Full text of email conversation with the creators of "How to Talk to a Mormon" video

This is the full text of an email conversation with Tim Hull, a creator of the "How to Talk to a Mormon" video, containing Category 2 rhetoric against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (ie arguments intended to dissuade Christians who are not members of the Church from engaging with the Church or its members). See here for background. More discussion to come in future blog posts.

Update 11/27/21: This is the second of a series of four posts on unhinged Category 2 rhetoric against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The third post in this series discusses the harms of this rhetoric, as experienced by my family. The fourth post describes the reaction of the creators of the "How to Talk to a Mormon" video to my concerns about some of the claims in the video.

A word of caution, as some of the discussion centers around false claims with sexual and sexist themes.

_________________________________________________

May 4, 2021 8:10am

Hi Bobby Conway,

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I watched your video “how to talk to a Mormon”.  Unfortunately, your description of Mormon beliefs doesn’t match the beliefs of any person who actually exists.  I would be happy to have a conversation with you to discuss further. Until you engage with real members of the Church of Jesus Christ to learn about our beliefs you will only be giggling at unrecognizable strawmen disengaged from reality.

Please reach out if you would like to learn more. I am sure you are motivated by a well-meaning desire to protect other Christians from what you understand to be our beliefs. But Truth will prevail, and your video deviated significantly from that standard.

Thanks! Please reach out by email or call me at (608) 886-0683.

(I am currently serving as a bishop in my ward, but my outreach is purely as a concerned individual and in no way represents the Church itself.)

—Stephen Lindsay

(Appleton, Wisconsin)

_________________________________________________________

May 4, 2021 8:17am

Hey Stephen,

Thank you for reaching out. It would be helpful it if you emailed me a few places where you feel like we got it wrong. As I mentioned in the video my former boss Dr. Corey Miller was raised LDS and has written on the subject. We don’t want to misrepresent the beliefs, but Bobby has done considerable research on the topic.

Thank You,

Tim Hull

_________________________________________________________

May 4, 2021 8:20am

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your integrity. I’ll take some time later today to go through point by point and give you some feedback.

—Stephen

_________________________________________________________

May 4, 2021 8:21am

Thanks! I look forward to it.

Thank You,

Tim Hull

_________________________________________________________

May 5, 2021 4:47pm

Hi Tim,

Thanks for inviting me to give some detailed feedback on your One Minute Apologist video with Bobby Conway, "How to Talk to a Mormon". It took me a little longer than I anticipated, so I'm sorry for not getting back to you yesterday as I thought I would.  I would love to hear your impressions and responses.

I am a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints currently serving as a bishop in my ward. I mention this only to give you reason to believe that I am a member in good standing and that I have a good understanding of our theology in principle and practice, from personal living and as one authorized to teach and minister to others at the local level within the Church. I do not have authority to speak for the Church - my responses and comments here are from myself alone as a concerned individual.

I found your video through a good friend, an Evangelical Christian who recently obtained a masters in theology. In the course of a conversation on a different topic, he forwarded me a website with your video "How to Talk to a Mormon" on it. My friend and I have had many long conversations about religion, including some very open discussions of the differences between my beliefs and his. I expressed some dismay about this video and he agreed with me that the video did not always accurately portray the Church's beliefs. He responded "I probably would not know that had you and I not spent so many hours talking." With this in mind, it was easier for me to understand that you are sharing the information in this video in good faith to the best of your knowledge. If the video contains any misinformation I understand it is not out of hatred or malice, but due to misunderstandings that have been propagating over time in some Christian circles without enough engagement with members of the Church of Jesus Christ to correct these misunderstandings. This perspective led me to follow my friend's invitation to reach out to you and give you some feedback. Personal connections break down barriers and help build understanding. Thanks for being willing to listen.

I really like how you framed the discussion in the video with the idea that in order to have a meaningful conversation with people who believe differently, we need to understand what they believe. At the same time, I understand that you also want to highlight uncomfortable but real aspects of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that might lead its members to question the Church. I will consider these dual purposes as legitimate objectives for your video.  I will go over the video point by point with an eye to what is real about the church, regardless of whether it is comfortable for members of the Church to talk about. I will highlight where I feel the things being said are fair/true and where I think they are not. I will also try to give a more positive spin to some of the discussion where context is needed or assertions are debatable.

