Mormonism - Foundational Flaw

I have studied with the Mormons, who call themselves the Latter Day Saints, since I was a kid. I remember friends of ours whose son was on my baseball team wanted to study with us and gave my parents an older edition of the Book of Mormon while having a series of studies. One thing that stands out to me is that when the study began, the agreement was to listen through all that they had to present for as long as it took, and then they would listen to all my parents had to present for the same duration. After the Mormon couple finished their presentation and my parents were still not convinced, they never came back to see what my parents had to present to them - the Jewel Miller film strips.
To this day, this is the Mormon method. They will talk all day long if you seem interested and don't challenge them. The moment you challenge them, you likely will never hear from that specific person ever again.
There are many things to challenge them on, but this article focuses on the very foundational premise found in their memorized spiel when they come knocking on your door. If this premise can be shown to be false, then the whole man-made denomination collapses without it. It means that Joseph Smith built his church upon a lie. 
To date, this argument has been unanswerable by any Mormon I have ever brought it up to. It is grounded in the general lack of understanding of the Old Testament, a simple passage most don't even know is there.
== The Premise ==
When the young men - who aren't elder than most of those they are evangelizing - come knocking at your door, they have a memorized story they will tell you. This story is about the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It often begins in John 10:16 with the other sheep, which they say is the people over in the Americas that Jesus went and preached to after the events in Acts 1 before returning to Heaven. Within this story lies the statement or implication that when Jesus came to the Earth, He came to set up a kingdom, the church. While successful initially, this church eventually withered and died and was supplanted by Catholicism. There is even a link on their website that speaks to this directly called "Jesus's Original Church Fell Away".
According to them, Joseph Smith was confused about which denomination to join and so he prayed about it and received a vision that led him to restore the original church Jesus built.
== The Problem ==
When the young men invariably present this scenario to me, I ask them two questions:
1) Do you accept the KJV as a valid translation?
2) Have you ever read Daniel 2?
They will almost always answer yes to the first, especially since Joseph Smith often quoted the KJV in his writings, and the Book of Mormon was written in a style that attempts to mimic the KJV English. It is dangerous for them to say no if the person who is asking knows the history of the Mormon church.
They will almost always answer no to the second, or say they have read it once but don't remember much about it.
In saying that they accept the Bible, in fact they say that the Book of Mormon is a companion to the Bible, they run into a major issue with their primary premise. You see, in the book of Daniel, chapter 2, King Nebuchadnezzar has a dream about a giant metal statue. None of his wise men can tell him the dream, much less interpret it, but Daniel can because God is with him and tells him. When Daniel interprets the dream, he tells Nebuchadnezzar that each metal represents a different kingdom:
* Gold - Nebuchadnezzar as King of Babylonian Empire
* Silver - Medo Persian Empire
* Brass - Greek Empire
* Iron - Roman Empire
Now some will argue that there is some kind of fifth empire when looking at the iron mixed with miry clay, but this is not accurate reading of the passage. Here is the text itself regarding Iron:
40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. 41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. 42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. 43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. (Daniel 2:40-43).
In verse 40 Daniel speaks of the fourth kingdom (Rome) then goes on to speak of the iron mixed with miry clay and still refers to the same kingdom "the kingdom" spoken of in verse 40. No fifth kingdom or transition to another kingdom is ever mentioned. So the context is during the Roman Empire. This part is easy because they agree that Jesus came to set up a kingdom during the Roman Empire. I can usually get them to agree to this part. However, the next verse says:
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
In the days of these kings, talking about the kings of the fourth empire, Rome God would set up a kingdom, that is, the church of Christ. Now here is where the problem lies. This kingdom shall never be destroyed and it shall stand for ever.
== The Argument ==
So here is the logical argument they face.
# They accept the KJV translation.
# They teach that the original church was destroyed and had to be restored.
# The Bible teaches that the church would never be destroyed and would stand for ever.
If they reject any one of these statements, they must reject Mormonism, too.
# If they reject the KJV, then they reject Joseph Smith who quoted from the KJV and wrote in that style because that's the Bible he had access to during his time.
# If they reject that the original church was destroyed and had to be restored, they reject the foundational premise on which their denomination is built by agreeing implicitly that their church is superfluous since the original church still exists (which it does).
# If they reject Daniel 2, then they reject the Bible which their Book of Mormon is supposed to be a companion to, implicitly rejecting the Book of Mormon as well.
They have to accept all three statements. Yet if they accept all three statements, then they must reject the basic premise of the founding of their denomination. It is a logical no-win scenario that they cannot answer.
== Conclusion ==
There are a lot of doctrinal incompatibilities with the Bible and internal inconsistencies that one can address when talking to these young men (and once, a pair of young ladies) who come to your door. They have been trained to address almost all of the common ones. I most likely, given enough time, will post articles up that deal with those issues. However, those don't even matter if the underlying premise for the existence of the Mormon Church is false to begin with. If you address this successfully, then all those other things are simply irrelevant.
If you are a member of the Latter Day Saints and you are reading this, please consider this argument carefully. If you cannot answer it, and your leadership cannot answer it with any logical consistency, then please ask yourself why. You believe you can pray to God and get an answer. Do that. If that is truly what James 1:5 means, then God should provide at least one person in your faith an answer to this argument that makes sense. If that answer is not given, then ask yourself, "what does it mean if the whole reason my church exists is not true?" Then consider that if Daniel 2 is correct, that kingdom/church that Christ established during the fourth empire is still around. I am part of it and I can lead you to it if you are willing.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Category:Denominationalism
Category:Mormons