In this episode Trent sits down with Mormon apologist Hayden Carroll to discuss a video he did criticizing Trent’s arguments.
The Strongest Argument Against Mormonism
Transcription:
Trent:
For many Mormons, if they were presented with miracle claims in Catholicism, for example, like Marian Apparitions, Eucharistic Miracles, do you think that a demonic explanation could at least be on the table for them?
Hayden:
Those are the things that I struggle with as far as, I don’t have a great answer, but just to label it as demonic, I think is, I was going to say dishonest, but maybe just it’s lazy.
Trent:
Hey everyone. Welcome to the Council of Trent. Today I have invited Hayden Carroll from Let’s Talk with Hayden Carroll. Hayden is an apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also known as the Mormon Church Mormonism, and he did a video on his channel recently talking about the strongest argument against Mormonism. Yours truly was featured in it with an interesting pairing with myself and Protestant Pastor Mark Driscoll. I’d never thought we’d be paired up together in something, and so I thought about doing a reply and sending it to Hayden and that kind of approach. I thought it’d be more fun just to invite him, come here and we could just have a little bit of a chat about the parts I disagree with. There’s other parts I actually do agree with. So Hayden, welcome to the council. Trent.
Hayden:
Thank you. Thank you for having me. I’m a big fan, so it’s really a pleasure to be here.
Trent:
Sure. Why don’t you tell our audience just a little bit more about yourself and your channel?
Hayden:
Yeah, so like Trent said, I’m a latter day saint and I do my best to give a offense for the church, Jesus Christ, latter Day Saints the channel. My personal channel just started about two months ago, rather. I’ve been in the online space with Jacob Hanson and Thoughtful Faith and others for about four or five years, but this is my own channel, and essentially what I do is I go set out a table mostly at Arizona State University here in Phoenix, and I have a banner, provocative banner about atheism or about cradle Christianity, and then we have conversations with students who walk by. So it’s been really fun and got a lot of good support so far in the first few months.
Trent:
Sure. Well, let’s jump into the video that you gave. It’s called the Strongest Argument against Mormonism, and you discussed those were critics of Mormonism like myself and others, who proposed the possibility that Mormonism could have had demonic origins to it. So let’s talk about that. Maybe you can give a brief summary of some items that you presented and then we can go back and forth on that and then maybe expand a little, because some people have also taken the claim that talking about Mormonism, having a demonic element to it can even be a dangerous thing to do, could lead to acts of violence. That was not put forward in your video, but I’ve seen other Mormons bring that up. So yeah, just talk about it and then we could discuss some of the elements might be helpful.
Hayden:
So I mean the video for those who watch it, maybe you can link it in the description so people can go watch it. Essentially what I actually started doing, it actually was a video specifically about Mark Driscoll, but as I did some more research, I did find some clips from you, not because there’s a difference. I’m not here saying that you and Mark Driscoll are saying the exact same thing, but it isn’t the same ballpark, right? He’s declaring it right. He has no restraint in declaring that Mormons are demonically inspired, that Joseph Smith was visited by a demon. He says it like it’s a fact. Now, that being said, there are other people, even Catholics, Matt Frat who said that Mormons are demonically inspired. Our doctrine should be crushed under his feet, that he’d burned Book of Mormons. There are people in this space who are declaring it. I see you kind of in the ballpark on the spectrum towards the other side where you’re not declaring it, but rather you’re saying it’s a possibility. And so the reason I brought you in is because I wanted to highlight essentially how Mark Driscoll is basically begging the question, he’s assuming the truthfulness of his own position without proving it
Trent:
To
Hayden:
To then come to a conclusion that is only justified if he is correct. And so that’s when I use your statement about Catholicism being true from Jacob Hanson’s debate. And so again, I just want to clarify. I actually don’t think, obviously that you or even Mark Driscoll wish violence upon Latter Day Saints, and I think he even put out, and he’s put out some crazy things, but I think he put out a statement that said it’s not right to kill people when the Michigan shooter a couple months ago came out. But I do think, and here’s my major concern, it’s kind of like what Jordan Peterson says when he says, if I am reasonable, you have to contend with my argument, but if I’m not reasonable, you can just categorize me as unreasonable and ignore me and then associate me with Nazis. I know you’ve even made some clips regarding Stephen Crowder talking about the Pope and communism where you say it’s not helpful to just label people. And so that’s kind of the mindset that I’m coming from. Yeah, definitely. I’m not implying that those who use this argument are, I think it’s a bad argument. I can tell you why I don’t think they’re advocating for violence implicitly,
Trent:
And I think that that is important to be able to pander out that if you say something that is true, here’s the thing, if you say something that is inflammatory and false and that inspires others to commit acts of violence, then I think you bear a moral responsibility for doing that. If you claim that somebody has done something absolutely terrible, and especially if if it is inflammatory, false and it’s false, or you could have easily known that it’s false because someone could just be honestly mistaken, for example. But if you’re negligent and you just throw things out there, you could have done just a little bit of due diligence and you say an inflammatory false thing leads to violence, I think you do bear some responsibility for that. But if you say something that’s true and inflammatory and it leads to violence, I would say it’s very different.