Assertions or quotes from the video are in red. My responses in black. I divide my comments into 4 categories. I will first highlight a few points that were 1) blatant falsehoods. I only bring these to the forefront because I think these are the most in need of engagement, recognizing that these points are a small portion of the video as a whole. On some of these, I make strongly worded categorical statements. This is just to be very clear, not out of anger or hurt. After that, I highlight a number statements that were 2) fair and true, to give credit where credit is due. A few statements are 3) mostly or fully true but in need of some modification or context. And at the end, I discuss some 4) claims or opinions that I personally disagree with, but I can grant you the right to disagree.

1.     Blatant falsehoods or misrepresentations

4:50:  Bobby Conway mentions the Angel Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith, which is part of our beliefs. But then he goes on a tangent saying that "In the Book of Mormon it was Nephi that appeared to him." "Was it Nephi or was it Moroni?", and asserts that this reflects a "translation issue" in the Book of Mormon.  He is mis-stating the objection here. Nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it mention either Nephi or Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith, so this couldn't be a translation issue. I think the objection he was (mis-)referencing is the one found for example on this website critical of the Church: http://www.mormonthink.com/nephiweb.htm.  But a further examination shows that the name of the angel had been published as Moroni for years prior to the mention of the angel's name as Nephi. Then that mistake was propagated in a few other places citing that original source. The issue here is more likely attributable to scribal error rather than anything more serious. A more thorough treatment can be found here:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Moroni%27s_visit/Nephi_or_Moroni

13:53: "Mormons ... believe that Elohim impregnated the mother of Jesus" OK, I don't teach this. I don't believe this. I don't know anyone who believes this. I have never even heard this. This is blatantly false. I don't even know where this came from. For the sake of argument, supposing you could cite a source of someone who once said something like this (please do, if you have one), the idea that this constitutes a belief of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is completely false and unreasonable.

14:20: Mormons believe that Jesus was married, a polygamist with 3 wives. Again, I don't know where this came from. I don't believe this or teach this. I have never heard this. The idea that members of the Church believe this is completely false. Even if you can cite someone from Church history who taught this (please do), the idea that this constitutes a belief of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is completely false and unreasonable.

15:13:  "If you are a woman... if your husband lets you in to Heaven, ... you can be perpetually pregnant...". First of all, Christ is our Judge and intermediary with the Father. The idea that members of The Church of Jesus Christ believe that husbands determine whether wives go to Heaven is absolutely false. I don't teach this. I don't believe this. I don't know anyone who believes this. I have never even heard this. Even if you can cite someone from Church history who taught this, the idea that this constitutes a belief of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its members is completely false and unreasonable. The same with pregnancy in heaven. Genesis makes it sound like pregnancy is an earthly thing, and I see no reason to believe that the creation of spirits involves pregnancy. I don't know anyone who believes this. I have never even heard this. The idea that this constitutes a belief of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is completely false and unreasonable.

At 15:30: Bobby Conway makes the statement "This is stuff that is not talked about a lot" and mentions church members saying "We need to back off from this stuff." The reason these ideas are not talked about a lot is because these ideas are not beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its members, and never were. No one ever needed to "back off from this stuff" because it was never taught. Again, supposing you can cite a Church member that even mentioned these ideas (If you have Church sources for these items, please share), the idea that these ideas constitute beliefs of the Church or its members in any way is completely false and unreasonable.

Because of my interactions with my Evangelical friend, I can now understand that well meaning people can share this type of false information in good faith, not out of meanness or hatred, but simply because you have been taught this and had no reason not to believe it, and you honestly and righteously want to save others from these crazy beliefs. But please understand that these ideas have no association with the teaching of the Church or the beliefs of its members. I think some sort of follow-up or correction regarding these items would be appropriate if you are striving for good faith argument.

If you have more time to read my feedback, below are additional comments on other points in the video that were True, Partly true or needing context, and points on which I very much disagree but can allow that there is room for debate.

2.     Fair and True statements

2:35: Build relationships, have conversations, no gotcha moment. I like that. We need more good faith dialogue for sure.

4:20: First vision. Original church got corrupted. Joseph Smith is the chosen prophet to restore the church. This accurately reflects beliefs of members of the Church of Jesus Christ. I would add my personal belief that, though the original church was undoubtedly corrupted, the core teachings of Jesus Christ were not lost but spread through society and strongly influenced the world for good over the coming centuries.

