In Defense of Mormonism

ad hominem: adj marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made (Merriam-Webster).

I've recently been studying a lot of questions I have had for years regarding the church. There are many websites that are more than happy to share apparent problems with Mormon history or issues with our doctrine. There are also plenty of websites whose defined purpose is to defend the church. The two primary apologist sites, from which most others draw their conclusions, are the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) and the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR).

I recently read "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins" by Grant H. Palmer. The book presents many problems with the church's claims regarding its origins. For the most part, the book was well done, and presented very good information. The author presented a lot of facts of which I had not been aware. After reading the book, I turned to the apologists to get a response. I figured they must have a response to such damning evidence. I found an article at FAIR entitled A summary of Five Reviews of Grant Palmer's "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins".

Rather than finding a point-by-point rebuttal of Palmer, I found a vitriolic, biting attack against him personally. The one review I read at length spent at least 60% of the review attacking Grant Palmer, labeling him as an anti-Mormon, casting aspersions on his motives and his integrity. The only element of Palmer's book to which they speak at any length is his Golden Pot hypothesis. This was a very small portion of the book, one chapter. It's also the one part of the book that Palmer presents as speculative in nature. They never answer the legitimate factual issues he raises. Instead, they dismiss the remainder with trite comments like how he would "not attempt...to answer all the problems raised by Palmer; [as] a few examples will illustrate the kind of faulty speculation, incomplete evidence, and misleading 'parallels' that plague his book."

This experience made me think on the other Mormon apologetics I had read. The majority share a characteristic, ad hominem. An ad hominem attack is when a rebuttal focuses on the person rather than the message. It is a logical fallacy. The truthfulness of a message is irrespective of the messenger. I will grant the fact that looking at the messenger is a valid method of determining bias, but showing bias does not disprove an argument. After all, apologists have a clear bias, but that doesn't mean we should disregard legitimate facts they present.

Before anyone says it, I know that this tool is used by both sides. There is a lot of vitriol and anger on both sides. There are plenty of sources (like Palmer's book above) that present the facts but do not resort to ad hominem. I generally steer myself towards those sources. Unfortunately, I can't find many voices like that on the apologist side of the fence.

One tool used by apologists in ad hominem attacks is the application of the pejorative anti-Mormon. Unfortunately, to most apologists, the definition of anti-Mormon is anyone who has looked at the evidence and doesn't believe the church is true. I don't understand how that makes someone anti-Mormon. I do not believe the Catholic church is the true church, does that make me anti-Catholic. I do not believe that the Koran is inspired, does that make me anti-Muslim, no? But if I say that the evidence seems to point to the Book of Mormon being authored by Joseph Smith himself, I am labeled an anti-Mormon.

This makes it very difficult to ask legitimate questions about our origins. If, after looking at the evidence, I come to different conclusions than the church leadership, then I have been fooled by the devil. At that point, all of my views are to be disregarded as the idle ramblings of a spiritual weakling. By so doing, the church remains insulated.

It's not a good sign if Mormons are unable to listen to opposing views in a civil fashion. Why do apologists generally decline to answer issues, preferring to attack the messenger? Why are they afraid of legitimate inquiries? Why is everyone who disagrees immediately an anti-Mormon?