So for example, I will unabashedly say that abortion is murder, even it’s not legally murder because murder has to be unlawful, but it’s unjust laws to keep abortion legal. If I say abortion is the homicide of tiny human beings, abortion is the dismemberment of children. If I say true things like that and someone commits an act of violence against an abortion provider, I mean, that’s not my, I’m not morally to blame for someone doing that because I condemn all acts of abortion related violence no matter who’s involved. So I think that when people are concerned about making this label about Mormonism, I think you’re right. It’s like, look, some people could use it in a lazy way, some people could use it in a malicious way, but for other people, they really are. I don’t say for myself, I’m trying to sort out the Mormon truth claims.
And in my debate with Jacob and other Mormons I’ve engaged with, I would say there are a series of different explanations for the evidences that are put forward, and that’s one that I do put forward. And also, I don’t think that it’s out of bounds necessarily, and maybe we could tease this a little bit more because if you are presented with something paranormal or seemingly supernatural in a competing religion, I think for many Mormons, if they were presented with miracle claims in Catholicism, for example, like Marian Apparitions, Eucharistic Miracles, stigmata of the Saints, I do you think that a demonic explanation could at least be on the table for them?
Hayden:
Potentially. But I wouldn’t go around and publicly say something like that, and here’s probably my reason why it’s Unfalsifiable. Right. Just to kind of tease you a little bit, this makes me want to write a book called When Catholics Argue like Jews, because you have first century Jews validating Jesus Christ’s miracles. They’re saying, yeah, it is a miracle, but it’s demonic. And so I’m not here to defend the Book of Mormon today necessarily,
But that’s one of our points is that we’re seeing more and more people having to contend with the historical facts of the origin of the Book of Mormon. And the funny part is, is that they’re starting to admit that one of the tenable options is that he was demonically inspired because the facts are so wild that he couldn’t have done it on his own. And so it actually plays into our apologetic line of reasoning when you guys say these type of things, and I’m not worried about that. What I’m worried about is the unintended, because I’m not saying that because of what you said or what Mark said. We do know that the Michigan shooter told people that he thought we were the antichrist, and so that’s why he went and shot men and women and children. Obviously, he’s dead as well. So that’s just my concern is that especially when it’s, what good does it do to label other religions as demonically inspired to me, and just to be frank with you, I do see it as a rhetorically powerful tool to keep people who already view us as strange or whatever, to keep them away from us.
I think that’s more so probably what Mark Driscoll’s doing is he’s putting a huge barrier between us and members of his congregation, no way that they’re going to give us a chance given what they think about us based on what he said. I did see that I feel like a little bit with your debate with Jacob. I mean, we can talk about your argument there and whether or not you felt like that was effective. I think it was the syllogism of if Catholicism is true, the book Mormon’s not divinely inspired and Catholicism is true. Right. Well, I want to get to that
Trent:
Argument. I want to get to that argument, but I think the problem, I feel a disconnect here when you say you don’t think it’s good to call other religions demonic, when the Book of Mormon itself speaks about, because the point of Mormonism is you preach the restored gospel. The idea is that the gospel of Jesus Christ and the apostles was lost. There was a great apostasy, then it was restored miraculously through the witness to Joseph Smith, and then the priesthood authority was restored, and the church of Jesus Christ was restored in the 19th century, 1830 book Mormons published all that. But so in the interim period from the death of the Apostles until that time, we say, well, what church is in the world? And in the Book of Mormon, I think it’s in one Nephi, 14 or 13, it talks about how there is a great and abominable church. There is a church of the devil, a church that has taken away the plain meaning taken away the precious books of scripture. And while the Mormon church has never officially said that, that’s the Catholic church, there have been Mormons like Orson Pratt and Bruce McConkey who argued that it was so that’s not official Mormon teaching, but even if it’s larger, you could just say that the great and Abom Church has to apply to something that’s not Mormon. So you see what I’m saying here?
Hayden:
Absolutely. And I was hoping you’d bring that up. So just as a public declaration, I totally condemn any latter day saint leader or member who has taught publicly, they think that that scripture is referring to any particular denomination. And like you said, people have done that. The funny thing is, especially with Bruce r McConkey, he actually wrote it in his book called Mormon Doctrine, and the chastised him for it, they said, you can’t say that. That’s not doctrine we have that he
Trent:
Removed it from the second edition.