5:40: The translation of the Book of Mormon and the idea of a restoration was discussed accurately

6:00: Joseph Smith is regarded as a "Prophet on the level of Elijah, Moses." Accurate reflection of our beliefs.

6:00: Joseph Smith was in jail because he caused problems with a local newspaper. Shot to death, considered a martyr. True, though this synopsis skips over the full extent of the hostility he and the church faced for years.

14:15: Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer. True, as we are all God's children and he is our Creator. Isaiah 14:12 teaches that Lucifer was a fallen angel, son of the morning. We understand the term "angel" to refers to children of God residing in heaven. What is your belief about the origin of Satan? Was he part of God's creation?

3.     True or partly true, but I want to add context

3:35: Smith family treasure seeking. Did this influence his visions? I wasn't aware that Joseph Smith Sr was also involved in treasure seeking, but it could well be true. I admit that the treasure-seeking aspect of Joseph Jr's background was troubling when I first read Bushman's "Rough Stone Rolling." Joseph Smith was a man of his times in an era when folk magic was not commonly accepted among the educated but certainly present in rural communities. We hear of many Christian ministers these days that come from backgrounds far from Christ. For example, Dr. Corey Miller's bio says that he comes from drugs, riding with the Hells Angels and, worst of all, Mormonism. Why couldn't a man who believed in folk magic be converted to the true faith? It seems odd, but if one can accept the Book of Mormon as truth, maybe it could even be that the folk magic background helped prepare him to receive and translate the Book of Mormon. Though that is highly speculative on my part.

6:00: "Joseph Smith, by those who were closest to him, was considered a fraud." Just a minor quibble here. His family always supported him completely, and some close associates became very close supporters. But of course there were those around him that considered him a fraud.

7:05:  "In so far as it is translated correctly, is kind of their big thing." Don't use the NSV, use the KJV. It's not that the KJV is "translated correctly", just by tradition we use it and like it. We recognize that God works through imperfect mortals to accomplish His works, and the scriptures came about through human, though inspired, hands. I think this is a position that is taken by many other Christians outside of the Church of Jesus Christ as well.

10:00: God starts out as a human and "evolving to godhood status" progressed over time. "Just as God once was so are we now. As God is now, so we can become." I don't like the word "evolving." But the idea that man can become like God is Church doctrine. (see https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng) This becoming is not something we do of ourselves, but is a gift God offers to all who follow Him. We have no further revelation about how God became God, so this has been an area ripe for speculation.

15:13: "They can become a god and have their own planet." We do believe that in Heaven we can become like God through His grace (obviously not of our own doing). There isn't much more revelation about what that means. The "Have your own planet" idea is not official Church teaching that I've heard, but it is easy to speculate (and many have).

4.     Agree to disagree

2:13: Members of the Church are categorized as "non-believers." The definition of what it means to be "Christian" is a debate that has been ongoing ever since the reformation, with established Catholics first trying to protect their brand against Protestants, and now established Protestants trying to keep out newer upstarts like the Church of Jesus Christ that are winning converts. I prefer the theological approach of John Locke in his theological treatise "The Reasonableness of Christianity." Coming at the tail end of 150 years of religious wars and branching among protestants, he noted that Christ and the Apostles made believers by teaching them to accept Christ as the Savior or Messiah. Other teachings came after that, but accepting Christ is what distinguished His disciples. Any other definition can only be designed to cause unnecessary division. Since I personally accept Christ as my Savior, the idea that someone would not consider me a Christian is just odd. I'll address the "different Jesus" idea as it comes up later.

7:35: "The Book of Mormon has been just absolutely blatantly refuted." "No archeological backing." No DNA - "eliminated substantiability of Book of Mormon." "Archeological evidence is thin." "Seems like it is made up." This deserves a much longer conversation. But I completely disagree with this characterization. There is a fair amount of evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon that you should be aware of. Here is a place to start: https://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

10:50: We "don't have an eternal mind, where everything is created from this necessary being." We do believe along with the Bible that the omniscient God created the earth, our spirits and bodies, and we owe Him everything. I think there is a lot of overlap with your beliefs. I understand you are referring to a larger body of analysis by referencing the term "necessary being", which members of the Church of Jesus Christ typically do not care for or engage with. (Though Blake Ostler is an exception. I will cite his essay here without having read it, so I can't personally comment on his take: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/reviews-of-the-new-mormon-challenge/necessarily-god-is-not-analytically-necessary-a-response-to-stephen-parrish)

