance and received a theophany.
2. Book of Mormon Evidence: Dismissing a Wealth of Scholarship
Article’s Claim
The article dismisses the Book of Mormon as lacking evidence, reducing it to Joseph Smith’s "story" of gold plates and divine encounters. It questions the witnesses’ testimonies, labeling them unreliable due to personal conflicts, and insists there’s no academic basis for the text.
LDS Response
This argument relies on the sharpshooter fallacy, selectively ignoring substantial Book of Mormon evidence while demanding an unrealistic standard of proof (e.g., the gold plates’ physical presence). LDS scholarship offers compelling internal and external support:
Internal Evidence: The Book of Mormon’s complex narrative, consistent with ancient Near Eastern literary forms (e.g., chiasmus in Alma 36), and detailed descriptions of warfare and culture (e.g., Helaman 11) suggest an origin beyond Joseph Smith’s 19th-century context.
External Corroboration: Scholars like John Sorenson have identified plausible geographic correlations in Mesoamerica, while Hugh Nibley documented parallels with ancient texts unavailable to Joseph Smith in 1829.
Witness Testimonies: The Three and Eight Witnesses affirmed the plates’ reality despite personal struggles or excommunications, a consistency unparalleled by the article’s comparison to the New Testament apostles, who also faced human flaws (e.g., Peter’s denial, Acts 2).
The burden-of-proof objection—that critics need not explain the book’s origin—sidesteps the robust case LDS scholars present. The article’s dismissal of this LDS scholarship as baseless overlooks peer-reviewed works from institutions like Brigham Young University, revealing a refusal to engage with evidence fairly.
3. Mormon Apologists and Academia: Mischaracterizing Scholarly Effort
Article’s Claim
The article accuses Mormon apologists of using "big words" and "confusing hermeneutics" to obscure a lack of evidence, suggesting their academic efforts (e.g., FARMS, FAIR) are a façade to prop up indefensible claims.
LDS Response
This critique is a strawman argument, caricaturing Latter-day Saint apologetics as obfuscation rather than recognizing its scholarly rigor. Organizations like the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS, now part of BYU’s Maxwell Institute) and FAIR produce research published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at academic conferences. Notable examples include:
- John Sorenson’s An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, exploring archaeological parallels.
- Hugh Nibley’s extensive analyses of ancient scripture, bridging LDS theology with historical context.
Far from hiding behind jargon, LDS scholars engage openly with critics and peers, contributing to fields like biblical studies and archaeology. The article’s portrayal of this work as a post-World War II novelty ignores earlier efforts by figures like James E. Talmage and B.H. Roberts, whose works laid a foundation for modern LDS scholarship. The claim of superficiality fails to address this depth, opting for ad hominem dismissal over substantive critique.
4. Gods Many and Lords Many: Misinterpreting Exaltation Theology
Article’s Claim
The article contrasts the Bible’s monotheism (e.g., Isaiah 44:6, 1 Corinthians 8:4) with Joseph Smith’s teachings of "gods many and lords many," labeling it a "bizarre and heretical idea" irreconcilable with scripture.
LDS Response
This argument presents a false dilemma, framing the issue as monotheism versus polytheism, when Mormon theology aligns more with henotheism or exaltation theology. Joseph Smith’s teachings, such as the King Follett Discourse, posit that God was once human and that humans can become divine, but only one God—the Father—is worshipped by Latter-day Saints.
The Bible itself hints at a divine council (Psalm 82:1, "God stands in the congregation of the mighty; he judges among the gods") and "sons of God" (Job 1:6), suggesting a plurality of divine beings subordinate to Yahweh. Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 acknowledges "gods many and lords many" but clarifies, "yet for us there is one God," aligning with LDS worship practices. The article misrepresents this as polytheism, ignoring the nuanced LDS doctrine of exaltation and its biblical roots, such as Christ’s promise that the faithful will "sit with me in my throne" (Revelation 3:21).
5. A Moot Point: Shutting Down Legitimate Discussion
Article’s Claim
The article alleges that Mormons create controversies over "settled issues" (e.g., God’s nature), insisting these belong in a "moot" for debate, when they are resolved by scripture and tradition.
LDS Response
This is a false dilemma, assuming theological questions are universally settled and beyond discussion. Issues like the divine council (Psalm 82) and the nature of God remain debated among biblical scholars, as seen in works by Michael Heiser and others. Latter-day Saint apologists contribute to these conversations, offering perspectives grounded in scripture and revelation, not fabricating disputes.
The article’s appeal to "settled" authority dismisses ongoing exegetical debates, revealing an unwillingness to engage with LDS arguments on their merits. By labeling these topics moot, it avoids the hard work of dialogue, preferring to assert rather than reason.
6. Mormonism is Mormonism: A Sweeping Dismissal
Article’s Claim
The article concludes that Mormonism lacks a credible academic or theological foundation, cannot be reconciled with the Bible, and relies on eisegesis (reading into scripture) rather than exegesis (drawing from it).
LDS Response
This is a sweeping generalization, ignoring the robust LDS scholarship supporting the faith’s claims. LDS theology diverges from traditional Christianity but builds on biblical themes—like exaltation (Romans 8:17, "joint-heirs with Christ") and divine revelation (Amos 3:7)—interpreted through modern prophets. The article’s claim that the Book of Mormon lacks historical context dismisses studies linking it to ancient cultures, while its comparison to fiction (e.g., Sherlock Holmes) sidesteps serious analysis.
LDS exegesis integrates the Bible with additional scriptures, viewing them as a unified witness of Christ. The accusation of "questioning the Scriptures’ authority" misrepresents the LDS Eighth Article of Faith: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly," affirming its value while acknowledging translation challenges—a view shared by many scholars.
Conclusion: A Call for Fair Engagement
The Reachout Trust Ministries article critiques Latter-day Saint apologetics with logical fallacies—strawman arguments misrepresenting LDS beliefs, the sharpshooter fallacy ignoring inconvenient evidence, and false dilemmas oversimplifying complex theology. This response has provided an exegetical defense of the First Vision, Book of Mormon evidence, and Mormon theology, rooted in scripture and scholarship.
LDS scholarship is not about undermining the Bible but enriching its narrative through modern revelation. Rather than dismissing Mormonism as "nothing else," critics are invited to engage its claims with intellectual honesty, fostering dialogue over division. The LDS faith stands on a foundation of faith, reason, and evidence—worthy of consideration, not caricature.
No comments:
Post a Comment