Hayden:
Absolutely. And so you see even the church saying, that’s not what the scripture’s talking about. And so just for your viewers who may never have read the Book of Mormon, I’m not sure Trent, how much you’ve read of it. First NE five 14 is a vision given to the prophet who’s speaking. And so it’s a symbolic vision that’s contrasting good and evil. And so it’s not necessarily talking about a particular denomination, it’s saying all things that are good come from God and all things that are bad come from the devil. Now, that being said, I don’t have any issues with you or Latterday saints or evangelical Christians personally holding views that the devil’s at work, that he’s trying to distort truth. My issue is bringing it into our apologetics in a way that is not helpful because it’s not falsifiable. It’s kind of like I just see it as kind of a backup plan. Like, Hey, if we can’t explain it, at least we can say it’s demonic. And that’s I think what the Jews did in the early century. So again, I just don’t find it helpful in
Trent:
The apologetic world. Does that make sense? So what I’m hearing, yes. What I’m hearing from you is as a Mormon, you’re saying, Hey, I’m trying to show you that God is at work in my religion, but if anything that I can present to you, no matter how it seems like God has done a miracle that you just come around and you say, oh, well, that’s the devil doing it, then you’ve already kind of made a judgment about my beliefs beforehand, and there’s nothing I could do to convince you of the matter.
Hayden:
It’s like, oh, sorry, go ahead.
Trent:
Yeah. And so I do identify with that in a bit. It reminds me of when I engage Protestants on explaining the truth of Catholicism. I’ve divided Protestants into two groups. I call them, they’re the pleasant Protestants and the unpleasant ones. The pleasant ones would say that I am a Christian, albeit I have a very different theology. I’m a different branch of the tree of Christendom, but Catholics are Christians, and salvation is possible within the Catholic church, and God could be at work in the Catholic church, the pleasant Protestants, the unpleasant ones are the ones who would more say, and that’s where I get to feel more like you sometimes would say that I preach a false gospel. My church is demonically inspired anything that appears miraculous, and Catholicism is the work of the devil. And what’s interesting for me is I know how you were saying it’s like the strongest argument of Mormonism trying to have to say this demonic. I actually think that’s the strongest argument against Catholicism, because to me, when I’m talking to Protestants, it creates a kind of tr because, and I’d encourage you yourself also to go and investigate these miracle claims like the Eucharist, transforming into actual flesh and remaining uncorrupted, Mary appearing, declaring herself immaculate conception or appearing in zeto in Egypt where possibly millions of people saw her. Even non-Catholics, the miracle of the Son of Fatima, thousands of people see the sun dancing in the sky, things like that.
And I would say, and by
Hayden:
The way, well, I was just going to say on the record, those are things that I don’t necessarily have a great answer to. My Catholic fiance would tell you that I tell her that all the time. Those are the things that I struggle with as far as I don’t have a great answer, but just to label it as demonic, I think is, I was going to say dishonest, but maybe just it’s lazy, I think is the best way to say it. It’s like if you’re going to put me off just because presupposing my own belief, if I just said, well, mour is true, so all of those miracles are demonic. It’s not helpful, and it’s not a good argument. Sorry, cut you. Well,
Trent:
Yes. So I want to expand that a bit more, but right. When I talk to Protestants, the unpleasant ones, I would say it’s a bit more consistent because it’s like, okay, so why would God, and this is an argument that Mormons also used in Hein saying, well, if it’s demonic, why is God doing this stuff through Mormonism to inspire people to join this very wholesome religion? And the unpleasant Protestants will tell me, oh, well, to get people to lose their faith, to become Catholics and have a false gospel, yada, yada, yada. So my dilemma more for the pleasant Protestants, it’s a lot harder for them if they say, oh, I am another branch of Christianity. And yet, unlike other denominations, we have very specific miracles attesting to unique Catholic maryology because I agree that Protestants can do miracles too. I’ve read Craig Keener’s book on miracles. Most of those are faith healings. For example, I think, God, I think there are Mormon missionaries. I think there are non-Christians who God could work through.
Hayden:
I agree to help people completely agree with you.
Trent:
So I do not limit God and what he can do, where I find it a harder puzzle is if God empowers a Mormon missionary or Protestant to heal somebody who is dying of illness. That’s God using a person to show his benevolence and his love for the sick. But when God does a miracle that has a message behind it for really distinct Catholic theology like Eucharistic Miracle, a Marian apparition, things like that, to me, it seems like he’s trying to communicate a very particular message about this particular church, the Catholic church. So if you’re an unpleasant Protestant, oh, that’s the devil trying to get people to be these damned Catholics for if you’re a more pleasant Protestant, oh, maybe God is trying to send me some kind of a message. So for me, then, when I look at Mormonism, and I think there are possible natural candidates and explanations, but there could also be some more paranormal ones.