11:00: "A very low view of God." "What created that?" "Infinite regress"... vs "Necessary being", (we are contingent beings), "holy other, always been holy other." "He is eternally God." I would like to flip this perspective upside down. Your view seems to be that God either cannot or won't create other beings capable of approaching His greatness. (Am I off base? Please let me know if I'm wrong.) My view of God is that of a Heavenly Father (we take the idea of the Father very literally) who created children in His image. The measure of a father isn't in how much greater he is than his children - but rather in the greatness of his children. Why wouldn't the greatest possible God be the God who can create and raise up other beings even like unto Himself? Beings who owe Him everything, but strive to live up to the love He has for us. I think our view is different from yours but also reasonable in light of the Bible. We are heirs and joint heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17), who through Christ's atonement are to be one with the Father and the Son in the same way that the Father and Son are one (John 17:21).

1:55: Mormonism is the most poly-theistic religion out there. Potentially infinite gods. I have only one God, and I know of only one God. Beyond that nothing has been revealed, and we are free only to speculate, which is a lot of fun for everyone, of course. Muslims think Christians aren't truly monotheistic - We should not let labels interfere in our search for truth.

12:20: "different dictionary". Salvation, Elohim, God, Jesus mean different things "Which Jesus are we talking about?" You are definitely right about the term Salvation. In the Church of Jesus Christ, this term is used in several different ways, only some of which align with other Christian denominations. Here is an official Church source for reference, though I honestly think this article over-complicates the issue: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/salvation?lang=eng

But when we talk of the Father and the Son, we both use the same Bible, and we believe all the points of the Apostles Creed (though we do not necessarily accept the post-biblical creeds as inspired or binding). The differences in our beliefs come from extra-biblical interpretation. I think a comparable (though more mundane) analogy could be a historical figure like William Shakespeare. Some people believe that he wrote all of the plays attributed to him, others believe he only authored a subset of those plays, while others think he wrote even more plays than we currently have. Most think he was protestant, while some scholars suspect he was secretly Catholic. Others have additional speculative views, such as that he was homosexual or used drugs. These scholars aren't talking about "a different William Shakespeare." They merely have different beliefs about a well-studied historical figure, which is natural. The concept of a "different Jesus" is just a disingenuous rhetorical tool used by established Christians to justify ostracizing fellow believers who love the Jesus of the Bible, in order to protect their brand against newer faiths that are winning converts. Yes we have differences in beliefs about Jesus. Lets talk about that. No, it isn't reasonable to claim we worship a different Jesus.

15:10: Mormons believe in a "Works based salvation". The Church teaches that salvation is not possible except through Christ's Atonement and is a gift. We do not believe that our works will save us. At the same time, all Christians believe that Christ taught that we need to keep the commandments, and that we should strive to live a good life. In some sense, I think all Christians connect salvation with righteousness. (Let me know if I am off base.) I contend that the difference between our beliefs in this area is smaller than you think.

Thanks for reading through all of this. Maybe I wrote too much.

God bless you for your faith and in your ministry,

--Stephen Lindsay

_________________________________________________________

May 6, 2021 9:34am

Thanks Stephen, 

Due to time I will address some of the first section in pieces as I track them down. 

/ Bobby Conway mentions the Angel Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith, which is part of our beliefs. But then he goes on a tangent saying that "In the Book of Mormon it was Nephi that appeared to him." "Was it Nephi or was it Moroni?", and asserts that this reflects a "translation issue" in the Book of Mormon.  He is mis-stating the objection here. Nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it mention either Nephi or Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith, so this couldn't be a translation issue. I think the objection he was (mis-)referencing is the one found for example on this website critical of the Church: http://www.mormonthink.com/nephiweb.htm.  But a further examination shows that the name of the angel had been published as Moroni for years prior to the mention of the angel's name as Nephi. Then that mistake was propagated in a few other places citing that original source. The issue here is more likely attributable to scribal error rather than anything more serious. A more thorough treatment can be found here:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Moroni%27s_visit/Nephi_or_Moroni/

I reached out to my friend Rob Bowman who writes on this subject about this and he said the following: 

