Mormon Apologist agree, the Brother Jake YouTube series represents the best compendium of Mormon arguments.

Brother Jake

Blog Purpose

Created: 31 January 2009
Last Updated: 31 January 2009

The purpose of this blog is to explore the REASONING of Mormon Apologist in specific and the logically consistency of LDS claims in general.

Mormanity’s profile is impressive. To say he is academically accomplished might be an understatement. His LDS FAQ is rather well done. However, I could not find a comment section at his LDS FAQ to ask questions or point out errors in reasoning. After reading the comment sections of Mormanity’s blog, I realized that many people have already asked the pertinent questions and pointed out the errors in reasoning. Unfortunately, most of these have all gone completely ignored. To his credit though, for the most part he does not delete comments.

As far as I can tell, compared to me Mormanity is an incredibly decent human being and an extremely productive member of society. However, I am beginning to question his academic honestly and intellectual integrity. This is sad, because one can defend their faith without losing their integrity. To error is human. I make errors in reasoning all the time. The difference is, when I do I strive to correct them. With Mormanity I am not seeing an attempt at correction. This will remain a testament to Mormanity’s compartmentalization.

As for Mormonism in general, the contradiction is in simultaneously claiming to have faith and a sure knowledge of the truthfulness in the religion. In would seem to me that once one obtains a sure knowledge of something, they cease to live by faith in that thing. Mormon’s have faith, but go around saying they have a sure knowledge. This is analogous to the Bush Administration believing that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and presenting that belief as if it was a sure thing. In my opinion presenting a belief as a fact is at best a half-truth if not out right dishonest.

It has been pointed out to me that the whole Mormon Apologist thing is of about as much worth to the individual and society as pornography. Therefore, in the spirit of moderation I will attempt to limit myself to four hours a week.

Demonstrating (Not Proving) A Lack Of Specialness

Created: 31 January 2009
Laste Updated: 31 January 2009

I am planning some blog entries on the Mark-Hofmann-Episode. One of Hofmann’s objectives was to demonstrate a lack of divine inspiration among the Mormon leadership. This is a common theme that the Apologists fail to understand. When critics point out statistics of depression, fraud, pornography consumption, bankruptcy, etc in Utah or “Happy Valley” (the Watasch front from Salt Lake to Provo) the critic is not necessarily trying to prove that Mormon’s are in worse shape than the rest of humanity. What the critic is correctly demonstrating is that the LDS claim of having a special access to the divine is hubris. The critic is demonstrating that neither Mormons nor the LDS leadership have anymore access to divinity than the rest of humanity.

Lack Of Divine Inspiration

Created: 31 January 2009
Last Updated: 31 January 2009

These entries here, here, and here, are Mormanity's attempts to refute critic's claims that the Mormon leadership lacks divine inspiration. In so doing, he admits that during the Mark-Hofmann-Episode of history the leadership did indeed lack divine inspiration, but that this is O.K. His logic is that many prophets of the bible also had bad days. Of course this argument is only valid for the minor percentage of humanity that believes the Christian bible to be more than a piece of archeology.

However, his point would be valid if the critics were ‘proving’ and not ‘demonstrating’. How does one prove a negative (the negative being that the Mormon leadership lacks divine inspiration)? However, if the critics were merely demonstrating a lack of divine inspiration, then his argument is more of a straw man. I imagine the critics picked the Mark-Hofmann-Episode, because if at any time the leadership should have displayed divine inspiration that was it. To properly refute the critics one would have to show that at some time in the leadership’s recent history they have displayed a form of divine inspiration the rest of humanity lacks. In the articles referenced above Mormanity FAILS TO DO THIS.

After reading this entry I could not help but realized that Mormanity failed to provide a single example of recent divine revelation. Once again, I did not need to point this out, because a another commentator already had. Once again, the comment went completely ignored by Mormanity.

In summary, all Mormanity has done is pointed out that it is difficult to prove a negative and falsely suggests that in pointing this out he as refuted the critics. Given Mormanity’s academic achievements, it is hard to believe that he doesn’t understand that this is poor reasoning.

Charges Of Suppression Part I

Created: 31 January 2009
Last Updated: 31 January 2009

In this entry Mormanity states “he [Hinckley] acted in good faith to make it available for analysis and evaluation”. This simply is not true.

One of Hofmann’s goals was to demonstrate a lack divine inspiration, but that was not his major objective. Hofmann was annoyed about how his family and church leaders would not talk openly about church history and was convince that the leadership was actively trying to suppress the Church’s history (polygamy specifically). His ultimate trap was to see how the leadership would response to flattering forgeries and unflattering forgeries. Just as he suspected, the flattering forgeries readily announced with fanfare and the unflattering ones were not. He screwed up his experiment up with the Joseph Smith III forgery, but he performed the experiment flawlessly with the Stowell Forgery.