The point you raised though about, it’s like a get out of jail free card saying, oh, it’s just demonic so I don’t have to pay attention. I think that that has to be used with care because as I made a point in one of my episodes, there are some things not even the devil can do. Just because something is a wonder doesn’t mean that it’s a miracle. There are things that can just make you scratch your head and wonder, oh, how to do that, right. If Joseph Smith went and he said, I’m going to go talk to God, and he left for three years and he came back and he had the testimony of the Book of Mormon, I don’t think a lot of people would call that a miracle.
Hayden:
Sure. No. Yeah. It has to do with the translation process and speed and the content of the Book of Mormon, the circumstances, his ability to write or not write it, the telemetry evidence that comes through showing over 20 different authors, none of them which hold Joseph’s pre or post book a Mormon ethereal fingerprint. That’s what I’m saying. There’s more to this, and that’s why I actually say it, and I kind of like how you said it. It is the strongest argument because it’s what I mean by that it’s rhetorically effective, but at the same time, it
Trent:
Grants, I would say you would consider it the strongest argument because it grants any argument is going to be the strongest when it grants the most premises of your opponent’s position is what I
Hayden:
Would say. Yes. You mean strongest from their point of view or mine?
Trent:
Well, from anyone’s point of view, so for example, I take abortion, the weakest argument for abortion is to say a fetus is not human, and it’s just a clump of cells, which is like,
Hayden:
Oh, I see what you mean.
Trent:
Still a thousand percent not true. Correct.
The strongest argument for abortion says, of course, yeah. This is a human being with a right to life. It doesn’t have a right to use a mother’s body. So it’s like it’s granting more premises. So a weak argument for Mormonism would be to ignore the evidences you are putting forward the presence of chiasm, sty, tric analysis just to kind of ignore these elements in the Book of Mormon. But if you say, oh, well this is demonically inspired, you can grant the sophistication within the book. Now, what I would say though is the problem for me, I still don’t, even with the elements related to the book itself and its production, and I don’t mean this to be demeaning in any way, people take it as we can talk bluntly here, it feels more like magic trick than miracle, that the question we’re asking is more, Joseph, how did you do it? Because there’s ways that it could have been done naturally. Like you go for three years and you do it all. Did you do it? Were there other writers we don’t know about? Or there’s other preparation beforehand or these other elements, but you wouldn’t really ask the same thing about Jesus. So how did you come back from the dead? How that seems more like that’s a miracle where the laws of nature suspended. Whereas with the production of the Book of Mormon, the text itself, the Book of Mormon text is a natural thing. The mystery is just more how is it produced. You see what I’m saying?
Hayden:
Yes, and I understand and actually agree with you. Our argument though would be that given the historical evidence, unless you want to ignore the historical evidence or get into this major conspiracy theory, I mean, you have to think how many people would be involved in this. And regarding the S, right. Sometimes we tease cradle Christians when we say that, Hey, we have way more witnesses for the golden plates and for the translation process than you do for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Trent:
I don’t mean to interrupt, just to clarify from the audience. You say you’re saying cradle Christians
Hayden:
C Credle? Yes. Those who ascribe to the creeds early creeds.
Trent:
So the ing Constantino creed, because Mormon, as a Mormon, you see yourself as Christian. You just don’t accept the early ecumenical creeds saying that Jesus is of the same divine substance as the Father, for example. Correct.
Hayden:
We would see ourselves as the one true apostolic church on the earth today.
Trent:
And so then that would mean there’s one true apostolic church and anybody else is a false church.
Hayden:
Well, we wouldn’t phrase it that way. We would say that Mormonism is concerned with what is true. And so if there are truths in the creeds, we would deny the cons substantiation that came in the fourth century of what we call the Godhead. But that’s not to say, right? I mean, I assume that you believe the Bible. I guess you have 73 books, is that right?
Trent:
73, 72 depending on count, yeah, 70
Hayden:
That you would see those as infallible, that you would posit that the Pope can be infallible. Right. We reject a lot of those maybe fundamental truths for you that you may hold, but there’s a lot of truth that you do hold, like Jesus is the Christ, and if we put our faith in him, we can gain eternal life. And there may be even truths in Judaism, and there may be truths in Islam. Obviously we reject large portions of those. But yeah, we wouldn’t go around. And I know even Joseph, right? So when he comes out of the sacred grove, as we call it, for his first vision,
He says, God the Father, Jesus Christ told me that all the creeds are corrupt. All their professors are corrupt. The creeds are an abomination, but we don’t use that rhetorically. And Joseph never used that rhetorically. And if he did, I would condemn it. He’s a perfect person. If he did,... Read more on Catholic.com