The official story, found in the short LDS scripture book called Joseph Smith--History (in Pearl of Great Price), is that the angel who appeared to Joseph was Moroni, the last of the Nephite prophets and the last author who contributed to the Book of Mormon. However, that official version differs from the stories Joseph told earlier in his life, when the figure was an unnamed angel. In fact, we have two accounts in which the angel who appeared to Joseph spoke *about* Moroni in the third person, as someone else. These accounts come from a letter written by Joseph's mother Lucy Smith in January 1831 and from Joseph's own handwritten account in what is known as his 1832 History. Here is what Joseph wrote:

“And it came to pass when I was seventeen years of age, I called again upon the Lord, and he showed me a heavenly vision. For behold, an angel of the Lord came and stood before me, and it was by night…and he revealed until me that in the town of Manchester, Ontario County, N.Y., there were plates of gold upon which there were engravings which were engraved by Maroni and his fathers, the servants of the living God in ancient days….”

By about 1835, Mormons were identifying the angel of the plates as the prophet Moroni. In that year, Joseph even revised a "revelation" written in 1830 to backdate a reference to Moroni as the angel of the plates (see the present-day Doctrine and Covenants 27:5). There was no reference to Moroni, the angel, or even the Book of Mormon in the original revelation (Book of Commandments 28:5-6).

There's more on the question of the identity of the angel in my book Jesus' Resurrection and Joseph's Visions, pp. 202-206. That is just part of a chapter examining in detail Joseph's claim to have had numerous visits from this angel between 1823 and 1829. https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Resurrection.../dp/1947929119/

 

 

/  "Mormons ... believe that Elohim impregnated the mother of Jesus" OK, I don't teach this. I don't believe this. I don't know anyone who believes this. I have never even heard this. This is blatantly false. I don't even know where this came from. For the sake of argument, supposing you could cite a source of someone who once said something like this (please do, if you have one), the idea that this constitutes a belief of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is completely false and unreasonable./

 

Mormonism teaches that God is made of flesh and bone, meaning God has a penis and is able to engage in sexual intercourse. Moreover, while it not articulated in any standard works, Mormon authorities have taught that Mary could be and was impregnated with Jesus through physical sex with God.

Mormon Authorities

 

• Brigham Young (Mormonism's 2nd president-prophet): “The Father came down and begat him, the same as we do now…” [The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1, p. 321; February 16, 1849, Salt Lake City] (As citedhere by McKeever and Shafovaloff)
• Brigham Young (Mormonism's 2nd president-prophet): “The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers,” [Journal of Discourses vol. 8:27]
• Heber C. Kimball: “In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it.” [Journal of Discourses vol. 8:54]
• Joseph Fielding Smith (Mormonism's 10th president-prophet): “Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father …Jesus is the only person who had our Heavenly Father as the father of his body” [Family Home Evening Manual (1972), 125, 126.]
• Orson Pratt: the Holy Ghost gave her[Mary] strength to abide in the presence of the Father without being consumed, but it was the personage of the Father who begat the body of Jesus; and for this reason Jesus is called 'the Only Begotten of the Father;' that is, the only one in this world whose fleshly body was begotten by the Father. There were millions of sons and daughters who he begat before the foundation of this world, but they were spirits, and not bodies of flesh and bones [The Seer, 158.]
• Bruce R. McConkie (LDS 'General Authority'): “…our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only, begotten means begotten, and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in He same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers … There is no need to spiritualize away the plain meaning of the scriptures. There is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension in our Lord's coming into mortality.  He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is just that simple” [Mormon Doctrine, 456-547, 466, 468.]

JOSEPH WAS ONLY MARY'S SECOND HUSBAND

Mormon Authorities

• Orson Pratt: The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: … Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in the mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity.[The Seer, 158.]
• Brigham Young (Mormonism's 2nd president-prophet): “The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband.” [Journal of Discourses, vol. 11:41]

JESUS WAS NOT BEGOTTEN OF THE HOLY GHOST

Mormon Authorities

• Brigham Young (Mormonism's 2nd president-prophet): “Now Remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. … When the Virgin Mary conceived the Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost… What a learned idea' Jesus, our elder brother was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in heaven.” [Journal of Discourses, vol. 1:8]
• Joseph Fielding Smith (Mormonism's 10th president-prophet): “CHRIST NOT BEGOTTEN OF THE HOLY GHOST … Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God! ... They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge that statement.” [Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1:18]
• Joseph Fielding Smith (Mormonism's 10th president-prophet): “The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended with any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit” [Religious Truths Defined, 44.]
• Ezra Taft Benson (Mormonism's 13th presiden-prophet): “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost” [The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 7.]