When the $15,000 purchase was to occur ONLY on the condition of confidentiality, Hofmann became giddy because his experiment had proved his hypothesis that the leadership had been behaving disingenuously with regards to its history. For over two years Hinckley sat on the Stowell Forgery to such an extent that none of the other leadership is known to have been aware of it, resulting in Jerry Cahill officially denying its existence. The ONLY reason the purchase was acknowledge and the forgeries existence revealed was because Hofmann broke his promise of confidentiality in order to punish Hinckley for not buying the Salamander letter. Hinckley didn’t buy it because he could not determine if the flamboyant Lyn Jacobs could offer the same confidentiality as Hofmann.

The argument that Hinckley doubted the authenticity of the document and for this reason did not reveal the purchase is also bogus. Authenticate documents verifying the Bainbridge, NY examination occurred more than a decade before the Stowell Forgery and Hofmann deliberately design the Stowell Forgery to be somewhat consistent.

I have pointed out to Mormanity that his statement was made from how he understood that episode in history. In light of how the event actual event occurred that statement should be modified (moderated) in some way. Leaving it the way it is would be a lack of academic honesty and intellectual integrity.

Suggested Moderations Of The Statement

Created: 31 January 2009
Last Updated: 31 January 2009

In this entry Mormanity states “he [Hinckley] acted in good faith to make it available for analysis and evaluation”. I have pointed out to Mormanity that the statement should be moderated in some way to avoid impugning his integrity.

One option might be to remove “in good faith” resulting in “he acted to make it available”. This would be academically honest, but it would lack intellectual integrity because it gives the false impression that Hinckley acted forthrightly. A better option would be to say “he eventually made it available for analysis”. This would be both academically honest and contains intellectually integrity. The observant reader would realize there might be a deeper issue to look into.

This solution does not require the apologist to expound on unflattering evidence. This is a great example of how it is possible to be an apologist without sacrificing academic honesty and intellectual integrity.

The Fallacy Of A Viable Option

Created: 11 February 2009
Last Updated: 07 August 2009

In this entry, we see this statement: “As a gesture of goodwill, that troublesome document [Joseph Smith III Blessing], rather than being suppressed or destroyed, was publicly given to the Reorganized Church.”

I call this the fallacy of a viable option. The false implication is that suppressing or destroying the document was a viable option. The genie was out of the bottle and could not be placed back in. All the Church could do was damage control, a gesture of goodwill. Consequently, Hinckley bought and suppressed the next document Hofmann offered, the Stowell Forgery, avoiding a repeat for the moment.

This statement: “The truth about the Hofmann documents was revealed, but not in the way critics demand.”, appears to be Mormanity’s way of saying that documents are eventually made available. This like saying Obama appointees pay their taxes (eventually and only after they have been caught).

Charges Of Suppresion Part II

Created: 11 February 2009
Last Updated: 03 August 2009

It should be noted that the entire entry forgets to mention the smoking gun of suppression, the Stowell Forgery (see my previous entry). So the entire entry is a really a red herring.


In the entry Mormanity quotes a fellow apologist.

“But placing an historical document in a safe place hardly implies suppression.”

From dictionary.com this is the definition of to suppress: "to withhold from disclosure or publication (truth, evidence, a book, names, etc.)." So placing the document in a safe place without revealing the document’s existence or contents is the very definition of suppression. Merely placing the documents in a safe place may not indicate suppression but forgetting to tell people about it, its contents, and denying its existence does.

“Burning the document would be a safer way of getting rid of negative evidence. Placing it in a vault only preserves it for future use.”

Once again this is what I call the fallacy of a viable option. Mark Hofmann had a copy of the document and the banking records to indicate that $15,000 was paid for it and his eventual plee bargain required him to answer questions in a deposition. Had the Church destroyed the document the Church would have been caught red hand destroying documents. The safest way to suppress the document was to lock it away without telling anyone. Is this fallacy of necessity (suppression necessitates burning the document) or is there a better description?

Even moderating the statement with 'surest' instead of 'safest' is undesirable. The earliest and best manuscripts of the certain New Testament books do not contain certain words or verses that later copies do. So if one can prove the original was destroyed and produce a copy of what the original supposedly contained, that copy could contain fabricated content even more salacious than the original. In the end the 'safest' solution is to keep the document and not tell anyone about it. This is exactly what occurred with the Stowell Forgery. Had Hofmann not exposed Hinckley we would have never known that the document had been suppressed. What else has been suppressed that we do not know about?


“We have the example of the Joseph Smith papyri, which lay for decades in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, only to be brought to the Church's attention by a professor doing research there. Yet no one has accused the Metropolitan of "suppressing" these documents!”

This is what is called a false analogy. If the Joseph Smith papyri validated Mormon claims, the Metropolitan Museum knew this, and withheld them then one would have a valid analogy. It was an insignificant find to Egyptology. When the Museum realized it was not just any papyri, but papyri of interest to the LDS Church, they let the LDS Church have it for a donation presumed to be its financial worth. The Museum did not forget to tell people about it or deny its existence.

“By purchasing those documents, GBH kept control of them within the Church. If they became the property of enemies of the Church, then they would NEVER have been tested well enough to show them as fakes.”

This simple is not true. Hofmann documents could have been subpoena wherever they may have gone.