GOD AND MARY ARE TOGETHER JESUS'S LITERAL BIOLOGICAL PARENTS

Mormonism's Official Curriculum Material etc.

• “God the Father became the literal father of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the only person on earth to be born of a mortal mother and an immortal father.” [Gospel Principles (2009), 53]
• “[Jesus Christ] was able to make payment because he lived a sinless life and because he was actually, literally, biologically the Son of God in the flesh” [Messages for Exaltation: Eternal Insights from the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Sunday School Union, 1967), 378-379.]
• “He is the Son of God, literally, actually, as men are the sons of mortal parents” [What the Mormons Think of Christ, 44.]

Mormon Authorities

• Joseph Fielding Smith (Mormonism's 10th president-prophet): “Jesus was not the son of any mortal man. His biological father was God, the Father. As Son of God, Jesus represents the Father and acts as his agent in all things.” [The Restoration of All Things, 61.]
• James Talmage: “Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh.” [Articles of Faith, 466.]
• Melvin J. Ballard (Mormon apostle): “as to whether or not his was a virgin birth, a birth wherein divine power interceded. … And if God the Eternal Father is not the real Father of Jesus Christ, then are we in confusion; then is he not in reality the Son of God. But we declare that he is the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. … No man or woman can live in mortality and survive the presence of the Highest except by the sustaining power of the Holy Ghost. So it came upon her to prepare her for admittance into the divine presence, and the power of the Highest, who is the Father, was present, and overshadowed her, and the holy Child that was born of her was called the Son of God. Men who deny this, or who think that it degrades our Father, have no true conception of the sacredness of the most marvelous power with which God has endowed mortal men--the power of creation. Even though that power may be abused and may become a mere harp of pleasure to the wicked, nevertheless it is the most sacred and holy and divine function with which God has endowed man. Made holy, it is retained by the Father of us all, and in his exercise of that great and marvelous creative power and function, he did not debase himself, degrade himself, nor debauch his daughter. Thus Christ became the literal Son of a divine Father, and no one else was worthy to be his father.” [Deseret News, 23 Dec 1923; Sermons and Missionary Services of Melvin J. Ballard, 166-167.] (As cited,but in full, here by McKeever and Shafovaloff)

https://beliefmap.org/mormonism/mormonism-teaches-god-and-mary-sexually-produced-jesus

I will look some more when I have time. Thanks again for the tone of your email and taking the time to write it all out. 

Thank You, 

Tim Hull

_________________________________________________________

May 6, 2021 11:14am

Thanks Tim. I’ll wait for the rest of the responses to come in before I get us bogged down in a back and forth on this.  Thanks for doing some digging!

—Stephen

_________________________________________________________

May 20, 2021 12:21am

Hi Tim.  I know you are busy, and can't spend your full time responding to my concerns.  I'll respond here under the assumption that you couldn't find any evidence to support the other items that I listed as "blatant falsehoods."  If you do find time to look into it more, and you do find supporting evidence for those items, send me a note and I can amend my responses as needed.

First of all, let me say you found more support for the idea the Church leaders have taught that Jesus was conceived through physical intercourse than I thought you would.  Looking over your sources I see 5 Church leaders that clearly taught this idea (Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Orson Pratt, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Bruce R. McKonkie).  Three of these were very early leaders, and two are 20th century leaders who apparently held on to some of the earlier speculation.  The other quotes for me don't speak unambiguously of a physical union any more than phrases you might find in the bible.  Regarding this topic, I must admit you convinced me that l erred in my hasty assertion that "No one ever needed to 'back off from this stuff' because it was never taught."  You do provide good evidence that this idea was taught as more than a one-off speculation, starting with Brigham Young, and that though this idea was later repudiated it hung around for an uncomfortably long time.  Still I feel you are being disingenuous and not arguing in good faith to set up your video saying "We have senators, business leaders, and maybe even the neighbor next door who believe in Mormonism..." and then to imply that this is what they believe.  As a life-long member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I can guarantee you that this is not a belief held by your neighbor or senator if he or she is a member in good standing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

On the other topic, the commentary from Rob Bowman does not address my concern.  The video asserted that a Nephi/Moroni mixup reflects a translation issue in the Book of Mormon.  Even if the controversy around Nephi vs Moroni is worth discussing (rather than simply a scribal mistake), the video was mistaken in suggesting that the existence of two versions of the angel's name represents a translation issue in the Book of Mormon.  There is no possible connection between the two different published versions of the Angel's name and the Book of Mormon translation.  The video's assertion here was a blatant falsehood, though likely more a blunder than a deliberate deception.  To be honest, I am less concerned with this mistake than with the others.  

To summarize, I originally listed 5 points that I considered blatant falsehoods: 

- One attack on the Book of Mormon Translation

- Three salacious and ridiculous beliefs that the video asserted are held by members of the Church

- The idea that those three supposed beliefs were taught early on and then were "backed off" from.  

After your kind response, I take back my assertion that one of those beliefs was never taught. The rest of my criticism still stands, including my assertion that the other 2 salacious and ridiculous supposed beliefs were never taught by mainstream Church leaders.

I am trying to approach this with intellectual humility and integrity, accepting where I am mistaken.  Would you be willing to accept that the video was mistaken or misleading in certain aspects, if you are unable to back up the assertions made in the video?  If so, would you be willing to re-edit the video to remove those unsupported assertions - especially where the claims are both unsupported and salacious?

You can stop reading here if you want.  But at the risk of deviating from an objective intellectual discussion, I want to share a personal story to illustrate that this type of false but salacious claim is not a victimless crime.  My wife and I homeschool our children, and several years ago we joined a local homeschool group.  The group had a multiple-point statement of faith that we were able to sign with integrity.  We took this very seriously - we had a question about the interpretation of one of the questions so we asked the group leadership and we were assured that our interpretation was acceptable.  So we paid dues, and my wife volunteered in the group and taught classes and was very involved in the group. Our children had friends in the group and it was a fulfilling thing for our family.  Suddenly the leadership of the group changed.  Shortly thereafter a meeting notice was sent out with an agenda item to discuss whether various faiths should be accepted in the group.  We were a little concerned, and my wife attended the meeting to see what was going on.  It turns out that the whole purpose of the meeting was to talk about my family.  Without giving my wife any time to talk except for 2 minutes at the very end, the meeting organizers said they had found evidence that Mormons had joined the group, and read off a litany of horrible-sounding ideas that we supposedly believed, salacious and sexual things that we absolutely do not believe in any sense.  They weren't the same claims as what you have listed in the video, but other things similarly awful and blatantly untrue.  These claims were read off in order to justify removing us from the group.  At the end of the meeting my wife was given 2 minutes to speak.  In tears, she told the group that those things are not at all what we believe, and wasn't this group supposed to be about the unity of faith in Christ?  I think the leadership wasn't quite sure what to do with the idea that they had misunderstood our beliefs, and they decided to organize an investigation to determine on what grounds we could be removed from the group.  Well, we decided to save them the trouble and left the group at that point since they were determined to remove us anyway.  We struggled with the humiliation and rejection for a while, and our children were saddened over losing their friends and sense of belonging, but we have learned to move on and forgive.   It turned out that much of the group was in agreement with the leadership decisions, but another large subset of the group was appalled at how we had been treated, and many of those also left the group because of it.  The group hasn't quite been the same since then.  I wish that were the end of the story, but it wasn't.  We later were part of another more open homeschool group that didn't have any statement of faith but met in a local church.  After we had been meeting for a while and enjoying the fellowship, and my wife played a significant role in organizing the group and in teaching classes, the church found out that the homeschool group that met in their building had a family that was members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The church decided they couldn't let the group continue to meet in their building during the week if we were a part of it.  Shocked again, we were forced to leave this second group and our children lost another set of friends and fellow scholars.  I feel this most un-Christian treatment is based on a sense of fear (of us) induced in other Christians by the sort of false and salacious material presented in your video.  I assume that you did not put out your video to encourage this type of mistreatment and misunderstanding, but please be aware that this is the real life outcome of such fearmongering.  Why can't we rejoice together in the unity of our faith in Christ, while also cherishing the differences in our faiths?

Thanks for your time and thoughts,

--Stephen

_________________________________________________________

May 20, 2021 7:57am

Hey Stephen, 

Thanks for the email.  I haven’t forget about you, I am just taking your other issues to Bobby and we have been focused on a few other projects. We didn’t meet last week which means I couldn’t have him address your concerns.  I also started my own channel so that has been taking a lot of my study time. I will bring your email to Bobby and we will discuss the next step. 

Thank You, 

Tim Hull

_________________________________________________________

May 20, 2021 8:16am

Ok, maybe I jumped the gun. Sorry. Take your time. 

Best wishes,

—Stephen

_________________________________________________________

June 27, 2021 8:37pm

Hi Tim. Any update on this? 

Also, I recently started a sort of eclectic apologetics-ish blog. My current readership is approximately 5 people but hopefully will grow. I am considering posting our conversation on my blog as an example of good faith inter-faith discussions on difficult topics. Is there anything you have said in our email conversations that you would not want me to make public? If there is, I am happy to strike it out before I post. 

The most substantial recent post is on Western Civilization and Critical Theory, a topic that the One Minute Apologist has touched on more than once. We are more allies than opponents in the battle for civilization. 

https://trocb.blogspot.com/?m=1

Best wishes,

—Stephen Lindsay

_________________________________________________________

June 29, 2021 9:17am

I forwarded your email to Bobby and I will let him respond if and when he feels he needs to.  He is on vacation this week.

Thank You,

Tim Hull

_________________________________________________________

June 30, 2021 6:57pm

Thanks, Tim. I know some time has passed and the email chain is getting unwieldy.  Just as a reminder, you weren't able to address a few of the concerns I had from the video. I will reproduce them here. Will you or Bobby still plan to look into these, or not?

Regarding #2, you did show some evidence that some church members believed this at one time, but the sources you cited don't show that it is currently something that "your neighbor or your senator" might believe, which is how you framed your video.  And I can assure you as a lifelong church member that it is not reasonable to say that #2 is a belief held by members of my church. 

Regarding items #1, #3, and #4 - These are certainly not something any member of the church would believe, and the claim is frankly outrageous.  Again, I don't blame you - it's something that is being passed around in evangelical circles - but it just isn't true.

From a good faith standpoint, if you are unable to support these claims, would you consider editing the video to remove these untrue statements?

Thanks again for your time! I know you are busy.

--Stephen

 

1)   4:50:  Bobby Conway mentions the Angel Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith, which is part of our beliefs. But then he goes on a tangent saying that "In the Book of Mormon it was Nephi that appeared to him." "Was it Nephi or was it Moroni?", and asserts that this reflects a "translation issue" in the Book of Mormon.  He is mis-stating the objection here. Nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it mention either Nephi or Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith, so this couldn't be a translation issue. I think the objection he was (mis-)referencing is the one found for example on this website critical of the Church: http://www.mormonthink.com/nephiweb.htm.  But a further examination shows that the name of the angel had been published as Moroni for years prior to the mention of the angel's name as Nephi. Then that mistake was propagated in a few other places citing that original source. The issue here is more likely attributable to scribal error rather than anything more serious. A more thorough treatment can be found here:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Moroni%27s_visit/Nephi_or_Moroni

2)   13:53: "Mormons ... believe that Elohim impregnated the mother of Jesus" OK, I don't teach this. I don't believe this. I don't know anyone who believes this. I have never even heard this. This is blatantly false. I don't even know where this came from. For the sake of argument, supposing you could cite a source of someone who once said something like this (please do, if you have one), the idea that this constitutes a belief of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is completely false and unreasonable.

3)   14:20: Mormons believe that Jesus was married, a polygamist with 3 wives. Again, I don't know where this came from. I don't believe this or teach this. I have never heard this. The idea that members of the Church believe this is completely false. Even if you can cite someone from Church history who taught this (please do), the idea that this constitutes a belief of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is completely false and unreasonable.

4)   15:13:  "If you are a woman... if your husband lets you in to Heaven, ... you can be perpetually pregnant...". First of all, Christ is our Judge and intermediary with the Father. The idea that members of The Church of Jesus Christ believe that husbands determine whether wives go to Heaven is absolutely false. I don't teach this. I don't believe this. I don't know anyone who believes this. I have never even heard this. Even if you can cite someone from Church history who taught this, the idea that this constitutes a belief of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its members is completely false and unreasonable. The same with pregnancy in heaven. Genesis makes it sound like pregnancy is an earthly thing, and I see no reason to believe that the creation of spirits involves pregnancy. I don't know anyone who believes this. I have never even heard this. The idea that this constitutes a belief of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is completely false and unreasonable.